Page No.1 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 // Fair Copy //
IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT ::
JAGTIAL.
PRESENT: S. Narayana,
I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
JAGTIAL
Friday, the 28th day of March, 2025.
O.S.No. 12 OF 2014
Between:
1.Gangam Rajender, S/o: Limbaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o: H.No.7-5-85, Vidyanagar, Jagtial, Karimnagar District.
2.Katuku Danunjaya, S/o: Narayana, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14-2-241, Jawhar Nagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar.
…Plaintiffs
// AND //
1.Kusari Ramulu, S/o: Rajam, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.2-79, Dharmapuri road, Shankulapalle village, Thippannapeta, Jagtial mandal, Karimnagar District.
2.Kusari Anil Kumar @ Anil, S/o Ramulu, age:34 years, Business, Resident of H.No.2-79, Dharmapuri Road, Shankulapalle Village, Post Thippannapeta, Jagitial Mandal, Karimnagar District.
3. Kusari Ashok Kumar, S/o Ramulu, Age: 30 years, Private Employee, Resident of H.No.2-79, Dharmapuri Road, Shankulapalle Village, Post Thippannapeta, Jagitial Mandal, Karimnagar District.
4. Kusari Anitha, D/o Ramulu, Occ: Business, Resident of H.No. 2-79, Dharmapuri Raod, Jagitial, Karimnagar District.
5. Kusari Aruna, D/o Ramulu, Occ:Business, Resident of H.No. 2-79, Dharmapuri Raod, Jagitial, Karimnagar District.
6. Hanumalla Suguna, W/o Lingam, Age: 67 years, Occ:House Wife, Resident of H.No.6-6-235, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
7. Hanumalla Rameshbabu, S/o Lingam, Age: 51 years, Occ: Employee, Resident of H.No. 1-8-700/23, Padma Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
8. Hanumalla Raghuveer Kumar, S/o Lingam, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, Resident of H.No.6-6-234/1, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
9. Hanumalla Sampath Kumar, S/o Lingam, Age: 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, Resident of H.No.6-6-235, Padmanagar, Jagitial
Page No.2 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
10. Hanumandla Narayana @ Anumalla Narayana, S/o Chinna Rajam, Age: 73 years, Occ:Business, Resident of H.No.6-6-232, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
11. Hanumalla Rajabhaskar, S/o Venkat Rajam, Age: 47 years, Occ:Business, Resident of H.No.6-6-234, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
12. Hanumalla Suresh Kumar, S/o Venkat Rajam, Age: 38 years, Occ: Private Employee, Resident of H.No.6-6-234, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
13. Hanumalla Prameela, W/o Venkat Rajam, Age: 57 years, Occ: House Wife, Resident of H.No.6-6-234, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
14. Hanumalla Ramulu, S/o Chinnaiah, Age: 72 years, Occ: Business, Resident of H.No.6-6-231, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
15. Hanumalla Satyanarayana @ Anumalla Satyanarayana, S/o Chinnaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Business, Resident of H.No.7- 1-86, Mochibazar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
16. Dusa Bharathi, W/o Laxman (D/o Hanumanda Rama Swamy, Age: 43 years, Occ:House Wife, Resident of H.No.6-6-172, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
17. Kailasaani Sunitha, W/o Satyanarayana (D/o Hanumandla Rama Swamy), Age: 41 years, Occ: House Wife, Resident of H.No.6-6- 172, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
18. Mamidala Saritha, W/o Surya Prakash (D/o Hanumandla Rama Swamy), Age: 38 years, Occ: House Wife, Resident of H.No.11-2- 68, Mallial Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
19. Macharla Jyothi @ Manyala Jyothi, W/o Srinivas (D/o Hanumandla Rama Swamy), Age: 32 years, Occ: House Wife, Resident of H.No.168, Darshika medical to Deepika Bar Paryat, Kamataghar, Padmanagar, TEHSIL Bhivandi, Thane District, Maharashtra -421302.
20. Hanumandla Sai Shanker @ Anumalla Sai Shanker, S/o Rama Swamy, Age:26 years, Occ: Business, Resident of H.No.6-6- 172, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
21. Hanumalla Devika @ Gangishetti Devika, W/o Muninder (D/o Hanumandla Rama Swamy), Age: 23 years, Occ: House Wife, Resident of H.No.8-6-12, Nehru Nagar, Sircilla Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
22. Gutta Rama Devi, W/o Mahesh D/o Hanumandla Lingam), Age: 48 years, Occ: House Wife, Resident of H.No.26-2/A, Raikal Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
23. Merugu Vijaya, W/o Satyanarayara (D/o:Hanumandla Lingam), Age: 43 years, Occ:House Wife, Resident of H.No.5-12-
Page No.3 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 299/C, Gajulapet, Nirmal, Adilabad District.
24. Mekala Uma Rani, W/o Ramesh (D/o Hanumandla Lingam), Age: 41 years, Occ:House Wife, Resident of H.No.14-220, Kailash Nagar, Adilabad Town and Mandal, Adilabad District.
25. Sunkarwar Rekha Rani, W/o Pramod Kumar (D/o Hanumandla Lingam), Age: 36 years, Occ:House Wife, Resident of H.No.6-6- 234/1, Padmanagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
26. Bheemanathi Manga, W/o Ashok, Age: 48 years, Occ:Agriculture, Resident of H.No.6-40, Near Police Station, Dharmapuri Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
27. Bairneni Ravi Prasad Rao, S/o Ananda Rao, Age: 41 years, Occ:Business, Resident of H.No.1-4-242, Aravinda Nagar, Jagitial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
28. Gaddam Bhoja Reddy, S/ o Malla Ready, Age: 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, Resident of Nagaram Town, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District.
