1
:: IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::
PEDDAPURAM
Present: Sri I.Srinivasa Murthy, Principal Jr.Civil Judge, Peddapuram
Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018
Original Suit No.20/2012
Between: Surey Veera Raghavamma. … Plaintiff.
And
Inventa Mushroom Limited, Peddapuram,
Rep. by its M.D. Peddapuram. ... Defendant.
This suit is coming on this day for judgment before me in the presence of Sri Sade Narasimha Rao, advocate for plaintiff, Sri N.S.R.N.Chowdary, advocate for defendant, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for Mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to close the pits and remove 20 cement concrete pillars in ABCD passage shown in the plaint sketch within the time fixed by the court and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the right of enjoyment of the plaintiff for ABCD passage shown in the plaint sketch, and for costs.
2.Initially the suit is filed only for permanent injunction. Thereafter, the relief of mandatory injunction was incorporated by way of amendment.
3.Brief averments of the amended plaint are as follows : Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property shown as EFBAG in the plaint sketch with right of way in the passage shown as ABCD in the plaint sketch, having purchased the property shown as EFBAG under three 2 separate registered sale deeds dt.09.05.1994 from Kakara Ammiraju, his wife Bojjamma and their son Gangaram Chowdary. The passage shown as ABCD in the plaint sketch is situated towards south of the property of the plaintiff leading to KakinadaRajahmundry road. The width of the said passage is 12 feet. Defendant is having its property to the East of the said passage and the defendant purchased the said property recently.
The vendor of the defendant constructed a fencing with iron mesh by placing cement poles long back up to their site and thus, the defendant or its predecessor has no site beyond the said fencing.
(ii) About 10 days prior to filing of the suit, the people of the defendant, without having any manner of right, tried to dig pits with JCB in the ABCD passage with an intention to construct wall stating that the defendant is having site beyond the fencing. Defendant also placed construction material in the vicinity. If the defendant constructs wall in the ABCD passage, the width of the passage would be reduced, in which event, it would be difficulty for the plaintiff for her ingress and egress and also for plying tractors and carts from the passage. Except the said passage, there is no other passage for the plaintiff to reach her property.
(iii) Subsequent to filing of the suit, defendant dug the pits and constructed 20 concrete pillars and also projected iron columns in ABCD passage high handedly, Therefore, the pits are to be closed and pillars are to be removed by way of granting mandatory injunction. Hence, the suit.
4.Defendant filed its written statement initially and thereafter it also filed additional written statement, afterplaint is amended, denying the material averments made in the plaint and, inter alia, alleging as 3 follows:
The vendor of the defendant by name M/s Sugam Agro Tech limited purchased the property of an extent of Ac.2701 cents of land from its vendor in the year 1994. Thereafter, the vendor of the defendant got constructed a factory in the name and style SUGAM AGRO TECH
LIMITED in the said site. Defendant purchased the same in the year 2007 and since then, defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without any interruption by anybody. The vendor of the defendant constructed factory of mushrooms and it is highly sensitive product. The vendor of the defendant laid fencing to entire boundary, but the vendor reserved a site approximately 20 feet and laid fencing towards western side. The said 20 feet site was left by vendor of the defendant for plying his vehicles to the back side of the factory, because at the time of construction, the technical people of the factory raised objection that the vehicles should not travel in the factory premises due to the safety measures. There is no passage in the documents of the defendants and that the FMB also clearly shows that there is existing passage in S.No.13/2.
(ii) Recently, when the defendant started construction of boundary wall to his factory, plaintiff approached the defendant and requested to provide the passage to her land through the land of the defendant, but the defendant did not agree. Therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit suppressing the real facts. Defendant did not dig the pits subsequent to filing of the suit. Defendant never entered into ABCD passage after filing of the suit, as alleged by the plaintiff and that plaintiff suppressed the 4 real facts and obtained ex parte status quo order. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues and
additional issues are settled for trial :
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? ii) To what relief ?
