OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
(EXCISE) AT VIZIANAGARAM.
Present : Smt. Ch. Sri Vidya, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Excise), Vizianagaram. Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026
O.S.No.270 of 2013
BETWEEN
1. Pentapati Vijayaramayya, S/o late Lakshmana Swamy, aged 75 years, R/o Kothagraharam 1st lane, Vizianagaram.
2. Pentapati Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o late Lakshmana Swamy, aged 65 years, Kothagraharam 1st lane, Vizianagaram …Plaintiff No.1 and 2
AND
1. Rapaka Suryaprakash Rao, S/o late Pydithalli, age 50 years,R/oD.No.8-26-22,Bothsapeta,Thotapalem, Vizianagaram.
2. Smt. Kapa Padmavathi, W/o Kapa Lakshmipathi, D/o Vundavalli Surya Rao, aged 43 years, R/o ward No.11, Kantabanji town, Balangir District, Odissa State.
3. Smt. Padala Sarojini, W/o Madhava Rao, aged about 40 years, R/o Plot.No. 26, New Duppada, Vizianagaram.
... Defendants No.1 to 3
This suit is coming on 27.04.2026before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Satyanarayana, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Sri A.Vasu Dev, Advocate for Defendants No.1 and 2 and Sri L. Satyanarayana, Advocate for Defendant No.3 and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
defendants, their men, agents, servants, friends and other persons from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with the plaintiff including construction of a building, compound wall etc., in the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever and for the costs of the suit.
2. The contention of the plaintiffs as seen from the Plaint are as follows :
a)It is the case of the plaintiffs that both the plaintiffs are brothers and they are the absolute owners of the site consisting of 350 sq yards covered by patta No.77 in Sy.No.17/1 of
Vizianagaram situated towards western side of the lay out road,
Bobadipeta area, Plot No.64. The plaintiffs purchased said property from Pinniti Pydiamma, Moida Appayyamma, Sailada
Ramu and Sailada Pydithalli for a valid consideration vide registered sale deed dt.30.01.1984. Since then, they are in peaceful possession of the said site with absolute rights, title, interest and possession. A shed was laid towards the south west corner of the site to keep articles etc., which is being used by plaintiffs. Towards northern side of schedule property, one T.V.S
Raju and towards western side, another person already constructed building 15 years ago and they are enjoying their own respective portions. The plaintiffs decided to construct a building in the schedule property and in the year 2007, the plaintiffs tried to get approval of plan by paying amount by way of Bankers cheques and challan to Vizianagaram Municipality. However, the plaintiffs could not follow up the further constructions. At this stage, plaintiffs intended to construct the building after obtaining 2 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
approvals. When plaintiffs intended to get electrical service connection in the site, it was found that the 1st defendant was also trying to get electric service connection in the same site with the help of fraud documents. Since, the date of purchase of the schedule property, the plaintiffs are even conducting some functions in the said place and the same was in the knowledge of one and all in the said area. On 20.10.2013 at about 09:00 am, when plaintiffs and their men went to plaint schedule property to construct a compound wall, the defendants with their men tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. At the intervention of the elders, they left the schedule property. The defendants proclaimed that they again interfere with the plaint schedule property. Apprehending the same plaintiff filed the suit.
3. The case of the defendants No.1 and 2 in a nutshell:
a)The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and negated the case of the plaintiffs and stated that the residence of defendants No.2 and 3 as shown by the plaintiffs are correct, as they are residing in Orissa State. Hence, the defendants No.1 to 3 coming to plaint schedule property on 20.10.2013 and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs is false and does not arise. Moreover, plaintiffs are male persons and 2nd defendant is a female residing in Orissa along with her family. The 1st defendant is residing at
Devpalli Village i.e, 30 Kilometers away from Vizianagaram. The 1st defendant never went to plaint schedule property on 20.10.2013 and the allegation of plaintiff regarding threatening them is all created by the plaintiff.
3 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
b)Originally, Sri Raja Satya Venkata Vijaya Bhopala
Raju and others are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property and other lands. Sailada Ramu, S/o late Tatha and others purchased schedule property in the year 1968 and they enjoyed the property with right title and possession till 1979.
