- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.
PRESENT: SMT P. LAKSHMI KUMARI.,
I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.
Monday, this the 19th day of January, 2015.
Original Suit No. 276 / 2014
Between: Gogulamudi Varalakshmamma, W/o. Late Yesuratnam, Hindu, aged 65 years, Coolie, R/o. D.No.1-3, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. …Plaintiff.
And
Ongole Municipal Corporation, rep. By its Commissioner, Ongole, Prakasam District. ….Defendant.
This suit having been come before me on 31.12.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Parvathareddy Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
// J U D G M E N T \\
01.The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men and followers from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as shown in the plaint plan in any manner and for costs of the suit.
02.Case of the Plaintif:The averments of the plaint are as follows:-
That the plaintiff is a landless poor lady and she is living in plaint schedule land by raising thatched shed in it since 15 years without obstruction from anybody. That plaintiff applied for house site patta as land less poor to Tahsildar, Ongole in the year, 2004, the revenue authorities after proper enquiry had issued possession certificate and feasibility certificate in favour of the plaintiff in the year, 2006 vide document No.155/2006 dt:
16.06.2006 under Mamidipalem Village Survey No.78/1 an extent of 1925 square feet. Thereafter the plaintiff raised ACC shed in the place of thatched shed and since then the plaintiff and her family are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.
- 2 -
That plaintiff obtained water tap connection in the year, 2010 under
Indiramma Padhakam and Corporation authorities were sanctioned the same in the year, 2014 and also levied property tax for the suit schedule property.
That southern side land owners are demanding the plaintiff and her family members to sell the suit schedule property to develop their real estate and apartment business, but plaintiff and her family members refused to do so.
That defendant authorities had recommended to the plaintiff to sell the same to southern side land owners, but the plaintiff did not agree the same. That defendant authorities having influenced and colluded with the southern side land owners are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff suit schedule property and are threatening the plaintiff and her family members with dire consequences. That plaintiff is unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendant, constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property.
03.Defendant after receipt of summons called absent and hence he was set exparte.
04. Plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on her behalf.
05. The point for consideration is:
1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for decree or perpetual
injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
06.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.
07.The plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. PW.1 deposed that she is land less poor lady is living in the plaint schedule land since 15 years by raising thatched shed without obstruction from anybody and she applied for house site patta as land less poor to Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal in the year, 2004, and the Revenue Authorities visited the suit locality as directed by the then
District Collector and made proper enquiry and issued Ex.A.1 possession certificate and feasibility certificate in favour of plaintiff in the year 2006 vide - 3 - document No. 155/2006 dt: 16.06.2006 under Mamidipalem Village S.No.78/1 an extent of 1925 squire feet with specific measurements and boundaries.
PW.1 further deposed that she obtained water tap connection in the year, 2010 under Indiramma Padhakam, and defendant authorities were sanctioned same under Ex.A.2 and plaintiff paid Rs.228/- towards property tax under Ex.A.3 receipt dt: 04.03.2014 issued by the defendant authorities for the suit schedule property. PW.1 further deposed that she obtained electricity consumer connection bearing No.060980 in the name of her son by name Ramesh and the electricity user charges bill and receipt under Ex.A.4 and she also filed Ex.A.5 photographs. The documents filed by plaintiff are clearly disclosing the possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property.
PW.1 contended that defendant in collusion with southern side land owner are causing interference in the possession and enjoyment and is insisting to sell suit schedule property to southern side land owner. The defendant did not choose to rebut the contention of PW.1, that defendant never caused interference in the possession and enjoyment in respect of suit schedule property. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, under such circumstances, plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
08.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant perpetually restraining the defendant and its men from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment in respect of suit schedule property.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of January, 2015.
Sd/- Smt P. Lakshmi Kumari
I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ONGOLE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Plaintiff:For the Defendant:
PW.1: G. VaralakshmammaNone - 4 -
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
For the Plaintiff:
Ex.A.1 : Original possession certificate and feasibility certificate dt:
16.06.2006.
Ex.A.2 : Original work order for the tap connection issued by the Municipal
Engineer, dt: 30.04.2014.
Ex.A.3 : Original property tax receipt issued by the Ongole Municipal
Corporation for Rs.228/-, dt: 04.03.20104.
Ex.A.4 : Power user charges bill issued by APSPDCL, Ongole dt: 15.09.2014.
Ex.A.5 : Photographs 2 in number along with C.D with regard to the plaint schedule property.
For the Defendant:NIL.
Sd/- Smt P. Lakshmi
Kumari
I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ONGOLE.
// True Copy //
I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.
- 5 -
IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.
PRESENT: SMT P. LAKSHMI KUMARI.,
I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.
Monday, this the 19th day of January, 2015.
Original Suit No. 276 / 2014
Between: Gogulamudi Varalakshmamma, W/o. Late Yesuratnam, Hindu, aged 65 years, Coolie, R/o. D.No.1-3, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. …Plaintiff.
And
Ongole Municipal Corporation, rep. By its Commissioner, Ongole, Prakasam District. ….Defendant.
The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men and followers from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as shown in the plaint plan in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Date of Presentation : 16.09.2014 Date of Filing : 17.09.2014
Valuation and Court fee: The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, which is valued at Rs.20,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.1,386/- is paid under Sec.26 ( C ) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.
Cause of Action: The Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant authorities threatening the plaintiff and her family members by informing that they will demolish the suit schedule property forcibly and high handedly, where the defendant authorities proclaiming in the area that they will demolishing the suit schedule property illegally, high handedly by physical force at Ongole, where the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
This suit having been come before me on 31.12.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Parvathareddy Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree:
01)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant;
02)that the defendant and its men be and are hereby restrained by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment in respect of suit schedule property;
02) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2488/- towards costs of the suit.
( C.M & F.C not filed by the defendant ) ( Schedule & Plan here to attached )
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 19th day of January, 2015.
Sd/- Smt P. Lakshmi Kumari
I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ONGOLE.
Table of Costs
Plaintif Defendant
1. Stamp on VakalatRs. 2.00 (Ex-parte)
2. Stamp on plaintRs. 1386.00
3. Stamp on processRs. 150.00
4. Advocate FeeRs. 850.00
5. Type chargesRs. 50.00
6. Writing chargesRs. 50.00 -------------------- TotalRs.2488.00 --------------------
SD/- SMT P. LAKSHMI
KUMARI
I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ONGOLE.
NOTEThe exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.
// True Copy //
IAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.