Additional issue framed on 25.07.2018 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ?
6.During trial, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1, one more witnesses as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A36 on her behalf.
Defendant examined one witness as D.W.1, and marked Exs.B1 to B5 on its behalf.
7.Heard both sides.
ISSUE NO.1 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ?
8.These two issues are interrelated and therefore, they are being answered together, in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9.Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to mention that when the suit was coming up for arguments, plaintiff filed a petition to amend the Survey number of the land of the defendant and
ACBD passage as 13/2 instead of S.No.12 as mentioned in the rough sketch filed by the plaintiff and the said petition was allowed vide IA
No.287/2018 and accordingly the Survey number is corrected as 13/2 5 for ABCD passage and the land ofthe defendant in the plaint sketch.
10.The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the suit was originally filed for permanent injunction and that the plaintiff purchased 17 acres of land in S.No.13/2 and S.No.12 of Peddapuram and that the passage shown as ABCD in the plaint plan is the only way for the plaintiff to reach her property and that the property of the defendant is situated on the eastern side of ABCD passage shown in the plaint plan. It is also contended that the plaintiff obtained status quo order against the defendant from making any construction, but in spite of order of status quo granted by this court, defendant made construction of pillars in ABCD passage shown in the plaint plan during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the plaintiff sought for the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the said pillars and also for closure of the pits dug by the defendant in ABCD passage. He also contended that as seen from Ex.A1, under which Venkata Raju purchased Ac.2212 cents, there is a clear recital with regard to the right of way and that plaintiff purchased that property under Ex.A5 to A7 and thus, the plaintiff is having right of way through ABCD passage shown in the plaint plan. He further contended that on a perusal of the report of the advocate commissioner who noted physical features, it is clear that the defendant raised disputed construction in the ABCD passage and therefore, the defendant is liable to remove the illegal constructions and plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.
11.On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that according to the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff is 6 having right of way for ingress and egress through ABCD passage and that the disputed way is the only way to reach their property, whereas the case of the defendant is that the alleged disputed way shown as
ABCD in the plaint plan is part and parcel of the property of the defendant and it is not a way for the plaintiff to reach her property. It is further contended that in order to seek the relief of mandatory injunction, plaintiff has to establish her case that the disputed ABCD portion is path way and therefore the suit for mandatory injunction without relief of declaration that the plaintiff is having right of way through ABCD portion is not maintainable and on this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that the evidence of P.W.1 itself is sufficient to dismiss the suit, because, P.W.1 clearly deposed that she is not claiming right of way through the land of the defendant. He further contended that the pleadings of the plaintiff are totally different from the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and that subsequently by looking the documents of the defendant, plaintiff has changed her case in the evidence that she is having right of way through the land of the defendant, which is not at all her case as per the plaint pleadings. He further contended that according to the plaint pleadings, the disputed way and the land of the defendant are in S.No.12, but in fact, the land of the defendant is in S.No.13, which includes ABCD portion shown in the plaint plan and that only after going through the documents of the defendant, plaintiff has amended the Survey number in the plaint sketch without amending the pleadings of the plaint and thus the pleadings of the plaintiff are totally different from the evidence adduced by the 7 plaintiff during the cross examination of D.W.1 and on that ground alone, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit. He also contended that the evidence of P.W.1 itself would clearly show that she is not claiming any right through the land of the defendant and in such an event, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief because, in the evidence it is established that the disputed path way is part of the land of the defendant and hence, the suit as claimed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
12.It is pertinent to mention that initially one Uddagiri Venkata
Raju purchased an extent of 22 acres and odd under Ex.A1 on 05.01.1967. The said Venkata Raju sold away an extent of 5 acres to one
Surya Kumari under Ex.A2 on 15.05.1984 and he also sold away an extent of 12 acres and odd to Ammiraju under ExA3 on 17.05.1984. It is also evident from the documents that Surya Kumari in turn sold away her property to one Bojjamma under Ex.A4 on 31.05.1993. Plaintiff purchased her property under Exs.A5 to A7 from Ammiraju his son
Gangaram chowdary and Bojjamma who is the wife of Ammiraju respectively. Under Ex.A5, there is a recital that previously there was a way in between the lands of Kadigatla people and the land of Yarlagadda
Ramanna and others to reach the property covered by Ex.A5 and that by virtue of khararnama dt.06031984 executed by Botla Satyavathi and others in favour of Surya Kumari, the said way in between the lands of
Kadigatla people and Yarlagadda people is cancelled and in lieu thereof a way with a width of 12 feet was arranged from the western side abutting the kattuva of Yeramati Sankarayya. It is the specific case of the plaintiff 8 that the said way arranged under Ex.A5 is the disputed way shown as
ABCD in the plaint plan in the present suit.
