Page No. 1 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :
RANGAREDDY AT L.B. NAGAR
Present: G. Ramalingam, III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy at L.B. Nagar.
Wednesday, on this 16th day of April, 2025
O.S.No. 1288 of 2003
Between:-
1. Smt. Bh. Jhansi Laxmi, W/o. Sri. Vissam Raju, Aged 56 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot No.27, High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District.
2. P. Madhavi, D/o. P.C.V. Raju, Aged 31 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o. H.No.5-3-46, Gautami Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District, Represented by her GPA holder, Sri. P. Chinna Venkata Raju, S/o. Late P.V. Rama Raju, Aged 66 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. H.No.5-3-46, Gowthami Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District.
…...Plaintiffs
A N D
1. The Hastinapuram East Colony, Welfare Association, Represented by Its President, Sri. N. Dhan Raj, S/o., Jangamaiah, Aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.9 and 10, Hastinapuram East, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and Secretary, Sri. M.Prasada Rao, S/o. Not known to the plaintiffs.
2. Smt. D. Premalatha, W/o. Sri. Mohan Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occ:House hold, R/o. Plot No.260, Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 2 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
3. Sri. T. Bhoopal Reddy, S/o. Not known to the plaintiffs, Aged 40 years, Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o. Opp Babu Rao House, (Plot No.78/A), Hastipuram East, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Sri. T. Chandraiah, S/o. Not known to the plaintiffs, Aged 66 years, Occ:Nil, R/o. Opp Babu Rao House, (Plot No.78/A), Hastipuram East, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, ( Died per LR’s i.e, the defendant No.7 and 8),
5. Smt. Saraswathamma, W/o. Not known to the plaintiffs, Aged Major, Occ:Household, R/o. Opp Babu Rao House, (Plot No.78/A), Hastipuram East, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
6. The L.B.Nagar Municipality, Represented by Its Commissioner, Having its office at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Smt. Jayamma, W/o. Late T. Chandraiah, Occ:House Hold, R/o. Opp Babu Rao House, (Plot No.78/A), Hastipuram East, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
8. Sri. Srinu, S/o. Late T. Chandraiah, R/o. Opp Babu Rao House, (Plot No.78/A), Hastipuram East, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
…...Defendants
This suit came before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Srinivas, Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri D. Mohan Reddy, learned counsels for the defendants No.1 to 3, 5. Defendant No. 6 to 8 remained set exparte, and upon hearing the said counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 3 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the Defendants for the following reliefs:
(i) To declare the plaintiff No.1 as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule A property,
(ii) To declare that the plaintiff No.2 as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule B property,
(iii) To grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the pliant schedule A and B properties and to award the costs of the suit.
(a) SCHEDULE “A” PROPERTY is ; All that part and parcel of the plot bearing no.45/A, admeasuring 289 sq.yards, equivalent to 241.63 sq.mts, forming part of survey no.57 (part), situated at Karmanghat Village, then in Hayathnagar Taluq, now in Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, and bounded as follows:-
North : Plot No.45,
South : 30’ Wide Road,
East : Plot No.30/A,
West : 25’ Wide Road.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 4 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
(b) SCHEDULE “B” PROPERTY is ; All that part and parcel of the plot bearing No.46/A, admeasuring 296 sq.yards,equivalent to 247 sq.mts, forming part of survey No.57(part), situated at Karmanghat Village, then in
Hayathnagar Taluq, now in Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and bounded as follows:-
North : Plot No.46,
South : 30’ Wide Road,
East : 25’ Wide Road,
West : Plot No.61/A.
2. According to plaint pleading the case of the plaintiff in brief as follows:
(i) The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the plot bearing no.45/
A, admeasuring 289 sq.yards, equivalent to 241.63 sq.mts, forming part of survey No.57 (part), situated at Karmanghat Village, then in Hayathnagar
Taluq, now in Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. Sri. E. Narsi Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated:27.07.1982, vide document No.5391/1982 and the same was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hyderabad East.
(ii) The plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner of the plot bearing No.46/
A, admeasuring 296 sq.yards,equivalent to 247 sq.mts, forming part of survey No.57(part), situated at Karmanghat Village, then in Hayathnagar
Taluq, now in Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 5 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 purchased the same from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. E. Narsi Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated:13.08.1982, vide document No.5964 of 1982 and the same was registered in the office of the sub registrar, Hyderabad
East.
(iii) Vendor of the plaintiffs, i.e., Edulakanti Bal Reddy, S/o. Narsi
Reddy was the absolute owner and pattedar of the land admeasuring
Ac.25.00 guntas, in Survey No.57 (part) of Karmanghat Village. The said E.
Bal Reddy divided about an extent of Ac.9.00 gts of land into convenient plots of land approved by Gram Panchayath, Karmanghat. It is pertinent to state that the said E. Bal Reddy sold some part of the agricultural land to third parties. The plots bearing Nos. 45/A belonging to the plaintiff No.1 and the plot bearing No.46/A belonging to the plaintiff No.2 form part of a layout which is conceived and developed by the said E. Bal Reddy.
(iv) The plaintiffs have been in continuous, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of their respective plots of land ever since the date of purchase. It is pertinent to state that the plot bearing No.45/A admeasuring 289 sq.yards belongs to the plaintiff No.1 is bounded on the south as well as on the west by roads. Similarly, the plot bearing No.46/A belonging to the plaintiff No.2 is bounded on the south as well as on the east by roads. The said fact is evident from the sale deed dated:27.7.1982 and 13.08.1982
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 6 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 executed and registered by the said Sri. E. Bal Reddy in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 respectively. The said fact is also evident from the aforesaid layout.
