Ms. D.Uma Devi

1 APCH020028672021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

– Cum – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHITTOOR.

Present: DORA UMADEVI

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chittoor.

Friday, the Fifteenth (15th) day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 717 of 2021

Between:

P.Naresh, S/o Late P.Mani, Aged about 28 years, Hindu, R/at D.No.2-74, Bukkapatnam Village, Kalepalli Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. . . . Plaintiff

And

P.Murali, S/o Late P.Munirathnam, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Business, R/at Bukkapatnam Village, Kalepalli Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

...Defendant

This suit came up on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Chandra Mohan and Sri L.R.Jaya Prakash, Counsels for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.Siva Kumar, Counsel for defendant; that the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, relatives, agents, servants and followers from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and costs of the suit and other reliefs.

02.The brief contents of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submitted that originally the plaint schedule property in plot No.26 to an extent of Ac.0.01½ cents was acquired by his mother P.Kumari 2 APCH020028672021 under VHS patta bearing No.798/1404, dated 11-4-2005. His mother by depositing the VHS patta in Housing Board, Chittoor availed loan and had constructed RCC building in the schedule property. Subsequently, the plaintiff was allotted the plaint schedule property towards his share in a registered partition deed dated 05.06.2021 vide doc.No.1585/2021 since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant is no way connected to the schedule property, he approached to sell away the property for meager price for which he refused then the defendant bore grudge against him and he causing inconvenience to the plaintiff for enjoyment of the property. On 23-07-2021 at about 10.30 A.M., while the plaintiff is in the suit schedule house property, the defendant along with his followers highhandedly attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property by trespassing into the property with the help of neighbouring land owners, the plaintiff thwarted the attempts of the defendant. While leaving the place the defendant openly proclaimed that he will renew his attempts. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Hence the suit.

03.The brief averments of the written statement:

(a) The defendant filed written statement by denying the plaint averments and submitted that on 17.11.2014 Sri V.Lokanadha Naidu, Advocate,

Chittoor sent a legal notice on behalf of the defendant’s mother P.Kumari and her family members to the defendant in that the defendant mother admitted in para No.1 that “she borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the defendant and to repay the same on or before 10-11-2014 and it consideration of the same she has mortgaged the plaint schedule house property to the defendant under a registered simple mortgage deed dated 11-11-2013 vide doc.No.5256/2013 and in para No.2 of the said notice the defendant’s mother P.Kumari stated they are agricultural coolies due to drought conditions in their locality they have failed to repay the mortgage debt within the stipulated time. She further admitted in para

No.3 that they have simply mortgaged their house property to the defendant for 3 APCH020028672021 security of the due discharge of mortgaged debt due under the above said mortgage deed.

(b) The defendant got issued reply notice dated 26.11.2014 through his counsel Sri K.B.N.Pillai, Advocate, Chittoor to the said P.Kumari. Subsequently, the defendant’s mother P.Kumari issued a legal notice dated 6.7.2021 through her counsel Sri L.R.Jaya Prakash, Advocate regarding the schedule property in that also she clearly admitted the entire facts in favour of the defendant. The present counsel for defendant issued a reply notice dated 20-7-2021 to the

P.Kumari. As per the plaint the property is valued Rs.1,00,000/- but as per partition deed the suit property is worth of Rs.10,00,000/-. So, the court fee is paid by the plaintiff is incorrect. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and no merits in the suit and the plaintiff created false partition deed and he approached the Court by suppressing the material facts, hence he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

04. Basing on the pleadings and upon hearing both sides the following issues were settled for trial:

01: Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?

02: Whether the defendant proved the plaint schedule property is belongs to his mother P.Kumari she has executed a mortgage deed dated 11.11.2023 in favour of the defendant?

03: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property?

04: To what relief ?

05.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked. Attestor fo the Ex.B1 examined as DW.2.

06.Heard the arguments of both sides.

4 APCH020028672021

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3 :

07.Since all the issues are inter related this Court has taken up all issues together for consideration to avoid redundancy.

08.As the plaintiff got filed the present suit contending that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the patta granted by the Government to his mother and under a partition deed covered under Ex.A2, he acquired possession over the property and since from the partition he has been in lawful exclusive possession of the said property, the burden is on the plaintiff not only to prove his lawful exclusive possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the present suit, but also the unnecessary interference from the defendant to show the cause of action for the plaintiff to approach the Court with clean hands seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

09.To prove the same, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 by filing his chief examination of affidavit, which is nothing but reiteration of the plaint pleadings and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. It is the version of the plaintiff originally suit schedule property allotted to the mother of the plaintiff by name P.Kumari, under VHS patta, she constructed house by availing loan from housing board and she had been in possession of the same. Subsequently, based on the registered partition deed the plaintiff was allotted B-Schedule property which includes suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.A1 is the original house tax demand notice and receipt stands in the name of mother of the plaintiff by name

P.Kumari. Ex.A2 is the original partition deed dated 05.06.2021 and Ex.A3 is encumbrance certificate. Exs.A1 to A3 prima facie proves that the suit schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit.

10.As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant, VHS patta of his mother is not filed by the plaintiff, he filed photo copy of the patta same was not marked, because it is neither original nor certified copy. The non filing 5 APCH020028672021 of the original VHS patta if not necessarily fatal if possession and identity of the property are otherwise established through partition deed, oral evidence and consistency of survey number. The plaintiff produced partition deed corresponding with the plaint schedule property and encumbrance certificate support the respective survey number of the suit schedule property.

11.As per the contents of the written statement and arguments advanced by the defendant and cross examination of the PW1, it is the defence of the defendant that the plaintiff’s mother P.Kumari, plaintiff and his brother and sister jointly executed a mortgage deed in favour of defendant for plaint schedule property for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. The defendant relied on

Ex.B1 mortgage deed in proof of the same. The Ex.B2 encumbrance certificate clearly reflects that they have mortgaged the property to the defendant.

However, as pointed out by the counsel for plaintiff, the survey number of the suit schedule property is 51/1, but property covered under Ex.B1 in Sy.No.38/5.

No doubt, the boundaries of the suit schedule property and Ex.B1 are one and the same.

12. It is relevant to mention here that there is no clear pleadings in the written statement that the plaintiff and his mother and other family members mortgaged the property to the defendant. As per pleadings of the written statement every where the defendant has pleaded that the defendant’s mother

P.Kumari mortgaged the property in his favour. So, it appears as per written statement pleadings the defendant’s mother mortgaged the property to him. So, the Exs.B1 and B2 are no way connected to the suit schedule property, because neither the transaction between the plaintiff nor his family members, however, document relied by him is quite contra to his pleadings. It is settled law that the evidence beyond law cannot be looked into. It is further relevant to mention here that the defendant has pleaded about exchange of legal notices in his written statement and posed questions to PW1 in his cross examination.

6 APCH020028672021

However, he did not choose to file the same before the court to mark as exhibit.

During cross examination of PW1, he pleaded ignorance about the issuance of the legal notices. So, except his oral testimony there is no proof to show the exchange of legal notices between him and his mother.

