Smt. G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy

OS.No.1162/2008

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT MALKAJGIRI

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar FAC: Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri

FRIDAY, THIS THE 27 th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

OS. No. 1162 OF 2008

Between:

1. P.Gopinath, S/o Omrao, aged about 55 years, Occ; Engineer, R/o. Temporary, R/o. Kuwait Rep. By his Spl. Power of Attorney and his wife Smt. T. Bala Tripura Sundari, W/o. P. Gopinath, aged 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o H. No. 32-70/48/51/A, Bank Colony, Neredmet, R.R.Dist …Plaintiff

AND

1.Smt. S.Vatsala, W/o S. Vijay Sree Ram, aged 42 years, Occ: Housewife

2. S. Vijay Sree Ram, S/o. Not known to plaintiff, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,

Both r/o B-9, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad.

3. G.Sumanth, S/o G. Satyanarayana, aged 50 years, Occ: Real Estate Agent, R/o Plot No. 109, S.P. Nagar, Tirmalgiri Secunderabad.

4.G. Srinivas, S/o G. Narayana Aged: 38 years, Occ: Real Estate, R/o Beside Divya Classic Apartments, Bank Colony, Near Flyover, Ramakrishnapuram, Neredmet, R.R.District …Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 06.03.2020 in the presence of Sri M. Laxman Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of M/s. S. Shyam, learned counsel for defendant No.1 & 2 and of Sri. K. Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for defendant No.3 and having stood over the matter for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

OS.No.1162/2008

2

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

2.It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and possessor of

Plot bearing No.48 & 51 admeasuring 444.40 Sq.yards in Sy.No.276/1

Ramakrishnapuram Village Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same from its original owners Nainilal and 4 others vide Register Sale Deed

Doc.No.5100/1980 dt. 15-5-1980. The above plots form part and parcel of the approved layout No.65/12, dt. 12-12-1967 of the then Grampanchayath Malkajgiri. In order to protect the property, the plaintiff had constructed compound wall and a room as per vastu in the above property which is herein after referred to as the suit schedule property. Since the date of purchase of the plot on 15-5-1980 i.e., for the last 28 years and the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. The Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Malkajgiri had assessed the suit schedule property by assigning house No.32-70/48/51/A and issued property tax Demand Notice to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to pay property tax. The plaintiff paid property tax vide receipt No.100774 dt. 1-1-2008. Due to his pre occupation he had appointed his wife

Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari as his Special Power of Attorney on 24-3-2007 to look after the schedule property. The plaintiff had also applied for electricity connection form the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh on 18-4-2008. The defendants herein who have no manner of right over the suit schedule property tried to interfere with the suit schedule property in the month of March 2008 and the plaintiff through his attorney had accosted the illegal attempt of the defendants. The plaintiff was advised to get survey of the suit schedule property with the assistance of

Dy.Inspector of Survey and Land Records. Accordingly upon the application of the plaintiff, the Dy.Inspector of Survey and Land Records R.R.District had after issuing notice to the defendants and neighbours of the plaintiff, conducted survey of the suit

OS.No.1162/2008

3 schedule property with Tepon Map and submitted his report declaring that the suit schedule property very much falls in Sy.No.276/1 of Ramakrishnapuram Village of

Malkajgiri. Despite the report of the Dy. Inspector of Survey and Land Records the defendants did not withdraw from their illegal attempts and they once again on 18-6- 2008 came to the suit property and tried to enter the suit schedule property without any manner of right. The plaintiff with the help of the police and neighbours thwarted the illegal attempts of the defendants. The defendants while leaving the suit schedule property threatened the plaintiff that they will come once again with more force and take illegal possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property formed part and parcel of the layout approved through No.65/12 Malkajgiri

Grampanchayath. The same was purchased through Registered Sale Deed

Doc.No.5100/1980 dt. 15-5-1980 and the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment for the last 28 years and the defendants without any manner of right are trying to deprive the plaintiff from his peaceful enjoyment of his property. The defendants and their agents are not perpetually restrained from interfering with the suit schedule property, the plaintiff will be put to great and irreparable loss. Hence constrained to, file the present suit.

3.It is the specific case of the defendant No.1 in written statement that the defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of all that land bearing plot Nos. 26 & 27, admeasuring 466 Sq. yards or 389.57 Sq.mtrs in Sy.No. 276/2 and 276/3 situated at Ramakrishnapuram (V), Malkajgiri Revenue Mandal and Municipality, Rangareddy

District, bounded on the North: Plot No.28 & 29, South: Plot No.25, East: 20’ Wide

Road and West: Plot No.31 & 32 by virtue of a registered sale deed dt. 27-10-1993 bearing doc.No.6002/1993 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, Rangareddy

District, executed by Smt. Leelavati and three others through GPA holder, G. Srinivas,

S/o. G. Narayana. Ever since the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, this defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and subsequently this

OS.No.1162/2008

4 defendant constructed a room and compound wall around the suit schedule property and erected a Gate protecting it from any trespassers. The defendant had engaged labourers to remove the thorn bushes and to weed out the wild growth in the above said property so as to dig a borewell in the suit property, the plaintiff’s GPA Smt.P.Bala

Tripura Sundari started interfering with this defendant’s peaceful enjoyment over the suit schedule property and objected for removing the bushes and weeding out the wild growth. However, this defendant’s husband with the help of friends and well wishers resisted any untoward incidents in the said property. The plaintiff’s GPA Smt.P. Bala

Tripura Sundari stated that she has document is put forth by her. However, the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari and her henchmen were interfering and threatening the labourers who were carrying out the labour work. On 12-4-2008 the plaintiff’s GPA Smt.P. Bala Tripura Sundari along with some unsocial elements at about 11.00 am came to the said property and interfered with the cleaning work being carried out by this defendant’s workers and tried to snatch away the tools used for cleaning and weeding out of wild growth. On coming to know about the said activities of the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari this defendant’s husband rushed to the spot and had discussions with her and her hencmen but they were shouting at their peak of voice and tried to stop the cleaning activities. However, this defendant’s husband showed the title deeds of the said property showing the ownership of the same. However, the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari after going through the documents and when this defendant’s husband asked her to show her bonafides as to how she is claiming the said property, the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura

Sundari left the place of the property along with her henchman. While things stood thus, suddenly out of the blue, on 19-4-2008 at about 11.30 am the plaintiff’s GPA

Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari along with some unsocial elements came to the said property and were forcing the laboureres to leave the property stating that this defendant has no right to carry out any work as the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura

Sundari is the owner of the said property. The defendant’s husband who was at the

OS.No.1162/2008

5 site of the property, through his labourers and well wishers resisted the valiant attempts of the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari in interfering with this defendant property and did not allow the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari make any unlawful activities. The defendant’s husband has clearly told the plaintiff’s

GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari that she cannot make any unlawful activity inasmuch as the said property belongs to her but they were in no mood to heed the voice of sanity even though a xerox copy of the sale deed was given to the plaintiff’s

GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari. This defendant husband immediately rushed to the

Neredmet police station and lodged a oral complaint against the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P.

Bala Tripura Sundari but the SHO Neredmet PS did not entertain the complainant and suggested that this defendant’s remedy lies in the civil courts and directed him to approach civil courts for appropriate relief. This defendant had no other alternative but to approach the court by filing O.S.No.663/2008 for permanent injunction inasmuch as the plaintiff’s GPA Smt.P. Bala Tripura Sundari had threatened that she would come with more force and start interfering with this defendant’s property and as such there was all apprehension and likelihood that the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura

Sundari may out of vengeance with a vindictive attitude to usurp his property. This defendant had also filed I.A.No.1029/2008 in OS. No.663/2008 praying the court to grant temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari or any other persons claiming through her from this defendant’s interfering with her possession in the above said property. The court was pleased to direct Smt. P. Bala

Tripura Sundari to maintain Statu-Quo with regard to interference over the suit schedule property in OS. No.663/2008. The suit schedule property shown in the plaint is totally different from this defendant’s property as mentioned above. Apart from that the plaintiff herein without properly identifying his property i.e., suit schedule property is claiming this defendant’s property as his property and his power of attorney holder had already interfered with this defendant’s property and hence she had filed the suit

O.S.No.663/2008 for permanent injunction. The defendant’s property boundaries are

OS.No.1162/2008

6 also totally different from the suit schedule property. The so called tax receipts, notices and demand notice all pertain to a different property, which are not concerned with this defendant’s property in OS. No.663/2008 but the plaintiff herein is alleging that this defendant’s property is his suit schedule property. The GPA holder of plaintiff

Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari is highly influential person and she is backed by political and police force and under the guise of the said power she is trying to usurp this defendant’s property alleging to be the plaintiff’s property. Merely obtaining tax receipts does not confer the title or claim over the suit property. The plaintiff is unable to identity his property, moreover the survey numbers itself are different. The survey conducted by the plaintiff with the assistance of Dy.Inspector of Land Survey &

Records is not at all authentic. The neighbouring houses where this defendant’s property is situated shows the Sy.No. And plot Nos. which are bearing to her property.

The Sy.Nos. and Plot Nos. are accurate in terms of this defendant’s document, the contention of the plaintiff is bald and vague. This defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the property show in OS. No.663/2008 and it was the GPA holder of the plaintiff Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari, who is playing tantrums over this defendant’s property and tried to usurp her property on some pretext or the other. The documents filed in the above suit cannot be taken into consideration as they have no bearing nor the boundaries of the property are identical on physical verification of the suit schedule property. This defendant filed suit OS. No.663/2008 and obtained status-quo against the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari and the said fact was suppressed by the plaintiff. In the instant suit even though the GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari received the summons & notice and is appearing through an Advocate and is aware of the status-quo order passed in I.A.No.1029/2008 and as such suppression of material facts is sufficient to dismiss the above suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. It is the specific case of the defendant No.3 in written statement that this defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of all that land bearing house No.32-

OS.No.1162/2008

7 196/25 on Plots No.24 (part No.24 & 25, admeasuring 331.21 Sq.yards or 277

Sq.meters in Sy.No.276/2 and 276/3 situated at Devi Nagar under Malkajgiri Revenue

Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District and is bounded by on the North: Plot No.26,

South part of the plot No.24; East 20 Feet wide road; West Plot No.32 & 33 and the same was purchased by the defendant No.3 vide registered sale agreement cum general power of attorney possession vide document No.2929/2007 dt. 19-4-2007 same was purchased from Smt.T. Vijayashree W/o. Sri.T.Siva Kumar resident of

Hyderabad. Ever since the date of purchase of the suit schedule property , this defendant No.3 is in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. This defendant constructed a room and compound wall around the suit schedule property and erected a Gate protecting it from any trespassers. When this defendant No.3 had engaged labourers to remove the thorn bushes and to weed out the wild growth in the above said property so as to dig a borewell in the suit property, the plaintiff’s SPA holder started interfering with this defendant’s peaceful enjoyment over the suit schedule property and objected for doing anything and was using police force by threatening of severe interference and also threatened to trespass into the said property. This defendant No.3 with the help of neighbours and friends and well wishers resisted her untoward incidents in the said property. The defendant immediately rushed to the Neredmet Police Station and lodged a oral complaint against the said Smt.P. Bala Tripura Sundari but the SHO Neredmet PS did not entertain the complaint and suggested that this defendant’s remedy lies in the Civil

Courts and directed this defendant No.3 to approach civil court for appropriate relief.