29. Gaddam Krishna Reddy, S/o Raghupathi Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ:Business, Resident of Nagaram Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District.
30.Musku Komurella Reddy S/o. Dasharatha Reddy, age 59 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-20, Nagaram Village, Dharmapuri mandal, Jagtial District.
31.Musku Narayana Reddy S/o. Rajeshwar Reddy, age 65 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 7-6-250, Ashoknagar, Jagtial town & Dist.
32.Vuppu Anjaiah S/o Hanmaiha, age 53 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-5-152/2, Bagyanaragar, Jagtial town & Dist.
33.Yeravelli Sunitha W/o. Ravinder, age 49 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 3-6-26/1, Vaninagar, Jagtial town & Dist.
34. Beemanathini Ashok S/o. Gangaram, age 59 yrs, Occ: Rtd VRO, R/o. H.No. 6-3-40, near police station, Dharmapuri village & mandal, Jagtial Dist.
35. Mittapelli Thirupathi S/o. Gangaram, age 42 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-171, Porumalla village, Medipelli mandal, Jagtial Dist.
36. Bairineni Sujatha W/o. Ananda Rao, age 75 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-4-242, Aravindanagar, Jagtial town and Dist.
37.Bethi Jalapathi S/o. Ganganna age 42 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, K/o. H.No. 1-18/2, Porumalla village, Medipelli mandal, Jagtial Dist.
38. Musku Ramgopal Reddy 5/0. Gangareddy, age 59 ys, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. HIG39, Housing board colony, Jagtial town & Dist.
39.Baddam Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Laxmareddy, age 62 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 2-21, Narsingapur, Pattipaka village of Dharmaram mandal, Peddapelli District.
40.Gunda Bapureddy S/o. Adireddy, age 61 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-23, Narsingapur, Pattipaka village of Dharmaram mandal, Peddapelli District.
Page No.4 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
41.Kongari Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Bhumareddy, age 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gullapeta village Jagtial Rural mandl, Jagtial Dist
42.Kongari Laxmi W/o. Sudhakar Reddy, age 45 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gullapeta village Jagtial Rural mandl, Jagtial District.
43.Kuruma Malla Reddy S/o Rajaiah, age 55 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Paidimadugu village of Korutla mandal, Jagtial Dist.
44.Sura Satyanarayana Reddy S/o. Lingareddy, age 55 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 12-597/12, Hanumannagar, Mancharial town & Dist.
45. Gunishetty Ratnakar S/o. Jaggaiah, age 55 yrs, Occ: Agricutlure, R/o. H.No. 1-82, Dharmapuri village and mandal, Jagtial Dist.
46.Gunishetty Ravinder S/o. Jaggaiah, age 45 yrs, Occ: Agricutlure, R/o. H.No. 7-21, Dharmapuri village and mandal, Jagtial Dist. 47 Musku Jayasri W/oRamgopal Reddy, age 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. HIG39, Housing board colony, Jagtial town & Dist. (Defendant Nos. 30 to 47 were brought on record as per Orders in
IA.No.164/2023, dt: 14.09.2023)
...Defendants.
This suit coming before me for final hearing on 17.03.2025 in the presence of Sri J. Rajender, Advocate for the plaintiff No.1, Sri. Ch. Rajender, Advocate for the plaintiff No.2 and, of Sri. P. Laxman, Advocate for Defendant No.2, Sri. A. Maruthi, Advocate for Defendant No.4, Sri. R. Narender, Advocate for Defendant Nos.6 to 25, Sri. M. Janardhan Reddy, Advocate for Defendant Nos.26 to 29 and Sri.S. Pavan Kumar, Advocate for Defendant Nos.30 to 47, Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This suit is filed Under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 of CPC by the plaintiffs for seeking relief of passing a decree for specific performance by direct the defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1-10 gts in Sy.No.455/E situated at
Thippannapeta village of Jagtial mandal and District in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominees by receiving balance sale consideration of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominees through the process of the Court and to
Page No.5 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 pass a decree directing the defendants to refund Rs.20,00,000/- with subsequent interest from the date of the suit till realization @ 24 % per annum and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of enjoyment of the plaintiffs, and to declare registered sale deed doc.
No.3867/2013 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, to declare the registered sale deeds doc. Nos. 2316/2015, 2317/2015, 2318/2015, 2319/2015, 2320/2015, 2321/2015, 2322/2015, 2351/2015, 2352/2015, 2353/2015, 2354/2015, 2355/2015, 2356/2015, 2357/2015, 2358//2015, 2359/2015, 3367/2015, 7687/2015, 3269/2016, 6315/2016 and 3097/2018 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and to declare the Lok Adalath award vide
Award No.161/2013 is not binding on plaintiffs.