13. It was elicited from PW1, the boundaries of Ex.A2 are correct. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that VHS patta of plaintiff’s mother not contained any boundaries, same was admitted by PW1, so there is no basis for mentioning boundaries either in suit schedule property or Ex.A2 partition deed. He further argued that boundaries of suit schedule property and boundaries in Ex.B1 are one and the same but the plaintiff by showing different survey number claiming suit schedule property, when there is dispute regarding identity of property the plaintiff has not taken any steps by appointing an advocate commissioner for identification of property. In support of his contention he relied on decisions reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 2026 between

Obalappa and others v. Pawan Kumar Bhihani and others, the Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh held that

There was clear ambiguity in the identification of the schedule property and the location of Site No.66, even on a mere perusal of the pleadings. It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs/ respondents, hence, to have identified the property by seeking deputation of a Commissioner who could have identified the same with the assistance of a Surveyor.

2019(3) ALD page 266 between Silver Jublee Club vs. The State of

Telangana and others, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh held that

Despite the written statement of defendants 4 to 19 disputing the location of the land wherein they clearly pleaded that the land in which the club is situated is located in Mondichinta Chelka and not in Gollavanimanyam Chelka, which is mentioned in Ex.A1, no 7 APCH020028672021 steps were taken to clarify this issue. The plaintiff-club did not take any steps to clarify the actual position on the ground. They did not get an advocate commissioner appointed to localize the land to establish the boundaries and/or to show their possession and enjoyment to the entire extent or of a lesser extent. The building plans and other records would have contained details of the appurtenant lands also if they were submitted for approval. They did not file any documents like the plans.

As per facts of the above decisions, the identity of property is in dispute thereby injunction cannot be granted, however case on hand the pleadings are supported by the documents filed by the plaintiff showing his lawful possession, though the defendant’s alleged mortgage relates to a different survey number and moreover, the defendant has not taken any steps to enforce mortgage rights by filing suit for redemption. The defendant’s plea appears more in the nature of asserting title under mortgage than proving actual possession over the suit schedule property. So, there is no ambiguity with regard to identity of property, so the decisions relied by the defendant is not helpful to him.

14. 2009 Supreme (AP) 253 between M/s. Margadarshini

Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary vs. P.Subhashan & Another.

Though the defendant relied this citation, in the above case there is no dispute regarding the identity of property, though the above suit is also for injunction in the above case the Secretary is appointed by the members is in dispute of an Educational Institution which is not relevant to the case on hand.

15.During cross examination PW1 voluntarily stated while he was attending his duties as auto driver his mother called him and asked him to sign in a document, without knowing the contents he signed in it but he does not know whether the said document is a mortgage. It was elicited from PW1 that 8 APCH020028672021 his mother very well aware about the mortgage deed. Based on the admissions of PW1, the counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff and his family members executed mortgage deed but suppressing about mortgage deed and filed this suit, mere existence of a registered mortgage deed does not automatically prove poss of the suit schedule property. A mortgagee cannot casually claim possession over another survey number without proving identity of the mortgage property. When the defendant relies on a different survey number, the burden lies heavily on him to establish that the suit property and mortgage property are identical. If the identity itself is doubtful, injunction can be granted based on settled possession of the plaintiff. Moreover, even though the plaintiff suppressed the mortgage deed the right of the defendant to sue the plaintiff cannot extinguished he can file the suit based on mortgage deed against the plaintiff and his family members.

16.For arguments sake assume that if the plaintiff and his family members mortgaged the suit schedule properties to the defendant he cannot dispossess the plaintiff forcibly unless through process of law. As per Ex.B1, it is clear that the possession of the property not delivered to the defendant. So, he cannot claim the possession based on the Ex.B1. The document filed by the defendant under Ex.B1 clearly show that the plaintiff and his family members retained the possession of the property with them. DW2 is the one of the attestors of Ex.B1, he stated that the plaintiff repaid the debt due under Ex.B1 to the defendant. The admission made by DW2 is contra to the pleadings of the defendant that plaintiff and his family members are due to him. As the suit is filed for permanent injunction as discussed above the Court has to look into whether the plaintiff is in exclusive lawful possession over the plaint schedule property on the date of filing suit. Ex.A2 is clearly show that the suit schedule property allotted to the plaintiff since then he has been in possession of the property.

9 APCH020028672021

17.The defendant relied on decisions reported in 2024 Supreme (AP)

1208 & 2024 (4) ALT 474 between N.Subramanyam Reddy and others v.

V.Chellappa Reddy, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that

In the present case on hand, admittedly, plaintiffs did not produce their vendor’s sale deed nor examined her before the trial Court to prove the flow of title over the suit schedule properties. It is true in a suit for injunction, the title of the parties cannot be decided, however, the plaintiffs not even produced the originals of Exs.A1 and A2 and not explained any reason for non-production of the same before the trial Court. Thereby, except certified copies of Exs.A1 and A2, no piece of paper produced by the plaintiffs to prove their possession and enjoyment over the schedule properties. As such, it is settled law that, when there is a cloud on the title, or where the defendant claim title thereto and there is also threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction.

18.Admittedly the plaintiff has not filed the VHS patta of his mother.

The non filing of the original VHS patta if not necessarily fatal if possession and identity of the property are otherwise established through partition deed. The oral and documentary evidence of DW1 related to different survey number of property. The plea of partition being created to defeat mortgage rights is unsupported by convincing evidence. Since, the defendant is not shown to be in possession and interference is proved and probabilizsed the plaintiff is entitled to injunction. The defendant failed to establish that the suit schedule property is the same property covered under the alleged mortgage deed. In the above decision relied by the defendant, there is serious contest regarding title of the parties and the plaintiff failed to file any document to show his possession, however facts on hand there is no dispute regarding title and defendant admitted the property belongs to plaintiff’s mother and they mortgaged the same to him, but his contention is showing wrong survey number defeating his 10 APCH020028672021 right, but same was not proved. So, the decisions are not helpful to him to prove his contention.

19.In view of above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff succeeded in establishing possession over the plaint schedule property through partition deed and supporting evidence hence he is entitled to injunction as prayed. Accordingly, issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.4:

20.In view of the findings in Issue No.1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant, his men, agents and subordinates from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Dora Umadevi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: P.Naresh DW1: P.Murali DW2: T.Muneendran

NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original kist receipts stands in the name of mother of PW1, 11 APCH020028672021

Ex.A2: Original partition deed stands in the name of PW1, dated 05.06.2021,

Ex.A3: Encumbrance Certificate over the suit schedule property.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of mortgage deed dated 11-11-2013,

Ex.A2: Certified copy of encumbrance certificate dated 12-05-2025.

SD/- DUD

PCJ (Jr.Dvsn), CTR. // True copy //

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PAKALA

Present:: Ms.D.UMA DEVI,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Pakala.

