Fair1 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
AT JAGTIAL.
PRESENT: MS.JUTTUR NIHARIKA
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
JAGTIAL.
Monday, the 20th day of February, 2023
O.S . NO.165 OF 2017
Between:- Bandari Gangaiah, S/o. Bhoomaiah, age 43 years, Business, R/o. Ayodya village of Raikal mandal, Jagtial district.
...Plaintiff.
And
Molugori Raji, W/o. Vijay Kumar, age 40 years, House hold, R/o. H.No.3- 4-137, Chinthakunta wada, Jagtial proper and mandal, Jagtial district.
...Defendant.
Claim:- Suit for Perpetual Injunction
This suit is coming on 31.01.2023before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkateshwar Rao, Learned Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Ch. Laxman, Learned Advocate for Defendant and upon hearing arguments stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
: J U D G M E N T:
1.This is a suit filed by Plaintiff under Order IV and VII r/w. Sec.26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, supporters, relatives and all her men from causing illegal interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit land i.e. open plot bearing H.No.4-3-16/2/B/3 in
Sy.no.1401, admeasuring 211.50 sq.yards, situated at Jagtial mandal of
Jagtial district.
Fair2 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017
2.Case of the plaintiff:-
Plaintiff submits that, she is exclusive owner and possessor of an open plot house bearing H.No.4-3-16/2/B/3, in Sy.no.1401 admeasuring 211.50 sq.yards, situated at Jagtial which is herein after referred as suit schedule property. Plaintiff submits that he purchased the suit schedule property from its original owner Jilla Venu under registered sale deed document No.1484 of 2016, dt.17.03.2016 for valid consideration and accordingly the possession of suit schedule property was also delivered to plaintiff on the date of his purchase. Plaintiff submits that he got mutated his name in revenue records vide mutation proceeding No.
8300/310/2016, dt.18.04.2016, on the file of Tahsildar, Jagtial and also in Municipal records vide mutation proceeding No.A1/171/2016, dt.18.05.2016. The plaintiff submits that ever since the date of purchase of suit schedule property he has been continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. Plaintiff submits that he has filed original registered sale deed, mutation proceedings and all relevant documents to substantiate his ownership and possession over suit schedule property.
3.It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant who is stranger to the suit schedule property without having any right or possession over the suit property, tried to cause illegal interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit land. Plaintiff submits that on 05.08.2017, the defendant along with her supporters again
Fair3 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 interfered into the peaceful possession of plaintiff, however, the plaintiff with a great difficulty could resist the illegal interference of defendant with great difficulty. Plaintiff apprehends dispossession over suit schedule property by the defendant as such such plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interference into peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence this suit.
4. Case of the defendant:
Defendant filed written statement denying ownership and possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property. It is denied by the defendant that plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property having purchased the same from its original owner by name Jilla Venu under registered sale deed doc.no. 1484 of 2016, dt. 17.03.2016 and further denied that plaintiff got mutated his name vide proceeding No.
8300/310/2016, dt. 18.04.2016 in revenue records and also in Municipal records vide proc No.A1/171/2016, dt:18-05-2016 in respect of suit property and also denied the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property. Defendant submits that no such cause of arose for filing the suit and date of cause of action mentioned in the plaint is imaginary.
5.The defendant submits the following facts. It is submitted by the defendant that she is exclusive owner and possessor of open plot bearing VLT No. 4-3-16/2/B/2 in Sy.no.1401 an extent of 230-00 sq.yards situated at Jagtial i.e. suit schedule property. The defendant submits that herself and one Myakala Buchamma together purchased the the
Fair4 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 suit property from its original owner by name Mangi Ravinder under registered sale document No. 1413/2006, dt. 26.05.2006 of SRO, Jagtial, with delivery of possession. The defendant submits that subsequently
Myakala Buchamma relinquished her share in favour of this defendant by executing release deed bearing document No. 4092/2008, dt.11.12.2008. Defendant further submits that she got mutated her name in Municipal records vide mutation VLT No.4-3-16/2/B/2 dt: 16-10- 2014. The defendant further submits that ever since the date of purchase and the release deed executed by Myakala Buchamma defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Defendant submits that plaintiff got nominal sale deed document executed by his vendor Jilla Venu and trying to interference into peaceful possession of defendant over suit schedule property.
