O.S.No.159 of 1996 1 Dt: 13-03-2024
IN THE COURT OF I.ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT HANUMAKONDA.
Present:-J. UPENDAR RAO, I. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.
O.S. No. 159 of 1996
Wednesday, this the 13th day of March, 2024 Between:-
1. Thoutireddy Upender Reddy (Died)
2. A.Upender Rao, S/o. Late A.Gopal Rao, Aged: 60 years, Occ: Tax Practitioner,
3. A.Rajeneder Rao, S/o. A.Upender Rao, Aged: 34 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant,
4. A.Ravichander Rao, S/o. A.Upender, Age: 38 years, Occ: Software Engineer,
5. A.Raghu Kumar, S/o. A.Upender Rao, Aged: 28 years, Occ: Software Engineer, All are residents of H.No.2-4-143, Ramnagar, Hanumakonda. (Plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 impleaded since they were impleaded as appellant in the sole plaintiff’s appeal on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., A.S. No.1634/1999 vide orders, dated 22-01-2008 in A.S.M.Ps.Nos. 20900 of 1999).
6. T. Rahul Reddy, S/o. Late Upender Reddy, Age: 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. 107, Palm-grow, Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, presently residing at TEXAS, U.S.A. rep., by his G.P.A. A. Upender Rao, S/o. Late A. Gopal Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: Tax Practitioner, R/o. H.No. 2-4-143, Ramnagar, Hanumakonda.
(Impleaded as L.R. of the 1st plaintiff vide orders, dated 07-08- 2009 in A.S.M.Ps.Nos. 1305 of 2009)
OS.No.159 of 1996 2 Dt: 13-03-2024
.
...Plaintiffs
And
1. Avala Aga Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. A.N. Relddy Colony, Kazipet, Warangal District (Died)
2. K. Karunakar, S/o. K.K. Elaiah, aged 48 years, Occ:Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 25-11-273, Diesel Colony, Hyderabad Road, Kazipet, Warangal District.
3. Ch. Vinoda, W/o. Veeraswamy, aged 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 25-11-274, Diesel Colony, Hyderabad Road, Kazipet, Warangal District.
4. A. Ashok Reddy, S/o. Late A. Aga Reddy, aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 25-11-51, An Reddy Colony, Kazipet, Warangal District.
5. A. Raja Reddy, S/o. Late A. Aga Reddy, Aged years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 11-51, An Reddy Colony, Kazipet.
(Defendants No.4 and 5 are added as L.Rs of the 1st defendant vide orders dated 07-08-2009 in A.S.M.Ps.Nos. 1304 of 2009)
6. Ega Sangeetha, W/o. Mallesham, Aged: 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-8-235, Sai Nagar, Balasamudram, Hanumakonda.
(Defendant No.6 is impleaded as per orders, dated 21-03-2014 in I.A.No. 217/2014) … Defendants ..@@@.. This suit coming before me on 07.03.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Narsimha Rao, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and of Sri B. Mandhani, Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3, Sri R. Rama Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the defendants 4, 5, and Sri N. Laxman Babu, Learned counsel for the
OS.No.159 of 1996 3 Dt: 13-03-2024
defendant No.6 and upon hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- : : J U D G M E N T : :
That the plaintiff No.1 filed the suit for following reliefs:-
i) For recovery of possession of the land to an extent of 700Sq.Yards, in Survey No. 1008 of Madikonda Village, shown in Red colour and numbered as Item No.1 in the schedule map by dispossessing the defendants and removing the structures.
ii) the defendant No.1 his agents and his followers are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of open land in survey No. 1008 and 1007 numbered as Item No.2 and 3 of the schedule and shown in Blue and Green colours respectively in the map.
iii) costs of the suit may be awarded.