1.The averments of the plaint, in a nutshell, for effective adjudication of the suit, are narrated as under:-
The Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 are the Residences of the Jagitial and
Godavarikhani, both the Plaintiffs are family friends since long time. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 representing that they are the absolute owners of the
Plaint Schedule Property and the property is their ancestral property, which was devolved on them after the death of the father of defendant
No.1 Late Kusari Rajam by way of succession, they have also shown to the
Plaintiffs the Pattadar Passbooks issued by the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of Pattadar Passbook Act in favour of the defendant
Page No.6 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
No.1, on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 5, as elder of the family under Books
No.S278216. It is further submitted that the Defendant No.1 is the father and Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are his children. It is also represented by
Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 that, since the Plaint Schedule Property is ancestral property, there are no documents, but the names of their ancestors and after them the name of the first Defendant find place and informed that some anti social elements, who are habituated to grab the properties of poor and helpless people, with evil motive are trying to manipulate the revenue records. It is further submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 put the Plaint Schedule Property for sale as they need money urgently, after negotiations the Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the Plaint Schedule
Property for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
One Lakhs only) for which the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 agreed and on 02.04.2005 the Oral Agreement of Sale was executed and in pursuance of the same the Plaintiffs paid the major part of sale consideration of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) out of Rs.21,00,000/-(Rupees
Iwenty One Lakhs only) to the Defendants and it is agreed that the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- Rupees One Lakh only) is to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed
It is further submitted that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 delivered possession of the Plaint Schedule Property to the Plaintiffs, they mutually understood and agreed between them that there is no time limit for execution of the sale deed and whenever the Plaintiffs get ready with the balance of sale consideration, all the Defendants shall come and receive
Page No.7 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 the balance of sale consideration and execute the regular Registered Sale
Deed or sale deeds infavour of the Plaintiffs or their Nominees without causing any delay. On the same day i.e., on 02.04.2005 the terms and conditions of the agreement which was already concluded mutually is reduced into writing by 1 to 5 Defendants and they executed the document style-in and mentioning as "Possessory Sale Agreement" and the Plaintiffs are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the Plaint
Schedule Property and still they are continuing in the Plaint Schedule
Property. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs came to know that, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with malafide intention and developing evil idea to create litigation and again to grab the Plaint Schedule Property violating the terms and conditions of the 'Possessory Sale Agreement'
Dt.02.04.2005, colluded with Defendants 6 to 25 and got filed a collusive suit in between them by showing the 6 to 25 Defendants as Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1& 2 Defendants as Sole Defendants, without impleading
Defendants 3 to 5 as O.S.123 of 2006, long after the Possessory
Agreement of Sale dt.02.04.2005 executed by Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 infavour of Plaintiffs and protracted the case behind the back of the
Plaintiffs, without their knowledge, and they have obtained an award in between them in O.S.123 of 2006 on the File of Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Jagitial under Lok Adalath Case No.161 of 2013 by misrepresenting the facts and suppressing the Possessory Agreement of
Sale in favour of the Plaintiffs and also about the absolute possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs in the Plaint Schedule Property. It is further
Page No.8 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 submitted that onenquiries it revealed that defendant Nos.1 to 2 and 6 to 25, created and cooked up a Registered Sale Deed dt.03.08.2013, document No.3867 of 2013 setting up Defendant Nos. 26 to 29, as if they are purchasers i.e., Vendees and Defendant Nos. 6 to 25 as sellers i.e., vendors, even during pendency of the suit O.S.123 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, in which apparently the collusive award was passed long after the sale deed dt.03.08.2013 i.e., award passed on 23.11.2013.
It is further submitted that the Lokhadalath award in Lok Adalath
Case No.161 of 2013 in O.S.123 of 2006 dt.23.11.2013 obtained collusively and misrepresenting and suppressing the real and correct facts
before the Lok Adalath is clear from the face of record, since there is no
whisper about the Registered Sale Deed dt.03.08.2013 brought into existence and cooked up in favour of Defendant Nos. 26 to 29, who are none other than the henchmen of Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and 6 to 25 and obtained the award as if there are no alienation etc., created over the property. It is further submitted that as the Plaintiffs have obtained
Possessory Agreement of Sale dt. 02.04.2005. So, as the Plaintiffs are not made parties to the suit OS NO.123 of 2006, which is filed long after execution of Possessory Agreement of Sale dt. 02.04.2005 and continuing in possession of property, as per law the Lok Adalath Award Number. 161 of 2013 and the entire proceedings in O.S.123 of 2006 are not binding on the Plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the defendants Nos. 26 to 29 got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2316 of 2015 in favour of
Page No.9 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 defendant No.30 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.2317 of 2015 in favour of defendant No. 31 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2318 of 2015 in favour of defendant No. 32 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2319 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.28 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2320 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.28 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they. got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2321 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.33 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2322 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.33 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2351 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.34 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 2352 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.35 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.2353 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.36 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.2354 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.36 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.2355 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.36 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.2356 of 2015 in favour of
Page No.10 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 defendant No.37 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.2357 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.38 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.2358 of 2015 in favour of defendant No.29, defendants 38, 39, 40 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, they got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.
2359 of 2015 in favour of defendant No. 29, defendants 38, 39,40 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, defendant No.36 got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No. 3367 of 2015 in favour of defendants No.41 & 42 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, the defendant No. 36 got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.7687 of 2015 in favour of defendants No. 43 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, the defendant No.38 got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.3269 of 2016 in favour of defendants No. 44 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, the defendant No. 33 got executed a nominal register sale deed D.No.6515 of 2016 in favour of defendants
No.45& 46 and the Defendant No.33 got executed registered sale Deed vide D.No.3097 of 2018 in favour of Defendant No. 47 pertaining to part of the suit schedule property, and the said register sale deeds are all nominal documents and without delivery of possession, knowingly the
Defendants nos.26 to 29 during the pendency of the above suit got executed the above registered sale deeds in favor of the Defendants 30 to 47 after filing the suit pertaining to plaint schedule land to lead multiplicity of proceedings and deprive the rights of plaintiffs.
