OS.128/2006 1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: THAMBALLAPALLE .
-:O:- Present: Sri J.Anjaiah, Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.
Dated this the 6 th day of August, 2018
O.S.NO. 128 of 2006
Between:-
Rachamalla Reddemma, W/o R.Narasaiah, age: 57 yrs. R/at M.B.T.Road, Molakalacheruvu R.S. Village, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.
… Plaintiff.
And
1.Mallem Radhamma,W/o Venkatramana, age: 44 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.
2.Mallem Uma Devi,W/o Nagaraja, age: 40 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.
3.Mallem Akkulamma,W/o Late Adinarayana, age: 63 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.(Died)
4.Mallem Venkataramana,S/o Late Adinarayana, age: 65 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.
5.Mallem Ravindra,S/o Late Adinarayana, age: 60 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party)
6.Mallem Sreenivasulu, S/o Late Adinarayana, age: 50 yrs. Hindu,R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party)
7.Mallem Nagaraju,S/o MallemAdinarayana, age: 46 yrs. Hindu, R/at D.No.1-1-47, near Cheque post, Angallu, Kurbalakota Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party)
8.K.Bhagyamma,W/o K.Venugopal, D/o Late Adinaryana, age: 63 yrs. Hindu, R/at near Indian Bank, Massed street, B- Kothakota village, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party) As per the Orders in IA.No.248/2016 dt.07.02.2017, the defendants No.4 to 8 are added.
... Defendants.
This Original suit coming before me on 01.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Lakshmikanth, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri D.Siddalinga Reddy, Advocate for the defendants
No.1,2,4 to 8 and the suit abated against the defendant No.3 and the
OS.128/2006 2
matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, supporters’ and family members in any way entering into or interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2. The brief material facts of the plaint are as follows:- The suit schedule property is originally belonged to one Achakka, W/o Siddappa.
The said Achakka has got love and affection over the father of the plaintiff who is no other than her grandson by name Pujari
Kanugondappa @ Kondappa @ Appalla lookout her welfare till the death of said Achakka. During the lifetime of Achakka she executed a register settlement deed in favour of plaintiff’s father on 20.06.1918 bearing Doc.No.790/1918 to an extent of Ac.0-18 cents in the suit survey number and put in his possession and enjoyment of the same.
The father of the plaintiff died about 40 years ago and the said Pujari
Konugondappa @ Kondappa @ Appalla has got one son and one daughter. The plaintiff is the daughter and she has been succeeded to the estate of the said Pujari Konugondappa @ Kondappa @ Appalla by way of legal heirs. The plaintiff has got Ac.0-09 cents in the suit survey number within the specified boundaries has been enjoying the same.
During the lifetime of the said Pujari Konugondappa @ Kondappa @
Appalla and his brother namely Pujari Lakshmanna have got orally divided their ancestral properties acquired through their father and thereby allotted the respective extents and thus ever since such oral
OS.128/2006 3
partition allotment the father of the plaintiff and his brother, used to enjoy their respective allotted extents of the family properties including the suit survey number, by themselves separately be metes and bounds without any least interference among each other. Thus ever since the death of Pujari Konugondappa @ Kondappa @ Appalla the plaintiff continued to enjoy the suit schedule property peacefully, openly continuously to the full knowledge of the one and all in the suit village including the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff is also perfected her right, title and possession over the suit schedule property for more than the statutory period. Further, the defendants purchased the property in
Sy.No.419/1 under the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.250/1999 on 08.03.1999 and recently they are trying to encroach the plaintiff’s land due to their property situated very near to the suit survey number.
Further, the defendants are the strangers to the suit survey number.