(v) The plots bearing No.45/A and 46/A are the last row of the plots on and towards the southern side of the layout. Apart from the plot Nos. 45/
A and 46/A the plots bearing No.15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A, 94A and 109A are in the same row. It is also pertinent to state that on the southern side of the above said plots, there is a road abutting to their plots. It is pertinent to state that one Sri. Dr. Babu rao and his wife namely
Smt. Ratna Manikyam are the owners of the plots bearing No. 93A, 78A, 62A and 77A, in the same row. The said Sri. Babu Rao and his wife constructed a house over the plots bearing No.93A and 78A in the year 1996. The said house of Dr.Babu Rao was assessed to Municipal tax and assigned House No.8-6-76/A, 114/3 (old) corresponding to New No.8-6-966 by the L.B.Nagar Municipality and the said Dr. Babu Rao has been paying the municipal tax regularly. The said house of Dr. Babu Rao was also duly regularized by the L.B.Nagar Municipality under B.R.S. Scheme, vide proceedings No.1073/3102/98 dated:23.06.1998.It is also pertinent to state that the said Dr. Babu Rao is also in possession of the Plot Nos. 62A, 62, 63, 76, 77, 77A, 78A, 78, 79, 92, 93 and 93A. The said Dr. Babu Rao set up
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 7 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 his medical clinic over such building since the date of construction and also residing therein. It is pertinent to state that the said E. Bal Reddy while dividing the land into plots of land allotted the plot No.18A and 27A and such plots are in the middle of the layout. The fact clearly evidences that plot Numbers were allotted by adding A to some of the plots in the layout.
(vi)The owner of the plot No.109A, namely, Sri. Krishna Reddy, also constructed a house over the same and the same was also assessed to
Municipal Tax and assigned House No.8-6-968 by the L.B.Nagar
Municipality. The owner of the plot No.109A namely Sri. D. Shankar Rao and the owner of the plot No.15A namely Sri. Srinivas Rao constructed their houses over their respective plots and the defendant No.6 assigned house
No.8-6-967 and 8-6-405 respectively.
(vii) While the matter stood thus, it was noticed that certain constructions were commenced opposite to the plot Nos. 78A and 93A, while encroaching a portion of the road area. The plaintiffs and the said
Babu Rao lodged a complaint with the L.B.Nagar municipality against such illegal constructions over the area earmarked as Road. The Municipal
Authorities failed to take any action against such illegal constructions.
Instead of taking action against such persons, the Municipal Authorities in collusion and upon the instigation of the defendants herein threatened to
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 8 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 demolish the existing structures belonging to sri. Babu Rao and his wife,
Sri. Narayan Rao and Smt. D. Kanakamma and also to encroach upon the area earmarked as road to change the nature of the property. The plaintiffs and the said Sri. Babu Rao filed WP.No.23212 of 2001 seeking directions against the Municipality from demolishing the existing structures on the plots owned by the petitioners therein. The said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that the same is filed on mere apprehension and in view of the counter filed by the respondent Municipality that no such demolition is contemplated without notice. The plaintiffs therefore filed
OS.No.561 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and
North, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with usage of the road abutting to the suit property. In spite of subsistence of interim orders of status quo, the defendants suddenly came to the suit property and not only disturbed the area covered by the road but also, the suit schedule property and not only disturbed the area covered by road but also the suit schedule property by ploughing the land. The police complaint was lodged and FIR No.532/01 was registered by the police. The same shows the high handed behavior of the defendants.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 9 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
(viii) The defendants tried to encroach upon the road area which is abutting to the aforesaid plots bearing Nos. 15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A, 94A and 109. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed a suit OS.No.561 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, East and North,
Ranga Reddy District seeking declaration that there Is a road abutting to the plots of the plaintiffs herein and also for a mandatory injunction seeking to demolish the existing illegal structures raised by the defendants No.2 to 5 therein. In the said suit, the defendant No.6 herein filed a written statement and the defendant No.1 to 5 filed counter affidavits denying the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. In view of the such specific denial of the title by the defendants herein, the plaintiffs are advised to file the present suit seeking declaration of their title and for perpetual injunction. The defendants not only denied the title of the plaintiffs but also falsely set up a claim over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are therefore advised to file the present suit.
(ix) The defendant No.6 having regularized the construction of the building made by the said Smt. Ratna Manikyam over the plots bearing
No.93-A and 78-A estopped from denying the title and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property. It is pertinent to state that the suit schedule property bearing Plot No.45-A is also in the same row of plots
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 10 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 bearing No.93-A and 78-A. In Such circumstances, the defendant No.6 cannot question the existence of such plots having regularized the construction made over the plot bearing No.93-A and 78-A. It is also pertinent to state that the defendant No.6 regularized the construction after making spot inspection and having satisfied about the title and possession of the said Smt. Ratna Manikyam. Defendant No.1 to 4 never made any whisper much less a protest at the time of construction of the building by the said Smt. Ratna Manikyam in the year 1996. The defendant have all acquiesced with the rights, title and possession of the plaintiffs as well as the other plot owners in the same row.
(x) The defendants No.1 to 5 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs on 04.11.2003 by making attempts to encroach upon the same. The plaintiff No.1 and GPA Holder of the plaintiff No.2 resisted such illegal attempts of the defendants with great difficulty. The defendant No.1 to 5 further threatened the plaintiffs that they would dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property. The defendant No.6 also held out threats against the plaintiffs upon the instigation of the defendants No.1 to 5 herein. The acts of the defendant No.6 are tainted with malafides.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 11 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
(xi) The plaint A and B schedule properties belonging to the plaintiffs
No.1 and 2 respectively are adjacent and contiguous. The plaintiffs also derived their title from a common vendor. The cause of action for filing the suit arose to the plaintiffs simultaneously due to the denial of title made by the defendants in their written statements filed in the said suit OS.No.561 of 2002. The defendants also caused interference in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in a single concerted act. The issues that would arise in the above suit without regard to plaint A and B schedule properties are one and the same.
3.The defendant No.2 made appearance through her advocate and filed written statement, and the defendants No. 1,3 4 and 5 also appeared through their Advocate, and filed their written statement. Defendant No. 6 was set exparte. The defendant No.4 died during the pendency of the suit and his LRS were brought on record as per orders in IA.NO.44 of 2015,
dated:15.03.2016 as Defendants No. 7 and 8.
4.The contentions of the defendants No.1,3,4 and 5 in brief according to their written statement as follows;
(i) It is denied that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the plot bearing
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 12 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 no.45/A admeasuring 289 sq.yards, equivalent to 241.63 sq.mts, forming part of survey No. 57 (part), situated at Karmanghat Village, then in
Hayathnagar Taluq, now in Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. Sri. E. Narsi
Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated:27.07.1982, vide document
No.5391/1982 in the O/o. Sub registrar, Hyderabad East and similarly plaintiff No.2 is the owner of plot bearing No.46/A, admeasuring 296 sq.yards,equivalent to 247 sq.mts, forming part of survey No.57(part), situated at Karmanghat Village, then in Hayathnagar Taluq, now in
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (B-Schedule property), having purchased the same from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. E. Narsi Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated:13.08.1982, vide document No.5964/1982 registered in the office of the sub registrar, Hyderabad East. As matter of fact, the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor they are in possession of suit A and B schedule properties as alleged and these defendants deny the same.
