1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MAHABUBNAGR.
Tuesday, the 16th day of April, 2019.
PRESENT:-DVR.TEJO KARTHIK,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Spl.Mobile Court, FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.
O.S.No.58 of 2013
Between:- Male Chenna Kistamma w/o Late Male Bala Kistaiah, age 50 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o Munimoksham village, Hanwada mandal, Mahabubnagar District. … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bathike Balamma w/o Chandraiah, age 63 yrs,
2. Bathike Papaiah s/o Chandraiah, age 46 yrs,
3. Bathike Srinaiah s/o Chandraiah, age 36 yrs, Bathike Venkataiah s/o Chandraiah, age 30 yrs, 4. All occ: Agriculture, r/o Munimoksham village, Hanwada mandal, Mahabubnagr District. … Defendants
This Suit came for final hearing before me in the presence of
Sri Syed Mahaboob Pasha, Advocate for the plaintiff and of
Sri J.Vishweshar, Advocate for the defendant No.1 and Sri G.Thirumalaiah,
Advocate for the defendants No.2 to 4 and after perusing both side contentions, this Court made the following Judgment.
J U D G M E N T
1.This Suit is filed by Smt.Male Chenna Kistamma, the plaintiff against
Bathike Balamma, Bathike Papapaiah, Bathike Srinaiah and Bathike
Venkataiah, the defendants No.1 to 4 respectively seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining them, their agents, servants, workmen from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property situated in the limits of Munimoksham village of Hanwada mandal.
2.Sans un-necessary details the factual matrix germane in filing this suit are as follows:
The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of
Acs.2-00 Gts., in Sy.No.55/2/2 in the limits of Munimoksham village of 2
Hanwada mandal and one Male Pedda Chennappa was the pattedar, owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.55 to an extent of 2 acres and after his death, the land was mutated in the name of his wife Male Yellamma and she cultivated the land and she had no issues and therefore Male Yellamma took the plaintiff in adoption as per customs and adoption was reduced into writing and after the adoption both Male Yellamma and the plaintiff cultivated the land and the land was lawoni patta.
That the defendant No.1 by misrepresenting to the revenue authorities got her name recorded in the revenue records as successor and obtained patta pass book and title deed without maintaining physical possession over the suit land and the plaintiff filed revision petition dt.6-6-2011 with the
District Collector, Mahabubnagar and the case was numbered as
D1/47/2011. The Tahsildar, Hanwada was directed to conduct local enquiry and on 14-6-2011 the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Hanwada conducted enquiry and found that the suit schedule property is a Government land assigned to Malle Yellamma and the plaintiff was her adoptive daughter and found that there was no relationship between Male Yellamma and the defendant No.1 and that the defendant No.1 illegally got her name mutated in the revenue records. That on 16-6-2011 the Assistant Revenue Inspector of Hanwada submitted his report to delete the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records and thereafter the Tahsildar, Hanwada submitted a corresponding letter dt.21-6-2011 in file LR.No.B/2047/2011 to the District
Collector, Mahabubnagar and it revealed that the defendant No.1 got her name mutated in the revenue records without proceeding number and it was made clear in the letter that the defendant No.1 had no relationship with
Male Yellamma. That the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar passed order dt.30-6-2012 to restore the entries in the ROR in the name of plaintiff and on 31-8-2012 the Tahsildar, Hanwada passed order to delete the name of defendant No.1 from ROR record and to record the name of the plaintiff in the records. That defendants No.2 to 4 are the sons of defendant No.1 and in 3 order to grab the suit land on 1-4-2013 the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and with great difficulty the plaintiff could resist the illegal act of the defendants and again on 21-4-2013 the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of plaintiff and grab the land and with great difficulty the plaintiff could resist the defendants and having left with no other option, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
3.After registering the plaint as OS.No.58/2013, summons were issued to the defendants and the defendant No.1 filed her written statement and the defendants No.2 to 4 have filed memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 had denied the allegations made in the plaint and averred that the land in Sy.No.52/2 in the limits of
