Smt.G.V.L.Saraswathi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Magistrate, RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar

Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

Smt.G.V.L.Saraswathi, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Magistrate, RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 62 court orders on record since 2011. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/775/2009

Ms Boodevi Builders Ltd., vs Duddu Komaraiah

20 Apr 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT:- Smt.G.V.L.SARASWATHI, LL.M.,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

FRIDAY, THE 20 th DAY OF APRIL, 2012.

O.S.NO.775 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

M/s Boodevi Builders Limited, Rep. by its Director Mr.D.Gopala Krishna Reddy, S/o D.Raghava Reddy, Aged about 37 Years, Occ: Director, having office at 843, Banjara Avenue, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, A.P.

…..PLAINTIFF

AND

1) Duddu Komaraiah, S/o Jangaiah Aged 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

2) Areda Mallesha, S/o Komaraiah, Aged 36 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

3) Areda Yadagiri, S/o Komaraiah, Aged 26 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

4) China Chandraiah, S/o Komaraiah, Aged 25 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are residents of Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…..DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming before me on 10.04.2012, for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Kantha Chary, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of M/s K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, Advocate for the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 dismissed as not pressed and of M/s G.R.Pandith, Advocate for the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and having been stood over for consideration till this day and delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed Under Order VII, Rule-1, Read With

Section 26 of CPC, by the plaintiff against defendants for 2

Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, associates, followers, workmen or persons, etc, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

M/s Boodevi Builders Limited, Rep. by its Director Mr.D.Gopala

Krishna Reddy, S/o D.Raghava Reddy, Aged about 37 Years, Occ:

Director, having office at 843, Banjara Avenue, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad, A.P., is the plaintiff filed this case against Duddu

Komaraiah and 3 others, the parties are hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendants. The suit against defendant No.2 is dismissed on 07-12-2004. The case of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff's company is registered under the provisions of the

Indian Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing Survey No.29, admeasuring Ac 11-27 gts, situated at Kothawalguda Village,

Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, hereinafter referred as suit schedule property.

3. The plaintiff further submits that he had purchased the suit lands from its owners and possessors, originally

Mr.M.V.Subba Rao who was the actual purchaser through the court order dated 18-12-1964 in E.P.No.3 of 1963 in OS.No.182 of 1952 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad had issued a sale certificate in favour of

Mr.M.V.Subba Rao, the plaintiff had purchased the suit lands from A.Venkateswara Rao, who purchased from original owner 3

Mr.M.V.Subba Rao. Subsequent to the death of Mr.M.V.Subba

Rao his sons namely 1) M.Ram Chandra Rao 2) M.V.Vasudeva

Rao 3) M.Surya Narayana Rao and 4) M.V.Satyanarayana Rao executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Y.Ram

Chandra Reddy to take steps to regularize the sales effected by their father, accordingly the said GPA holder representing the sons of Late M.V.Subba Rao i.e, original owner and along with their purchaser namely A.Venkateswara Rao have executed jointly a registered sale deed bearing document

No.1790/2000, dated 17-07-2000 in respect of the suit schedule property and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff, since then the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff developing the suit schedule property by investing huge amounts, the possessor in title were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property prior to purchase of plaintiff, the original owner got sale certificate issued by the court, as per the said sale certificates there are total 17 Survey Numbers are declared as purchased by the said Mr.M.V.Subba Rao in which the suit lands are also included.

4. The plaintiff further submits that the possession of the suit lands along with other lands has been delivered by the Court bailiff on 14-03-1966 in favour of the said auction purchaser

Mr.M.V.Subba Rao by conducting panchanama thereafter the counsel for the petitioner therein has also filed a memo in the said court on 17-03-1966 stating that the possession of the said 4 lands are delivered to the petitioner ( auction purchaser) the said Mr.M.V.Subba Rao the auction purchaser became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit lands along with other lands.

5. The plaintiff further submits that the Hon'ble Land Reforms

Tribunal Hyderabad West passed an order in CC.No.892/W/75 and CC.No.854/W/75 dated 30-04-1977 in which clearly declared that as follows “ Lands purchased by Sri M.V.Subba

Rao CC.No.337/W/75 among other lands mentioned hereunder in Survey No.29 to an extent of Ac 11-27 gts situated at

Kothwalguda Village, Hyderabad West, as per that orders it is clear that the Land Reforms Tribunal has also confirmed the purchase made by Mr.M.V.Subba Rao and also his ownership over the suit lands along with other lands.

6. The plaintiff further submits that to meet out his financial and family needs has sold away the suit lands along with other lands under an unregistered sale deed, dated 03-08-1974 in favour of A.Venkateswara Rao and on the same day the physical possession was handed over to auction purchaser.

Mr.M.V.Subba Rao died survived by his four sons Mr.M.Ram

Chander, M.V.Vasudeva Rao, M.Surya Narayana Rao and

M.V.Satyanarayana Rao, the said A.Venkateswara Rao along with the legal heirs of Late M.V.Subba Rao have sold away the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff having purchased the said lands through registered sale deed bearing

No.1790/2000, dated 17-07-2000, since then the plaintiff is in 5 continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as bonafide purchaser and the same is rectified by the proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer its proceedings

No.B/2444/2001, dated 14-04-2004 confirming the title of the said land in favour of plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants being colluded with the revenue authority entered into the possession column of the pahanies behind the back of plaintiff taking advantage of that trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of plaintiff without any right and title over the suit schedule property. The defendants are trying to interfere into the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the same with a malafide intention to gain wrongful. The defendants have no right and title in what so ever in any manner over the suit schedule property. The defendants are tried to interfere into the suit schedule property on 30-09-2004 and 05-10-2004, however the plaintiff resisted the illegal attempts of the defendants and filed the present suit for perpetual injunction.

Hence, the suit.

8. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement contending, in brief, as follows:

The defendant No.1 denied all the averments levelled in the plaint and he submits that the plaintiff created a false and fictitious document in collusion with Y.Ramchander Reddy and legal heirs of M.V. Subba Rao, in fact the defendant No.1 is 6 in continuous and uninterrupted possession of Survey No.29 to the extent of 2 acres and 29 guntas, hence the plaintiff is in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the same since the date of purchase, that M.V. Subba Rao had purchased the suit land along with other survey numbers through court in

E.P.No.3/1963 in O.S.No.182/52 on the file of the II Additional

Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad are self created by

M.V.Subba Rao, in the said suit the respondents were not a party to the said suit and proceedings, hence the same are not binding on the defendant No.1. No possession was delivered on 14-03-1966 by the court bailiff the said panchanama was an imaginary, the said M.V.Subba Rao, is not the owner and possessor of a single survey number under the orders of land reform tribunal.

9. The defendant No.1 further submits that the document referred by the plaintiff are self created by Late

M.V.Subba Rao in favour of A.Venkateshwara and in turn

A.Venkateshwara in collusion with the legal heirs of Late

M.V.Subba Rao with the help of the plaintiff created the said document. The defendant No.1 is in continuous uninterrupted peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the extent of Ac 02-29 guntas and the remaining land of the suit schedule property is under the possession of defendant No.2 to 4, hence the question of delivering of possession by Late

M.V.Subba Rao to A.Venkateshwara and in turn

A.Venkateshwara to the plaintiff does not arise.