Sailada Ramu and others converted the land into house sites and applied for layout plan approval which was approved on 20.12.1979. Sailada Ramu and others sold plaint schedule property to Smt. Vundavalli Suryakantham, W/o Suryarao on 20.12.1985 for consideration of Rs17,500/- which is demarketed as Plot No.64. She enjoyed the property till 01.12.1987. Later, she executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her daughter Vundavalli Padmavathi @ Kapa Padmavathi, W/o Kapa
Lakshmipathi and delivered possession to her.
c) Padmavathi sold plot No.64/vacant site to 1st defendant by way registered sale agreement by general power of attorney on 03.05.2013 for a consideration of Rs.17,50,000/-.
From 02.12.1987 to 03.05.2013, Kapa Padmavathi i.e., Vendor of 1st defendant was in possession of the property and she paid tax after mutating her name in all Municipal records. As Padmavathi is residing in Odissa along with her family. She executed the sale agreement-cum- general power of attorney in favour of the 1st defendant.
d) On 28.05.2013, the 1st defendant sold the said property to Padala Sarojini, W/o Madhava Rao, who is the 3rd defendant herein by way of registered sale deed for a valuable consideration and delivered possession to 3rd defendant. Since then, Sarojini is in possession and enjoyment the same without 4 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
any interruption from anybody including the plaintiffs. Earlier, the 1st defendant and Vundavalli Padmavathi constructed a shed with bricks asbestos roof by laying cement pole fencing around the plaint schedule property. The 3rd defendant after purchasing the schedule property, got mutated her name in revenue records as per orders in R.C.No.174/2013/A.5 dt.11.07.2013.
e)The plaintiffs have no right title and interest or possession of the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant came to know about the sale deed dt.30.01.1984 only after receiving copy of plaint from the court. The plaintiffs never enjoyed the plaint schedule property and never constructed shed in the plaint schedule property. Even, when Padmavathi raised shed in the schedule property, plaintiffs never raised any objection by lodging police report or issuing legal notice to
Padmavathi or 3rd defendant.
f)The allegations of plaintiffs that they raised a shed towards south west corner and that they paid Bankers cheque to
Vizianagaram Municipality for approval of plan is concocted story, as they did not even file rough plan along with plaint or blue print plan drawn by surveyor. The alleged sale deed dt.30.01.1984 executed by Pinninti Pydamma and others in favour of the plaintiff is a false document created by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from prior to filing of the suit to till date.
4. The case of the defendant No.3 in a nutshell:
The 3rd defendant pleaded that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she purchased the same from
Kapa Padmavathi i.e., 2nd defendant through her general power 5 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
of attorney agent by name Rapaka Surya Prakash Rao under the registered sale deed dt.28.05.2013 and got possession of the same under the sale deed. The vendor of defendant i.e.,
Padmavathi got the property vide registered settlement deed dt.02.12.1987 from her mother Suryakantham, W/o Suryarao.
Suryakantham got the property from Sailada Ramu, S/o Tatha and others under registered sale deed dt.20.12.1985 and got the possession.
b) Prior to the 3rd defendant purchasing the property,
Padmvathi i.e., D.2 was in possession of the schedule property and prior to her, Suryakantham was in possession of the schedule property. Padmavathi i.e., D.2 also constructed shed in the site and paying property tax to the Vizianagaram Municipality.
Municipal records reveal that vendor of this defendant i.e.,
Padmavathi has been paying tax in her name since 1999, till she sold the property to this defendant. After purchasing the schedule property, this defendant mutated her name in Municipal records as per orders in R.C.No.174/2013/A.5 dt.11.07.2013. The 3rd defendant obtained Encumbrance certificate dt.04.04.2013 prior to purchasing the schedule property from 01.01.1983 to 03.04.2013 and it reflected only the gift settlement deed dt.03.12.1987 in favour of the vendor of the defendant and registered sale deed dt.20.12.1985 in favour of the mother of the vendor of this defendant. No other alienations are shown. The 3rd defendant and her vendors has been in possession and enjoyment of schedule property for the last 30 years.
c)The plaintiffs have no right title, interest or possession of the schedule property and the alleged sale deed 6 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
dt.30.01.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs is created one. The plaintiffs never claimed right over the schedule property under the sale deed dt.30.01.1984. The plaintiffs never questioned the vendors of this defendant and kept quite for 30 years without claiming right under sale deed dt.30.01.1984, as the title of the vendors of this defendant, perfected by adverse possession also.
There is a serious dispute regarding title of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration of their title in respect of suit schedule property and not for suit for mere injunction. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5.On 13.10.2015, this court framed the following issues for trial.
i) Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property
as on the date of the filing of this suit?
ii) Whether the plaintiff are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for? iii) To what relief?
