Fair 1 OS 11 of 2010
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAGTIAL,
KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT
Present: J. Kavitha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.
Tuesday, the 7th day of August, 2018
Original Suit No.11 of 2010
Between:
Chetpelli Sathyamma, W/o Hanmandlu, age: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1496/12, Jagtial Proper and Mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiff
Versus
Avari Srinivas, S/o Rajaveeru, age: 45 years, Occ: Tax practitioner, R/o hH.No.41244/1, Vaninagar, Jagtial Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District. …Defendant
This suit coming on the 24.07.2018 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri S.Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri M.Mahendar, Advocate for defendant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The suit is filed under Section 26 r/w under Order 7 Rule 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by plaintiff against defendant for perpetual injunction in respect of suit property.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.008½ guntas in survey No.322/A, situated at Mothe village of Jagtial
Mandal, which is hereinafter called “suit property.”It is further submitted that the suit property was purchased by plaintiff along with
Manapuri Kalavathi as joint owners from its owner – Jumbarthi
Anjaiah, S/o Narsaiah @ Pallikonda Anjaiah, S/o Hanmaiah under valid consideration through registered sale deed vide document
Fair 2 OS 11 of 2010
No.941/2003, dated 31.03.2003; that one Gummula Laxmi filed a suit vide O.S.No.3 of 2009, on the file of Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil
Judge’s Court, Jagtial against the plaintiff and her partner Kalavathi,
whereas, the matter was settled as compromise before Lok Adalat bench at Jagtial dated 13.02.2009, as per the award para (b), the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and possessor of the suit property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and to substantiate her claim, she filed sale deed, rectification deed, award copy of Lok Adalat along with terms of compromise, pahanies, which show the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and she is absolute owner of the suit property without any interruption.
It is further submitted that the defendants have no right over the suit property and they are trying to interfere with the suit property and on 13.12.2009 they came to the suit property and obstructed plaintiff in her possession and tried to enter into the suit property with an intention to occupy the suit premises. Hence, the suit.
3.Defendant filed writtenstatement.Most of the allegations made in the plaint are denied by the defendant. It is submitted that he is the exclusive owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0 32 guntas in survey No.322/A, situated at Mothe village of Jagtial
Mandal; that he purchased the said land from its owner namely
Chiluka Anjaneyuulu through registered sale deed vide document
No.476/1997 dated 14.03.1997 and also purchased the land to an extent of Ac.105 guntas in survey No.323 through the same sale deed, as there was a discrepancy in the bit of survey No.322, a rectification deed was executed by the owner of land in favour of
Fair 3 OS 11 of 2010 defendant vide registered rectification deed No.1244/2007, dated 25.04.2007, accordingly, the revenue authorities issued title deed and passbook in his favour. Subsequently, he sold the said land of 032 guntas in survey No.322/A in favour of M/s Pushya Mitra Real Estate
Developers and Builders, Jagtial vide registered sale deed document
No.1168/2004 dated 24.04.2004 in turn, it sold 026 guntas of land out of 036 guntas in survey No.322/A in favour of Kundarapu
Rajender, Kundarapu Ravinder, Kundarapu jalander and Kundarapu
Lavanya respectively vide registered sale deed document
No.2582/2007 dated 04.08.2007; that the said K.Rajender and three others have been in possession and enjoyment of 026 guntas of land in survey No.322/A and M/s Pushya Mitra Real Estate Developers and Builders, Jagtial is in possession of 006 guntas of land in survey
No.322/A and that the defendant is one of the partners of M/s
Pushya Mitra Real Estate Developers and Builders, Jagtial and as such he along with other partners have been jointly in possession of the land, to the extent of Ac.006 guntas in survey No.322/A; that the plaintiff by showing 008 ½ guntas of land in survey No.322/A as the land in survey No.322/E, has filed the suit with an intention to occupy the land that was sold by the defendant to M/s Pushya Mitra
Real Estate Developers and Builders, Jagtial. It is further stated that the plaintiff has got no land in survey No.322/A and there is no such land as described in suit property and also that there is no survey
No.322/E recorded in revenue records; that M/s Pushya Mitra Real
Estate Developers and Builders, Jagtial and K.Rajender and three others are proper and necessary parties to the suit land, they have been in possession and enjoyment of 032 guntas of land in survey
No.322/A and the plaintiff has no extent of land in same survey
Fair 4 OS 11 of 2010 number. It is submitted that the defendant has no knowledge of the suit vide O.S.No.3 of 2009, on the file of Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil
Judge’s Court, Jagtial and any compromise before Lok Adalat Bench.
