IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
(FAST TRACK COURT)::
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
Present: Sri D.AMMANNA RAJA,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada
(FAC) II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram(FTC) Tuesday, the 13th day of November, 2018.
O.S. No.97 of 2008
Between:
Rayapureddy J.Nagendra Prasad represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder Rayapureddy Gandhi ... Plaintif
And
1. Pydi Venkata Rao
2. P.Hema Sundar
3. Gajingam Ramalingeswara Rao
4. Gajingam Ramakrishna Rao
5. Manikyam Chilaka Nageswari (D5 added as per the orders in I.A.463/2010
dated 20.09.2010)… Defendants
This suit coming on 23.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.S.Suryanarayana, Advocate for Plaintif and Sri M.Sai Kumar,
Advocate for Defendants 3 and 4 and Sri A.Raghu Ram, Advocate for 5th defendant and defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
O.S.No.746 of 2014
Between:
Manikyam Chilaka Nageswari … Plaintif
And
Rayapureddy Gandhi… Defendant
This suit coming on 23.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sai Kumar, Advocate for Plaintif and Sri K.V.S.
Suryanarayana, Advocate for Defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
O.S.No.750 of 2014
Between:
Gajingam Ramalingeswara Rao … Plaintif
And
Rayapureddy Gandhi… Defendant
This suit coming on 23.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sai Kumar, Advocate for Plaintif and Sri K.V.S.
Suryanarayana, Advocate for Defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
O.S.No.752 of 2014
Between:
Gajingam Ramakrishna Rao … Plaintif
And
Rayapureddy Gandhi… Defendant
This suit coming on 23.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sai Kumar, Advocate for Plaintif and Sri K.V.S.
Suryanarayana, Advocate for Defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
1.A common Judgment has arisen consequent upon filing four suits; one is filed by Rayapureddy J.Nagendra Prasad represented by his General Power of
Attorney Holder Rayapureddy Gandhi against Pydi Venkata Rao, P.Hema
Sundar, Gajingam Ramalingeswara Rao, Gajingam Ramakrishna Rao and
Manikyam Chilaka Nageswari, declaring that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties by directing the defendants 3 and 4 to deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintif by removing the structures therein including the fencing erected and granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 5 vide O.S.97/2008; Manikyam
Chilaka Nageswari filed suit against Rayapureddi Gandhi seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and persons from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif vide O.S.746/2014;
Gajingam Ramalingeswara Rao filed suit against Rayapureddi Gandhi seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and persons from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif vide
O.S.750/2014; and another is filed by Gajingam Ramakrishna Rao filed suit
against Rayapureddi Gandhi seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and persons from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif vide O.S.752/2014.
2.The parties to both the suits are referred to as per their array and description mentioned in O.S.97/2008 in which the suits in O.S.Nos.746/2014, 750/2014 and 752/2014 could be clubbed with and common evidence was recorded therein (for brevity).
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.97/2008:
3.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintif purchased the entire plaint ‘A’ schedule property from 1st defendant under registered sale deed dated 20.01.2004 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.3,87,000/- and the same is an agricultural land. The father of plaintif who is also General Power of
Attorney holder of the plaintif cultivating the said land every year including his own land. At the time of purchase the defendants 1 and 2 represented to the plaintif that the schedule property is free of encumbrances and disputes and believing their words and after verifying the documents including the encumbrance certificate and the plaintif’s vendor purchased the said property from Dasari people. The defendants 3 and 4 without any manner of right whatsoever the plaint schedule property and proclaimed that they filed
O.S.No.727/2007 and 726/2007 on the file Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Rajahmundry for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintif from interfering their alleged possession.