(ii) As per the ownership of Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy who is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.57 (part) of
Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District, an extent of Ac.25- 00 gts by virtue of occupancy rights patta certificate and before dividing the said land into residential house plots the said E. Bal Reddy sold an extent
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 13 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 of Ac.0-30 gts each plot in favour of the vendor’s vendor of these defendants under a registered sale deed in the year 1979-80 by leaving 30’ wide road on the northern side of the piece of Ac.0-30 gts of land more than (4) members. Similarly, some other plots are also sold by said Edulakanti
Bal Reddy by executing the registered sale deed in favour of various purchasers showing the continuity of 30’ wide road on the northern side for all the above plots, and all the vendors vendor of said documents are registered sale deeds executed and registered much prior to the sale deeds obtained by the plaintiffs. As such the allegations of the plaintiff that the said
Bal reddy sold the suit schedule plots bearing No.45/A and 46/A in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 is false and incorrect and this defendant deny the same. As a matter of fact no such plots existing on the ground and no land is available and this fact was also evidenced in various proceedings as well as on the actual ground, the plaintiff without verifying the actual existence of the plots on the ground might have got the registered sale deeds which has no legal sanctity in the eye of law.
(iii) As stated supra, the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the possessors of the suit schedule property bearing Plot No.45/A measuring 289 sq.yds and 46/A measuring 296 sq.yds by showing the road on south- west as well as south east respectively. And the plaintiffs are put to strict
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 14 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 proof of the ownership and possession as well as the layout sanctioned by the competent authority under their signature and seal, as a matter of fact there is no such approved layout was filed before this court and the same is also supported by the written statement submitted by the commissioner,
L.B.Nagar Municipality in various cases pending before this court and in the absence of any approved layout no reliance can be placed on the alleged sale deeds and suit schedule plots and its boundaries.
(iv) It is further false to allege that the plot No.45/A and 46/A are the last row of the layout on and towards southern side of the layout there are other plots bearing plot Nos. 15/A and 16/A, 29/A, 30/A, 61/A, 62/A, 77/A, 78/A, 93/A, 94/A and 109/A are in the same row and on southern side of the said plot there is road abutting to their plots and the rest of the contents stated in this para are relating to one Dr. Babu Rao and his wife namely
Smt. Ratna Manikyam as such the said facts are not relevant and no reliance can be based on those facts. Paying the municipal tax assigning the door number and declaring the regularizing under B.R.S.Scheme will not create any right or accrue any title to the property unless and until the plaintiffs and their predeceased in title are having valid and marketable title over the suit schedule property. In the absence of the same the plaintiffs will not acquire any title to the suit plot and the alleged sale deeds without
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 15 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 existence of the suit schedule property on the ground will not crease any right or title to the suit plot. As such the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed.
(v) The plaint averments with regard to plot No.109/A owned by Sri.
Krishna Reddy who constructed a residential house and the L.B.Nagar
Municipality collected the necessary charge and assigned the house number will not accrue any title to the said plot as stated supra. And mere payment of tax assigning the door number by L.B.Nagar Municipality is not a proof of title to the suit plots, the plaintiffs have to establish their own title and possession as on the day of suit, in the absence of the same the suit filed by them is liable to be dismissed.
(vi) It is absolutely false to allege that neither defendant no.2 nor the defendants No.1,3 to 5 encroached a portion of the road area opposite to the plot No.78/A and 93-A and raised any illegal constructions over the road area as alleged by the plaintiff and the municipal authority fails to take any action as against such illegal construction. The true facts are that the defendant purchased an extent of various plots in Sy.No.57 vide No.4/89 of
Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District and not only the defendant herein but also various plots purchasers who are having a 30’ road on the Northern side which is access to their plot by seeing the
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 16 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 malafide intention of the plaintiffs and also Dr.Babu Rao and others who are claiming 30’ road portion claiming them as their plots are illegally, unauthorizedly without obtaining any sanction tried to raise some unauthorized constructions on the road portion. Immediately the first defendant and other members of the locality objected and stopped their illegal activities and lodged a written complaints before the commissioner,
L.B.Nagar Municipality, local police and also District Collector and the said complain the Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality, inspected the said land and thereby stopped the illegal and unauthorized construction of the said
Babu Rao and others and when they could not succeed in their attempt, they approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed a Writ petition
No.23212/01 against the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality and 2 others and after the filing the counter and due hearing, the Hon’ble High
Court was pleased to vacate the stay and dismiss the W.P. with an observation that “ the petitioners approached this court by mere apprehension” and dismissed the W.P. vide Order dt.02.04.2002. In the said
W.P., the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipallity has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that Dr. Babu Rao and others who filed writ petition and who claims the plot Nos. 15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 45A, 46A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A, 94A and 109A are forming on the 30’ road which is left over towards
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 17 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 the access and passage to the colony people and these defendants are well within their boundaries who purchased the same under the registered sale deed much prior to the sale deed obtained by Dr. Babu Rao and others and moreover no such lay out showing the by-numbers inserting by A as per their office records, thus itself shows that the claim of the plaintiffs is illegal and unlawful. After dismissal of the said writ petition the said Dr.Babu
Rao and other filed civil suit OS.No.561/2002 against the defendant on the file of Prl.Jr. Civil Judge, East and North, R.R.District. And in fact this defendant No.2 and other defendants have already constructed compound wall and erected a gate facing to the North 30’ wide road and this fact was also well established in the previous proceedings as well as the commissioner’s report who was appointed to note down the existence of the road with regard to the police complaint in FIR No.532/01 is based on the false complaint and moreover the said Babu Rao and others managed the local police with an intention to occupy the 30’ wide road left over towards the access to the defendant and as well as the colony people, and moreover the said complaint is false and liable to be dismissed.
