DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT
IN THE cOURT oF THE SENIOR CVL JUDGE: MEDCHAT.
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
PRESENT: SRI, D, ÀVINDRA SARMA I Addi. sENIOR CML JUDGE (FTC)
FAC. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
MEDCHAL RR. DISTRICT.
Dated this the 13th day of December, 20]6 0.S.No, 5 of 2015
Between:
1. Ashok M. Doshi, S/o. Late Mansukhlal V. Doshi, aged about 53 years, Occ: Business
2. Pankaj M. Doshi, S/o. Late Mansukhlal V. Doshi, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business,
3. Ketan M. Doshi, S/o. Late Mansukhlal V. Doshi, aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
4. Smt. Susheela M. Doshi, W/o. Late Mansukhlal V. Doshi, aged about 72 years, Occ: Household. All are R/o. H.No.3-6-742, Street No. 12,
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, A.P. ..Plaintiffs.
AND Dundigalla Narsa Reddy, S/o. Late Ramchandra Reddy, aged about 62 years, Occ: Retd. Employee,
R/o. Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal, R.R. Dist. ...Defendant.
Claim: -This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction U/Sec.26, Order-VII, Rule-1 of C.P.C. praying this court may be pleased to restrain the Defendant, his men and agents from dispossessing the plaintifis to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property i.e., Land to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts., in Survey No.113 situated at Ravalkole Village, under Gram Panchayat: Ravalkole, Mandal: Medchal. Sub-Dist.: Medchal, Dist. & Regn. Dist.: Ranga Reddy and to award the costs of the suit. Valuation of Suit:-The suit is for lhe relief of Perpetual Injunction 1s valued at Rs.3,00,000/- and a Court Fee of Rs.5.426/- is paid U/See.26
(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act Cause of Action:-Arose to the plaintil on 09-12-2005 when the plaintitis purchased the suit property through igistered sale deeds. Again arose ou 04-10-2006 when the plaintiff obtained lavout at the suit propery: Further arose on 23-11-2007 when the defendant along with henchmen
DECREEIN ORIGNAL, SUIT
attenlPted to lake illegal possession of the suit property bv dispossessing (he plaintiffs, Arose on 24-11-2007 when came to the suit property and the defendant came to the suit prolerty along with the henchmen and the suit property by dispossessing attempted to take illegal possessiO" concerned police authorities refused to receive the plaintiffs and when the the complaint of the plaintiffs.
This suit is coning p. for final hearing before me on 01-12-2016 in Mohiuddin, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sr. the presence of Sri. Khaja Ch. Dasaratha, Counsel for the pef ndant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day. this Court made the following decree:- d te same is hereby dismissed with
1. That the suit of the plaintiffs be costs.
2. That the plaintiffs do pay a sum ot Ks.27- to the defendant towards the costs of the suit. Given under mu hand and seal of the collrt on this the 13 das of December. 2016.
FAC. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
N MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
i s
COSTS OF HE SUI
iviedpor Defendant:
For Plaintiff: Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. Stamp on Plaint 5,426-00 Stamp on power 2-00 2-00 Stamp on Process 35-00 Advocate Fee (F.C. and M.C. not filed) Miscellaneous Charges 0-00
Total: 5,463-00 2-00
FAC, SENIOR CIVIL JODGE
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Sr. Civi Jg
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY, R. D.
All that Schedule of Property land to an extent of Ac.2.00 Gts, in Survey No. I l3 situated at Rav iole Villade. under Gram Panchayat:
Ravalkole, Mandal: Medchal, Sub.isl : Medchal, Dist. & Regu Dis.:
Ranga Reddy and bounded by:
3 NORTH : Agrl. Land of Bantu Nagaiah and Sakali Sathaiah.
(old Agrl. land of satyanarayana Reddy)
SOUTH : Layout of Rishi Jajdecp and Land of plaintiffs. (old Agrl. Land of Golla Nagaiah)
EAST : Land of plaintiffs,
old Agrl. Land of Muthyalu
WEST : Present Layout of Rishi Jaideep.
