1
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: PITHAPURAM
Present: G.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy
XII Addl. District Judge, Pithapuram
Friday, this the 30th day of November, 2018
ORIGINAL SUIT No.62/2014
Between:
1. Shaik Madina, S/o. Rasulmiya, A/65 years, Cycle Repairer, Near Sai Baba Temple, Pithapuram.
2. Shaik Gulzar, S/o. Rasulmiya, A/57 years, Service, R/o. Near Sai Baba Temple, Pithapuram.
.. Plaintiffs
And
1. Sahik Noor Mohammed (Junior), S/o. Jani, A/53 years, D.No.4-2-4, Near Saibaba Temple Pithapuram.
2. Shaik Ghousia, D/o. Shaik Jani, W/o. Meera, A/50 years, Pithapuram Pithanidibba, D.No.10-27/1, Opp. Judge Court, Visakhapatnam.
3. Mumtaz, D/o. Jani, W/o. Abdul Salim, A/45 years, D.No.8-1-39/2, New Sub-Station, Gajuvaka, Visakhapatnam.
.. Defendants
This suit coming on19.11.2018 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.K.Mohiuddin and Sri S.Aejazuddin, Advocates for Plaintiffs; and Sri
B.Radha Krishna, Advocate for 1st Defendant and defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The suit is instituted for partition of schedule properties into three equal and equable shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the Plaintiffs and directing Defendants not to go on with constructions in the schedule property and removal of X, Y wall shown in the plaint plan.
2
2.The brief averments of plaint are that:
(i)The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of Late Rasulmiya, who is the husband of Farid Bibi and who is the daughter of late
Noor Mohammed (Senior) through his second wife Farid Bibi (Junior). 1st Defendant is the son and Defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of Late Shaik Jani, who is the son of Late Noor
Mohammed Senior through his second wife late Farid Bibi
Junior. The mother of the Plaintiffs and the father of the
Defendants Shaik Jani are the sister and brother.
(ii)The property described in the schedule originally belonged to late Noor Mohammed senior, he had a first wife by name Farid
Bibi senior. Through her he had two sons. Noor Mohammed senior had a second wife who is also called Farid Bibi and she is shown as Farid Bibi junior in the above chart. Through this second wife Noor Mohammed senior had two children. Shaik
Jani died intestate in the year 2012 and is survived by Noor
Mohammed junior and two daughters Ghousia and Mumtaz, who are defendants 1 to 3 in this suit.
(iii)Noor Mohammed senior along with his first wife Farid Bibi senior and her four children purchased the schedule property from Nadakuduti Seetharamayya under a registered sale deed
dated 23.06.1924. Subsequent to the death of Farid Bibi senior
her son Madina and daughter by name Jani Bibi died issue less 3 and there upon their share and interest in the schedule property devolved on Shaik Farid, Sattar Bibi. This Farid and
Sattar Bibi sold away the schedule property to Shaik Jani under a sale deed dated 19.03.1952. When there is a son and daughter the entire property would devolve on them. Shaik
Jani, conveyed the suit property back to his father Noor
Mohammed senior under a registered document dated 30.06.1952. Thus, Noor Mohammed senior became the absolute owner of the suit property.
(iv)On the intestate death of Noor Mohammed senior the suit property devolved on his only surviving heirs, who are his son
Shaik Jani and daughter Farid Bibi, according to Muslim Law.
Jani got two share while the daughter Farid Bibi No.3 got one share as no other heirs of Noor Mohammed senior survived.
One share that Farid Bibi No.3 got, on her death devolved on her two sons who are the Plaintiffs one and two herein. Her husband and all other heirs died leaving no successors. Thus, the Plaintiff 1 and 2 are together entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property.
(v)The Plaintiffs have been requesting the Defendants to cooperate for the partition of the suit property into three shares and to allot one such share collectively to the Plaintiffs, but in vain. Defendants are in possession of large extent of the suit property and are making unlawful constructions and are 4 also trying to sell a part of the joint property to 3rd parties. In order to prevent such illegal sales the Plaintiffs also got a public notice published in a newspaper. The Defendants are highly influential and rich persons and are high handed in nature. They are trying to grab the entire property with the help of the local police and the Municipal Authorities.