6. Arguments advanced by plaintiffs and defendants:
a)During the stage of arguments, the counsel for plaintiffs reiterated the averments of the plaint and argued that the law is well settled that a purchaser/vendee of a property cannot get any right or title better than what the vendor has. As the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1984 i.e., much prior to the defendants, the plaintiffs are the true owners having title over the schedule property. Therefore, the title of the defendants per se is defective and not valid in the eye of law. The counsel for plaintiff further argued that by the date of 7 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
filing of the suit, the schedule property is a vacant site and in case of vacant site, possession follows title. Hence, when the title of both the parties are seen, the plaintiffs are having primacy over the schedule property. Furthermore, there is no dispute with regard the particulars of the schedule property as the same was admitted by DW.1 and 2 during their cross examination. The plaintiffs argued that the 3rd defendant filed a criminal case against 1st defendant and others alleging that she was cheated in the hands of the 1st defendant and others with regard to purchasing the schedule property from the 2nd defendant herein, which adds strength to the case of the plaintiff.
b)Defendants No.1 and 2 denied the case of the plaintiff and argued that they were unnecessarily added as parties to the suit as they never went to plaint schedule property on the alleged date of cause of action. After selling the plaint schedule property by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant, the 3rd defendant is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of schedule property.
c)The 3rd defendant argued that she purchased the schedule property from 2nd defendant and the argument of the plaintiffs that the schedule property is in Bobadipeta area and not in Thotapalem Panchayat as mentioned by the defendants, is not maintainable. The counsel for 3rd defendant argued that
Bobadipeta Village is within Thotapalem Panchayat and after 1986 Thotapalem Panchayat is a part of Vizianagaram
Municipality. The plaintiffs did not show the existence of the shed, if any, in the plaint schedule. The counsel argued that the 3rd 8 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
defendant is in possession of the schedule property since the date of purchasing the property on 11.07.2013, after taking due care and verifying the encumbrances if any regarding schedule property. Most importantly, the plaintiffs filed the suit for mere injunction. The counsel argued that in view of the contentions of both parties, this suit for mere injunction is not maintainable as there is a serious dispute with regard to title of the plaintiffs over schedule property and hence the suit itself is not maintainable.
7. The crux of the case of the plaintiffs are that they are the absolute owners of the 350 sq yards of the plaint schedule property covered by Sy.No.17/1 situated towards western side of the layout road, Bobadipeta area, Vizianagaram. The plaintiffs purchased the schedule property vide registered sale deed dt.30.01.1984 from Pinninti Pydamma, Moida Appayyamma,
Sailada Ramu and Sailada Pydithalli for valid consideration.
Since the date of purchase of the schedule property, the plaintiffs are in absolute possession and the enjoyment of the schedule property.
8.In support of the case of the plaintiffs and to prove their right and title over the schedule property, the plaintiffs filed original sale deed dt.30.01.1984, which is marked as Ex.A.1 through plaintiff No.1/PW.1 before this court disclosing that the same was executed by Pinninti Pydamma, W/o Pinninti Guruvulu,
Moida Appayamma, W/o Moida Appalaswamy, Sailada Ramu, S/o late Thata, Sailada Pydithalli, S/o late Thata in favour of plaintiffs
No.1 and 2 herein, who are the sons of late Laxmana Swamy for 9 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
350 sq yards in Sy.No.17/1 plot No.64 of Thotapalem Panchyathi,
Vizianagaram District. Ex.A.1 establishes the title of plaintiffs over the schedule property. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of letter addressed by plaintiffs to assistant engineer, APEPDCL,
Vizianagaram, dt.21.10.2013 wherein it was addressed by the plaintiffs that they purchased the schedule property from their vendors as stated above and later they also laid small shed towards south west corner and personally using the same. The letter further disclosed that as the plaintiffs proposed to construct a building therein and they need electrical service connection and hence requesting the APEPDCL authorities to provide new electrical connection for the site. The copy of registered sale deed dt.30.01.1984 was also enclosed along with the letter. Ex.A.3 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs to APEDCL, Vizianagaram disclosing that the plaintiffs are owners of the schedule property and they learnt that the 1st defendant herein is trying to obtain an electric service connection in the same site by showing false documents and the 1st defendant herein do not having any right over the schedule property. The plaintiffs through Ex.A.3, requested the authorities APEPDCL not to give any electrical service connection to the 1st defendant in the schedule property.