(vii) It is fact that the plot owners bearing 15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 45A, 46A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A, 94A and 109A have filed a suit vide
OS.No.561/2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, East and North,
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 18 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
R.R.District for declaration that there is road abutting to the plots of the plaintiff herein and mandatory injunction, demolish the existing illegal structures raised by the defendants No.2 to 5 therein and further, these defendants categorically denied the title of the above plot holders, but also the plaintiff herein and there is no such plots existing on the ground and without verifying the title deeds and its existence on the grounds and the plaintiffs and Dr.Babu Rao who claiming the above plot are misrepresenting the fact and creating the documents and bogus documents and layout thereby tried to grab the 30’ wide road which is left over for the defendants plot and also colony people as such the plaintiffs are the owners nor they are in possession of the suit schedule plots as alleged.
(viii) It is false to allege that neither the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and on the other hand these defendants purchased the plots under registered sale deed but prior to the sale deed obtained by the plaintiffs herein. And predecessors in title and sale deeds obtained by these defendants clinchingly established ownership and possession of their purchased plots and the suit plots are neither existing on the ground nor they are in possession and the said plots are claiming on 30’ road which is illegal.
(ix) As stated above when there is no existence of the suit schedule
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 19 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 property on ground the question of causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule plot on 04.11.2003 and 02.05.2003, 04.04.2003, 17.12.2002 and November, 2002 by filing the counter affidavits and written statements causing interference into the possession of the plaintiff does not arise the said cause of action is only imaginary and invented for the purpose of filing the present suit. And averments of the plaintiffs that this defendant denies the title of the plaintiffs in OS.No.561/2002 is not specific cause of action for the plaintiff arose on 04.11.2003 as alleged.
(x) The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation since the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule plots on 27.07.1982, 13.08.1982 respectively, as such the plaintiffs lost their possession since the suit plots are not existing actually on the ground as such they are out of possession for more than statutory period commencing from the date of their purchase, as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
5.The contentions of the defendant No.2 in brief according to her written statement as follows;
(i) The plaintiff misrepresented the facts and filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. All the averments contained in the
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 20 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 plaint which are not specifically admitted herein are hereby emphatically denied.
(ii) It is absolutely false to allege that the plaintiff no.1 is absolute owner and possessor of plot No.45/A admeasuring 289 sq.yards, or 241.63 sq.mts forming part of Sy.No.57 part situated at Karmanghat Village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.5391/1982 dt:27.07.1982 from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. E.Narsi Reddy and similarly the plaintiff No.2 alleged that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing
No.46/A adm.296 sq.yards, or 247 sq.mts. Forming part of Sy.No.57 (part) situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document
No.5064/82 dt.13.08.1982 from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. E.Narsi Reddy, as a matter of fact the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor they are in possession of the suit schedule plot as alleged.
(iii) As per the ownership of Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy who is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.57 (part) of
Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar, R.R.District an extent of Ac.25-00 gts by virtue of occupancy right patta certificate and before dividing the said land into residential house plots the said E. Bal Reddy sold an extent of Ac.0-30
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 21 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 gts. Each plot in favour of the vendor’s vendor by name venkat reddy under a registered sale deed in the year 1979-80 by leaving 30’ feet wide road on the northern side of the piece of Ac.0-30 gts. Of land, similarly some other plots are also sold by said Edulakanti Bal Reddy by executing the registered sale deed in favour of various purchasers showing the continuity of 30’ ft wide road on the northern side for all the above plots, and all the said documents are registered sale deeds executed and registered much prior to the sale deeds obtained by the plaintiffs herein. As such the allegations of the plaintiff that said Bal Reddy sold the suit schedule plots bearing No.45/A and 46/A in favour of the plaintiff no.1 and 2 is false and incorrect and this defendant deny the same. As a matter of fact no such plots existing on the ground and no land is available and this fact was also evidenced in various proceedings and as well as on the actual ground, the plaintiff without verifying the actual existence of the plots on the ground might have got the registered sale deeds which has no legal sanctity in the eye of law.
(iv)The plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the possessors of the suit schedule property bearing plot No.45/A measuring 289 sq.yards, and 46/A measuring 296 sq.yards, by showing the road on south west and as well as south east respectively. And the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 22 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 ownership and possession and as well as the layout sanctioned by the competent authority under their signature and seal,as a matter of fact there is no such approved layout was filed before this court and the same is also not supported by the written statement submitted by the commissioner,
L.B.Nagar Municipality in various cases pending before this court and in the absence of the any approved layout no reliance can be traced on the alleged suit schedule plots and its boundaries.
(v) It is further false to alleged that the plot No.45/A and 46/A are the last row of the layout on and towards the southern side of the layout, there
Is other plots bearing Plot Nos. 15/A and 16/A, 29/A, 30/A, 61/A. 62/A, 77/A, 78/A, 93/A, 94/A and 109/A are in the same row and on southern side of the said plot there is road abutting to their plots, and the rest of the contents stated in this para are relating to one Dr. Babu Rao and his wife namely
Smt. Ratna Manikyam as such the said facts are not relevant no reliance can be based on these facts. And paying the Municipal tax assigning the door number and declaring the regularizing under B.R.S.Scheme will not create any right or accrue any title to the property unless and until the plaintiffs and their predeceased in title are having valid and marketable title over the suit schedule property. In the absence of the same the plaintiff will not accrue any title to the suit plot and the alleged sale deeds without
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 23 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 existence of the suit schedule property on the ground will not create any right or title to the suit plot as such the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed.
(vi) The plaint averments with regard to plot No.109/A owned by Sri.
Krishna Reddy who construct a residential house and the L.B.Nagar
Municipality collected the necessary charge and assigned the House number will not accrue any title to the said plot as stated supra. And mere payment of tax assigning the door number by L.B.Nagar Municipality is not a proof of title to the suit plots, the plaintiffs have to establish their own title and possession as on the day of suit, in the absence of the same the suit filed by them is liable to be dismissed.
(vii) It is absolutely false to allege that neither this defendant nor the defendant No.1,3 to 5 encroached a portion of the road area opposite to the plot No.78-A and 93-A and raised any illegal constructions over the road area as alleged by the plaintiffs and the municipal authority false to take any action as against the such illegal construction. The true facts are that this defendant purchased an extent of 376-40 sq.yards, in Sy.No.57 document No.4/89 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District and not only the defendant herein, but also various plots purchases who is having a 30’ ft. road on the Northern side which is access
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 24 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 to their plot by seeing the malafide intention of the plaintiffs and also
Dr.Babu Rao and others who are claiming 30’ ft road portion claiming them as their plots are illegally, unauthorisedly without obtaining any sanction tried to raise some unauthorised constructions on the road portion.