After obtaining the interim orders from the said Court the defendants 3 and 4 high handedly occupied the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and erected a barbed wire fencing in the said site without any manner of right. The 5th defendant filed suit O.S.768/2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for grant of temporary injunction alleging falsely that she is the absolute owner of the property under the registered sale deed dated 16.02.2009. Therefore, plaintif filed suit and urged to decree the same.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.746/2014:
4.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the defendant is having house site near the plaint schedule property. The plaintif purchased the said property on 16.02.2009 from one Bandi Lakshmikantham by virtue of registered sale deed and the defendant openly proclaiming in the village that he will occupy the said property. The plaintif is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendant in all times. Therefore, plaintif filed suit and urged to decree the same.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.750/2014:
5.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the defendant is having house site near the plaint schedule property. The plaintif purchased the said property on 21.03.2007 from one Bhajana Bhuvaneswari by virtue of registered sale deed and the defendant openly proclaiming in the village that he will occupy the said property. The plaintif is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendant in all times. Therefore, plaintif filed suit and urged to decree the same.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.752/2014:
6.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the defendant is having house site near the plaint schedule property. The plaintif purchased the said property on 21.03.2007 from one Kavi Venkata Ramanamma by virtue of registered sale deed and the defendant openly proclaiming in the village that he will occupy the said property. The plaintif is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendant in all times. Therefore, plaintif filed suit and urged to decree the same.
FOR THE DEFENDANTs IN O.S.91/2008:
7.The defendants 3 and 5 submitted written statements individually and 4th defendant filed memo adopting the written statement of 3rd defendant. 3rd defendant contended that the defendants 3 an 4 purchased two plots from one
B.Bhuvaneswari under registered sale deeds dated 21.03.2007 and they occupied the possession and constructed barded wire fencing and there is no cause of action and the alleged cause of action is only invented for the purpose of this suit and urged to dismiss the suit.
8.The 5th defendant filed counter and contended that after filing the suits
O.S.726/2007 and 727/2007 by the defendants 3 and 4 the plaintif filed the
false suit without mentioning the 5th defendant name and the schedule properties are not belongs to him and those are belonging to defendants 3 to 5 who are the purchasers of the schedule properties and urged to dismiss the suit.
FOR THE DEFENDANTs IN O.S.746/2014:
9.The defendant submitted written statement contended that the plaint is silent with regard to the apprehension of the plaintif and the allegations in the plaint are bald and vague and the defendant believes and has every reason to believe that two persons were behind the plaintif in filing the main suit as well as the injunction petition and urged to dismiss the suit.
FOR THE DEFENDANTs IN O.S.750/2014:
10.The defendant submitted written statement contended that the plaint is silent with regard to the apprehension of the plaintif and the allegations in the plaint are bald and vague and the defendant and his son were in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of Ac.1.00 cents purchased in the name of his son and the plaintif is out of the possession of the schedule property and the simple suit for grant of permanent injunction is not maintainable and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the defendant is not a proper and necessary party and urged to dismiss the suit.
FOR THE DEFENDANTs IN O.S.752/2014:
11.The defendant submitted written statement contended that the plaint is silent with regard to the apprehension of the plaintif and the allegations in the plaint are bald and vague and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of Ac.1.00 cents and the said property purchased by his son and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the defendant is not a proper and necessary party and urged to dismiss the suit.
12. On the basis of respective pleadings of both the parties to the suits, the following issues have been settled for trial.
O.S.97/2008
1) Whether the plaintif acquired valid right and title in respect of ‘A’ schedule property under registered sale deed dated 20.01.2004?
2) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of declaration in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule property as prayed for?
3) Whether the plaintif is entitled for relief of recovery of possession of plaint ‘B’ schedule property as prayed for?
4)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
5)To what relief?
O.S.746/2014
1) Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant?
2)To what relief?
O.S.750/2014
1) Whether the plaintif is entitled decree of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
2) Whether the defendant is not a proper and necessary party and the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?
3)To what relief the plaintif is entitled?
O.S.752/2014
1) Whether the plaintif is entitled decree of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
2) Whether the defendant is not a proper and necessary party and the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?
3)To what relief the plaintif is entitled?
13.Substantiating the case of plaintif, though the General Power of
Attorney Holder of plaintif filed as P.W.1 it was eschewed. Plaintif examined as
P.W.2, brother of plaintif is examined as P.W.3 and third party to the suit examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. Denying the case of plaintif and substantiating their defence, defendants 3 to 5 are examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 and thirty party to the suit is examined as D.W.4 and got marked Exs.B1 to B13 on behalf of defendants. Advocate commissioner examined as C.W.1 and got marked Exs.C1 to C4 and Exs.X1 and X2.