Munimoksham village of Hanwada mandal was originally assigned to late
Male Chennappa and after his death, the land was mutated in the name of
Male Yellamma and Male Chinnappa and Male Yellamma had daughters and the marriages of the daughters were performed long back and the daughters are residing at their in-laws houses. That after the death of Male Chennappa, there was no one to take care of Male Chennamma (Sic., Male Yellamma) and the daughters of Male Chennamma (Sic., Male Yellamma) requested the defendant No.1 to take care of their mother and to cultivate the assigned land in Sy.No.55/2. As such the defendant No.1 during the lifetime of Male
Chennamma (Sic., Male Yellamma) cultivated the land and for the services rendered Male Chennamma (Sic., Male Yellamma) gave money to the defendant No.1 and also gave the land in the year 1994 and Male Yellamma stated that the land would be succeeded by defendant No.1 after her death as she was serving her. That the plaintiff never cultivated the land in
Sy.No.55/2 and after the death of Male Yellamma with the consent of the successors of Male Yellama the defendant No.1's name was mutated in the pattedar column in the revenue records and the mutation was effected vide proceedings No.E/149/94, dt.15-6-1994 and the same was reflected in the panchanama conducted on 25-11-2011. That the plaintiff had filed a 4 complaint with Tahsildar, Hanwada on 1-6-2011 praying that the land be mutated on her name by effecting virasath and the plaintiff also filed another complaint with District Collector, Mahabubnagar on 6-6-2011 stating that the land in Sy.No.55 was grabbed by defendant No.1 and on receiving the complaint, the District Collector, Mahabubnagar passed orders directing
Tahsildar Hanwada to conduct enquiry and the Tahsildar, Hanwada deputed
Mandal Revenue Inspector to conduct enquiry and the Mandal Revenue
Inspector without giving any notice to the defendant No.1 and by colluding with the plaintiff created panchanama dt.14-6-2011 and MRI also created a report on 16-6-2011 and the same were submitted to the Tahsildar and the
Tahsildar, Hanwada without proper verification and considering the original facts submitted a written endorsement to the Collector stating that if the plaintiff has got right over the land the documents may be submitted to the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar. That the plaintiff in the complaint made to District Collector, Mahabubnagar had shown the survey number as 55 to an extent of 2 acres, whereas in the suit plaintiff had mentioned the survey number as 55/2/2 and the plaintiff suppressed the material facts. That the plaintiff without approaching the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mahabubnagar preferred revision before Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar vide proceedings No.D1/47/2011 and the revision was filed against the orders of
Tahsildar in proceedings No.GB/B/2047/2011, dt.22-6-2011 and obtained stay orders dt.7-7-2011 and on receiving the notice, the defendant Noo.1 approached the Tahsildar, Hanwada and orally requested to submit the true facts before Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and the Tahsildar, Hanwada also issued orders to the Assistant Revenue Inspector to conduct enquiry, but the
Assistant Revenue Inspector never conducted any enquiry till 25-11-2011.
That on 25-11-2011 the said Assistant Revenue Inspector conducted panchanama before the elders and the family members of late Male
Yellamma and in the panchanama the issuance of patta and title deeds to defendant No.1 vide E/149/94 dt.15-6-1994 was shown and the daughters of 5 late Male Yellamma deposed before the revenue officials and the officials had drafted a panchanama dt.7-5-2012 and the Joint Collector,
Mahabubnagar without following proper procedure passed the orders and the orders of the Joint Collector was challenged vide Writ Petition No.33844/2012
before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. That the Tahsildar,
Hanwada issued proceedings after receiving the orders from the Joint
Collector and the entries in Sy.No.55/2/2 were mutated in the name of the plaintiff and the Tahsildar, Hanwada did not deliver the possession to the plaintiff by dispossessing the defendant No.1 by following the procedure established by law and the plaintiff was not in possession as on the date of filing of the suit and that the question of interfering with the possession of plaintiff does not arise and therefore, it is prayed by the defendants that the suit may be dismissed.