13.At this juncture, it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that when Suryakumari purchased the property under Ex.A2 only on 15.05.1994, it is not explained by the plaintiff as to how
Khararnama was executed in favour of Suryakumari on 06031984 itself when Suryakumari did not purchase any property by the date of the said khararnama and this circumstance itself would falsify the case of the plaintiff. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff has to explain the said discrepancy as to how the khararnama was executed in favour of Surya
Kumar who did not purchase any property by 06031984, because
Surya kumari purchased her property under Ex.A2 only on 15051985 which is subsequent to the alleged khararnama mentioned in Ex.A5. It is also true that the plaintiff has not produced the said khararnama to show that earlier way was cancelled and a new way was created shown as
ABCD in the plaint plan. But, in the humble opinion of this court, the said aspect cannot be said to be created for the purpose of the present suit, because by the date of Surya Kumari purchasing her property under
Ex.A2 or by the date of alleged khararnama, defendant and the plaintiff were not in picture at all. Admittedly plaintiff purchased her property in the year 1994 under Ex.A5 to A7, whereas defendant purchased its property only in the year 2007 as seen from Ex.B1 to B3. It is also pertinent to mention that even by that time, the vendor of the defendant was also not in picture, because admittedly the vendor of the defendant purchased property under Ex.A34 to A36, which are produced by the 9 plaintiff, in the year 1994 only. Therefore, no motive can be attributed to the plaintiff to show that the recital mentioned in Ex.A5 with regard to the alleged khararnama, which was happened long ago, is created for the purpose of this suit .
14.It is also pertinent to mention that as seen from the documents of the plaintiff which are of the year 1994 under Ex.A5 to A7 there is a clear mention with regard to the disputed passage by the side of kattava of Yaramati Sankarayya. Therefore, by virtue of the documents produced by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 to A7, plaintiff is having right of way through a passage of a width of 12 feet which is situated adjacent to kattava of Yaramati Sankarayya. Now the question is whether apart from the said way, defendant is having any vacant site on the eastern side of the said way and whether the constructions being made by the defendant are within the property of the defendant or not, or defendant has been constructions by encroaching into the disputed 12 feet width of way situated adjacent to the kattava of Yaramati Sankarayya. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.1 assumes much importance. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant, in the plaint pleadings, plaintiff never pleaded that she is having right of way through the land of the defendant. The specific pleading of the plaintiff is that the property of the defendant is situated on the eastern side of the disputed way and the defendant is not having any site beyond the fencing and that the disputed way is altogether different from the property of the defendant.
15.Plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1. In her cross examination, she clearly deposed that as per the plaint sketch, she mentioned that the 10 disputed way is situated in S.No.12. She also admitted the suggestion that she is not claiming any way through the lands situated in S.No.13.
