Sri G Ganga Raju

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BOBBILI

Present: Sri G.Gangaraju,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram

FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili

Tuesday, the 6th day of February, 2018

O.S.No.55/2011

Between: Arnapalli Santhi Kumari, W/o Eswara Rao, aged 42 years, Household duties, R/o Subha Lakshmi Nagar, New Colony, Visakhapatnam, now residing at Gollapalli in Bobbili Municipality, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District.

...Plaintiff.

A n d : Kinthali Siva Kumar, S/o Damodara Rao, aged 35 years, Business, R/o Gowda Street, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. ….Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 29.01.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri, J.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri, K.Prasada Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property with costs.

2.A conspectus of plaintiffs’ claim is as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property, originally the plaint schedule with adjacent land belongs to Grandhi

Venkata Ramanayya and others, they divided the said site into plots and sell away to various persons including the vendor of the plaintiff, the vendor of the plaintiff purchased Plot No.12 in the said plots, in turn the vendor of the plaintiff sold away the Plot No.12 to the plaintiff under registered sale deed

dated 26.10.2009 for a valid cash consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- to the

plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of Plot No.12 immediately on the date of execution of the sale deed and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any let or hindrance, the defendant purchased Plot No.11 towards the west of Plaint

Plot No.12 and all the plots are divided by survey stones by the original owner namely Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya, as like the plot No.12 and 11 are

Page 1 of 8 also divided by survey stones, the defendant is no way concerned with the

Plot No.12 of the plaintiff, the plaintiff intended to construct a slabbed house in her Plot No.12, the defendant intended to encroach the site in the Plot

No.12 of the plaintiff, proclaiming that he will trespass into the plaint schedule mentioned property and to obstruct the construction of the plaintiff’s slabbed house, the plaintiff is weak and mild lady and she has no male assistance to resist the intended actions of the defendant. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement contending inter-alia that he is the absolute owner of the land covered by Plot No.11, which was purchased by the defendant from one Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya, originally property covered by

Plot No.11 and the plaint schedule property belongs to Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others, the said Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya purchased cultivable land with an intent to sold the same for house sites and accordingly they divided the said land into plots and sold the same to various persons including the defendant and plaintiff, the defendant got purchased the Plot No.11 from Grandhi Venkata

Ramanayya on 01.11.2006 and since then he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same, the plaintiff also purchased the suit schedule property in the year 2009, as per the plan prepared by Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others, the plaint schedule property i.e., Plot No.12 is the last plot in the said row and the plaintiff got purchased the plaint schedule property after the purchase of the property i.e., Plot No.11 by the defendant, at the time of purchase of Plot No.11, the defendant has taken measurements and laid stones, so the defendant is in possession as per the measurements of the sale deed dt.1.11.2006, while so, the defendant wanted to construct a house on the said site and dug foundations about 10 days back prior to the date of filing of the suit in O.S.71/2011, at that time the plaintiff and her relations made constructions stating that the defendant dug the foundations in the site of plaintiff, thereupon the local surveyor measured the site purchased by the defendant and others plot towards west of the Plot No.11 i.e., Plot

Nos. 7 to 11 and laid stones as per the plan prepared and attached to the sale deeds and found that the defendant dug the foundations within the site purchased by him, but the plaintiff has not satisfied with the above surveyor and got filed the

Page 2 of 8 present suit against the defendant by suppressing the fact as her site is not in accordance with the measurements view to occupy the site of the defendant, he is the 1st purchaser, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property after 3 years of the purchase of the plot No.11 by the defendant, so the defendant has to take actual measurements prior to her purchase, the plaintiff has no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property covered plot No.11 and he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :

1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the defendant is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff without any manner of right?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on plaintiff’s side PW 1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked. On defendant’s side DW-1 was examined and no documents are marked.

6.Heard arguments of either sides.

7.Issues Nos. 1 and 2:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the defendant is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff without any manner of right?

8.Since issues 1 and 2 are inter-related to each other, these issues are taken up together for discussion for the the sake of brevity and convenience.

9.It is the claim of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property, originally the plaint schedule with adjacent land belongs to Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others, they divided the said site into plots and sold away to various persons including the vendor of the plaintiff, the vendor of the plaintiff purchased Plot No.12 in the said plots, in turn the vendor of the plaintiff sold away the Plot No.12 to

Page 3 of 8 the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 26.10.2009 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule vacant site without any let or hindrance, while so, the defendant purchased Plot No.11 towards the west of Plaint Plot No.12 and all the plots are divided by survey stones by the original owner namely Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya, as like the plot No.12 and 11 are also divided by survey stones, the defendant is no way concerned with the Plot No.12 of the plaintiff. The plaintiff intended to construct a slabbed house in her Plot No.12, the defendant intended to encroach the site in the Plot No.12 of the plaintiff, proclaiming in the vicinity of the plaint schedule property that he will trespass into the plaint schedule mentioned property and also cause obstruction the construction of the plaintiff’s slabbed house.

10.Per contra, it is the contention of the defendant that he is the absolute owner of the land covered by Plot No.11, which was purchased by the defendant from one Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya, the said Grandhi Venkata

Ramanayya purchased cultivable land with an intent to sold the same for house sites and accordingly they divided the said land into plots and sold the same to various persons including the defendant and plaintiff. The defendant purchased the Plot No.11 from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya on 01.11.2006 and since then he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff purchased the Plot No.12 in the year 2009. While so, the defendant wanted to construct a house on the said site and dug foundations about 10 days back prior to the date of filing of the suit in O.S.71/2011, at that time the plaintiff and her relations made constructions stating that the defendant dug the foundations in the site of plaintiff, thereupon the local surveyor measured the site purchased by the defendant and others, plaintiff has not satisfied with the measurements and filed the present suit without any reason. Hence there are no merits to allow the suit claim.