A.4 is the acknowledgment of courier for the letter vide Ex.A.3.
Ex.A.5 is the office copy of caveat petition filed by the plaintiffs against all the defendants. Ex.A.1 to A.5 are marked through
PW.1/1st plaintiff.
9.Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of FIR along with written report in Cr.No.298/2014 dt.19.09.2014 which was marked on behalf of plaintiffs through DW.2 during the cross examination.
10 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
The written report of Ex.A.2 discloses that the 3rd defendant herein i.e., Padala Sarojini, W/o Madhava Rao filed the report against the 1st defendant herein and others, wherein the contents of written report are as follows; “the 3 rd defendant herein got cheated by 1 st defendant herein and four other real-estate brokers and suffered loss of Rs.30,00,000/- and also the 3 rd defendant herein mentioned the flow of title with regard to the present schedule property from 1984 i.e., the execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs followed by Vundavalli Suryakantham,
W/o Suryarao in the year 1985 by the vendor of the plaintiffs, followed by execution of registered settlement deed in the year 1987 in favour of Vundavalli Padmavathi @ Kapa Padmavathi,
W/o Laxmipathi, who is the 2 nd defendant herein by Vundavalli
Suryakantham, W/o Suryarao, followed by sale agreement from general power of attorney executed by 2 nd defendant herein in favour of 1 st defendant herein, followed by sale deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 3 rd defendant. Since, 13 years the 2 nd defendant herein is paying vacant land tax and showed the same to 3 rd defendant and she also constructed a shed and laid cement poles around the vacant site. Sirapurapu Naidu Babu, G.Krishna
Rao, V.Chandramouli, Sankabathula Venkatarao came to 3 rd defendant along with the documents of schedule property and asked me to purchase the same, as the same is free of any litigation. The Sub-Registrar gave encumbrance certificate according to which only 1985 transaction in favour of Vundavalli
Suryakantham, W/o Suryarao, by the vendors of the plaintiffs and gift deed document of 1987 was reflected in the encumbrance certificate. Later, vide document No.174/2013, dt.11.07.2013, the 11 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
schedule property was transferred from the 2 nd defendant to 3 rd defendant. When 3 rd defendant went to the site, the plaintiffs came and stated that they purchased the schedule property firstly and the person who purchased later i.e., Suryakantham and the plaintiffs are already disputing and meanwhile the 3 rd defendant came in between. Accordingly, the 1 st defendant have taken
Rs.27,57,000/- from the 3 rd defendant and got cheated. Hence, the 3 rd defendant prayed to do justice.
10.Ex.A.7 is the charge sheet in C.C.No.87/2016 in
Cr.No.298/2014, which was marked through DW.2 on behalf of the plaintiffs. On perusal of the Ex.A.7, it appears that the crime is committed with respect to plot No.64 Sy.No.17/1 Bobadipeta area, Vizianagaram 1st bit, Vizianagaram Municipality consisting of 350 sq yards (plaint schedule property). The contents of the charge sheet revealed the subsequent transactions with regard to schedule property i.e., after the schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs from Sailada Pydithalli and others. As per Ex.A.7, the husband of 3rd defendant is the defacto complainant therein against defendants No.1 and 2 and four others under section 120 (B), 420, 469, 468 and 471 read with 34 of IPC. The plaintiffs herein were shown as LW.11 and 10 who are examined as PW.6 and 5 in C.C.No.87/2016. Ex.A.8 to A.18 are the admitted portions in the evidence of PW.1 in C.C.No.87/2016, who is the husband of 3rd defendant.
11.The 1st plaintiff is examined as PW.1 through whom
Ex.A.1 to A.5 were marked. The evidence of PW.1 was recorded by the Advocate commissioner by name Sri I.Ramesh in the presence of both the counsels, which was concluded on 12 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
15.06.2024. The cross examination of PW.1 revealed nothing prominent to support his case, but only consisted of negations and details with regard to schedule property.
12. PW.2/Gedala Srinivasa Rao is examined on behalf of plaintiffs, who is the 3rd party of this suit, who supported the case of the plaintiffs.Apart from the same, the evidence of PW.2 consists of negations to suggestions putforth by the counsel for defendants.