(vi)The Defendants have unauthorizedly and high highhandedly constructed shop rooms in the said property facing the road and by leasing them out they are getting rent of Rs.6,000/- per month and enjoying the same by themselves. Plaintiffs are also entitled to a share in the rents also according to law. The
Defendants are trying to grab the entire property by ejecting the Plaintiffs even by using unlawful force. With a view to cause inconvenience the Plaintiffs beyond endurance, the
Defendants have constructed a wall shown as X,Y in the plant plan running north to south, connecting the existing Northern and southern side walls, separating the vacant site in possession of the Plaintiffs from the rest of the property, closing the passage of the Plaintiffs to the backyard and thereby encircled the portion under the occupation of the
Plaintiffs shown as F, F1, I, J, K, Y, X, M, N, O, P in the plaint plan.
(vii)On account of the construction of the said wall the Plaintiffs are prevented from using the wall – “W” and toilets located in the backyard towards East of X, Y wall. The Plaintiffs are 5 entitled under law to seek a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the X, Y wall. The Defendants are planning to make some unlawful construction in the vacant site J, K, Y, X M and towards the north and raising columns. The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek an injunction prohibiting the
Defendants from making any such constructions in the joint property. They are entitled under law to seek a decree for the partition of the suit property in to three equal shares and to allot one such share to the Plaintiffs. Hence the suit.
3.In the written statement of 1st defendant plaint allegations are denied and further denied to say that:
(i)Defendants have unauthorizedly and high highhandedly constructed shop rooms in the said property facing the road and by leasing them out they are getting rents of Rs.6,000/- per month and enjoying the same by themselves and Plaintiffs are also entitled to a share in the rents also according to law. This
Defendant further submits that he is enjoying his property only, he never intruded into other property or never claimed property rights on others property and the rents mentioned in the plaint are also very astronomical and the 1st Defendant is not getting Rs.6,000/- per month. The Plaintiff might have mentioned the monthly rent as Rs.6,000/-, only with an oblique motive and in case if they succeed in the suit with a view to demand past and future profits on the exorbitant rate and with 6 a view to lay foundation for the same mentioned the rent as
Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further denied to say that
Defendants are trying to grab the entire property by ejecting the Plaintiffs even by using unlawful force with a view to inconvenience the Plaintiffs beyond endurance, the Defendants have constructed a wall shown as X, Y in the plaint plan running the North to South, connecting the existing Northern and southern side walls, separating the vacant site in possession of the Plaintiffs from the rest of the property, closing the passage of the Plaintiffs to the backyard and thereby encircled the portion under the occupation of the Plaintiffs shown as F, F1, I,
J, K, Y, X, M, N, O, P in the plaint plan. This Defendant submits that the Plaintiffs never in possession of the property as alleged in the plaint. This Defendant further submits that there was never any opening on BC points of the plaint plan and the
Plaintiffs never utilized the vacant site from X, Y to reach the eastern side public land and therefore the allegation that on account of construction the Plaintiffs are prevented from using the well and toilets situated in the back yard is nothing but false.
(ii)The Defendant submits that the suit is nothing but a chance suit filed by the Plaintiffs only with a view to harass the 1st
Defendant filed in collusion with the Defendants 2 and 3 and with a view to stall the 1st Defendants developmental activities in the plaint schedule property. This Defendant further submits 7 that even as per the plaint allegations also the suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiffs are asking prohibitory injunction against a co-owner which is not permitted under law. Even as per law and facts the Plaintiffs are not entitled to get any reliefs from the Court and as the Plaintiffs are not entitled for partition the remaining reliefs prayed by the Plaintiffs in this suit also cannot be granted.
(iii)The defendant is denying the allegations in the plaint, which are not expressly traversed and the Plaintiffs suit has to specifically prove each and every allegation mentioned in the plaint. There is no cause of action and the alleged cause of action is only invented for the purpose of the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. The valuation of the suit is not correct. The suit in the present form is not maintainable under law. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action. This court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. The suit in the present form is not maintainable under law.
4.Defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
(i)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree of partition as prayed for?
8
(ii)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for?
(iii)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?
(iv)To what relief?