11. A perusal of the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff and defendant, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff Arnapalli Santhi Kumari purchased Plot

Page 4 of 8

No.12 which is the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dt.26.10.2009, the defendant purchased Plot No.11 in the same layout under registered sale deed dt.1.11.2006 from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others. It is also an undisputed fact that Plot No.11 of the defendant which is situated on the western side of Plot No.12 i.e., plaint schedule property. The main dispute between the plaintiff and defendant regarding the boundary between them for Plot Nos.11 and 12. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant in respect of their Plot Nos. 12 and 11. The plaintiff and defendant are not disputing possession and enjoyment of their respective plots.

12.However, initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove her lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit to grant the equitable relief of injunction in her favour.

13.To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW-1, reiterated the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A-1 document.

Ex.A-1 is the registered sale deed dt.26.10.2009 executed by Edubilli

Jyothiswari in favour of PW-1 vide document No.3920/2009. Ex.A-1 document was registered under law in the presence of attestors and scribe.

Plot number, boundaries and measurements mentioned in Ex.A-1 are tallied with the plaint schedule property. Therefore, Ex.A-1 document is valid under law and acceptable in evidence. Moreover, the defendant also not denying the genuineness of Ex.A-1 document. Therefore, Ex.A-1 document establishes the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

14.It is a settled law the title follows possession. Admittedly suit schedule property is a vacant site. Therefore, except title deed no other documents are available to prove possession of the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant is not denying the genuineness of Ex.A-1 and possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Page 5 of 8

15.The defendant’s counsel cross examined PW-1 and elicited that plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Edubilli Jyothiswari, Jyothiswari purchased the same from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya, the said Grandhi

Venkata Ramanayya is vendor of the defendant for Plot No.11. PW-1 admitted in cross examination that she purchased the site in the year 2009, the defendant purchased the site in the year 2006, the defendant site is situated on the western side of her site, the defendant raised objection when she placed sand and bricks for construction of house as such she filed the suit.

16.The plaintiff also examined husband of her vendor as PW-2 who fully supported the claim of the plaintiff. During the course of cross examination

PW-2 testifies his wife name is Jyothiswari, his wife sold away the property to the plaintiff, he is one of the attestors of the said sale deed.

17.On the other hand, to substantiate the contention of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW-1, reiterated his contention taken in the pleadings. During the course of cross examination DW-1 admitted that he purchased the house site on 1.11.2006 from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others for Plot No.11, the plaintiff purchased Plot No.12, the plaintiff filed this suit in O.S.52/2011 for permanent injunction, he filed suit in

O.S.71/2011, the plaintiff purchased Plot No.12 from one Edubilli Jyothiswari

under registered sale deed dt.26.10.2009, Usually Jyothiswari purchased the said land from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya under registered sale deed dt.1.2.2007, Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya purchased the site from Jalagam

Prasad and others under registered sale deed dt.1.11.2006, on 1.11.2006 he purchased plot No.11, his site measuring 20 x 125 feet in Plot No.11, plaintiff

Plot No.12 measuring 38 x 130 feet. The plaintiff purchased the plot under the same measurements of her vendor, he is no way concerned to the site of defendant, he has no objection to proceed construction in the site of plaintiff by the plaintiff, he never in possession and enjoyment of the site of the plaintiff. Page 6 of 8

18.This portion of evidence of DW-1 shows that DW-1 admitted Ex.A-1 document of plaintiff and measurements of Plot No.12 which suit schedule property, the defendant no claiming any property covered under Ex.A-1 sale deed. The plaintiff also not claiming any land covered under Plot No.11 of the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant are not disputing the possession and enjoyment of the their respective plots covered under Plot No.11 and 12.

They are disputing regarding the measurements of their plots in the pleadings but in evidence the defendant admitted boundaries and measurements of the site of plaintiff. Though the plaintiff and defendant are disputing in respect of boundaries and measurements, they did not take any steps to measure their respective sites and note physical features in respect of their plots by appointing an advocate commissioner. It shows there is no serious dispute existing between them in respect of their plots, only on suspicion they filed the suit against each other.

19.The pleadings and evidence reveal the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The pleadings and evidence revels the defendant obstructed the construction of the plaintiff in her site without any reason, therefore it is a threat to the plaintiff. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

20.Issue No.3:

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

On analysing the pleadings and evidence, the plaintiff established her lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by examining PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with Ex.A-1 document. Moreover, the defendant also not disputing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Page 7 of 8

21.The relief of perpetual injunction provided u/sec.38 of Specific Relier Act. A plain reading of Section of 38 of Specific Relief Act, “perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication, when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.”

22.In this suit, the defendant threatened or invade the plaintiff’s right of enjoyment of plaint schedule property under the guise of boundary dispute.

At this junction, if injunction refused it leads to multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

23.Under these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men. Accordingly this issues is answered.

24.Issue No.4: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Under the facts and circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of February, 2018.

Sd/-G.Gangaraju

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PARVATHIPURAM,

FAC:PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined. For Plaintiff:- PW-1: Arnapalli Santhi Kumari PW-2: Edubilli Srinu

For Defendant:- DW-1: Kintali Siva Kumar Documents marked For Plaintiff:- Ex.A-1: Registered sale deed dated 26.10.2009 executed by Edubilli Jyotheeswari in favour of PW-1.