This defendant No.3 had no other alternative but to approach this court by filing

OS.No.773/2008, on the file of the VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District for

permanent injunction in as much as the plaintiff’s GPA holder had threatened that she would come with more force and interfere with this defendant’s property and as such there was all apprehension and likelihood that Smt.P. Bala Tripura Sundari may out of vegeance with a vindictive attitude to usurp this defendant’s property. This defendant

OS.No.1162/2008

8 had also filed IA.No. 1069/2008 in O.S.No.773/2008 on the file of VIII Addl Senior Civil

Judge, R.R.District praying the court to grant temporary injunction restraining the

Smt.P. Bala Tripura Sundari or any other person claiming through her from his interference with the possession in this defendant’s property. The court was pleased to order interim injunction against the plaintiff’s SPA holder with regard to interference over the suit schedule property in OS.No.773/2008 on the file of VIII Addl Senior Civil

Judge, R.R.District. The plaintiff herein without properly identifying his property i.e.,

suit schedule property is claiming this defendant No.3 property as his property through his power of attorney holder and resisting the alleged false claim. This defendant had filed the suit OS.No.773/2008, on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District for permanent injunction which is pending. The suit schedule property referred in the plaint has no bearing on physical verification to this defendant’s property. This defendants property boundaries are also totally different from the suit schedule property. The so called tax receipts, notices and demand notice all pertain to a different property which are not concerned with this defendant’s property in

OS.No.773/2008, on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District, R.R.District

but the plaintiff herein is alleging that this defendant’s property is his suit schedule property without any entitlement. The so called survey conducted by the plaintiff with the assistance of Dy.Inspector of Land Survey & Records is not at all authentic and it proves that the plaintiff has no available property and had to get his property surveyed and is not binding for want of notice etc., The neighbouring houses where this defendants property is situated also does not show the Sy.Number and Plot numbers as claimed by the plaintiff. The Sy. Numbers; Plot numbers and boundaries of the neighbouring plots are accurate in terms of this defendant’s document, the contention of the plaintiff is bald and vague. At no point of time this defendant had interfered with the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff if at all it is available. The general power of attorney claiming ownership and possession of the suit schedule property is vehemently attempting to usurp the property belonging to this defendant as shown in

OS.No.1162/2008

9

OS.No.773/2008 on the file of the VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District and it was

the GPA holder of the plaintiff Smt.P.Bala Tripura Sundari, who is playing tantrums claiming falsely over the property belonging to this defendant on some pretext or the other. The documents filed in the above suit cannot be taken into consideration as they have no bearing to the property belonging to this defendant muchless the property is in any way relating to the identity or physical features or boundaries tally with the property on sight and also belonging to this defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings in plaint and written statement, the following issues are framed by my learned predecessor for determination of the case.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff SPA holder

P.Bala Tripura Sundari wife of the plaintiff was examined as Pw1 and Exs.A-1 to A-31 documents were marked. On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1 and Ex.B1 to B6 documents were marked. Defendant No.3 was examined as DW-2 and Exs.B-7 to B-21 documents were marked.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Issue No.1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

The plaintiff filed this suit for grant of perpetual injunction. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should be clear about his case and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of the plaintiff represented by his SPA holder in nutshell that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property having purchased from

OS.No.1162/2008

10 original owners Nainilla and 4 others vide registered sale deed document

No.5100/1980 dt. 15-5-1980. The suit plots 48 and 51 form part and parcel of approved layout No.65/12 dt. 12-12-1967 of the then Grampanchayat, Malkajgiri. The plaintiff had constructed compound wall and a room as per vastu in the above property. The GHMC had assessed the suit schedule property by assigning House

No.32-70/48/51/A and issued property tax Demand Notice to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to pay property tax. The plaintiff paid property tax. The plaintiff had also applied for electricity connection on 18-4-2008. while so the defendants who have no manner of right over the suit schedule property tired to interfere with the suit schedule property in the month of March 2008 and the plaintiff through his attorney had accosted the illegal attempt of the defendants. The plaintiff was advised to get survey of the suit schedule property with the assistance of Dy. Inspector of Survey and Land

Records accordingly upon the application of the plaintiff, the Dy. Inspector of Survey and and Land Records R.R.District had after issuing notice to the defendants and neighbours of the plaintiff, conducted Survey of the suit schedule property with Tepon

Map and submitted his report declaring that the suit schedule property very much falls in Sy.No.276/1 of Ramakrishnapuram of Malkajgiri. Despite the report of the Dy.

Inspector of Survey and Land Records the defendants did not withdraw from their illegal attempts and they once again on 18-6-2008 came to the suit property and tried to enter the suit schedule property without any manner of right. The plaintiff with the help of the police and neighbours thwarted the illegal attempts of the defendants. The defendants while leaving the suit schedule property threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Hence, constrained to file the present suit.

9.In order to substantiate this case the plaintiff had placed reliance on oral testimony of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A21 documents. Ex.A-1 : Original Sale Deed bearing document No. 5100/1980, Ex.A-2 : Demand Notice by GHMC, Ex.A-3 : Tax

Payment Receipt, Ex.A-4 : Special Power of Attorney, Ex.A-5 : Original Panchanama,

OS.No.1162/2008

11

Ex.A-6 : Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.A-7 : Land Acquisition Proceedings U/Sec.11 of

LA Act, Ex.A-8 : Land Acquisition Proceedings dt. 27-04-1985 and U/Sec.30 of LA Act

dt. 19-09-1985, Ex.A-9 : Original E.C dt. 10-11-2015 for the period of 1-1-1983 to 23-

3-1994, Ex.A-10 : Original E.C dt. 10-11-2015 for the period of 23-3-1994 to 8-11- 2015, Ex.A-11 : C.C of Pahani for Dt. 9-11-2015, Ex.A-12: C.C of Memo in OS.

No.98/1993 dt. 12-4-1993, Ex.A13: C.C of plaint in OS. No.98/1993 dt. 8-2-1993,

Ex.A14: CC of Memo in OS. No.209/1991 dt. 19-4-1999, Ex.A15: CC of Plaint in OS.

No.209/1991, Ex.A16: C.C of Decree and Order in LGC.No.40/1998, dt. 3-01-2002 along with annexure, Ex.A17: CC of Judgment in LGC 27/1998, 30/198 and 40/1998

dt. 03-01-2002, Ex.A18: CC of Pahani for the year 1995 to 1996, Ex.A19:CC of

Gazatte Publication dt. 13-5-1998, Ex.A20: CC of property Tax dt. 5-9-2014, Ex.A21:

Challan counter folio of Bank of India dt. 22-4-2008, Ex.A22: CC of Pahani for the year 1979-1980, Ex.A23: CC of Pahani for the year 1980-1981, Ex.A24: CC of Pahani for the year 1982-1983, Ex.A25: CC of Pahani for the year 1984-1985, Ex.A26: CC of

Pahani for the year 1985-1986, Ex.A27: CC of Pahani for the year 1988-1989, Ex.A28:

CC of Pahani for the year 1989-1990, Ex.A29: CC of Pahani for the year 1990-1991,

Ex.A30: CC of Pahani for the year 1991-1992, Ex.A31: CC of Pahani for the year 1992-1993.

10.To the contra it is the specific case of the defendant No.1 in the written statement adopted by defendant No.2 that this defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of all that land bearing Plot Nos.26 & 27, admeasuring 466 Sq.yards or 389.57 Sq.mtrs in Sy.No.276/2 and 276/3 situated at Ramakrishnapuram (V),

Malkajgiri Revenue Mandal & Municipality, R.R.District, bounded on the North by: Plot

No.28 & 29; South by Plot No.25; East by : 20’wide road and West by: Plot No. 31 & 32, by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dt. 27-10-1993 bearing doc.No.6002/1993 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, R.R.District, executed by Smt. Leelavati and three others through GPA holder, G. Srinivas, S/o. G. Narayana. Ever since the date

OS.No.1162/2008

12 of purchase of the suit schedule property, this defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and subsequently this defendant constructed a room and compound wall around the suit property and erected a gate protecting it from any trespassers. When this defendant No.1 had engaged labourers to remove the thorn bushes and to weed out the wild growth in the above said property so as to dig a borewell in the suit property, the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari started interfering with this defendant’s peaceful enjoyment over the suit schedule property and objected for removing the bushes and weeding out the the wild growth.

However, the defendant’s husband with the help of friends and well wishers resisted any untoward incidents in the said property. The plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura

Sundari stated that she has documents to show that she is the owner of the above property but no such documents was put forth by her. However, the plaintiff’s GPA

Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari and her henchmen were interfering and threatening the laboureres who were carrying out the labour work and again on 12-4-2008. The defendant’s husband immediately rushed to the Neredmet Police Station and lodged a oral complaint against the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P. Bala Tripura Sundari but the SHO

Neredmet PS did not entertain the complainant and suggested that this defendant’s remedy lies in the civil courts and directed him to approach civil courts for appropriate relief. This defendant No.1 had no other alternative but to approach the court by filing

OS.No.663/2008 for permanent injunction inasmuch as the plaintiff’s GPA Smt. P.

Bala Tripura Sundari had threatened that she would come with more force and start interfering with this defendant’s property. This defendant had also filed

I.A.No.1029/2008 in O.S.No.663/2008 praying the court to grant temporary injunction and the court was pleased to maintain status-quo with regard to interference over the suit schedule property in OS.No.663/2008. The suit schedule property shown in the plaint is totally different from this defendant’s property as mentioned above. Apart from that the plaintiff herein without properly identifying his property i.e., suit schedule property is claiming this defendant’s property as his property and his power of

OS.No.1162/2008

13 attorney holder had already interfered with this defendant’s property and hence she had filed the suit OS.No. 663/2008 for permanent injunction which is pending. The so called tax receipts, notices and demand notice all pertain to a different property, which are not concerned with this defendant’s property in OS.No.663/2008 but the plaintiff herein is alleging that this defendant’s No.1 property is his suit schedule property. The so called survey conducted by the plaintiff with the assistance of Dy.Inspector of Land

Survey & Records is not at all authentic. The neighbouring houses where this defendant’s property is situated shows the Sy.No and plot Nos. which are having bearing to her property. As the Sy.Nos. And Plot Nos. are accurate in terms of this defendant’s No.1 document, the contention of the plaintiff is bald and vague. At no point of time this defendant No.1 had interfered with the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff. This defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the property shown in OS.No.663/2008 and it was the GPA holder of the plaintiff Smt. P.

Bala Tripura Sundari, who is playing tantrums over this defendant’s property and tried to usurp her property on some pretext or the other. The documents filed in the above suit cannot be taken into consideration as they have no bearing nor the boundaries of the property are identical on physical verification of the suit schedule property. No cause of action arose for filing of the above suit much less on the dates mentioned therein. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

11.The defendant No.3 filed the Written Statement that this defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of all that land bearing house No.32-196/25 on Plots

No.24 (part No.24 & 25, admeasuring 331.21 Sq.yards or 277 Sq.meters in

Sy.No.276/2 and 276/3 situated at Devi Nagar under Malkajgiri Revenue Mandal and

Municipality, R.R.District and is bounded by on the North: Plot No.26, South part of the plot No.24; East 20 Feet wide road; West Plot No.32 & 33 and the same was purchased by the defendant No.3 vide registered sale agreement cum general power of attorney possession vide document No.2929/2007 dt. 19-4-2007. The same was

OS.No.1162/2008

14 purchased from Smt.T. Vijayashree W/o. Sri.T.Siva Kumar resident of Hyderabad.

Ever since the date of purchase of the suit schedule property , this defendant No.3 is in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. This defendant constructed a room and compound wall around the suit schedule property and erected a Gate protecting it from any trespassers. When this defendant No.3 had engaged labourers to remove the thorn bushes and to weed out the wild growth in the above said property so as to dig a borewell in the suit property, the plaintiff’s SPA holder started interfering with this defendant’s peaceful enjoyment over the suit schedule property and objected for doing anything and was using police force by threatening of severe interference and also threatened to trespass into the said property. This defendant No.3 with the help of neighbours and friends and well wishers resisted her untoward incidents in the said property. The defendant immediately rushed to the

Neredmet Police Station and lodged a oral complaint against the said Smt.P. Bala

Tripura Sundari but the SHO Neredmet PS did not entertain the complaint and suggested that this defendant’s remedy lies in the Civil Courts and directed this defendant No.3 to approach civil court for appropriate relief. This defendant No.3 had no other alternative but to approach this court by filing OS.No.773/2008, on the file of the VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District for permanent injunction in as much as the plaintiff’s GPA holder had threatened that she would come with more force and interfere with this defendant’s property and as such there was all apprehension and likelihood that Smt.P. Bala Tripura Sundari may out of vegeance with a vindictive attitude to usurp this defendant’s property. This defendant had also filed IA.No.