6.During course of trial, the 2nd Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and
Ex.A.1 to A.5 are marked. 1st Defendant himself examined as DW.1, Ex.B.1 certified copy of settlement deed dated 30.06.1952 and Ex.B.2 registered partition deed dated 19.07.2004 are marked.
7.During course of hearing of arguments, Advocate for Plaintiffs referring pleadings and evidence submits that the parties belong to Hanafi
Muslim, they are governed by sunni law. There is no right by birth. It is stated after death only shares may be worked out among sharers, residuaries and distant, kindred. Otherwise it becomes es-cheat. It is stated parties are residuries. It is submitted that after death of Senior Noor
Mohammed, Farid Babi mother of Plaintiff is entitled 1/3rd share, whereas
Defendants father Shaik Jani entitled to 2/3rd share as succession opened.
It is submitted that under Ex.A.1 way back in 1924 Noor Mohammed Senior, wife and children purchased the property and in 1952 property was sold by
Noor Mohammed and that under Ex.A.3 in June 1992 Shaik Jani father of
Defendants sold to Noor Mohammed and he became absolute owner and after death of Noor Mohammed succession opened as submitted above.
9
8.With regard to plea of Defendants, it is submitted that in 1984
Defendants father filed O.S.165/1984 in the Court of District Munisiff,
Pithapuram against Plaintiffs herein and their mother Farid Bibi stating that
Defendants father alone is in possession of house property with boundaries and Plaintiffs herein and mother were permitted temporarily. It is submitted that Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 Judgment and Decree in O.S.165/1984 show was dismissed and no appeal was preferred by Defendants father and it became final and it shows Defendants father admitted possession of
Plaintiffs and mother herein schedule land. It is submitted that along with written statement the existence of Ex.B.1 is not pleaded original is not produced and only during course of trial it might have been created to suit
Defendants plea. It is submitted that Ex.B.2 is also created one. It is submitted that as Plaintiffs and Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property and Defendants refused to partition the property, Plaintiffs are entitled to decree for partition and separate possession and consequential reliefs.
9.In contrast, Advocate for 1st Defendant insistently submits that even
Defendants denied genealogy given by the Plaintiff and relationship pleaded by the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that in the plaint there is no mention of date of death of Noor Mohammad senior and death certificate is not filed and without showing exact date of death of Noor Mohammad and succession to the property Plaintiffs may not seek partition. It is submitted that alienation under Ex.A.2 may be taken into consideration either way. It is submitted that there is no mention whether children of 1st wife are alive or not and they are not added as parties to the suit is bad for non-joinder of 10 necessary parties. It is submitted that in case of intestate succession, it opens when there was no prior alienation and if a person died in intestate.
It is submitted that that in this matter Noor Mohammad senior executed,
Ex.B.2 settlement deed giving life interest to mother of Defendants 1 to 3 and vested remainder to father of 1st Defendant and this settlement was operated and as per this settlement only Defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment. It is submitted that on the same day of purchasing property to consolidate property to give life interest to Farid
Bibi it executed Ex.B.1. It is submitted that dealing with the property and conduct of the parties have also to be taken into account. It is submitted that Ex.B.2 clearly shows there was partition among Defendants and their father and each of them is in separate possession and enjoyment of the property and it is not possible to fabricate Ex.B.2 partition, it shows that
Plaintiffs have nothing to do with schedule property. It is submitted that to disprove Ex.B.1 and B.2 no scrap of paper is filed by the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
10.Heard both sides.
11.ISSUE No.1:Under this issue the points for consideration are whether Noor Mohammad Senior dies intestate and succession opened;
Whether Plaintiffs and Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property as tenants in common; Whether the Defendants alone are in possession and enjoyment of part of schedule property; and Whether
Plaintiffs are entitled to partition, division and separate possession of schedule property.
11
12.Plea of the Plaintiffs is that their grand-father Noor Mohammad
Senior possessed schedule property, got property from Defendants father
Shaik Jani and after death of Noor Mohammad Senior succession opened and that Plaintiffs mother Farid Bibi and Defendants father got property and all of them are in joint possession and enjoyment and tenants in common. Whereas Defendants categorically plea is that during life time
Noor Mohammad Senior he settled the property in favour of Shaik Jani and others and after that settles are in possession and enjoyment of the property, according to Defendants, Plaintiffs have nothing to do with the schedule property. Further plea is that in view of the partition shown in
Ex.B.2 partition was done and Shaik Jani, Defendants are in possession and enjoyment. It is stated Plaintiffs known all these facts colluding with
Defendants 2 and 3, this speculative suit has been filed.