FAC. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Medchal, R.R. Dist.
DECREE oRlGINAL SUIT
CIVIL ,JUDGE: MEDCHAL:
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR
RANGA REDDr pISTRICT.
R A V I N D R A SARMA,
PRESENT: SRI. D, S E N I O R CIVIL JUDGE (FTC),
JUDGE,
FAC. SENOR CIVIL
MEDCHAt RR. DISTRICT. December, 2016
Dated this the 13h day
O.S.No.1uof 2015
Between: Dundigalla Narsareddy, S/o, Late Ramchandra Reddy. aged ab0ut 62 years, Occ: Retd. Employe¬. R/o. Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal. R.R. Dist.
...Plaintiff.
AND Ashok M. Doshi, S/o. Late Mansukhlal V. Doshi, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-6-742, Street No. 12, Himayathnagar,
...Defendant.
Hvderabad, A.P. Claim:-This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction U/Sec.26, Order-VII, Rule- 1 of C.P.C. praying this court may be pleased to grant perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant. his agent, servant, any other anti social element on behalf of Defendant not to interfere the plaint schedule property and peaceful possession enjoyment of the plaintiff not to disturb Acrs. 1-00 guntas situated at bearing Sy.No.113 admeasuring the Ravalkole Vill., Medchal Mandal, R.R. District and to award the costs of the suit. Valuation of Suit:-The suit is for the relief of Perpetual Injunction is notionally valued at Rs.5,000/- and a Court Fee of Rs.411/- is paid U/Sec.26 (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act Cause of Action:-Arose to the plaintilf on 14-11-2006 when the defendant trving to interfere into plaint schedule property along with some anti social elements and the same is resisted b÷ the plaintiff and again on 15-11 2006 trying to interfere and trying to lay the road into the plaint schedule property and on the same day the plaintiif gave complaint before the
Concerned PS.
This suit is coming up Jor Jinal iearing before me on 0l-12-201A in Dasaratha, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sr the presence of Sri. Ch. Khaia Mohiuddin, Counsel Jor the Defendant and the natter hwina stood over for consideration ll this �ay, this Court made the tllouino decree:
1. That the suit of the plaitil c a the same is hercby decreed with COsts.
2. That the plaintifT is glanted peral injunction as prayed for.
3. That the defendant do pay a su) O Rs.448/- to the plaintiff towards the costs of the suit.
Gien under må hand and seal of the On this the 13h day of December, 2016.
FAC, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDÝ DISTRICT.
CoSTS 0F THE SUIt Medc.i, iR.R. Disi. For Plainif: For Defendant: Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.
Stamp on Plaint
411-00 Stamp on power 2-0) 2-00
Stamp on Process
35-00 Advocate Fee (F.C. and M.. not filed)
Miscellaneous Charges
Total: 448-00 2-00
FAC. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDYDISTRICT.
SCHIEDULE OF PROPERTYy WACUchel, R.R. Dst
All that bearing Agricultural
land Sy.No. l13
in
admeasuring Acrs. 1-00 guntas situated at Ravalkole Vill., Medchal
Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:
NORTH :Agricultural land of Kurma Yadaiah in Sy.No. 1 13.
: Agricultural Land of Muthyalu
SOUTH EAST : Agricultural land oi Salendra llaiah in Sy.No. l 14 WEST : Agricultural land ot Kurma Yadaiah in Sy.No. 1 13.
FAC, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
OSNo.5/2015 & OSNo.l7S/2015 Page No.I
IN THE cOURT or sENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
RAVINDRA SHARMA,
PRESENT: SR AbDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC).
Il
FAC SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Dated on this the 1ath day of December, 2016
OS.No.5/2015 & OS NO. 115/2015
OS NO.5/2015
Between:
1. Ashok M.Doshi S/o.Late Mansukhlal V.Doshi,
Aged about 53 yrs, Occ:Business.
