1
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
NARASANNAPETA
PRESENT: Sri G.Srinivas,
Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta
Monday, this the 10 th May, 2021
O.S NO. 08/2016
BETWEEN :
1. Menda Gunnayya, S/o. Late Kurminaidu, Hindu, aged about 70 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, Retired Teacher, R/o.Door No. 1-4, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
2. Menda Simhadrinaidu, S/o. Late Kurminaidu, Hindu, aged about 68 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-2, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
3. Menda Narasingarao, S/o. Late Kurminaidu, Hindu, aged about 63 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-1, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
4. Menda Ankannagari Simhachalam, S/o. Late Narasanna @ Narasayya, Hindu, aged about 63 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-20, 1st ward, Deergasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, srikakulam District.
….. Plaintiffs
AND:
Palli Venkata Suryanarayana @ suribabu, S/o. Late Gaddeyya, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation & Ex-Surpanch, R/o.H.No.1-18, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village & Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
..... Defendant
This suit is coming before me on this day for hearing
before me in the presence of Sri C.Rammohanrao and Sri
B.Jeevan, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and Sri J.Kameswarao, Advocate for defendant and having and upon perusal of the material record, this Court delivered the following :
2
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his kith and kin and henchmen, servants and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule “ABCD” property is in approximate extent Ac 0.05 cents and for costs of the suit.
2. Brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs are as follows:-
Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are own brothers and plaintiff No.4 is the agnate and cousin of the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3. The father of the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 purchased plaint schedule property along with other properties from one Kanchari Ramarao and others through registered sale deed dt.30.05.1943 is an extent of AC 0.30 cents of wet land in old S.No.168 and new
S.No.89/4 and also he was purchased on 06.06.1945 through registered sale deed is an extent of Ac 0.02 cents in the same survey number from one Pagoto Appanna through document No. 1518/1945. The plaintiff No.4 father ie.,
Menda Narasanna and two others purchased the property is in extent of AC 0.02 cents in the same survey number from 3
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
one Pagoti Appanna and another on 10.06.1945 through registered sale deed and they were enjoyed their respective shares without interruption anybody during their life time and the forefathers and fathers of the plaintiffs and agnates and side by side properties in between them and the father of the plaintiff No.1 to 3 and father of plaintiff No.4 and their agnates Papinadu and Appanna were executed a permanent way for their facility and they are entered into agreement in between them and the same was registered document
No.1427/1947 dt 15.03.1947 and they are admitted their agreement conditions and followed from the execution of said agreement deed and they are enjoying their rights from date of execution as per agreement conditions during their life and thereafter the plaintiffs also followed the agreement conditions and they are enjoying their pathway ie., “ABCD” plaint schedule pathway used as per the agreement conditions and the plaint schedule path way is individual property of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs having absolute right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule pathway including other property bequeathed them the afore said document and the plaintiff No.1 to 3 constructed house some part in the said property and the plaintiffs are used the “ABCD”, pathway used as registered agreement in between their fore-fathers and they are not 4
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
violated the conditions in agreement deed 1427/1947 dt 15.03.1947 and the “ABCD” plaint rough sketch pathway enjoying by the plaintiffs and their families only as per condition in agreement and the execution of agreement deed is valid deed and they are reserved their “ABCD” plaint rough sketch pathway for their use and they are having absolute right, possession, title and enjoyment over the same and the “ABCD” rough sketch plaint pathway is in extent of respective extents in the said deed mentioned as item No.1 in the northern side East-West 14 links (91/2 ft) and North-South 284 links (189 ft) and item NO.3 adjacent
East-West 14 links (91/2 ft_ and North-South 86 links (56ft) totally North-South “ABCD” individual pathway of the plaintiffs is in extent of 318 ft and East-West item No.1 : 9 ½ feet some extent item No.2 East-West: 5 ¼ feet and item
No.3 East-West: 9 ½ feet and the same was clearly mentioned in “ABCD”.