13.In view of information elicited in the evidence and admissions made though Defendants deny genealogy shown in the Plaint and even relationship among the parties, in the cross-examination DW.1/1st
Defendant he stated Noor Mohammad Senior is DW.1’s paternal grandfather, he had two wives i.e., Senior Farid Bibi and Junior Farid Bibi.
He stated Shaik Farbid Senior begotten two sons and two daughters namely
Shaik Fareed, Shaik Madeens as sons and Sattar Beebi and Jani Beebi are daughters. He stated Shaik Farid Beebi Junior and father of DW.1 are children of Junior Fareed Beebi. He stated they are two sons and two daughters. Some information has been elicited in respect of other relatives.
In view of this information elicited, though 1st Defendant denied genealogy, 12 as shown in the Plaint and relationship among the parties, the relationship among parties is established. But this is not an end itself.
14.There is oath against oath, in such situation, the documentary evidence, conduct of the parties, dealing with the property and surrounding circumstances may be taken into account.
15.In the cross-examination of PW.1, he stated he born in 1957. Original of Ex.A.1, A.2 and A.3 were executed long prior to his birth. He knew contents of Ex.A.1 to A.3. He stated about 30 years ago his mother got succeeded in O.S.165/1994. He stated maternal grandfather purchased the property under Ex.A.3 in 1952. According to PW.1, he did not file any document dated 30.06.1952, though confronted with a copy of settlement deed, execution of Noor Mohammad Senior in favour of Shaik Farid Beebi
No.2 and children settling the property. It is suggested that Noor
Mohammad Senior had settled properties under registered deed in favour of Shaik Farid Beebi No.2 and children as such there was no succession, a specific suggestion is made Farid Beebi did not inherit schedule property, as such Plaintiff have not succeeded to the property. In respect of Ex.A.4 certified copy of decree in O.S.165/1994 in the Court of District Munisiff,
Pithapuram and Ex.A.5 Certified copy of Judgment PW.1 stated
O.S.165/1994 was instituted against his mother and themselves by Shaik
Jani alleging their mother and Plaintiffs herein have no right in the property. It is suggested that Shaik Farid Beebi and Plaintiffs have no right over schedule properties. It is suggested that as Judgment in Ex.A.5 is not comprehensive, as such it is not helpful to the Plaintiffs.
13
16.DW.1 reiterated averments of the written statement. DW.1 stated he does not know whether Shaik Noor Mohammed and his sons purchased property from Nadikuduru Seetharamayya. He stated Shaik Jani purchased schedule land consisting of tiled house from Shaik Farid and Sattar Beebi under sale deed dated 19.03.1952. He admits his father Shaik Jani sold schedule property to father Noor Mahammed Senior under sale deed
No.952 dated 30.06.1952 and grand father became owner of the schedule property. He categorically denied after death of grand father Defendants father got succeeded 2/3rd share whereas daughter Farid Beebi inherited 1/3rd share as per Muslim law. During life time of grand father, his daughter Farid Beebi was residing in portion of schedule property along with the Plaintiffs.
17.In respect of O.S.165/1984 and Ex.A.4 and A.5, DW.1 stated suit was dismissed in 1989. He does not know whether appeal was preferred or not.
He does no t know whether as per Ex.A.4 and A.5 Shaik Farid Beebi mother of Plaintiffs had right, title and possession over schedule property.
18.He denied that in this suit Defendants have not pleaded existence of
Document No.999/1952. He asserted Shaik Farid Beebi died in 1980. On the death of Shaik Farid, Shaik Jani succeeded to the property. He did not execute any document. He denied that as per alleged settlement deed
DW.1’s father did not get absolute right over the property. He denied that
Document No.999/1952 is forged and fabricated and never existed during life time of Shaik Jani.
14
19.In view of this information elicited, documents may be referred to.
Ex.A.1 sale deed of 1924 simply shows Noor Mohammed Senior purchased the property, subsequent of alienations may be taken into account. Ex.A.2 document No.297/1952 shows transaction took place on 19.03.1952. Ex.A.3 sale dated 30.06.1952 shows that Defendants father Shaik Jani in his sale deed, he purchased on 19.03.1952 possession was delivered.