10. The defendant No.1 further submits that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, hence the question of interfering for dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land by defendants does not arise. The defendant No.1 further submits that the defendant No.1's father namely Jangaiah had purchased the land bearing Survey No.29 to the extent of Ac 2- 29 gts from the original pattedar Mohd Ahsan in the year 1951 through an unregistered sale deed the said document was misplaced and not traceable, due to which mutation in the patta column not effected in the name of defendant No.1's father nor in the name of the defendant No.1, after the death of his father the defendant No.1 is in continuous possession of the same and prior to him his father was in possession of the same for more than 25 years, the defendant No.1 had perfected his title by adverse possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff , the defendant No.1 undertakes to file the said unregistered sale deed as and when it will be traced out, the defendant No.1's name is continuing in the possession column of the revenue records for the last more than 25 years till this day. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

11. The defendant No.3 filed his written statement

and defendant No.4 filed memo adopting the written

statement of defendant No.3 contending, in brief, as

follows:

The defendants denied all the averments levelled in the 8 plaint that they submits, that the defendants No.2 to 4 are brothers, the defendant No.2 died more than 10 years back, leaving behind him his wife by name Smt.Yadamma and his son by name Jangaiah. The plaintiff filed the above suit against a person who died several years back by stating that the dead person interfered with his alleged peaceful possession in the suit schedule property, the plaintiff misrepresented the total facts and filed the present suit before this court against a person who died more than 10 years back, the suit against a dead person is not maintainable. The legal heirs of the defendant No.2 have not been made parties to the present suit.

12. The defendants further submits that one Yadagiri @

Areda Anthaiah was the protected tenant of the schedule mentioned Survey No.29 and he was the paternal great grand father of the defendants No.2 to 4, that he was succeeded by his son Late Anthaiah and after the death of said Anthaiah his son i.e, deceased Yadagiri @ Areda Komaraiah who is father of defendants No.2 to 4 succeeded and after the death of said

Komaraiah the defendants No.2 to 4 have succeed to the schedule property.

13. The defendants further submits that Late Yadagiri @

Areda Komaraiah i.e, the father of the defendant No.3 and 4 and deceased defendant No.2 during his life time was the 38 E holder and 38 E certificate was issued on him on 15-05-1975 to an extent of Ac 8-38 gts in Survey No.29 and Ac 11-00 gts in

Survey No.30, vide Proceeding No.LRW/143/75 and 9 subsequently in the year 1990 vide Proceeding No.G/3259/90,

dated 07-12-1990, the RDO Chevella Division issued

notification to pay the price of the land, as per the direction of the RDO, the respondents No.2 to 4 paid Rs.1,983/- vide DD

No.031020, dated 05-02-1991, and another amount of

Rs.854.40 Ps vide DD.No.031023, dated 05-02-1991 to the

RDO Chevella Division towards price of the 38 E certificate.

14. The defendants further submits that the total extent of

Survey No.29 is Ac 11-27 gts and out of that 38 E certificate was issued to the extent of Ac 8-38 gts and the remaining land of Ac 2-29 gts held by the protected tenant, the entire land

Ac 11-27 gts covered by the protected tenant and 38 E certificate was issued for Ac 8-38 gts as such while the defendants No.2 to 4 have been the absolute owners and possessors of Ac 8-38 gts they are the protected tenants for the remaining portion of Ac 2-29 gts in Survey No.29.

15. The defendants further submits that after the death of the said Komaraiah the defendants No.2 to 4 being his legal heirs, mutation has been effected in favour of the defendants

No.2 to 4 in respect of the schedule property by concerned authorities. The revenue authorities have mutated the names of the defendants No.2 to 4 in the revenue records and also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour.

16. The defendants further submits that the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the defendants No.3 and 4 and the 10 defendants No.2 and 3 and the legal heirs of the defendant

No.4 are enjoying the schedule property peacefully and enjoying the same by cultivation, after the death of the defendant No.2 mutation has been granted in favour of the legal heirs of his and pattadar pass books and title deeds also have been issued in their favour.

17. The defendants further submits that now the defendants No.2 to 4 and earlier their ancestors have been the 38 E holders in respect of the schedule mentioned lands, as such any orders by any court against the 38 E holders are not valid. As such the court has no powers or jurisdiction to grant any injunction against the 38 E holders.

18. The defendants further submits that the alleged purchaser M.V.Subba Rao and A.Sitaram Rao filed for

Declaration before the Ceiling Authorities in CC.No.892/W/75 and CC.No.854/W/75, that the said Declaration is not maintainable against the protected tenants. The Hon'ble

Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella had given findings in said

CC that already 38 E certificates were issued in favour of the protected tenants i.e, the ancestors of defendants No.2 to 4.

As per the Tenancy Act, if any protected tenant is in possession the landlords have no right to execute any documents in favour of any person and in the present case 38 E certificates were issued in favour of ancestors of the defendants No.2 to 4 in the year 1975 vide Proceeding No.LRW/143/75.

19. The defendants further submits that the landlord nor 11 the purchasers had taken any steps to cancel the 38 E certificate and the said Declaration is barred by limitation. The defendants further submits that the suits were filed by the vendors of the plaintiff without making party the holders of 38

E certificate, and as such the proceedings of the said suits are not binding on either the defendants No.3 and 4 or the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.2, neither the landlord, nor the purchaser have obtained prior permission from

Tahsildar for purchase of the schedule mentioned land.

20. The defendants further submits that the Mandal

Revenue Order in Proceedings No.B/2444/01, dated 14-04- 2004, the MRO declared that amendment is made only in respect of lands in Survey Nos.47,48,49,52,53 and 109 and the suit lands are in Survey No.29 the Proceedings dated 30-04- 1977 of the Land Reforms Tribunal Hyderabad West also states under Lands covered by patta certificates issued under Section 38 E that the lands in Survey No.29 are covered by 38 E certificate. The MRO has also not issued any notice to the 38 E holders of the survey number although the same is mentioned in the application for amendment.

21. The defendants further submits that because of coming up of an International Airport near Shamshabad the rates of the lands have steeply increased and as such the plaintiff with an intention to grab the property of the defendants has filed the present suit by playing fraud upon the court. The plaintiff and his vendors do not have any right or 12 title in and over the schedule property. The defendants are the absolute owners and title holders and they are having peaceful physical possession of the schedule property as 38 E certificate holders. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

22. Basing on the above pleadings in the plaint the following issues are framed for trial.

ISSUES :

1. Whether the plaintiff builders company is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession

and enjoyment of plaintiff company over the suit schedule

property on 30092004 and 05102004?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Perpetual Injunction as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

23. During the course of trial, Sri D.Gopala Krishna Reddy, examined as PW1 and got marked Exs: A1 to A5. Ex: A1 is the Original Sale Deed, dated 17-07-2000, Ex: A2 is the CC of

Sale Certificate, Ex: A3 is the CC of Proceedings of the Land

Reforms Tribunal Hyderabad West, dated 30-04-1977, Ex: A4 is the Pahani for the year 1978-1979, Ex: A5 is the Pahani for the year 1996-1997.