For Defendant: -Nil-

Sd/-G.Gangaraju

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PARVATHIPURAM,

FAC:PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI. Page 8 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BOBBILI

Present: Sri G.Gangaraju,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram

FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili

Tuesday, the 6th day of February, 2018

O.S.No.71/2011

Between: Kinthali Siva Kumar, S/o Damodhara Rao, aged 34 years, R/o Gowda Street, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District.

...Plaintiff.

A n d :

Arnipalli Santhi Kumari, W/o Eswara Rao, aged 42 years, R/o Door No.43-12-9, Subha Lakshmi Nagar, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam. ….Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 29.01.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri, K.Prasada Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri,J.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property with costs.

2.A conspectus of plaintiffs’ claim is as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned vacant site, originally the plaint schedule property and adjacent vacant site belongs to

Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others, the said Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others purchased cultivable land with an intent to sold the same for house sites and accordingly they divided the said land into plots and sold the same to various persons including the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff purchased the Plot No.11 from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya on 01.11.2006 and since then he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same, the defendant also purchased the

Plot No.12 in the year 2009, as per the plan prepared by Grandhi Venkata

Ramanayya and others, the Plot No.12 is the last plot in the said row and the defendant got purchased the plaint schedule property after the purchase of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff, at the time of purchase of Plot No.11, the plaintiff has taken measurements and laid stones, so the plaintiff is in possession as per the measurements of the sale deed dt.1.11.2006, while so, the plaintiff wanted

Page 1 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

to construct a house on the said site and dug foundations about 10 days, at that time the defendant and her relations made obstructions stating that the plaintiff dug the foundations in the site of defendant, thereupon the local surveyor measured the site purchased by the plaintiff and other plots towards west of the plaint schedule property i.e., Plot Nos. 7 to 11 and fixed the stones as per the plan prepared and attached to the sale deeds and found that the plaintiff dug the foundations within the site purchased by him, but the defendant has not satisfied with the above surveyor and got filed suit in O.S.55/2011 against the plaintiff by suppressing the fact as her site is not in accordance with the measurements view to occupy the site of the plaintiff, he is the 1st purchaser, the defendant purchased the plot No.12 after 3 years of the purchase of the plot No.11 by the plaintiff, so the defendant has to take actual measurements prior to her purchase, the defendant has no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement contending inter-alia that the suit is filed as counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant against plaintiff herein, the defendant did not obstruct him to construct his house in his own site, the plaintiff wanted to encroach the site of the defendant and then she filed the suit in

O.S.55/2011 on the file of this Court and obtained injunction orders and hence the

plaintiff filed this suit, the measurements are also given in the sale deed of the defendant and as per the measurements of the sale deed only she intended to construct and she did not try to encroach the site of the plaintiff at any time, the boundaries are clearly mentioned in the sale deed of the defendant and the property within the said boundaries related to this defendant and the plaintiff had no inch of site in the sale deed property of the defendant, the link documents filed by the defendant in O.S.55/2011 also clearly show that the defendant got site as per the sale deed and hence the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and the plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant but not in favour of the plaintiff, even the defendant purchased subsequent to the purchase of the plaintiff, it will not take away the rights in the property purchased by her and she prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

Page 2 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :

1) Whether the plaintiff encroached the site of the defendant at any point of time?

2) Whether there is cause of action to the present suit?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on plaintiff’s side PW 1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked. On defendant’s side DW-1 was examined and no documents are marked.

6.Heard arguments of either sides.

7.Issues Nos. 1 and 2:

1) Whether the plaintiff encroached the site of the defendant at any point of time?

2) Whether there is cause of action to the present suit?

8.Since issues 1 and 2 are inter-related to each other, these issues are taken up together for discussion for the the sake of brevity and convenience.

It is the specific claim of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned vacant site, originally the plaint schedule property and adjacent vacant site belongs to Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others, the said

Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others purchased cultivable land with an intent to sold the same for house sites and accordingly they divided the said land into plots and sold the same to various persons including the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff purchased the Plot No.11 from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya on 01.11.2006 and since then he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same, the defendant also purchased the Plot No.12 in the year 2009, as per the plan prepared by Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others, the Plot No.12 is the last plot in the said row and the defendant got purchased the plaint schedule property after the purchase of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff, at the time of purchase of

Plot No.11, the plaintiff has taken measurements and laid stones, so the plaintiff is in possession as per the measurements of the sale deed dt.1.11.2006, while so, the plaintiff wanted to construct a house on the said site and dug foundations about 10

Page 3 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

days, at that time the defendant and her relations made obstructions stating that the plaintiff dug the foundations in the site of defendant.

9.Per contra, it is the contention of the defendant that the suit is filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant against plaintiff herein, the defendant did not obstruct him to construct his house in his own site, the plaintiff wanted to encroach the site of the defendant and then she filed the suit in O.S.55/2011 on the file of this Court and obtained injunction orders and hence the plaintiff filed this suit, the measurements are also given in the sale deed of the defendant and as per the measurements of the sale deed only she intended to construct and she did not try to encroach the site of the plaintiff at any time, the boundaries are clearly mentioned in the sale deed of the defendant and the property within the said boundaries related to this defendant and the plaintiff had no inch of site in the sale deed property of the defendant.

10. A perusal of the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff and defendant, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff Kinthali Siva Kumar purchased Plot No.11 which is suit schedule property under registered sale deed dt.01.11.2006, the defendant purchased Plot No.12 in the same layout under registered sale deed in the year 2009 from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and others. It is also an undisputed fact that Plot No.12 of the defendant which is situated on the eastern side of Plot No.11 i.e., plaint schedule property. The main dispute between the plaintiff and defendant regarding the boundary between them for Plot Nos.11 and 12. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant in respect of their

Plot Nos. 12 and 11. The plaintiff and defendant are not disputing possession and enjoyment of their respective plots.