The plaintiff used to pay necessary land revenue to the Government and the name of the plaintiff is duly got mutated in the concerned revenue records from the very inception. The revenue authorities also made proper enquiry and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants without any manner of right and title they are trying to interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff got erected a wooden bunk in the suit schedule property and same was leased out to one P.Mahesh, S/o Ramachandra for running a puncture shop in her extent of the land i.e., Ac.0-09 cents in the suit survey number, but on the other hand the defendants are trying to threats to cause hindrance to the plaintiff while proceeding with an intention to knock way her tenant form the suit schedule property and
OS.128/2006 4
there trying to disposes the plaintiff. The plaintiff being the meek and docile person has rendered unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants and the defendants are highly influential persons. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendants filed their written statement. The brief material facts of it are as follows: The defendants had flatly denied the entire case of the plaintiff that one U.Venkatrayudu @ D.Venkatrayudu has purchased 1/4th share in Sy.No.420/4 and also in Sy.No.419/1 which are adjacent to each other abetting Madra- Bombay trunk road. The said Venkatrayudu purchased 1/4th share in Sy.NO.419/1 and 420/4 along with other properties under registered sale deed dt.30.10.1931 for proper and valid consideration from the rightful owner
K.Thirupathaiah, S/o Venkatraramanna and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The land in Sy.No.419/1 and Sy.No.420/4 are adjacent to each other as contiguous plot. The said D.Venkatrayudu was in possession and enjoyment of the properties covered by the sale deed dt. 30.10.1931. Pujari Kondappa was also having land in
Sy.No.419/1 and 420/4 and during the lifetime of Pujari Kondappa and
D.Venkatrayudu for convenience sake for cultivation used to cultivate an extent of Ac.0-18 cents in Sy.No.420/4 on eastern side equivalent an extent of Ac.0-18 cents of land, Pujari Kondappa was cultivating the land belonged to D.Venkatrayudu in Sy.No.419/1 which is located immediately on the eastern side of the land in Sy.No.420/4. The son of
P.Koadappa by name Reddeppa has executed sale deed as house site infavour of third parties for more extent than to which he was entitled to adjoining the road. The D.Venkatrayudu was in possession and enjoyment an extent of Ac.0-18 cents during the lifetime and he died
OS.128/2006 5
intestate leaving behind him, his two sons namely Chennarayappa and
Krishnappa and wife by name D.Subbamma. All of them have succeeded to the extent of Ac.0-18 cents equally. While so
D.Subbamma and Krishnappa have sold away an extent of Ac.0-12 cents under registered sale deed dt.09.12.1987 for proper and valid consideration and within specific boundaries and put him in possession of the same. Though survey number is wrongly described as
Sy.No.419/1 instead of Sy.No.420/4 the boundaries shown in the sale deed are in respect of Ac.0-12 cents which is the suit schedule property. P.V.Mohan was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-12 cents.
while so on 11.05.1988 the said P.L.V.Mohan has sold away the said extent of Ac.0-12 cents within specific boundaries to Poola Sivakumari,
W/o P.V.Ramana under registered sale deed and put her in possession of the same. The defendants have purchased an extent of Ac.0-70 cents out of Ac.0-12 cents from Poola Siva Kumari under a registered sale deed dt. 08.03.1999 and on the same day M.Reddemma and
M.Padmavathamma have purchased an extent of Ac.0-05 cents out of
Ac.0-12 cents from Poola Sivakumari under a registered sale deed put in possession of the same. The defendants and the said Redeemma and Padmavathamma are co-sisters of the defendants No.1 and 3 and daughters-in-law of 2nd defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.0-12 cents covered by the above two registered sale deeds dt.08.03.1999.
4.
The D.Chennarayappa is in possession and enjoyment of
Ac.0-06 cents to the east of the property purchased by the defendants and the said Reddemma and Padmavathamma which is succeed by
Chennarayappa from his father. After purchase they have laid
OS.128/2006 6
foundations on four sides of the property to the depth of 3 ½ feet and laid stone foundations upto ground level and same is also in existence even now. The defendants have spent more than Rs.40,000/- for laying foundation in the property purchased by them. The property covered under the registered sale deed dt.08.03.1999 forms part of the suit schedule. To the west of the property purchased by the defendants.