13.PW.3/Nadimpalli Appala Venkata Krishnam Raju is a 3rd party to the suit, who deposed that the 1st plaintiff and
Vusirikala Mallikarjuna Rao called me to act as an attestor in the
Ex.A.1 dt.30.01.1984.Apart from the above, the evidence of
PW.3 consists of negations to the suggestions putforth by the counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 and counsel for defendant
No.3.
14.The defendants No.1 and 2 denied the case of the plaintiff and pleaded that they never proclaimed that they would interfere with the possession of plaintiffs with regard to plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant pleaded that the vendors of the plaintiffs purchased the property from Sri Rajasatya Venkata
Vijaya Gopala Raju and others in the year 1968 and later Sylada
Ramu and others converted the land into house sites and got the layout approval on 20.12.1979. It is the case of 1st defendant that
Sylada Ramu and others sold the plaint schedule property to
Vundavalli Suryakantham, W/o Suryarao on 20.12.1985 which is demarcated as plot No.64. Later, she executed registered settlement deed in favour of her daughter Padmavathi/2nd 13 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
defendant. Further, the 2nd defendant sold the schedule property/Vacant site in plot NO.64 to 1st defendant by way of registered sale agreement from general power of attorney on 03.05.2013. On 28.05.2013 the 1st defendant as a general power of attorney holder of 2nd defendant sold the property to 3rd defendant vide registered sale deed and delivered possession to the 3rd defendant for valuable consideration. Earlier the 1st and 2nd defendants constructed shed with bricks and asbestos roof by laying a cement poles around schedule property. The sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs by their vendors in the year 1984 is created by the plaintiffs and they do not know about the sale deed of plaintiffs till receiving plaint copy from the court.
15. The 3rd defendant pleaded as to how the property flowed to her and also pleaded that prior to purchasing the schedule property from 2nd defendant through her general power of attorney agent i.e., 1st defendant under registered sale deed dt.28.05.2013, she applied for encumbrance certificate from 01.01.1983 to 03.04.2013 in which the alienation in favour of the plaintiffs was not reflected. The 3rd defendant pleaded that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs is only created one.
16.The 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to B.5. Ex.B.1 is the Sale deed executed in favour of Sylada Ramu and others in August 1968. Ex.B.2 is the sale deed executed by Sylada Ramu and others in favour of
Vundavalli Suryakantham on 20.12.1985. Ex.B.3 is the registered settlement deed executed by Vundavalli Suryakantham in favour of her daughter Padmavathi i.e., 2nd defendant in the year 1987.
Ex.B.4 is the registered sale agreement from general power of 14 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
attorney dt.03.05.2013 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant disclosing that the 1st defendant along with other rights is also entitled to sell the property under Ex.B.4 and register the same in favour of the purchaser on behalf of 2nd defendant. Ex.B.5 is the registered sale deed dt.28.05.2013 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd defendant for property in Sy.No.17/1 plot No.64 Bobadipeta area D.No.1-17/1-1 of 350 sq yards.
17. a)Ex.B.6 to B.36 are marked through DW.2/P.Madhav
Rao, who is the husband of 3rd defendant. On perusal of said documents, it is found that Ex.B.6 is nothing but Ex.B.2, Ex.B.7 is
Ex.B.3, Ex.B.8 is nothing but Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.9 is Ex.B.5.
b)Ex.B.10 is the orders of the Assistant Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Vizianagaram issued to 3rd defendant dt.11.07.2013, the assessment number 2348, which was changed from the name of 2nd defendant to 3rd defendant. Ex.B.11 is the encumbrance certificate from 01.01.1983 to 03.04.2013 for schedule property, disclosing the transaction dt.20.12.1985 ie., sale transaction between the vendors of the plaintiffs in favour of
Suryakantham and transaction dt.02.12.1987 between
Suryakantham and 2nd defendant. Ex.12 to B.36 are house tax receipts, the details of which is as follows:
i) Ex.B.12 is the Vacant land tax receipt for year 2000, for assessment No.2347 dt.31.03.2002 in the name of Arsada
Kesava Rao.
ii) Ex.B.13 to B.34 are property tax receipts for various years for assessment No.2348 in the name of 2nd defendant.
15 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
On perusal of Ex.B.12 to B.34,they appear to be the true copies of property tax receipts in the name of 2nd defendant for various years for assessment No.2348. However, B.12 to B.34 are not original tax receipts and they also do not contain the details of property for which the tax is paid. Hence, Ex.B.12 to B.34 cannot be taken into consideration to decide this case as in absence of the details of the property for which the tax is paid, the same is not helpful to the case of 3rd defendant.