But, in view of the amendment of plaint sketch, the disputed passage is in S.No.13. The same is not explained by the plaintiff. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the defendant purchased its property under Ex.B1 to B3 situated in S.No.13. Ex.A34 to A36 are the link documents of Ex.B1 to B3. On a perusal of Ex.A34 to A36, particularly
A35 and A36, there is a clear recital in those documents that on the western site of the property covered by those documents, there is a way of a width of 3 yards for use of property holders situated on the northern side of the property covered by those documents to reach southern side main road. Thus, as seen from Exs.A35 and A36, it is clear that through the land of the vendors of the defendant a right of way was given from the extreme western side. Now, it has to be seen whether the said way mentioned in Ex.A35 and A36 and the disputed way shown as ABCD in the plaint plan are one and the same or not.
16.It is evident from the record that a commissioner was appointed earlier to note down the physical features and he filed a report, on which no objections were filed by both parties. The said report forms part of the record. As seen from the report of the commissioner, he visited the suit locality and he noted down the physical features on 16.12.2012.
As seen from the report of the commissioner, the commissioner found palmyrah rafters fencing to some extent, bamboo fencing to some extent in between the points A and B shown in the rough sketch filed by the commissioner, which is at the beginning of the property of the plaintiff.
11
The commissioner also observed that at the beginning of the ABCD passage, there are two cart tracks and coming to the northern side there is only one cart track, whereas in the other cart track, there are pits. The commissioner did not give the width of the ACBD portion in his report.
Therefore, the controversy was not resolved by virtue of the report of the commissioner because, he simply noted physical features without mentioning the width of the disputed way.
17.As already stated above, plaintiff has been claiming only 12 feet width of site on the side of kattava of Yaramati Sankarayya. Coming to the evidence part, P.W.1 has admitted certain aspects. In her cross examination she clearly and categorically deposed that she is not claiming any right of way through the land of the defendant. She further deposed that according to her, the disputed way is situated on the western side of the property of the defendant. However, she denied the suggestion that she tried to pass through the exclusive way of the defendant and therefore the defendant obstructed her. P.W.1 further deposed that the land situated on the western side of the disputed ABCD portion belongs to Yaramati Sankarayya. P.W.1 also deposed that there is a gap in between the kattava of Yaramati Sankarayya and the disputed way, which is of a width of approximately 15 feet and above. This particular evidence of P.W.1 would clinch the entire issue.
18.According to PW.1 in between the kattava of Sankarayya and the disputed way in which the defendant has been carrying on construction work, there is gap of a width of approximately 15 feet and above. This particular evidence of P.W.1 would clearly show that the 12 defendant has been carrying on construction work within the property of the defendant only, because even according to the documents filed by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A7, plaintiff is having right of way by virtue of those documents only of a width of 12 feet by the side of kattava of
Sankarayya. When according to P.W.1 there is a gap of a width of 15 feet in between the kattava of Yaramati Sankarayya and the disputed way, wherein the defendant has been making constructions, question of plaintiff having any right in the disputed passage does not arise by virtue of her own documents, because she is having right of way only in 12 feet width of site situated by the side of kattava of Sankarayya. According to
PW.1, defendant is not making any constructions in the 15 feet width site by the side of kattava of Sankarayya. In such an event, question of plaintiff having any right in the disputed way, wherein defendant has been making constructions, does not arise. Though P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that the disputed ABCD portion shown in the plaint plan is absolute property of the defendant and the same was arranged by the defendant for plying its lorries, still the above evidence of PW.1 would clearly show that the disputed way is different from the way in which the plaintiff is given right under her documents.
19.It is also pertinent to mention that only after the evidence of
D.W.1, plaintiff produced Exs.A34 to A36 which are link documents of the defendant by recalling her for further evidence. As already stated above, in Ex.A34 to A36 there is provision for the northern side land owners to reach the southern side main road through the land of the defendant from the extreme western side. As seen from the plaint 13 pleadings it is not at all the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having right of way through the land of the defendant. Only when the defendant entered into the witness box and produced Exs.B1 to B4 and only after coming to know of the case of the defendant, plaintiff thought it fit to produce the link documents of the defendant under ExA34 to A36 showing that the northern side land owners are having right of way through the land of the defendant. By virtue of the production of Exs.A34 to A36 it is the implied case of the plaintiff that since her land is also situated on the northern side of the disputed way, she is also having right of way through the way provided under Ex.A34 to A36. But this stand taken by the plaintiff cannot be taken into consideration because it is not the foundation in the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint. It is not that the plaintiff has specifically amended the plaint by virtue of
Exs.A34 to A36. Plaintiff, who approached the court, cannot take inconsistent stands. Therefore, Ex.A34 to A36 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff because Ex.A34 to A36 run contrary to the pleadings taken by the plaintiff in the suit.