The site of Jawaharvalli is in existence and present brother-in-law of
Jawaharvalli is on land by way of a registered document. The west of the site of Jawaharvalli, the houses of M.Jagadish and Rathnamaiah in the suit survey number are in existence. The plaintiff and her brother
Reddeppa were never in possession and enjoyment of any extent in the suit schedule the said Jawaharvalli and his brother-in-law have granted stone poles surrounding their site. The said Jawaharvalli
M.V.Rathnamaiah and others have occupied more extent than which they have purchased. The plaintiff and brother are fully aware of the sale transactions effected by D.Krishnappa and her brother Subbamma in favour of P.L.V.Mohan in respect of Ac.0-12 cents in suit schedule and also the sale deed in favour of Poola Sivakumari by P.L.V. Mohan and the sale deeds in favour of the defendants and others by Poola
Sivakumari. The plaintiff is estopped by conduct and record to claim any property in the suit survey number. By mistake has crept in while executing sale deed in favour of P.L.V.Mohan by D.Krishnappa and his mother in Sy.No.419/1 instated of Sy.No.420/4, the same is carried out in the subsequent sale deeds and the mentioning of wrong survey number is only a bonafide mistake and the boundaries in the sale deed in respect of the land in Sy.No.420/4. The plaintiff having kept quite for all these years and taking advantage of mistake crept in respect of
OS.128/2006 7
survey number has filed the suit with all false allegations as the suit property is house abetting MBT road which is very valuable house site.
The defendants are resident at Goddavlakota, which at a distance of 4 to 5 k.m. from the suit property. The plaintiff taking advantage of the same and with view to harass has placed wooden bunk and small pendal just 1 or 2 days prior to filing of the suit. The plaintiff and her predecessors have no right, title in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has suppressed material facts and filed the suit.
There is no cause of action to file the suit and the alleged cause of action setout is incorrect. The particulars of valuation and frame of the suit is incorrect and as framed is not maintainable and the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and non joinder of parties. The plaintiff is not entitled for his of the reliefs. Therefore, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. Basing on the above pleadings and material documents, this court framed the following issues: -
1)Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction?
3)To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and her witness examined as PW.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined as DW.1 and 6th defendant was examined as
DW.2 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner examined as CW.1 and Ex.C1 was marked.
OS.128/2006 8
7. The plaintiff got examined as PW.1. In the chief affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination, she had reiterated the averments of the plaint, stated above. The plaintiff got marked the registration copy of settlement deed, dt.20.06.1918, executed by Achakka in favour of
Kanugondappa vide document No.790 of 1998 (Ex.A1); Original pattadar pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Molakalacheruvu in favour of plaintiff (Ex.A2) and No.2 Adangal and
No.3 pahani issued by the panchayath secretary, Molakalacheruvu
Grampanchayath in favour of the plaintiff relating to the schedule property (Ex.A3). PW.1 had categorically elicited in her cross examination that abetting to suit survey number and Sy.No.419/1 there is a Madra- Bombay high way road and the suit survey number and Sy.No.419/1 situate within jurisdiction of Molakalacheruvu. One
Poojari Kondappa is having share in Sy.No.419/1 and 420/4. Prior to 10 to 15 years back the suit survey number and Sy.No.419/1 are under cultivation and now the said survey numbers are fit for house sites.
One D.Krishnappa is having land on eastern side of their land and
Achamma purchased the suit schedule property. The said Achamma was executed Ex.A1 in favour of her father and her father in turn executed gift deed in her favour. One D.Venkatrayudu is having two sons by name D.Chennarayappa and Krishnappa. The boundaries of the land purchased by her and the boundaries of the land purchased by the defendants are one and the same. The Survey numbers 420/4 and 419/1 adjacent to each other and one Poojari Kondappa is having land in Sy.No.419/1. The suit schedule property is surrounded by residential houses and she do not know whether Poojari Kondappa is having land in Sy.No.420/4. PW.1 had categorically stated in her cross examination
OS.128/2006 9
that the suit schedule property is her ancestral property and she also filed the said documents. After coming to know about the purchase of land by PLV Mohan from Krishnappa and Subbamma, she filed the suit against the defendants. She know that the defendants purchased land from PLV Mohan, after that she filed the present suit. PW.1 adds that her father’s grandmother had executed registered settlement deed i.e.,
Ex.A1 in her father’s name. The defendants purchased an extent of
Ac.0-12 cents from P.Sivakumari under registered sale deed dt.