Defendant further submits that several panchayaths were conducted
before elders that with Jilla Venu in respect of suit land in the said
panchayath elders resolved that Jilla Venu is not having any right in respect of suit land and that the suit land belongs to the defendant.
Defendant further submits that thereafter Jilla Venu never came to the suit land but got executed a false document in the name of plaintiff and that the plaintiff started interfering into the possession of defendant land. Defendant submits that she also constructed basement around the boundary of suit land purchased by her. The defendant submits that plaintiff is never in possession of suit property and that the defendant is in possession of the suit land ever since date of purchase. As such
Fair5 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 prayed this Court to dismiss the suit.
5.Basing on the above rival pleadings, this court has framed the following issues;
1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as on the date of filing of this suit ?
2. Whether the defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction against defendant ?
4. To what relief?
6. Evidence on record:
Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1, and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 also examined PW.2 and PW.3. On behalf of the defendant she herself examined as DW.1 and one Chikkula Bhoomaiah, Mangi Ravinder,
Jumbarthi Narsamma, Desaveni Lavanya and Suddala Laxman were examined as Dws. 2 to 6 respectively and got marked Ex.B1 to B9.
7. ISSUE NO. 1 and 2:-
In a suit for injunction simplicitor so as to restrain a third party from interference into a suit schedule immovable property, the jurisdiction of the Court is a limited in nature. In other words, the duty of the Court is to ascertain the plaintiff’s right of possession with reasonable certainty if not with an unimpeachable title. But not to undertake an all encompassing and comprehensive inquiry and thereby decides the title. Of course, though title can be looked into, it’s only as incidental measure. Thus, it is only a matter of verification so as to confirm the right of possession.
Fair6 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017
8. To put it clearly, when the defendant to the suit sets up his own title and it is premised on a legally recognized instrument of conveyance or any other equally recognized manner of right viz., inheritance, a cloud is said to have been caused on the title of the plaintiff. In such scenario, the Court shall not determine the plaintiff and thereby adjudicate the claim caused in a suit for injunction simplicitor. Instead, the plaintiff shall go for a comprehensive suit for declaration title and the consequential relief of injunction. In case, he is out of possession, the plaintiff shall necessarily file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. This was the authoritative proposition and guidance of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.
Buchireddy (dead) By Lrs.& Ors: AIR2008SC2033 at para 11 to
14. For ready reference, it is ideal to extract relevant paras:
11. Where the plaintiff is is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession of not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff’s title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person’s title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party
Fair7 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by the documents. If a trespassers without any claim to title or an interloper without apparent title, merely denied the plaintiff’s title, it does not amount to rising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and suit for injunction may be sufficient.
Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespassers or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which rises a serious disputes or cloud over plaintiff title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively he may with draw the suit for bear injunction, with permission of the Court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction and he may file for the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
13. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfered and such lawful possession.
Where the property is a willing or willing with appurtenant land there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may sue physical or lawful possession, either or himself or by him through his family members or agents, or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as per example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.
14. But what if the property is a vacant side which is not physically
Fair8 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 possessed, used or enjoyed? In such a cases principle is that possession follow up title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the
Court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where Court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the Court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs”.
9. In the light of settled proposition of law let us examine the facts and evidence of present case. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is owner and possessor of suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed Document No. 1484 of 2016 and got mutated his name in revenue records and as well as Municipal Records vide proceedings No.8300/310/2016, dt.18.04.2016 and proceeding
No.A1/171/2016, dt.18.05.2016 respectively and that he is in possession of suit schedule property ever since the date of purchase. Whereas the defendant is stranger to the suit schedule property started interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property and in spite of resistance made by the plaintiff, the defendant continued her
Fair9 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 illegal interference as such plaintiff filed the present suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction. On the other hand, defendant filed written statement denying the purchase and possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property and also denied the alleged interference of the defendant into suit schedule property and submitted the following facts.
The defendant submits that she is exclusive owner and possessor of suit schedule property having purchased the same from its original owner
Mangi Ravinder under registered sale deed document No.1413/2006 which was jointly purchased by this defendant along with Myakala
Buchamma. The defendant further submits that subsequently Myakala
Buchamma relinquished her right in respect of her share in the property in favour of defendant under registered release deed document
No.4092/2008 and thus defendant has become absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.no.1401 to an extent of 230-00 sq.yards situated at Jagtial shivar i.e. suit schedule property herein and subsequently got mutated her name in Municipal records VLT No. 4-3-16/2/B/2. The defendant also submits that one Jilla Venu interfered into her peaceful possession over suit land basing on false documents, as such panchayath was conducted before elders, and in the said panchayath conducted by elders it was held that Jilla Venu is not having any right over the open plot bearing VLT No. 4-3-16/2/B/2 in Sy.no.1401 to an extent of 230 Sq.yards and that the land belongs to defendant. It is submitted by the defendant that the Jilla Venu knowing about the fact that he is not having any right over suit schedule property got executed
Fair10 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 nominal sale deed doc no.1484 of 2016 in favour of plaintiff without having any manner of right or title.