Friday, this the 11 th day of August, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 100/2022

Between:

1.E.Munaswamy Naidu, S/o. Late E.Guravaiah Naidu, aged about 75 years, cultivation, r/at D.No.5-10, Sadhubadivaripalle Village,Yelankivaripalle Gramam, Kamavaram Kothapeta post, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. G.Sarasamma, W/o late G.Krishnaiah Naidu, aged about 68 years, house wife, r/at D.No.5-4, Digumoorthygaripalli Village, Yelankivaripall Gramam, Kamavaram Kothapeta post, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. G.Chengalraya Naidu, S/o late G.Munaswamy Naidu, aged 73 years, cultivation, r/at D.No.5-6, Digumoorthygaripalli Village, Yelankivaripall Gramam, Kamavaram Kothapeta post, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. E.Pedda Reddeppa Naidu, S/o late E.Chinnaswami Naidu, aged about 65 years, cultivation, r/at D.No.1-33, Digumoorthygaripalli Village, Yelankivaripall Gramam, Kamavaram Kothapeta post, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. G.Murali Krishna, S/o late G.Ranganayakulu Naidu, cultivation, r/at D.No.6-15, Kothapeta post, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

6. D.Radhakrishnaiah Naidu, S/o D.Chinnabba Ane Muneppa, cultivation, r/at D.No.5- 34, Digumoorthygaripalli Village, Yelankivaripall Gramam, Kamavaram Kothapeta post, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

. . . Plaintiffs And:

1. The State Rep. By its District Collector, Chittoor.

2. The Thahsildar, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District,

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor District,

4. The Mandal Surveyor, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District,

5. The Village Surveyor, Yellankivaripalli Grama panchayath, Sadhuvadivaripalle Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District,

6. The Village Revenue Officer, Yellankivaripalli Grama panchayath, Sadhubadivaripalle Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District, …Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

M.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri C.Nagaraja, Advocate for the defendants (later defendants failed to file written statement) and remained exparte and that the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. This is the suit filed by the Plaintiffs for declaration of right and title in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property consequential relief of grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs of the suit.

02. The brief facts of the plaint are that:

(a) The plaintiffs submit that the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.2.00 in

S.No.130/1 out of total extent of Ac.3.38 cents. The total extent is consisting of village called Ayyavaripalle village @ Sadhuvadivaripalle in an extent of 1.38 cents and 2.00 is the patta land. The suit schedule property was forms part of erstwhile Pulicherla Estate which was notified and taken over under Estate Abolition Act. Prior to taking over of the

Estate, the suit schedule property is in Primashy number.

(b) The 1 st plaintiff grandfather got three sons namely Enugu Seenaiah, Guravaiah, (father of the 1 st plaintiff), E.Chinnaswamy Naidu the father of (4 th plaintiff) and the brothers lived jointly. The plaintiffs further submit that the suit schedule property is

Ac.2.00 is consisting of 18 pattadars as per records. They were enjoying the property by tethering cattle, storing cow dung heap and also raising cattle grass and cattle sheds etc. as the suit schedule property is adjoining the village with convenient joint enjoyment in respect of their shares.

(c) The plaintiffs further submit that Enugu Seenaiah purchased the share of

D.Munaswamy is the 1 st claimant/pattadar in fair adangal) under Regd. Sale deed dt.4.8.1948 in the undivided extent. E.Seenaiah also purchased the undivided shares of

Guravaiah and S.Venkatappa S/o Erraiah Under Regd.Sale Deed dt.26.9.1942. Enugu

Seenaiah also purchased the share of D.Munaswamy (17 th claimant/pattadar as per the fair adangal) under Regd.Sale Deed 16.7.1945. The 1 st plaintiff father Guravaiah also purchased the share of S.Guravaiah (18 th claimant) under Regd.Sale deed 27.12.1954.

Thus, the family of the 1 st plaintiff were entitled six shares in total. Late Enugu

Chinnaswamy divided orally from the family and he is enjoying his share separately represented his son 4 th plaintiff.

(d) The plaintiffs further submit that after Abolition of the Estate all the ryots concerned to the suit schedule property in Sy.No.130/1 and other property in Sy.No.130/2 to an extent of 0.48 cents made an application for grant of Rythuwari Patta in

S.R.No.33/151/1965. The then settlement officer granted patta on 30.8.1965. The then

Settlement officer granted patta on 30.8.1965 in favour of the claimants therein to the plaint schedule property and other property. The husband of 2 nd plaintiff, namely

Krishnama Naidu appeared on behalf of the other claimants and given evidence as Pw1

before settlement officer.

(e) The plaintiffs further submit that after verifying all records including physical inspection and reports of the revenue authorities the then settlement officer has granted patta infavour of claimants therein. The claimants shown in the order or the pattadars names mentioned in fair adangal are herein after mentioned as claimants/pattadars by number. The plaintiffs further submit that the name of pattadars also mutated in the basic revenue records i.e. fair adangal and 1B etc.

(f) The plaintiffs further submit that suit schedule property is private patta land of

Yellankivaripalle village. The defendants have no right, title or possession to the plaint schedule property. The patta is granted to an extent of Ac.2.00 only to the claimants.

The total extent of Sy.No.130/1 is Ac.3.38 cents the rest of extent of 1.38 cents the suit village i.e. Ayyavaripalle @ Sadubadivaripalle village is existing.

(g) The plaintiffs further submit that the settlement officer order was also implemented in the revenue record including fair adangal. As the total S.No.130/1 is consisting of Ac.3.38 cents during implementation an extent of 1.38 cents was allocated to village classified as Grama Kantam, an extent of 2.00 in S.No.130/1 was classified as patta land. The names of the pattadars existing as on the date of implementation of the order were mentioned in fair adangal. Hence, the plaintiffs are referring the names of the claimants with reference to the names of pattadars mentioned in the fair Adangal.

The orders are implemented as per the instructions of the then Collector, Chittoor

District, In No.B322336/78, dt.6.1.1979. The plaintiffs further submit that after implementation of the order the Thahsildar of Chandragiri also issued a notice 13.1.1979 in Roc.E1.1977/78 for the verification of the pattadars for recognition and request for production of the document.

(h) The plaintiffs further submit that the ancestors of the plaintiffs appeared

before the Tahsildar and produced their records. Hence, the suit schedule property is an

extent of Ac.2.00 in S.No.130/1 is continued to be treated as patta land. Thus, the suit schedule property is private patta land of Yellankivaripalle village. The plaintiffs further submit that during the enquiry before the settlement officer the 2 nd plaintiff husband appeared Krishnaiah Naidu has deposed as Pw.1. Hence, with the consent and acceptance of all the pattadars the revenue records are mutated in the name of husband of Sarasamma i.e. late Krishnaiah Naidu. The plaintiffs further submit that thus there are several sale deeds also existing among the share of extents. There is no dispute among the share holders ultimately the present suit is filing even for on behalf of the other claimants also to protect the entire extent of property. As the total extent of

Ac.2.00 in S.No.130/1 does not divided by metes and bounds and they have enjoying the property jointly.

(i) The plaintiffs further submit that since there are several claimants consisting of 18 share holders and the properties amiably enjoyed by 18 persons and some of them have left the property to the other share holders orally and with amicable enjoyment.

The present dispute is not between the share holders but against the Government the present defendants. The plaintiffs are not claiming any counter interest against other share holders they are not represented in this suit. Among 18 pattadars the plaintiffs vendor names also mentioned in the fair adangal for record purpose. The plaintiffs are entitled for five shares. The plaintiffs further submitted that since, the share holders are huge in numbers, the entire land of Ac.2.00 is mutated in the name of 2 nd plaintiff with the consent of other share holders by the Government and her name is also mutated in the revenue records including 1B for and on behalf of other claimants family members also. The plaintiffs further submit that the enjoyment of the share holders pertinent to the plaint schedule property is not in dispute and not at all concern to the defendants as the suit schedule property is private patta land.