iv) Relief or reliefs may be granted which Hon’ble court deems fit and proper.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that this court passed common judgment in OS.No.159 of 1996 & OS.No.57 of 1998 on 29.04.1999 and aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff in OS.No. 57 of 1998 preferred appeal No.1634 of 1999 and the plaintiff in OS.No.159 of 1996 preferred appeal No.1956 of 2000 before the Hon’ble High court of A.P., and the Hon’ble High court passed common judgment in both
OS.No.159 of 1996 4 Dt: 13-03-2024
appeals on 22.01.2008 and set aside and the matter was remitted back to this court for fresh disposal according to law. Later the Hon’ble
High court reviewed the common judgment passed vide its orders dated 31-12-2009 in ASMP.No.2336 of 2009 in AS. No.1634 of 1999 and passed following order:
In the circumstances, the judgment dated.29.04.1999 passed in
OS.No.159 of 1996 stands set aside and the matter is remitted to the
trial court for fresh disposal accordingly in terms of judgment of this court dated.22.01.2008. The reference to OS.No.57 of 1998 is para No.17 of the said judgment stands deleted. The other findings and observations and directions contained in the judgment under review shall remain in tact.
3.The averments of the plaint are like this: That the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-27guntas in survey
No. 1008 and Ac.0-15guntas and 300 square yards in survey No. 1007 of Madikonda Village, Hanumakonda Mandal and that the open land in
Sy.No.1008 and 1007 is shown in blue and green colours respectively in the map and numbered as Item No.2 and 3.
3.A. It is further averred that he is the pattedar of the land to an extent of Ac.6-39guntas in Survey No.1008 of Madikonda Village, out of which he sold most of the land, and remains Ac.0-39guntas with
OS.No.159 of 1996 5 Dt: 13-03-2024
him. He was previously cultivating the suit land and paying land revenue and that due to expansion of Urban area of Khazipet and establishment of Diesel Colony, nearby the suit land and he was unable to cultivate and kept the land for construction of houses.
3.B.It is further averred that the defendant No.1, who is neighboring land owner in Survey No. 1007 along with his followers tried to encroach into his land in Survey No. 1008 by raising construction, for that he filed suit vide OS. No.315 of 1980 for perpetual injunction on the file of II.Addl District Munisff at Warangal and obtained injunction order, for which the defendant No.1 filed counter suit in OS.No. 410 of 1980 claiming the land in Survey No.1008 to be part of 1007 and obtained injunction.
3.C. It is further averred that at the intervention of well wishers of both parties they got measured the disputed land in Survey No.1008 and 1007 and found that the defendant No.1 has encroached Ac.0- 12guntas of land of plaintiff in Survey No. 1008 and raised construction under the guise of injunction. The defendant No.1 accepted his encroachment and agreed to give his land in Survey
No.1007 and accordingly, both suits were compromised.
OS.No.159 of 1996 6 Dt: 13-03-2024
3.D.It is further averred that he has left to an extent of Ac.0- 12guntas in Survey No. 1008 in favour of defendant No.1 and for that the defendant No.1 gave land to an extent of Ac.0-15guntas and 300Sq feets in Survey No.1007. It is further averred that he is in peaceful possession of land ad-measuring Ac.0-15guntas and 300Sq feets in
Survey No. 1007 and continuous possession in the remaining open land in Survey No. 1008.
3.E.It is further averred that in his absence, the defendant No.1 in collusion with defendants No.2 and 3 occupied his land to an extent of 700Sq.Yards abutting to Hyderabad main road in Survey No. 1008 and that the defendants 2 & 3 with the help of defendant No.1 started construction in 700Sq.Yards and raised house with RCC flats, when he questioned the defendants 2 & 3 about their illegal possession and construction, they stated that the land of 700Sq.yards has been sold to them by the defendant No.1.
3.F.It is further averred that in the month of April, 1996 the defendant No.1 when attempted to encroach into the land he resisted the illegal acts of the defendant and then the defendant filed suit vide
OS.No.159 of 1996 7 Dt: 13-03-2024
O.S.No. 244 of 1996 against him and his purchasers in the file of
Principal District Munsiff, Warangal claiming the land already sold by
him in the year 1996 in favour of Manoharlal Jain as part of Survey
No. 1007 and filed application for injunction.
3.G.It is further averred that the defendant No.1 again trying to interfere in item No.2 and 3 of suit schedule property and that on 16- 06-1996 defendant No.1 along with unsocial elements tried to dig a well in the suit land, however the plaintiff No.1 resisted his illegal acts. Hence, the suit.