1069/2008 in O.S.No.773/2008 on the file of VIII Addl Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District praying the court to grant temporary injunction restraining the Smt.P. Bala Tripura

Sundari or any other person claiming through her from his interference with the possession in this defendant’s property. The court was pleased to order interim injunction against the plaintiff’s SPA holder with regard to interference over the suit schedule property in OS.No.773/2008 on the file of VIII Addl Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.1162/2008

15

R.R.District. The plaintiff herein without properly identifying his property i.e., suit schedule property is claiming this defendant No.3 property as his property through his power of attorney holder and resisting the alleged false claim this defendant had filed the suit OS.No.773/2008, on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District for permanent injunction which is pending. The suit schedule property referred in the plaint has no bearing on physical verification to this defendant’s property. This defendants property boundaries are also totally different from the suit schedule property. The so called tax receipts, notices and demand notice all pertain to a different property which are not concerned with this defendant’s property in

OS.No.773/2008, on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District. The plaintiff

herein is alleging that this defendant’s property is his suit schedule property without any entitlement. The so called survey conducted by the plaintiff with the assistance of

Dy.Inspector of Land Survey & Records is not at all authentic and it proves that the plaintiff has no available property and had to get his property surveyed and is not binding for want of notice etc., The neighbouring houses where this defendants property is situated also do not show the Sy.Number and Plot numbers as claimed by the plaintiff. The Sy. Numbers; Plot numbers and boundaries of the neighbouring plots are accurate in terms of this defendant’s document, the contention of the plaintiff is bald and vague. At no point of time this defendant had interfered with the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff if at all it is available. The general power of attorney claiming ownership and possession of the suit schedule property is vehemently attempting to usurp the property belonging to this defendant as shown in

OS.No.773/2008 on the file of the VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District and it was

the GPA holder of the plaintiff Smt.P.Bala Tripura Sundari, who is playing tantrums claiming falsely over the property belonging to this defendant on some pretext or the other. The documents filed in the above suit cannot be taken into consideration as they have no bearing to the property belonging to this defendant muchless the property is in any way relating to the identity or physical features or boundaries tally

OS.No.1162/2008

16 with the property on sight and also belonging to this defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

12. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff the GPA holder of defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and defendant No.3 was examined as Dw2 and Ex.B1 to B6 documents on behalf of Dw1 and Ex.B7 to B21 documents on behalf of DW2 were marked. Ex.B-1 is C.C of Sale deed, dt. 27-10-1993 Ex.B-2 is Receipt dt. 15-10- 2002, Ex.B-3 is C.C of Encumbrance Certificate period from 24-3-1994 to 3-4-2008,

Ex.B-4 is C.C of Market Value Certificate, Ex.B-5 is C.C of Receipt for membership dt.

23-4-2008, Ex.B-6 is C.C of GPA dt. 16-8-2012, Ex.B-7 is C.C of Sale Agreement Cum

GPA with Possession bearing doc.No. 2929/2007, Ex.B-8 is C.C of Sale Deed

Document No.6567/1993, dt. 25-11-1993, Ex.B-9 is C.C of GPA vide

Doc.No.4249/1991, along with Memo in OS. No.98/1993, Ex.B-10 is C.C of Receipt

dt. 15-03-2008 issued by Bank colony welfare Association towards donation, Ex.B11 is

C.C of Receipt dt. 15-03-2008 issued by Bank colony Association towards Annual

Subscription, Ex.B12 is C.C of photos along with negatives (Nos.2), Ex.B13 is C.C of

Encumbrance Certificate (Nos.2) dt. 01-04-1982 to 23-03-1994 dt. 22-04-2008, 24-03- 1994 to 20-04-2008, dt. 21-04-2008, Ex.B14 is C.C of Plaint in OS. No.773/2008, dt.

28-04-2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R District, Ex.B15 is C.C of

Written Statement filed by defendant in OS. No.773/2008, dt. 11-07-2008 on the file of

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R District, Ex.B16 is C.C of Docket Order in

IA.No.1069/2008, in OS. No.773/2008 dt. 04-06-2008, Ex.B17 is CC of Petition in U/O

39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC in I.A.No. 1069/2008 in OS. No.773/2008 dt. 28-04-2008,

Ex.B18 is CC of Counter in U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by respondent in I.A.No.

1069/2008 in OS. No.773/2008 dt. 10-06-2008, Ex.B19 is CC of Plaint in OS.

No.777/2008 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 to 3 on the file of VIII

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R District, Ex.B20 is C.C of Written Statement filed by defendant in OS. No.777/2008 dt. 25-09-2008, Ex.B21 is C.C of dismissal of the main

OS.No.1162/2008

17 suit filed by the plaintiff, docket order in OS. No.777/2008 dt. 22-01-2013 on the file of

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R District.

13.From the evidence present on record and on the background of rival contentions raised by both parties, it is to be seen whether there is any substance in the claim made by the plaintiff or to the contra whether the stand taken by the defendants has been vindicated.

14.Significantly, both the parties contentions are supported by documentary evidence but the fact to be considered is how far the documents are supporting their respective version in plaint and written statement. No further evidence is thought of by the plaintiff in support of his version.

15.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act 1963 and Section 102 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication. Under Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiff and later shifts on the defendants.

16. It is pertinent to scrutinize the case set up by the plaintiff and defendant in somewhat detail by peeping into the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and DW2. Their oral testimony in chief examination need not be dealt in detail as these witnesses reiterate the averments as made in the plaint and written statement.

17. The plaintiff SPA holder P.Bala Tripura Sundari wife of the plaintiff was examined as Pw1 and his oral testimony in cross examination is that I filed this suit against Vasthala, Nanda Kumar, Srinivas & Suman. Presently I am living in Sanjeev

Reddy Nagar and earlier I used to live in Bank Colony, Neredmet at the time of filing of

OS.No.1162/2008

18 this suit. The plaintiff who is my husband was in Hyderabad. I do not remember the persons who were present at the time of execution of SPA. It is not true to suggest that we have created Ex.A1 and A4 for the purpose of this case. I did not file the GPA executed by vendor No.2 to 5 in favour of Vendor No.1 in Ex.A1-Sale deed. My Plot

Numbers are 48 & 51 an extent of 444.40 sq. Yards in Sy.No. 276/1 at Bank Colony,

Ramakrishna puram Village. I can say the boundaries is East : 30’ feet wide road,

West : Plot No. 47, North : Plot No. 49 & 50 which belongs to my brother in law,

South : 30’ feet wide road. I am not concerned with plot No. 26 & 27. I does not know that the said plots are to an extent of 466 sq. Yards in Sy.Nos. 276/2, 276/3 situated at

Ramakrishna Puram Village. It is true the defendants had filed OS No. 663/2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R. District against me. It is true I filed subsequently OS No. 777/2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R. District against D1 to D3 herein. I does not know that OS No. 663/2008 was decreed against me. It is true D3 also filed a case against me OS No. 773/2008. I do not know the result in OS No. 773/2008. It is true that all the three suits were taken up together in which I had adduced evidence and judgment were passed in all the three suits. I had not seen the judgments in the three suits and had not collected the copies of the same. I had gone through the contents of the written statement. I do not know that the court in the three suits had passed judgment stating that my property is different from the property of defendants No.1 to 3. Witness adds I had not taken the certified copies of those judgments. It is true that my plots and my survey numbers are different from the plots of defendants No. 1 to 3. It is true the boundaries Ex.B1 is different from suit schedule boundaries. I do not remember whether I interfere with the property of defendants No.1 and 2 on 12-04-2008 at 11-00 am when they are removing the weeds from their plots and also subsequently on 19-04-2008 at 11-30 am I interfered with their property. I do not know whether the defendants had filed OS

No. 663/2008 and obtained injunction orders against me which were subsisting till disposal of the suit and said suit was decreed against me. It is not true to suggest that

OS.No.1162/2008

19 only to counter blast their cases I filed OS No. 777/2008 and the present case is OS

No. 1162/2008 against the defendants. It is not true to suggest that I am not able to identify my property where it is located and trying to interfere with the property of the defendants. I had not filed any document to show on the alleged date of cause of action i.e., 18-06-2008 the defendants interfere with my property. I had not stated in the plaint and petition about the time of interference by the defendants. I had not examined the Inspector of survey and land records who had filed the report after survey. It is not true to suggest that my property and defendants property are different and I had unnecessarily interfere with their property. I had not gone through the documents filed by the defendants. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false for unlawful gain.

18.Per contra, the defendant was examined as DW-1/defendant and during oral testimony in cross-examination he stated that there is a layout for the plots in the suit schedule area, I did not file the said layout in this case. I did not file the link document of my vendor-Leelavathi showing that she is the original owner of the lands. I did not verify the land records to know who is the original owner of the suit schedule survey numbers. I did not verify the records of suits OS.No.98/1993 and OS.No.209/1993 mentioned in Ex.B1. I do not know whether the said suits OS.No.98/1993 and 209/1993 were dismissed. I filed the receipts issued by the colony Welfare Association showing our possession. It is not true to suggest that I did not file any such receipts.

It is not true to suggest that I did not mention in pleadings about construction of compound wall and room after the purchase of the property by the defendant. The plaintiff is claiming land in different survey number which is 276/1 whereas we are claiming in Sy.No.276/2. As per the layout the name of owner is mentioned as Kalu

Ram Sath. It is not true to suggest that in the layout there is no mention that each plot is admeasuring 233 Sq.yards but the dimensions are mentioned. I purchased the land from G. Srinivas but not from Kalu Ram Sath directly. The said Kalu Ram Sath had given GPA to srinivas but I did not file the said GPA however it is mentioned in Ex.B1

OS.No.1162/2008

20 that Kalu Ram Sath given GPA to Srinivas. It is not true to suggest that Kalu Ram Sath never gave GPA to Srinivas, therefore I could not file the copy of GPA. I did not file electricity receipts since I did not install power meter. It is not true to suggest that I have no title or interest in the land covered in Sy.No.276/2 or in Sy.No.276/1 and that I am illegally interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore they filed this suit and that I am deposing false. I met the defendant No.4 who is our GPA holder and he assured title to the property like other plot owners of the layout. After filing of the suits

OS.No.363/2008 and 107/2008 by defendant No.1 and 3 against the plaintiff filed this

suit.

19.In support of his version, G. Sumanth was examined as DW2 and his elicitations in the cross-examination are that I know the contents of plaint. The witness volunteers that the land claimed by the plaintiff and its Survey number, boundaries are different and he got nothing to do with the land claimed by the plaintiff.

I filed OS.No.773/2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R.District. I gave evidence in that suit. Dw.1 of this case (S.Vijay Sriram) had given evidence in my favour in the said suit. I did not obtain registered sale deed for the land claimed by me.

My vendor Vijaysree has purchased the land from G. Srinivas who is the GPA holder of Leelavathi and others. In 1967 the land was converted into plots with approved layout. It is not true to suggest that there was no layout as stated by me and that I did not purchased the plot from my vendor. I have not gone through the particulars of suits which numbers are mentioned in the sale deed. We did not obtain any certified copy of the documents of the plaintiff to demonstrate the documents of the plaintiff are created. I have not gone through the documents of the plaintiff. I have already filed documents to prove my case. The plot of defendant No.1 is plot No.26 and 27 consisting of 466 Sq.yards and whereas my plot number in 24/P and 25 with 331

Sq.yards out of the same Sy.numbers 276/2 and 276/3. The land of the plaintiff is 276/1 and the plaintiff is claiming plot No.48 and 51, admeasuring 444.40 Sq.yards.

The boundaries of plaintiff and my land and land of defendant No.1 are different. I

OS.No.1162/2008

21 have purchased land after due verification of the title from rightful owner. When the plaintiff tried to interfere into possession of my plot I filed OS.No.773/2008 on the file of VIII Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, R.R.District and defendant No.1 also filed OS.No.663/2008 against plaintiff and we obtained injunction orders against the plaintiff. The plaintiff after that had filed two suits against me and defendant No.1 as counter blast. As on today myself and defendant No.1 are in possession of out respective plots.