20.By virtue of the stand taken by the plaintiff in the plaint, she is entitled to the right of way of a width of 12 feet by the side of the kattava of Sankarayya, which is also mentioned in the documents of the plaintiff. But P.W.1 clearly deposed that the disputed way is away from the kattava and that there is a width of 15 feet gap in between the kattava and the disputed way. In such an event, the way that was referred to by the plaintiff in her pleadings and in her document is intact.
In such an event, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory 14 injunction for removal of the constructions being made by the defendant in the disputed way which is far away from the kattava and which is not the way mentioned in the documents of the plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff has not sought for declaration of her right over the disputed way and the suit is filed only for simple injunction.
21.It is also pertinent to mention that the properties are not measured in the present suit. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.W.1 itself would clearly show that there is 15 feet width of gap in between the disputed way and kattava.
22.The evidence of P.W.2 is not of much assistance to the plaintiff to claim that she is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction. P.W.2 is a 3rd party and during his evidence, he deposed that the disputed way was originally arranged by Kakara Ammiraju, who is one of the vendors of the plaintiff and that the said way was arranged by Ammiraju at the time of purchasing the property by him. As seen from Ex.A2 Ammiraju purchased the property on 17.05.1984. If the said evidence of P.W.2 is true, the plea taken by the plaintiff that the disputed way has been in existence since times immemorial and it was used by her vendors, falls to ground. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is not of much importance to decide the issues on hand.
23.It is not for the defendant to prove its case in a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Though the link documents of the defendant would show that there is a provision of way through its lands on the extreme western side, plaintiff has failed to show that the said way that was referred to in Ex.A35 and A36 is the same way 15 that was referred to in the documents of the plaintiff and her vendor.
The evidence of P.W.1 would show that the disputed way in which the defendant is making constructions is different from the way that was referred to in her documents. In such an event, unless the plaintiff establishes by adducing cogent evidence on record that the constructions being made by the defendant are within the way in which she is having right to pass through, mandatory injunction cannot be granted for removal of pillars and closure of the pits, as sought for by the plaintiff.
24.It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant made the constructions in spite of the status quo orders granted by this court and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction. It should be mentioned that the order of status quo was granted only in respect of the way claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, but not in any other property. When the plaintiff failed to show that the constructions being made by the defendant are within the way of the plaintiff, it cannot be considered that the defendant violated the order of status quo. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that those constructions were made subsequent to filing of the suit. Though the photographs produced by the plaintiff would show that the pillars were raised to some extent, it is not known when those pillars were raised by the defendant.
25.It is also pertinent to mention that the suit is only for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction without the relief of declaration. According to the plaint averments, it is the case of the plaintiff that she is having right of way from the disputed passage and 16 except the said way, there is no other way for her. As per the documents of the plaintiff, easement of way was granted to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff has been claiming easementary right of way by grant, plaintiff would have filed the suit for declaration of said right and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.
26.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on KANNAIAH
MANDATI (DIED) AND ANOTHER V. RESIDENTS OF GOLLAPALEM1 and contended that the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable without the relief of declaration. The said contention of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. In the said decision, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the position that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable unless declaratory relief is claimed, is a well settled, but since the case on hand was the 2nd round of litigation in the High court and since the plea that the suit is not maintainable without relief of declaration was not taken in the trial court, the same cannot be gone into in the 2nd round of litigation. Thus, the Hon’ble High court clearly held in the said decision itself that the suit for mandatory injunction without relief of declaration is not maintainable. In the present suit, though the defendant has not specifically taken such a plea in the written statement, it is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant in the court of first instance itself that the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable without the relief of declaration.