The plaintiff further submits that defendant is having land in S.No.92/1 is an extent of Ac 0.65 cents to western side of the plaintiffs “ABCD” plaint plan pathway and the defendant used his property as thrashing floor, cattle shed and storage of agricultural goods and cultivating some extent and the same was situated to the western side of the 5
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
plaintiffs “ABCD” individual pathway of the plaint plan rough sketch in the suit schedule and due to political enmity in between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant is harassed to the plaintiffs in all aspects, because the defendant is strong supporter of ruling party and he was acted as a former surpanch, so also now his wife is acting as a surpanch and he is influenced her and misuse the power and he is having influence and high handed person in the locality. Hence, the suit.
3.Brief averments of the Written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
The defendant submits that as seen from the registered sale deeds of plaintiffs rely on by them are not side by side, if perused the boundaries carefully. The boundareis of 30.05.1943 sale deed on west and south one
Kanchari Mukhalingam, in the sale deed dt 06.06.1945 of
Palli Suranna and Menda Kurminaidu whereas in sale deed dt 01.06.1945 Menda Papinaidu and others are different. So the said sale deed properties are not situated side by side as such the alleged agreement said to have been executed as path way does not relates to the plaint “ABCD” plaint plan pathway.
6
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
The defendant further submits that the agreement entered by the Menda Kurminaidu, Menda Papinaidu, menda
Narasamma and Menda Appanna who kept the way for their use only. The Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are sons of Menda Kurminaidu, the 4th plaintiff is the soe of Menda Narasanna. The LR’s of
Papinaidu and Appanna are not parties to the suit. The alleged pathway under the said agreement the plaintiff no exclusive right, title and possession over the suit schedule property as allege din the plaint.
The defendant humbly submits that the alleged path way “ABCD” shown in rough plaint plan covered with
S.No.92/1 but not 89/4 or old S.No.168. the plaintiffs occupied the path way of them and made construction there and there is no such path way in existence. The defendant submits that the “ABCD” pathwaywas formed in s.No.92/1 and all the public used the said way. Some time later the panchayat laid C.C road with the public funds. The ancestors of defendant donated orally and accepted the said pathway to use as public way in fact of the said land of road exclusively belongs to the defendants family. The plaintiffs or their agnates nothing to do with the same and have no right, interest title and possession in it.
7
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
The defendants submits that due to some dispute in the village for the alleged path way the defendant reported the matter to the police, the police in turn requested the
Tahsildar, Poalki to localize the suit and submit the report.
The Tahasildar deputed a Mandal Surveyor who in turn identified the site of “ABCD” covered with S.No.92/1. The old
S.No. 168 of plaintiffs correlated to S.No.183/7. the suit schedule and rough plan with boundareis are not true and correct. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.
4.In view of the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the following issues have been settled by the Court for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or not ?
2. Whether the possession of plaintiffs are lawful or not?
3. Whether there is any apprehension of danger to the property or person to the hands of defendant or not?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction or not?
5.To what relief ?
5.On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff himself examined as PW.1, 1st plaintiff himself examined as PW.2 on their behalf and got marked Exs. A.1 to Ex A.7. Ex A.1 is the registered sale deed vide Doc No. 1524/1943, dt 30.05.1943,
Ex A.2 is the certified copy of registered agreement deed 8
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
vide Doc No.1427/1947, dt 15.03.1947, Ex A.3 is the 1-B (ROR) namuna obtained from Meeseva dt 23.01.2016, Ex A.4 is the adangal pahani obtained from Meeseva dt 23.01.2016,
Ex A.5 is the correlation certificate issued by MRO, Polaki dt 29.01.2016, Ex A.6 is the “ABCD” plaint plan rough sketch,
Ex A.7 is the Original pass book along with title deed.