14.After having heard elaborate submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties to the suits, the contentious issues are decided as follows:
ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2 IN O.S.97/2008:
15.The learned counsel for both parties argued canvassing their respective contentions averred in the plaint as well as in the written statement and basing on the averments in the plaint in O.S. Nos.746/2014, 750/2014 and 752/2014 and the written statements in the above said suits. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. For sake of convenience the parties arrayed in O.S.97/2008 referred as plaintif and defendants in the following discussion. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. A perusal of the same, the plaintif testified as P.W.2 reiterated the averments averred in the plaint on oath that he purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property under Ex.A2 for a valuable consideration and took possession of the same and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same his own right till defendants 2 to 5 encroached upon it. The property covered under Ex.A2 is agricultural land. His father no other than General Power of Attorney holder cultivated the plaint schedule every year including his own land situated to the west of schedule land through P.Ws.4 and 5.
16.P.W.2 further stated that since plaint schedule property is an agricultural land he applied for pattadhar passbook, accordingly, he was issued Ex.A4 pattadhar passbook. Even in the revenue records, the nature of land is recorded as an agricultural land and it is possession and enjoyment of him.
P.W.2 further stated that defendants 3 and 4 without any manner of right whatsoever with the plaint schedule property filed O.S.226 and 227 of 2007 of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for grant of permanent injunction
restraining his father Rayapureddy Gandhi from interfering their possession and enjoyment of the plots alleged to have been purchased by them from third parties. They also obtained temporary injunction orders from the Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and under the guise of said injunction orders defendants 3 and 4 high handedly occupied their property which is more particularly described as plaint ‘B’ schedule property which is part of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Defendants 3 and 4 occupied more extent than the extent shown in their respective documents. P.W.1 further stated that 5th defendant filed O.S.768/2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and falsely contended that she is absolute owner of the property under registered sale deed dated 16.02.2009. The alleged property said to have been purchased by 5th defendant is part of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. In view of the conduct of defendants 1 to 4 more particularly defendants 3 and 4 he filed the present suit for declaration of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for recovery of plaint ‘B’ schedule property and for permanent injunction and urged to decree the same.
17.P.W.3 no other than the brother of P.W.2 deposed corroborating the evidence of P.W.2 on all material aspects. P.Ws.4 and 5 third parties to the suit deposed with one voice supporting the evidence of P.W.2 about the purchase of the plaint schedule by P.W.2 and about the possession of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property till the defendants 3 and 4 occupied the same. P.W.4 further stated that he cultivated the plaint schedule land of the plaintif for some time. P.W.5 further stated he cultivated the plaint schedule land belongs to plaintif till 2007.
18.Per contra defendants 3 and 4 testified as D.Ws.1 and 2 deposed with one voice reiterating the averments in their written statements about the purchase of respective plots under Ex.B1 and B2 corresponding to Exs.B6 and
B7. D.W.1 further stated that he filed O.S.727/2007 on the file of I Addl. Junior
Civil Judge, Rajahmundry against plaintif for grant of permanent injunction.
After receipt of the summons in the said suit, the plaintif herein filed the suit against him and other defendants. They further stated that the plaint schedule is not an agricultural land and the plaintif and his family members never raised paddy or sugarcane in the schedule property. Since plaintif has no right and title over the sites covered under Exs.B1 and B2, he urged to dismiss the suit.
19.5th defendant testified as D.W.3 deposed that she purchased of the site from Bandi Lakshmikantham under registered sale deed Ex.B12. Her vendor purchased the same under Ex.B13. From the date of purchase she is in possession and enjoyment of the site covered under Ex.B12. When the plaintif’s father tried to encroach into her property, she filed suit against father of plaintif for permanent injunction before Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Rajahmundry wherein she was granted temporary injunction. Since plaintif is not in possession of the plaint schedule property she urged to dismiss the suit.