2.Pankaj M.Doshi S/o.Late Mansukhlal V.Doshi,
Aged about 51 yrs, Occ:Business.
3.Ketan M.Doshi S/o.Late Mansukhlal V.Doshi,
Aged about 43 y rs, Occ:Business.
4.Smt.Susheela M.Doshi W/o.Late Mansukhlal V. Doshi
Aged about 72 yrs, Occ:Household.
(All are r/o.H.No.3-6-742, Street No.12,
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, A.P.)
..Plaintiffs.
AND
Dundigalla Narsa Reddy Slo.Late Ramchandra Reddy. Aged about 62 yrs, Occ:Retd. Employee, R/o.Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal, R.R.District.
...Defendant.
OS.No.115/2015
Between:
Dundigalla Narsa Reddy S/o.Late Ramchandra Reddy.
Aged about 62 yrs, Occ:Retd. Employee.
R/o.Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal, R.R.District.
.Plaintiff.
AND Ashok M.Doshi Slo.Late Mansukhlal V.Doshi Aged about 51 yrs, Occ:Business.
R/o. 3-6-742, Street No. 12, Himayath Nagar
Hyderabad. Defendant.
O.S.No. 5 2015 & OS No. l/5/2015 P'age No.2
These suits are hearing before me in the presence of
Sri. Khahja Mohiuddin, Counsel for Plaintiffs in 0.S. No. 5/2015 and for defendant in 0.S. No. 115/2015 and Sri. Ch. Dasharatha, Counsel for Defendant in 0.S. No. 52015 an for plaintiffs in O.S.No.115/2015 and these matters having stood over for consideration til this day, this Court made the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
Pleadings of OS No.5/2015:
This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction to restrain the Defendant, 1.
his men and agents from inteleng with the peaceful possession and
eniovment of the plaintiffs in respeot of Ac.2.00 gts, in Sy.No.113, Ravalkol
Village. under Gram Panchayat, Ravalkole Mandal. Medchal. Ranga
Reddy District which is herein after termed as Suit Schedule Property and for costs of the suit.
2. The plaint averments in brief are that:- The plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property having
purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document
No.17160/2005 dated 09-12-2005 executed by its original owner
Sri.Kasinath through his agreement of sale cum GPA holder M/s.Mahaveer
Developers rep. by its partners namely Ketan Singh and Mahesh Agarwal
vide registered AGPA bearing Doc. No.3369/2005. The said original owner
M.Kasinath in turn has purchoeed the suit property form Saila Yadaiah
through registered sale deed N 2596/2004. Thereafter, Kasinath has
obtained the patta pass book & title deed from the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide patta book
No.426683, Title deed No.427059, Patta No.1519. After the purchase of mutated in the suit property by the plaintifs, they got their names concerned Revenue Records. They proposed to construct Independent
Page No.3 0.SNo.5/2015 & OSNo. l15/2015 Houses is the suit propertv abw or the Sald purpose they obtained a
Regional Deputy Director, Town and sanction layout from the office
C confirmed in No.1013/06/HRO/H2 Country planning vide file
LP. No.375/06/HRO. Consequently, the plaintiffs executed Civil works at
the suit property including leveling of the land, laying of roads, drainage
lines etc., and invested heavy amounts for the said developments. The plaintiffs have also purchased the adjacent lands under different survey numbers and developing the same along with the suit property. The defendant who is local and native of Ravalkole village, Medchal Mandal.
Ranga Reddy District started harassing the plaintiffs by claiming one Acre of land out of total extent of Acres 2 of the suit property. The defendant taking advantage of his local contacts and with the help of some of his known villagers now and then coming to the suit property. He threatened the plaintiffs that 1 Acre of land out of the suit property belongs him. The defendant also threatened the plaintifs if they fail to handover Ac. 1 of land out of the suit property to the defendant, he will take the same by force.