Page No.11 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of the Possessory Agreement of Sale dt.02.04.2005 against
Defendants and Defendants are jointly liable to execute the sale deed infavour of the Plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they are ready with the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) and expenses for execution of the Registered Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs are ready to deposit the balance of sale consideration in the Court or as per the directions to be given by the Court. It is further submitted that because of the malafide and evil behavior and illegal acts of the Defendants, there is not even time to issue the registered notice to the Defendants. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are therefore entitled for the decree for specific performance of Possessory Agreement of Sale dt:02.04.2005 directing the
Defendants to execute the Registered Sale Deed in respect of Plaint
Schedule Property in favour of the Plaintiffs or their nominees and receive the balance of sale consideration within the time and execute the
Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiffs in respect of Plaint
Schedule Property on behalf of the Defendants and also for a decree granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their henchmen, agents and privies from ever interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaint Schedule Property and for costs. Hence the suit.
2.The defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 are remained set exparte.
Page No.12 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
3. The defendant No.2 has filed a written statement, inter alia denying the allegations made in the plaint by contending that the defendant No.5 are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The defendant No.l and 2 are only having right title over the plaint schedule property. The schedule property was devolved to them through the father of defendant
No. 1. It is further submitted that the plaint schedule property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Defendant Nos. l & 2, since for the last 50 years. The defendant No.2 submitted that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of defendant No.2 and his father defendant No.l. The defendant No.l is the Manager of Hindu joint family, and the suit schedule property is undivided Hindu Joint family property.
It is further submitted that since defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property, and it denied by the defendant
No.2 that at the request of the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 2 along with defendants 3 to 5 executed the agreement of sale infavour of the plaintiffs by receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 20.00.000/- (Rupees Twenty lacks only) and delivered the possession of the property and the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are not owners of the plaint schedule property and on the request of the plaintiffs, the defendants No.l and added the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 as plaintiffs. It is further submitted that due to non payment of balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the plaintiffs these defendants refused to execute the registered sale deed infavour of the plaintiffs. It is further denied that the defendant No. 3 to 5 did not added as parties to OS. 123/2006 and with collusion with the
Page No.13 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 defendant No. 6 to 25 compromised the suit to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 compromised with the defendant Nos. 6 to 25 in OS. No. 123/2006 with a condition that the defendant Nos. 6 to 25 would pay Rs. 28,00,000/- to the defendant No. 2 and they paid Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacks only) as part payment to the defendant No.2. The Original undertaking letter
dated :15-11-2013 is kept with the elders viz: Sri. Metta Batti, Sri.
Bandari Narender, Sri. Khilagadda Ganganna, Now with an intention to avoid the remaining amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- to the defendant No.2, the defendant Nos. 6 to 25 are in collusion with the plaintiffs got filed this suit. The defendant No.2 further submitted that the suit schedule property succeeded from his ancestors i.e.. Kusari Balaiah. With these main contention suit be dismissed.
4. The defendant No.4 has filed a written statement, inter alia denying the allegations made in the plaint by contending that the alleged possessory agreement of sale is created and forged one and the plaintiffs are created episode for the purpose to grab the suit and there is no possession to the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action to the suit and the dates and events are imaginary and created one. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendant No.4 as such the defendant No.4 filed a partition suit vide OS No.45/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial and the suit property is the joint possession among the brothers and sisters of the defendant No.4. with
Page No.14 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 these main contentions suit be dismissed.
5. The defendant No.15 has filed a written statement, inter alia denying the allegations made in the plaint by contending that the defendants Nos. 6 to 25 are in peaceful possession enjoyment of the suit land since the date of purchase. After the death of the Hanumalla
Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka, the Defendants No. 6 to 25 were in possession, the Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi only name was appeared as
Pattedar and Possessor in Pahani Patrika from the year 1981 to 1982, thereafter her name continued as Pattedar and Possessor till 1996-97, after her demise her son Lingam continued as Pattedar and Possessor for only Ac.0-25Guntas in Sy.No. 455/e instead of Ac.1-10 ½ Guntas. It is further submitted that the Defendant No.1 name recorded with the help of some lowered cadres of Revenue Department to the extent of Ac.0-39½
Gts., for the year 1996-97 was manipulated without any order from
Competent Authority. The Defendant No.1 with an unsocial elements trying to occupy the suit land on the basis of manipulated entry in the year 1996-97, thereafter Defendants Nos. 6 to 25 initiated proceedings
before Revenue Authorities against the Defendants No.1 for wrong entries.
The Defendants No.1 interference is continuous and they are also trying to alienate the land to third parties on the basis of the manipulate entry but, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Defendant No.1 restrain from alienating the suit land. It is further submitted the Defendants Nos.
6 to 25 filed a suit against the Defendants Nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No. 123 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Jagitial for Declaration and
Page No.15 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
Perpetual Injunction and the said suit was compromised before Lokadalat confirming the rights of the Defendants Nos. 6 to 25 are the owners of the schedule property. It is further submitted that the father of Defendant
No. l is the owner of land admeasuring Ac 2- 06 Gts., according to Pahani
Patrika 1963-64, as a owner he disposed Ac.1-10 ½ Gts., to Hanumalla
Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka through the Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 1550 of 1968 dated: 27-09-1968, likewise he disposed to various persons through Red. Sale Deed bearing Doc. Nos. 446/79, dt:
29/3/1979, 447/79, dt: 29/3/1979, 448/79, dt: 29/3/1979, 863/80, dt:
18/4/1980, 864/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 865/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 866/80 dt:
18/4/1980, 867/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 868/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 869/80, dt:
18/4/1980, 870/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 871/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 872/80,
dt:18/4/1980, 1158/80, dt:19/5/1980, 1159/80, dt: 19/5/1980,
1160/80, dt: 19/5/1980, 1161/80, dt: 19/5/1980, 1162/80, dt:
19/5/1980, 1163/80, dt: 19/5/1980, 1164, dt: 19/5/1980, 1523/80, dt:
19/5/1980, 5157/80, dt: 12/3/1980, 2646/82, dt: 8/2/1982, O.S.No.