11.However, initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit to grant equitable relief of injunction in her favour.

Page 4 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

12.To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1, reiterated the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A-1 document.

Ex.A-1 is the registered sale deed dt.01.11.2006 executed by Grandhi

Venkata Ramanayya in favour of PW-1 vide document No.4933/2006. Ex.A-1 document was registered under law in the presence of attestors and scribe.

Plot number, boundaries and measurements mentioned in Ex.A-1 are tallied with the plaint schedule property. Therefore, Ex.A-1 document is valid under law and acceptable in evidence. Moreover, the defendant also not denying the genuineness of Ex.A-1 document. Therefore, Ex.A-1 document establishes the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

13.It is a settled law that the title follows possession. Admittedly suit schedule property is a vacant site. Therefore, except title deed no other document are available to prove possession of the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant is not denying the genuineness of Ex.A-1 and possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

14.The defendant’s counsel cross examined PW-1. PW-1 deposed that plaintiff purchased the suit schedule house site on 1.11.2006 from Grandhi

Venkata Ramanayya and others, the defendant purchased the Plot No.12 from Edupalli Jogeswari under Registered sale deed dt.26.10.2009, Edupalli

Jogeswari purchased said site from Grandi Venkata Ramanayya under registered sale deed dt.1.2.2007, Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya purchased the said site from Jalagam Prasad and others under registered sale deed dt.1.11.2006, PW-1 admitted in cross examination that the defendant purchased Plot No.12, he did not survey plot Nos. 7 to 12, the defendant filed the suit against him in O.S.55/2011 for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction, subsequently he filed this suit.

15.The plaintiff also examined one third party as PW-2 who fully supported the claim of the plaintiff. During the course of cross examination PW-2 testifies the document was registered for plot No.11, they measured three

Page 5 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

plots but not measured 6 plots, the measurements of plot Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are in existence as per plan.

16.On the other hand, to substantiate the contention of the defendant, the defendant herself examined as DW-1, reiterated her contention taken in the pleadings. During the course of cross examination DW-1 testifies that she purchased the house site in the year 2009 from Edubilli Jothieswarri,

Jyothieswari purchased the same from Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya, she purchased Plot No.12, Damma Ramarao vacant site and 27, 27-B sites situated on eastern side of Plot No.12, western side road plot No.7 in between two road eastern side and western side plot No.7 to 12 are situated, by the time of purchase there is no construction in plot No. 7 to 12, Plot No.7 to 11 were sold away to others, the plaintiff site situated on the western side of her site, there is a foundation in Plot No.7 and 8, Plot No.27-A, 27-B are vacant, there is no constructions in private land, south to north length 130 feet.

17.This portion of evidence of DW-1 shows that DW-1 admitted Ex.A-1 document of plaintiff and measurements of Plot No.11 which suit schedule property in O.S.55/2011 filed by the defendant herein, the defendant not claiming any property covered under Ex.A-1 sale deed. The plaintiff also not claiming any land covered under Plot No.12 of the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant are not disputing the possession and enjoyment of the their respective plots covered under Plot No.11 and 12. They are disputing regarding the measurements of their plots in the pleadings but in evidence the defendant admitted boundaries and measurements of the site of plaintiff in O.S.55/2011 filed by him. Though the plaintiff and defendant are disputing in respect of boundaries and measurements, they did not take any steps to measure their respective sites and note physical features in respect of their plots by appointing an advocate commissioner. It shows there is no serious

Page 6 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

dispute existing between them in respect of their plots, only on suspicion they filed the suit against each other.

18.The pleadings and evidence reveal the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The pleadings and evidence revels the defendant obstructed the construction of the plaintiff in his site without any reason. Therefore it is a threat to the plaintiff. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

19.Issue No.3:

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

On analysing the pleadings and evidence, the plaintiff established his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by examining PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with Ex.A-1 document. Moreover, the defendant also not disputing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

20.The relief of perpetual injunction provided u/sec.38 of Specific Relier Act. A plain reading of Section of 38 of Specific Relief Act, “perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication, when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.”

21.In this suit, the defendant threatened or invade the plaintiff’s right of enjoyment of plaint schedule property under the guise of boundary dispute. At this junction, if injunction refused it leads to multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

22.Under these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and her men. Accordingly this issues is answered.

Page 7 of 8

O.S.No.71/2011

23.Issue No.4: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Under the facts and circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- G.Gangaraju

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PARVATHIPURAM,

FAC:PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined. For Plaintiff:-

PW-1: Kintali Siva Kumar PW-2: Sankili Ratna Sabhapathi

For Defendant:-

DW-1: Arnapalli Santha Kumari

Documents marked For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A-1: Registered sale deed dated 01.11.2006 executed by Grandhi Venkata Ramanayya and otherse in favour of PW-1.

For Defendant:

-Nil-

Sd/- G.Gangaraju

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PARVATHIPURAM,

FAC:PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI.

Page 8 of 8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT

GAJAPATHINAGARAM.

Present: Sri A. Krishna Prasad,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram.

Tuesday this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

CALENDAR CASE No.30/2017

 Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector, Bondapalli P.S … Complainant.

A n d:

Tallapudi Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o Ramu Naidu, 22 years, Ambativalsa Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram … Accused.