(j) The plaintiffs further submit that while that being so, recently there arose misunderstandings in the village and village became two groups. The political leaders who are supporting the enemical group of plaintiffs have started influencing the defendants to grab the plaint schedule property illegally without any due process or adhering to provisions of law or at least by applying Act. 30 of 2013 RFCTLARR.

(k) The plaintiffs further submit that while that being so, on 30.1.2021 the village surveyor i.e. 5 th defendant has sent a notice to the 1 st plaintiff and three others on the pretext of fixing boundaries to the S.No.130/1 at the instance of enemies of the plaintiffs who are not concerned to the suit schedule property.

(l) The plaintiffs further submit that there is no dispute with regard to identity of suit schedule property or identification of suit schedule property and there is no dispute about the ownership or legal heir ship to the suit schedule property. When the plaintiffs questioned the defendants subordinates the defendants 3 to 6 they falsely claimed that the suit schedule property is required to the government and they will dispossesses the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and they will allot the plaint schedule property as house plots by a lay out. The defendants also threatened that they will prepare a lay out sketch by due survey and demarcation of streets etc. in the suit schedule property and allot it to third parties, illegally.

(m) The plaintiffs further submit that the defendants have no right to interfere with the plaint schedule property. Hence by raising hue and cry the plaintiffs are able to resisted the illegal attempts of the defendants and also issued a legal notice through their

Advocate dt.27.1.2022 requesting the defendants not to interfere with their possession and the suit schedule property is private patta land and the government have no right to interfere with their possession. The defendants having received the notice neither replied nor stopped from interfering with possession of plaint schedule property of the plaintiffs.

(n) The plaintiffs further submit that while that being so again on 6.4.2022 at 10.00 am again the came in a body with large departmental support and tried to disposes the plaintiffs from plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is consisting of cow dung heap and household agriculture implements and fodder grass and other green manure trees etc. including some mango plants. The defendants attempted to damage the tress and crops and also push away the cow dung heap illegally the plaintiffs with the help of other villagers and other elders was able to retain their possession including the physical features of suit schedule property. The defendants left the place proclaiming that they will renew their attempts and will occupy the plaint schedule property by enemies without legal force see that the plaintiffs be dispossessed from the plaint schedule property at any cost. The defendants have no right to do so.

(o) The plaintiffs further submit that the defendants are high handed and powerful persons having large departmental support. The plaintiffs are poor ryots and they have no other property except the plaint schedule property for suing the household purpose and other agriculture allied purpose much less the plaint schedule property is private patta land. If the defendants again renew their attempts it will be very difficult very difficult for the plaintiffs to protect their property in the clutches of the defendants due to dire consequences and threatening. Hence, the suit.

6. On receipt of summons, the defendants were called absent and no representation on their behalf, hence this court made them set exparte and the matter is posted for plaintiff side evidence. Though the defendants remained exparte as per Section 101 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872 the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to prove their case.

7. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiffs themselves examined as P.W1 and

Pw2 and got marked Ex. A-1 and Ex.A-9. Ex.A1 is the Original Orders passed by the settlement officer in S.R.NO.33/151/1965, dt.30.8.1965, Ex.A2 is the Survey notice sent by the Thahsildar, dt.6.1.1979, Ex.A3 is the Registration copy of sale deed dt.26.9.1942 executed by Guravaiah and Venkatappa in favour of E.Seenaiah, Ex.A4 is the Registration Copy of Sale deed dt.16.7.1945 executed by D.Munaswamy Naidu in favour E.Seenaiah, Ex.A5 is the Registration copy of sale deed dt.4.8.1948 executed by D.Munaswamy Naidu S/o Nallanna in favour of E.Seenaiah, Ex.A6 is the

Registration copy of sale deed dt.27.12.1954 executed by Sandra Guravaiah and

Sandra Munaswamy (minor guardian) in favour of E.Guravaiah, Ex.A7 is the Office copy of legal notice dt.27.1.2022 issued by the plaintiff, Ex.A8 is the office copy of legal notice dt.29.1.2022 issued by the plaintiffs to panchayath surveyor and Ex.A9 is the 1B stands in the name of 2 nd plaintiff’s husband.

8. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

9. Now the Point that arises for consideration in this case is:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right and title and consequential relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

POINT:

10. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 combined reading with

Ex.A1 and Ex.A9, it is the evidence of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was forms part of erstwhile Pulicherla Estate which was notified and taken over under

Estate Abolition Act. Prior to taking over of the Estate, the suit schedule property is in

Primashy number. 1 st plaintiff grandfather got three sons namely Enugu Seenaiah,

Guravaiah, (father of the 1 st plaintiff), E.Chinnaswamy Naidu the father of (4 th plaintiff) and the brothers lived jointly. Enugu Seethayya purchased lands under Ex.A3 to A6.

After Abolition of the Estate all the ryots concerned to the suit schedule property in

Sy.No.130/1 and other property in Sy.No.130/2 to an extent of 0.48 cents made an application for grant of Rythuwari Patta in S.R.No.33/151/1965. The then settlement officer granted patta on 30.8.1965 suit schedule as patta land.

11. It is evident from the Ex.A1 and A2 that the Tahsildar declared suit schedule as patta land. The total claimants 18 and the 1 st plaintiff entitled 5 shares, the entire land of Ac.2.00 is mutated in the name of 2 nd plaintiff with the consent of other share holders by the Government and her name is also mutated in the revenue records including 1B for and on behalf of other claimants family members also. Due to political rivalry the opponent group influenced the defendants , thereby the defendants tried to grab the property of the plaintiffs. Ex.A7 and A8 proves that letter correspondence between the plaintiffs and defendants. Ex.A9 show the 2 nd plaintiff name was mutated in revenue records. The plaintiffs have proved that the plaint schedule property have been in their possession and enjoyment.

12. The defendants did not choose to file written statement and not appeared before the court, they are remained exparte and even did not tested the evidence of PW1 and PW2 by way of cross examination, as such the evidence of plaintiff witness is unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction of equitable relief as prayed for.

13 . In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs by declaration of their right and title and also consequential relief of granting permanent injunction in their favour and against the defendants restraining the defendants and their men, servants, agents and villagers, from ever interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs right over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 11 th day of August, 2023.

Sd/-D.Uma Devi/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. FAC/Junior Civil Judge,Pakala.

Appendix of evidence

Plaintiff : Defendants :

PW1: E.Munaswamy Naidu, exparte PW2: V.J.Parthasaradhi,

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is Original Orders passed by the settlement officer in S.R.NO.33/151/1965, dt.30.8.1965,

Ex.A2 is the Survey notice sent by the Thahsildar, dt.6.1.1979,

Ex.A3 is the Registration copy of sale deed dt.26.9.1942 executed by Guravaiah and

Venkatappa in favour of E.Seenaiah,

Ex.A4 is the Registration Copy of Sale deed dt.16.7.1945 executed by D.Munaswamy

Naidu in favour E.Seenaiah,

Ex.A5 is the Registration copy of sale deed dt.4.8.1948 executed by D.Munaswamy

Naidu S/o Nallanna in favour of E.Seenaiah,

Ex.A6 is the Registration copy of sale deed dt.27.12.1954 executed by Sandra

Guravaiah and Sandra Munaswamy (minor guardian) in favour of E.Guravaiah,

Ex.A7 is the Office copy of legal notice dt.27.1.2022 issued by the plaintiff, Ex.A8 is the office copy of legal notice dt.29.1.2022 issued by the plaintiffs to panchayath surveyor,

Ex.A9 is the 1B stands in the name of 2 nd plaintiff’s husband.