20.Though, D.Ws.1 and 2 stated that they purchased the house sites covered under Exs.B1 and B2 corresponding to Exs.B6 and B7, their evidence do not inspire confidence about the nature of the plaint schedule. On the other hand, the facts and circumstances elicited in the cross-examination of D.Ws.1 to 3 supports the contention of the plaintif that the plaint schedule property is an agricultural land. The contention of the plaintif is that he purchased the property from 1st defendant under Ex.A2. The recitals of Ex.A3 corresponds to
Ex.X3 proves that 1st defendant purchased an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land out of Ac.7.80 cents in S.No.784/2 of Kothapalli Village and it was admitted by
D.Ws.1 and 2. During the cross-examination, D.W.1 admits that 1st defendant has got Ac.5.00 cents of land in total S.No.784/2 of Kothapalli Village of
Gokavaram Mandal. He further admits that to the east of plaint schedule, the plaintif’s father has got house and land. The persons appeared in Ex.A5 photograph is that of him and his brother. He further admits that the board i.e., appear in Ex.B5 was installed by them. Ex.B5 does not show the presence of house. Considering the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A3 and X2 it can be safely concluded that 1st defendant got title over the property covered under Ex.A2 to alienate the same to P.W.2. Though the counsel for defendants contended that 1st defendant is converted his Ac.5.00 cents of land into 70 plots and layout the vide Ex.B10. Admittedly it is not approval layout. Though it is contended that the defendants paid a sum of Rs.2,24,205/- levied by Andhra
Pradesh Government. It is not the ground to hold that layout under Ex.B10 is approved. In the absence of positive evidence it was approved by the concerned authorities. Thus whatever the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 that they purchased their respective plots under Exs.B1, B2 and B12 cannot be said that they are valid purchasers.
21.On the other hand, the contention of the plaintif is proved that the plaint schedule property is an agricultural land and he purchased the same Ex.A2 from 1st defendant who is having title over the property covered under Ex.A3.
The contention of the plaintif further proved that the plaintif’s father is having house and land towards the east of the plaint schedule. It is pertinent to note that during the cross-examination D.W.1 admits that as per the revenue records the plaint schedule property is in the name of the plaintif vide Ex.A5 and he was issued pattadhar passbook Ex.A5 and title deed. During the cross- examination, D.W.2 admits that the photograph shown to him under Ex.C1 belongs to the schedule property. He further admits that he know the plaintif purchased the extent of Ac.1.00 cents in his name from 1st defendant and others. The plaint schedule property is situated at Kothapalli Village,
Gokavaram Mandal. He further admits that on eastern side of plaint schedule plaintif’s father having land an extent of Ac.1.00 cents along with house in
Gramakantam Village.
22.Considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A2, C1 and B5 and in view of the admission of D.Ws.1 and 2 I find the contention of the plaintif is proved that the plaintif purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A2 from valid owner 1st defendant and further proved that plaint schedule property was agricultural land. I find there is a statutory presumption under Section 6 of
Record of Rights Act that the entries made in revenue authorities the endorsed made in revenue records under Record of Rights Act are presumed to be correct, unless contrary was proved. No whisper was made by the defendants to rebut the above said presumption except by filing the encumbrance certificates Ex.B4 and unapproved layout Ex.B10 and the endorsement issued by Tahasildar no way helpful to the defendants to disprove the title of the plaintif. Though the counsel for defendants contended that property covered under Ex.A2 is shown in yards and it clearly proves that the schedule property was valued at yards. Then it is converted into house sites and it is not agricultural land and D.Ws.1 and 4 in possession of Ac.0.17 cents and D.W.3 is in possession of 306 square yards. I do not find any force in the contention of defendants in view of facts and circumstances elicited in their cross- examination. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 and in view of foregoing discussion supra that the plaintif acquired valid right title in respect of plaint schedule property under Ex.A2. Therefore the plaintif is entitled for declaration of plaint ‘A’ schedule property as prayed for. Hence Issued Nos.1 and 2 decided in favour of plaintif.
ISSUE NO.3 IN O.S.97/2008
23.It is admitted fact that the plots said to have been purchased by D.Ws.1 to 3 under Exs.B1 and B2 and B12 are part and parcel of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Though D.Ws.1 to 3 contended that they got injunction orders in their favour against plaintif’s father and they purchased the properties under registered sale deeds Exs.B1, B2 and B12 from the respective owners, I find that the defendants miserably failed to examine their respective vendors to prove the same. Even though the plaintif not examined his vendor it is admitted fact that 1st defendant is the title holder of the property covered under Ex.A2, whereas such defence is not available to the defendants. During the cross-examination D.W.1 stated that he does not know 1st defendant, as such he did not question him why he sold Ac.1.00 cents of land to the plaintif.
It is pertinent to note that during the cross-examination D.W.1 stated that he and his brother gave application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gokavaram to measure their land two days after purchasing the land. But no such copy of application was filed by the defendants, having admitted that he got the copy of said application and he has filed the same into Court. It is strange D.W.1 pleaded ignorance that when the plaint schedule property was converted into non agricultural land.