08.03.1999.
8. The plaintiff got examined one P.Sriramulu as PW.2. In the chief affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination. PW.2 categorically stated in his cross examination that the suit Sy.No.419/1 and
SY.No.420/4 are abutting to each other. The suit schedule property is adjacent to Molakalacheruvu village and MBT road. One Pujari
Kondappa is having land in Sy.No.419/1 and Sy.No.420/4. Prior to 20 years back the suit schedule property and Sy.No.419/1 are cultivable lands. One Kondappa is having land on the eastern side of Sy.No.419/1.
After death of Venkatrayudu, his legal heirs were enjoying their extent of land. PW.2 do not know whether one Subbamma and Krishnappa sold Ac.0-12 cents in Sy.No.419/1 to one P.L.V. Mohan. The Ac.0-12 cents is bounded by East- D.Chendrayudu; West- Site of Pujari
Reddeppa; North – MBT road and South- land of Abdul Azeez and
Ramakrishna. PW.2 do not know whether P.L.V.Mohan sold land to one
Pula Sivakumari, W/o P.V.Ramana and he do not know whether the said
Pula Sivakumari sold Ac.0-07 cents out of Ac.0-12 cents under registered sale deed dt.08.03.1999 to defendants and on the same day the said Pula Sivakumari also sold the remaining Ac.0-05cents out of
OS.128/2006 10
Ac.0-12 cents under registered sale deed to Reddemma and
Padmavathi. PW.2 had categorically denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property and the property purchased by defendants is one and the same. The Ac.0-12 cents land were enjoying by
Padmavathamma and Reddemma. About 10 years back Pw.1 and her brothers got partition and in that partition the suit schedule property fell to her share and he do not know from whom the ancestral of PW.1 purchased.
9. The 2nd defendant got herself examined as DW.1 and in the chief affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination, she had reiterated the averments of her written statement, stated above. DW.1 got marked the original registered sale deed dt.09.02.1987, executed by
D.Subbamma and D.Krishnappa in favour of P.L.V. Mohan (Ex.B1); original registered sale deed dt. 11.05.1988, executed by P.L.V.Mohan in favour of Poola Sivakumari (Ex.B2); original registered sale deed dt.08.03.1999, executed by Poola Sivakumari in favour of
M.Radhamma, M.Akkulamma and Uma Devi (Ex.B3) and original registered sale deed dt.08.03.1999, executed by Poola Sivakumari in favour of M.Reddemma, Padmavathamma (Ex.B4). DW.1 had categorically stated in her cross examination that she know the suit survey number is 420 and he have not pursue any documents, plaint filed by the plaintiff. She do not know whether the plaintiff filed the suit in Sy.No.420/4 or not and she know where the plaint schedule land situated and she know the boundaries of plaint schedule property. On
East – land of one D.Chandrayppa; West - land of Syed Azeez; North –
MBT road and South – One Abdule Azeez. There is a mechanic shop was situated in the plaint schedule land and she do not know who gave
OS.128/2006 11
permission to run the said mechanic shop to whom situated in the plaint schedule land. One Mahesh was running a puncher shop in the plaint schedule property. She do not know the said Mahesh was running above said puncher shop with the permission of the plaintiff as a tenant. She do not know the plaintiff erected a stones on western side of the plaint schedule property. She do not know the total extent of suit survey number and she do not know one D.Venkatrayudu @
U.Venkatatrayudu how much extent having share and how she got said extent in the suit survey number 419/1. About 20 years back the
Sy.No.420/4 and 410/1 were cultivable lands. One Poojari Reddeppa and plaintiff are brother and sister and they said Poojari Reddeppa and plaintiff got divided the above said Ac.0-18 cents as they are entitled
Ac.0-09 cents each and enjoying the same. Towards on eastern side one D.Krishnappa and his family members land situated and he do not know southern boundary holder by name Poojari Ramakrishna and others land situated of the plaint schedule property and the suit schedule survey number there were houses were existing since 15 years. She do not know the said D.Krishnappa and his family members how much extent were entitled in suit survey number and in
Sy.No.419/1. After purchased by the said Poola Sivakumari under Ex.B2 she never in possession and enjoyed the same and the purchasers under Ex.B3 by name M.Reddemma, wife of Sreenivasulu and
M.Padmavathamma, wife of Ravindra are her elder sisters. According to Ex.B3 her elder sister were purchased an extent of Ac.0-05 cents in
Sy.No.419/1 and he do not know the boundaries mentioned in Ex.B3 and Ex.B2. According to Ex.B4 herself, her mother in-law were purchased an extent of Ac.0-07 cents in Sy.No.419/1 and she do not
OS.128/2006 12
know the boundaries mentioned in Ex.B4. The PLV Mohan never possession the property mentioned in Ex.B1 and the plaintiff filed the suit in Sy.No.420/4 and they purchased the land in Sy.No.419/1, the lands are different survey numbers. The land is situated on eastern side of the plaint schedule property. DW.1 had categorically denied the suggestion that PLV Mohan has no right and title to sold away the property covered under Ex.B2 to one P.Sivakumari. Herself and her mother-in-law her elder sisters were not entitled any right and share properties covered under Ex.B3 and Ex.B4.