Defendants:

Nil Sd/-D.Uma Devi/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,Chittoor FAC/Junior Civil Judge,Pakala.

O.S.No.73/2020 1 PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

PUNGANUR

Present:- Miss D.UMA DEVI,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

Friday, this the 09 th day of August, 2024.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.73 of 2020

Between:

ACTS Mahila Mutually Aided Co-operative thrift Society Limited, by its present Branch Manager. AC.Dilli Babu, S/o A.C.Chandrasekhar, aged about 39 years, Hindu and R/at Punganur Town.

... Plaintiff.

And

G.Mohan, S/o G.Chinnakardirappa, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at D.No.3-6, Balijapalle village, Raganipalle Group, Bheemaganipalle Post, Punganur Town. … Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 02.08.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

M.Ravindranath Advocate for the defendant, laterthe defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff society to pass preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff society and against defendant for an amount of

Rs.2,38,439/- (Rupees two lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred and

thirty nine only) along with subsequent interest basing on demand promissory note dt.09.02.2017, the registered simple mortgage deed dt.08.12.2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff and to direct the sale of the suit schedule mortgaged property to enable the plaintiff to realize the amount due and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, to grant final decree against defendant and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of plaint are as follows:- The defendant who is a member of the society approached the society on 08.02.2017 for financial

O.S.No.73/2020 2 PCJ(JD), Punganur

assistance by way of loan to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering his request, plaintiff society agreed to advance a loan subject to certain terms and conditions and execution of documents in its favour including offering immovable property as security by way of simple mortgage. On 08.02.2017 the defendant executed a simple mortgage in favour of plaintiff society, mortgaging the schedule property as security for due repayment of the debt availed by him vide Doc.No.481/2017 of SRO, Punganur for Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest thereon at 21% p.a. (Rs.1.75paise for Rs.100/- p.m.) all repayable within 60 months. The defendant also executed a demand promissory note on 09.02.2017 in favour of plaintiff society agreeing to repay the same, the mortgage deed and the promissory note executed by the defendant. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff society to the defendant to discharge the debt but the defendant failed to discharge the debt. The plaintiff society also issued demand notice dt.02.12.2019 to the defendant to discharge the debt. The defendant received the notice on 06.12.2019 but he did not comply the same. The signatory of the plaint namely A.C.Dill Babu being a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff society dt. 27.12.2019. Hence, this suit is filed by the plaintiff society for recovery of amount due by the defendant as per the statement of account.

3. After receipt of summons the defendant appeared through his counsel and later did not turn up to file written statement and remained exparte.

4. The plaintiff society represented by its present Society Manager/POA agent by name G.Manjunath was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff society. Perused the record.

6. Now the points that arise for determination are:

Whether the plaintiff society is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

7. POINT:-

Even though the defendants are set ex parte, it is for the plaintiff society to prove its case to avail judgment in favour of plaintiff society. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff society, the plaintiff’s Society PAO gent/ present society Manager was examined as PW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief, wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as

O.S.No.73/2020 3 PCJ(JD), Punganur

such examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is replica of plaint. To prove the ocular evidence of PW.1 that the defendant obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- executed registered simple mortgage deed dated 08.02.2017 and Demand Promissory

Note dt.09.02.2017 in favour of plaintiff’s society, the plaintiff society exhibited

Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is registered simple mortgage deed dated 08.02.2017 executed by the defendant in favour plaintiff society. Ex.A2 is demand promissory note dated 09.02.2017 executed by the defendant in favour plaintiff society. Ex.A3 is demand notice dt.02.12.2019 issued to the defendant. Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment dated 06.12.2019. Ex.A5 is true copy of statement of account of defendant. Ex.A6 is notary attested GPA and

Ex.A7 is true copy of identity card. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A7 it seems that on 08.02.2017 the defendant obtained loan for Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff society and executed agreement for open cash credit and demand promissory note dt.09.02.2017 in favour of plaintiff’s society and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 21% p.a. The plaintiff society also issued demand notice dt.02.12.2019 to the defendant to discharge the debt. The defendant received the notice on 06.12.2019 but he did not comply the same and later he executed acknowledgment of debt and later inspite of receiving of demand notice the defendant not pay any amount. On perusal of ocular evidence of

PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, the evidence of PW.1 to that effect has been unchallenged. As seen from evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff society has successfully proved its case as such the plaintiff society is entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff society.

8. In the result, this suit is decreed preliminarily with costs and the defendant is directed to pay Rs.2,38,439/- (Rupees two lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred and thirty nine only) along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the outstanding due amount of Rs.2,38,439/- (Rupees two lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred and thirty nine only)as per statement of account. The time for redemption is six months. If the defendant fails to pay the said amount within six months, the plaintiff’s society is entitled to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged property through process of law for realization of the said amount and if the said sale proceeds are not

O.S.No.73/2020 4 PCJ(JD), Punganur

sufficient, the plaintiff society is at liberty to proceed against the defendant personally.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of August, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendant

PW.1 G.Manjunath -None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is registered simple mortgage deed dated 08.02.2017 executed by the defendant in favour plaintiff society.

Ex.A2 is demand promissory note dated 09.02.2017 executed by the defendant in favour plaintiff society

Ex.A3 is demand notice dt.02.12.2019 issued to the defendant.

Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment dated 06.12.2019.

Ex.A5 is true copy of statement of account of defendant.

Ex.A6 is notary attested GPA

Ex.A7 is true copy of identity card.

Exhibits marked for Defendant: Nil

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

Draft / Fair Judgment in

O.S.No.73/2020

Dt.09.08.2024.

O.S.No.73/2020 5 PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

PUNGANUR

Present:- Miss D.UMA DEVI,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

Friday, this the 09 th day of August, 2024.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.73 of 2020

Between:

ACTS Mahila Mutually Aided Co-operative thrift Society Limited, by its present Branch Manager. AC.Dilli Babu, S/o A.C.Chandrasekhar, aged about 39 years, Hindu and R/at Punganur Town.

... Plaintiff.