24. Sri Duddu Komaraiah examined as DW1 and examined

Sri Aredi Yadagiri @ Yadaiah as DW2 and examined Sri Aredi 13

Chinna Chandraiah as DW3 and examined Sri Mohd.Anwar as

DW4 got marked Exs: B1 to B40. Ex: B1 is the CC of pahani for the year 1982-1983, Ex: B2 is the CC of pahani for the year 1983- 1984, Ex: B3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1984-1985, Ex: B4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1985-1986, Ex: B5 is the CC of pahani for the year 1986-1987, Ex: B6 is the CC of pahani for the year 1988-1989, Ex: B7 is the CC of pahani for the year 1990- 1991, Ex: B8 is the CC of pahani for the year 1992-1993, Ex: B9 is the CC of pahani for the year 1993-1994, Ex: B10 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-1995, Ex: B11 is the CC of pahani for the year 1996-1997, Ex: B12 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000- 2001, Ex: B13 is the CC of pahani for the year 2001-2002, Ex:

B14 is the CC of pahani for the year 2002-2003, Ex: B15 is the

CC of pahani for the year 2003-2004, Ex: B16 is the Receipt, Ex:

B17 is the Receipt, dated 05-02-1991, Ex: B18 is the Receipt,

dated 05-02-1991, Ex: B19 is the CC of Form No.III, Ex: B20 is the

CC of pahani for the year 1955-1958, Ex: B21 is the CC of pahani for the year 1961-1962, Ex: B22 is the CC of pahani for the year 1970- 1971, Ex: B23 is the CC of pahani, Ex: B24 is the CC of pahani for the year 1975-1976, Ex: B25 is the CC of pahani for the year 1975- 1976, Ex: B26 is the CC of pahani for the year 1976-1977, Ex: B27 is the CC of pahani for the year 1977-1978, Ex: B28 is the CC of pahani for the year 1980-1981, Ex: B29 is the CC of pahani for the year 1984-1985, Ex: B30 is the CC of pahani for the year 1987- 1988, Ex: B31 is the CC of pahani for the year 1988-1989, Ex: B32 is the CC of pahani for the year 1990-1991, Ex: B33 is the CC of 14 pahani for the year 1994-1995, Ex: B34 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-1995, Ex: B35 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000- 2001, Ex: B36 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000-2001, Ex:

B37 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-2004, Ex: B38 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-2004, Ex: B39 is the CC of Pattadar

Pass Book, Ex: B40 is the CC of Title Deed, Ex: B41 is the CC of

Pattadar Pass Book, Ex: B42 is the CC of Title Deed, Ex: B43 is the

CC of Pattadar Pass Book, Ex: B44 is the CC of Title Deed, Ex: B45 is the CC of Pattadar Pass Book, Ex: B46 is the CC of Title Deed.

25. After gone through the contents of both parties coupled with their evidence and documents, this court for the best appreciation of the case, it is not necessary to reproduce the entire oral or documentary evidence and it will discuss as and when require to the extent require.

Issue Nos1 to 3 :

1. Whether the plaintiff builders company is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession

and enjoyment of plaintiff company over the suit schedule

property on 30092004 and 05102004?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Perpetual Injunction as prayed for ?

26. The 1st and 2nd issues are interlinked with the 3rd issue hence, the two issues are discussed in 3rd issue. The case of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and 15 possessor of the land bearing Survey No.29, admeasuring Ac 11-27 gts, situated at Kothawalguda Village, Shamshabad

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally Mr.M.V.Subba Rao had purchased the suit schedule property along with other properties in court auction and he sold the suit schedule property to A.Venkateswara Rao under an unregistered sale deed, dated 03-08-1974, after death of A.Venkateswara

Rao his son executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of

Mr.Y.Ram Chandra Reddy, the GPA holder and the purchaser

A.Venkateswara Rao had executed jointly a registered sale deed bearing document No.1790/2000, dated 17-07-2000 under Ex:

A1 in respect of the suit schedule property and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff, since then the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property, the defendants are no way concerned to the suit schedule property and they are tried to encroach and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property on 30-09-2004 and 05-10-2004.

27. The first defendant contended that his father had purchased the land to the extent of Ac 2-29 gts in Survey

No.29 out of Ac 11-27 gts and his father name was mutated in the revenue records, after death of his father the first defendant got mutated his name in the revenue records and continuing in possession of the said land, the suit against 2nd defendant is abated as he was died before filing of the suit,

The defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed their written statement stating 16 that the forefathers of the defendants had obtained 38 -E certificate as protected tenant to the extent of Ac 11-27 gts in

Survey No.29 i.e, suit schedule property, the first defendant had no way concerned to the suit schedule property.

28. The suit for perpetual injunction the burden is on the plaintiff to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and subsequently, the plaintiff filed Exs: A1 to A5 i.e., Ex: A1 is the Original

Sale Deed, dated 17-07-2000, Ex: A2 is the CC of Sale

Certificate, Ex: A3 is the CC of Proceedings of the Land

Reforms Tribunal Hyderabad West, dated 30-04-1977, Ex: A4 is the Pahani for the year 1978-1979, Ex: A5 is the Pahani for the year 1996-1997. Ex: A1 is the Original Sale Deed, dated 17-07-2000 executed by GPA holder of legal heir of

Mr.M.V.Subba Rao and purchaser A.Venkateswara Rao, Ex: A2 is the CC of Sale Certificate issued in favour of Mr.M.V.Subba

Rao, Ex: A3 is the CC of Proceedings of the Land Reforms

Tribunal Hyderabad West, dated 30-04-1977 by declaring the validity of sale in favour of Mr.M.V.Subba Rao with respect of schedule property along with other property. The chief- examination affidavit of the plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint. Sri D.Gopala Krishna Reddy, one of the Director of the plaintiff company examined as PW1 and he admitted that there is no dispute that Mohd Hasan was the original pattadar of land of the suit schedule property. PW1 categorically admitted that they have not filed any document showing the 17 possession over the suit schedule property.

29. The PW1 voluntarily deposed that the pahani copies disclose the name of the plaintiff company as pattadar of the land, but he further admitted that as per the pahani copies for the years 1996-1997 and 2000-2001 which were marked as

Exs : B11 and B12 shown that these Defendant No.3 and

Defendant No.4 are the pattadars and possessors of the suit land. After perused Exs: B11 to B15 i.e, Ex: B11 is the CC of pahani for the year 1996-1997, Ex: B12 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000-2001, Ex: B13 is the CC of pahani for the year 2001- 2002, Ex: B14 is the CC of pahani for the year 2002-2003, Ex:

B15 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-2004 which shows that the extent in Survey No.29 is Ac 2-29 gts Mr.Mohd Hasan is the pattadar of the said land and in possession column D.Komaraiah is the possessor of land to the extent of Ac 2-29 gts. PW1 also admitted that the plaintiff company name is not stated in the above said pahanies either as pattadar or possessor of suit schedule property. The pahani filed by the plaintiff under Exs: A4 and A5 disclose that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are shown as possessor of the suit schedule property which is admitted by PW1. PW1 did not deny about Certificate Under Section 38 - E of Tenancy Act issued in favour of father of Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4, as per Ex:

A3 the protected tenancy list has been issued by RDO which reveals that the extent of land and survey number in that list the father of defendant No.3 has been allotted Ac 8-38 gts.

30. The PW1 also deny that the father of 3rd defendant Areda

Komaraiah was in possession of the land as protected tenant of the 18 entire suit land since 1940. The plaintiff company is not able to produce the evidence how the vendor of the plaintiff has been in possession by M.V.Subba Rao and also not filed any documents with respect of sale of vendor of the plaintiff, the same was admitted by

PW1.