Immediately the first defendant and other members of the locality objected and stopped their illegal activities and lodged a written complaints before the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Local Police and also District
Collector, and the said complaint the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality inspected the said land and thereby stopped the illegal and unauthorised construction of the said Babu Rao and others and when they could not succeed in their attempts, they approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed a writ petition No.23212/01 against the commissioner, L.B.Nagar
Municipality and 2 others and after the filing the counter and due hearing, and Hon’ble High Court was pleased to vacate the stay and dismiss the writ petition with an observation that “the petitioners approached this court mere apprehension” and dismissed the writ petition vide order dt.02.04.2002. In the said writ petition, the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the Dr. Babu Rao and others who filed writ petition and who claims the plot Nos. 15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 45A, 46A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A and 94A and 109A are forming on the 30’ ft road
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 25 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 which is left over towards the access and passage to the colony people and these defendants are well within their boundaries who purchased the same under the registered sale deed, much prior to the sale deed obtained by
Dr.Babu Rao and others, and moreover no such layout showing the by numbers inserting by A as per their office records, thus itself shows that the claim of the plaintiffs is illegal and unlawful. After dismissal of the said writ petition the said doctor Babu Rao and others filed civil suit OS.No.561/2002 against the defendant herein on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, East and
North, R.R.District, and in fact this defendant was already constructed a compound wall and erected a gate facing to the North 30’ Wide Road, and this fact was also well established in the previous proceedings and as well as the commissioner’s report which was appointed to note down the existence of the road with regard to the police complaint in FIR.No.532/01 is based on the false complaint and more over the said Babu Rao and others managed the local police with an intention to occupy the 30’ Wide road left over towards the access to the defendant and as well as the colony people, and more over the said complaint is false.
(viii) It is fact that the plot owners bearing 15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A, 94A and 109 have filed a suit vide OS.No.561/2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, East and North, R.R.District, for
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 26 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 declaration that there is a road abutting to the plots of the plaintiff and mandatory injunction, demolish the existing illegal structures raised by the defendant No.2 to 5 therein, and further these defendants categorically denied the title of the above plot holders, but also the plaintiff herein and there is no such plots existing on the ground and without verifying the title deeds and its existence on the grounds and the plaintiffs and Dr. Babu Rao who claiming the above plot are misrepresenting the fact and creating the above plot are misrepresenting the fact and creating the documents and bogus documents and layout thereby tried to grab the 30’ wide road which is left over for the defendant’s plot and also colony people as such the plaintiffs are the owners nor they are in possession of the suit schedule plots as alleged.
(ix) It is false to alleged that neither the plaintiffs are the owners nor they are the owners of the suit schedule property and the other hand these defendants purchased the plot under registered sale deed but prior to the sale deeds obtained by the plaintiff and the predecessors in title and sale deeds obtained by this defendant clinchingly established ownership and possession of their purchased plots. And the suit plots are neither existing on the ground and nor they are in possession and the said plots are claiming on 30’ ft road which is illegal.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 27 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
(x)There is no existing of the suit schedule property ground the question of causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule plot on 04.11.2003 and 02.05.2003, 04.04.2003, 17.12.2002 and Nov’2002 by filing the counter affidavits and written statements causing interference into the possession of the plaintiff does not arise, the said cause of action is only imaginary and invented for the purpose of filing the present suit. And averments of the plaintiff that this defendant deny and title of the plaintiff in OS.No. 561/2002 is not specific cause of action for the plaintiff arose on 04.11.2003 as alleged.
(xi)The suit is barred by the limitation since the plaintiff is purchased the suit schedule plot 27.07.1982, 13.08.1982 respectively, as such the plaintiffs lost their possession since the suit plots are not existing actually on the ground, as such they are out of possession for more than statutory period commencing from the date of their purchase, as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the limitation.
6. The defendant No.2 filed additional written statement through her
Advocate, and contentions of the defendant No.2 in brief according to her
additional written statement as follows;
(i) The plaintiff misrepresented the facts and filed a suit for declaration
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 28 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 of title and perpetual injunction is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. All the averments contained in the plaint which are not specifically admitted herein are hereby emphatically denied.
(ii) It is absolutely false to allege that the plaintiff no.1 is absolute owner and possessor of plot No.45/A admeasuring 289 sq.yards, or 241.63 sq.mts forming part of Sy.No.57 part situated at Karmanghat Village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.5391/1982 dt:27.07.1982 from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. E.Narsi Reddy and similarly the plaintiff No.2 alleged that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing
No.46/A adm.296 sq.yards, or 247 sq.mts. Forming part of Sy.No.57 (part) situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document
No.5964/82 dt.13.08.1982 from Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. E.Narsi Reddy, as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor they are in possession of the suit schedule plot as alleged.
(iii) As per the ownership of Sri. E. Bal Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy who is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.57 (part) of
Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar, R.R.District an extent of Ac.25-00 gts by
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 29 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 virtue of occupancy right patta certificate and before dividing the said land into residential house plots the said E. Bal Reddy and his two sons sold an extent of Ac.0-30 gts. Each plot in favour of the vendor’s vendor by name venkat reddy under a registered sale deed in the year 1979-80 by leaving 30’ feet wide road on the northern side of the piece of Ac.0-30 gts. Of land, similarly same alignment some other plots are also sold by said Edulakanti
Bal Reddy and his two sons by executing the registered sale deed in favour of various purchasers showing the continuity of 30’ ft wide road on the northern side for all the above plots, and all the said documents are registered sale deeds executed and registered much prior to the sale deeds obtained by the plaintiffs herein. As such the allegations of the plaintiff that said Bal Reddy sold the suit schedule plots bearing No.45/A and 46/A non existing plots on the ground possession in favour of the plaintiff no.1 and 2 is false and incorrect and this defendant deny the same. As a matter of fact no such plots existing on the ground and no land is available and this fact was also evidenced in various proceedings and as well as on the actual ground, the plaintiff without verifying the actual existence of the plots on the ground might have got the registered sale deeds which has no legal sanctity in the eye of law.