10. The 6th defendant got examined as DW.2. In the chief affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination. In his cross examination
DW.2 had categorically stated that he know the plaint schedule property 4 k.m. distance from his village. He do not know the family affairs of the plaintiff and her ancestors also property particulars of plaintiff and her ancestors. He do not verify the property particulars of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule survey number is 419/1 and this total extent Ac.2-43 cents. The plaintiff filed the suit in Sy.No.214/1,
Sy.No.214/1 consisting an extent of Ac.0-36 cents. He do not know how much extent the said Pujari Kondappa is used in Sy.No.420/4 and
Sy.No.419/1. He do not know how much extent the said Pujari
Reddeppa is sold away the plaint schedule property Sy.No.419/1 to the third parties and he never verify those documents. One D.Subbamma and Krishnappa are sold away an extent of Ac.0-12 cents in
Sy.No.419/1 and he verified the registered document. Prior 20 years the Sy.No.420/4 and 419/1 lands are cultivable lands. Since 15 years the Sy.No.420/4 and Sy.No.419/1 were consisting houses and offices, commercial building. Except Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 no other revenue
OS.128/2006 13
documents are stands in the name of the PLV Mohan, Sivakumari, his wife, defendants No.2 and 3. He have no revenue record the said PLV
Mohan, Sivakumari were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also Sy.No.419/1. He have not filed any documents to prove their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and Sy.No.419/1. The plaintiff let out a puncture shop to one Mahesh in the suit schedule property in the year 2005- 2006. They have not taken any steps and also not issued any notices either to PLV Mohan or Sivakumari for alteration of Sy.No.420/4 instead of Sy.No.419/1 to till today. The plaint schedule land is highly increased the present value which was situated adjoined to the National Highway road and they did not issue any notice and also not taken any steps to the plaintiff and her brother Pujari Reddeppa. DW.2 had categorically denied the suggestion that the plaintiff erected some stone pillars towards western side of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff was entitled the plaint schedule property without having any right and tile over the plaint schedule property.
11. The Advocate Commissioner examined as CW.1. He deposed in his chief examination that he was appointed as an Advocate
Commissioner to note down the existing physical features of the petition schedule properties. He have received a memo dt.27.09.2006 from the counsel for the petitioner stating that there is urgency to visit the plaint schedule property due to that he received commission warrant on the same day i.e., on 27.09.2006 and that he visited the petition schedule property on 28.09.2006. The boundaries shown in the petition tallied with the existing boundaries of the petition schedule property. He identified the petition schedule property with the help of
OS.128/2006 14
both the parties during the time of his visit, the respondent No.2 not present and respondent No.3 represented by her son. He received work memo from the counsel for the petitioner. There is no work memo furnished by the respondents. He filed positive photos three in number along with negatives and receipt issued by the photographer and he filed rough sketch under Ex.C1. He filed his report along with positive photos, negatives, receipts and rough sketch along with relevant documents. In his cross examination CW.1 had categorically stated that he was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner to note down the existing physical features of the petition schedule property.