31. The PW1 also admitted that his vendor name also not mutated in the revenue record as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff miserably failed to prove that their vendor was in possession of the suit schedule property, even the defendant counsel put a suggestion that A.Venkateswara Rao has no right to alienate the suit schedule property which was denied by PW1. The burden is heavily on PW1 to produce the sale deed of A.Venkateswara Rao who is vendor of plaintiff. The

PW1 deposed that in the year 1974 A.Venkateswara Rao had purchased the suit schedule property from M.V.Subba Rao under unregistered sale deed and also admitted the said sale deed has not been impounded nor got validated, in that, the counsel for the defendant submitted his argument the presumption can be drawn against the plaintiff that the title has not been passed in favour of vendor of plaintiff, as such he has no right to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff.

32. The defendant also submitted his argument that the GPA holder who is Y.Ramachandra Reddy is the father of Sirish Reddy and

Sirish Reddy is one of the Managing Director of plaintiff company.

After perused the evidence the plaintiff company also failed to file

GPA referred in the sale deed having right to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff company. PW1 also admitted that the entire property belongs to plaintiff company, the name of Y.Ramachandra 19

Reddy was also not mutated in the revenue record as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. DW1 also admitted that as per pahani filed by defendants it clearly shows that the defendants are only in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

33. The PW1 deposed that he made an application before the

MRO for mutation of plaintiff company in the year 2001, in that application the defendants were made as parties and it is still pending, the PW1 also stated that the MRO mutated the name of the plaintiff company in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Ac 02-29 gts only and for the remaining land, the dispute is still pending, to that the plaintiff did not filed any such application or any proceedings issued by the MRO. The PW1 also admitted that the four sides of the suit schedule property the plaintiff company got land, the defendants submitted that taking advantage of surrounding of land of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company colluded with A.Venkateswara Rao and created Ex: A1 Sale

Deed.

34. The 3rd and 4th defendant were examined as DW2 and DW3, the first defendant examined as DW4 who is neighbouring land owner. The DW2 admitted that the DW2 and his brothers are having land to the extent of Ac 08-38 gts in the suit Survey Number. He also admitted that as per the Title Deed and Pattedar Pass Book filed by them they are in possession of the land to the extent of Ac 08-38 gts in Survey No.29. The DW2 also admitted in his cross- examination that the father of the 3rd defendant Areda Komaraiah and

Duddu Komaraiah, are the different persons, he also admitted that the plaintiff company had not issued any Pattedar Pass Book and Title

Deed by the Revenue Authorities and plaintiff has no right over the 20 suit schedule property.

35. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that they are in possession to an extent of Ac 11-27 gts, but as per their evidence and documents filed by them it is clearly shown that they got Ac 8-38 gts as protected tenant and they are in possession of that extent.

The first defendant is in possession to an extent of Ac 02-29 gts out of

Ac 11-27 gts. The defendants got pattedar pass book in their names and their names are mutated in the revenue records like pahanies and other documents which are filed under Exs: B1 to B46.

36. The defendants relied on citation reported in 1987 (2) ALT

749 F.B between Sada Appellant ( W A 1082 ) Vs The

Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and others Respondents

( W A 1082) where in it is held that Mere surrender of land by protected tenants which is not valid does not disentitle them to the right to possession and for grant of ownership certificate land holder cannot plead adverse possession against protected tenant.

37. The plaintiff relied on a citation reported in 2008 (1) ALT 430

between Alla Seshukumar and another V. Alla Radha

Krishna relevant para 10 wherein it is held that when a person, who has no title over the property, is in settled possession of the property, he is entitled for injunction even against the true owner and the true owner cannot forcibly evict him from the property, which is against the plaintiff as he failed to establish the possession over the suit schedule property, but the defendants have established their possession over the suit schedule property.

38. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the 21 date of filing of the suit and in continuation of the suit, as such the question of interference does not arise. Hence, these issues are answered in favour of defendants.

39. Issue No 4 : To what relief ?

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, without costs.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2012.)

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Sri D.Gopala Krishna Reddy

FOR DEFENDANTS :

D.W.1: Sri Duddu Komaraiah

D.W.2: Sri Aredi Yadagiri @ Yadaiah

D.W.3: Sri Aredi Chinna Chandraiah

D.W.4: Sri Mohd.Anwar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex: A1 is the Original Sale Deed, dated 17-07-2000 22

Ex: A2 is the CC of Sale Certificate

Ex: A3 is the CC of Proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal

Hyderabad West, dated 30-04-1977

Ex: A4 is the Pahani for the year 1978-1979

Ex: A5 is the Pahani for the year 1996-1997

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex: B1 is the CC of pahani for the year 1982-1983

Ex: B2 is the CC of pahani for the year 1983-1984

Ex: B3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1984-1985

Ex: B4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1985-1986

Ex: B5 is the CC of pahani for the year 1986-1987

Ex: B6 is the CC of pahani for the year 1988-1989

Ex: B7 is the CC of pahani for the year 1990-1991

Ex: B8 is the CC of pahani for the year 1992-1993

Ex: B9 is the CC of pahani for the year 1993-1994

Ex: B10 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-1995

Ex: B11 is the CC of pahani for the year 1996-1997

Ex: B12 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex: B13 is the CC of pahani for the year 2001-2002

Ex: B14 is the CC of pahani for the year 2002-2003

Ex: B15 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-2004

Ex: B16 is the Receipt

Ex: B17 is the Receipt, dated 05-02-1991

Ex: B18 is the Receipt, dated 05-02-1991 23

Ex: B19 is the CC of Form No.III

Ex: B20 is the CC of pahani for the year 1955-1958

Ex: B21 is the CC of pahani for the year 1961-1962

Ex: B22 is the CC of pahani for the year 1970-1971

Ex: B23 is the CC of pahani

Ex: B24 is the CC of pahani for the year 1975-1976

Ex: B25 is the CC of pahani for the year 1975-1976

Ex: B26 is the CC of pahani for the year 1976-1977

Ex: B27 is the CC of pahani for the year 1977-1978

Ex: B28 is the CC of pahani for the year 1980-1981

Ex: B29 is the CC of pahani for the year 1984-1985

Ex: B30 is the CC of pahani for the year 1987-1988

Ex: B31 is the CC of pahani for the year 1988-1989

Ex: B32 is the CC of pahani for the year 1990-1991

Ex: B33 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-1995

Ex: B34 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-1995

Ex: B35 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex: B36 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex: B37 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-2004

Ex: B38 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-2004

Ex: B39 is the CC of Pattadar Pass Book

Ex: B40 is the CC of Title Deed

Ex: B41 is the CC of Pattadar Pass Book

Ex: B42 is the CC of Title Deed

Ex: B43 is the CC of Pattadar Pass Book

Ex: B44 is the CC of Title Deed 24

Ex: B45 is the CC of Pattadar Pass Book

Ex: B46 is the CC of Title Deed

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

25 sss scontention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of

Agreement of Sale, dated 18-08-2005 since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further submits that after purchase of the suit schedule property, she has constructed a small room in the schedule property and obtained electric power supply to the premises. In case of suit for Perpetual Injunction the burden is on the plaintiff to elicited the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, to that the plaintiff relied on Ex: A1 to A4. Ex: A1 is the Unregistered Agreement of Sale, dated 18-08-2005, executed by the vendor of the plaintiff. Ex: A2 is the Unregistered Agreement of Sale, dated 10-07-2001, executed by the vendor's of vendor of the plaintiff, Ex: A3 is the Unregistered Agreement of Sale, dated 22-02-1989, executed by Moonka Enterprises in favour of vendor's of vendor of the plaintiff.