190/85, dt: 16/9/1985. During lifetime the father of Defendant No.1 disposed the entire property in Sy.No. 455/E, ad measuring Ac 2-06 Gts., he has no land left over. The Defendants No.1 with a malafide intention to grab the land of Defendants Nos. 6 to 25 property, taking advantage of wrong entries trying to alienate the property and created problems to the
Defendants Nos. 6 to 25.
It is further submitted that the alleged agreement dt: 2-4-2005 is fabricated and created by Plaintiffs in collusion with the Defendants Nos.
Page No.16 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 1 to 5 for the purpose of defeating the legitimate rights of these
Defendants who are acquired property through Regd. Sale Deed bearing
Doct. No. 1550/1968, dt: 27-9-1968 from Kusari Rajam. The Defendants
No. 6 to 25 deny the contents of the Plaintiffs that they are paid part sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- to the Defendants No. 1 to 5 and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same, moreover the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are close relatives, they obtained a blank stamp paper and got it created the Sale Agreement and incorporated the conditions as per their convenient. It is further submitted that the said
Agreement of Sale is improperly valued not binding on law, and no material is placed before this Court to show that the plaintiffs are paid consideration and the plaintiffs are in collusive with the Defendants Nos.
1 to 5, filed the present suit by taking advantage of wrong entry in the revenue record. The suit is collusive and the alleged agreement is fabricated, filed the above suit to deprive the legitimate rights of
Defendants 6 to 25. with these main contentions suit be dismissed.
6.Defendant Nos. 6 to 14, 16 to 29 have filed memo to adopt the written statement filed by defendant No.15.
7. The defendant No.34 has filed a written statement, inter alia denying the allegations made in the plaint by contending that the suit land in Sy.No.455/E for an extent of Ac.1-10½guntas situated at
Thippannapet village, Jagtial mandal belongs to Hanumall Bhoolaxmi and
Hanumalla Bheemakka who purchased the land from Kusari Rajam
Page No.17 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 under registered sale deed bearing document No.1550/1968 dated: 27-9- 1968, after death of said Hanumall Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla
Bheemakka, the defendants No.6 to 25 acquired the said land by succession. The possessory agreement alleged to be executed by the defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiffs as created one to multiple litigation and to harass the defendants No.30 to 47, the said possessory agreement of sale document referred is illegal and does not confer any right on defendants No.5, the father of the Defendant No.1 i.e., Kusari
Rajam executed the Registered sale deed infavour of Hanumall Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka in respect of the suit land through
Registered-Sale deed bearing document No. 1550/1968 by way of said document the defendants No.1 to 5 lost their right over the said property, again entering into possessory agreement of sale is illegal, collusive and not binding and the said agreement is created after compromise decree dt:
23-11-2013 before Lok Adalath in O.S.No.123/2006, in the said compromise decree the Defendants No.1 & 2 confirmed the rights of the defendants No.6 to 25 and also allowed the Defendants No.6 to 25 to rectify the wrong entries in respect of land in Sy.No.455/ for an extent of
Ac.1-10 / guntas situated at Thippannapet village of Jagtial mandal, the plaintiffs are not acquired any right on bogus agreement.
It is further submitted that the allegations are imaginary, concocted and delivery of possession is false, in fact the defendants No.26 to 29 are in physical possession hence the defendants No.30 to 47 after verifying the possession and title they purchased the suit land by paying sale
Page No.18 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 consideration amount to them. The possessory sale agreement dt: 02-04- 2008 between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 is collusive and illegal and not binding and created for the purpose of filing the present suit. It is further submitted that the litigation about the subject land between the defendants No.6 to 25 and defendant No.1 to 5 commences from 2004 about the wrong entry in the revenue record before the revenue authorities, later the said litigation is continued by way of declaration in the form of suit in O.S.No.123 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at
Jagtial, The defendant No.34 further submitted that the defendants No.6 to 25 in their own right, more so there is no prohibitory order/injunction/status quo etc.., rightly purchased the subject land by the defendants No.26 to 29 in the firm name M/s.Eeswer Developers, represented by the above partners, lawfully vide sale deed document No:
3867 of 2013 dt: 3-8-2013 on the file of SRO Jagtial, in turn their legal necessity, they sold away the subject land to the defendant No.30 to 47 and the possessory agreement of sale is fabricated and created for the purpose of defecting the legitimate right of the defendants who acquired the property under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1550/1969,
dt:27.09.1968 from Kusari Rajam, the defendants deny the contention of
the plaintiff that they had paid part sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same, no material is placed
before the court to show that the plaintiffs have paid the consideration,
the plaintiff are in collusive with the defendants No.1 to S had filed the present suit by taking advantage of wrong entry in the revenue records to
Page No.19 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 harass the defendants, the suit is collusive and alleged agreement is fabricated for the purpose of filing the present suit. It is further submitted that he along with other defendants No.30 to 47, after verifying the title and possession over the suit schedule property and the revenue and registration department documents and physical verification they purchased through above said Registered*sale deed documents from their vendors i.e., defendants No.26 to 29. Since the date of purchase from their vendors delivered possession and since then the defendant No.30 to 47 have been in peaceful continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective lands, the Plaintiff No.2 with a malafide intention to harass the defendants No.30 to 47 falsely impleaded without having any right and the defendants No.30 to 47 are the bonafide purchasers, the above
Registered sale deeds executed by their vendors are genuine documents and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment their respective lands by paying consideration amounts. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs by creating false and fabricated documents illegally and unlawfully filed the above suit to grab money from the defendants No.26 to 47 filed the instant suit created litigation. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs created false story with false allegations and created false agreement of sale and filed this instant suit to grab the property of
Defendant Nos.30 to 47 in all illegal way. With these main contentions suit be dismissed with costs.