4. That defendant No.1 filed his written statement and the defendants No.2&3 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1 by filing memo. The averments of the written statement of defendant No.1 are like this:- The defendant No.1 denied the material allegation made in the plaint and contended that the claim in respect of Item No.1 of the schedule property shown in red colour in the plan appended to the plaint is mischievous and speculative as the plaintiff does not have any land in survey No.1008. That the land in survey No.1007 in an extent of 15gts and 300sq Ft however was given to the plaintiff in pursuance
OS.No.159 of 1996 8 Dt: 13-03-2024
the compromise decree passed in OS.No. 315 of 1980 which is shown as item No.3 on the file of the II. Addl District Munsiff, Warangal of the plaint schedule but the description of the same as shown in suit schedule and plan are disputed. The documents filed by the plaintiff to show his title or possession are inconsistent and are forged and fabricated.
4.A.That it submitted that the plaintiff’s claim of ownership Ac.6- 39gts out of 1008 of Madikonda village is specifically denied since more than three decades back the plaintiff sold Ac.2-20gts out of the same to the family of the first defendant and it is absolutely false for the plaintiff to contend that he still own 39gts out of survey No.1008 and that it remain under his exclusive possession and enjoyment is specifically denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same as above not even an inch of land in survey No.1008 of Madikonda village is either owned and possessed by the plaintiff as on the date of the suit. Due to the expansion of urban area of Kazipet he is keeping the land vacant is a concoction and to defraud the state by avoiding to pay the court fee required as contemplated under the law. The filing of the suits in OS.No.315 of 1980 and OS.No.410 of 1980 and their
OS.No.159 of 1996 9 Dt: 13-03-2024
ultimate disposal by way of a compromise are not disputed. The averment that during the pendency of the said suits it was found that the defendant No.1 encroached about 12gts of land of the plaintiff in survey No.1008 is the own findings of the plaintiff and is against the record. Ever since 1960’s the plaintiff was owing Ac.4-12gts in survey
No.1008 admittedly as per his own documents. The plaintiff admittedly had sold his land to different individuals which these defendants believe to be in an extent of more than five acres and the plaintiff sold more land than he was admittedly made by him out of survey No.1008 whether registered or otherwise by furnishing the names of the individuals and the respective extents sold to them. The contention of the plaintiff that he has left an area of 12gts out of his land in survey
No.1008 in favour of the 1st defendant herein is a myth. However, the 1st defendant is not disputing the fact-um of the plaintiff being given 15gts 300sq. Ft in survey No.1007 to the plaintiff in pursuance of the compromise decree in OS.No.315 of 1980 on the file II. Addl District
Munsiff Warangal. The 1st defendant does not have any dispute in so far as the possession of the plaintiff over 15gts 300sq Fts in survey
No.1007 of Madikonda village in pursuance of the compromise. The
OS.No.159 of 1996 10 Dt: 13-03-2024
same has been very much available on the spot and the 1st defendant does not claim any right of the same.
4.B.It is further averred that the defendants particularly the 1st defendant has no dispute with regard to the plaintiff’s possession over
Ac.0-15gts., 300 square feet of land in Sy.No.1007, but the plaintiff’s alleged possession over any part of the land in Sy.No. 1008 is specifically denied. The question of the 1st defendant taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff and his stay at Hyderabad, occupying an area of 700 Sq.Yds., out of Sy.No. 1007 is an absurdity since, as submitted above the plaintiff does not own or possess even an inch of land in Sy.No. 1008.
4.C.The plaintiff’s alleged questioning of the defendants 2 and 3 is absolutely false and does not arise since the plaintiff himself was personally and physically present when defendants 2 and 3 laid foundations for their houses, personally checked whether they were within their land and having been thoroughly satisfied and left the place. It is further averred that one Mr. Yakub whom the defendants believe to be the servant of the plaintiff keeps a continuous watch over the area even now.