12. After perused the pleadings and address shown in the 26 cause title of the plaintiff at Hanmakonda, Warangal District which was admitted in the cross-examination of PW1. PW1 deposed that even though her address shown at

Hanmakonda, Warangal District but they are residing in the suit schedule property. She also deposed that she shifted from Hanmakonda, Warangal District about 5 years back. The pleadings of the plaintiff is contradictory to the evidence of

PW1 as she stated that after she purchased the suit schedule property she constructed a small room in the schedule property but in her evidence she admitted that as on the date of purchase there was a small house with asbestos sheet with compound wall. She also deposed that she do not know her vendor applied for construction of permission of the said small house .

13. After perused the documents the title has not been passed in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that there was a land dispute with regard to Survey No.78, as such the

Sub-Registrar refused to registered the same. In case of

Perpetual Injunction the title is not important but the legal possession has been established. The plaintiff relied on Ex: A4

Electricity Bills in the name of plaintiff but only electricity connection does not establish the possession.

27 sssssss and she purchased under Ex: A1 sale deed. The defendants are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property, as they have no right over the suit schedule property. Originally the property in Survey No.27, is belongs to defendant. The defendants Nos 1 to 4 are the brothers and they have been sold an extent of Ac 2-20 gts and Ac 2-23 gts in Survey No.27 total admeasuring Ac 5-03 gts situated at Narapally Village to 28

R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Ex:

A3 and A4 are one and the same to Exs: B1 and B2 and Exs: B1 and B2 are the CC of Sale Deeds executed by the defendants in favour of R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society

Limited. Admittedly, R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing

Society Limited, converted the land into house plots under lay out and sold away the plots to its members and other purchasers.

12. In case of suit for injunction the burden is on the plaintiff to establish his possession in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is vacant property. The symbolic possession is sufficient as the title follows the possession. The plaintiff to prove her contention examined

PW2 husband of PW1 and got marked Exs: A1 to A4. Ex: A1 is the sale deed executed by the vendor of plaintiff Ex: A2 is the sale deed executed by R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing

Society Limited, in favour of vendor of plaintiff. Exs: A5 to A7 are the Encumbrance Certificates reflects the transaction of Ex:

A1 and A2 sale deeds.

13. As against defendant contended that the suit schedule property is not in existence but in the evidence of DW1 he did not denied that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor and also not denied the purchase of plaintiff's vendor. The plaintiff put a suggestion with respect 29 of interference on 10-12-2007 and again on 15-12-2007 which was denied by DW1. The defendant also got examined

DW2 and DW3 but their evidence was contrary to each other as DW2 deposed in his cross -examination that the defendants were having about 100 acres of land in their village but DW3 deposed the defendants were having about 300 acres of land in their village, and nothing was supported to the defendants the evidence sought by them.

14. The defendant counsel argued that the defendant sold the extent of Ac 5-03 gts situated at Narapally Village to

R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, as the said society converted into plots to the extent of 200 sq.yards to 500 sq.yards only as such the plot No.176 does not exist as the total plots it might be 70 to 80 plots in the total extent of Ac 5-03 gts, the defendant nothing was filed to shown that the R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society

Limited, converted the plots admeasuring 200 sq.yards to 500 sq.yards only, to support their argument.

15. The defendant counsel also argued that the plaintiff filed

Exs: A3 and A4 CC of Sale Deeds executed by the defendants in favour of R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society

Limited, without sketch plan to the said sale deeds but, there is 30 no dispute with regard to Exs: A3 and A4 or Exs: B1 and B2.

The defendants also filed Exs: B3 and B4 Pahanies shows that the remaining extent is laying with the defendant which was also not disputed. The allegation of the 4th defendant that the plot No.176 does not in existence but the defendant neither filed any documents nor rebut the evidence of plaintiff. In case of perpetual injunction the schedule of property is vacant property as such the title follows the possession and the documents Exs: A1 and A2 are sufficient to establish the plaintiff possession. Hence, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.

16. Issue No 4 : To what relief ?

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, with costs, granting Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants agents, servants, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of November, 2011.)

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Smt.I.Mangamma

P.W.2: Sri I.Satyanarayana Reddy

FOR DEFENDANTS :

D.W.1: Sri Md.Mahaboob Ali

D.W.2: Sri M.Narendar Reddy

D.W.3: Sri M.Surender Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex: A1 is the Registered Sale Deed, executed by the plaintiff's vendor in favour of plaintiff, dated 04-02-2004

Ex:A2 is the Registered Sale Deed, dated 16-04-1986 in favour of plaintiff's vendor executed by R.R.L Employees Co- operative Housing

Society Limited

Ex: A3 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed, executed by the 32 defendants in favour of R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society

Limited

Ex: A4 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed, executed by the defendants in favour of R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society

Limited

Ex: A5 is the Encumbrance Certificate, dated 15-11-2010, for the period from 16-04-1986 to 30-04-1995

Ex: A6 is the Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01- 05-1995 to 30-09-2007

Ex: A7 is the Encumbrance Certificate, dated 15-11-2010

Ex: A8 is the counter folio of Indian Overseas Bank for

Rs.7,805/-

Ex: A9 is the counter folio of State Bank of Hyderaband,

dated 22-07-2008

Ex: A10 is the Approved Plan issued by Hyderabad

Metropolitan

Development Authority

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex: B1 is CC of Registered Sale Deeds executed by the defendants in favour of R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing

Society Limited,

Ex: B2 is the CC of Registered Sale Deeds executed by the defendants in favour of R.R.L Employees Co-operative Housing

Society Limited

Ex: B3 is the Pahani for the year 1987-1988

Ex: B4 is the Pahani for the year 2001-2002

I ADDL.JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT.

Registered Sale Deed, dated 11-09-1998, Ex: A2 is the

Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 26-06-2001, Ex: A3 is the Original

Permission, dated 26-06-2001, Ex: A4 is the Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 24-09-1998, Ex: A5 is the Original Site Plan,

dated 26-06-2001, Ex: A6 is the Original Site Plan, dated 26-06-

2001, Ex: A7 is the Original Encumbrance Certificate, dated 05- 05-2006, Ex: A8 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 07-08- 1998, Ex: A9 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 12-07-1989,

Ex: A10 is the Plan, Ex: A11 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, 35

dated 07-08-1998, Ex: A12 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated

12-07-1989, Ex: A13 is the Permission, dated 07-08-1998, Ex:

A14 is the Plan, dated 07-08-1998. R. Sri Ramulu the

Defendant, examined as DW1 and A.Jangaiah examined as

DW2 and K.Chandra Prakash, examined as DW3 and

A.Prabhakar Reddy, examined as DW4 and Exs: B1 to B9 are marked on behalf of the Defendant. Ex: B1 is the Registered

Agreement of Sale, dated 21-12-2001, Ex: B2 is the Registered

Agreement of Sale, dated 08-09-1999, Ex: B3 is the Letter addressed to Grampanchayath, dated 11-08-2010, Ex: B4 is the Title determination Report of Executive Officer,

Grampanchayat, dated 28-08-2010, Ex: B5 is the CC of Ration

Card, Ex: B6 is the CC of Property Tax, dated 31-12-2009, Ex:

B7 is the CC of Lay Out, Ex: B8 is the CC of Letter, dated 10-04- 2006 and Ex: B9 is the Police Complaint, dated 12-07-2006.