8.Defendant Nos. 30 to 33 and defendant Nos.35 to 47 have filed memo to adopt the written statement filed by defendant No.34.
Page No.20 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
9.On the basis of the above pleadings of the respective parties as aforesaid this court on 28.06.2023 has framed the following issues for trial viz,
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for ?
2.Whether plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property ?
3.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declare the registered sale deed doc.No.3867/2013 is null and void and is no binding on the plaintiff ?
4To declare the award No.161/2013 passed before Lok Adalath not binding on the plaintiff ?
5To what relief ?
10.During the course of trial the plaintiff No.1 filed his chief affidavit and Exs.A.1 to A.16 are marked on behalf of plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants the defendant No.8 filed chief affidavit as Dw.1 and also filed
Dws. 2 & 3 and Exs.B1 to B43 are marked.
Issues Nos.1 to 4:-
11.No instructions for the counsel of plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 and issue
Notice to the plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2, in spite of notices plaintiffs did not appear and contest their case, and they claiming that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of defendant Nos. 1 to 5, they offered to sell the schedule property, after negotiations, they agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-
Page No.21 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 for which the defeating Nos. 1 to 5 are agreed and executed oral agreement of sale dt:02.04.2005 and the plaintiffs have paid major part of sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and remaining balance
Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed under
Ex.P.1, in fact, as per their contention they did not contest the suit, if really they have purchased the suit schedule property ought to have appear and adduced their contention that they are bonafide purchasers and purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos. 1 to 5 under Ex.A.1.
12.The contention of the Dw.1 is that neither defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have no right to sell the property, they do not have any right, interest over the suit schedule property to sell the property to plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2, since the father of defendant No.1 Late Kusari Rajam sold the suit schedule property to Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka through the Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 1550 of 1968 dated:
27-09-1968 under Ex.B.1. On perusal of the Ex.B.1 neither defendant
Nos. 1 to 5 have no right to sell the property to plaintiffs, since the father of the defendant No.1 already sold the suit schedule property to
Hanumallas Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka under Ex.B.1, and plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have colluded each other and created the Ex.A.1, by virtue of the Ex.A.1, it significant that plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 did not paid the major part of sale consideration amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- for defendant Nos. 1 & 2 under Ex.A.1.
Page No.22 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
13.The plea of the Dw.1 is that the defendant No.1 taking advantage of the entries in revenue records, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are the relatives and they created the agreement of sale to deprive the legal rights of the defendant Nos. 6 to 25, in fact after death of the Hanumallas Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka, still their names in revenue records, after the demise the Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi only name was appeared as
Pattedar and Possessor in Pahani Patrika from the year 1981 to 1982, thereafter her name continued as Pattedar and Possessor till 1996-97, after her demise her son Lingam continued as Pattedar and Possessor.
When Defendant No.1 interference is continuous and they are also trying to alienate the land to third parties on the basis of the manipulate entry but, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Defendant No.1 restrain from alienating the suit land and the Defendants Nos. 6 to 25 filed a suit against the Defendants Nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No. 123 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Jagtial for Declaration and Perpetual
Injunction and the said suit was compromised before Lokadalat confirming the rights of the Defendants Nos. 6 to 25 are the owners of the schedule property, the plaintiffs are not parties in the suit, and the decree is only binding on the defendant Nos. 1 & 2.
14.Since the plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 are not parties to subject matter, the alleged registered sale deeds doc. No.3867 of 2013 are not liable to cancelled, as they are not parties to subject matter. Moreover, the plaintiffs should show that readiness as on the date of the filing of the suit. Here, one more fact requires to be mentioned so as to suit the
Page No.23 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 present contextual discussion and that is about the deposit of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the plaintiffs before the court during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs failed to show their readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and that the plaintiffs have failed to deposit the balance sale consideration before the court. The Pw.1 filed his chief-affidavit and he did not entered witness box to explain about their contention that they have entered into the agreement of sale with defendant Nos. 1 to 5, they are readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract and even before filing the suit the plaintiffs did not issue notice to the defendants as they are readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract under Ex.A.1.
15.Dw.2 expressed before the court that the alleged Possessory
Agreement of Sale dt.02.04.2005 executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are created and fabricated for the purpose of filing of the suit and with a malafide intention to grab the suit schedule land with the collusion of defendant Nos. 1 to 5. He further pleaded that the Kusari Rajam father of defendant No.1 and paternal grandfather of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 already sold the suit schedule land under registered sale deed doc.No.1592/1968,
dt: 27.09.1968 to Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi and Bheemakka under Ex.B.1
and defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have confirmed the ownership and possession of the defendant Nos. 6 to 17 in OS NO.123 of 2006 before the Lok Adalat.