20.Advocate for Plaintiffs placing much reliance on Ex.A.3 submits that as Shaik Jani, son of Senior Noor Mohammed sold the property and re- conveyed to Noor Mohammed Senior and he died intestate, Plaintiffs and defendants got the property as per Muslim Law. To consider this aspect, the version of DW.1 and documents filed by the Defendants may be looked into.
21.Admittedly, Ex.B.1 certified copy of document No.999/1952 dated 30.06.1952 was not produced along with written statement and even there is no mention in written statement of 1st Defendant about the existence of original of Ex.B.1.
22.Advocate for 1st Defendant submits that though Shaik Jani sold the property to Shaik Noor Mohammed, again on 30.06.1952 to consolidate property Noor Mohammed Senior settled the property under original of
Ex.B.1 and as per settlement deed Defendants father Shaik Jani and others got property. This supports the plea of the Defendants that though Shaik
Jani sold the property in 1952 again under original of Ex.B.1 property was re-conveyed under settlement deed. When Ex.B.1 accepted as per this 15 settlement deed the Defendants father, the persons whose names are mentioned in Ex.B.1 succeeded to the property. This is one aspect of the matter.
23. Then the conduct of the parties, dealing with the property and surrounding circumstances may be looked into.
24.In the plaint it is mentioned in 1955 Noor Mohammed Senior possessed property and after his death property devolved on the
Defendants and Plaintiffs in proportion of 2 : 1 share, according to Muslim
Law. Even according to PW.1 Noor Mohammed Senior died intestate and without causing any deed and Plaintiffs share that their mother got 1/3rd share, Shaik Jani got 2/3rd share.
25.It could be seen that according to Plaintiffs on the death of Noor
Mohammed succession opened 1955 and their mother and Shaik Jani are in joint possession and enjoyment. But no scrap of paper has been filed by the
Plaintiffs that they are in joint possession and enjoyment along with the
Defendants, except placing reliance on Ex.A.1 to A.3.
26.Ex.A.4 and A.5 decree and Judgment in O.S.165/1984 coupled with information elicited in the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1 shows that Shaik
Jani, father of Defendants filed this suit against Plaintiffs herein and their mother pleading that the house D.No.4-283 property corresponds to schedule herein was in possession and enjoyment of Shaik Jani and Shaik
Madeena and his mother are temporarily to set in the premises, inspite of 16 demands and requested, they did not vacant premises and even Shaik Jani got issued notice to Shaik Madeena and his mother. Though, Ex.A.4 and A.5 and version of PW.1 and DW.1 shows that O.S.165/1984 was dismissed, it is not comprehensive suit. The right and title of the parties is not decided.
27.Advocate for Defendant No.1 submits that Ex.A.4 and A.5 simply show that Defendants father filed that suit and though it was dismissed, it is not comprehensive suit. In view of submission and taking into consideration
Ex.A.4 and A.5 it shows that way back in 1984 Defendants father Shaik Jani claimed exclusive possession and enjoyment over the property, though
Plaintiffs claimed that in 1955, after death of Noor Mohammed Senior succession opens, till filing of suit in Ex.A.4 and A.5, no evidence was placed by the Plaintiffs that they are in joint possession and enjoyment along with the Defendants. This is one aspect of the matter.
28.In the evidence of PW.1/2nd Plaintiff he stated he does not know in whose name property tax and other taxes are being paid to Municipality.
PW.1 does not know who paid taxes after death of Shaik Jani and whether tax was being paid in the name of Shaik Jani during his life time. PW.1 does not know the the East, West, South and North measurements of 0.25 cents of the site. PW.1 categorically admitted Shaik Noor Mohammed Junior/1st defendant constructed RCC house over schedule site. PW.1 cannot say the extent over which the RCC house was constructed. It is elicited prior to filing of this suit, 1st Defendant constructed house, at that time Plaintiffs got issued notice and they have not produced copy of the notice. It is suggested that 1st Defendant constructed the house with absolute right 17 over the site as such Plaintiffs did not obstruct and DW.1 completed the construction of the house. It is further elicited the site there is free access from northern to south towards both and 1st Defendant and other side.