24.D.W.1 further stated that he does not know whether Revenue Divisional
Officer, Rajahmundry has issued proceedings in this regard. He further stated that he has got record regarding identity of plots purchased by him. The specific contention of D.W.1 was that the property purchased by him under
Ex.B1 is a house site and it is not an agricultural land. During the cross- examination D.W.1 stated that the photograph shown to him pertains to plaint schedule property. It was suggested to D.W.1 that Ex.C1 photograph shows that the plaint schedule properties are agricultural land. During the cross- examination C.W.1 Advocate Commissioner categorically stated that he identify the plaint schedule property with the assistance of both parties. By the date of execution of warrant the schedule property was lying as cultivable land. The plaint schedule property surrounded by teak plantation and in between them coconut trees and neem trees were raised and in between them coconut trees and neem trees were raised. The evidence of Advocate Commissioner was consistent with that of Ex.C1 photograph and consistent with that of Ex.C2.
Thus evidence of C.W.1 stands unrebutted. The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 is contrary to the evidence of Advocate Commissioner examined as C.W.1 and contrary to the positive photographs marked as Ex.C1 and Advocate
Commissioner report as Ex.C2.
25.Though D.Ws.1 to 3 relied on the Encumbrance Certificates an endorsement and unapproved lay outs, I find those are not useful for the defendants to got injunction orders from the Court when plaintif able to prove that he got right and title over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, except relying on registered sale deeds under it. D.Ws.1 to 3 alleged to have been purchased and except relying on Encumbrance Certificate and copies of unauthorized layouts, no whisper was made by the defendants to prove that the properties covered under Exs.B1 and B2 correspondence to Exs.B6 and B7 and the property covered under Ex.B12 are the house sites and D.Ws.1 to 3 have been possession and enjoyment of the respective sites. I find the contention of the defendants that the property covered under Exs.B1 and B2 correspondence to
Exs.B6 and B7 and B12 are the house sites is not proved by cogent evidence., except contended that Exs.B1, B2 and B12 are prior date of Ex.A2. Simply basing on the temporary injunction orders granted by the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Rajahmundry basing on the registered sale deeds it cannot be said that
the defendants are entitled to possession and enjoyment of their respective plots covered under Exs.B1, B2 and B12. No iota of evidence on record to hold that the D.Ws.1 to 3 in efective physical possession of sites covered under
Exs.B1, B2 and B12 plaint schedule property. P.Ws.2 categorically stated that
D.Ws.1 to 3 occupied their plaint ‘B’ schedule property having filed O.S.726 and 727/2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Taking advantage of the temporary injunction orders granted by the said Court. In the above said circumstances the D.Ws.1 to 3 ought to have converted their suit for declaration and permanent injunction if at all they got title over the plaint schedule.
26.Though the counsel for defendants contended that advocate commissioner not mentioned how much expenditure of land P.W.2 got in possession and Ex.C4 municipal surveyor report do not reveal how much extent of land plaintif is in possession of and Ex.C4 have no signature of municipal surveyor and he was not examined. I find it is for D.Ws.1 to 3 to prove their legal possession with the property covered under Exs.B1, B2 and B12. Though the learned counsel for defendants cross-examined P.Ws.2 to 5, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. I find the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 inspired confidence about the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property prior to occupation of plaint ‘B’ schedule property by D.Ws.1 to 3. Whereas the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 do not inspire confidence about the nature of the sites covered under EXs.B1 and B2 correspondence to Exs.B6 and
B7 and Ex.B12. Thus I find the contention of defendants not proved. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 when their evidence convincing and consistent with that of Exs.A1 to A5. In view of my findings in
Issue Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.97/2008 and foregoing discussion supra, I find the plaintif is entitled for recovery of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. Hence, Issue
NOs.3 in O.S.97/2008 decided in favour of plaintif.