18.On perusal of cross examination of DW.1/1st defendant, he deposed as follows; “it is true that the plaint schedule plot No.64 and boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are true and correct and the suit schedule mentioned particulars are true and correct. It is true that the plaint schedule property is one of the approved plot in Thotapalem Village. It is true that i was not acted as attestor or scribe or executant in Ex.B.1 to B.3 and i have no personal knowledge about that. It is true that 3 rd defendant filed the cheating case against me for the offence under section 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC and the above case was acquitted me on the file of AJFCM Court, Vizianagaram..... The plaint schedule property and schedule mentioned in Ex.B.4 are different properties. It is true that i have not filed any document to show that there is existence of bearing No.1-17/1-1 at Bobadipeta area layout towards the western side. There is no person by name
Undavalli Padmavathi. I know the husband of the 2 nd defendant..... It is true that i have not filed, obtained from the municipality for construction of shed. I do not know on which date, month and year i constructed the shed. It is true that there is no recital in the Ex.B.5, there was an existance of one shed.
16 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
..... Ex.B.2 executed on 20.12.1985, Ex.A.1 executed on 30.01.1984. Ex.B.2 and Ex.A.1 are excuted by Pinninti
Pydamma, Moida Appayyam, Sylada Ramu and Sylada
Pydithalli........ Witness voluntary that the property mentioned in
Ex.A.1 different to the property mentioned in Ex.B.4 and B.5.
19.DW.2 who is the husband of 3rd defendant deposed as follows; “my wife purchased the property from her vendors and received entire link documents from them and also taken physical possession of said property on the date of sale, since then the 1 st defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property..... it is true that the contents of plaint schedule survey number, location, plot number, patta number and extent are correct. Witness adds that there some mistakes in boundaries of plaint schedule, but the same was not mentioned by my wife in written statement or my chief affidavit.... I was not acted as either scribe or attestor in the Ex.B.6 to B.8 and i have no personal knowledge in Ex.B.6 to B.8.
20.DW.2 is confronted with his evidence as PW.1 in
C.C.No.87/2016 and the admitted portions of the said evidence were marked as Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.18, in which DW.2 deposed as follows as PW.1 in C.C.No.87/2016 “it is true i have not mentioned in Ex.P.1 that the property is in my possession. i have no idea about the disputed flat. I have stated before the police the number of disputed plot number is 65. A.1(1st defendant in the present case) admitted before them that the mistake occurred in selling the land and he gave undertaking to settle the dispute in regard to plot No.64 with LW.10 and 11..... i saw the documents of Pentapati Vijayaramayya and T.Mallikarjuna Rao. Witness 17 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
adds that as he was cheated in the hands of accused, he has not taken any action against LW.10 and 11.... It is true that there is no mention of door number in Ex.A.1. Witness adds that the site is vacant site and hence, there is no door number for the same. The property covered under Ex.B.8 and B.9 is vacant site......”. Apart from the same the evidence of DW.2 consisted of cross examination regarding the tax receipts and negations to suggestions putforth to him by the counsel for the plaintiff.
21. DW.3 is the 3rd party, who was examined on behalf of 3rd defendant and on perusal of the evidence of DW.3, nothing was elicited by him which was helpful to the case of the 3rd defendant.
22.On perusal of entire evidence of both the parties and to decide their case, it is to be decided first as to whether the schedule property is vacant site or consisting of any construction therein. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they constructed shed in the schedule property. Defendants No.1 and 2 also pleaded that they constructed shed in the schedule property. However, except pleading the same, none of the parties filed any documentary proof to show that there is indeed a shed present in the schedule property. The plaintiffs pleaded that they laid a small shed towards south-west corner of the site. But, except alleging that they constructed shed in the schedule site, no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs, such as electrical service connection, property tax if any, paid towards the shed or atleast photographs.
The 3rd defendant pleaded that her vendor/2nd defendant while she was in possession over the schedule property i.e., prior to selling the same to the 3rd defendant, constructed a shed with 18 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
brick and asbestos roof and also laid a fencing with cement poles around the said site. The 2nd defendant also paid property tax to
Vizianagaram Municipality since 1999. After purchasing the property, the 3rd defendant got mutated her name vide orders dt.