(iv)The plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the possessors of the suit
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 30 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 schedule property bearing plot No.45/A measuring 289 sq.yards, and 46/A measuring 296 sq.yards, by showing the road on south-west and as well as south-east respectively. And the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the ownership and possession and as well as the layout sanctioned by the competent authority under their signature and official seal, as a matter of fact there is no such approved layout was filed before this court and the same is also not supported by the written statement submitted by the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality in various cases pending before this court and in the absence of the any approved layout no reliance can be traced on the alleged suit schedule plots and its boundaries.
(v) It is further false to alleged that the plot No.45/A and 46/A are the last row of the layout on and towards the southern side of the layout, there
Is other plots bearing Plot Nos. 15/A and 16/A, 29/A, 30/A, 61/A. 62/A, 77/A, 78/A, 93/A, 94/A and 109/A are in the same row and on southern side of the said plot there is road abutting to their plots, and the rest of the contents stated in this para are relating to one Dr. Babu Rao and his wife namely
Smt. Ratna Manikyam as such the said facts are not relevant no reliance can be based on these facts. And paying the Municipal tax assigning the door number and declaring the regularizing under B.R.S.Scheme will not create any right or accrue any title to the property unless and until the
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 31 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 plaintiffs and their predeceased in title are having valid and marketable title over the suit schedule property. In the absence of the same the plaintiff will not accrue any title to the suit plot and the alleged sale deeds without existence of the suit schedule property on the ground will not create any right or title to the suit plot as such the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed.
(vi) The plaint averments with regard to plot No.109/A owned by Sri.
Krishna Reddy who construct a residential house and the L.B.Nagar
Municipality collected the necessary charge and assigned the House number will not accrue any title to the said plot as stated supra. And mere payment of tax assigning the door number by L.B.Nagar Municipality is not a proof of title to the suit plots, the plaintiffs have to establish their own title and possession as on the day of suit, in the absence of the same the suit filed by them is liable to be dismissed.
(vii) It is absolutely false to allege that neither this defendant nor the defendant No.1,3 to 5 encroached a portion of the road area opposite to the plot No.78-A and 93-A and raised any illegal constructions over the road area as alleged by the plaintiffs and the municipal authority fails to take any action as against the such illegal construction. The true facts are that this defendant purchased an extent of 376.40 sq.yards, in Sy.No.57 document
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 32 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
No.4/89 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and not only the defendant herein, but also various plots purchases who is having a 30’ ft. road on the Northern side which is access to their plot by seeing the malafide intention of the plaintiffs and also Dr.Babu Rao and others who are claiming 30’ ft road portion claiming them as their plots are illegally, unauthorizedly without obtaining any sanction tried to raise some unauthorized constructions on the road portion. Immediately the first defendant and other members of the locality objected and stopped their illegal activities and lodged a written complaints before the commissioner,
L.B.Nagar Municipality, Local Police and also District Collector, and the said complaint the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality inspected the said land and thereby stopped the illegal and unauthorised construction of the said
Babu Rao and others and when they could not succeed in their attempts, they approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed a writ petition
No.23212/01 against the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality and 2 others and after the filing the counter and due hearing, and Hon’ble High
Court was pleased to vacate the stay and dismiss the writ petition with an observation that “the petitioners approached this court mere apprehension” and dismissed the writ petition vide order dt.02.04.2002. In the said writ petition, the commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality has filed a detailed
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 33 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 counter affidavit stating that the Dr. Babu Rao and others who filed writ petition and who claims the plot Nos. 15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 45A, 46A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A and 94A and 109A are forming on the 30’ ft road which is left over towards the access and passage connecting to the Sagar main road to the colony people and these defendants are well within their boundaries who purchased the same under the registered sale deed, much prior to the sale deed obtained by Dr.Babu Rao and others, and moreover
Late E. Bal Reddy is the common vendor and no such layout showing the by numbers inserting by A as per their office records, thus itself shows that the claim of the plaintiffs is illegal and unlawful. After dismissal of the said writ petition the said doctor Babu Rao and others filed civil suit
OS.No.561/2002 against the defendant herein on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil
Judge, East and North, R.R.District, and in fact this defendant was already
constructed a compound wall and erected a gate facing to the North 30’
Wide Road, and this fact was also well established in the previous proceedings and also report submitted before Lokayuktha and as well as the commissioner’s report who was appointed to note down the existence of the road with regard to the police complaint in FIR No.532/2001 is based on the false complaint and moreover the said Babu Rao and others managed the local police with an intention to occupy the 30” Wide Road left
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 34 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 over towards the access to the defendant and as well as the colony people, and moreover the said complaint is false and same was elosed long back.
(viii) It is fact that the plot owners bearing 15A, 16A, 29A, 30A, 61A, 62A, 77A, 78A, 93A, 94A and 109 have filed a suit vide OS.No.561/2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, East and North, R.R. District for declaration that there is a road abutting to the plots of the plaintiff and mandatory injunction, demolish the existing illegal structures raised by the defendant No.2 to 5 therein, and further these defendants categorically denied the title of the above plot holders, but also the plaintiff and there is no such plots existing on the ground and without verifying the title deeds and its existence of the grounds and the plaintiffs and Dr. Babu Rao who claiming the above plot are misrepresenting the fact and creating the above plot are misrepresenting the fact and creating the documents and bogus documents and layout thereby tried to grab the 30’ Northern side wide road which is left over for the defendant’s plot and also colony people as such the plaintiffs are the owners nor they are in possession of the suit schedule plots as alleged.
(ix) It is false to alleged that neither the plaintiffs are the owners nor they are the owners of the suit schedule property and the other hand these defendants purchased the plot under registered sale deed much prior to the
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 35 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 sale deeds obtained by the plaintiff herein and the predecessors in title and sale deeds obtained by this defendant clinchingly established ownership and possession of their purchased plots and most of them constructed either compound wall or houses. And the suit plots are neither existing on the ground and nor they are in possession and the said plots are claiming on 30’ ft. road left over on the northern side plots of defendants which is illegal.
(x)There is no existing of the suit schedule property ground the question of causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule plot on 04.11.2003 and 02.05.2003, 04.04.2003, 17.12.2002 and November, 2002 by filing the counter affidavits and written statements causing interference into the possession of the plaintiff does not arise, the said cause of action is only imaginary and invented for the purpose of filing the present suit. And averments of the plaintiff that this defendant deny and title of the plaintiffs in
OS.No.561 of 2002 is not specific cause of action for the plaintiff. Arose on
04.11.2003 as alleged.