It is further submitted that the plaintiff filed two documents executed by two different persons and they do not confer any right on the plaintiff and J.Narsaiah has not adopted P.Anjaiah at any time and the documents filed by plaintiff are fabricated and P.Anjaiah or
J.Anjaiah has no title nor any interest in the lands described in the sale deed dated 31.03.2003 and the plaintiff has not stated the measurement of the suit property anywhere in the suit. Therefore, the defendant prays the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction, as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
5.Heard both sides.
6.The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced P.W.2 to
P.W.5 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11. On the other hand, the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and produced D.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.19.
ISSUE NO.1:
7.This is a case with a prayer merely seeking relief of perpetual injunction. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the ingredients to be proved by plaintiff are i) lawful possession of suit property by the
Fair 5 OS 11 of 2010 plaintiff as on suit date, ii) cause of action to file the suit. If these two ingredients are proved, then the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. It is very much necessary to mention here that proving mere possession is not sufficient for plaintiff, he has to prove his LAWFUL possession and interference by defenant. To prove the same, plaintiff relied on his evidence as PW1. As per the suit schedule property, it is shown as Ac.008½guntas of land in survey No. 322/E with specific boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule. As such the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that she is in possession of literally Ac.008½guntas in survey No. 322/E specifically with specific boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule. But if we go through the contents of the plaint and chief examination of PW1, she categorically stated that she along with
Manapuri Kalavathi had jointly purchased the suit property from its owner Jumbarthi Anjaiah S/o Narsaiah @ Pallikonda Anjaiah S/o
Hanmaiah under valid consideration through registered sale deed document No. 941/2003 dated 3132003 and later one Gummula
Laxmi filed O.S.3/2009 against herself and Kalavathi and the later the same was settled as compromise before the LokAdalath Bench on 1322009 as per which she is the exclusive owner and possessor of suit land.
8.The contention of defendant is that he is the exclusive owner and possessor of Ac.032guntas of land in survey No. 322/A and
Ac.105guntas in survey No. 323 having purchased through sale deed 476/1997 dated 1431997 from Chiluka Anjaneyulu and further since there was discrepancy in the bit of survey No. 322, a rectification deed document No. 1244/2007 dated 2542007 was
Fair 6 OS 11 of 2010 executed by his vendor and that subsequently he sold Ac.032guntas of land in survey No. 322/A in favor of M/s. Pushya Mitra Real Estate
Developers & Builders, Jagtial vide registered sale deed document No.
1168/2004 dated 2442004 who in turn sold Ac.026guntas of land to Kundarapu Rajender, Kundarapu Ravinder, Kundarapu Jalander and Kundarapu Lavanya vide document No. 2582/2007 dated 48 2007 while Pushya Mitra Real Estate and Developers & Builders in which he is one of the partner is in possession of remaining extent of
Ac.006guntas. He further contended that the plaintiff shown the land in survey No. 322/A as the land in survey No. 322/E and the plaintiff has got no land in survey No. 322/A and there is no such land as described in the suit property.
9.Coming to the documents produced by the plaintiff as PW1,
Ex.A1 is the sale deed document No. 941/2003 executed by one
Pallikonda Anjaiah S/o Hanmaiah in favor of plaintiff and one
Manapuri Kalavathi in respect of Ac.017½ guntas in different survey numbers including the suit land and the boundaries are mentioned to the entire said extent. Ex.A2 is the deed of rectification deed document No. 1566/2008 dated 122008 duly changing the name of surname of vendor and his father‘s name as Jumbarthi Anjaiah S/o
Late Narsaiah. The reason given for change is mentioned in the said rectification deed that his vendor is adoptive son of Jumbarthi
Narsaiah vide adoption deed on 2321978 executed on Rs.10/ stamp paper and that his vendor acquired the property in Ex.A1 after the death of Jumbarthi Narsaiah on 131980 out of such adoption.