20.Apparently and evidently there is no dispute that the suit schedule property Plot bearing No.48 and 51, admeasuring 444.40 Sq.yards in Sy.No.276/1, Ramakrishna

Puram Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R.District is different from the property of defendants No.1 and 2 whose plots are 26 and 27 admeasuring 466 Sq. yards in

Sy.No.276/2 and 276/3 of Ramakrishna Puram Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R.District and Plot No.24 Part and 25 admeasuring 331.21 Sq.yards in Sy.No.276/2 and 276/3 of defendant No.3. The plot numbers, extents, Survey numbers and boundaries are totally different from the suit schedule plots of the plaintiff. The purchase by the plaintiff is through registered sale deed bearing doc.No.5100/1980 having purchased from original landlords Nainilal and others. Whereas, the purchase by the defendants

No.1 and 2 is through registered sale deed doc.No.6002/1993 having purchased from

Leelavati and three others through their GPA holder G. Srinivas. Whereas, the plots purchased by defendant No.3 is through registered agreement of sale cum GPA doc.No.2929/2007 dt. 19-04-2007 executed by T. Vijaya Shree. So it is clear that the purchase by plaintiff is prior in point of time than that of the defendants and directly from the original owners and the plan annexed to the sale deed shows there is a valid layout for the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the purchase by the defendants

No.1 to 3 are not directly from the original owners and through his GPA holder and no layout annexed to the plan of Ex.A1 or through Ex.B7 Agreement of sale cum GPA of defendant No.3. The plaintiff had placed as many documents as Ex.A1 to A31 to show his lawful title and possession of the suit schedule property traceable to that of his vendors. Ex.A12 to A15 are pertaining to a dispute in a suit for specific performance

OS.No.1162/2008

22 vide OS.No.98/1993 between G. Srinivas and vendors of defendants Leelavathi and others which was later compromised at the instance of parties. As per compromise terms, the vendors of the defendants Leelavathi and others had agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of G. Srinivas who is plaintiff in OS.No.98/1993 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3-04 guntas in Sy.No.276/2 and Sy.No. 276/3 of

Ramakrishna Puram Village and Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R.District. Ex.A16 to A19 are the decree and judgment in LGC.No.40/1998 Pahani and Gazette publication to show that Sy.No.276/1 of Ramakrishna Puram Village is as per layout No.65/2012 and same belongs to Chotulal and Papalal represented through their GPA holder Nainilla.

The said Nainilla being the owner of the property had sold the plots to the applicants in the LGC in respect of land in Sy.No.276/1. Even Exhibits: A7 and A8 are the land acquisition proceedings and supplementary award to show that some part of land in

Sy.No.276/1 belongs to Nainilla and his brothers were acquired for the purpose of railway line and compensation was awarded to them. The rest of the documents are pahanies, encumbrance certificate to show that Chotulal and Papalal are pattedars in respect of land in Sy.No.276/1 who are brothers of Nainilla. In order to establish the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property had filed panchanama Ex.A5 conducted by survey of Land records stating that suit plots are as per layout No. 65/2012 and suit property belongs to plaintiff. Ex.A2 and A3 are the property tax receipts. The plaintiff also filed Encumbrance Certificate Ex.A6 for the period from 24-3-1994 to 24-4-2000 to show that there are nil encumbrance on the property. When the plaintiff could substantiate his version to establish his title traceable to that of his vendors since 1980 to till date, the burden automatically shifts on the defendants.

21.As noticed the defendants No.1 & 2 had placed reliance on Exs.B1 to B6 documents i.e, sale deed, receipt, Encumbrance Certificate, Market Value certificate,

Member ship receipt issued by the welfare association and GPA executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. All these documents are pertaining to Plot

OS.No.1162/2008

23

Nos.26 & 27 in Sy.No.276/2 & 276/3 having purchased by GPA holder of Dw2 and three others. As stated supra, the said plots, boundaries extent and Survey numbers are totally different from the suit schedule property. The case of the defendants that they had filed OS. No.663/2008 against the SPA holder of the plaintiff Bala Tripura

Sundari when she interfered with their property without properly identifying where the property of plaintiff is situated. They also obtained Status quo orders in

IA.No.1029/2008 against the SPA holder of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the said suit

was decreed in the year 2018. In support of the said version, the defendants No.1 & 2 have not filed any documents pertaining to OS.No.663/2008 to show that it is the plaintiff who had interfered with their property and had suppressed the said fact in the present suit.

22.Be that as it may to the counter part, the defendant No.3 also placed reliance on Ex.B7 to B21 documents to show that he purchased plot No.24 part and 25 in

Sy.Nos.276/2 and 276/3 under registered Sale Agreement cum GPA on 19-4-2007 executed by T. Vijaya Sri and filed link document of his vendor. Ex.B8 registered Sale

Deed dt. 25-11-1993 executed by Leelavathi and others in favour of Sri. T. Vijaya

Ex.B9 is the GPA, Ex.B10 & B11 are the receipts, Ex.B12 Photographs with negatives, Ex.B13 & 14 are Encumbrance Certificates and Ex.B15 to B18 are the plaint written statement, affidavit and docket order in IA.No.1069/2008 in

OS.No.773/2008 filed by defendant No.3 against the SPA holder of the plaintiff Bala

Tripura Sundari for interfering with his property in which exparte ad-interim injunction orders were granted. Ex.B19 to B21 are the Plaint, Written Statement and Docket

Order in OS.No.777/2008 filed by the plaintiff against the defendants No.1 to 3 before the VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District in respect of suit schedule property and the said suit was dismissed for default due to non representation as per docket order in Ex.B21 dt. 22-1-2013.

OS.No.1162/2008

24

23.So it appears that a case and counter cases were filed against each other by plaintiff and defendants even much prior to filing of this case. The plaintiff had filed

OS.No.777/2008 against defendants No.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 & 2 had filed

OS.No.663/2008 against the plaintiff SPA holder and defendant No.3 had filed

OS.No.773/2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District. There is a

serious dispute with regard to identity of suit schedule property physically on ground though the plot Numbers, extent, survey numbers and boundaries as per documents filed by either parties are totally different. It appears that the plaintiff had not seriously contested the suits filed before the VIII Addl.Senior Civil Judge R.R.District and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed for default as evident from Ex.B21. When

Ex.A5 panchanama is crucial to the case of the plaintiff as the Deputy Inspector of

Survey and Land records upon the application of the plaintiff had conducted survey of the suit schedule property with the help of tippon and map after issuing notice to the defendants and his neighbours, declaring that the plaintiff suit schedule property exists in Sy.No.276/1 of Ramakrishna Puram Village of Malkajgiri Mandal. So, it is for the defendants No.1 to 3 to disprove the said document by taking steps to summon the said surveyor who had conducted the survey of suit schedule property at the instance of plaintiff or ought to have disputed soon after receipt of notice from the

Dy.Inspector of Survey and Land records prior to conducting the survey. But no such endeavor made, except mere and vague denials in the written statement stating that the panchanama conducted by the Dy.Inspector of Survey and Land records is not an authenticated document. When there is a serious dispute with identity of their respective properties physically on ground. No care evinced by the defendants by taking steps to conduct survey of their plots and of the suit plots as per their respective documents. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiff cannot be non suited and the result in OS.No.663/2008 and OS.No.773/2008 filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 are not fatal to the case of the plaintiff as the defendants had not filed the judgment and decree passed by the learned VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District

OS.No.1162/2008

25 to show whether the said suits were disposed of on contest or exparte. Viewed in any angle, there is no nexus what so ever for the defendants to resist the claim of the plaintiff when there is no enforceable right in their favour as per the material placed by them. Even nothing could be elicited from the oral testimony of Pw1 during cross examination by the defendants and infact most part of elicitations of Dw1 and 2 are in the nature of hearsay as they themselves admit that they had not filed the layout for their plots and spoken to the fact that there is layout for the suit plots. This part of oral testimony is suffice to cite to dig last nail into coffin shattering their contentions.

24. When no evidence is forthcoming from the case of the defendants in support of their version, either through the averments or through the evidence it becomes a factor to deny their defence. So there is no iota of doubt to suspect the documents of the plaintiff that in order to contest the suit in subsequent years, the plaintiff might have created those documents. So vis-a-vis the claim put forth by the plaintiff holds good and traceable to that of their vendors and the documents of the plaintiff cannot be countenanced for any purpose that too on strength of certain allegations levelled by the defendants in the written statement. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of suit property since 1980 i.e., is more than 2 ½ decades from the date of filing the suit, but due to alleged interference of the defendants, it put the plaintiff into great inconvenience. Thus, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the plaintiff had established his lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit and thus entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for against the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

25.Issue No.2:- To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by way of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the suit schedule property.

OS.No.1162/2008

26 (Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of November, 2020)

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1- Smt. P. Bala Tripura SundariDW-1: S. Vijay Sree Ram DW-2: G. Sumanth

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1 : Original Sale Deed bearing document No. 5100/1980

Ex.A-2 : Demand Notice by GHMC

Ex.A-3 : Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A-4 : Special Power of Attorney

Ex.A-5 : Original Panchanama

Ex.A-6 : Encumbrance Certificate

Ex.A-7 : Land Acquisition Proceedings U/Sec.11 of LA Act

Ex.A-8 : Land Acquisition Proceedings dt. 27-04-1985 and U/Sec.30 of LA Act dt. 19- 09-1985

Ex.A-9 : Original E.C dt. 10-11-2015 for the period of 1-1-1983 to 23-3-1994

Ex.A-10 : Original E.C dt. 10-11-2015 for the period of 23-3-1994 to 8-11-2015

Ex.A-11 : C.C of Pahani for Dt. 9-11-2015

Ex.A-12: C.C of Memo in OS. No.98/1993 dt. 12-4-1993

Ex.A13: C.C of plaint in OS. No.98/1993 dt. 8-2-1993

Ex.A14: CC of Memo in OS. No.209/1991 dt. 19-4-1999

Ex.A15: CC of Plaint in OS. No.209/1991

Ex.A16: C.C of Decree and Order in LGC.No.40/1998, dt. 3-01-2002 along with annexure

Ex.A17: CC of Judgment in LGC 27/1998, 30/1998 and 40/1998 dt. 03-01-2002

Ex.A18: CC of Pahani for the year 1995 to 1996

Ex.A19:CC of Gazatte Publication dt. 13-5-1998

Ex.A20: CC of property Tax dt. 5-9-2014

Ex.A21: Challan counter folio of Bank of India dt. 22-4-2008

Ex.A22: CC of Pahani for the year 1979-1980

OS.No.1162/2008

27

Ex.A23: CC of Pahani for the year 1980-1981

Ex.A24: CC of Pahani for the year 1982-1983

Ex.A25: CC of Pahani for the year 1984-1985

Ex.A26: CC of Pahani for the year 1985-1986

Ex.A27: CC of Pahani for the year 1988-1989

Ex.A28: CC of Pahani for the year 1989-1990

Ex.A29: CC of Pahani for the year 1990-1991

Ex.A30: CC of Pahani for the year 1991-1992

Ex.A31: CC of Pahani for the year 1992-1993

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B-1 is C.C of Sale deed, dt. 27-10-1993

Ex.B-2 is Receipt dt. 15-10-2002

Ex.B-3 is C.C of Encumbrance Certificate period from 24-3-1994 to 3-4-2008

Ex.B-4 is C.C of Market Value Certificate

Ex.B-5 is C.C of Receipt for membership dt. 23-4-2008

Ex.B-6 is C.C of GPA dt. 16-8-2012

Ex.B-7 is C.C of Sale Agreement Cum GPA with Possession bearing doc.No.

2929/2007

Ex.B-8 is C.C of Sale Deed Document No.6567/1993, dt. 25-11-1993

Ex.B-9 is C.C of GPA vide Doc.No.4249/1991, along with Memo in OS. No.98/1993

Ex.B-10 is C.C of Receipt dt. 15-03-2008 issued by Bank colony welfare Association towards donation.

Ex.B11 is C.C of Receipt dt. 15-03-2008 issued by Bank colony Association towards Annual Subscription.

Ex.B12 is C.C of photos along with negatives (Nos.2)

Ex.B13 is C.C of Encumbrance Certificate (Nos.2) dt. 01-04-1982 to 23-03-1994 dt. 22-04-2008, 24-03-1994 to 20-04-2008, dt. 21-04-2008

Ex.B14 is C.C of Plaint in OS. No.773/2008, dt. 28-04-2008 on the file of VIII Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, R.R District

Ex.B15 is C.C of Written Statement filed by defendant in OS. No.773/2008, dt. 11-07- 2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R District.

OS.No.1162/2008

28

Ex.B16 is C.C of Docket Order in IA.No.1069/2008, in OS. No.773/2008 dt. 04-06- 2008.

Ex.B17 is CC of Petition in U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC in I.A.No. 1069/2008 in OS. No.773/2008 dt. 28-04-2008.

Ex.B18 is CC of Counter in U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by respondent in I.A.No. 1069/2008 in OS. No.773/2008 dt. 10-06-2008.

Ex.B19 is CC of Plaint in OS. No.777/2008 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 to 3 on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R District

Ex.B20 is C.C of Written Statement filed by defendant in OS. No.777/2008 dt. 25-09- 2008.

Ex.B21 is C.C of dismissal of the main suit filed by the plaintiff, docket order in OS. No.777/2008 dt. 22-01-2013 on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R District.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

OS.No.1162/2008

29

I filed this suit against Vasthala, Nanda Kumar, Srinivas & Suman. Presently I am living in Sanjeev Reddy Nagar and earlier I used to live in Bank Colony, Neredmet at the time of filing of this suit. The plaintiff who is my husband is now living in

Kuwait.