10.Plaintiff in this case got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 besides also got examined PW.2 and PW.3. On the other hand defendant herself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 o Ex.B5, besides got examined DW.2 to DW.6. The oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is in similar lines to plaint pleadings, testifying the facts that plaintiff that
PW.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the documentary evidence relied by him are Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed
Doc.No.1484/2016, dt.17.03.2016 under which plaintiff is claiming ownership and possession over suit schedule property. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are original mutation proceedings issued by the revenue and Municipal authorities by mutating the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property, and Ex.A2 is the original ownership certificate, standing in the name of plaintiff. Further Ex.A5 is the Original Sale deed document
No.4717/2012, dt.13.09.2012 which is standing in the name of vendor of plaintiff i.e. Jilla Venu, Ex.A6 is the original sale deed document No. 813 of 1997 standing in the name of Katkam Nagaraju who is vendor’s vendor of plaintiff. Ex.A7 to Ex.A9 are Property Tax receipts issued in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
11. Pws.1 to 3 were cross examined at length by learned counsel for defendant, but there were no contradictory answers elicited in their
Fair11 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 cross examination. Furthermore, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is in corroboration with each other deposing that plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. Most of the allegations put to Pws.1 to 3 are suggestions regarding the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property which were denied by these witnesses. As seen from the oral evidence of PW.1 with the co-joint reading of documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of his claim, shows that plaintiff purchased suit schedule property under Ex.A1 sale deed. The point to be noted here that it is not in dispute by plaintiff and defendant that originally E. Narsinga Rao was original pattedar of land in Sy.no.1401.
To support his contention as to ownership of E.Narsinga Rao, plaintiff got marked Ex.A6 sale deed, which shows that the original pattedar as
E. Narsinga Rao in respect of Sy.No.1401 and he executed registered sale deed in favour of Katkam Nagaraju in respect of suit Sy.no.1401 to an extent of 211 square yard, Further Ex.A5 reflects that, the said
Katkam Nagaraju alienated land in favour of plaintiff’s vendor Jilla
Venu, thereafter Jilla Venu alienated land to plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property under Ex.A1 i.e. original sale deed doc no.1484 of 2016.
12.From the above plaintiff could show the flow of title from original pattedar to him in respect of suit schedule property with the help of
Ex.A6, Ex.A5 and Ex.A1. It is the contention of plaintiff that after purchasing the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 registered sale deed
Fair12 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 he got mutated his name in revenue and municipal records which is evident from Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 mutation proceedings. Further to substantiate the claim of possession plaintiff also got marked Ex.A7 to
Ex.A9 i.e. property tax receipts standing in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Thus from Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 plaintiff attempted to establish his ownership and possession over suit schedule property.
13.Whereas the possession of of plaintiff over suit schedule property is vehemently denied by the defendant and as the plaintiff could establish his purchase from Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 the onus now shifts upon to the defendant to disprove the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property. The defendant in this case have taken the plea that she along with Myakala Buchamma jointly purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed and subsequently Myakala Buchamma relinquished her share in favour of the defendant under release deed and defendant also denied the the alleged interference over the suit schedule property submitting that plaintiff is not in possession of suit property at any point of time and that suit schedule property is in her possession.
14.To support the contention of the defendant, defendant herself got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 besides also got examined DW.2 to DW.6. The oral evidence of DW.1 to DW.6 is in corroboration with each other as all the witnesses deposed that
Fair13 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 defendant is in possession of suit schedule property since the date of purchase and that plaintiff was never in possession was the same. DW.1 to DW.6 were cross examined by the learned counsel for plaintiff at length but there are no contradictory answers elicited from the cross examination to DW.1 to DW.6 As the plaintiff to support his claim of possession over suit schedule property relied on documentary evidence and as the onus now shifted upon to the defendant to disprove the possession of plaintiff over the suit property, oral evidence of defendant witnesses alone is not sufficient as such it would be proper to look into the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants to see whether the possession of plaintiff over suit property was disproved by the defendants.