And

G.Mohan, S/o G.Chinnakardirappa, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at D.No.3-6, Balijapalle village, Raganipalle Group, Bheemaganipalle Post, Punganur Town. … Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff society to pass preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff society and against defendant for an amount of

Rs.2,38,439/- (Rupees two lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred and

thirty nine only) along with subsequent interest basing on demand promissory note dt.09.02.2017, the registered simple mortgage deed dt.08.12.2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff and to direct the sale of the suit schedule mortgaged property to enable the plaintiff to realize the amount due and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, to grant final decree against defendant and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 07.02.2020 L.R.P: --

Plaint Filed on : 13.02.2020

The Cause of action for the suit arose on 08.12.2017 when the loan was sanctioned and when the defendant executed the suit documents like demand promissory note dt.09.02.2017 simple mortgage deed dt. 08.12.2017 in favour of plaintiff society, on several occasions when the plaintiff society demanded the defendant to discharge the debt on 02.12.2019 when a

O.S.No.73/2020 6 PCJ(JD), Punganur

demand notice was issued to the defendant and afterwards till today at

Punganur within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Particulars of valuation

Balance due amount by the defendant to the plaintiff as per statement of account as on 06.02.2020 Rs.2,38,439/-

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction Rs.2,38,439/- and C.F. of Rs.4,926/- is paid U/Sec.31 of APCF and S.V. Act,1956

This suit has come before me on 02.08.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

M.Ravindranath Advocate for the defendant, laterthe defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and preliminary decree as follows:-

1) It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff bank on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this 06.02.2020 is the sum of Rs. 2,38,439/- + costs of 4,928/- totaling Rs.2,43,367/-.

2) And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

(i) That the defendants are directed to pay Rs.2,38,439/- (Rupees two lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred and thirty nine only) along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the outstanding due amount of Rs.2,38,439/- (Rupees two lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred and thirty nine only)as per statement of account.

ii) That the defendant fails to pay the said amount within six months, the plaintiff’s society is entitled to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged property through process of law for realization of the said amount and if the said sale proceeds are not sufficient, the plaintiff society is at liberty to proceed against the defendant personally.

3) That on such payment and on payment, thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of

O.S.No.73/2020 7 PCJ(JD), Punganur

such costs, charges i.e.,Rs.2,38,439/- + costs of 4,928/- totaling

Rs.2,43,367/- and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order 34 of the First

Schedule into court all documents in his possession of power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant, or to such recovery of re-transfer the said property from the said recovery of re-transfer the said property from the said mortgage and clear of and from all in cumbrance created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claimed and shall if so required, deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceful possession of the said property.

4) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the court for final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and as such application being made, the mortgaged of sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold, and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court of officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

5) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in the suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order 34 of the first schedule to the code of Civil Procedure,1908, and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

6) And it is hereby further orders and decreed that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force to apply for a final decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance, and the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from

O.S.No.73/2020 8 PCJ(JD), Punganur

time to time as they may have occasion and on such application of otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 9th day of August, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

Statements of costs

Plaintiff Defendants

1. Stamp for plaint 4,926/-

2. Service of process - Ex-parte

3. Advocate fee -

4. Stamp for Vakalath 2/-

5. Typing charges - Total 4,928/-

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District Punganur Sub District, Chittoor Z.P. Punganur Mandal and

Mandal Parishad, Raganipalle Grama Panchayat,Raganipalle Revenue village Balijapalle Cheruvu Aasara, 1st ward Raganipalle.

1. Sy.No.249/6F – Dry– Extent Ac.0-07 cents or 338.8 Sq.yds

2. Sy.No.249/10C – Dry– Extent Ac.0-06 cents or 290.4 Sq.yds

3. Sy.No.249/6 – Dry– Extent Ac.0-07 cents or 338.8 Sq.yds

4. Sy.No.249/10G – Dry– Extent Ac.0-06 cents or 290.4 Sq.yds

Bounded by:

East - Land of D.Gangi Reddy

West - Rajakalva and Land of Kamalamma

North - Rajakalva and Land of D.Mohan

South - Land of Chakala Ramana

Total extent is 1258.4 Sq. Yds.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

Note: “The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years from this date.”

O.S.No.333/2023 1 PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

PUNGANUR.

Present:- Miss D.Uma Devi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur.

Friday, this the 23 rd day of August, 2024

O.S.No.333 of 2023

Between:

1.M.Suchithra, W/o L.Sarath Babu, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Gudurupalle village, Marrimakulapalle Post, Punganur Mandal, Annamaiah District. 2.G.Anuradha, W/o G.Reddi Prasad, aged about 37 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Door No.30-120/2, Chengalapuram Road, Punganur Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. 3.S.Rukmini, W/o S.Balaiah, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at D.No.6-64/1, S.M.Palle Village, Sodum Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Plaintiffs.

And

Neelagiri Munirathnam, S/o N.Subramanyam, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Vivekananda Nagar, Chinthala street, Punganur Town and Mandal, Annamayaiah District.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming on 16.08.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Anji Babu, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri B.S.Harsha Vardhan, Advocate for defendant later defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

(a) The plaint schedule property originally belongs to one A.Muthyala

Reddy who got succeeded from his ancestors. After demise of Muthayala

Reddy his only son by name A.Agisthi Reddy succeeded to the suit schedule

O.S.No.333/2023 2 PCJ(JD), Punganur

property by way of succession. The name of A.Agisthi Reddy is mutated in all the revenue records and he also obtained pattadar passbook, title deed, 1-B

Namoona (ROR) and Pattadaruni Adangal/pahani from the revenue authorities in his name. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 jointly got purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dt.19.12.2011 from the above said Agisthi Reddy for valid consideration and he delivered possession of the same day. The plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities by submitting an agreement of consent for mutation in accordance with their respective extents such as the 1st plaintiff was allotted an extent of Ac.0-19 ½ cents, 2nd plaintiff was allotted an extent of Ac.0-19 cents and 3rd plaintiff was allotted an extent of Ac.0-19½ cents. The Thasildar, Punganur mutated the plaintiffs got obtained e- title deed cum pattadar passbooks and also obtained 1- B

Namoona (ROR) and Pattadaruni Adangal/pahani in their favour separately.

Since then the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(b) The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant having lands nearby the suit land and asked the plaintiffs to sell away the suit property for lesser price for which the plaintiffs never agreed for the same, on which the defendant developed aversion against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are helpless poor women, taking advantage of the same, the defendant is creating troubles to the plaintiffs in their enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant without having any manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. About one week the defendant entering into the suit schedule property with an intention to occupy the suit schedule property and he will dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property highhandedly. The defendant is tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are filed the suit for permanent injunction.

3. On receipt of summons though defendant engaged counsel, written statement not filed statutory period is over. Defendant is called absent, no representation and hence the defendant is set exparte and matter is posted for evidence of the plaintiffs.

4. During the course of trial, the first plaintiff himself examined as PW1,

Exhibit A1 to A13 are marked and as reported no further evidence, the evidence of the plaintiffs is closed.

O.S.No.333/2023 3 PCJ(JD), Punganur

5. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant. Heard the plaintiffs.

6. Now the point arose for consideration is “whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as prayed for?

7. POINT:-.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that since decades ago the vendor of the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 jointly got purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dt.19.12.2011 from their vendor i.e., Agisthi Reddy for valid consideration and he delivered possession of the same day. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 got orally share the property and obtained all the revenue records for their respective shares,

Since then the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, when the defendant asked the plaintiffs to sell the suit property for lesser price for which they refused. The defendant is tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and trying to occupy the same by highhandedly.

8. As this is a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and their possession is lawful one and the defendant is interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same.

9. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is examined as

PW1 and she filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and the contents of her chief evidence affidavit is nothing but the reiteration of the entire contents of the plaint. Exhibits A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is clearly proves from the Ex.A1 the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dt.19.12.2011. Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 e- title deed cum pattadar passbook, 1-B Namoona and Pattdaruni adangal/pahani stands in the name of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 pattadar passbook and 1- B Namoona stands in the name of 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A7 is

Pattdaruni adangal/pahani stands in the name of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs obtained through village ward secretariat dated 15.04.2023 and 18.04.2023 (2 in number). Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 pattadar passbook and 1- B Namoona stands in the name of 3rd plaintiff. Ex.A10 to Ex.A11 are old 1- B Namoona, bhoomi

O.S.No.333/2023 4 PCJ(JD), Punganur

Hakkula register namoona stands in the name of plaintiffs 1 to 3. Ex.A12 is

No.3 adangal/pahani stands in the name of father of vendor of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 obtained under RTI Act and Ex.A13 is 1- B Namoona stands in the name of 1st plaintiff obtained under RTI Act. Since then the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

10. As there is no contrary evidence and as the defendant is remained exparte to the suit, the contents of Exhibits A1 to A13 are consistent with the evidence of the PW1 are remained unchallenged. Hence, this court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property against the defendant, as prayed for.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of August, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiffs Defendant

PW.1 M.Suchithra -None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is registered sale deed dt.19.12.2011.

Ex.A2 Is e- title deed cum pattadar passbook stands in the name of 1st plaintiff obtained through village ward secretariat dated 18.04.2023.

Ex.A3 is 1-B Namoona stands in the name of 1st plaintiff obtained through village ward secretariat dated 18.04.2023.

Ex.A4 is Pattdaruni adangal/pahani stands in the name of 1st plaintiff obtained through village ward secretariat dated 15.4.2023.

Ex.A5 is pattadar passbook stands in the name of 2nd plaintiff.

O.S.No.333/2023 5 PCJ(JD), Punganur

Ex.A6 is 1- B Namoona stands in the name of 2nd plaintiff obtained through village ward secretariat dated 18.4.2023.

Ex.A7 is Pattdaruni adangal/pahani stands in the name of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs obtained through village ward secretariat dated 15.04.2023 and 18.04.2023 ( 2 in number).

Ex.A8 is pattadar passbook stands in the name of 3rd plaintiff.

Ex.A9 is 1- B Namoona stands in the name of 3rd plaintiff obtained through village ward secretariat dated 15.04.2023.

Ex.A10 is old 1- B Namoona stands in the name of plaintiffs 1 to 3 dated 18.05.2023

Ex.A11 is bhoomi Hakkula register namoona stands in the name of plaintiffs 1 to 3 obtained under RTI Act dated 18.05.2023

Ex.A12 is No.3 adangal/pahani stands in the name of father of vendor of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 obtained under RTI Act dated 18.05.2023

Ex.A13 is 1- B Namoona stands in the name of 1st plaintiff obtained under RTI

Act dated 18.05.2023.

Exhibits marked for Defendant: Nil

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

O.S.No.333/2023 6 PCJ(JD), Punganur

Draft / Fair Judgment in

O.S.No.333/2023

Dt.23.08.2024.

O.S.No.333/2023 7 PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

PUNGANUR.

Present:- Miss D.Uma Devi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur.

Friday, this the 23 rd day of August, 2024

O.S.No.333 of 2023

Between:

1.M.Suchithra, W/o L.Sarath Babu, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Gudurupalle village, Marrimakulapalle Post, Punganur Mandal, Annamaiah District. 2.G.Anuradha, W/o G.Reddi Prasad, aged about 37 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Door No.30-120/2, Chengalapuram Road, Punganur Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. 3.S.Rukmini, W/o S.Balaiah, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at D.No.6-64/1, S.M.Palle Village, Sodum Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Plaintiffs.

And

Neelagiri Munirathnam, S/o N.Subramanyam, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Vivekananda Nagar, Chinthala street, Punganur Town and Mandal, Annamayaiah District. … Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 14.07.2023 L.R.P: --

Plaint filed on : 14.07.2023

Cause of action for the suit arose since decades ago the vendor of the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule property, on 19.12.2011 when the plaintiffs got purchased the suit property from their vendor under registered sale deed for valid consideration, thereupon when the plaintiffs 1 to 3 got orally shared the property and obtained all the revenue records for their respective shares, when the defendant asked the plaintiffs to sell away the suit property for lesser price for which they refused, one week back when the

O.S.No.333/2023 8 PCJ(JD), Punganur

defendant tried to encroach into the suit property and all that arose at

Punganur Revenue village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION

a) Market value of the suit schedule property is : 2,90,000-00

b) Notional value for the purpose of permanent injunction is : 29,000-00

The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction is

Rs.29,000/- and court fees of Rs.1,946/- is paid under section 26(c) A.P.C.F.

Act, 1956.

This suit is coming on 16.08.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Anji Babu, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri B.S.Harsha

Vardhan, Advocate for defendant later defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows: -

1. That the defendant, his men and agents be and are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property; and

2. That the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.1,748/- to the plaintiffs towards the suit costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 23rd day of August , 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

Statements of costs

Plaintiffs Defendant

1. Stamp for plaint 1,746/-

2. Service of process - Ex-parte

3. Advocate fee -

4. Stamp for Vakalath 2/-

5. Typing charges - Total 1,748/-

O.S.No.333/2023 9 PCJ(JD), Punganur

S C H E D U L E

Chittoor District – Punganur Sub District – Punganur Mandal, Punganur

Revenue village.

Sy.No.340/1 wet Ac.2.18 cents paiki Ac.0-58 cents

Bounded by

East - The land of V.Mani and others

West - Road

South - Nalla Gutta

North - Punganur Cheruvu Voddu

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Punganur

Note: “The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years from this date.”

1 APCH020005922024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHITTOOR.

Present: Dora Umadevi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chittoor.

Friday, the Eighth (08th) day of May, 2026.

E.P.No. 44 of 2024

O.S.No. 1300 of 2022

Between:

V.Chandran …. Decree Holder And:

B.Chennakesavulu ….Judgment Debtor

This petition is coming on 07-05-2026 before me for final hearing upon perusing the petition, counter, other relevant papers and record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. E.J.Raja, Advocate for Decree Holder and of Sri V.Lokanadha Naidu, Advocate for Judgment Debtor: and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is an Execution Petition by the Decree holder against the

Judgment Debtor under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC, order for sending the

Judgment debtor and his son into civil prison due to their violation of injunction decree passed in O.S.No.1300/2022 dated 09-03-2023 and pass such other or further orders.

2.The brief averments of the EP affidavit is as follows:

The decree-holder filed the above suit against the judgment-debtor for permanent injunction and the same was decreed exparte on 09-03-2022.

On13-02-2024, when the decree-holder was preparing to erect stone pillars and 2 APCH020005922024 barbed wire fencing, the judgment-debtor and his son obstructed the work and closed the pits already dug. The decree-holder lodged a complaint before the

Sub Inspector of Police, G.D.Nellore Police Station and the police warned them not to interfere. Thereafter, the decree-holder completed erection of stone pillars and fencing. However, on 14-03-2024, the judgment-debtor, his son and their followers allegedly damaged the fencing and stone pillars. On 15-03-2024, when the decree-holder’s son questioned them, they allegedly assaulted him and took away his mobile phone. The decree-holder again approached the police on 15-03-2024, but no action was taken on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, and police aid can be extended only upon directions of this Court.