This Case coming on 27.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant­State, and of Sri U Ramesh, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following 

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by its Sub Inspector, Bondapalli, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.142/2015 for the offence punishable U/Section 34[a] of A.P.Excise Act. 

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that: On 15.08.2015 at about 21.00 on obtaining credible information by LW7 Sub Inspector of Police,

Bondapalli along with his staff, Lws 1 to 4, HC 1049, PC 1484, PC 1438 and PC 576 went to Ambativalsa Village of Bondapalli Mandal found 9 bottles of Officers Choice (Reserve Whisky ) 180 ML and 5 bottles of Gold

Riband Elite Whisky 180 ml and selling the liquor to the comers. Then they detained him and on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and about commission of offence selling IML.. The sub Inspector of Police, Bondapalli, arrested accused, seized the bottles under the cover of occurrence report and after return to the station, he registered it as a case in Cr.No.142/2015 for the offence U/sec. 34[a] of

A.P.Excie Act sent the same to the Chemical Examiner and after due analysis received analysis report opining that the sample is Indian liquor. The remaining property was got destroyed as per the orders of 2 the Deputy commissioner of Proh. And Excise Vizianagaram. After completion of investigation Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition and

Excise, [LW.7] laid charge sheet.

3. Cognizance is taken U/Sec.190(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Section 34[a] of A.P. Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.,

5.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C who denied the same and claimed to be false. Heard Charge U/Section 34[a] of

A.P.Excise Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exts.P.1 to Exs.4 and M Os .1 and 2 are marked. 

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. by furnishing questionnaire, explaining the incriminating circumstances available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the plea of the accused is of total denial . No defence evidence is reported.

8.Heard the learned APP and defence counsel and perused the record.

9. Now the points that requires determination is:­ 1.Whether as on the date of offence the accused found in possession of contraband without having any valid license or permit ?

2.Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34[a], of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT No.(i) & [ii]:­

10. It is the case of prosecution that on 15.08.2015 at about 21.00 hours Pws.1 and 2 on credible information, went to Ambativalsa Village 3 of Bondapalli Mandal and found the accused 9 bottles of Officers

Choice (Reserve Whisky ) 180 ML and 5 bottles of Gold Riband Elite

Whisky 180 ml for sale for higher price, without having any licence or permit to do business, then PW2 seized contraband, prepared Ex.P1

Occurrence Report, and PW2 arrested accused, registered a case in

Cr.No.142/2015, for the offence U/sec.34[a] of IPC under Ex.P.2 , sent the samples under Mos 1 and 2 to the analysis and received analyst report under Ex.P.3 and after completion of investigation and on receipt of destruction of property proceedings under Ex.P.4, the S.I –

PW.2 laid charge sheet 

11. Section 34[a] of A.P.Excise Act says that:

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or

of any rule, notification or order made,

issued or passed there under or of any

license or permit granted or issued under

this Act: [a] imports, exports, transports,

manufactures, collects or possesses or sells

any intoxicant;

12. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 34[a] of A.P.Excise Act, it is primary object of prosecution to prove that the accused in possession of IML bottles without having any license or permit.

13. To prove the said factual aspect prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 documents apart from Mos.1 and 2. It is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 SI, and Constable of Bondapalli Police

Station, that on obtaining credible information, they went to Ambativalsa

Village of Gajapathinagaram Mandal and found the accused with bag contain 9 bottles of Officers Choice (Reserve Whisky ) 180 ML and 5 bottles of Gold Riband Elite Whisky 180 ml for sale for higher price, without having any licence or permit to do business then PW2 seized contraband, prepared Ex.P1 Occurrence Report, and basing on the same

PW2 arrested accused, registered a case in Cr.No.142/2015 for the offence U/sec.34[a] of IPC under Ex.P.2, sent the samples under Mos 1 and 2 sent to the analysis and received analyst report under Ex.P.3 and after completion of investigation and on receipt of destruction of property proceedings under Ex.P.4, the S.I –PW.2 laid charge sheet 4

14. According to case of prosecution the accused was found in possession of IML without having any license or permit for the purpose of selling the same for higher price. Admittedly the scene of offence is busy locality. In view of section 100[4] of Cr.P.C. as held by Hon'ble High

Court of A.P.in a case between  Gajankar Narayan Vs. state of A.P.

reported in 2006(1) ALT, Crl. Page 254 A.P. it was held that:

U/sec.100[4] of Cr.P.C. before making a

search the office or the other person about

to make it shall call upon two or more

independent respectful inhabitants of the

locality in which the place to be searched

is situated or of any other locality if no

such inhabitant of the said locality is

available or is willing to be a witness to

the search to attend and witness the

search and may issue an order in writing

to them or any of them so to do.

It is further held that :

In the absence of specific evidence in that

regard court bound to come to conclusion

that the provisions of section 100[4] of

Cr.P.C are not followed by the excise

officials while seizing the excise

contraband and therefore, the seizure

made in such case is illegal.

15. In this present case PW.2 admitted that they went to

Ambativalsa village of Bondapalli Mandal, found the accused, and he did not mention the name of constable to whom he deputed to secure independent mediators and he did not obtain the signatures of accused on Mos 1 and 2 and he did not mention the batch numbers of Mos 1 and 2 in Ex.P.1. PW1 also also admitted in the same lines. Scene of offence is a busy locality, it is the duty of the investigating agency to give such notices to the village officials like VAO, VRO and Talayari.