4.Basing on the rival pleadings of the parties to the suit, my learned predecessor on 5-2-2014 framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the schedule property by the date of this suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
5.For proving her case, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to A17.
6.Ex.A1 is the CC of order in case No.D1/47/2011 of Joint Collector,
Mahabubnagar dt.30-06-2012. Ex.A2 is the CC of proceedings B/2047/2011 of Tahsildar, Hanwada dt.30-08-2012. Ex.A3 is the Endorsement in
B/2047/2011 of Tahsildar, Hanwada, dt.22-06-2012. Ex.A4 is the CC of
Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1974-75. Ex.A5 is the CC of Pahani for
Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1975-76. Ex.A6 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1976-77. Ex.A7 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1994-
95. Ex.A8 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2000-01. Ex.A9 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2001-02. Ex.A10 is the CC of 6
Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2003-04. Ex.A11 is the CC of Pahani for
Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2004-05. Ex.A12 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2005-06. Ex.A13 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2/2 for the year 1420 Fasli. Ex.A14 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2/2 for the year 1421 Fasli. Ex.A15 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2/2 for the year 1422
Fasli. Ex.A16 is the CC of old ROR. Ex.A17 is the CC of New ROR.
7.On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 herself got examined as DW1 and to support their case the defendants got examined DW2 Harijan Balaiah and DW3 Yerrolla Chukkaiah @ Sukkaiah. The defendants got exhibits Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 as documentary evidence.
8.Ex.B1 is the cc of pahani for the year 2004-05 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B2 is the cc of pahani for the year 2005-06 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B3 is the cc of pahani for the year 2006-07 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B4 is the cc of pahani for the year 2007-08 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B5 is the cc of pahani for the year 2008-09 in
Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B6 is the cc of pahani for the year 2009-10 in Sy.No.55/2.
Ex.B7 is the cc of pahani for the year 2010-11 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B8 is the cc of pahani for the year 2011-12 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B9 is the cc of panchanama dt.14-6-2011. Ex.B10 is the cc of panchanama dt.25-11-2011. Ex.B11 is the cc of ROR. Ex.B12 is the cc of declaration dt.7-5-2012. Ex.B13 is the cc of proceedings in file No.B/2047/2011 of Tahsildar, Hanwada dt.30-8-2012.
9.Heard learned Counsel Sri Syed Mahaboob Pasha, for the plaintiff and the learned Counsels Sri J.Vishweshar, for the defendant No.1 and
Sri G.Thirumalaiah, for the defendants No.2 to 4.
10.PW1 in his chief examination affidavit had reiterated the contents mentioned in the plaint as such narration of those facts over again will not help us in any manner.
During the cross examination, PW1 testified that the suit survey number is 55/2/2. That she is having 7 acres of landincluding suit property 7 and her mother belongs to Munimoksham village and after marriage, her husband was brought as illatom son-in-law. That she denied the suggestion that Male Yellamma is having four children. That she did not know whether
Pedda Chennamma is residing at Rangareddy pally and that she did not know she is having children. That Male Yellamma adopted her at the time of her marriage. That her marriage was performed when she was about 12 years old. That she had filed the document to show her adoption. That the adoption deed was registered and she did not know about the registration of adoption deed. She denied the suggestion that she did not file the document to show her adoption. She testified that Shekar s/o Balakistaiah, Kummari
Ramulu s/o Kummari Narsaiah, Karim Sab s/o Moulana and Anjilaiah s/o Buchaiah deposed in her favour in the proceeding before the Joint
Collector. She denied the suggestion that the above persons deposed that a will deed was executed in her favour and that the basing on their affidavit the Joint Collector issued proceedings in her favour. She testified that Mandal
Revenue Officer has come for enquiry. She denied the suggestion that during the pendency of appeal against the order of Joint Collector, she got entered her name in the revenue records by colluding with Mandal Revenue Officer.