6. On behalf of the Defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and on his behalf DW.2 to Dw.4 were examined and Ex B.1 to Ex B.9 were marked. Ex B.1 is the 1-B ROR obtained through meeseva dt 12.03.2016 relating to S.No.92/1 and 73/3(2 pages), Ex B.2 is the adangal copy obtained through meeseva dt 12.03.2016 relating to S.No.73/3 fro the fasali year 1425, Ex B.3 is the adangal copy obtained through meeseva dt 18.06.2013 relating to S..No. 92/1 for the fasali year 1422, Ex B.4 is the
FMB copy obtained through meeseva dt 03.12.2016 for field
No.73, Ex B.5 is the certificate of loan in favour of Palli
Venkata Suryanarayana issued by State Bank of India,
Narasannapeta dt 14.03.2016, Ex B.6 is the cist receipts for
Katha No.s 303 and 280 in favour of Palli Venkata
Suryanarayana dt 01.12.2015, dt 04.07.2014 dt 19.12.2012 for the fasali years 1424, 1423 and 1422 respectively, Ex B.7 is the SLR copy of Dheergasi Village for S.No.92/1, Ex B.8 is 9
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
the SLR copy of Dheergasi village for S.No.73/1 and 73/3, Ex
B.9 is the FMB of Dheerghasi village for field No. 73.
7. Heard Arguments on both sides.
8.ISSUE NO.1
1.Whether the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?
It is the gist of the case is that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the owners of the suit schedule property wherein plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are own brothers and 4th plaintiff is the agnate and cousin to plaintiffs No.1 to 3. Initially, the suit schedule property and other properties were purchased by father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and father of plaintiff No.4.
Subsequently, they entered into a registered agreement deed dated 15.03.1947 which is the path way for the respective properties of plaintiffs. Since the date of purchase of said properties the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment by paying land revenue to the
Government. The defendant is having some property to the western side of suit schedule property ie., “A,BC,D” property.
Since, the defendant trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment, he filed the present case. The defendant denied the averments of plaint through his written statement and specifically stated that the “A,B,C,D” pathway 10
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
is not exclusive property of plaintiffs. But, in order to grab the property filed this present case. He submitted that as per the registered sale deeds of plaintiffs the properties are not side by side. Since the said properties are not adjacent, the alleged “A,B,C,D” path way does not relates to the present case. He further submitted that the suit is not maintainable since the LR’s of Papi Naidu and Appanna are not parties in the suit. The defendant contention is that the alleged “A,B,C,D” pathway is covered under S.No. 92/1 but not under S.No.89/4 or old S.No. 168. The plaintiffs occupied the pathway belongs to the defendant and made a construction and hence no such pathway was in existence.
Finally he submitted that “A,B,C,D” pathway was formed in survey No. 92/1 and the public using the said way, wherein the Panchayat laid CC road with public funds. Initially, the ancestors of defendant donated orally, and accepted the said way to be used as a public way but, the plaintiffs and their agnate have no right, interest, title and possession over it. Hence he prays the court to dismiss the suit with costs.
9. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff
No.2 is examined as PW.1 by filing his chief affidavit and got marked EX A.1 to Ex A.7. Ex A.1 is the registered sale deed vide Doc No. 1524/1943, dt 30.05.1943, Ex A.2 is the 11
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
certified copy of registered agreement deed vide Doc
No.1427/1947, dt 15.03.1947, Ex A.3 is the 1-B (ROR) namuna obtained from Meeseva dt 23.01.2016,Ex A.4 is the adangal pahani obtained from Meeseva dt 23.01.2016, Ex
A.5 is the correlation certificate issued by MRO, Polaki dt 29.01.2016, Ex A.6 is the “ABCD” plaint plan rough sketch,
Ex A.7 is the Original pass book along with title deed on his behalf.
10. Through cross examination of Pw.1, he mentioned the survey number of suit schedule property as 86/4 and filed the present case for an extent of AC 0.05 cents of land but not on total extent of AC 0.30 cents with regard to this he voluntarily stated before the court that since the defendant is interfering with AC 0.05 cents of land he filed the same. He accepted that defendant is western side boundary holder of suit schedule property having a land for an extent of AC 1.12 cents in S.No. 73/3 and AC 01.12 cents in S.No.92/1. On further cross examination he denied that
Advocate commissioner conducted local inspection in his presence, defendant and Advocates of both parties and deposed that at about 6 to 7 years back the defendant placed a gate at the suit schedule pathway. Pertaining to measuring the suit schedule property he categorically deposed that he did not measured the suit schedule property 12
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
before filing this case. Pertaining to documentary evidence
he deposed that the schedule under documents that he filed and suit schedule property is different and with regard to that he voluntarily stated that property devolved upon his brothers got partition and at present he is in possession and enjoyment. Pertaining to parties to the suit he accepted that parties to Ex A.2 are not shown as party in this case.
11. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.2 by filing his chief affidavit deposed through his cross examination that old survey number of suit schedule property as 168 but he unable to recollect the new survey number and also stated that he filed the present case for an extent of AC 0.32 cents.
On further cross examination he categorically accepted that he never got measured the extent of suit schedule property.
He further stated that after construction of houses, thrashing floors, there is a vacant site for an extent of Ac.0.16 cents and said property under joint enjoyment. Pertaining to boundaries of suit schedule property except western side boundary the witness fail to explain the remaining boundaries as mentioned in plaint schedule. Pertaining to measuring the suit schedule property by revenue authorities he accepted that the suit schedule property was measured by District Surveyor in his presence and defendant but no 13
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
stones were laid at that time since they objected. Through his further cross examination, pertaining to adding of all parties in this suit he accepted that adding of all parties are not necessary since the remaining parties are in his favour.
Pertaining to the location of their properties he accepted that the properties under Ex A.1 and Ex A.2 are not at same place but at different places. On his further cross examination he also accepted that the defendant had constructed a gate near the suit schedule property at long back. On observation of his testimony there are some contradictions had been found, which needs to be carefully scrutinized for disposing the matter on merits.
12. After closure of evidence on behalf of plaintiffs the defendant himself examined as Dw.1 but he was not cross examined by plaintiff even after several opportunities. At this juncture the learned counsel for plaintiffs shown no interest to cross examine the Dw.1 and reported that he had no instructions from his client and party may be called. The plaintiffs No.1 to 4 called absent no representation hence treated as no cross examination. After that the defendant got examined DW.2, Dw.3 who are said to be the neighbours of suit schedule property examined on his behalf. They deposed that they know the facts of the case that plaintiffs 14
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
went to the thrashing floor of the defendant and encroached the land belongs to the defendant on different occasions.
They further deposed that at about 4 years back the defendant requested the surveyor to measure the suit schedule property and to fix the boundaries but, the plaintiffs high handedly removed the said boundaries by using cowbars and Kattuva’s. They further also submitted that the said pathway is using by general public of village, the villagers used to take drinking water and also using as pathway for a temple near by. The plaintiffs without right and title causing obstruction to the alleged pathway and causing inconvenience to defendant. The plaintiffs did not cross examine these witnesses also, even after ample opportunity provided by this court. They had shown no interest to participate in the proceedings even for submitting the arguments on their behalf.
13. The then M.R.O of Polaki Village examined
before the court as Dw.4 and got marked Ex B.7 to Ex B.9 .
Ex B.7 is the SLR copy of Dheergasi Village for S.No.92/1, Ex
B.8 is the SLR copy of Dheergasi village for S.No.73/1 and 73/3, Ex R.9 is the FMB of Dheerghasi village for field No. 73, and deposed that at the time of survey resettlement, the persons namely Palli Jaddappayya, Menda Laxminarayana 15
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
are the owners of property for an extent of AC 0.65 cents as per SLR in S.No. 92/1 ie., Ex B.7 and also stated said land is
Gramakantam land. The Plaintiffs 1 to 4 not even had utilized the opportunity to cross examine this witnesses also and shown no interest in contesting the case.
14. It is the contention of the defendant is that the suit schedule property does not belongs to plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and the defendant is having right, title and possession over it. To corroborate his version he produced documentary evidence and this court after perusal of said documentary evidence, it appears to the mind of the court that the DW.1 had probable case according to his contention. At this juncture, well recognized principle of law has to be bare in mind that, the initial onus of proving the case casts upon the plaintiff to discharge the burden, but they can not rely upon the weakness or strength of defendant’s case.