Due to the continuous interference and threats from the judgment-debtor and his supporters, the decree-holder is unable to peacefully enjoy the suit schedule property as he is a helpless person in the area and hence he prays to allow the petition.

3. The judgment-debtor filed counter by dying the petition affidavit averments and submitted that the execution petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as no separate E.P. schedule property has been mentioned, and therefore it is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the alleged police complaints dated 13-02-2024 and 15-03-2024 are created documents filed only for the purpose of the present E.P., and the recitals therein are false and that neither the judgment-debtor nor his son interfered with the decree- holder’s alleged possession. The son of the judgment-debtor was allegedly working at Biocon Subsidiary Company, Bangalore, on the relevant dates. The judgment-debtor denies violation of the injunction decree and asserts that the decree-holder has falsely invented the allegations to harass him and his family members. The decree-holder has illegally occupied the plaint schedule property by taking advantage of the exparte decree and filed the present E.P. only to protect such alleged illegal occupation. Hence, as there is no violation of the 3 APCH020005922024 decree in O.S.No. 1300/2022, the execution petition is devoid of merits and finally prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, the Decree holder examined himself as PW1. One third party by name K.Muirajulu, was examined as PW2 on behalf of Decree Holder. Judgment debtor examined himself as RW1. No documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

5.Point for consideration is:- 01:Whether the Dhr is entitled for sending the Judgment debtor and his son into civil prison due to their violation of Judgment and decree of injunction passed by this Court, as prayed for?

02:To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

6.Before going to the merits of the case, it is relevant to see the provision of law for which the EP is filed.

Order 21, Rule 32(1) of CPC “Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both”.

7.On perusal of entire evidence on record admittedly the Dhrs obtained decree for permanent injunction in O.S.No.1300/2022 against the Jdr and no appeal is preferred as such the decree obtained by Dhr is attained 4 APCH020005922024 finality. Now the present is EP for violation of injunction orders Dhr is contended that the Jdr and his son trespassed into his land in volition of injunction decree. However, the Dhr has not mentioned the name of the son in col. No.2 of the EP, his particulars are mentioned in the bottom of the

Execution Petition. As his name is not shown as one of the Jdrs , no notice was served on him. During cross examination, PW1 admitted that the son of the Jdr is working in Bangalore and no record filed to show he was present at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident. So, no action cannot be taken against him in the above circumstances.

8.Now let us see the evidence on record, in support of the submission of the D.Hr, D.Hr got himself examined as PW1 by filing chief examination affidavit which is nothing but re-iteration of affidavit avernments.

During cross examination, he admitted that he and the Judgment Debtor are co-brothers. However, the affidavit of the Dhr is silent withregard to their relationship. Though the Dhr filed EP for violation of injunction decree of suit schedule property as pointed out by the Jdr EP petition is not contained the schedule of the property. When the Dhr is contended that the Jdr , his son and others trespassed into his land and damaging the fencing laid by him the burden is on the Dhr to prove the same. In his cross examination, PW1 unable to say the extent of schedule property. PW1 admitted that he did not file any document to show on 13-2-2024 he dug pits in his land and the Jdr obstructed him. PW1 voluntarily stated he took the photographs and handed over to his counsel. However, no photographs filed before the court to marked as exhibits.

9.The Dhr examined one K.Munirajulu as PW2, he stated that Dhr is husband of his cousin sister. So, it appears that PWs 1 and 2 are inter- related. PW2 stated suit schedule property is Ac.1.00 cents of land, but he pleaded ignore the survey number of suit schedule property. PW2 stated in 5 APCH020005922024 the year 2024 at request of Dhr, he conducted mediation between Dhr and

Jdr. After two months he discussed with the Dhr, but subsequently he does not know anything about the disputes between the Dhr and Jdr. He admitted that he did not mentioned the said fact in his chief affidavit and he deposed to the extent that his chief affidavit was prepared by Dhr at request of counsel for

Dhr he signed in it, but he know the contents of his evidence affidavit. As per the evidence of PW2, it appears that on the request of PW1 he come to the

Court to give evidence without knowing the incident and the facts of the EP. It is clear from his evidence, he did not accompany with the Dhr to the Police

Station and Police not examine him in respect of the land disputes in between the Dhr and Jdr. So, except the self serving statements of PWs 1 and 2, no oral and documentary produced to support their contention.

10.The Jdr as RW1, he stated that he has been suffering with paralysis he has been taking treatment and his won working in Biocon

Subsidiary Company, at Bangalore and on the alleged dates of 13-2-2024 and 14.3.2024 his son attended his duty and due to paralysis he is unable to move as such the allegation mentioned in the evidence of PW1 are incorrect.

Though no document was filed by the Jdr in proof of his contention when burden is on the Dhr if he discharged the same then the burden shifts on the

Jdr to prove his contention. However, the Dhr has not adduced any consistent oral and documentary evidence as discussed above to substantiate his claim.

At this juncture, this court relied on the decision reported in

(2007) 3 ALT 689 in between Koya Ranga reddy and others vs. Koya

Narayana Reddy and others,the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “From a perusal of the Rule, it is evident that mere existence of a decree for perpetual injunction, or for that matter, a mere complaint, by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor, is not sufficient to 6 APCH020005922024 direct the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. Two facts are necessary to be proved by the decree-holder: In a way, they are two facts of the same phenomenon. The first is that the judgment- debtor must ave an opportunity to obey the decree, and the second is that despite such an opportunity, he had willfully failed to obey it. To state in different terms, mere failure of a judgment-debtor to obey the decree, when he did not have an opportunity to do so; cannot constitute a ground to order his detention in civil prison. Similarly, if the failure is not willful, the Executing Court cannot direct his detention, notwithstanding that the judgment-debtor had an opportunity to obey the decree. Both the facts must be proved. By their very nature, they need to be established through sufficient evidence, to the satisfaction of the Court. The fact that the judgment-debtor remained, or was set exparte, does not relieve the decree-holder, of his obligation and burden, to prove the ingredients of Rule 32”.

Allu Sanjeeva Reddy Vs. Jakkireddy Venkataramana Reddy Civil

Rev. Petn. No. 4754/2017, dated 02-01-2024 , the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh held that “The consequence of violation of decree for injunction under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC being penal in nature, rendering the violator to civil prison, proof beyond reasonable doubt, is required to be established, as required in criminal case. Apart from self-serving statement of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to establish the violation, as rightly opined by the Trial Court”.

11.In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the above decisions, Order21, Rule 32 CPC being penal in nature rendering the violator to the civil prison the proof must me beyond reasonable doubt as in the criminal cases. However, Dhr has failed to prove that the Jdr and his son disobeyed the injunction decree and caused damage to the Dhr. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered against the Decree Holder.

7 APCH020005922024

12.In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Dora Umadevi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Decree Holder:Judgment Debtor:

PW1: B.Chandran RW1:B.Chennakesavulu PW2: K.Munirajujlu

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

- NIL -

SD/- DUD

PCJ (Jr.Dvsn), CTR. // True copy //

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chittoor.