And that too when there is no written requisition or any kind of endorsement of refusal to act as mediator by the persons to whom they enquired. There is no evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the sincere efforts of Pws.2 in securing independent mediators for search and seizure. Investigating agency has every power to take action against the persons who were not assisted them U/s. 187 IPC, but no such steps were taken by PW.2 to support his contention at least no evidence is let in by prosecution to show that they prepared notices 5 to serve on persons under Section 100[4] of Cr.P.C. When Pws.1 and 2 admitted that they have not issued any written requisition, to the villagers to act as mediators or to the village officials, it creates a suspicion about the case of prosecution which entitles accused benefit of doubt. Therefore, in the above circumstances, PW1 only deposed about his receiving case property and handing over the same to PW2 and about his registration of FIR, taken samples, sending them for analysis and receiving analysis report under Ex.P.3 and got destroyed the property under Ex.P.4 destruction proceedings and after completion of investigation PW2 laid charge sheet.

16. Hence, the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In this case, though they tried to secure mediators, but he categorically stated that nobody come forward to act as mediators and they have not issued any notice to anyone in writing to act as mediators. Further more in view of above mentioned decision non­examination of habitant of the locality is certainly fatal to the case of prosecution. In the absence of such evidence and in the absence of issuance of any notices to the inhabitants of that locality, it appears as there is an amount doubt as to preparation Ex.P.1 occurrence report at scene offence.

17. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are police officials having interest in result of the case there is nothing on record to show that they had conducted duty for detection of excise offences and found the accused in possession of IML bottles. Since the seizure could not be proved by the prosecution, the question of non having license or permit by the accused does not arise. In these circumstances basing on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is not at all safe to base conviction for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of the A.P.Excise, against the accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, these points are answered.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section, 34,[a] of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly accused is acquitted U/s.248[1] of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

The M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time..

Accused has executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/­ by 6 undertaking to appear before the Appellate court, under Section 437[A] of Cr.P.C. if any appeal is preferred against the accused. The remaining contraband along with bag had already been destroyed as per the orders of the Dy. Commissioner, Proh.

And Excise,Vizianagaram under Ex.P.4.

Typed by the Personal Assistant on my dictation in my official Laptop, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/­ A Krishna Prasad

 Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

 Gajapathinagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1:J Tarakeswara RaoN O N E – PW2:E Samson

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:­FOR DEFENCE:NONE

Ext.P.1:Occurrence Report on Dt. 15.08.2015 Ex.P.2: Original FIR in Crime No. 142/2015 Ext.P.3: Chemical Analysis report Ex. P4 :Destruction Proceedings

M.Os.Marked. FOR PROSECUTION:­FOR DEFENCE:NONE

M.O. 1: Unexpanded portion of sample of Officers Choice Reserve Whisky bottle 180 ML M.O. 2 : Unexpanded portion of sample of Gold Riband Elite whisky bottle 180 ml

Sd/­ A Krishna Prasad

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT

GAJAPATHINAGARAM.

Present: Sri A. Krishna Prasad,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram.

Wednesday this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

CALENDAR CASE No.215/2016

 Between:

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Gajapathinagaram … Complainant.

A n d:

Mauvuri Prakash, S/o Devudu, 27 years Vysya by Caste, Medara Veedhi, Gajapathinagaram, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District … Accused.

This Case coming on today itself i.e. on 21.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant­State, and of Sri U Ramesh, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over for consideration on this day, the Court delivered the following. 

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by its Proh. And Excise Sub Inspector,

Gajapatinagaram, filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.81/2016 for the offence punishable U/Section 270 & 273 of IPC. 

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that: On 18.06.2016 at about 7.30 PM on receipt of credible information LW.3 SI of Police rushed to

Amrutha Varshini Fancy and General stores, Medaraveedhi,

Gajapathinagaram belongs to the accused along with his staff LW.1 and

LW.2 (Rongali Satyam, C.H.V.G.Naidu conducted raid against the shop and seized the following noxious items i.e. 1) R.K.Deluxe 21 packets and each packet containing 70 pieces total 1470 pieces and its cost is of

Rs.1470/­, 2) Mirage tobacco 19 packets and each packet containing 30 pieces and total 570 pieces and its cost is about Rs.2850, 3) Raja tobacco 108 packets and each packet containing 20 pieces totoal 2160 pieces and its cost of Rs.6480/­ 4) Safari, 19 packets containing 70 pieces and 2 total 1330 piecesa and its const is of Rs.1300/­ and its total cost is

Rs.12130/­ from the possession of the accused with occurrence report.

Then they detained the accused and on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and about commission of offence in this case. The sub Inspector of Police, arrested accused, seized the above said noxious items under cover of occurrence report and registered a case in Cr.No.81/2016. for the offence U/sec. 270 & 273 of IPC. After completion of investigation LW.3 SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused. 

3. Cognizance is taken U/Sec.190(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Section 270 & 273 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.,

5.The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C who denied the same and claimed to be false. Heard Charge U/Section 270 & 273 of

IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial , prosecution examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got exhibited Exts.P.1, P,2 and M O.1 is marked. 

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. by furnishing questionnaire, explaining the incriminating circumstances available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the plea of the accused is of total denial . No defence evidence is reported.

8.Heard the learned APP and defence counsel and perused the record.

9. Now the points that requires determination is:­ 1.Whether as on the date of offence the accused found in possession of noxious items i.e. MO.1 without having any valid license or permi ?