That all the attempts of the plaintiffs to convince the defendant by showing
The defendant on 23-11 the registered sale deed in their favour failed 2007 came to the suit property along with the three muscle-men and attempted to take forceful possession of the suit property but he could not succeed as the plaintiff with the help of their staff and labours at the site prevented the same. The defendant again came to suit property on 24-11- with three henchmen and attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs to 2007 take forceful possession of the suit property. The attempt was resisted by plaintiffs and labours. The with the help of staff of the the plaintiffs defendant left the suit property by threatening the plaintiffs, that he is a
Page No 4 influence alq Icontrol at the local village people and 0SNo $2015 & OS No. /752015 local man having local
dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit
time and he will come at any
circumstances, the plaintiffs have no other remedy
property. In these except to approach this court by filing this suit.
defendant filed written statement by denying all the plaint
The 3. that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of allegations. He submitted acre of land in Sy.No. 113 of Ravalkole village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga
He acquired the same through registered sale deed vide Reddy District. No.9721/2003 dtd 18-08-2003 from Chelimela Komraiah document S/o.Mallajah, Chelimela Mallesn /o.Komraiah and Chelimela Ravi Kumar
S/o.Komraiah. From that date the defendant is in possession. After purchase the defendant approached the concerned M.R.O. and obtained mutation proceeding No.E/461/2006 Dt:10-08-2006. He obtained pattedar
His name was recorded in Pass Book and Title Deeds in his favour.
pahanies to the extent of Acrs.1-00 guntas. The plaintiff No.1 herein with malafied intention along with other plaintiffs and other anti social elements tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on 14-11-2006 and again on 15-11-2006. The same Was informed to the concerned P.S. on 15-11-2006 vide complaint No.31318. But the police people did not register any case against them being highly influenced persons. Later the defendant herein filed a suit for perpetual injunction before the Junior Civil
District, against the plaintiff No.1 vide
judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy
O.S.No.729/2006. In which the counsel for plaintiff in this case Sri. Kaja
The defendant herein also obtained ad-
Moinuddin, Advocate filed vakalat.
interim injunction against the plaintiff in this case vide I.A.No.2431/2006 in
Junior Civil Judge Medchal, Ranga Reddy 0.S.No.729/2006 on the fle of
(6
OS No.S/2015 & O.S No. 75/2015 Page No,5 District. The said facts are very Well knowh to the plaintiff in this case, but
the plaintiff herein intentionally not mentioned the same in his plaint
pleadings. The plaintiff Suppres_ed the facts and on this ground the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plantiff hherein also knows the pendency of
O.S.No.564/2007 on the file of Pri Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District. That
the defendant obtained injunction order against the plaintiff on the file of
Junior Civil Judge, Medchal. Rb nistrict, in the above said case vide
0.S.No.729/2006 then the plainti# in this case kept silent. After lapse of time he filed this suit without mentioning prior case. Thus he suppressed the material facts. The defendant herein is an absolute owner of Acrs.1-00 mentioned above as such the question of guntas in Sy.No.113 as interference into the suit schedule property does not arise. The plaintiff filed the present suit only with an intention to harass the defendant. The suit is devoid of merits, and plaintiffs suppressed the material facts, on the above grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Basing upon the pleadings the followings issues are settled for trial: 4. () Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, associates etc. from causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the
suit schedule property?
() To what relief?
Pleadings of 0S No.115/2015:
5 This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agent, servant, any other anti social element on behalf of defendant from interfering with peaceful poSsession and eniovment of the land of 1 acre
out of Sy.No.113, of Ravalkole village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reday
Page No. 6 0.S.No. S/2015 & 0SNo. l15/2015
District which is here in after termed as Suit Schedule Property and for
Costs of the suit.