I know the plaintiff. I do not know English but I can understand a little bit.

My Plot Numbers are 48 & 51 an extent of 444.40 sq. Yards in Sy.No. 276/1 at Bank Colony, Ramakrishna puram Village. We can say the boundaries is

East : 30’ feet wide road, West : Plot No. 47, North : Plot No. 49 & 50 which

OS.No.1162/2008

30 belongs to my brother in law, South : 30’ feet wide road. I am not concerned with plot No. 26 & 27. I do not know that the said plots are to an extent of 466 sq. Yards in Sy.Nos. 276/2, 276/3 situated at Ramakrishna

Puram Village. It is true the defendants had filed OS No. 663/2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R. District against me. It is true I filed subsequently OS No. 777/2008 on the file of VIII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R.

District against D1 to D3 herein. I do not know that OS No. 663/2008 was decreed against me. It is true D3 also filed a case against me OS No.

773/2008. I do not know the result in OS No. 773/2008. It is true that all the three suits were taken up together in which I had adduced evidence and judgment were passed in all the three suits. I had not seen the judgments in the three suits and had not collected the copies of the same.

I had gone through the contents of the written statement. I do not know that the court in the three suits had passed judgment stating that my property is different from the property of defendants No.1 to 3. Witness adds I had not taken the certified copies of those judgments. It is true that my plots and my survey numbers are different from the plots of defendants

No. 1 to 3. It is true the boundaries Ex.B1 is different from suit schedule boundaries. I do not remember whether I interfere with the property of defendants No.1 and 2 on 12-04-2008 at 11-00 am when they are removing the weeds from their plots and also subsequently on 19-04-2008 at 11-30 am I interfere with their property. I do not know whether the defendants had filed OS No. 663/2008 and obtained injunction orders against me which were subsisting till disposal of the suit and said suit was decreed against me. It is not true to suggest that only to counter blast their cases I filed OS

No. 777/2008 and the present case is OS No. 1162/2008 against the defendants. It is not true to suggest that I am not able to identify my property where it is locate and trying to interfere with the property of the

OS.No.1162/2008

31 defendants. I had not filed any document to show on the alleged date of cause of action i.e., 18-06-2008 the defendants interfere with my property.

I had not stated in the plaint and petition about the time of interference by the defendants. I had not examined the Inspector of survey and land records who had filed the report after survey. It is not true to suggest that my property and defendants property are different and I had unnecessarily interfere with their property. I had not gone through the documents filed by the defendants. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false for unlawful gain.

OS.No.1646/2018

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT MALKAJGIRI

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar FAC: Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri

FRIDAY, THE 18 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

OS.No. 1646 OF 2018

Between:

Canara Bank Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having Head Office situated at Benguluru represented by Gouthamnagar branch situated at premises No.20-208, Behas’s School Road, Gouthamnagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad – 500 047 represented by its GPA holder Sri. K. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. K. Subba Rao aged about 50 years, Occ: Branch Manager.

…Plaintiff

AND

1. Santoshi Ladies Corner, Rep by its Propritriex Smt. Kandi Uma , W/o. D. Nagesh, Aged : 42 years, Occ: Business Having place at H.No.19-15-1/1, Near Gautami Apartments, Gouthamnagar, Malkajgiri Hyderabad – 500 047.

And also at:

Smt. Kandi Uma, W/o. D. Nagesh, Aged: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.19-15/2, Gouthamnagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad – 500 047

2. K. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. K. Venkat Rao, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Working as helper, O/o. Senior Materials Manager, South Central Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

K. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. K. Venkat Rao, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Working as helper, R/o. H.No.244/1, Railway Quarters, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 11.12.2020 in the presence of M/s.K. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

OS.No.1646/2018

2

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,44,012/- along with interest and costs thereon.

2.It is the case of the plaintiff bank represented by its GPA holder that the plaintiff bank is constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of

Undertakings) Act, 1970 having Head Office situated at Benguluru and carrying its business activities throughout India having various branches and one such branch is situated at premises bearing No.20-208, Beghas’s School Road, Gouthamnagar,

Malkajgiri Hyderabad-500047. The defendant No.1 is Santoshi Ladies Corner of which Smt.Kandi Uma is propritriex made a Loan application for sanction dt.29-4-2015 for sanction of Rs.3,00,000/- for development of her business by offering security of

Hypothecation of stocks @ 11.90% interest and repay the same on of running limit for which the second defendant stood as Guarantor. Accordingly that the first defendant herein issued a Letter of Proprietorship dt. 16-8-2010 and also made a request for sanction of over draft facilities for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. First defendant has also executed a demand Pro-note dt. 16-8-2010 in favour of the plaintiff bank for the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and also executed Cash Credit Agreement dt. 16-8-2010 in favour of plaintiff bank. The said letter of Proprietorship, along with request for over draft facilities, along with pro-note dt. 16-8-2010 and Cash Credit Agreement dt. 16-8- 2010 executed by the first defendant herein favour of the plaintiff bank. The first defendant also brought second defendant, wherein the second defendant offered guarantee covering letter dt. 16-8-2010 in favour of plaintiff bank and has also executed Guarantee Agreement dt. 16-8-2010 along with first defendant in favour of plaintiff bank. The first defendant made a request in her letter dt.28-4-2015 requesting the plaintiff bank for permitting her to provide over draft facility by enhancing a sum of

Rs.50,000/- for a period of 4 months. Pursuance of the same the defendant No.1 herein also entered into an Supplemental Agreement dt. 29-04-2015 in favour of it

OS.No.1646/2018

3 seeking further facility to an extent of Rs.50,000/- and also executed pro-note dt.29-4- 2015 in favour of plaintiff bank, wherein defendant No.1 agreed to pay interest @ 11.25%. The plaintiff bank further sanctioned an amount of Rs.50,000/- for enhancement of Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/- on 29-4-2015. The original letter dt.28- 4-2015 along with original Supplemental Agreement dt. 29-4-2015, and pro-note and sanctioned OCC enhancement dt. 29-4-2015. The defendant No.1 has issued Letter of Renewal on 09-08-2011 and 30-1-2013 along with acknowledgment of Debt and

Security dt. 01-08-2016 respectively in favour of plaintiff bank. The first defendant also executed acknowledgment of Debt and Security dt. 10-8-2013 and 01-08-2016 respectively in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant No.1 was irregular in re- paying the loan amount as sanctioned by the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff bank issued demand notice 01-10-2015 to clear the loan account as on 31-07-2015 and in pursuance of the said notice, the defendant No.1 addressed a letter dt.15-10-2015 with an excuse and that she shall pay the same requesting to extended time for payment for a period of one year. The defendant No.1 was irregular in re-paying the monthly installments and committed default in repaying the monthly installments and as per the statement of account of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 is due and liable to pay a total sum of Rs.5,28,706/- as on 31-5-2018 towards the loan account.

Having left no option the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt. 31-5-2018 to defendants by re-calling them to repay a total sum of Rs.5,28,706/- with accrued interest by registered post with acknowledgment due. Though the defendant No.1 has received legal notice to both her addresses on 5-6-2018 and defendant No.2 has received the legal notice sent to his office address on 02-060218 and got managed to returned the notice sent to his residential address. Original postal acknowledgment dt.5-6-2018 by defendant No.1 and 2-6-2018 by defendant No.2. The notice sent to residential address of defendant No.2 was returned by postal authorities with an endorsement “Unclaimed”.The plaintiff’s bank statement of account the loan account

No.8686261000002 was from 16-08-2010 to 30-06-2018 which clearly shows that

OS.No.1646/2018

4 defendant Nos.1 & 2 are due and liable to pay the total amount of above Rs.5,44,012/- and defendant No.2 who stood as guarantor as jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Hence, constrained to file the present suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendants remained exparte.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the Branch Manager and

GPA holder of Canara Bank was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A--29 documents.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

POINT:-The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.5,44,012/- together with interest and costs thereon. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should be clear about its case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of plaintiff bank represented by its GPA holder that the plaintiff bank is constituted under the Banking

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having Head Office situated at Benguluru and carrying its business activities throughout India having various branches and one such branch is situated at premises bearing No.20-208,

Beghas’s School Road, Gouthamnagar, Malkajgiri Hyderabad-500047. The defendant

No.1 is Santoshi Ladies Corner of which Smt.Kandi Uma is propritriex made a Loan application for sanction dt.29-4-2015 for sanction of Rs.3,00,000/- for development of her business by offering security of Hypothecation of stocks @ 11.90% interest and repay the same on of running limit for which the second defendant stood as

Guarantor. Accordingly that the first defendant herein issued a Letter of Proprietorship

dt. 16-8-2010 and also made a request for sanction of over draft facilities for a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/-. First defendant has also executed a demand Pro-note dt. 16-8-2010 in

OS.No.1646/2018

5 favour of the plaintiff bank for the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and also executed

Cash Credit Agreement dt. 16-8-2010 in favour of plaintiff bank. The said letter of

Proprietorship, along with request for over draft facilities, along with pro-note dt. 16-8- 2010 and Cash Credit Agreement dt. 16-8-2010 executed by the first defendant herein favour of the plaintiff bank. The first defendant also brought second defendant, wherein the second defendant offered guarantee covering letter dt. 16-8-2010 in favour of plaintiff bank and has also executed Guarantee Agreement dt. 16-8-2010 along with first defendant in favour of plaintiff bank. The first defendant made a request in her letter dt.28-4-2015 requesting the plaintiff bank for permitting her to provide over draft facility by enhancing a sum of Rs.50,000/- for a period of 4 months.

Pursuance of the same the defendant No.1 herein also entered into an Supplemental

Agreement dt. 29-04-2015 in favour of it seeking further facility to an extent of

Rs.50,000/- and also executed pro-note dt.29-4-2015 in favour of plaintiff bank, wherein defendant No.1 agreed to pay interest @ 11.25%. The plaintiff bank further sanctioned an amount of Rs.50,000/- for enhancement of Rs.3,00,000/- to

Rs.3,50,000/- on 29-4-2015. The original letter dt.28-4-2015 along with original

Supplemental Agreement dt. 29-4-2015, and pro-note and sanctioned OCC enhancement dt. 29-4-2015. The defendant No.1 has issued Letter of Renewal on 09- 08-2011 and 30-1-2013 along with acknowledgment of Debt and Security dt. 01-08- 2016 respectively in favour of plaintiff bank. The first defendant also executed acknowledgment of Debt and Security dt. 10-8-2013 and 01-08-2016 respectively in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant No.1 was irregular in re-paying the loan amount as sanctioned by the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff bank issued demand notice 01-10-2015 to clear the loan account as on 31-07-2015 and in pursuance of the said notice, the defendant No.1 addressed a letter dt.15-10-2015 with an excuse and that she shall pay the same requesting to extended time for payment for a period of one year. The defendant No.1 was irregular in re-paying the monthly installments and committed default in repaying the monthly installments and as per the statement of

OS.No.1646/2018

6 account of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 is due and liable to pay a total sum of

Rs.5,28,706/- as on 31-5-2018 towards the loan account. Having left no option the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt. 31-5-2018 to defendants by re-calling them to repay a total sum of Rs.5,28,706/- with accrued interest by registered post with acknowledgment due. Though the defendant No.1 has received legal notice to both her addresses on 5-6-2018 and defendant No.2 has received the legal notice sent to his office address on 02-060218 and got managed to returned the notice sent to his residential address. Original postal acknowledgment dt.5-6-2018 by defendant No.1 and 2-6-2018 by defendant No.2. The notice sent to residential address of defendant

No.2 was returned by postal authorities with an endorsement “Unclaimed”.The plaintiff’s bank statement of account the loan account No.8686261000002 was from 16-08-2010 to 30-06-2018 which clearly shows that defendant Nos.1 & 2 are due and liable to pay the total amount of above Rs.5,44,012/- and defendant No.2 who stood as guarantor as jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Hence, constrained to file the present suit.

7.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under Sec. 102 of Indian

Evidence Act, the burden of proof in a suit proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiff and later shifts on the defendants.