11.07.2013 issued by Assistant commissioner, Vizianagaram
Municipality vide Ex.B.10. Ex.B.10 reflects that the assessment
No.2348 for vacant land situated at Sailada Colony, Bobadipeta area within the limits of Vizianagaram Municipality, is transferred/changed from the name of 2nd defendant to 3rd defendant in view of the registered document No.2315/2013 dt.29.05.2013(Ex.B.5 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd defendant with regard to schedule property). As stated above,
Ex.B.10 also mentions that the assessment No.2348 is with reference to the property of vacant site. The property tax receipts filed by the defendants which are marked through DW.2 on behalf of 3rd defendant shows that the property tax receipts reflect this assessment No.2348 in the name of 2nd defendant. Therefore, it is clear from the above that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants
No.1 to 3 filed any cogent evidence to prove that there existed shed in the plaint schedule property. Hence, in absence of evidence regarding the existence of shed, the schedule property is to be taken as vacant site.
23.In the given case in hand, by the date of filing of the suit, the schedule property was already transferred from 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant, as per the case of the 3rd defendant. It means that as per the case of 3rd defendant, she is the owner of the schedule property and also has been in possession of the property. The property tax receipts filed on behalf of 3rd defendant 19 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
through DW.2 reflects the name of 2nd defendant, who is the vendor of 3rd defendant. The case and contention of 2nd defendant itself is that after purchase of property by 3rd defendant, she is in possession of the same and the 2nd defendant is not claiming any right, title and possession over the schedule property. Therefore, the property receipts filed by 3rd defendant which are in the name of 2nd defendant is not helpful to the contest of 3rd defendant. The presumption that possession follow title arises only where there is no definite proof of possession by anyone else.
24.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ananthula
Sudhakar v. Butchireddy(dead) by Lrs and others, AIR 2008
Supreme Court 2033, wherein it was held as follows:- “11.1 . where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simplicitor will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But, a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simplicitor, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud or where the defendant assets title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession 20 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the
plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in
possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily
the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession
and injunction”.
25. In a suit for permanent injunction, it is mandatory that the plaintiff must establish that as on the date of the suit, he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Admittedly, in the given case in hand, the nature of disputed property is of prime relevance as the mode of proof of possession is mostly dependent on the nature of property. As discussed above, from the pleadings and evidence of both parties, this court could only infer that the schedule property is a vacant site. In such cases, the principal is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. However, as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision referred above, in
cases where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute or where the defendant asserts title thereto or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
26.In the present case, none of the parties to the suit could establish and prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property which is a vacant site. Hence, the schedule 21 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
property being a vacant site, this court must look into the title of parties to the suit over schedule property. The plaintiffs pleaded and proved by way of both oral and documentary evidence that they purchased the suit schedule property on 30.01.1984 vide registered sale deed i.e., Ex.A.1. Defendants No.1 and 2 did not claim any right, title or possession over the schedule property as the same was already sold by them to the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant is claiming title and possession over the suit schedule property vide document NO.2315/2013 dt.28.05.2013 i.e., Ex.B.5.
Hence, this shows that the 3rd defendant contention is that she is also having title over the suit schedule property.
27.As discussed supra, both the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant are claiming title over the plaint schedule property.
Nevertheless, on perusal of the documents relied upon by both the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant i.e., Ex.A.1 and B.5, it is apparently clear that the vendor of plaintiff and the link to the vendors of 3rd defendant is also the vendor of the plaintiffs. In other words, it can safely infer that the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1984 i.e., much prior to the 3rd defendant who purchased the same property in the year 2013.
when the vendor of the plaintiffs transferred the property to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed, the vendor again cannot transfer the same property to any other person subsequently. In this scenario, whether it can be inferred that a cloud is cast upon the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property is the issue to be decided.