However, no such adoption deed is produced by the plaintiff before this court or any revenue proceedings duly recording his vendor’s
Fair 7 OS 11 of 2010 succession from Jumbarthi Narsaiah in respect of properties in Ex.A1 is produced. If we peruse Ex.A1 and A2, the photograph of vendor appearing therein in both the documents is not one and the same.
Further, the signature of vendor in Ex.A1 and A2 should be same in respect of name i.e. Anjaiah since only his surname in Ex.A1 is got rectified under Ex.A2 but the signatures in Ex.A1 and A2 are not matching at all and entirely looking different with one another. Ex.A3 is the Award of Lok Adalath dated 322009 in O.S.3/2008 filed by one Gummula Laxmi against the plaintiff herein and Kalavathi/co purchaser under Ex.A1 wherein the plaintiff therein i.e. Gummula
Laxmi and Kalavathi had stated that they have no right, title or interest in or over the suit schedule properties therein i.e. properties as reflected in Ex.A1 herein which includes the suit property. It is further admitted by the plaintiff therein that the order of Revenue
Divisional Officer in File No. B/1270/2007 dated 9102007/Ex.A11 is correct and binding on her and that the Revision petition filed by her before the District Collector in File No. D/1513/2008 against the orders of RDO shall stands dismissed. It is further admitted that the
Gift settlement deed bearing No. 706/2005 dated 1432005 executed by Jumbarthi Narsaiah S/o Narsaiah in favor of plaintiff therein i.e.
Gummula Laxmi shall stand as cancelled and not enforceable in law at any point of time. It is further mentioned in the said award that plaintiff herein had paid an amount of Rs.50,000/ to Gummula
Laxmi i.e. plaintiff in O.S.3/2008. As per Ex.A2, it is mentioned therein that Jumbarthi Narsaiah who is alleged to have adopted the vendor of plaintiff under Ex.A1 died on 131980 but however, it is mentioned in Ex.A3 award that gift deed in favor of Gummula Laxmi (Plaintiff in O.S.3/2008) was executed by Jumbarthi Narsaiah on 14
Fair 8 OS 11 of 2010 32005. That means, the alleged mentioning in Ex.A2 that the father of vendor of plaintiff died leaving behind his adopted son i.e. vendor of plaintiff in Ex.A2 is totally false and the alleged adoption deed is also appears to be concocted. However, defendant is not a party to the proceedings under Ex.A3 and hence the same is not binding on the defendant. Even, the rectification deed appears to have been brought into existence after filing of Revision petition and suit in O.S.2/2008 by Gummula Laxmi being aggrieved by the orders of RDO. Even if really, the suit land including other lands claimed by Gummula Laxmi by filing O.S.No. 3/2008 against the plaintiff and her copurchaser, it is not known as to why the plaintiff got compromised the matter and did not contest the suit basing on his alleged sale deed under Ex.A1 claiming his rights over the suit property. Further, the plaintiff even did not take steps for declaration of her title basing on Ex.A1 and A2 and simply relying on the terms of compromise in O.S.3/2008 to perfect her right, title and possession.
10.Ex.A8 is the panchanama dated 122011 which shows that a survey has been conducted in respect of entire survey No. 322 for an extent of Ac.211guntas to fix the boundaries and a location sketch was prepared. When the court perused the said document, it no way reflects that the Mandal Surveyor has identified and surveyed the suit land and demarcated it. Ex.A8 only shows that survey No. 322 has been identified with tippons and it was surveyed by preparing panchanama. Even the defendant did not dispute the existence of survey No. 322 and disputed the existence of suit survey No. 322/E.
In fact this panchanama and sketch under Ex.A8 does not reflect the existence of suit survey number as claimed by the plaintiffs, as such
Fair 9 OS 11 of 2010
Ex.A8 is of no help to the plaintiff to prove their alleged lawful possession of suit land as claimed by plaintiff.