The Dw.2 further pleaded that the father of defendant No.1 who is the owner of land measuring Ac.2-06 gts as per pahani 1963-64 under
Ex.B.5, and he has alienated the suit land to said Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi
Page No.24 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 and Bheemakka, subsequently Kusari Rajam father of defendant No.1 disposed off remaining land in suit by number to various persons through registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos. 446/79, dt: 29/3/1979, 447/79,
dt: 29/3/1979, 448/79, dt: 29/3/1979, 863/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 864/80,
dt: 18/4/1980, 865/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 866/80 dt: 18/4/1980, 867/80,
dt: 18/4/1980, 868/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 869/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 870/80,
dt:18/4/1980, 871/80, dt: 18/4/1980, 872/80, dt:18/4/1980, 1158/80,
dt:19/5/1980, 1159/80, dt: 19/5/1980, 1160/80, dt: 19/5/1980,
1161/80, dt: 19/5/1980, 1162/80, dt: 19/5/1980, 1163/80, dt:
19/5/1980, 1164, dt: 19/5/1980, 1523/80, dt: 19/5/1980, 5157/80, dt:
12/3/1980, 2646/82, dt: 8/2/1982, O.S.No. 190/85, dt: 16/9/1985 under Exs. B.15 to B.38.
16.After that the defendant Nos. 6 to 25 sold the suit schedule land to defendant Nos. 26 to 29 in turn they sold the suit schedule land to defendant Nos. 30 to 47, in fact the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are not owners of the suit schedule property and they are no way concerned to sell the suit schedule property to plaintiffs, taking advantage of entries in revenue records the suit is collusive and alleged agreement is fabricated agreement of sale under Ex.A.1. In fact defendant Nos. 1 to 5 do not have any right over the suit schedule property and they entered into agreement of sale with plaintiffs, since the father of the defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property to Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka under Ex.B.1. It is also relevant to make a mention in the present context that none of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 have entered into the witness box and
Page No.25 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 they have never stated that they have purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos. 1 to 5 under Ex.A.1 as per their pleading.
Pw.1 clinchingly proved that the father of the defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property to Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka and the defendant Nos. 6 to 25 are succeeded the suit schedule property inturn the defendant Nos. 26 to 29 sold the suit land to the defendant
Nos. 30 to 47, this fact admitted by the Dw.1, and the defendants created the sale deed and entered into agreement of sale. Therefore, in this case the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance of
Ex.A1.
17.The relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief and it is a well settled principle of law that the party who seeks the discretion of the court should come to the court with clean hands with candid and honest disclosures. At the outset, a party who seeks equity must come to the court with clean hands without the suppression of the material facts.
This proposition of law is highlighted in ‘Mamidi Jagannadham Vs.
Yelgani Shankaraiah and others’ (2008 (1) ALD (AP) Page 1). In
‘Mohd.Abdul Razak Vs. B.Venkatesh @ Venkataiah’ (2006 (4) ALD
(D.B) Page 118), it is observed in paras 25 and 26 as follows:- “The relief of specific performance is discretionary and it is not given merely because it is lawful to do so, but, it is governed by sound judicial principles. The grant of relief is the discretion of the court and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but, however, the discretion shall not be arbitrarily; it should be governed by rules of principles”.
Page No.26 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
18.Here, the plaintiffs deliberately and purposefully suppressed the material facts not only in the pleadings, but also failed to adduce their evidence to cover up the laches on the part of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were not ready with the balance sale consideration, so as to
honour the terms of Ex.A1, as per the terms of the agreement, even the
before the filing the suit the plaintiffs did not issue notice to defendant
Nos. 1 to 5. In order to cover up that laches, the plaintiffs started making false pleas and the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 also have no right to sell the suit schedule property to plaintiffs.
19.On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and, more particularly, with reference to the documents referred, it is abundantly clear that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have no right to sell the suit schedule property to plaintiffs, on the other hand, the Dw.1 has clinchingly established and proved evidentary value that the defendant
Nos. 1 to 5 have no right to sell the suit schedule property and the father of the defendant No.1 has already sold the suit schedule property to
Hanumalla Bhoolaxmi and Hanumalla Bheemakka and, the defendant
Nos. 6 to 25 sold the suit schedule land to defendant Nos. 26 to 29 in turn they sold the suit schedule land to defendant Nos. 30 to 47. When the plaintiffs themselves were at fault by not having the readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and to obtain a registered sale deed from the defendant as per the terms of Ex.A1 agreement and they failed to enter into the witness box to disprove the
Page No.27 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 contention of the defendants. Accordingly, these issues are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Issue No.5:-
20.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of March, 2025.
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jagtial.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
:: Witnesses Examined ::
For the plaintiff:-
PW1: G. Rajender.
For the Defendants:- DW1: H. Raghuveer Kumar. DW2: G. Boji Reddy. DW3: B. Ashok.
For the plaintiffs:- Ex.Al is agreement of sale executed by the defendant no.1 to no.5, Dt: 02-04-2005. Ex.A2 is award of lok adalath vide O.S. No.123/2006 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge court, Jagtial, Dt: 23.11.2013.
Ex.A3 is registered sale deed document no. 3867/2013, Dt: 03.08.2013. Ex.A4 is CC of pahani for the year 1963-1964. EX.A5 is CC of pahani for the year 1973-1974. Ex.A6 is CC of pahani for the year 1981-1982. EX.A7 is CC of pahani for the year 1986-1987. EX.A8 is CC of pahani for the year 1990-1991. EX.A9 is CC of pahani for the year 1994-1995. Ex.A10 is CC of pahani for the year 1996-1997. Ex.A11 is CC of pahani for the year 2005-2006. Ex.a12 is CC of pahani for the year 2008-2009.