(xi)The suit is barred by the limitation since the plaintiff is purchased the suit schedule plot 27.07.1982, 13.08.1982 respectively, as such the plaintiffs lost their possession since the suit plots are not existing
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 36 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 actually on the ground, as such they are out of possession for more than statutory period commencing from the date of their purchase, as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the limitation.
7.Basing on the above pleadings, one of my predecessors framed the following issues for trial.
(1) Whether the suit schedule properties have no existence on ground ?
(2) Whether this suit is barred by time?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction as prayed for?
(4) To what relief?
8.During the course of trial, one Sri. Vissam Raju is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked but his (PW1) evidence was eschewed.
9. The Plaintiff No.1 herself was examined as P.W2 and the G.P.A. Holder of plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW3 on behalf of plaintiffs and marked the Ex.A1 to A5 and A8 to A17 documents through PW2, and Ex.A6 and A7 documents were marked through PW3. On other hand, the Defendant himself examined as D.W.1, and Ex.B1 to B9 documents were marked on his behalf.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 37 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
10.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5, and the said both side counsels filed the written arguments.
11.Perused the case record.
12.Issue No.1 to 4 : The questions for determination of the riddles involved under these issues are to the ascertainment of the facts and question of law. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that their Vendor i.e.,
Edulakanti Bal Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy was the absolute owner and pattedar of the land admeasuring Ac.25.00 guntas, in Survey No.57 (part) of
Karmanghat Village. The said E. Bal Reddy divided about an extent of
Ac.9.00 gts of land into convenient plots of land approved by Gram
Panchayath, Karmanghat, and that the said E. Bal Reddy sold some part of the agricultural land to third parties. The suit schedule plots i.e., plots bearing Nos. 45/A belonging to the plaintiff No.1 and the plot bearing No.46/
A belonging to the plaintiff No.2 form part of a layout which is conceived and developed by the said E. Bal Reddy.
13.On the other hand, the specific contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the possessors of the suit schedule property bearing plot No.45/A measuring 289 sq.yards, and 46/A measuring
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 38 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 296 sq.yards, by showing the road on south-west and as well as south-east respectively. Further, the specific contention is that the suit schedule plots are not existing on the ground.
(i) Further, the specific contention of the defendants is that they purchased the plots under registered sale deeds much prior to the sale deeds obtained by the plaintiffs and the predecessors in title and sale deeds obtained by the defendants clinchingly established ownership and possession of their purchased plots and most of them constructed either compound wall or houses.
14.In the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Vasavi Co-operative
Housing Society Limited and Ors, which was reported in (2014) 2 SCC
269wherein our Hon’ble Supreme court held as under:
“15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff.”
15.The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs as such he must stand on his own case but not depended on the weakness of the case of the
Defendants, as the plaintiffs has to prove their case without depending on
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 39 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 the weakness of the case of the defendants.
(i) Further, the title of the vendor of the plaintiffs also must be proved as such in the present suit the burden lies only on the plaintiffs to prove the that their vendor Edulakanti Bal Reddy was only having perfect title over the suit schedule properties as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 respectively.
16. Ex.A1 is the sale deed i.e., Registered sale deed vide document No.
5391 of 1982, dt.27-07-1982, and which discloses that the same was executed by Edulakanti Bal Reddy S/o Narsi reddy, aged: about 65 years,
Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Bairamalguda village, Hayathnagar Tq.
Ranganreddy District, in favour of Plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit ‘A’ schedule property.
(i) The recitals of Ex.A1 are also important, and for the sake of convenience the last of para of first page, and first para of second page of
Ex.A1, are mentioned hereunder ; “ WHEREAS the vendor herein are the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring acres covered by survey No.57 ( part), situated at Karmanghat village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy
District.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 40 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
And whereas the vendor due to their personal and family necessities is offered to sell a piece of land marked as plot No.45A, admeasuring 289 square yards equivalent to 241.63 square meters out of the said land of 6 acres, forming part of Sy.No.57 ( Part) of Karmanghat village, more fully described in the schedule given hereunder and delineated in red colour in the plan annexed hereto and hereinafter referred to as the “schedule property” to the purchaser herein for a total consideration of Rs.2,890/- ( Rupees Two thousand eight hundred and ninety only) and whereas the vendee herein has agreed to purchase the said schedule land for the said consideration from the vendor.”
17. Ex.A2 is the sale deed i.e., Registered sale deed vide document
No. 5964 of 1982, dt.13-08-1982, and which discloses that the same was executed by Edulakanti Bal Reddy S/o Narsi reddy, aged: about 65 years,
Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Bairamalguda village, Hayathnagar Tq.
Ranganreddy District, in favour of Plaintiff No.2 in respect of the suit ‘B’ schedule property.
(i) The recitals of Ex.A2 are also mentioned hereunder ; “ WHEREAS the vendor herein are the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring acres covered by survey
No.57 ( part), situated at Karmanghat village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga
Reddy District.
And whereas the vendor due to their personal and family necessities is offered to sell a piece of land marked as plot No.46A, admeasuring 296 square yards equivalent to 247 square meters out of the said land of ----
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 41 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 acres, forming part of Sy.No.57 ( Part) of Karmanghat village, more fully described in the schedule given hereunder and delineated in red colour in the plan annexed hereto and hereinafter referred to as the “schedule property” to the purchaser herein for a total consideration of Rs.2,960/- ( Rupees Two thousand nine hundred and sixty only) and whereas the vendee herein has agreed to purchase the said schedule land for the said consideration from the vendor.”
18. PW2 deposed in her cross-examination that she knows that Babu
Rao and Ratna Manikyam has purchased plots, but she cannot say all the numbers. PW2 admitted a suggestion in her cross-examination that the
Yadagiri Reddy was the colony president in the year 2001 to till date. PW2 further admitted that the sons of Bal Reddy has not signed on their document.
19.PW3 deposed in her cross-examination that she does not know the total extent possessed by Bal Reddy. She does not know whether Bal
Reddy had 25 acres of land or not. She does not know whether Balreddy has sold 30 guntas of land each to 5 persons in the year 1979 in Sy.No.57 part by showing 30’ road on northern side boundary or not.