The warrant does not containing the directions to take photographs of petition schedule property. He was not perused any documents on the western boundary holder and eastern boundary holder. He was appointed in I.A. as exparte. CW.1 had categorically denied the suggestion that he was mentioned in his sketch as imaginary boundaries on western side, eastern side at the instructions of the petitioners. There is a foundation laid by R1 in the petition schedule property.
12.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has proved her case with the help of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had further argued that the defendants did not file any document showing that they have never possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to prove her possession and that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The survey number 419/1 mentioned in Ex.B1 to Ex.b4 instead of 420/4 mistakenly. The defendants purchased the
OS.128/2006 15
plaint schedule property and enjoying the same without any objection at any point of time. During the life time of Pujari Kondappa and
D.Venkatrayudu for convenience sake for cultivation used to cultivate both lands as single plot.
13. Issues No.1 and 2:- The initial burden to prove these issues is on the plaintiff. In a suit for permanent injunction of the present kind, the plaintiff has to prove that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also that the defendants have interfered or tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment.
14.A perusal of the record would show that PW.1 categorically stated in her cross examination that she do not know one
D.Venkatarayudu purchased 1/4th share under registered sale deed dt.30.10.1931 in respect of Sy.No.419/1 and Sy.No.420/4, but prove the contest of the defendants. They does not filed any proof registered sale deed dt.30.10.1931. PW.1 further admitted in her cross examination that prior to 10 to 15 years back the suit survey number and Sy.No.419/1 are under cultivation. PW.1 also denied the suggestion that the said P.L.V. Mohan on mistake purchased land in Sy.NO.419/1 instead of purchase land in Sy.No.420/4, but according version of defendants the said P.L.V. Mohan purchase the land under Ex.B1 on 09.02.1987. Ex.B1 clearly disclosed that the Sy.No.419/1, does not disclosed the Sy.No.420/4. The defendants argued that it is only mistakenly mentioned the Sy.No.419/1 instead of Sy.No.420/4, but it is not valid ground without had any other proof of documents. It clearly shows that the said PLV Mohan was never in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Moreover the said PLV Mohan does not take any
OS.128/2006 16
steps to rectify the said mistake from his purchase on 09.02.1987 onwards. Moreover the subsequent purchaser also does not takes any steps to rectify the said mistake under Ex.B2 to Ex.B4. It clearly shows that the defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The registered sale deed dt. 30.10.1931 is the organ of the defendants property, but they did not filed the said documents to prove their version. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are clearly disclosed that the name, extent, possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. The defendants does not filed any proof of documents to prove their version and to discard the documents of
Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. PW.2 also categorically deposed in his cross examination that the suit survey number. PW.2 also denied the suggestion that one Venkatrayudu is cultivating land an extent of Ac.0- 18 cents in Sy.No.420/4, PW.2 also denied the suggestion that one
Reddeppa, son of Kondappa sold away more extent of property to third parties in Sy.No.419/1, PW.2 also denied the suggestion that the defendants purchased the property with specific boundaries but instead of mentioning of Sy.No.420/4 it is mentioned as Sy.No.419/1. PW.2 also further denied the suggestion imposed by the counsel for the defendants. PW.1 categorically deposed in her cross examination that about the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and its extent and suit survey number.
15.The defendant No.2 examined as DW.1. She categorically stated that she know the suit survey number and it is Sy.No.420 and further deposed in her cross examination that she do not know whether the plaintiff filed the suit in Sy.NO.420/4 or not. DW.1 further deposed in her cross examination she cannot say whether the house or vacant
OS.128/2006 17
place are situated on southern side the Abdul Azeez, further stated that there is a mechanic shop is situated in the plaint schedule land, she do not know who gave permission to run the said mechanic shop to whom.