She denied the suggestion that this court has no jurisdiction to try her suit, as the suit land is assigned land. She testified that the Mandal Revenue
Inspector and Village Revenue Officer conducted panchanama in respect of land Sy.No.55. That she did not know whether any document is filed to show that the Sy.No.55 is divided in Sy.No.55/2/2. That she filed the pahanies Fasli 1420, 1421 and 1422 in Sy.No.55/2/2. That two acres of land shown in the pahani stands in her name.She denied the suggestion that the Sy.Nos.55/2 and 55/2/2 are different and that sy.No.55/2/2 is not concerned with the suit and that she had given application to the Mandal Revenue Officer by mentioning Sy.Nos.55, 55/2 and 55/2/2 to conduct panchanama. She denied the suggestion that the land in Sy.No.55/2 is allotted to the husband of Male
Yellamma in the year 1960 by the Government and they have only right to 8 use and sell the land. That she is the legal heir. She denied the suggestion she was deposing false to occupy the suit land and that Male Yellamma has transferred the suit land in the name of defendant No.1 as she rendered services to her. That she rendered the services to Male Yellamma. She denied the suggestion that she did not render services to Male Yellamma and that there is no order from the Court that she is the adopted daughter of
Male Yellamma. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing false and that she did not file the document before the Court to show her adoption.
She denied the suggestion thatshe did not mention about the pendency of the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. That the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued the certificate showing delivery of possession of suit property to her. She denied the suggestion that no certificate is issued by the Mandal
Revenue Officer and that she got enter her name falsely in the pahani for the year 2005-06. She denied the suggestion that she had no right to file this suit and that she filed false chief affidavit and false documents to occupy the suit property.
11.As seen from the evidence of DW1, she had re-iterated the contents as stated in the written statement as such narration of factual matrix over again therefore will not serve any useful purpose.
During the course of cross examination DW1 testified that she knew the contents of chief affidavit and the chief affidavit bears her thumb impression. That the suit is filed by the plaintiff against her and others claiming the suit land as her own property. That the suit schedule property survey number is 55/2 to an extent two acres. That she did not know the boundaries of suit schedule property. That the suit land is situated at
Munimoksham Shivar and that the suit land is dry land and that the grandfather of plaintiff namely Male Buchanna is having two sons and that the elder son is Pedda Chennappa and the younger son is Chinna 9
Chennappa. That they are residing separately and that she did know how many days they resided jointly. That the disputed land allotted to Pedda
Chennappa by Government and that after death of Pedda Chennappa, the land is transferred in the name of wife of Pedda Chennappa namely Male
Yellamma. She denied the suggestion that after death of Yellamma, the plaintiff is cultivating the suit property. That she had no relationship with
Pedda Chennappa, Chinna Chennappa and Male Yellamma. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has rendered services to father and her paternal uncle Padda Chennappa. That she did not know whether the land allotted by
Government, if transferred in the name of the other person is valid or not.
That she did not know whether the plaintiff gave application to the District
Collector and Tahsildar, Hanwada on 6-6-2011 stating that she had illegally occupied the suit property without any document. That on 14-6-2011 that as per the orders of the District Collector, Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village
Revenue Officer, Munimoksham village conducted panchanama in their village in presence of B.Chennaiah s/o Achanna, G.Anjaneyulu s/o Yellaiah and Harijan Balaiah s/o Narsaiah and submitted the panchanama and report before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanwada. That the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Hanwada sent the report to the District Collector vide letter
No.B/2047/2011. That the Tahsildar, Hanwada directed the plaintiff to prefer application before the Revenue Division Officer, Mahabubnagar for recording her name in respect of the suit land in revenue record. That the plaintiff filed revision petition against her before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar case
No.D1/47/2011, the date of filing 30-6-2011. That on 7-7-2011 a stay order passed against her and others. That the Joint Collector passed order in favour of plaintiff, dt.30-6-2012 and that the Joint Collector passed order directing the Tahsildar, Hanwada to record the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. That the Tahsildar Hanwada passed order deleting her name and to record the name of plaintiff in respect of the suit land in
ROR vide order Dt.30-8-2012, B/2047/2012. That she filed a Writ petition 10
No.33844/2012 before the Hon’ble High Court, against plaintiff, Revenue
Divisional Officer and Joint Collector. She denied the suggestion that her writ petition was dismissed and that the same is pending. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property and she is cultivating the same and that herself and other defendants have no right over the suit property and that they are illegally interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.