15.The defendant in this case got marked Ex.B1 i.e. original sale deed document No.2388 of 1999 which would show that E. Narsinga
Rao alienated the suit land in respect of Mangi Ravinder, further Ex.B2 is the Original registered sale deed document No.1413 of 2006, dt.
26.05.2006 which reflects that Mangi Ravinder alienated the land in
Sy.no. 1401 to an extent of 230 square yards in favour of one Myakala
Buchamma and defendant herein, and Ex.B3 i.e. release deed doc no.4092 of 2008 substantiate the fact that the said Myakala Buchamma relinquished her share in favour of this defendant. Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 would substantiate the fact that defendant is owner of house No.4-3- 16/2/B/2 and Ex.B6, Ex.B7 are original property tax receipts which also
Fair14 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 reflects the name of defendant in respect of house bearing
No.4-3-16/B/2 and Ex.B8 is the CC of Extract from property tax assessment Register for the year 2009-2010 which reflects the name of defendant in respect of house no. 4-3-16/2/B/2.
16.Plaintiff filed the present suit in respect of open plot in Sy.no.
1401 to an extent of 211 square yards with house bearing
No.4-3-16/2/B/3. On the other hand defendant denied the ownership of possession of plaintiff over the said property and submitted that she is the owner and possessor of open plot in Sy.no.1401 to an extent of 230 square yards with VLT No. 4-3-16/2/B/2. On perusal of land being claimed by plaintiff and defendant it appears to be in the very same survey number and though the house numbers given by the plaintiff and defendant are different, however either of the parties are claiming possession over the very same land which is shown as suit schedule property of the present case and in order to substantiate the claim of ownership and possession by plaintiff and defendant they have relied on registered document and also other documentary proof which are mentioned in the table drawn below.
SI.No. Plaintiff case and relevant Defendant case and relevant
documents documents 01Plaintiff claims ownership andDefendant also claim ownership possession over suit scheduleand possession over suit propertyschedule property. 02To support the claim ofTo substantiate the claim of ownership and possession byownership and possession of the plaintiff he relied on Ex.A1defendant she relief on Ex.B2 sale deed Doc.No.1484/2016and Ex.B3 i.e. sale document
Fair15 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017
No.1413/2006 and release deed document No.4092 respectively 03PlaintifffiledthelinkDefendant also relied on the documents of his vendor i.e.link document of her vendor Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 i.e. saleunder Ex.B1 i.e. sale deed document No. 4717/2012 anddocument No.2388 of 1999. saledeeddocument No.813/1997 respectively 04Plaintiff relied his possessionDefendant to substantiate the under Ex.A3, Ex.A4 mutationpossession relied on Ex.B6 to proceedings and also Ex.A7 toEx.B8 property tax receipts and Ex.A9 property Tax receiptsextract copy of property tax assessment register.
17.From the documentary evidence put-forth by the defendant clearly shows that defendant is also claiming possession over suit schedule property basing on registered document as such let us examine the boundaries mentioned in plaint and exhibits relied. As per the plaint suit schedule property is bounded by:
East:14 feet Road
West:Place of Lingoji
North:15 feet Road
South:Place of V.R.Naresh
18.The defendant is claiming ownership and possession over suit schedule property through Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. Ex.B1 is original sale deed doc no.2388/1999 which is link document of defendant, Ex.B2 is original sale deed doc no.1413 of 2006 through which defendant along with one
Myakala Buchamma purchased the property and Ex.B3 is original release deed doc no.4092 of 2008 whrough which Myakala Buchamma
Fair16 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 relinquished her right in favor of defendant over the property purchased by them together. In all documents i.e., Ex.B1 to B3 the schedule land is in Sy.No.1401 to an extent of 231 Sq.yards situated at Jagtial. Let us examine the “boundaries of schedule land in Ex.B1 to B3” with that of the boundaries mentioned in the “plaint, suit schedule property”. The following are the boundaries mentioned in Ex.B1 sale deed doc no.1413 of 2006.