36 ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Original Chit Agreement, dated 19.04.2005, Ex: A2 is the

Original Agreement of Guarantee, dated 30.7.2005, Ex: A3 is the Original Promissory Note, dated 30.7.2005, Ex: A4 is the

Original Cash Voucher, dated 30.7.2005, Ex: A5 is the Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 2.11.2006, Ex: A6 is the Statement of Account, Ex: A7 is the Postal acknowledgment of defendant

No.1, Ex: A8 is the Postal Registration Slip of defendant No.2,

Ex: A9 is the Postal acknowledgment of defendant No.4, Ex:

A10 is the Authorization Letter, dated 8.12.2010.

POINT NO:1 :

6. The defendants Nos 1 to 4 set exparte. The plaintiff himself examined as PW1. The Chief-Examination Affidavit reiterated the contents of the plaint. Exs: A1 to A10 documents are un-challenged documents and there is no dispute with regard to the contents of pleading by the defendant.

POINT NO:2:

7. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.33,293/- with costs, and interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest at 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization, on the principal amount of Rs.30,177/-., against all the defendants jointly and severally.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the day of July, 2011.)

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Sri A.Ramesh

P.W.2: Sri G.Srinivas

FOR DEFENDANT :

D.W.1: Sri R. Sri Ramulu

D.W.2: Sri A.Jangaiah

D.W.3: Sri K.Chandra Prakash

D.W.4: Sri A.Prabhakar Reddy 38

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex: A1 is the Registered Sale Deed, dated 11-09-1998

Ex: A2 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 26-06-2001

Ex: A3 is the Original Permission, dated 26-06-2001

Ex: A4 is the Encumbrance Certificate, dated 24-09-1998

Ex: A5 is the Original Site Plan, dated 26-06-2001

Ex: A6 is the Original Site Plan, dated 26-06-2001

Ex: A7 is the Original Encumbrance Certificate, dated 05-05- 2006

Ex: A8 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 07-08-1998

Ex: A9 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 12-07-1989

Ex: A10 is the Plan

Ex: A11 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 07-08-1998

Ex: A12 is the Miscellaneous Receipt, dated 12-07-1989

Ex: A13 is the Permission, dated 07-08-1998

Ex: A14 is the Plan, dated 07-08-1998

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex: B1 is the Registered Agreement of Sale, dated 21-12-2001

Ex: B2 is the Registered Agreement of Sale, dated 08-09-1999

Ex: B3 is the Letter addressed to Grampanchayath, dated 11- 08-2010 39

Ex: B4 is the Title determination Report of Executive Officer,

Grampanchayat, dated 28-08-2010

Ex: B5 is the CC of Ration Card

Ex: B6 is the CC of Property Tax, dated 31-12-2009

Ex: B7 is the CC of Lay Out

Ex: B8 is the CC of Letter, dated 10-04-2006

Ex: B9 is the Police Complaint, dated 12-07-2006.

I ADDL.JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT.

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssss

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT:- Ms.G.V.L.SARASWATHI, BAL., B.L.,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

MONDAY, THE 11 th DAY OF JULY, 2011.

O.S.NO.2491 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

Model Chit Corp Limited

…..PLAI

NTIFF AND

1) Mr.K.Srinivasulu

2) Mr.G.Gopi Krishna Chaitanya

3) Mr.A.Nageswara Rao

4) Mr.D.Pulla Reddy

…..DE

FENDANTS

This suit is coming before me on 11.07.2011, for hearing in the presence of Sri P.T.P.Sastry, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos 1,3,4 set exparte and of Sri G.Gopi Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate for Defendant No.2 having been stood over for consideration till this day and delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of

Rs.26,442/-.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is carrying business in chit funds and registered the suit chit with the registrar of chits. The first defendant joined as a member of chit No.ST/20VY-18. The total value of the chit being Rs.50,000/- tobe subscribed at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for 25 months and signed an agreement of chit on 11.10.1999 with the plaintiff company.

In the auction conducted as per the rules of the company for the above chit on 25-12-1999, the defendant No.1 has participated and was became successful bidder having 41 agreed to forego Rs.17,500/- out of Rs.50,000/- which was duly confirmed by the plaintiff company. The first defendant has paid Rs.8,000/- till the date of auction and the future liability is Rs.42,000/-. The defendants Nos 2 to 4 have executed the agreement of guarantee, dated 20-01-2000 and all the defendants have executed the promissory note as a collateral security. The first defendant was paid total amount of Rs.32,500 in two occasions. The first defendant in all paid 17 installments and thereafter committed default in payment of the installments from 15-02-2001, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff company. Later the plaintiff company got issued a notice dated 05.08.2002 and after receipt of notice the defendants paid Rs.1700/- and failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.18,000/- with interest. Hence this suit.

3.The second defendant filed the written

statement. The contention of the second defendant in

brief are as follows:

The defendant No. 1, set exparte, on 06-10-2010, the defendant No. 3, set exparte, on 17-06-2008, the defendant

No. 4, set exparte, on 26-04-2011. The second defendant filed his written statement admitted the plaint pleadings. As such, the admitted facts need not be proved in the interest of justice. The plaintiff is entitled the decree in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Basing on the above pleadings in the plaint the following points for consideration.

POINTS:

Whether the first defendant is entitled to pay the amount 1. at the rate of Rs.2,000/ per month?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

POINT NO:1 and 2 :

5. The second defendant filed his written statement admitted the plaint pleadings. As such, the admitted facts need not be proved in the interest of justice. The plaintiff is entitled the decree in favour of the plaintiff.Hence, this points iare answered accordingly.

POINT NO:3:

6. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.26,442/- with costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.18,000/-., against all the defendants jointly and severally.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed 43 by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of July, 2011.)

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR

DEFENDANTS :

-Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : -Nil FOR DEFENDANTS:

I ADDL.JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT.

The first defendant admitted that he joined as a member of the

chit series with ticket No. ST/20VY18 for an amount of Rs.50,000/

and he signed on the agreement of chit. The first defendant has

paid bid amount upto 17 installments out of 25 installments. The

first defendant has already paid some additional installments even

after filing of the suit. The other defendants remained exparte.

3. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial.

ISSUES

Whether the first defendant is entitled to pay the amount at the

rate of Rs.2000/ per month?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount?

To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, one P.Dasu, Assistant

Manager of the plaintiff company is examined as PW1 and Exs: A1

to A10 are marked. After closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence the

first defendant is examined as DW1. After closure of the evidence

of both the parties. Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

6. Issue No.1 and 2:

1) “ Whether the first defendant is entitled to pay the amount at the rate of Rs.2000/ per month”?

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount”?