12.As seen from the evidence of DW2, he testified on similar lines as that of DW1 in his chief examination affidavit.
During cross examination, DW2 testified that he knew the contents of his chief affidavit. That the suit is filed by Kishtamma i.e. Plaintiff against the
Balamma. That he did not know whether selling and purchasing of assigned land is prohibited. That the suit survey number is 150/2, extent two acres.
That the boundaries of suit land are East: Land of defendant No.2,
West: Land of plaintiff, North: There is gutta and South: Land of Yadamma.
That the grandfather of plaintiff is having two sons namely Pedda Chennappa and Chinna Chennappa. That the plaintiff is the daughter of Male Chinna
Chennappa and that Government assigned the suit land to Male Pedda
Chennappa. That the suit land Sy.No.55/2/2 and that after death of Pedda
Chennappa, his wife Male Yellamma succeeded the suit property. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was cultivating the suit land since the date of mutation of this suit land in the name of Male Yellamma. That the defendant No.1 is cultivating the suit land. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff looked after Pedda Chennappa, Chinna Chinnappa and Male
Yellamma. That he did not know whether the assigned land will be inherited only by the legal heirs. That there is no relationship between Yellamma and defendant No.1. He denied the suggestion that after the death of Yellamma, the defendant No.1 illegally entered her name in revenue records in respect of the suit property. That he did not know whether the plaintiff gave application to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar and Tahsildar, Hanwada 11 dt.6-6-2011 mentioning that the defendant No.1 has illegally got patta in her name in respect of the suit schedule property. That he did not know whether the Collector has directed Mandal Revenue Officer to make enquiry in the village. That the Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer visited
Munimoksham village and conducted panchanama on 14-6-2011. That he signed in the panchanama stating that Male Yellamma has no children. That he did not know whether the copy of pancahanma is sent to District Collector by Mandal Revenue Officer vide Lr.No.B/2047/2011, dt.21-6-2011. That he did not know whether on the application of plaintiff, the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Hanwada has endorsed stating that the same is not within their jurisdiction and advised to approach higher officials. That he did not know whether the plaintiff filed revision petition against the defendant No.1 dt.30-6-2011 before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. That he did not know whether the Joint Collector granted stay against the defendant No.1. That he did not know whether the Joint Collector passed order against the defendant
No.1 dt.30-6-2012 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to delete the name of defendant No.1 in ROR in respect of the suit property and to issue pass book and title deed in the name of plaintiff. That he did not know whether the Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings Lr.No.B/2047/2012 by deleting the name of defendant No.1 and issued title and pass book in favour of plaintiff vide order dt.30-8-2012. He denied the suggestion that he travel different place for her livelihood and that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that since during the lifetime of Male Yellamma, plaintiff is cultivating the suit land. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing to help the defendants.