The plaint averments in Dief are that, the plaintiff is the absolute
6 owner and possessor of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.113 of Ravalkole village,
Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He purchased it through
registered sale deed vide doCUmeht No.9721/2003 dtd 18-08-2003 from
Chelimela Komraiah S/o. Mallaiah, Chelimela Mallesh Slo.Komraiah and
Chelimela Ravi Kumar S/o.Komraaiah. From the date of purchase the
plaintiff is in peaceful possessio and enjoyment of the same. Prior to
purchase of the plaintiff his vendors are in possession and enjoyment of
the same. That the defendant herein without any manner of right, title and
interest to the plaint schedule property tried to interfere on 14-11-2006
along with some anti social elements, and tried to disturb the possession of
the plaintiffs. The plaintiff with the help of neighbours had resisted the acts
of defendant. The defendant again on 15-11-2006 came to the suit
schedule property and tried to lay the road in the plaint schedule property.
The plaintiff approached the Medchal P.S. and gave complaint against the
defendant on 15-11-2006 vide complaint No.31318 and the same is
pending against the defendant. The defendant herein without any manner
of right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property is trying to
interfere to grab the valuable nroperty of plaintiff. The defendant is a real
estate dealer and converting agricultural lands into plots. The plaintiff
herein not ready to sell the laint schedule property to the defendant.
Taking advantage of that the oforndant herein is trying to encrodui
the plaint schedule property by harassing the plaintiff. The defendant herein being a politically influenced per_on has managed concerned PS.
OSNo.S/2015 & 0.S.No. 115/2015 Page No. 7 ction against the defendant. n these
The police did not take any
circumstances, there is no other eltertate for the plaintiff except to file the
present suit for perpetual injunction
The defendant filed writen statement by denying all the plaint 7. plaintiff and his entitlement for the
allegations about the ownership Of the
suit reliefs. He submits that the suit is neither maintainable in law nor on the facts and liable to be dismisse The plaintiff has no legal entitlement to material facts and he did not suppressed all the file the suit and he approach the court with clean hands. The plaintiff filed the suit only to obtain some exparte injunction, That the defendant is the owner of Ac 2-00 gts of land having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No. 17160/20065 dated 09.12.2005 executed by its original owner Sri Kasinath through his agreement of sale cum GPA holder
M/s Mahaveer Developers, represented by its partners namely Ketan Singh
No. bearing document and Mahesh Agarwal vide registered AGPA 3369/2005. That he obtained pattadar pass book and tile deed and mutated
That they obtained layout from the their name in revenue records. Planning to construct Regional Deputy Director, Town and Country independent houses and started Civil works. The plaintiff who is a local of
Ravalkol village with his influence trying to encroach into the property by claiming Ac 1-00 gts of land. Therefore, he filed a suit which is pending.
The plaintiff is neither having the balance of convenience nor the principles of natural justice in his favour. The plaintiff is not in possession of the alleged suit schedule property. All the documents filed by the plaintiff has no relevancy to the present case. The plaintiff is sustaining irreparable loss etc., does not arise at all as the claim of the plaintiff is imaginary and on
Page No, N
O.S No 5 2015 & OS No J/52075 Therefore. the plaintirf is not entitled for any relief of
flimsy grounds plainti diy not approach the court with clean Perpetual Injunction. The reas0ns the defendant prayed for dismissal of For the above said hands the suit
plleadings the followings issues are settled for trial:
Basing upon the () Whether the plaintit # is entitled for the perpetual injunction as prayed for?
(0) To what relief ?
Heard both sides in both suits.
Issue No.1 of both suits: 10.
O Whether the plaintif is entiled for perpetual injunction restraining
the defendants, his agents, associates etc. from causing interference into
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property?
() Whether the plaintif is entitled for the perpetual injunction as
prayed for?
As per the order of this court, dtd.: 30-10-2015 both the suits
0.S.Nos.5/2015 and 115/2015 are clubbed together and evidence was lead in 0.S.No.5/2015. To avoid confusion and for convenience, the parties herein after are relerred in this iudgment as they are arrayed in
O.S.No.5/2015.