Page No.28 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
Ex.A13 is CC of pahani for the year 2010-2011. Ex.A14 is CC of pahani for the year 2011-2012. Ex.A15 is CC of pattedar pass books bearing no. S278216. Ex.A16 Original valuation certificate issued by the Jagtial Sub Registrar office, dt: 22.01.2014.
For the Defendants:-
Ex.B1 is CC of registered sale deed D.B.1550/1968 dt 27.06.1968 executed by Kusari Rajam in favour of 1, Anmalla Bhoolaxmi and 2. Anumalla Bheemakka Ex.B2 is CC of partition deed B D.No. 644/03 dt 30.05.1998 executedn in between Hanumandla Lingam and 7 others. Ex.B3 is Mutation order B.No. B/266/2004 issued by MRO Jagtial Ex.B4 is Order passed by RDO jagtial B.No.B/774/05. Ex.B4 is Order passed by RDO Jagtial B.No.B/774/04.
Ex.B5 is CC of pahani for the year 1963.64 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial. Ex.B6is CC of pahani for the year 1981-82 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial. Ex.B7 is CC of pahani for the year 1983.84 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial. Ex.B8 is CC of pahani for the year 1986-87 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial. Ex.B9 is is CC of pahani for the year 1990-91 issued by Dy Thasildar Jagtial. Ex.B10 is CC of pahani for the year 1991-92 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial.
Ex. B11 is CC of pahani for the year 1992-93 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial. Ex.B12 is CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial. Ex.B13 is CC of pahani for the year 1996-97 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial. Ex. B14 is CC of pahani for the year 2003-04 issued by Dy Tahasildar Jagtial Ex.B15 is Cc of Registered sale deed B.o. 446/1979 dt 29.03.1979 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour of Kusam Chandra Kala. Ex.B16 Cc of Registered sale deed d.o. 447/1979 dt 29.03.1979 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour of Cheruku Chiranjeeva Rao. Ex.B17 Cc of Registered sale deed D.No. 448/1979 dt 29.03.1979 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour of Gattu Mallesham. Ex.B18 Cc of Registered sale deed D.No. 863/1980 dt 18.04.1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour of M.Susheela.
Ex.B19 Cc of Registered sale deed D.No. 864/1980 dt 18-04-1980
Page No.29 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour of Kotagiri Sriramulu. EX.B20 is of Registered sale deed D.No. 865/1980 dt 18-04-1930 executed by. Kusari Rajan in favour G. Bhoomaiah. Ex.B21 is of Registered sale deed D.NO. 866/1980 dt 18-04-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour G. Kailasam. Ex.B22 of Registered sale deed D.No. 867/1980 dt 18-04-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Noone Vijaya Laxmi. Ex.B23 of Registered sale deed D.No. 868/1980 dt 18-04-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Anumalla Ganga Raju. Ex.B24 is of Registered sale deed D.NO. 869/1980 dt 18-04-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour of Koti Yellaiah. Ex.B25 of Registered sale deed D.NO. 870/1980 dt 18-04-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour of Chitumalla Kalavathi. Ex.B26 is of Registered sale deed D.No. 871/1980 dt 18-04-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Ravikadi vasanta. Ex.B27 is of Registered sale deed D.NO. 872/1980 dt 18-04-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Ravikandi Vasavi Kumar. Ex.B28 is of Registered sale deed D.No. 1158/1980 dt 19-05-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Ravikandi Vasavi kumar. Ex.B29 isis of Registered sale deed D.No.1159/1980 dt 19-05-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Boga Rajanarsu. Ex.B30 is of Registered sale deed D.no. 1160/1980 dt 19-05-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Boga Rajanarsu. Ex.B31 is of Registered sale deed D.No.. 1161/1980 dt 19-05-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Seekoti Jayamma. Ex.B32 is is of Registered sale deed D.No. 1162/1980 dt 19-05-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Boga Rajanarsu and another mark. Ex.B33 is of Registered sale deed D.No. 1163/1980 dt 19-05-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Boga Rajanars and other. Ex.B34 is of Registered sale deed D.No. 1164/1980 dt 19-05-1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Chitmella Kalavathi. Ex.B35 is of Registered sale deed D.No. 1523/1980 dt 09.06.1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour M Patha reddy. Ex.B36 is is of Registered sale deed D.No.5157/1980 dt 03.12.1980 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Ankam Lingaiah. Ex.B37 is of Registered sale deed D.No. 2646/1980 dt 02.08.1982 executed by Kusari Rajan in favour Kasam Shankaraiah. Ex.B38 is CC of Decree in OS No. 190/1983 on the file of District Munsiff at jagtial along with plaint and WS. Ex. B39 is CC of Registered sale deed D No.3867/2013 dt 03.08.2013 executed by Hanmandla Ramesh babu and ig others in favour of M/s Eeshwar Develppers and others. Ex.B40 is CC of Lokadalath award along with MOU in case No.161/2013 in OS No.123/2006 before lokadalath bench mark. Ex.B41 is Mutation order bearing No.B/121/2014 passed by Tahasidlar
Page No.30 of 30 O.S.No.12 of 2014
Jagtial in favour of Eshwar Developers. Ex.B42 is 15.052.2004 notice published in Eenadu paper by Anumalla Lingam. Ex.B43 is 03.02.2007 notice published in Eenadu Paper by kusari Ramulu.
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jagtial.