ISSUE NO.2 IN O.S.750/2014 AND 752/2014:
27.It is admitted fact that the defendants 3 and 4 are the plaintifs in the above said suits and father of plaintif being the General Power Attorney defendant. The contention of defendants are that being the General Power of
Attorney P.W.2 interfering with the possession of them. I find O.S.97/2008 itself proved that the General Power of Attorney Holder no other than the father of plaintif looking after the afairs of plaint schedule. In the above circumstances I find the suit filed by the defendants 3 and 4 against father of plaintif for permanent injunction is maintainable. Though this Court finds that P.W.2 is the owner of the plaint schedule property, in view of the allegation against the father of plaintif, I find that the person who is shown as defendants in
O.S.750/2014 and 752/2014 is proper and necessary party. Thus I find that the
suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, issue No.2 in
O.S.750/2014 and 752/2014 decided in favour of plaintifs.
ISSUE NO.1 IN O.S.750/2014, 752/2014 AND 746/2014:
28.The D.Ws.1 to 3 have not filed any piece of documentary proof evidencing their possession over the plaint schedule property. However the suit is filed for recovery of possession it can presume that D.Ws.1 to 3 are in possession of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. No explanation was ofered by the
D.Ws.1 to 3 why they have not paid any tax for the property covered under
Exs.B1, B2 and B12 at least vacant site tax to the concerned. No iota of evidence on record to hold that the D.Ws.1 to 3 no other than the plaintif in the above said suits are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and they were inducted by the respective vendors. This Court found that the defendants were high handedly occupied the plaint ‘B’ schedule property taking advantage of the injunction orders got by them and under the pretext that they purchased the respective sites under registered sale deeds
Exs.B1, B2 and B12 and in view of my finding in Issue No.3 in O.S.97/2008 I find that the D.Ws.1 to 3 no other than the plaintifs in O.S.750/2014, 752/2014 and 746/2014 are not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence, Issue No.1 in the above said suits decided against the plaintifs.
ISSUE NO.4 IN O.S.97/2008, ISSUE NO.3 IN O.S.750/2014 AND 752/2014 AND
ISSUE NO.2 IN O.S.746/2014:
29.In the result, O.S.97/2008 decreed with costs. The plaintif declared as absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Defendants 3 to 5 are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to the plaintif by removing the structures therein including the fencing erected within three months from the date of Judgment. The defendants 1 to 5, their men, agents and successors in the interest are restrained from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property in any manner and from constructing any structures in the schedule property by way of permanent injunction.
O.S.Nos.746/2014, 750/2014 and 752/2014 dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of November, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KAKINADA.
(FAC) II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM(FTC)
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For Plaintifs:-
P.W.1: Rayapureddy Gandhi (eschewed) P.W.2: Rayapureddy Nagendra Prasad P.W.3: Rayapureddy Narayana Gangadhar P.W.4: Velisetti Yedukondalu P.W.5: Sandru Vishnu
For Defendants:-
D.W.1: Ganjingam Ramalingeswara Rao D.W.2: Ganjingam Ramakrishna Rao D.W.3: Manikyam Chilaka Nageswari D.W.4: Mohammad Ibrahim Kalidialla
C.W.1: S.P.Shankar (Advocate Commissioner)
Documents marked For Plaintifs:-
Ex.A1: Notarized copy of registered GPA Ex.A2: Registration extract of sale deed dated 20.01.2004 Ex.A3: Registration extract of sale deed Ex.A4: Notarized pattadar passbook Ex.A5: Notarized copy of adangal For Defendants:-
Ex.B1 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.03.207 Doc.No.715/2007 Ex.B2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.06.1991 Doc.No.1438/99 Ex.B3 : Certified copy of certificate issued by Sarpanch, Kothapalli Ex.B4 : Encumbrance Certificate issued by SRO, Korukonda Ex.B5 : Certified copies of two photographs Ex.B6 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 21.03.2007 Ex.B7 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 28.06.1991 Ex.B8 : Encumbrance Certificate dated 10.04.2013 Ex.B9 : Letter issued by Sub-Registrar, Korukonda dated 09.06.2014 Ex.B10:Certified copy of layout plan Ex.B11:Certificate issued by the Gokavaram dated 11.09.2014 Ex.B12:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.02.2009 Ex.B13:Certified copy of link document dated 08.07.1991
Ex.C1: Four Photos with C.D. Ex.C2: Report filed by Advocate Commissioner Ex.C3: Rough sketch prepared by Advocate Commissioner Ex.C4: Report by Mandal Surveyor
Ex.X1: Registration extract of sale deed dated 31.01.1991 bearing document No.219/1991 Ex.X2: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.08.1990
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KAKINADA.
(FAC) II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM(FTC)