11Ex.A4 is the pahani for the year 200506 showing Gummula
Laxmi as pattedar and possessor of Ac.008 ½ guntas in survey No.
322/E i.e. suit land. Further Ex.A5 is the pahani for the year 2006 07 issued by VRO showing the same particulars as in Ex.A4 and again Ex.A6 is the pahani for the year 200809 issued by VRO showing the plaintiff and one Kalavathi i.e. copurchaser under Ex.A1 as pattedar and possessor of Ac.004 ½ guntas each. Ex.A7 is the attested copy of sale deed document No. 1288/1995 dated 2141995 executed by one Kolagani Rajam S/o Mallaiah in favor vendor of defendant i.e. Chiluka Anjaneyulu alienating Ac.015guntas each in survey No. 323/A and 323/E and Ac.032guntas in survey No.
322/AA wherein the specific boundaries for each extent of property is mentioned separately. This even proves the title of vendor’s vendor of defendant over the property purchased by defendant in suit survey number 322/A as alleged by him. Ex.A9 is the pahani for the year 200910 showing the plaintiff and Manapuri Kalavathi as pattedars and possessors of Ac.004 ¼ guntas each in survey No. 322/E i.e.
suit land. Ex.A10 is the adungal pahani for the fasli 1425 showing the same particulars as in Ex.A9. Ex.A11 is the proceedings of the
RDO in case No. B/1270/2007 dated 1122008 filed by the plaintiff and her copurchaser under Ex.A1 against Gummula Laxmi. After going through the said proceedings, the plaintiff and her copurchaser
Manapuri Kalavathi claimed to have purchased Ac.006guntas in
Sy.No. 320/C, Ac.003guntas in survey No. 321/D and Ac.0 08½guntas in survey No. 322/C which is not at all matching with the
Fair 10 OS 11 of 2010 suit survey number i.e. 322/E. The plaintiff requested for rectification of the wrong entries made in the revenue records i.e.
village pahanies from the year 198182 in respect of survey No. 320/C and also for cancellation of succession granted in favor of Gummula
Laxmi. It is not known as to why the plaintiff is taking pains to prove the title of his vendor after purchase under Ex.A1. However, there is no single document to show the possession of vendor of plaintiff over the suit land being succeeded from his alleged father Jumbarti
Narsaiah as mentioned in Ex.A2.
12.All the documents produced by plaintiff are subsequent to her alleged sale deed under Ex.A1 and it is clearly evident that basing on
Ex.A3 compromise award, the plaintiff tried to perfect her title and possession over the suit land. Among the documents filed by the plaintiff, there is no single document which could prove the said contention of PW1 that originally his vendor Pallikonda Anjaiah @
Jumbarthi Anjaiah had succeeded the suit land from his father
Narsaiah. Further, the plaintiff had not produced any single piece of evidence to show that his vendor was the owner and possessor of suit land so that his vendor had valid title to execute Ex.A1 in favor of plaintiff.
13.The plaintiff in her plaint gave the boundaries of suit land as reflected in Ex.A1. She even deposed the same boundaries to suit land as in Ex.A1 in her cross examination stating that the defendant sold his land towards southern side to third parties. However, under
Ex.A1, plaintiff alleged to have purchased three different bits of properties in three different survey numbers, one among which is the suit property and the boundaries are shown to the entire extent of
Fair 11 OS 11 of 2010
Ac.017½guntas including the suit land. If we assume even if the property in different survey numbers including the suit land was purchased by plaintiff as one compact block under Ex.A1, atleast one of the boundary for suit land would become her own land or her alleged purchaser in other survey number. She did not whisper as to when and how she sold the other properties as reflected in Ex.A1. No explanation whatsoever is given by the plaintiff for showing the same boundaries to different properties under Ex.A1 as well to suit land which is a part of property in Ex.A1. She further says Kalavathi, her copurchaser under Ex.A1 is her sisterinlaw and the suit filed by one
Gummula Laxmi was compromised by her. Further she admits that she does not know whether any amount was paid by her husband to get the suit compromised and that the suit land in that case was
Ac.008 ½ guntas. The plaintiff relied on only certain portion of terms of compromise stating that plaintiff therein i.e. Gummula Laxmi agreed that the suit land Ac.008 ½ guntas belongs to plaintiff herein and simply pleaded ignorance of other contents of terms of compromise. If really, the alleged sale deeds under Ex.A1 and A2 are true and were got executed from proper vendor/owner, why the plaintiff did not take any steps for cancellation of alleged gift deed executed subsequent to Ex.A1 in favor Gummula Laxmi and what is the necessity for the plaintiff to compromise the suit filed by
Gummula Laxmi.