13.As seen from the evidence of DW3, he testified that he is resident of
Munomoksham village and he is conversant with the land issue between
Male Chenna Kistamma and Bathike Balamma. He testified that Male
Chennappa was the original pattedar of Sy.No.55/2 to an extent Acs.2-00
Gts., situated at Munomoksham village of Hanwada mandal, Mahabubnagar 12
District. That after his death, Male Yellamma was succeeded the property and that Male Yellamma had three daughters, two were died and one daughter is living with their in-laws house. That during lifetime of Male
Yellamma, Bathike Balamma used to look after the welfare of Male Yellamma till her death and was cultivated the suit land and after the death of Male
Yellamma with the consent of her children, being the landless and poor lady
Bathike Balamma name was mutated in the revenue records and the revenue authorities recorded her name in the revenue records and that on 25-11-2011 the revenue authorities conducted panchanama and he acted as one of the panchas and Bathike Balamma was in physical possession and she raised red gram crop. That Male Chenna Kistamma is not the adoptive daughter of late Male Yellamma and she never served to Male Yellamma at any point of time. That during lifetime of Male Yellamma the land will be succeeded to Bathike Balamma only.
During cross examination, DW3 testified that he knew the contents of chief affidavit. That the suit is filed by Balamma against Kistamma. That the suit property is situated at Munimoksham sivar. That the suit property
Sy.No.55/2 in extent Ac.2.00. That the boundaries of suit property are towards eastern side land of Papaiah, towards Western side land of the plaintiff, towards Northern side land of Jayamamma, towards Southern side kucha (small area covered by stones). That the grand-father of plaintiff is having two sons by name Pedda Chennappa and Chinna Chennappa. That the plaintiff is the daughter of Chinna Chennappa. That the land in
Sy.No.55/2 to an extent Ac.2.00 Gts., was allotted to Pedda Chennappa by the Government. That after the death of Pedda Chennappa, the land is mutated in the name of Mala Yellamma. He denied the suggestion that Mala
Yellamma was cultivating the said land and that the plaintiff rendered services to Mala Pedda Chinnappa and Chinna Chinnappa and Mala
Yellamma. That he did not know whether the land allotted by Government should not be sold or purchased. He denied the suggestion that Mala 13
Yellamma and defendant No.1 are not having any relation. That they belongs to same caste and having close relationship, but he cannot say how they are related. That he did not know whether the defendant No.1 has got mutated suit land in her name without any proceedings. That he did not know whether the plaintiff filed a application before District Collector,
Mahabubnagar for defendant No.1 mutating the suit in her name. That he did not know whether the District Collector directed Tahasildar to conduct enquiry in this regard. That he did not know whether Mandal Revenue
Inspector and Village Revenue Officer of Munimoksham village conducted panchanama and he did not know whether B.Chennaiah and B.Anjaneyulu,
Harijan Balaiah acted as panch witnesses. That he did not know whether the report was sent to District Collector by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and
Village Revenue Officer in File No.2047/2011. That he did not know whether the Mandal Revenue Officer has made an endorsement on the application given by the plaintiff to Mandal Revenue Officer stating that the same is not within their jurisdiction and advised to approach higher officials. That he did not know whether the plaintiff filed revision petition against the defendant
No.1 dt.30-6-2011 before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. That he did not know whether the Joint Collector granted stay against the defendant No.1.
That he did not know whether the Joint Collector passed order against the defendant No.1, dt.30-6-2012 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to delete the name of defendant in ROR in respect of the suit property and to issue pass book and title deed in the name of plaintiff. That he did not know whether the Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings Lr.No.B/2047/2012 by deleting the name of defendant No.1 and issued title and pass book in favour of plaintiff vide order dt.30-8-2012 vide Ex.A2. He denied the suggestion that he travel different place for his livelihood and that Papaiah has accompanied him today to the court and that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that since the lifetime of Male Yellamma, 14 plaintiff is cultivating the suit land and that he was deposing falsely to help the defendants.
14.Issues No.1 and 2:- Having regard to facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful evaluation of evidence on record it could be seen that the plaintiff's claim is that she succeeded to the suit land after the death of her adoptive mother Male Yellamma and that the land was lawoni patta land and in order to put-forth her contention, Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 were exhibited as documentary evidence and the defendants have exhibits Ex.B1 to Ex.b13.