The plaintiff Ashok . Doshi is examined himself as PW-1. Exs.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A-1 1 is C.C. Of Registered Sale deed, Dt. 09-12- 2005, exA-2 is C.C. of registered sale deed Doc. No.2595/4 dt 19-2-2004 ex A-3 is C.C. of Registered sale deed. ex.A-4 0s C.C. of Record of ights
Notarized dtd 22-7-2006, eXA-5 is C.C. of Record of rights Notarized dtd 09-7-2004, ex A-6 is Layout Copy dtd. 04-10-2006, ex.A-7 is 6 photos with 7.
O.S No. 5/2015 & 0S No. l1S/2015 Page No. 9
negatives originals dt.23-11-2007. ex.A-8 Receipt from Palak Digital defendant Dundigalla Narsa Reddy
Creations exhibits. Whereas the
examined himself as DW-1 ang onte Mamindla Venkatesh who is the resident of Ravalkol village is eyamined as DW-2. Exs.B1 to B19 are marked. Ex.B1is Oiginal Registered $Sale Deed vide Doc. No.9721/2013, ex.B2 is C.C. of sale deed vide Doc. NNo..4764/1985 dtd.3-7-1985, ex.B3 is
Original Pattedar Pass Book of D vendor, eX. B4 is Original Title Deed of DW-1 Vendor, ex.B5 is Original pattedar Pass Book of DW-1, ex.B6 is
Original Title Deed of DW-1. ev A is Original mutation Proceedings
No.E/461 of 2006 dt:10-08-2006 ev B8 is Encumbrance certificate, ex.B9 0s C.C. of pahani for the year 1985-1986, ex.B10 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1987-1988, ex.B11 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2002-2003, ex.B12 is C.C of pahani for the year 2006-2007, ex. B13 is C.C of pahani for the year 2007-2008, ex.B14 is C.C of pahani for the year 2008-2009, ex.B15 is
Pahani for the year 2010-2011, ex.B16 is Pahani for the year 2011-2012, ex.B17 is Pahani for the year 2012-2013, ex.B18 is Pahani for the year 2013-2014, ex.B19 is Photos with C.D.
The plaintiff is claiming 02 acres of land, whereas, the defendant is claiming 01 acre of land out of Sy.No.113 of Ravalkol village, Medchal
Mandal with separate boundaries. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the suit schedule property of 02 acres from jts oriainal owner through registered sale deed 17160/2005, dtd.; 09-12-2005 through GPA Holder
M/s. Mahaveer Developers represented by its partners Ketan Sanghvi and
others through registered AGPA No. .3369/2005. The said M. Kashinath had purchased the suit schedule property from Saila Yadaiah through registered sale deed 2595/2004. The said Kashinath obtained pattadar 0S No. 520/5k OS No. 1 /5/2015 pass book and itle deed MRO. The plaintiff obtained sanction Page No. J0 permission layout for consCon of independent houses vide
Civil works. starec The defendant tried to L.P No.375/2006/HRO and
ne SUit schedule property on 23-11-2007 and
dispossess the plaintiff from resised by the plaintiff and filed this suit. on 24-11-2007, which was contends that he purchased 01 acre of land out The defendant of Sy. No.113 of Ravalkol village Medchal Mandal through registered sale
dtd.: 18-08-2003 from
deed No.9721/2003,
Chelimella
Komraiah,
Chelimella Mallesh and Chelliiela Ravi Kumar, since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same That he obtained
mutation proceedings No.El46112006, dtd.: 10-08-2006 and also obtained
pattadar pass book and title deea. His name was recorded in pahanies for 01 acre. That the plaintiff came to his land on 14-11-2006 and 15-11-2006 and tried to disp0ssess the defendant, therefore, he went to the police station and lodged complaint. He also filed O.S.No.729/2006 in which the plaintiff is appearing by engaging counsel.
As per the record, both the parties are claiming their respective extents of lands out of the sama survey number. Both of them have filed suits as plaintiffs, therefore. without depending upon the weaknesses in the case of others bith the parties have to prove their title to their respective extents and possession as on the date of filing of their suit.