27.In fact, in LAKKIREDDY NARASIMHA REDDY v. LAKKIREDDY
YELLA REDDY2, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. In para No.8 of the said 1 2014(1) ALD 66 2 2008(2) ALD 142 17 judgment held as follows :
“The right to use a passage, however stands on different footing. No one can claim exclusive possession over a passage or a road. The usage can be either on the strength of any legal rights or on the basis of easementary rights. Either way a declaration as to right to usage of passage must be sought and the relief of injunction has to be claimed as corollary.”
In the said decision, the suit was filed only for the relief of permanent injunction, as regard the use of a passage, in which the plaintiff pleaded that the said passage is the only access for him to reach the main road, for the last several decades. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble High
Court held that the suit for mere injunction, without the relief of declaration is not maintainable. The facts in the said decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present suit also. In that view of the matter, the present suit filed for mere injunction, without the relief of declaration, is not maintainable.
28.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on SREE
SWAYAM PRAKASH ASHRAMAM AND ANOTHER v. G.ANANDAVALLY
AMMA AND OTHERS3 and contended that though the plea of the easementary right by way of grant is not specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit, the same can be granted taking that it as implied case of the plaintiff. In the said decision, the suit was filed for declaration of easementary right, in respect of B schedule property therein as a path way to reach the schedule property therein. Referring to the facts of the 3 2010(2) ALD 60 (SC) 18 case, it was held that since B schedule property was being used as access to reach schedule property, it can be taken that it is implied grant of easement through A schedule property as path way, can be inferred by the court. Facts of the said case are entirely different form the facts on hand. Even if it is taken that the plaintiff filed the present suit for right of easement by grant, still the suit is not filed for declaration of the said right as in the said case. Therefore, even if it is inferred that the disputed way claimed by the plaintiff is an easementary by way of grant, still, the suit for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, without the relief of declaration is bad and hence, on that ground also the suit is not maintainable.
29.For all the above reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in the present suit. These two issues are accordingly answered against the plaintiff.
30.ISSUE NO.2 : To what relief ?
In view of the findings of this court on the above two issues, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. This issue is accordingly answered.
31.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in open court, on this the 20 th day of August , 2018.
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Peddapuram.
19
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For plaintiff : P.W.1 :13.04.2017 : S.Veera Raghavamma, P.W.2 : 28.06.2017 : N.Laxmana Rao
For Defendant : D.W.1 : 29.01.2018 : G.Ramji.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For plaintiff : Ex.A1 : registered sale deed dt.05011967, Ex.A2 : Registered sale deed dt.15051984, Ex.A3 : Registered sale deed dt.17.05.1984, Ex.A4 : Registered sale deed dt.31.05.1993, Ex.A5 : Registered sale deed dt.09051994, Ex.A6 : Registered sale deed dt.09051994, Ex.A7 : Registered sale deed dt.09.05.1994, Ex.A8 to Ex.A13 : Photographs(5) with CD Ex.A14 to Ex.A20 : Photographs(6) with CD, Ex.A21 to Ex.A33 : Photographs (12) with receipt, Ex.A34 : Registration extract of sale deed dt.29.09.1994, Ex.A35 : Registration extract of sale deed dt.05101994, Ex.A36 : Registration extract of sale deed dt.11.10.1994.
For Defendant : Ex.B1 : Registration extract of sale deed dt.30.11.2007, Ex.B2 : Registration extract of sale deed dt.01.12.2017 Ex.B3 : Registration extract of sale deed dt.01122017, Ex.B4 : FMB for S.No.13 of Peddapuram, Ex.B5 : Authorisation letter issued by the defendant.
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Peddapuram.
20