8.In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff had placed reliance on oral testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-29 documents. Ex.A1: is the original loan application, dated 27.04.2015 of defendant No.1, Ex.A2: is the Original letter, dated 16.08.2010 of proprietorship given by D1 to plaintiff bank, Ex.A3:

is the original agreement request for over draft facilities executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, dated 16.08.2010, Ex.A4: is the original Pro-note, dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of

OS.No.1646/2018

7 plaintiff bank, Ex.A5: is the original cash credit agreement executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank, dated 16.08.2010, Ex.A6: is the original guarantee covering letter, dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant

No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A7: is the original guarantee agreement,

dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank,

Ex.A8: is the original letter, dated 28.04.2015 addressed by defendant No.1 to plaintiff bank seeking for limits from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/-, Ex.A9: is the original supplemental agreement, dated 29.04.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, showing the agreement entered on 06.08.2010, Ex.A10: is the original Pro-note, dated 29.04.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.50,000/-, Ex.A11: is the original sanction memorandum, dated 29.04.2015 for enhancement of OCC for Rs.50,000/- made by plaintiff bank in favour of defendant No.1, Ex.A12: is the original letter of renewal, dated 09.08.2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A13: is the original letter of renewal, dated 30.01.2013, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A14: is the original acknowledgment of debt and security, dated 10.08.2013, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A15: is the original acknowledgment of debt and security, dated 01.08.2016, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A16: is the original acknowledgment of debt and security, dated 01.08.2016, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A17: is the office copy of final notice, dated 01.10.2015 issued by plaintiff bank to defendant No.1, Ex.A18: is the original hand written reply, dated 14.10.2015 given by defendant No.1 received by plaintiff bank on 15.10.2015, Ex.A19: is the office copy of legal notice, dated 31.05.2018 posted on 01.06.2018 got issued to defendants through its counsel by registered post with acknowlegment due, Ex.A20: is the original postal receipt, dated 01.06.2018 of defendant No.1 to residential address, Ex.A21: is the original postal receipt dated 01.06.2018 of defendant

OS.No.1646/2018

8

No.1 to shop address, Ex.A22: is the original postal receipt, dated 01.06.2018 of defendant No.2 to his office address, Ex.A23: is the original postal receipt,

dated 01.06.2018 of defendant No.1 to residential address, Ex.A24: is the

original acknowledgment of notice by defendant No.1 dated 05.06.2018of residential address, Ex.A25: is the original acknowledgment of notice by defendant No.1 dated 05.06.2018 of shop address, Ex.A26: is the original acknowledgment of notice by defendant No.2 dated 02.06.2018 of shop address, Ex.A27: is the original returned cover of defendant No.2 dated 04.06.2018 by postal authorities with an endorsement as “Unclaimed”, Ex.A28:

is the Certified extract of statement of account pertaining to loan account

NO.8686261000002 of defendant No.1 from 16.08.2010 to 30.06.2018,

Ex.A29: is the attested copy of General Power of Attorney executed by General

Manager, personnel wing dated 21.01.2014 in favour of branch manager,

K.Sanjay Revanth. The documents on record clinchingly prove the case of the plaintiff. In order to rebut the said version of the plaintiff, the defendants were reluctant to contest the suit and remained exparte. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited and thus entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff’s Bank and against the defendants directing the defendants to jointly pay an amount of

Rs.5,44,012/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till date of realization. On failure to do so, the plaintiff is entitled for the same by way of execution.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18th day of December 2020)

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

OS.No.1646/2018

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1- K. Sanjay Revanth- NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: is the original loan application, dated 27.04.2015 of defendant No.1

Ex.A2: is the Original letter, dated 16.08.2010 of proprietor ship given by D1 to plaintiff bank.

Ex.A3: is the original agreement request for over draft facilities executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, dated 16.08.2010.

Ex.A4: is the original Pro-note, dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A5: is the original cash credit agreement executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank, dated 16.08.2010.

Ex.A6: is the original guarantee covering letter, dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A7: is the original guarantee agreement, dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A8: is the original letter, dated 28.04.2015 addressed by defendant No.1 to plaintiff bank seeking for limits from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/-.

Ex.A9: is the original supplemental agreement, dated 29.04.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank, showing the agreement entered on 06.08.2010.

Ex.A10: is the original Pro-note, dated 29.04.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A11:is the original sanction memorandum, dated 29.04.2015 for enhancement of

OCC for Rs.50,000/- made by plaintiff bank in favour of defendant No.1.

Ex.A12: is the original letter of renewal, dated 09.08.2011 executed by defendant

No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank.

OS.No.1646/2018

10

Ex.A13: is the original letter of renewal, dated 30.01.2013, executed by defendant

No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A14: is the original acknowledgment of debt and security, dated 10.08.2013, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A15: is the original acknowledgment of debt and security, dated 01.08.2016, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A16: is the original acknowledgment of debt and security, dated 01.08.2016, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A17: is the office copy of final notice, dated 01.10.2015 issued by plaintiff bank to defendant No.1.

Ex.A18: is the original hand written reply, dated 14.10.2015 given by defendant No.1 received by plaintiff bank on 15.10.2015.

Ex.A19: is the office copy of legal notice, dated 31.05.2018 posted on 01.06.2018 got issued to defendants through its counsel by registered post with acknowledgment due.

Ex.A20: is the original postal receipt, dated 01.06.2018 of defendant No.1 to residential address.

Ex.A21: is the original postal receipt dated 01.06.2018 of defendant No.1 to shop address.

Ex.A22: is the original postal receipt, dated 01.06.2018 of defendant No.2 to his office address.

Ex.A23: is the original postal receipt, dated 01.06.2018 of defendant No.1 to residential address.

Ex.A24: is the original acknowledgment of notice by defendant No.1 dated 05.06.2018 of residential address.

Ex.A25: is the original acknowledgment of notice by defendant No.1 dated 05.06.2018 of shop address.

Ex.A26: is the original acknowledgment of notice by defendant No.2 dated 02.06.2018 of shop address.

OS.No.1646/2018

11

Ex.A27: is the original returned cover of defendant No.2 dated 04.06.2018 by postal authorities with an endorsement as “Unclaimed”.

Ex.A28: is the Certified extract of statement of account pertaining to loan account

NO.8686261000002 of defendant No.1 from 16.08.2010 to 30.06.2018.

Ex.A29: is the attested copy of General Power of Attorney executed by General

Manager, personnel wing dated 21.01.2014 in favour of branch manager, K.Sanjay Revanth.

FOR DEFENDANT

-NIL-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

OS.209/2019

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT MALKAJGIRI

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar FAC: Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri

FRIDAY, THE 4 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

OS. No. 209 OF 2019

Between :

1. Mrs.Dr..M.Uma Devi, W/o. M. Suryanarayana Rao, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retd.Govt. Servant, R/o. 21- 27, Dayanand Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

2. Kotamraju Manmohan, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retd.Govt. Servant, R/o Sivapuri Colony, A.S.Rao Nagar, 1-1-111/1/85, Shivapuri Colony, Kapra, Kesara -500062

3. Kotamraju Sesha Sayee, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. A.S.Rao Nagar, H.No.30-265/18B/P3, F.No.B-103, VIGAPTS, Sainathapuram, R.R.District- 50062.

4.Dr.Kotamraju Venkata Narasimha Kashyap, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Practicing Doctor, R/o. H.No.10-87/1/12, PVN Colony, Malkajgiri-500047.

5.Kotamraju Durga Prasad, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.12-13-879/1, Behind AP Diary, Hanuman Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500 017.

6. Kotamraju Satyanarayana, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 6905-9, Crosby Circle, Austin, TX 78746, USA. Rep. by SPA Holder, K. Sesha Sayee.

7. Dr. Kodali Sri Laxmi, W/o. Late Dr.K.Subba Rao, Aged: 54 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 6-172, Jaggayapet.

8. Kotamraju Srinivas, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged: 54 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.21-27, Dayanand Nagar, near Church,

OS.209/2019

2

Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

9. Rapaka Nagasaraswathy, W/o. Rapaka Srinivasa Rao, Aged: 52 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. 13414 Asbury Vista, San Antonio, Texas 78249, USA, Rep. by SPA Holder, K. Sesha Sayee

10. Kotmraju Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 4158 Decoro Street # 18, San Diego, California 92122, USA, Rep. by SPA Holder, K. Sesha Sayee

11. Kotmraju Subramanya Sai, S/o. Late K.S.R. Krishna Rao, Aged: 46 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 19-103/203, Gouthamnagar-1, Malkajgiri. Rep. by SPA Holder, K. Sesha Sayee

...Plaintiffs

AND

1.Dy.Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad Division.

2. All Concerned

.. Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 24.11.2020 in the presence of Sri Mohana Chary, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.R. Satyanarayana counsel for Defendant No.1 and No Objections were received from defendant No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as Legal heirs of deceased

Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Ramakrishna Rao who died on 08.09.1996.

2.It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the eldest daughter and plaintiff No.2 to 6, 8,10 & 11 are sons and Plaintiff No.7 is the second daughter and plaintiff No.9 of Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. The Late Sri

Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao was working in Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., at

Shankarnagar, Nizamabad district situated now in Telangana State and during his life time a house Plot No.282 admeasuring 320.71 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.870, 871 & 872 at Gauthamnagar colony near Railway Station Malkajgiri, Hyderabad for a

OS.209/2019

3 valuable consideration by virtue of a Sale Deed bearing doc.No.672/66/E duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East from its Vendors

Sri.B.Ramakrishna Reddy & 4 others who were its absolute owners enjoying undisputed possession since the date of purchase. The said property has been acquired father of the plaintiffs from out of his own resources. The Late Sri

Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao was married to Mrs. Kotamraju Swarajya Laxmi and out of said wedlock, eight sons and three daughters were born and all the children of Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao are surviving and married and well settled in their lives. The Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao during his lifetime has constructed a house on the said plot after seeking sanction from the Municipal Authorities and has been living therein after his retirement from his service in Nizam Sugar Factory Limited at Shakarnagar , Nizamabad District, and he has left for heavenly abode on 08-09-1996 at his above house due to age related illness. During his lifetime their father himself was looking after the said house property and he was having cordial relationship with every one. After his demise, the above house was in joint possession of all the plaintiffs named in the cause title above and plaintiffs humbly submit that their mother viz., Mrs.Kotamraju

Swarajya Laxmi was residing in the suit house till her death due to ill-health on 14- 11-2006 and since her demise, the above house is in joint possession of their children being the natural surviving legal heirs of the deceased. Although both their parents have died, the house was not mutated in the name of their legal heirs and said property is being maintained by their children and the property tax dues are also being paid in the name of Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao till date.

During his life time their late father has neither executed any WILL nor has alienated the said property in any manner whatsoever. In order to mutate their names in the Municipal records, his LRs have approached the concerned Municipal

Authorities and requested them to mutate their names in place of the name of their deceased father in respect of the schedule property but the competent authority in

OS.209/2019

4

GHMC has refused to accede to their request and has refused to accede to their request and has demanded his LRs to produce Legal Heir declaration from a

Competent Civil Court. It has become necessary and plaintiffs are constrained to file present suit seeking declaration of his sons and daughters as legal heirs of Late

Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. During his life time Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita

Rama Krishna Rao himself was looking after the affairs of the suit schedule property and during his life time he has neither executed any WILL nor has executed any conveyance deed in respect of the above said property in favour of any person, whomsoever and after his demise all his family members who are his legal heirs are in joint possession of the above two properties. After the demise of

Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. On 8-9-1996 to mutate the names of his legal heirs in the official recrods in respect of the suit schedule property owned by Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. , all the plaintiffs have approached the competent authority in GHMC for the above purpose but the GHMC has advised them to obtain a legal heir declaraion from Competent civil court by filing a proper suit. It is necessary to initiate appropriate civil proceedings in a competent court by filing necessary suits/petitions etc., and as Plaintiffs No.6, 9 & 10 are staying abroad by virtue of their employment there and as there is no possibility of them visiting India in the near future, it is not possible for them to personally prosecute any such proceedings in any court in India as such plaintiffs No.6,9 & 10 have nominated and authorized their elder brother Sesha Sayee, S/o. Late

Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao, R/o. B-103, VLG Apartments,

Sainathpuram, Dr.A.S Rao Nagar, Hyderabad to do all that is necessary to obtain decree and judgment declaring all the plaintiffs as the only legal heirs of Late

Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. And to that effect have executed Special

Power of Attorney during their recent visit to Hyderabad, India. Other than the above name eleven plaintiffs herein, Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. ,

OS.209/2019

5 is not having any other legal heirs or claimants to his estate. Hence the plaintiffs constrained to file the present suit.