14.All the documents produced by the plaintiff are subsequent to her alleged sale deed under Ex.A1. No document whatsoever is produced by the plaintiff to show that her alleged vendor under Ex.A2 is in possession of suit land at any point of time. Thus, it is clear that basing on the compromise award under Ex.A3, the plaintiff is trying
Fair 12 OS 11 of 2010 to prove her title and possession which is not at all considered in view of the above discussion. The alleged vendor of plaintiff under
Ex.A1/A2 is not at all examined by the plaintiff. This itself reflects the malafides of the plaintiff in representing the matter before the court.
15.Since this is a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff could have filed the ROR proceedings showing her vendor’s succession of suit land and other lands from Jumbarthi Narsaiah as alleged in
Ex.A2 rectification deed to prove prima facie her contention that she along with one Kalavathi purchased the said property according to her case. That apart, the court also noticed that there are boundaries given in suit schedule property. There is no single document from among Ex.A1 to A11 which reflects the suit property with specific boundaries as mentioned by the plaintiff in the suit schedule. When there is a specific prayer by the plaintiff more speaking in a prayer of equity, she has to prove by an important evidence that she is in possession of suit schedule property lawfully as on the suit date.
There is no single document among the documents filed by the plaintiff from Ex.A1 to A11 to show her lawful possession over the suit land as on the date of suit. Even the pahanies Ex.A9 and A10 also do not show the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and she is shown as pattedar and possessor of Ac.00425guntas while her copurchaser under Ex.A1 to an extent of Ac.00425guntas. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff is trying to validate her sale deed under Ex.A1 basing on Ex.A3 Lok Adalath award which is subsequent to Ex.A1.
Further, the said copurchaser under Ex.A1 is not at all examined by the plaintiff in support of her case.
16.Plaintiff got examined her husband as PW2. He supported the
Fair 13 OS 11 of 2010 case of plaintiff in his chief examination. He denied the case of defendant suggested to him. He admits that Ex.A2 was prepared by
B. Shankaraiah Advocate who is also counsel for his wife in
O.S.3/2008 filed by Gummula Laxmi. He further admits that one K.
Venkateswar Rao Advocate was counsel for Gummula Laxmi and the said civil case was compromised as Gummula Laxmi gave her right in favor of plaintiff and Kalavathi and award was passed accordingly.
PW2 is also trying to derive the right, title and possession of plaintiff over the suit land basing on the compromise which is not at all binding upon the defendant in this specific case when defendant is not at all a party to the said compromise. Hence, the evidence of PW2 is not at helpful for the plaintiff to prove her case.
17.PW3 who is resident of Govindulapalle Village supported the case of plaintiff in his chief examination. But strangely in cross examination, he says that he sold the land to Pallikonda Anjaiah @
Jumbarthi Anjaiah/vendor of plaintiff who in turn sold the same to the plaintiff and Kalavathi. Even this is not the case of plaintiff herself. PW3 himself stated in chief examination that Pallikonda
Anjaiah went to adoption long back to Jumbarthi Narsaiah but however in cross examination, he says he does not know the name of
Pallikonda @ Jumbarthi Anjaiah. Thus, it is clear that PW3 does not know the facts of the case but however gave evidence at the instance of plaintiff.
18.The vendor’s son of plaintiff is examined as PW4 who filed his chief affidavit stating that the plaintiff and one M. Kalavathi had
Fair 14 OS 11 of 2010 purchased the lands including the suit land under Ex.A1 from his father Jumbarthi @ Pallikonda Anjaiah who is adopted son of
Jumbarthi Narsaiah. In the cross examination, he admitted that defendant purchased land from Chiluka Anjaneyulu on the southern side of suit land but denied that defendant purchased Ac.032guntas of land in survey No. 322/A under registered sale deed document No.