Previously there was a flour mill on the northern over the site, it is vacant site as there is no flour mill. PW.1 cannot say the exact open site on the northern side. Previously there existed latrines and bath rooms on the south. PW.1 categorically admitted 1st Defendant and his family members are using bath rooms.
29. In the cross-examination of DW.1/1st Defendant stated prior to filing of this suit, 1st Defendant constructed wall in the site in between X and Y points. DW.1 stated that there is no written agreement. DW.1 denied that their grand father had purchased the extent of 750 square yards. It is elicited there is lane of Municipality on the East and South of the schedule property. DW.1 asserted they constructed three shops facing south road. A house is facing on the East. DW.1 denied that they constructed a house and shop during pendency of the suit. DW.1 received notice from the Court. He asserted with permission of the Court, they constructed a house. DW.1 denied that during pendency of the suit, they high highhandedly constructed house. DW.1 stated they are getting Rs.600/- per month for rent of the shop. He asserted since 2014 they are paying taxes and receiving rents.
30.In the evidence of DW.1, he stated Goushya Begaum and Mumtaj
Begum were allotted some landed properties under partition deed. It is true that the sister of DW.1 got issued notice disputing partition deed.
18
DW.1 denied that they created documents. Admittedly Plaintiffs are not parties to partition deed, Ex.B.2.
31.In view of this information elicited, the conduct and dealings of the property and surrounding circumstances show that DW.1 made constructions and even paying taxes to the Municipality. It is not stated by the Plaintiffs that they have also contributed for the constructions in the schedule premises. It is not version of Plaintiffs that they also paid taxes to the Municipality. Except claiming that the Plaintiffs are also joint owners but they have not produced any evidence and even the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances also may not point out that the
Plaintiffs have right and possession over schedule land.
32.Styled Parikattu document shown that on 19.07.2004 there was partition among Shaik Jani/Defendants father and his children and daughters. Even in Ex.B.2, it is shown that on 19.03.1952 Shaik Jani purchased property. It is also recited that on 30.06.1952 Shaik Noor
Mohammad Senior executed settlement deed and property was given to
Farid Beebi and Sahik Pasha and there was partition and shares were allotted to Shaik Jani and his sisters. Except suggesting that Plaintiffs are not parties to Ex.B.2, it is not binding on them. Ex.B.2 categorically shows
Noor Mahammad Senior executed settlement deed and in view of it, Shaik
Jani, defendants got the property and there was partition under Ex.B.2. All this information elicited falsifies the version of Plaintiffs that Shaik
Noormahammed Senior died intestate and succession opens and Plaintiffs also have got right and share in the schedule property. On the other hand it 19 is shown 1st Defendant plea to show execution, possession and enjoyment over schedule property. It probabalizes the plea of 1st Defendant that
Defendants 2 and 3 are sisters and there is collusion among Plaintiffs and his sisters and only to take a chance the palliative suit is filed.
33.In the light of above discussion, I am of the view that the Plaintiffs are not entitled partition, division and separate possession of schedule property. Preliminary decree may not be passed. This issue is answered against the Plaintiff.
34.ISSUE Nos.2 AND 3:Under this issues, it is to be seen whether
Plaintiffs are entitled to temporary injunction and mandatory injunction. In view of finding arrived on Issue No.1, it has been concluded that Plaintiffs are not entitled to partition, division and separate possession of schedule property and that DW.1/1st Defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In view of it, Plaintiffs are not entitled to temporary injunction and mandatory injunction. This issues are answered against the Plaintiffs.
35.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court on this 30th day of November 2018.
Sd/- G.L.N. Reddy
XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Pithapuram 20
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: PW.1: Shaik Gulzar
FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW.1: Shaik Noor Mohammed
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A.1:Certified copy of sale deed dated 23.06.1924
Ex.A.2: Certified copy of sale deed dated 19.03.1952
Ex.A.3: Originla registered sale deed dated 30.06.1952
Ex.A.4: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.165/1984
Ex.A.5: Certified copy of of Judgment in O.S.165/1984
FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.B.1:Certified copy of settlement deed dated 30.06.1952
Ex.B.2:Registered partition deed
Sd/- G.L.N. Reddy
XII ADJ