3.On receipt of summons, counsel for defendant No.1 filed vakalat but failed to file Written Statement. No Objections received from defendant No.2.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.5 was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-19 documents.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare as legal heirs of deceased Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao as prayed for?

7. POINT:-The plaintiffs filed this suit to declare them as Legal heirs of deceased Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao who died on 08.09.1996. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiffs should be clear about their case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case.

It is the case of the plaintiffs in nut shell that the plaintiff No.1 is the eldest daughter and plaintiff No.2 to 6, 8,10 & 11 are sons and Plaintiff No.7 is the second daughter and plaintiff No.9 of Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. The Late Sri

Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao was working in Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., at

Shankarnagar, Nizamabad district situated now in Telangana State and during his life time a house Plot No.282 admeasuring 320.71 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.870, 871 & 872 at Gauthamnagar colony near Railway Station Malkajgiri, Hyderabad for a valuable consideration by virtue of a Sale Deed bearing doc.No.672/66/E duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East from its Vendors

Sri.B.Ramakrishna Reddy & 4 others who were its absolute owners enjoying undisputed possession since the date of purchase. The said property has been

OS.209/2019

6 acquired father of the plaintiffs from out of his own resources. The Late Sri

Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao was married to Mrs. Kotamraju Swarajya Laxmi and out of said wedlock, eight sons and three daughters were born and all the children of Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao are surviving and married and well settled in their lives. The Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao during his lifetime has constructed a house on the said plot after seeking sanction from the Municipal Authortieis and has been living therein after his retirement from his service in Nizam Sugar Factory Limited at Shakarnagar , Nizamabad District, and he has left for heavenly abode on 08-09-1996 at his above house due to age related illness. During his lifetime their father himself was looking after the said house property and he was having cordial relationship with every one. After his demise, the above house was in joint possession of all the plaintiffs named in the cause title above and plaintiffs humbly submit that their mother viz., Mrs.Kotamraju

Swarajya Laxmi was residing in the suit house till her death due to ill-health on 14- 11-2006 and since her demise, the above house is in joint possession of their children being the natural surviving legal heirs of the deceased. Although both their parents have died, the house was not mutated in the name of their legal heirs and said property is being maintained by their children and the property tax dues are also being paid in the name of Late Sri Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao till date.

During his life time their late father has neither executed any WILL nor has alienated the said property in any manner whatsoever. In order to mutate their names in the Municipal records, his LRs have approached the concerned Municipal

Authorities and requested them to mutate their names in place of the name of their deceased father in respect of the schedule property but the competent authority in

GHMC has refused to accede to their request and has refused to accede to their request and has demanded his LRs to produce Legal Heir declaration from a

Competent Civil Court. It has become necessary and plaintiffs are constrained to file present suit seeking declaration of his sons and daughters as legal heirs of Late

OS.209/2019

7

Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. During his life time Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita

Rama Krishna Rao himself was looking after the affairs of the suit schedule property and during his life time he has neither executed any WILL nor has executed any conveyance deed in respect of the above said property in favour of any person, whomsoever and after his demise all his family members who are his legal heirs are in joint possession of the above two properties. After the demise of

Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. On 8-9-1996 to mutate the names of his legal heirs in the official records in respect of the suit schedule property owned by Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao, all the plaintiffs have approached the competent authority in GHMC for the above purpose but the GHMC has advised them to obtain a legal heir declaration from Competent civil court by filing a proper suit. It is necessary to initiate appropriate civil proceedings in a competent court by filing necessary suits/petitions etc., and as Plaintiffs No.6,9 & 10 are staying abroad by virtue of their employment there and as there is no possibility of them visiting India in the near future, it is not possible for them to personally prosecute any such proceedings in any court in India as such plaintiffs No.6, 9 & 10 have nominated and authorized their elder brother Sesha Sayee, S/o. Late

Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao, R/o. B-103, VLG Apartments,

Sainathpuram, Dr.A.S Rao Nagar, Hyderabad to do all that is necessary to obtain decree and judgment declaring all the plaintiffs as the only legal heirs of Late

Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. And to that effect have executed Special

Power of Attorney during their recent visit to Hyderabad, India. Other than the above name eleven plaintiffs herein, Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. , is not having any other legal heirs or claimants to his estate. Hence the plaintiffs constrained to file the present suit.

8.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 102 of Indian

OS.209/2019

8

Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right and the court may in its discretion, make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief. Under section 102 of

Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiffs.

9.In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have placed reliance on oral testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A19 documents. Ex.A-1 is the Original

Sale Deed No.672/66/E dt. 24-03-1966. Ex.A-2 is the Original death certificate of

Sri. K.S.R. Krishna Rao, dt. 08-09-1996, Ex.A-3 is the Original Death Certificate of

Mrs.Swarajyalakshmi, dt. 14-11-2006, Ex.A-4 is the Original Card value certificate of suit schedule property. dt. 05-06-2018, Ex.A-5 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A-6 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.3, Ex.A-7 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.4, Ex.A-8 is the Original Ration card of plaintiff No.5, Ex.A-9 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.7, Ex.A-10 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.8, Ex.A-11 is the Original Voter

Identity card of plaintiff No.11, Ex.A12: is the Original Provisional Certificate of

MBBS showing father’s name of plaintiff No.1, dt. 08-07-1968, Ex.A13: is the

Original B.SC., certificate showing father’s name of plaintiff No.6, dt. 30-04-1980,

Ex.A14: is the Original PAN Card showing father’s name of plaintiff No.7, Ex.A15: is the Original Birth Certificate showing father’s name of plaintiff No.9, dt. 24-03-2009,

Ex.A16: is the Original SSC Certificate showing father’s name of plaintiff No.10, dt.

10-06-1985, Ex.A17: is the Original Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.6 and 3, dated.24-01-2018, Ex.A18: is the Original Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff

No.9 and 3, dated.24-01-2018, Ex.A19: is the Original Special Power of Attorney of

OS.209/2019

9 plaintiff No.10 and 3, dated.24.01.2018 The documents on record clinchingly prove the case of the plaintiffs. In order to rebut the said version of the plaintiffs, the defendants were reluctant to contest the suit and remained exparte. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited and thus the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the

Late Sri.Kotamraju Sita Rama Krishna Rao. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 4th day of December, 2020)

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1- Kotamraju Durga Prasad- NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1 is the Original Sale Deed No.672/66/E dt. 24-03-1966.

Ex.A-2 is the Original death certificate of Sri. K.S.R. Krishna Rao, dt. 08-09-1996,

Ex.A-3 is the Original Death Certificate of Mrs.Swarajyalakshmi, dt. 14-11-2006,

Ex.A-4 is the Original Card value certificate of suit schedule property. dt. 05-06- 2018,

Ex.A-5 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.2,

Ex.A-6 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.3,

Ex.A-7 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.4,

Ex.A-8 is the Original Ration card of plaintiff No.5,

Ex.A-9 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.7,

OS.209/2019

10

Ex.A-10 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.8,

Ex.A-11 is the Original Voter Identity card of plaintiff No.11,

Ex.A12: is the Original Provisional Certificate of MBBS showing father’s name of plaintiff No.1, dt. 08-07-1968,

Ex.A13: is the Original B.SC., certificate showing father’s name of plaintiff No.6, dt.

30-04-1980,

Ex.A14: is the Original PAN Card showing father’s name of plaintiff No.7,

Ex.A15: is the Original Birth Certificate showing father’s name of plaintiff No.9, dt.

24-03-2009,

Ex.A16: is the Original SSC Certificate showing father’s name of plaintiff No.10, dt.

10-06-1985,

Ex.A17: is the Original Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.6 and 3, dated.24- 01-2018,

Ex.A18: is the Original Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.9 and 3, dated.24- 01-2018,

Ex.A19: is the Original Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.10 and 3, dated.24.01.2018.

FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL- FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

OS.280/2019

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT MALKAJGIRI

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar FAC: Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri

FRIDAY, THE 20 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

OS. No. 280 OF 2019

Between :

1. Jia Rani Sharma W/o Late Jagadish Raj Sharma, Aged 71 years, Occ: Household, R/o. D-103, Gayathri Hills Apartments, Raidurgam, Prashanth Hills Colony, Hyderabad.

2. Amit Sharma, S/o Late Jagadish Raj Sharma, Aged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.101, Mejistic Pride Apartment, Shaili Garden, Sainikpuri Yapral, Hyderabad.

3.Sumit Sharma, S/o Late Jagadish Raj Sharma, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D-103, Gayathri Hills Apartments, Raidurgam, Prashanth Hills Colony, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad.

2. All Concerned.

.. Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 16.04.2020 in the presence of Sri S. Ramachandra Parasad, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 remained exparte and No Objections were received from defendant No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as legal heirs of Late

Jagadish Raj Sharma who died on 06-01-2006, who was the original owner of the suit schedule property with a consequential direction for mutation.

OS.280/2019

2

2.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiffs

No.2 and 3 are the sons of late Jagadish Raj Sharma died on 06-01-2006 at

Yapral, Ranga Reddy District leaving behind him the plaintiffs herein as his surviving legal heirs. Since Jagadish Raj Sharma died intestate the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the properties as well as the legal status left behind by the said deceased Jagadish Raj Sharma. During the life time of late Jagadish Raj

Sharma, he had purchased all that the open plot bearing No.105, in Sy.Nos.205 and 206 admeasuring 428 Sq.yards equivalent to 357.8 Sq. meters, situated at

Yapral Village, now within the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

Malkajgiri Circle, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, from its rightful owner and possessor of Sri Ramesh C. Dutta, S/o. Y.N.Dutta, R/o. Yapral, R.R.District under a Registered Sale Deed vide Sale document No.1583 of 2000 dt. 24-05- 2000 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vallabhnagar, Hyderabad.

Jagadish Raj Sharma had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death. After the death of late Jagadish Raj Sharma, by way of succession and inheritance, the plaintiffs became the co-owners and co- shares of the suit schedule property with all rights and they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption from anybody whatsoever. The plaintiffs sold away the suit schedule property to

G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy through a Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.773/2011 dt. 17-3-2011. In fact, the vendees viz., G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy did not ask for the legal heir certificate of the plaintiffs at the time of their purchase of the suit schedule property. When the Vendees Viz., G.

Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy with a view to dispose of the suit schedule property to some prospective purchasers offered the same for sale. Accordingly, the suit schedule property was sold by them to A.G. Krishna Prasad by

Registered Sale Deed dt. 11-07-2018. Pursuant to the sale transaction, when

Sri. A.G.Krishna Prasad approached a schedule bank for the purpose of

OS.280/2019

3 obtaining loan on the said property, it was informed that the bank authorities are insisting for the production of legal heir certificate of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs only are the legal heirs and successors of late Jagadish Raj Sharma.

As such, the Vendees viz., G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy approached the plaintiffs for the supply of the legal heir certificate of the plaintiffs. The Vendees

Viz., G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy who are bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs for valuable consideration, approached the plaintiffs for the legal heir certificate, the plaintiffs thought it fit and justifiable to obtain legal heir certificate in order to avoid any legal complications in future over the suit schedule property. On 10-10-2018 when the plaintiffs approached the concerned Tahasildar, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the defendant

No.1 requested for issue of legal heir certificate in respect of the suit schedule property which was originally owned by the deceased Jagdish Raj sharma, the defendant No.1 informed the plaintiffs that he is not having authority to issue the legal heir certificate in respect of the immovable properties, could not issued to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court for issuance of the legal heir certificate. When the plaintiffs’ vendees viz., G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy sought for mutation of their names, the concerned Government authorities were insisting to furnish the legal heir certificate stating that the plaintiffs’ name were reflected in the concerned records. In order not to put the vendees viz., G. Appi Reddy and J.

Sambi Reddy to any trouble in disposing of the property sold by them, the plaintiffs thought it wise to obtain the legal heir certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Jagadish Raj Sharma. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no other alternative remedy except to approach the court. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendants remained exparte.

OS.280/2019

4

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW-1 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-9 documents. Ex.A-1 is CC of registered Sale deed vide document No.1583/2000 dated 24.05.2000. Ex.A-2 is

CC of registered Sale deed vide document No.773/2011 dated 17.03.2011,

Ex.A-3 is is CC of registered Sale deed vide document No.5581/2018 dated 11.07.2018 Ex.A-4 is Original Death Certificate of Late Jagadish Raj dt. 18-03- 2006, Ex.A-5 is Encumbrance Certificate issued by Sub Registrar Office,

Vallabnagar dt. 07-09-2018, Ex.A-6 is Encumbrance Certificate issued by Sub

Registrar Office, Vallabnagar dt. 07-09-2018, Ex.A-7 is Market Value Certificate issued by Sub Registrar Office, Malkajgiri dt. 12-10-2018, Ex.A-8 is Adhar Card of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A-9 is Postal receipt dt. 25-01-2019.