3 2.Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 270 & 273 OF IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Point No.(i) & [ii]:­

10. It is the case of prosecution that on 18.06.2016 at about 7.30

P.M on receipt of credible information PW.1, PW.2 and LW.2 (C.H.V.G.Naidu) conducted raid against the shop by name Amrutha

Varshini Fancy and General stores, Medaraveedhi, Gajapathinagaram and seized the following noxious items i.e. 1) R.K.Deluxe 21 packets and each packet containing 70 pieces total 1470 pieces and its cost is of

Rs.1470/­, 2) Mirage tobacco 19 packets and each packet containing 30 pieces and total 570 pieces and its cost is about Rs.2850, 3) Raja tobacco 108 packets and each packet containing 20 pieces totoal 2160 pieces and its cost of Rs.6480/­ 4) Safari, 19 packets containing 70 pieces and total 1330 pieces and its cost is of Rs.1300/­ and its total cost is

Rs.12130/­ from the possession of the accused with occurrence report.

Then they detained the accused and on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and about commission of offence in this case. Then PW.2 seized about said items, arrested accused under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Cr.No.417/2014­15, for the offence U/sec.270 & 273 of IPC under Ex.P.2. and after completion of investigation –PW.2 laid charge sheet 

12. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 270 & 273 of IPC, it is primary object of prosecution to prove that the accused in possession of MO.1 which is injuries to public health without having any license or permit.

13. To prove the said factual aspect prosecution got examined PWs.1 & 2 got marked Ex.P1, P2 and MO.1. It is the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 is that on receipt of credible information they went to the shop of accused by name Amrutha Varshini Fancy and General stores,

Medaraveedhi, Gajapathinagaram and seized MO.1 noxious substances which is injuries to human consumption worth of Rs.12130/­ from the possession of the accused under Ex.P.1. Then they detained the accused and on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and about commission of offence in this case. Then PW.2 seized about said 4 items, arrested accused under Ex.P.1. thereafter, he brought the accused and seized material to police station and registered as case under Ex.P.2,

14. According to case of prosecution the accused was found in possession of any incriminating material without having any license or permit for the purpose of such possession. Admittedly the scene of offence is busy locality. In view of section 100[4] of Cr.P.C. as held by

Hon'ble High Court of A.P.in a case between  Gajankar Narayan Vs.

state of A.P. reported in 2006(1) ALT, Crl. Page 254 A.P. it was held that:

U/sec.100[4] of Cr.P.C. before making a

search the office or the other person about

to make it shall call upon two or more

independent respectful inhabitants of the

locality in which the place to be searched

is situated or of any other locality if no

such inhabitant of the said locality is

available or is willing to be a witness to

the search to attend and witness the

search and may issue an order in writing

to them or any of them so to do.

It is further held that :

In the absence of specific evidence in that

regard court bound to come to conclusion

that the provisions of section 100[4] of

Cr.P.C are not followed by the excise

officials while seizing the excise

contraband and therefore, the seizure

made in such case is illegal.

15. In this present case PW.1 and PW.2 admitted that they did not secure any independent mediators at the time of recovery of MO.1 and they did not mention the name of constable to whom PW.2 deputed to secure independent mediators and they did not obtain the signatures of accused on MO.1. Moreover, proseuction did not produce any documentary evidence to show that MO.1 is injurious to human consumption nor they did not file any opinion of Food Inspector. Non filing of documentary of evidence with regard to nature of MO.1 to test whether it is fit for human consumption or not certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is the duty of the investigating agency to give such notices to the village officials like VAO, VRO and Talayari. And 5 that too when there is no written requisition or any kind of endorsement of refusal to act as mediator by the persons to whom they enquired. There is no evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the sincere efforts of PW.2 in securing independent mediators for search and seizure. Investigating agency has every power to take action against the persons who were not assisted them U/s. 187 IPC, but no such steps were taken by PW.1 to support his contention at least no evidence is let in by prosecution to show that they prepared notices to serve on persons under Section 100[4] of Cr.P.C. When PWs.1 and 2 admitted that they have not issued any written requisition, to the villagers to act as mediators or to the village officials, it creates a suspicion about the case of prosecution which entitles accused benefit of doubt. 

16. Hence, the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In this case, though they tried to secure mediators, but he categorically stated that nobody come forward to act as mediators and they have not issued any notice to anyone in writing to act as mediators. Further more in view of above mentioned decision non­examination of habitant of the locality is certainly fatal to the case of prosecution. In the absence of such evidence and in the absence of issuance of any notices to the inhabitants of that locality, it appears as there is an amount doubt as to preparation Ex.P.1 occurrence report at scene offence.

17. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 who are police and excise officials having interest in result of the case there is nothing on record to show that they had conducted duty for detection of excise offences and found the accused in possession of IML bottles. Since the seizure could not be proved by the prosecution, the question of non having license or permit by the accused does not arise. In these circumstances basing on the evidence of P.w 1 & 2 it is not at all safe to base conviction for the offence punishable under section 270 & 273, against the accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, these points are answered.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section, 270 & 273 of IPC and accordingly accused is 6 acquitted U/s.248[1] of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. Accused has executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/­ by undertaking to appear before the

Appellate court, under Section 437[A] of Cr.P.C. if any appeal is preferred against the accused. The remaining contraband along with bag had already been destroyed as per the orders of the Dy.

Commissioner, Proh. And Excise, Vizianagaram under Ex.P.4.

Typed by the Personal Assistant on my dictation in my official Laptop, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/­ A Krishna Prasad.,

 Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

 Gajapathinagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:N O N E – PW1:Pitcheswara Rao, SI of Police PW2:ASN Murthy, Constable PW3: G Manyalu, Proh & Excise S I

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:­FOR DEFENCE:NONE

Ext.P.1:Occurrence Report on Dt. 16.03.2015 Ex.P.2: Original FIR in Crime No. 417­2014­15 Ext.P.3: Chemical Analysis reported Ex. P4 :Destruction Proceedings

M.Os.Marked. FOR PROSECUTION:­FOR DEFENCE:NONE

M.O. 1: Unexpanded portion of sample of Bagpiper whisky bottle 180 ml

Sd/­ A Krishna Prasad.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram.