The Ex.A1 would prove that the orders were passed by the Joint Collector in
Case No.D1/47/2011 in File No.D1/2421/2011 wherein the Joint Collector allowed the revision petition directing the Tahsildar, Hanwada to restore the entries in the ROR against the suit land to its original possession i.e., in the name of the plaintiff. Though it was contended by the defendants that the orders of the Joint Collector was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court vide WP.No.33844/2012 but the same was dismissed for default by the
Hon'ble High Court vide orders dt.14-9-2016.Therefore, the orders of the
Joint Collector vide Ex.A1 attained finality and the Tahsildar, Hanwada basing on the orders of Joint Collector issued proceedings vide Ex.A2 wherein the name of defendant NO.1 was ordered to be deleted and the name of plaintiff was ordered to be recorded and accordingly the name of plaintiff was recorded in the revenue records. Though, the defendants have relied on
Ex.B1 to Ex.B13, but the said documents are not of much help to the defendants as the plaintiff by virtue of exhibiting the documents could establish her claim and she could prove that she was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. Nothing significant to impeach the credit of the witness was found in the cross examination of the plaintiff and plaintiff could successfully withstand the test of cross examination and the documentary evidence is apparently patent to establish the claim of the plaintiff and the plaintiff by virtue of Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 had proved her case and even the preponderance of probability is in her favour 15 and though steps were taken by the defendants in challenging the orders of the Joint Collector, but in view of the dismissal of the writ petition in default, the orders have attained the finality and the entries previously made in the name of defendant No.1 lost its significance and the plaintiff is therefore entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as she could prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by virtue of documentary evidence. Therefore, the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
15.Issue No.3:- In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs, granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
Typed to my dictation on computer and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16th day of April, 2019.
Sd/-
Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined)
FOR PLAINTIFF:- PW1 Male Chenna Kistamma. FOR DEFENDANTS:- DW1 Bathike Balamma. DW2 Harijan Balaiah. DW3 Yerrolla Chukkaiah @ Sukkaiah.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1 is the CC of order in case No.D1/47/2011 of Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar dt.30-06-2012. Ex.A2 is the CC of proceedings B/2047/2011 of Tahsildar, Hanwada dt.30-08-2012. Ex.A3 is the Endorsement in B/2047/2011 of Tahsildar, Hanwada, dt.22-06-2012. Ex.A4 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1974-75. Ex.A5 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1975-76. Ex.A6 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1976-77. Ex.A7 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 1994-95. Ex.A8 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2000-01. Ex.A9 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2001-02. Ex.A10 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2003-04. Ex.A11 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2004-05. Ex.A12 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2 for the year 2005-06. Ex.A13 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2/2 for the year 1420 Fasli. Ex.A14 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2/2 for the year 1421 Fasli. Ex.A15 is the CC of Pahani for Sy.No.55/2/2 for the year 1422 Fasli.
16
Ex.A16 is the CC of old ROR. Ex.A17 is the CC of New ROR. FOR DEFENDANTS:- Ex.B1 is the cc of pahani for the year 2004-05 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B2 is the cc of pahani for the year 2005-06 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B3 is the cc of pahani for the year 2006-07 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B4 is the cc of pahani for the year 2007-08 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B5 is the cc of pahani for the year 2008-09 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B6 is the cc of pahani for the year 2009-10 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B7 is the cc of pahani for the year 2010-11 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B8 is the cc of pahani for the year 2011-12 in Sy.No.55/2. Ex.B9 is the cc of panchanama dt.14-6-2011. Ex.B10 is the cc of panchanama dt.25-11-2011. Ex.B11 is the cc of ROR. Ex.B12 is the cc of declaration dt.7-5-2012. Ex.B13 is the cc of proceedings in file No.B/2047/2011 of Tahsildar, Hanwada dt.30-8-2012.
Sd/-
Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.