15. Accordingly, the plaintiff has to discharge his burden in support of his contention. In the present facts of the case the Dw.1 and Dw.2 are contradicted with each other through their testimony. Initially, they contradicted each other as to the extent of suit schedule property for which the present case is filed, extent of property encroached by the defendant and also in aspect of localization of suit schedule 16
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
property by the Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for defendant submitted his written arguments about the said contradictions and after perusal of all the above discussed aspects it seems said arguments has some value and needs to be considered.
16. Apart from said contradictions, both the witnesses had categorically deposed that they have not measured the property before filing the case. In this regard the argument submitted by learned defendant counsel that the plaintiffs ie., parties to the suit themselves had categorically admitted before the court that they have not measured the property before filing the case seems that how they able to say that defendant encroached the property and whereas defendant is one of the boundary holder towards western side of suit schedule property. He vehemently argued that without measuring the property how can a person makes allegations that the other party is either encroacher or trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment. Then a reasonable doubt has been raised in the mind of the court as to without measuring the suit schedule property no one can allege that his possession was disturbed. Such person has bounden duty to make sure about the measurement and after that only he 17
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
has to make his claim. Hence it is not the proper way to approach the court by PW.1.
17. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to prove his case or by disprove the case of defendant. Here in the present facts of the case, the plaintiff did not produced any relevant evidence to disprove the case of defendant. The plaintiff did not participated in contesting the case by cross examining the plaintiff witnesses seems that he had no interest to contest the case. In such scenario seeking the relief of permanent injunction which is in the nature of equitable relief, the plaintiff can not get such relief for mere asking.
The plaintiff filed the suit and participated up to the stage of placing evidence on his behalf but later he fail to participate in the proceedings which makes adverse inference against plaintiff’s case.
18. By observing the material in this case the
Commissioner Report was also found available but the plaintiff witnesses simply saying that they do not know about the report of Advocate Commissioner. Such testimony of plaintiff witnesses clearly shows that they made the case without any base. Such acts clearly shows the ill full conduct of the plaintiffs. Therefore, they are not entitled for 18
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
equitable relief of perpetual injunction. Since, the plaintiffs are failed to establish the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit this issue is decided against the plaintiffs by saying that they are not in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on date of the filing of the suit. Hence, issue
NO.1 is decided accordingly against PW.1.
19. ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether the possession of plaintiffs are lawful or not?
Since the plaintiffs are failed to establish their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property it can not be said that the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Hence issue No.2 decided against plaintiffs.
20. ISSUE NO.3
3. Whether there is any apprehension of danger to the property or person to the hands of defendant or not?
On perusal of record and by relying on discussions made in Issue No.1 and Issue No.2 there is no material found 19
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
on record as to apprehension of danger to the suit schedule property from the hands of defendant, hence the present issue is decided against plaintiffs by saying that there is no apprehension of danger to suit schedule property from Dw.1.
21. ISSUE NO.4
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction or not?
Since the possession, and apprehension of danger to suit schedule property is not established in favour of plaintiffs they are not entitled for permanent injunction,
Hence issue No.4 decided against plaintiffs.
22. ISSUE NO.5
To What relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed by him,
corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of May, 2021.
JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
NARASANNAPETA
APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE WITNESS EXAMINED
PLAINTIFFS
PW.1/Menda Simhadri naidu/dt 28.01.2020 PW.2/ Menda Gunnayya/dt 11.02.2020
DEFENDANT
DW.1/P.Venkata Suryanarayana/dt 17.03.2020 DW.2/ Palli Narayanarao/dt 30.03.2021 20
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
DW.3/Chitti Ramarao/dt.30.03.2021 DW.4/A.Simhachalam, MRO, Polaki/dt 15.04.2021
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS
Ex A.1 is the registered sale deed vide Doc No. 1524/1943, dt 30.05.1943 Ex A.2 is the certified copy of registered agreement deed vide Doc No.1427/1947, dt 15.03.1947 Ex A.3 is the 1-B (ROR) namuna obtained from Meeseva dt 23.01.2016 Ex A.4 is the adangal pahani obtained from Meeseva dt 23.01.2016 Ex A.5 is the correlation certificate issued by MRO, Polaki dt 29.01.2016 Ex A.6 is the “ABCD” plaint plan rough sketch Ex A.7 is the Original pass book along with title deed.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT
Ex B.1 is the 1-B ROR obtained through meeseva dt 12.03.2016 relating to S.No.92/1 and 73/3(2 pages) Ex B.2 is the adangal copy obtained through meeseva dt 12.03.2016 relating to S.No.73/3 fro the fasali year 1425 Ex B.3 is the adangal copy obtained through meeseva dt 18.06.2013 relating to S.No. 92/1 for the fasali year 1422 Ex B.4 is the FMB copy obtained through meeseva dt 03.12.2016 for field No.73 Ex B.5 is the certificate of loan in favour of Palli Venkata Suryanarayana issued by State Bank of India, Narasannapeta
dt 14.03.2016
Ex B.6 is the cist receipts for Katha No.s 303 and 280 in favour of Palli Venkata Suryanarayana dt 01.12.2015, dt 04.07.2014 dt 19.12.2012 for the fasali years 1424, 1423 and 1422 respectively. Ex B.7 is the SLR copy of Dheergasi Village for S.No.92/1 21
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
Ex B.8 is the SLR copy of Dheergasi village for S.No.73/1 and 73/3, Ex R.9 is the FMB of Dheerghasi village for field No. 73.
JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
NARASANNAPETA
Date of presentation:04.02.2016 Date of filing:10.02.2016
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
NARASANNAPETA
PRESENT: Sri G.Srinivas,
Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta
Monday, this the 10 th May, 2021
O.S NO. 08/2016
BETWEEN :
1 Menda Gunnayya, S/o. Late Kurminaidu, Hindu, aged about 70 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, Retired Teacher, R/o.Door No. 1-4, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
2 Menda Simhadrinaidu, S/o. Late Kurminaidu, Hindu, aged about 68 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-2, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
22
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
3 Menda Narasingarao, S/o. Late Kurminaidu, Hindu, aged about 63 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-1, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
4 Menda Ankannagari Simhachalam, S/o. Late Narasanna @ Narasayya, Hindu, aged about 63 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-20, 1st ward, Deergasi Village and Post, Polaki Mandal, srikakulam District.
….. Plaintiffs
AND:
Palli Venkata Suryanarayana @ suribabu, S/o. Late Gaddeyya, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Velama by caste, Cultivation & Ex-Surpanch, R/o.H.No.1-18, 1st ward, Deerghasi Village & Post, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.
..... Defendant
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his kith and kin and henchmen, servants and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule “ABCD” property is in approximate extent Ac 0.05 cents and for costs of the suit.
The present market value of the plaint schedule immovable property @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and the plaint schedule property is in approximate extent of Ac 0.05 cents of wet land and the approximately the value of Rs.25,000/-, but the suit schedule is notionally valued by the plaintiffs for purpose of relief of injunction @ Rs.10,000/-. Court fee of Rs.786/- and excess amount of Rs.4/- totally Rs.790/-is paid under Section 26(C) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.
This suit is coming before me on this day for hearing
before me in the presence of Sri C.Rammohanrao and Sri
B.Jeevan, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and Sri J.Kameswarao, Advocate for defendant and having and upon perusal of the material record, this Courtdoth order and decree as follows:-
DECREE
i) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and ii)that there be no order as to costs.
(Copy of plaint schedule annexed herewith) 23
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 10th day of May, 2021.
Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:
Cost memo not filed Typing charges: Rs.300-00
Stamp on vakalat: Rs. 3-00
Advocate fee: Rs. 3000-00 ----------------- Costs incurred: Rs.3303-00 -------------------
Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta. Decree is drafted properly.
I/c Superintendent
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 79 of 2014
Date of judgment: 24.12.2019
Result:
i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,81,067/- (Rupees four lakh eighty one thousand and sixty seven only) with future interest @ 12% per annum 24
O.S 08/2016(Fair)
from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principle amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only); and ii)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,409/- (Rupees twenty two thousand four hundred and nine only) towards costs of the suit.
//By Order//
Sr. Superintendent