Both these issues are required common discussion and hence

discussed jointly. The claim of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is

running chit fund business and the first defendant is joined as a

member of the chit series No.MGSB –9/10, and the total value of

the chit is Rs.1,00,000/. The further case of the plaintiff is that the

first defendant participated in the auction conducted for above chit

on 18.1.2004 and became a successful bidder having agreed to

forego Rs.23,010/ and that the first defendant was paid the prized

amount by way of cheque and adjustment receipt. The Assistant

Manager of the plaintiff company is examined as PW1 and

reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination. Ex: A1 is

the agreement of chit executed by the first defendant. Ex: A2 is the

agreement of guarantee. Ex: A3 is the promissory note executed by

all the defendants in favour of plaintiff. The first defendant in his

written statement para 2 clearly admitted that he has joined as a

member of the chit series with ticket No.MGSB –9/10, and signed

on the agreement of chit. It is well settled law that the admitted

facts need not be proved. Hence, for the above discussion, I have no

hesitation to hold that the first defendant has joined as a member in

the suit chit.

The further version of the first defendant is that he has paid the

bid amount upto 20 installments and became defaulter due to

transfer of his employment. The PW1 was cross examined at length

and nothing was elicited to show that the first defendant has not

received the prized amount. Moreover, the PW1 stated in his cross

examination that the plaintiff is not incline to receive the due

amount in installments at the rate of Rs.2000/ per month.

The first defendant examined as DW1. The DW1 admitted

that he has joined in the suit chit and paid the installments amount

upto 20 th installment part. Coming to the cross examination of DW1

he admitted the suit amount is true and correct and also admitted

the execution of Ex: A1, A3 and A4. Thus, for the above reasons, it

is crystal clear that the first defendant participated in the auction

and received the prized amount.

The version of the first defendant is that due to transfer of his

employment he could not pay the installments and he is ready to pay

the due amount at the rate of Rs.2000/ per month. The first

defendant filed the written statement on 27.12.2006. It is elicited

from the cross examination of PW1 that the first defendant has not

paid any amount after filing of the suit. If really, the first defendant is

intends to clear the debt he ought to have paid the amount at the

rate of Rs.2000/ per month from the date of filing of the written

statement. So, the first defendant did not take any steps for payment

for a period of 2 years after filing of the suit. Except the

statement that the first defendant could not pay the amount due to

transfer of his employment. There are no other ground put forth by

the first defendant for granting installments. The transfer of

employment of the first defendant is not a ground to grant

installments to the first defendant for payment of due amount to the

plaintiff. For the above reason, I am of the opinion, that the first

defendant is not entitled to pay the suit amount in installments and

the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. These issues are

answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Issue No.3: , 48 “ To what relief “

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum

of Rs.23,934/ with costs and subsequent interest at 6 % per annum

from the date of suit till the date of realization on the balance

amount of Rs.22,629/.

In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.26,442/- with costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.18,000/-., against all the defendants jointly and severally.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of July, 2011.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW! :Sri P.Dasu

FOR DEFENDANTS :

DW1: Sri B.Ellaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex: A1 dt.31.10.2003 Agreement of chit

Ex: A2 dt.20.2.2004 Agreement of guarantee

Ex: A3 dt.20.2.2004 Promissory note

Ex: A4 Cash Voucher

Ex: A5 dt.2.9.2005 Office copy of notice

Ex: A6 Postal acknowledgment from the first

defendant

Ex: A7 Postal acknowledgment from the second

defendant

Ex: A8 Postal acknowledgment from the third

defendant

Ex: A9 Postal acknowledgment from the fourth

defendant

Ex: A10 Statement of account 50

FOR DEFENDANTS

nil

THIRD ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

51 52 53

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR.

Present:- Sri Shaik Madar, B.Sc., B.L.,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge. Ranga Reddy District.

SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011.

OS.NO.202 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

State Bank of Hyderabad, represented by its Manager Sri M.Rama Krishna Rao,

S/o Sri M.Thimmavadhanulu …..Plaintiff

AND

1) G.Nageshwar Gupta

2) K.Raja Rao …..Defendants

This suit coming before me on 03-03-2011 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Upender Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri T.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 exparte, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the State Bank of Hyderabad Alakapuri, branch against the defendant Nos 1 and 2 for recovery of money basing on a loan transaction.

(2). The allegations made in the plaint in brief are as follows :

(i). On 10.5.2005 the defendant No.1, who is a Government

Employee had submitted an application for grant of loan of

Rs.85,000/- for personal purpose and the defendant No.2 offered to stand as guarantor. So the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan to him on 11.5.2005 payavle with interest at the rate of 13 % per annum in equal mothly installments at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month for a period of 60 months .

(ii). The defendant No.1 also executed a personal loan Agreement on 11.5.2005 agreeing the terms and conditions of the loan. The defendant No.2 also executed a Deed of guarantee on the same day agreeig the terms and conditions of the guarantee agreement.

Further they also executed a reival letter dated 11..3.2002.

(iii). The defendant No.1 availed the loan facility but failed to repay the loan amount in installments and committed default, despite the repeated requests and demands made by the bank. Finally the plaintiff bank was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 29.1.2009 to the defendants. But, they did not receive the same. So, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the balance amfount of Rs.97,275/- with interest in costs. Hence, the plaintiff bank has prayed to decree the suit accordingly.

(3). The Defendant No.1 remained exparte. The

Defendant no.2 has filed his written statement contending as

follows :

(i). The allegations of the plaintiff bank that the defendant No.1 availed the loan from the bank the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor and the defendant No.2 executed the Agreement of guarantee, 55 subsequently the defendants failed to repay the same and the fplaintiff bank got issued a reply notice etc, are all false and hence, denied. The plaintiff bank put to strict proof of all the allegations.

There is no cause of action to file this suit. The suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, he has prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

(4). Issues framed for Trial:-

2.Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

3.To What relief?

(5). Trial :

(a). Plaintiff’s evidenc e:

On behalf of the plaintiff bank its Manager examined as PW1 and Exs: A1 to A7 were marked. The evidence of the P.W1 and

contents of Ex.A1 to A7 are supporting the case of the

plaintiff.

(b). Defendant’s evidence:

The defendant No.2 has not adduced any evidence in support of his contention but he is not set exparte since he cross examined PW1 hence, the suit is disposed of merits.

(6). ARGUMENTS:-

(a). Plaintiff’s Arguments:- 56

The learned counsel for the plaintiff bank has argued that the balance out standing is Rs.14,654 as on the date of cross- examination of PW1 and hence, he has prayed to decree the suit.

(b). Defendant’s argument:

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 has argued that the defendant No.2 is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff bank and hence, he has prayed to dismiss the suit.

(7). DISCUSSION :

(a). Issue No.1:- “ Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

(i). The evidence of PW1 and the contents of Exs: A1 to A7 when coupled together reveals as follows :

The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff bank and submitted a loan application dated 10..5.2005 under Ex: A1 for grant of loan of

Rs.85,000/- for his personal purpose. The defendant No.2 offered to stand as the guarantor for the said loan amount . So, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan on 11.5.2005 and arrangement letter is

Ex: A2. So, the defendant No.1 executed a personal loan agreement

dated 11.5.2005 under Ex: A3 agreeing the terms and conditions of

the loan. Further, the defendant No.2 also executed a guarantee agreement under Ex: A4 as per the terms and conditions the loan amount is repayavble with interest at the rate of 13% with quarterly rests in equal monthly installments at the rate of Rsf.2,000/- per month for a period of 60 months.

After availing the loan the defendant No.1 failed to pay the 57 installments regularly and committed default. Both the defendants failed to pay the due amount inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank and also issuance of legal notice dated 29.1.2009 under Ex: A5. As on the date of filing of the suit the defendants were liable to pay Rs.97,275/-. Hence, the plaintiff bank has filed this suit for recovery of suit with interest and costs.