The above deposition of the DW.1, it clearly shows that DW.1 never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. DW.1 categorically admitted in her cross examination that one Mahesh is running a puncture shop in the plaint schedule property and further stated that she do not know the said mechanic shop is running with the permission of the plaintiff as a tenant. If the plaint schedule property is in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants, DW.1 shall question the said Mahesh who gave permission to him to run a puncture shop in the plaint schedule property without permission of the defendants. It clearly shows that the defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. DW.1 further stated in her cross examination that the SY.NO.420/4 and Sy.No.419/1 are situated side by side but she do not know which survey number situated on east side in the above said two survey numbers. It is clearly show that the defendants are not in possession of the plaint schedule property. DW.1 further stated that she know PLV Mohan who was worked as a bank employee and the said PLV Mohan purchased an extent of Ac.0-12 cents in Sy.No.419/1 under Ex.B1 and DW.1 does not deposed that the suit survey number is 420/4. DW1 further stated that after purchase of the property under Ex.B1 by PLV. Mohan, he never enjoyed the same and further admitted in her cross examination that one Poola Sivakumari residing at Hyderabad and after purchase by said
Poola Sivakumari under Ex.B2, she never in possession and enjoyment of the same. DW.1 further stated that she do not know the boundaries
OS.128/2006 18
mentioned in Ex.B3 and Ex.B2 and Ex.B4. DW.1 categorically admitted in her cross examination that the plaintiff filed the suit in Sy.No.420/4 and they purchase the land in Sy.No.419/1. DW.1 further admitted in her cross examination that the plaintiff filed the suit in Sy.No.420/4 and they purchase the land in Sy.No.419/1. Basing on the above said discussion clearly disclosed that the defendants were purchased the land in Sy.No.419/1 and they were never in possession and enjoyment of the Sy.No.420/4 of the plaint schedule property.
16.DW.2 categorically deposed in his cross examination that the suit survey number is 419/1, it shows that he does not know even suit survey number also and further stated that he know the suit survey number it is 214/1. DW.2 also categorically admitted in his cross examination that except Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 no other revenue documents are stands in the name of PLV.Mohan, Sivakumari, DW.1, defendant
No.2 and defendant No.3. DW.2 further admitted in his cross examination that he had not filed any document to prove their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and
SY.No.419/1, DW.2 further stated in his cross examination that he do not know what purpose the advocate commissioner was visit the plaint schedule property. DW.2 also admitted in his cross examination that the plaintiff let out a puncture shop to one Mahesh. DW.2 nothing could be deposed about the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. DW.2 further admitted that they have not taken any steps and also not issued any notices either to PLV Mohan or
Sivakumari for alteration of Sy.No.420/4 instead of Sy.No.419/1 to till today.
OS.128/2006 19
17.Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW.1 and Ex.C1 is marked. He categorically mentioned in his report that the plaintiff and both side parties who were present not disputed about the location land boundaries of the warrant schedule property. Further, the said commissioner filed rough sketch, the boundaries also shown in the said rough sketch the said boundaries are tailed with the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. CW.1 categorically denied the suggestion imposed by the counsel for the defendants as there is a foundation laid by defendant No.1 in the plaint schedule property. Moreover, the rough sketch also does not contained the said foundation. The plaintiff is prove her in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is prove her in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property along with oral and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The defendants are failed to prove their version along with Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. Moreover, the defendants failed to discard the evidence of the plaintiff and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 documents.
The plaintiff to prove the defendants are continuously causing objections to the plaintiff while enjoying the plaint schedule property.
Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants. These issues are, therefore, answered in plaintiff’s favour and against the defendants.
18. Issue No:3:- In view of this court's finding on issues No.1 and 2, this court is of the considered view that the suit is to be decreed with costs.
19. In the result, the plaintiff’s suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction in plaintiff’s favour, restraining the defendants
OS.128/2006 20
and persons claiming through them, from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.III and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of August, 2018.
Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff: - Defendants:-
P.W.1- R.Reddemma. DW.1-M.Uma Devi.
PW.2-P.Sriramulu. DW.2-M.Sreenivasulu.
CW.1 – B.Gopal Reddy.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:-
Ex.A1-Registration copy of settlement deed, dt.20.06.1918, executed by Achakka in favour of Kanugondappa vide document No.790 of 1998.
Ex.A2-Original pattadar pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Molakalacheruvu in favour of plaintiff.