O.S.No.59/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BOBBILI

Present: Sri G.Gangaraju,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram

FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili

Tuesday, the 6th day of February, 2018

O.S.No.59/2017

Between:

1) Smt.Bonu Atchayyamma, W/o late Kondayya @ Kannayya, Aged 62 years, Household duties, R/o Old Door No.6-108, New Door No.8-70, Pedda Veedhi, Terlam village and post, Terlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Bonu Srinu, S/o late Kondayya @ Kannayya, aged 25 years, cultivation, rest-do-

....Plaintiffs.

A n d :

1) Smt. Mudadla Simhachalam, W/o late Lakshmu, aged 78 years, Household duties, R/o Door No.6-107, Pedda Veedhi, Terlam village and Post, Terlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Mudadla Tirupati, S/o late Lakshmu, aged 38 years, Cultivation and Labourer, Rest-do-

...Defendants.

This suit has come on 30.01.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.M.Jagga Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants called absent, written statement of defendants not filed and the defendants set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned vacant site by the plaintiffs with costs.

2.A conspectus of plaintiffs claim is as follows:

The 2nd plaintiff is the son of 1st plaintiff, the husband of 1st plaintiff died in the year 2010, the schedule mentioned vacant site and the tiled house which is situated on the southern side of the schedule mentioned vacant site was purchased by the mother-in-law of the 1st plaintiff viz., Smt. Bonu Narayanamma on 25.4.1961 in the name of her minor son Bonu Kondayya who is no other than the husband of the 1st plaintiff from one Laveti Paidamma S/o Yerakanna and late

Paerumali Appadu’s daughter, Sitamma of Terlam village under registered sale deed for a valid cash consideration of Rs.1,000/- and delivered vacant possession 1

O.S.No.59/2017

to her, since then their family are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the tiled house and the vacant site without any let or hindrance, subsequently the husband of the 1st plaintiff demolished the old tiled house and constructed RCC house thereon by leaving the plaint schedule vacant site on the northern ,side of the house, by leaving Rahadari in the middle of both the properties. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants are having their two tiled houses on the western side of the RCC house, the walls of those houses were also separate, the

Gram Panchayat of Terlam assessed the house property and levied panchayat tax also, plaintiffs are paying panchayat tax to the Gram panchayat, the defendants are nothing to do with the schedule property, they are making open proclamations in the village since 3 days prior to filing of the suit that they would forcibly trespass into the schedule mentioned vacant site of the plaintiffs, which is Item

No.2 of the registered sale deed dt.25.4.1961 and would occupy the same even at the cost of riot or bloodshed. Hence the suit.

3.After receipt of summons by D-1, Sri P.M.M.Kumar, Advocate filed

Vakalatnama on behalf of 1st defendant. Even though summons were served to D- 2 on 10.7.2017, D-2 called absent on 17.7.2017 he he was set exparte on that day and the matter posted for written statement of D-1

Even though statutory period is over, written statement of D-1 not filed. D-1 called absent, no representation. Statutory period is over. Hence D-1 is set exparte and the matter posted for exparte evidence of plaintiff.

4.The 1st plaintiff filed her chief affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint and exhibited Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 documents. In her evidence PW-1 deposed that the schedule mentioned vacant site and the tiled house which is situated on the southern side of the schedule mentioned vacant site was purchased by her mother-in-law viz., Smt. Bonu Narayanamma on 25.4.1961 in the name of her minor son Bonu Kondayya who is no other than her husband from one Laveti

Paidamma S/o Yerakanna and late Paerumali Appadu’s daughter, Sitamma of

Terlam village under registered sale deed for a valid cash consideration of 2

O.S.No.59/2017

Rs.1,000/- and delivered vacant possession to her, since then her family are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the tiled house and the vacant site without any let or hindrance, subsequently her husband demolished the old tiled house and constructed RCC house thereon by leaving the plaint schedule vacant site on the northern side of the house, by leaving Rahadari in the middle of both the properties. She further deposed that the defendants are having their two tiled houses on the western side of the RCC house, the walls of those houses were also separate, the Gram Panchayat of Terlam assessed the house property and levied panchayat tax also, she is paying panchayat tax to the Gram panchayat, the defendants are nothing to do with the schedule property, they are making open proclamations in the village since 3 days prior to filing of the suit that they would forcibly trespass into the schedule mentioned vacant site.

5.To prove her contention, the 1st plaintiff filed and got marked Ex.A-1 Certified copy of sale deed dt.25.4.1961 purchased by her mother in law, Ex.A-2 Panchayat tax receipt and Ex.A-3 Electricity consumption charges bill.

6.A prima facie perusal of record shows that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule vacant site. The defendants as noted above, remained exparte to the proceedings and as such the evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged and uncontroverted. Hence the evidence of PW-1 coupled with

Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 proved the suit claim. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule vacant site with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of February, 2018.

Sd/-G.Gangaraju

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PARVATHIPURAM,

FAC:PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI.

3

O.S.No.59/2017

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined. For Plaintiffs:

PW-1: Bonu Atchayyamma

For Defendants: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A-1 Certified copy of sale deed dt.25.4.1961 purchased by mother in law of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A-2: Panchayat tax receipt dated 8.3.2017. Ex.A-3: Electricity consumption charges bill in the name of husband of 1st plaintiff.

For Defendants:

NIL

Sd/-G.Gangaraju

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PARVATHIPURAM,

FAC:PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI.

4