The plaintiff is examined as PW-1, he filed chief affidavit by
reiterating his pleadings.
He filed C.C. of registered sale deed
No.17160/2005, dtd.: 09-122005, which is executed by Ms. Mahaveer
Developers through GPAs Kethan Sanghvi and Mahesh Agarwal, who
obtained registered GPA No.3369/2005, dtd.: 24-03-2005. The said M
(a
0.S.No.S/2015 & O.SNo. i1S/2015 Page No. I schedule property from Saila Yadaiah
Kashinath had purchased the uit
The M/s. Mahaveer through registered sale deed 25gs/2004 Ex.A2 Developers have obtained Agrepmefl of Sale Cum GPA No.3369/2005.
which is marked as Ex.A3. The said
dtd.: 24-03-2005 from M. Kashinath,
Kashinath obtained pattadar pass book and title deed from M.R.O. The of M.R.O., Medchal in
proceedings of mutation, dtd;
26-04-2006 E/4521/2005 are marked as Ex.A4. The proceedings of mutation, dtd.: 09- 1941/2004 in favour of Kashinath are 07-2004 of M.R.O., Medchal in marked as Ex.A5. The names of the parties in proceedings of Exs.A4 and negatives Exs.A7 and A8 receipt are A5 are not legible. The photos and marked for the plaintiff. which do not prove the case of plaintiff.
The plaintiff said to have obtained sanction permission layout for construction of independent houses vide I.P.No.375/2006/HRO and started civil works. But he did not file any document except Ex.A6 layout copy, which does not bear the certification of Asst. Director or Regional Dy.
Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. The said layout is
Proceedings as per approvals of R.D. DTCP dtd.: 04-10-2006, Lr.No.D.Dis.No. 1013/2006/HRO/H2, Dt:04-10-2006. The plan is released in favour of Sri. Ashok M. Doshi. In the cross examination PW-1 admitted that he has sold the lands converting into plots to 3rd parties, he could not give the names of by He persons who purchased the plots neighbouring to the suit schedule.
does not remember whether he sold the plots before or after filing of the
He further admitted that he verified the suit schedules of both the suit. The Plaintiff did not examine any other suits and they are different. independent witness except his self The Serving evidence as PW-1.
Page No. 12 0.S.No. S/2015 & O.S.No. l1 5/2015 him to show the present revenue records/pahanies are not filed by Exs.A1 to A3 Certified possession over the suit schedule land. Except Copies of Documents and Ex.A6 Layout, which is without any proper permission order are not stamp and authentication and without filing proving the possession of the plaintiff over his claimed land of 02 acres out
of Sy. No. 113 of Ravalkol (vilage) R.R. District.
The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and also examined an independent witness and the villager M. Venkatesh as DW-2 who deposed about the purchase of of 1 acre of land by the defendant. The defendant
Tiled his title document Ex.B1, dtd.: 14-11-2006 from Chelimella Komraiah,
Chelimella Mallesh and Chelimella Ravi Kumar. He filed the C.C. of Link
Document Ex.B2, dtd.: 03-07-1985. He filed the Original Pattadar Pass and Title Deed Book Exs.B3 and B4 of his vendor Chelimella Komraiah. In
Ex. B3 and B4 Pattadar Pass b0ok and Title Deed Documents the 01 acre of land in Sy.No.113 is recorded in favor of vendor of Defendant. The defendant also filed his Original Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed
Exs.B5 and B6 which are showing the title of Plaintiff for 01 acre of land in
Sy. No. 113 of Ravakole village. The Mutation Proceeding Ex.B7, dtd.: 10 08-2006 are in the name of defendant passed by M.R.O., Medchal in
E/461/2006 and the Encumbrance Certificate Ex.B8 is showing the title of defendant. The Pahanies Exs B9 to B12 for the years 1985-86, 1987-88 2002-03 and 2006-07, which are showing the name of the vendor of the
In Exs.B13 to B17 defendant and the name of defendant in Ex.B12.