(i)PW3 deposed in her cross-examination that she did not remember the relief prayed by them in O.S. No. 561 of 2002. She did not
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 42 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 remember whether they have filed suit vide O.S. No. 561 of 2002 for road or not. She admitted a suggestion in her cross-examination that the O.S.
No. 561 of 2002 was dismissed on 21-03-2018. PW3 also admitted a suggestion that they have preferred appeal against the Judgment.
(ii) PW3 further admitted a suggestion in her cross-examination that the road was formed recently after dismissal of O.S. No. 561 of 2002.
witness (PW3) adds that at present there is no road only material was dumped for forming the road.
20.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the Ex.A1 and A2 were created by impersonation, and prior to execution of Ex.A1 and A2 that the E. Bal Reddy along with his two sons have executed Ex.B1 to B5 in favourof predecessors of defendants in the year 1979 showing the northern side boundary as 30 feet road, in which the age of E. Bal Reddy was shown
as 75 years, whereas his age was shown as 65 years in Ex.A1 and A2, and
the sons of E. Bal Reddy are not made as parties to the said Ex.A1 and A2 sale deeds.
(i) In this regard, PW3 deposed in her cross-examination that she did not remember the names of parties of their sale deed. She does not know there are two major sons by name Anantha Reddy and Janga Reddy to
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 43 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
Balreddy or not. She doe not know the age of Balreaddy was mentioned as 75 years when he sold the land to the vendors of defendants in the year 1979 or not. She does not know whether as per their sale deed Balreddy age is 65 years or not. PW3 further deposed in her cross-examination that she has not seen the other sale deeds of Bal Reddy.
21. Further, the learned counsel for the defendants that argued that the suit
O.S. No. 561 of 2002 was dismissed as such the present suit is hit by
section 11 of C.P.C. and also order II Rule 2 of C.P.C.
(i) On Perusal of Ex.B9 i.e., CC of Judgment in OS.561/2002 passed by the 1st Additional Junior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the said suit was filed by (6) plaintiffs, out of the said plaintiffs, the plaintiffs herein are the plaintiffs No.4 and 5 in the said suit O.S. No. 561 of 2002. The first para of Ex.B9 is mentioned hereunder; “1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff under section 26 Order VII Rule 1 of CPC to declare the suit way is the road and decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 6 to demolish the structures raised by defendant No. 2 to 5 pm the suit pathway and costs of the suit.”
(ii) According to plaint pleading in the present suit, the cause of action for filing the suit arose to the plaintiffs simultaneously due to the
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 44 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003 denial of title made by the defendants in their written statements filed in the said suit OS.No.561 of 2002, and the defendants also caused interference in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in a single concerted act, and that the issues that would arise in the above suit without regard to plaint A and B schedule properties are one and the same.
(iii) Here it is clear the said suit O.S. No. 561 of 2002 was filed regarding suit way and to demolish the structures, but the present suit is filed for declaration of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 as absolute owners in respect of suit “A” and “B” schedule properties, and also for grant of perpetual injunction. Therefore this court came to conclusion that the present suit is not hit by Resjudicata and also oorer II Rule (2) of C.P.C.
22. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the Ex.A15 does not contain the seal and signature of the approval authority and does not contain the permit number and signature of the land owner and also names of plaintiffs along with other plots purchasers are recorded in the lay out, and it cannot be taken in to consideration.
(i) PW3 deposed in her cross-examination that she has seen the layout plan but it was not handed over to her. She did not remember the date, month, year on the layout plan and also not remember that which authority has sanctioned said lay out plan.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 45 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
(ii) The plaintiffs did not take any steps to examine any one of official witness summoning the concerned issuing authority, nor any other witness to prove the Ex.A15. Further, the Ex.A-16 and A17 also will not be deciding the title of the vendor of the plaintiffs as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and A2.
23.In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court cannot came there is no sufficient material on record to come to conclusion that the vendor of the plaintiffs was having perfect title in respect of suit schedule properties as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and A2 as such plaintiffs are not entitled to decree their suit as prayed. Therefore, the issues No. 1 to 4 are decided against the plaintiffs, and the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
24.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. There is no order to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 16 th day of April, 2025.
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy at L.B. Nagar.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 46 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:
PW1: Vissam Raju, (eschewed). DW1:P. Yadagiri Reddy,
PW2:BH. Jhansi Laxmi,
PW3:P. China Venkat Raju.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff 1) Ex.A1 is Sale Deed,
2) Ex.A-2 is the Sale deed,
3) Ex.A-3 is the CC of sale deed,
4) Ex.A-4 is the Special Power of Attorney,
5) Ex.A-5 is the Medical certificate of husband of plaintiff,
6) Ex.A-6 is the certificate issued by Care Hospital (Marked subject to objection),
7) Ex.A -7 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.5968/1982 (marked subject to objection),
8) Ex.A-8 is the CC of sale deed dt:08.02.1982, No.977/1982,
9) Ex.A-9 is the CC of sale deed dt:30.11.1982, No.8281/1982,
10) Ex.A-10 is the CC of sale deed dt:27.12.1989, No.17023/1989,
11) Ex.A-11 is the CC of sale deed dt:07.07.1989, No.9908/1989,
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.
Page No. 47 of 47 Judgment in O.S No. 1288 of 2003
12) Ex.A-12 is the CC of sale deed dt:14.02.1983, No.859/1983,
13) Ex.A-13 is the CC of sale deed dt:14.02.1983, No.854/1983,
14) Ex.A-14 is the CC of sale deed dt:19.01.1998, No.252/1998,
15) Ex.A-15 is the CC of Approved Layout plan,
16) Ex.A-16 is the CC of proceeding of Regularization, dt:1506.1998,
17) Ex.A-17 is the CC of proceedings of GHMC dt:26.12.2011 along with plan.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendant
1) Ex.B1 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.11872/1979,
2) Ex.B2 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.11873/1979,
3) Ex.B3 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.11874/1979,
4) Ex.B4 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.12822/1979,
5) Ex.B5 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.12359/1979,
6) Ex.B6 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.4/1989,
7) Ex.B7 is the CC of sale deed bearing No.65/1989,
8) Ex.B8 is the CC of written statement filed in OS.No.561/2002 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge.
9) Ex.B9 is the CC of Judgment in OS.561/2002 on the file of Prl. Senior
Civil Judge.
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy at L.B. Nagar.
III ASCJ, LB Nagar, RR Dist.