5.Heard learned counsel for plaintiffs.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare as legal heirs of Late Jagadish Raj Sharma as prayed for?

POINT:-The plaintiffs filed this suit to declare them as Legal heirs of

Late Jagadish Raj Sharma who died on 06-01-2006. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiffs should be clear about their case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the sons of late Jagadish Raj Sharma died on 06-01-2006 at Yapral, Ranga Reddy

District leaving behind him the plaintiffs herein as his surviving legal heirs. Since

Jagadish Raj Sharma died intestate the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the properties as well as the legal status left behind by the said deceased Jagadish

Raj Sharma. During the life time of late Jagadish Raj Sharma, he had purchased all that the open plot bearing No.105, in Sy.Nos.205 and 206 admeasuring 428

OS.280/2019

5

Sq.yards equivalent to 357.8 Sq. meters, situated at Yapral Village, now within the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Circle, Alwal

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, from its rightful owner and possessor of Sri

Ramesh C. Dutta, S/o. Y.N.Dutta, R/o. Yapral, R.R.District under a Registered

Sale Deed vide Sale document No.1583 of 2000 dt. 24-05-2000 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vallabhnagar, Hyderabad. Jagadish Raj Sharma had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death. After the death of late Jagadish Raj Sharma, by way of succession and inheritance, the plaintiffs became the co-owners and co-shares of the suit schedule property with all rights and they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption from anybody whatsoever. The plaintiffs sold away the suit schedule property to G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy through a Registered Sale Deed bearing document

No.773/2011 dt. 17-3-2011. In fact, the vendees viz., G. Appi Reddy and J.

Sambi Reddy did not ask for the legal heir certificate of the plaintiffs at the time of their purchase of the suit schedule property. When the Vendees Viz., G. Appi

Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy with a view to dispose of the suit schedule property to some prospective purchasers offered the same for sale. Accordingly, the suit schedule property was sold by them to A.G. Krishna Prasad by Registered Sale

Deed dt. 11-07-2018. Pursuant to the sale transaction, when Sri. A.G.Krishna

Prasad approached a schedule bank for the purpose of obtaining loan on the said property, it was informed that the bank authorities are insisting for the production of legal heir certificate of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs only are the legal heirs and successors of late Jagadish Raj Sharma. As such, the Vendees viz., G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy approached the plaintiffs for the supply of the legal heir certificate of the plaintiffs. The Vendees Viz., G. Appi Reddy and

J. Sambi Reddy who are bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs for valuable consideration, approached the plaintiffs for the legal heir

OS.280/2019

6 certificate, the plaintiffs thought it fit and justifiable to obtain legal heir certificate in order to avoid any legal complications in future over the suit schedule property.

On 10-10-2018 when the plaintiffs approached the concerned Tahasildar, Alwal

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the defendant No.1 requested for issue of legal heir certificate in respect of the suit schedule property which was originally owned by the deceased Jagdish Raj sharma, the defendant No.1 informed the plaintiffs that he is not having authority to issue the legal heir certificate in respect of the immovable properties, could not issued to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court for issuance of the legal heir certificate. When the plaintiffs’ vendees viz., G. Appi

Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy sought for mutation of their names, the concerned

Government authorities were insisting to furnish the legal heir certificate stating that the plaintiffs’ name were reflected in the concerned records. In order not to put the vendees viz., G. Appi Reddy and J. Sambi Reddy to any trouble in disposing of the property sold by them, the plaintiffs thought it wise to obtain the legal heir certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Jagadish Raj

Sharma. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no other alternative remedy except to approach the court. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

7.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 102 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right and the court may in its discretion, make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief. Under Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit

OS.280/2019

7 proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiffs.

8.In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have placed reliance on oral testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A9 documents. The documents on record clinchingly prove the case of the plaintiffs. In order to rebut the said version of the plaintiffs, the defendants were reluctant to contest the suit and remained exparte. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiff cannot be non- suited and thus the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for. In a suit of this nature for legal status, the plaintiff is not entitled for any other relief and as such the suit is partly answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased Late Jagadish

Raj Sharma. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20th day of November 2020.)

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1- Amit Sharma - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1 is CC of registered Sale deed vide document No.1583/2000 dated 24.05.2000.

Ex.A-2 is CC of registered Sale deed vide document No.773/2011 dated 17.03.2011.

OS.280/2019

8

Ex.A-3 is is CC of registered Sale deed vide document No.5581/2018 dated 11.07.2018

Ex.A-4 is Original Death Certificate of Late Jagadish Raj dt. 18-03-2006,

Ex.A-5 is Encumbrance Certificate issued by Sub Registrar Office, Vallabnagar

dt. 07-09-2018,

Ex.A-6 is Encumbrance Certificate issued by Sub Registrar Office, Vallabnagar

dt. 07-09-2018,

Ex.A-7 is Market Value Certificate issued by Sub Registrar Office, Malkajgiri dt. 12-10-2018,

Ex.A-8 is Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A-9 is Postal receipt dt. 25-01-2019.

FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

OS.No.834/2016

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT MALKAJGIRI

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar FAC: Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri

FRIDAY THE 14 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

OS.No. 834 OF 2016

Between : M/s. Tirumala Milk Products (P) Ltd., Reptd., by A. Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. Koteswar Rao, Aged about 44 years, Manager H.R., M/s. Tirumala Milk Products (P) Ltd., Corporate Office at Plot No.120, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

AND

Sri Badam Jana Reddy S/o Basvi Reddy, Occ: Businessman, R/o H.No.1-10, Near Bus stop main road, Keesar, Ranga Reddy District, Nagaram, Telangana.

... Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 07.02.2020 in the presence of Sri. Muthineni Koteswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount Rs.5,63,953/- along with interest and costs thereon from the defendant.

2.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a agent/customer of the plaintiff’s firm branch situated at Malkajgiri. The defendant named his milk shop under name and style “ SATYA SAI ENTERPRISES”. The plaintiff firm since the defendant has become its agent/customer supplying the milk and its products to the defendants’ Milk Enterprises. The defendant after receiving the milk from the

OS.No.834/2016

2 plaintiff’s firm, he used to pay the money for the milk he received. The plaintiff firm used to maintain a statement for the milk supplied to the defendant which is called as Customer Statement, the customer statement contains all the details pertaining to the transactions between the plaintiff firm and defendant like sales value, payments made and net balance etc. Further the defendant or his men used to sign on the delivery challans for the milk supplied to him. As per the

Customer Statement and the invoice, for the milk supplied by the plaintiff firm to the defendant for the period 1-5-2015 to 30-11-2015 (as per closing balance on 30-11-2015) the total amount due to the plaintiff firm by the defendant up to 30-5- 2015 was Rs.4,74,173.41/-. The plaintiff firm number of times orally reminded the defendant to pay and clear the due amount of Rs,4,74,173.41/- which was due to the plaintiff firm inspite of repeated oral request made by the plaintiff, the plaint firm before initiating the appropriate legal action against the defendant in the court of law by narrating all the above said facts issued a legal notice dt.16-9- 2015 to the defendant to pay the due amount of Rs.4,74,173.41/ which was due.

Through the postal services was served on the defendant as per the postal acknowledgment dt. 18-9-2015. The defendant as on today did not pay the due amount of Rs.4,74,173.41, as such so far the defendant is liable to pay the due amount of Rs.4,74,173.41/-. The defendant failed to pay the due amount in time inspite of repeated oral demands and on issuing the legal notice. The defendant is liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate 24% per annum. On account of delay on the part of the defendant paying the due amounts, the plaintiff has suffered huge loss and hardship in the business. The defendant is now all in total due of Rs.5,63,953 which includes due amount of the plaintiff firm for the milk supplied of Rs.4,74,173.41/- and Rs.89,780/- towards interest @ 24% p.a for the period up to 30-5-2015 to 14-3-2016 and the plaintiff firm is entitled for the same. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

OS.No.834/2016

3 3.On receipt of summons, the defendant remained exparte.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-9 documents. Ex.A-1 is Legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dt. 16-9-2015, Ex.A-2 is postal receipt dt. 16-9-2015, Ex.A-3 is postal acknowledgment dt. 18-9-2015, Ex.A-4 is customer statement, dt. 1-5-2015 to 30-11-2015 Ex.A-5 is certificate of incorporation dt. 13-11-1998, Ex.A-6 is Authorization letter issued by plaintiff firm

dt. 19-2-2014, Ex.A-7 is Delivery challan-invoice, dt. 29-5-2015, Ex.A-8 is

Delivery challan-invoice, dt. 30-5-2015, Ex.A-9 is Delivery challan-invoice, dt. 31- 5-2015.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

POINT:-The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.5,63,953/- together with interest and costs thereon. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should be clear about his case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of the plaintiff in nutshell that the defendant is an agent/customer of the plaintiff’s firm branch situated at Malkajgiri. The defendant named his milk shop under name and style “ SATYA SAI ENTERPRISES”. Since the defendant has become its agent/customer the plaintiff firm is supplying the milk and its products to the defendants’ Milk Enterprises. The defendant after receiving the milk from the plaintiff’s firm, he used to pay the money for the milk he received. The plaintiff firm used to maintain a statement for the milk supplied to the defendant which is called as Customer Statement. The customer statement contains all the details pertaining to the transactions between the plaintiff firm and defendant like sales

OS.No.834/2016

4 value, payments made and net balance etc. Further the defendant or his men used to sign on the delivery challans for the milk supplied to him. As per the

Customer Statement and the invoice, for the milk supplied by the plaintiff firm to the defendant for the period 1-5-2015 to 30-11-2015 (as per closing balance on 30-11-2015) the total amount due to the plaintiff firm by the defendant up to 30-5- 2015 was Rs.4,74,173.41/-. The plaintiff firm number of times orally reminded the defendant to pay and clear the due amount of Rs,4,74,173.41/- which was due to the plaintiff firm inspite of repeated oral request made by the plaintiff, the plaint firm before initiating the appropriate legal action against the defendant in the court of law by narrating all the above said facts issued a legal notice dt.16-9- 2015 to the defendant to pay the due amount of Rs.4,74,173.41/- which was due.

Through the postal services was served on the defendant as per the postal acknowledgment dt. 18-9-2015. The defendant as on today did not pay the due amount of Rs.4,74,173.41/-. The defendant failed to pay the due amount in time inspite of repeated oral demands and on issuing the legal notice to pay interest on the said amount at the rate 24% per annum. On account of delay on the part of the defendant paying the due amounts, the plaintiff has suffered huge loss and hardship in the business. The defendant is now all in the total due of

Rs.5,63,953/- which includes due amount of the plaintiff firm for the milk supplied of Rs.4,74,173.41/- and Rs.89,780/- towards interest @ 24 p.a for the period up to 30-5-2015 to 14-3-2016 and the plaintiff firm is entitled for the same. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

7.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In view

OS.No.834/2016

5 thereof, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiff and later shifts on the defendant.

8.In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff had placed reliance on oral testimony of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-9 documents. The documents on record clinchingly prove the case of the plaintiff. In order to rebut the said version of the plaintiff, the defendants were reluctant to contest the suit and remained exparte. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiff cannot be non- suited and thus entitled for the relief as prayed for.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.5,63,953/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of decree till date of realization. On failure to do so, the plaintiff is entitled for the same by way of execution.

(Typed to my dictation by typist directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of February, 2020)

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW1- A. Ram Mohan Rao - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1 is Legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dt. 16-9-2015, Ex.A-2 is postal receipt dt. 16-9-2015, Ex.A-3 is postal acknowledgment dt. 18-9-2015, Ex.A-4 is customer statement, dt. 1-5-2015 to 30-11-2015, Ex.A-5 is certificate of incorporation dt. 13-11-1998, Ex.A-6 is Authorization letter issued by plaintiff firm dt. 19-2-2014, Ex.A-7 is Delivery challan-invoice, dt. 29-5-2015, Ex.A-8 is Delivery challan-invoice, dt. 30-5-2015,

OS.No.834/2016

6

Ex.A-9 is Delivery challan-invoice, dt. 31-5-2015

FOR DEFENDANT

- NIL -

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District