496/1997/Ex.B12 dated 1431997. However, the vendor’s title is proved by the document produced by plaintiff itself under Ex.A7. No document whatsoever is produced by PW4 to show that his father went to adoption as alleged by him and that suit land succeeded to his father out of such adoption.
19.The son of PW3 is examined as PW5 who admitted in the cross examination that their land is towards the southern side of the suit land and they sold the same to one Chilukula Anjaneyulu who in turn sold the same to defendant and that the defendant further sold the land to real estate company. He further stated that the land of plaintiff is in survey Nos. 320, 321 and 322/E but however, no document whatsoever is produced by the plaintiff to show her possession or her vendor’s possession as on execution of sale deed under Ex.A1. The plaintiff neither examined any of the villagers where the suit land is situated nor neighbouring land owners of suit land.
20.Coming to the documents produced by the defendant, Ex.B1 to
B18 are pahanies, sale deeds and mutation proceedings showing the flow of title and possession in respect of Ac.322/A in survey No. 0 32guntas from vendor of defendant to defendant and later on to different individuals who are in possession of their respective bits of
Fair 15 OS 11 of 2010 lands. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of DW1 that there is existence of suit survey no. 322/E. It was simply suggested to DW1 that the land in Sy.No. 322/A is wrongly shown in Sy.No.
322/E and thereby he is claiming the suit land and the same was denied by DW1. If that is so, as per the documents and evidence of
DW1, the land of Ac.032guntas in survey No. 322/A was already alienated by DW1 in favor of M/s. Pushya Mitra Real Estate
Developers & Builders in the year 2004 itself and they again alienated the same to different subsequent purchasers in the year 2007 who are in possession of their respective extents. That means as on the date of filing of the suit in the year 2010, even the defendant was not in possession of land in Sy.No. 322/A. When the defendant has no land in survey No. 322/A, there is no necessity for him to wrongly show the land in survey No. 322/A as land in survey No 322/E. DW1 admits that Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 pahanies show Jambarthi Narsaiah as pattedar and possessor of Ac.008 ½ guntas in survey No. 322/E i.e.
suit land and Ex.B17 Gift settlement deed clearly shows that the said
Jumbarthi Narsaiah had gifted the said land in favor of his only daughter i.e Gummula Laxmi (plaintiff in O.S.3/2008) in the year 2005 and so as on date of execution of Ex.A1 in the year 2003, the vendor of plaintiff is not at all in possession of suit property. The court do not want to discuss whether Gummula Laxmi can unilaterally cancel the gift deed through compromise or not since this is not the issue in this case.
21.DW2, who is one of the partner of M/s. Pushya Mitra Real
Estate Developers and Builders supported the case of defendant in his chief examination. In the cross examination he says their firm
Fair 16 OS 11 of 2010 purchased land of Ac.137guntas in survey No. 322 and 323 from the defendant in the year 2004. He further admits that the said firm had no land except Ac.006guntas in the year 2007 and he even gave the boundaries of the said land. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of DW2 in favor of plaintiff but however, it is clear that the defendant had alienated his land in survey No. 322/A in favor of said firm in the year 2004 itself and there is no necessity for claiming the suit land as his land in survey No. 322/A.
22.DW3 who is alleged to have land in survey No. 349 supported the case of defendant in his chief examination. In the cross examination, he even says that the defendant sold away his land in survey No. 322/A to an extent of Ac.032guntas in favor of real estate firm and that the suit land is in 34 bits of land belonged to Goli
Devaiah, Goud Venkati, Naini Narsaiah, Bheemalla Rajamma. Thus, the defendant had proved his case by producing sufficient oral and documentary evidence.