Ex.A3-No.2 Adangal and No.3 pahani issued by the panchayath secretary, Molakalacheruvu Grampanchayath in favour of the plaintiff relating to the schedule property.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants:
Ex.B1-Original registered sale deed dt.09.02.1987, executed by D.Subbamma and D.Krishnappa in favour of P.L.V. Mohan.
Ex.B2-Original registered sale deed dt. 11.05.1988, executed by P.L.V.Mohan in favour of Poola Sivakumari.
Ex.B3- Original registered sale deed dt.08.03.1999, executed by Poola Sivakumari in favour of M.Radhamma, M.Akkulamma and Uma Devi.
Ex.B4-Original registered sale deed dt.08.03.1999, executed by Poola Sivakumari in favour of M.Reddemma, Padmavathamma.
Ex.C1 – Rough sketch.
Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.
OS.128/2006 21
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: THAMBALLAPALLE .
-:O:- Present: Sri J.Anjaiah, Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.
Dated this the 6 th day of August, 2018
O.S.NO. 128 of 2006
Between:-
Rachamalla Reddemma, W/o R.Narasaiah, age: 57 yrs. R/at M.B.T.Road, Molakalacheruvu R.S. Village, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.
… Plaintiff.
And
1.Mallem Radhamma,W/o Venkatramana, age: 44 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.
2.Mallem Uma Devi,W/o Nagaraja, age: 40 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.
3.Mallem Akkulamma,W/o Late Adinarayana, age: 63 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.(Died)
4.Mallem Venkataramana,S/o Late Adinarayana, age: 65 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.
5.Mallem Ravindra,S/o Late Adinarayana, age: 60 yrs. Hindu, R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party)
6.Mallem Sreenivasulu, S/o Late Adinarayana, age: 50 yrs. Hindu,R/at Goddavulakota, H/o Kadirinathunikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party)
7.Mallem Nagaraju,S/o MallemAdinarayana, age: 46 yrs. Hindu, R/at D.No.1-1-47, near Cheque post, Angallu, Kurbalakota Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party)
8.K.Bhagyamma,W/o K.Venugopal, D/o Late Adinaryana, age: 63 yrs. Hindu, R/at near Indian Bank, Massed street, B- Kothakota village, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. (proposed party) As per the Orders in IA.No.248/2016 dt.07.02.2017, the defendants No.4 to 8 are added.
... Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, supporters’ and family members in any way entering into or interfering with the
OS.128/2006 22
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
Plaint presented on :27.09.2006
Plaint filed on :27.09.2006.
Particulars of Valuation
1.Total market value of the suit property is Rs.50,000/-
2.The plaintiff notionally valued for the relief of
Grant of perpetual injunction at Rs. 5,000/-
3.For the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction
The value of the suit is Rs. 5,000/-
C.F. paid thereon U/s. 26 ( C ) of A.P.C.F. Act. Rs. 400/-
The Cause of action for the suit arose about two days back the defendants tried to enter in the suit schedule property by way of dispossess the plaintiff and remove the said wooden bunk in the suit schedule property, de –die –in-diem at Molakalacheruvu Post and
Mandal.
This Original suit coming before me on 01.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Lakshmikanth, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri D.Siddalinga Reddy, Advocate for the defendants
No.1,2,4 to 8 and the suit abated against the defendant No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:
1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction in plaintiff’s favour, restraining the defendants and persons claiming through them, from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2.That the defendants do also pay a sum of Rs.1,147/- to the plaintiff towards the suit costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 6th day of
August , 2018.
Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.
OS.128/2006 23
Statements of costs Plaintiff Defendants
1. Stamp for plaint 400-00 costs memo not filed.
2. Service of process 245-00 Hence, not certified.
3. Advocate fee 500-00
4. Stamp for Vakalath 2-00
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
1,147-00 --
-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
S C H E D U L E
Chittoor District Molakalacheurvu post and Mandal – Land situated in
Sy.No.420/4 – Dry – extent Ac.0-09 cents situated in Molakalacheruvu.
Bounded by:
East – The land of Diyyala Kishta and other.
West – The land of Pujari Reddeppa.
North – M.B.T. Road.
South – The land of Pujuari Ramakrishna and others.
Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.