OS.No.159 of 1996 11 Dt: 13-03-2024
4.D.The defendants 2 and 3 through the defendant No.1 have been in absolute and peaceful possession of their respective properties and their title even otherwise is perfected by prescription. It is further averred that the plaintiff went on selling segments of the land overlapping the alienations already made and on the previous purchasers insisting for their extents, with the help of unsocial elements, created havoc on the spot by terrozing the inmates of the houses in the defendant’s land with the active support of one Nagaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of
Police, Kazipet and by managing the said officials who under the guise of his official position terrorised, the 1st defendant and his family members and retaining him and his sons in illegal custody tried to encroach upon the property of the 1st defendant by damaging his standing crop and the fencing whereupon the 1st defendant herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.244/1996 on the file of Principal District Munsiff,
Warangal and at the stage of consideration of ad-interim order itself the plaintiff took notice, filed counter and argued the matter.
4.E.It is further averred that it was after rival submissions the
Principal District Munsiff, Warangal while appointing a commissioner
suo-motu to identify the property directed the parties to maintain
OS.No.159 of 1996 12 Dt: 13-03-2024
status-quo. The plaintiff has conveniently omitted to come out with the truth, born out of the record and pleading alleged interference afresh, which however is specifically denied has filed the present suit. The alleged attempt of the 1st defendant of digging a well in the land in
Sy.No. 1008 allegedly belonging to the plaintiff is an absolute falsehood and is invented for the purpose of creating a cause of action.
4.F.It is further averred that the 1st defendant is law abiding and he is very much within his limits of not interfering in the land in an extent of Ac.0-15gts., 300 sq.feet out of Sy.No. 1007 given to the plaintiff in pursuance of the compromise in O.S.No.315/1980. The claim of the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No. 1008 of Madikonda Village either for a recovery of possession or for a perpetual injunction is not sustainable. That the suit is horibly under valued since no land is available at the rate of quoted by the plaintiff in the vicinity of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is hereby on notice to produce the market value certificate issued by the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar,
Hanumakonda to justify his valuation of the property at the rate of
Rs.150/- per square yard. That the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the land shown in the schedule
OS.No.159 of 1996 13 Dt: 13-03-2024
out of Sy.No. 1008 of Madikonda Village since he is not in possession of any land in Sy.No. 1008 particularly as on the date of filing of the suit. That the alleged cause of action is sham and bogus. That the suit is frivolous and vexatious and is filed to harass the defendants, borne out of malafide and magnifise the conduct of the plaintiff is being a chronic litigant and that the suit is speculative. Thus, the defendant prays the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. The defendants No.2 and 3 filed their additional written statement and the defendants 4&5 filed their written statement, but as per the orders of the Hon’ble court in CRP.No.755 &756 of 2015 dated 31.03.2022 their written statement is strike off.
6.The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant
No.6 are like this: The defendant No.6 denied the averments of the plaint. It is the case of defendant No.6 that the plaintiff did not disclose as to when he allegedly cultivated the suit land and paid land revenue. That the alleged compromise in respect of property which is not subject matter of the suit unless registered in evidence in proof of title. That the defendant No.1 sold an open area of 240Sq.Yards in
Survey No.1007 of Madikonda Village, bounded on North: by land of
OS.No.159 of 1996 14 Dt: 13-03-2024
vendors and on south: by road and on East: by plot of U.
Suryanarayana and on West: plot of Ch. Vinoda (Defendant No.3 herein) under registered document No.743 of 1990 before the S.R.O.
Warangal.
6.A.It is further case of the defendant No.6 that he purchased the house and open place bearing Municipal No. 25-11-273 to an extent of 240sq.yards equivalent to 201.60sq. meters with RCC plinth area of 1353-00Sq.Feets situated at Diesel Colony, Main Road, Kazipet,
Warangal District through registered sale deed document No.4576 of 2009, dated 24-07-2009 from defendant No.2 for a sale consideration of
Rs.13,45,000/- and after receiving the sale consideration the defendant
No.2 had delivered the possession and his vendor purchased the same from the defendant No.1 through registered Sale deed document
No.17843 of 1990 on 25-07-1990.