23.Here, in this case, plaintiff has failed to establish how her predecessors in title got the right and possession over the suit schedule property. Her reference that her vendor Jumbarthi @
Pallikonda Anjaiah succeeded the suit land as adopted son of
Jumbarthi Narsaiah and that the said Jumbarthi Anjaiah who became the absolute owner and possessor by virtue of said succession had sold the property in favour of plaintiff is not coming even incidentally before this court. Also, the donee under Ex.B17 gift deed had legally got cancelled the gift deed executed in her favor to validate
Ex.A1 and A2 is not convincingly established before this court more
Fair 17 OS 11 of 2010 particularly now the contention is that the defendant is wrongly claiming the suit land as his land in survey No. 322/A. How the same happened is not explained. This court is more concerned with the lawful possession of the plaintiff which she failed to establish. There is no material before this court in that regard. No single document is produced by plaintiff to show that she is in exclusive possession of suit land at any point of time.
24.That how the plaintiff is exercising her possessory rights apart from Ex.A1 to A3 is not clear and there is no document to substantiate the same. Therefore this court holds that the plaintiff is failing to establish her lawful possession over the suit schedule property and for that reason, she is not entitled for any indulgence from this court and not entitled for any relief much less the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed by her. Accordingly, issue answered.
25.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of August, 2018.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
JAGTIAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: P.W.1. Chetpelli Sathyamma, P.W.2. Chetpalli Hanmandlu, P.W.3. Kolagani Rajam, P.W.4. Pallikonda @ Jumbarthi Srinivas, P.W.5. Kolagani Buchanna.
FOR THE DEFENDANT: D.W.1. Avari Srinivas, D.W.2. Gourishety Bale Prasad, D.W.3. Kolagani Anjanna.
Fair 18 OS 11 of 2010
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1.Original registered sale deed vide document No.941/2003,
dated 31.03.2003.
Ex.A.2.Original deed of rectification vide document no.1566/2008,
dated 17.05.2008.
Ex.A.3.Lok Adalat Award passed by Lok Adalat Bench, along with terms of compromise dated 03.02.2009 in O.S.No.3/2009, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Jagtial.
Ex.A.4.Certified copy of pahani for the year 200506 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial.
Ex.A.5.Copy of pahani for the year 200607 issued by VRO, Mothe (marked under objection by the defence counsel).
Ex.A.6.Copy of pahani for the year 200809 issued by VRO, Mothe (marked under objection by the defence counsel).
Ex.A.7.CC of sale deed document No.1288, dated 21.04.1995. Ex.A.8.CC of Manday Surveyor Report, dated 01.12.2011 along with sketch map. Ex.A.9.CC of pahani for the year 200910.
Ex.A.10 Mee Seva pahani fasli No.1425. Ex.A.11 Attested copy of proceedings of RDO, Jagtial vide case No.3/1270/2007, dated 11.02.2008.
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.B.1.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 199798 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial. Ex.B.2.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 199899 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandasl and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial.
Ex.B.3.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 19992000 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial. Ex.B.4.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200001 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial.
Ex.B.5.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200102 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial. Ex.B.6.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200203 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial.
Ex.B.7.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200304 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial.
Fair 19 OS 11 of 2010
Ex.B.8.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200405 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial.
Ex.B.9.Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200506 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial. Ex.B.10 Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200708 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial.
Ex.B.11 Copy of pahani patrik for the year 200809 issued by VRO, Mothe village of Jagtial mandal and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial. Ex.B.12 Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.476/97, dated 14.03.1997, on the file of SRO, Jagtial. Ex.B.13 Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.1168/04, dated 24.04.2004, on the file of SRO, Jagtial. Ex.B.14 Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.2582/2007, dated 04.08.2007, on the file of SRO, Jagtial.
Ex.B.15 Certified copy of registered rectification deed bearing document No.1244/2007, dated 25.04.2007, on the file of SRO, Jagtial. Ex.B.16 Certified copy of registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.3945/2010, dated 07.07.2010. Ex.B.17 Certified copy of registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.706/2005, dated 14.03.2005, on the file of SRO, Jagtial.
Ex.B.18 Original mutation proceedings vide Pro.No.B/1585/2008,
dated 17.10.2008 (marked subject to proving of the
document during course of trial since the document does not bear the official office seal of Tahsildar, Jagtial).
Ex.B.19 True copy of abstract of pattadar passbook, issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Jagtial.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
JAGTIAL.
Fair 20 OS 11 of 2010