East: land of K. Naga RajuWest: land of neighbours North: 15 feet RoadSouth: land of V. Raja Narsaiah
Ex.B2 sale deed doc no.1413 of 2006 suit schedule land is bounded by:-
East: 18 feet RoadWest: land of neighbours North: 18 ‘feet Road (NH.No.4-2-255)South: land of V. Raja Narsaiah
Ex.B3 release deed doc no.4092 of 2008 suit schedule land is bounded by:-
East: 18 feet RoadWest: land of neighbours North: 18 feet RoadSouth: land of V. Raja Narsaiah
19.On comparing the boundaries mentioned in suit schedule property to Ex.B1 except East and West boundary the remaining two boundaries i.e. North and South are identical, and when compared to Ex.B2 and B3 except western side boundary the remaining three boundaries are identical, there may be minor discrepancy in the extents of Road shown in suit schedule land and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 properties, it is clear that there
Fair17 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017 exist road as boundary to the property which parties to the suit are claiming. The extent of road is not the issue, the dispute is pertaining to possession over suit schedule property from the boundaries seen in suit schedule property and Ex.B1 to B3 both plaintiff and defendant are claiming possession in respect of one and the same land and their possession is based on title i.e, purchase under Ex.A1 sale deed by plaintiff and whereas defendant is claiming under Ex.B3. Both Ex.A1 and Ex.B3 are documents having validity as they are in accordance with
Sec.17 of Registration Act and to decide which document prevail over the other would go in deciding the title of the parties to suit.
20. The title set up by the defendant against the plaintiff is not a mere denial of title but supported by relevant documents. Thus a clear cloud is casted against the title of plaintiff. As such, addressing or venturing to answer the contentions raised by the parties about the ownership of parties over suit schedule property is nothing but out stepping the jurisdiction not vested in a Court called upon to adjudicate the suit for injunction simplicitor. Its an act transgressing the limits set out by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra while deciding the suit for
injunction simplicitor. Hence this Court opines that a serious cloud is casted upon the title of parties to the suit. As such it is not with in the purview of this Court to adjudicate the claim of title to the parties in suit is for injunction simplicitor. Accordingly issue no.1 and 2 are answered against plaintiff.
Fair18 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017
Issue No.3
21.Admittedly the present suit is filed for injunction simplicitor and as per the discussions made in issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff failed to establish his case with all probabilities as the defendants also relied his possession on documents available in public domain which were not under challenge and thus a clear cloud is casted upon the title of plaintiff and which cannot be answered in a suit for injunction as such plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly issue no.3 is answered against plaintiff.
Issue No.4:-
22. IN THE RESULT,the Suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 20th day of February, 2023.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Jagtial
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT
Pw1- Bandari Gangaiah DW.1 Monuguri Raju Pw2- Remma Satyanarayana DW.2 Chikkula Bhoomaiah Pw3- Ragula Parashuram DW.3 Mangi Ravinder DW.4 Jumbarthi Narsamma DW.5 Desaveni Lavanya DW.6 Suddala Laxman
EXHIBITS MARKED
Fair19 of 19OS.No.165 of 2017
FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Original Sale deed bearing Doc.No.1484/2016, dt.17.03.2016 Ex.A2: Ownership certificate, dt. 23.05.2016 Ex.A3: Original Mutation proceedings No. B/8300/310 of 2016, dt.18.04.2016 Ex.A4: Original Mutation proceedings No.A1/171/2016, dt.18.05.2016 Ex.A5: Original Sale deed Doc.No.4717/2012, dt.13.09.2012 Ex.A6: Original sale deed document No.813 of 1997 Ex.A7: Original receipt of property tax for house bearing H.No.4-3- 16/2/B/3, dt.31.03.2018 Ex.A8: Original Receipt of Property Tax for house bearing H.No.4-3- 16/2/B/3, dt.31.03.2018 Ex.A9: Original miscellaneous receipt, dt.29.08.2019. FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B1: Original Sale Deed document No.2388 of 1999, dt. 21.07.1999 Ex.B2: Original Sale Deed document No.1413 of 2006, dt.26.05.2006 Ex.B3: Original Release deed document No.4092 of 2008 Ex.B4: Original ownership Certificate file No.A1/2015/MCJ, dt.19.03.2015 Ex.B5: Original ownership certificate file No.A1/MCJ/2014, dt.16.10.2014 Ex.B6: Original Property Tax Receipt, dt.26.12.2009 Ex.B7: Original Property Tax Receipt, dt.16.10.2014 Ex.B8: CC of extract from property tax assessment for the year 2009- 2010 Ex.B9: CC of Encumbrance Certificate.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Jagtial