6.B.It is further case of the defendant No.6 that the possession was also delivered under the said registered document to the purchaser. The property and electricity consumption charges paid by the defendant.
That the defendant is in actual possession of the house which she
OS.No.159 of 1996 15 Dt: 13-03-2024
purchased the suit schedule property and that she mutated the above said house on her name before the Municipal Corporation, Warangal vide Roc.No.A3/24563/2009, dated 14-09-2009. That the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid incorrect and that there is no cause of action to file the suit and that the suit is barred by law of limitation. Thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether Item No.1 of plaint schedule property shown in red colour is the part and parcel of Survey No. 1008 and it is fell into the plaintiff in the compromise Decree O.S.No.315/1980 as pleaded in the plaint?
2. Whether the boundaries of Item No.1 shown in the plaint schedule are true and correct?
3. Whether Item No.2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are part and parcel in Sy.No.1007 and 1008 and its boundaries shown are true and correct?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of 700 sq.yds of land shown in red colour in Item No.1 by way of dispossession of defendants?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction for Item No.2 and 3 of plaint schedule
OS.No.159 of 1996 16 Dt: 13-03-2024
properties as prayed?
6. To what relief?
8.Evidence on record: The plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked exhibits A1 to A12 and one T. Venkatreddy who is third party to the suit proceedings was examined as PW-2. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of compromise decree in O.S.No. 315 of 1980,dated.24.10.1986 on the file of II-Additional District Munsiff,
Warangal. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of terms of compromise in
I.A.No.1690 of 1980 in O.S.No. 315 of 1980. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of map attached to Ex.A2. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91.Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-92. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-93.
Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96. Ex.A10 is the land revenue receipt, dated 20-07-1989. Ex.A11 is the Land revenue receipt, dated 13-07-1994. Ex.A12 is the Land revenue receipt, dated 05-07-1984.
8.A. The defendant No.1 is examined as DW-1 and one Damodar
Reddy who is the third party to the suit proceedings was examined as
OS.No.159 of 1996 17 Dt: 13-03-2024
DW-2. Exhibits B1 to B17 were marked.Ex.B1 is the Encumbrance certificate. Ex.B2 is the copy of caveat petition filed by Mohanlal Jain,
dated 12-02-1996. Ex.B3 is the copy of counter in O.S.No. 244 of 1996
on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Warangal. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of written statement in O.S.No. 401 of 1980. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-90. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-89. Ex.B8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87. Ex.B9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1983-84. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1982-83. Ex.B11 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1981-82.
Ex.B12 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1979-80. Ex.B13 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1978-79. Ex.B14 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1977-78. Ex.B15 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-77. Ex.B16 is the certified copy of
Commissioner report in I.A.No. 237 of 1980 in O.S.No. 401 of 1980 on the file of I.Addl. District Munsiff, Warangal. Ex.B17 is the certified copy of map.
9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per Ex.A1
OS.No.159 of 1996 18 Dt: 13-03-2024
and A2 the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of
Ac.0-15gts in survey No.1007 which is shown in green colour in Ex.A3 map and numbered as Item No.3 and apart from that possessor of remaining open land in survey No.1008. He further argued that the defendant No.1 in collusion with defendants No.2&3 illegally occupied an area of 700sq yards abetting to Hyderabad main road in survey
No.1008 and the defendants No.2&3 raised construction in the said 700sq yards of land with the help of defendant No.1 and the structures in the possession of defendant No.2&3 is shown in red colour in the map and numbered as item No.1 in the suit schedule.
9.A.He further argued that the defendant No.1 trying to raise some constructions in item No.2 &3 of the suit schedule in the month of
Aprial, 1996, however the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendant. He further argued that the defendant No.1 filed suit against the plaintiff and his purchasers vide OS.No.244 of 1996 on the file of
Principal District Munsiff Warangal claiming the land already sold by
the plaintiff in the year,1996 in favour of Monoharlal Jain as part of survey No.1007 and filed application for injunction.