But, during the cross-examination the PW1 has admitted that after filing of the suit the defendant no.1 has repaying the amounts and as on 11.2.2002 the out standing balance amount of Rs.14,654 onlyu and hence, he has prayed to decree the suit for the said amount but in his chief -examination affidavit the PW1 has not stated about the payment made by the defendant No.1 aftger filing of the suit. So it is clear that the plaintiff bank has suppressed the same as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2.

As per the admission made by PW1 during his cross examination there are some lands in the revival letter under Ex: A6 and also deed of guarantee under Ex: A4 but there are not sufficient to dismiss the suit.

In the written statement the defendant No.2 has taken a plea denying the entire loan transaction and his standing as guarantor to the loan availed by defendant No.1 but he has not given his evidence on oath in support of his contention. Moreover, during cross- examination of PW1 also he has not denied the suit loan transaction.

Therefore it is clear that the defendant No.2 has taken a false plea in the written statement.

Since, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,654/- as per the cross – examination of PW1, I am inclined to decree the suit accordingly. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered.

(b). Issue No.2:- “ To what relief? ”

Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed.

(8). RESULT :

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with costs for Rs.14,654/- and subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization against the defendant Nos 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5 th day of March, 2011.)

FIRST ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLANTIFF:

P.W1:-Sri T.Veeradadra Rao

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

-Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:-Loan application form

Ex.A2:-Sanction Letter

Ex.A3:-Personal Loan Agreement

Ex.A4:-Deed of Guarantee

Ex.A5:-Notice

Ex.A6:-Revival Letter

Ex.A7:-Statement of Account

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

-Nil

FIRST ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST.

ssss sssss

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT:- Ms.G.V.L.SARASWATHI, BAL., B.L.,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

FRIDAY, THE 3 rd DAY OF JUNE, 2011.

O.S.NO.154 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

1) Kodipaka Durgamma W/o Late K.Sathaiah age : 52 years, Occ: Household,

2) Kodipaka Ravi S/o Late K.Sathaiah, age : 30 years, Occ: Private Employee,

3) Kodipaka Naresh S/o Late K.Sathaiah, age : 20 years, Occ: Student,

All are R/o H.No.11-78/2/A, Gayatrinagar, Saroornagar ( Mandal ), L.B.Nagar (Municipality), R.R. District.

...PLAINTIFFS

AND

1) To whom so ever it may concern

2) The Tahasildar, Saroornagar Office, R.R. District as per order No.1992/2008, dated 02.02.2010

...DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming before me on 30-05-2011, for final hearing in the presence of M/s G.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs and of all concerned, and having stood over for consideration till this day and delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed Under Order VII, Rule-1, and Read With Section 26 of CPC, by the plaintiff Nos 1 to 3 against all concerned for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri Late Kodipaka

Sathaiah S/o K.Narayana

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff No.1 is the wife and the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased Sri Late Kodipaka Sathaiah S/o K.Narayana, and the plaintiffs are only the legal heirs of Late Sri Kodipaka Sathaiah S/o

K.Narayana. The said Sri K.Sathaiah died on 26-04-2006. During the life time of the said Sri K.Sathaiah had purchased a plot No.14, admeasuring an extent of 180 Sq.Yards in Survey No.2 situated at

Saroornagar Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2811/1996, dated 31-10-1996 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad – East.

3. The plaintiff further contended that after the death of the said Sri

K.Sathaiah the plaintiffs filed an application before the MRO, Saroornagar,

R.R. District for mutation of their name in the revenue records pertaining to the above said plot but the said MRO refused for the same and advised the plaintiffs to obtain a declaration from the competent civil court of law by declaring themselves as the legal heirs of the said Late Sri K.Sathaiah to mutate their name as the legal heirs of Sri K.Sathaiah. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for declaration of legal heirs of

Sri K.Sathaiah.

4. Since this is a suit filed against all concerned a paper publication was given calling for objections. But, after publication, none was appeared and filed the objections After receipt of summons defendant

No.2 set exparte on 06-04-2010.

5. Basing on the above pleadings in the plaint the following points for consideration.

POINTS:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled tobe declared

as the legal heir of K.Sathaiah“ with respect of a plot

No.14, admeasuring an extent of 180 Sq.Yards in

Survey No.2 situated at Saroornagar Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ?

2. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff No.1 examined herself as

PW1 and marked Exs: A1 to A4. Ex: A1 is the death certificate of

K.Sathaiah, dated 15-09-2006 issued by L.B.Nagar Municipality, R.R.District.

Ex: A2 is the true copy of sale deed bearing document No.2811 of 1996.

Ex: A3 is the ration card, dated 10-02-2006 and Ex: A4 is the election voter ID card of the plaintiff No.2.

POINT NO:1:

7. The plaintiffs are filed this case for the declaration of legal heirs of the deceased K.Sathaiah as the first plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiff

Nos 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased K.Sathaiah. To the proof of that the plaintiffs relied on Exs: A1 to A4 documents. Ex: A1 is the death certificate of K.Sathaiah, died on 26-04-2006 issued by the L.B.Nagar

Municipality Births and Deaths, Ranga Reddy District. Ex: A2 is the CC of sale deed with respect of the suit schedule property, dated 31.10.1996 which stands in the name of K.Sathaiah. Ex: A3 is the family members card showing that the first plaintiff is the wife of the deceased K.Sathaiah and the 3rd plaintiff is the son of K.Sathaiah, Ex: A4 is the voter identity card shown that the 2nd petitioner is the son of K.Sathaiah. The 2nd defendant set exparte on 6.4.2010. The pleadings are not disputed by the second defendant which are that the plaintiffs filed an application

before the MRO Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District for mutation of their

names in the revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule property and that the Mandal Revenue Officer, refused and advised the plaintiffs to obtain declaration from the competent civil court of law as the legal heirs of the deceased K.Sathaiah.

8. After perused the documentary and oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the plaintiffs are established that they are the legal heirs of the deceased

K.Sathaiah but with respect of the first defendant there is no denying of the right over the suit schedule property. As such, the suit is dismissed against the first defendant. As per Section 34 of Specific Relief Act says :

Discretion of Court as to declaration of

status or rights - Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as 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 :

Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation : A trustee of property is a “ person interested to deny “ a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.

The plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as the legal heirs of the deceased K.Sathaiah with respect of the suit schedule property as there is a refusal by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Hence, this point is answered accordingly, in favour of the plaintiffs.

POINT NO:2:

9.In the result, the suit is partly decreed against the second defendant and the suit is dismissed against the first defendant. The plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of the legal heirs of the deceased K.Sathaiah with respect of the suit schedule property. The decree of the legal heir certificate cannot be used to any other property or for any other claim except, for mutation of the suit schedule property in the revenue records.

Without costs.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of June, 2011.)

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

PW1: Smt.Kodipake Durgamma

FOR DEFENDANTS :

-Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Ex: A1 is the death certificate of K.Sathaiah, dated 15-09-2006 issued by L.B.Nagar Municipality, R.R.District.

Ex: A2 is the true copy of sale deed bearing document No.2811 of 1996, dated 31-10-1996.

Ex: A3 is the ration card, dated 10-02-2006

Ex: A4 is the election voter ID card of the plaintiff No.2.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-Nil

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

sss