Pahanies from 2007-13 als showing the name of defendant for 01 acre of land. The defendant has Droduced the Registered Sale deeds, title deed and pattadar pass book of himself and his vendor and also filed pahanies 0 SNo.5/2015 & 0.S.No.l1S/2015 Page No. 13 to prove his possession. The efendant also filed Ex B1, registered sale
deed ie., his title document.
witnesses to prove his DW2 are
DOssession over the suit schedule of property of Ac 1-00 gts. Thus, he He an0
proved his prima facie title and
Dossession over his 01 acre of land out of
Sy.No.113, which is the suit schedule in O.S.No.115/2015. The plaintiff
who failed to produce any independent
witness and documents showing his possession as on the date of filing of the suit and also admitted that he
sold lands by obtaining layout is S p
proved to be out of possession and failed tO prove his possession, The nlai: in O S No. 5/2015 failed to prove nis case.
Thus, the issue No.1 of 0s No s/2015 decided against the plaintiti,
by holding that the plaintiff is not. entitled for perpetual injunction. Tne ISSue No. 1 of OS. No. 115/2015 is decided in favour of the plaintitf
(Dudigalla Narsa Reddy) by holding that the plaintiff is entitled for
perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the
possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property.
11. To what relief?
In the result the suit OS. No. 5/2015 is dismissed with costs. OS No 115/2015 is decreed with COsts by granting perpetual injunction as praved for.
/Tuped to my dictation byypist,
ected and pronounced by me in the day of ¡ L December, 2016) Open Court on this the 13
D
FAC. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
liha, kR. DEL
Page No 14
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE RRDED IN O.S.No.5/15 5&115/2015
OSNo S 20)5 & OS No /25/2015
WITNESSS EXAMINED
For Defendant:
For Plaintiffs:
1. DW-1: Dundigalla Narsa Reddy 1 PW-1: Ashok M. Doshi
2. DW-2: Mamindla Venkatesh
EXHlBIIS MARKED
For Plaintiffs Ex.A-1: C.C. Registered Sale deed, Dt.09-12-2005. Ex.A-2: C.C. of sale deed Doc. No.2595|4 dt 19-2-2004. Ex.A-3: C.C. of Reaistered sale deed Ex.A-4: C.C. of Record of rights Notarized dtd 22-7-2006. Ex A-5: C.C. of Record of rights Notarized dtd 09-7-2004. Ex.A-6: Layout copy dtd. 04-10-2006. Ex.A-7: 6 photos with negatives Onginals dt.23-11-2007. Ex.A-8: Receipt from Palak Dgital Creations
For Defendant
Ex.B1: Oiginal Registered Sale Deed vide Doc. No.9721/2013
Ex.B2: C.C. of sale deed vide Doc. No.4764/1985 dtd.3-7-1985
Ex.B3: Original Pattedar Pass Book of DW-1 vendor
Ex.B4: Original Title Deed of DW-1 Vendor Ex.B5: Original Pattedar Pass Book of DW-1 Ex.B6: Original Title Deed of DW-1
Ex.B7: Original mutation Proceedings No.E/461 of 2006 dt:10-08-2006
)0
Ex.B8: Encumbrance certificate Ex.B9: C.C. of pahani for the year 1985-1986 Ex.B10: C.C. of pahani for the year 1987-1988 Ex.B11: C.C. of pahani for the year 2002-2003
Ex.B12: C.C of pahani for the year 2006-2007
Ex.B13: C.C of pahani for the vear 2007-2008 Ex.B14:C.C of pahani for the vear 2008-2009 Ex.B15: Pahanies for the year 2010-2011 Ex.B16: Pahanies for the year 2011-2012 Ex.B17: Pahanies for the year 2012-2013 Ex.B18: Pahanies for the year 2013-2014 Ex.B19: Photos with C.Ds
FAC. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Michs, Dist,