28.The denial of the title of the plaintiff often takes place in several cases by the defendants. But, mere denial of plaintiffs title 22 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
is not enough without adequate proof. At the same time, denial of plaintiffs title with the support of inadequate proof is also not acceptable and does not amount to “cloud on title”. As discussed above, the law is settled that where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration. In order to ascertain whether in this case the plaintiff ought to have filed or atleast amend the suit for relief of declaration, it should be seen whether there is denial of title of the plaintiff by the 3rd defendant in the 1st place. The 3rd defendant only pleaded that the alleged sale deed dt.30.01.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs is only a created one and that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The original link of title of 3rd defendant over the schedule property, as per her case relates back to Sailada Ramu and others, who are none other than the vendors of the plaintiffs. During the trial, the plaintiffs got marked
Ex.A.6 which is the certified copy of FIR along with report in
Cr.No.298/2014 which was filed by 3rd defendant against the 1st defendant and others. On perusal of the report, it appears that the 3rd defendant filed the report alleging that she got cheated by 1st defendant herein and four others with regard to Ex.B.5 transaction. As discussed supra, though the 3rd defendant denied the case of the plaintiffs, the subsequent events that took place after filing of this suit such as Ex.A.6 added strength to case of the plaintiffs and weakened the claim of 3rd defendant. The husband of 3rd defendant who was examined as DW.3 on her behalf did not deny the criminal proceedings vide Ex.A.6. From the above, it cannot be said that the denial of plaintiffs title by the 3rd defendant is a bonafied denial of title, but it is only a 23 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
colourable denial of title. Furthermore, when the plaintiffs title over the schedule property is evaluated independently with the support of the evidence filed by them and when the resistance to plaintiffs title by the 3rd defendant is evaluated, it is clear that the vision to the plaintiffs title is not obstructed. Hence, it cannot be said that cloud is cast upon the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and this suit is maintainable without seeking relief of declaration. The plaint schedule property being a vacant site, in order to ascertain as to who is in the possession over the plaint schedule property, the title over the plaint schedule property is incidentally seen in this case. The conspectus of the above discussion and analysis leads to conclusion that no cloud is cast upon the title of the plaintiffs and the claim and contest of the 3rd defendant against the plaintiffs is of no merit. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2 answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 3.
29. Issue No.3
To What Relief?
30. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, friends and other persons from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with the plaintiff including construction of a building, compound wall etc., in the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III directly on system, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court, this the 4th day of May, 2026.
24 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) (Excise),
Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No. of witnesses examined
For Plaintiff : P.W.1 : Penapati Vijayaramayya P.W.2 : Gedala Srinivasa Rao PW.3 : N.A.V. Krishnamraju
For Defendant :
D.W.1: Rapaka Suryaprakash Rao D.W.2: P. Madhava Rao D.W.3: K. Venkata Ramakrishna Verma
No. of Exhibits marked
For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Registered Sale Deed dt.30.01.1984 Ex.A.2 : Office copy of the letter addressed by him to assistant engineer, APEDCL dt.21.10.2013 Ex.A.3 : Office copy of the lawyer’s notice issued on his behalf of assistant engineer, APEPDCL dt.21.10.2013 Ex.A.4: Courier Receipt/ Acknowledgment dt.21.10.2013 Ex.A.5: Office Copy of the Caveat Petition filed by PW.1 dt.22.10.2013 against D.1 to D.3. Ex.A.6: FIR in Cr.No.298/2014 dt.19.09.2014 and its report Ex.A.7: Charge sheet Ex.A.8: Signature in evidence in CC 87/2016 (Certifed Copy) Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.18: Admitted portions in CC 87/2016
For Defendant : Ex.B.1: Certified Copy of registered sale deed dt.17.08.1968 Ex.B.2: Certified Copy of registered sale deed dt. 20.12.1985 Ex.B.3: Certified Copy of registered sale deed dt. 02.12.1984 Ex.B.4: Certified Copy of registered sale deed dt.03.05.2013 Ex.B.5: Certified Copy of registered sale deed dt.28.05.2013 Ex.B.6: Certified Copy of registered sale deed dt.20.12.1985 Ex.B.7: Certified Copy of registered gift settlement deed dt. 02.12.1987 25 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530
OS. 270 of 2013 III ACJ(JD), VZM //FAIR//
Ex.B.8: Certified copy of Registered GPA cum Possessory sale agreement, dt.03.05.2013. Ex.B.9: Certified Copy of Registered Sale deed dt.28.05.2013 Ex.B.10: Orders of the Municipal Corporation, Vizianagaram dt.11.07.2013. Ex.B.11: Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate dt.04.04.2013 Ex.B.12 to Ex.B.36: Certified copy of house tax receipt, dt.31.03.2002
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Excise),
Vizianagaram.
26 of 26
Digitally Signed by
CHINAGODABA
CHINAGODABA SRIVIDYA
SRIVIDYADate: 2026.05.04 16:23:49 +0530