OS.No.159 of 1996 19 Dt: 13-03-2024
9.B.He further argued that the defendant No.1 is again trying to interfere in the open land in survey No.1008 I.e suit land shown in blue and green colour in the map and numbered as item No.2 &3 in the suit schedule. He further argued that on 16.06.1996 the defendant
No.1 along with unsocial elements tried to dig a well in the suit land and the plaintiff prevented his illegal acts and informed the same to the concern police. He further argued that having settled the matter and after compromise the defendant No.1 trying to grab the suit land.
He further argued that the evidence of PWs 1&2 coupled with documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff clearly established the case of plaintiff and the defendants have failed to establish their case, as such the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed the court to decree the suit. That after completion of arguments submitted by the counsels for defendants, the counsel for plaintiff submitted reply arguments stating that the compromise decree does not require registration in view of amendment of Act No.4 of 1999 to support above arguments he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mohammade Yusuf & others Vs. Rajkumar & others in Civil
OS.No.159 of 1996 20 Dt: 13-03-2024
Appeal No.800 of 2020 dated.05.02.2020.
9.C.On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 argued that the compromise decree is not executable as it requires registration under section.17 of the Registration Act, to support his arguments the learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in K.Arumuga Velaiah Vs. P.R
Ramaswamy and another reported in (2022) 3 Supre Court Cases 757.
The learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 further argued that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 136 r/w Sec.27 of the
Limitation, Act. Finally, the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 argued that there is no cause of action to file the suit and plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his case, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. According, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.
9.D.The learned counsel for the defendants No.4&5 argued that the suit is not within the period of limitation and there is no mention about extent of land in Ex.A1&A2 and the compromise decree requires registration. He further argued that by playing fraud the compromise
OS.No.159 of 1996 21 Dt: 13-03-2024
decree was obtained, as such the plaintiff is not entitled for the any relief as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs. No arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant No.6.
10.Issue No.1: It is the contention of the PW-1 that he is in possession of the land ad-measuring Ac.0-15gts and 300sq Fts in survey
No.1007 and continuous possession in the remaining open land out of survey No.1008 and the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendants No.2&3 occupied an area of 700sq yards which is shown in item No.1 of the suit schedule property, but as seen from the Ex.A1 compromise decree the land shown in blue colour out of survey
No.1008 and land shown in green colour in Ex.A3/map out of survey
No.1007 have been allotted and delivered the possession thereof to the petitioner therein who is plaintiff No.1 herein and the land shown in red colour in Ex.A3/map out of survey No.1008 and 1007 have been allotted to the respondent No.1 therein and who is defendant No.1 herein, and as per Ex.A3/map the area covered by green colour is
Ac.0-15gts and 300sq Fts and the area covered by red colour out of survey No.1008 and 1007 is Ac.2-20gts and Ac.3-34 769sq Fts
OS.No.159 of 1996 22 Dt: 13-03-2024
respectively. That the Exs.A1 & A2 does not discloses that the plaintiff is having remaining land in survey No.1008. Admittedly, the PW-1 is the pattedar of the land to an extent of Ac.6-39gts and even the Ex.A4 to A9 are also reveals the same and the plaintiff was paid cist pertaining to said land. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he sold out the most of the land in survey No.1008 and a portion of land to the extent of 39gts shown black, blue and red colour in the map enclosed to the plaint is under his exclusive possession and enjoyment, but the plaintiff did not given any details of land sold by him to prove his contention that he is having remaining land in survey
No.1008, unless he furnished details to whom and what extent of land sold by him, the mere simple statement of the PW-1 that he remains land of 39gts in survey No.1008 is not sufficient to believe his contention and even in the Ex.A1&A2 it is not mentioned that the
PW-1 is having 39gts of land or any peace of land in survey No.1008, except the simple statement that the PW-1 is having remaining land in survey No.1008, there is no documentary evidence on record produced by the plaintiff that the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land survey No.1008. It is the argument of the
OS.No.159 of 1996 23 Dt: 13-03-2024
learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 that the compromise decree required registration so can not be considered to support his argument he relied upon the decisions above supra, but the facts in the said decisions are different from the facts in hand further as per the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff the compromise decree is not required registration, as such the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants is not sustainable.
10.A. The PW-2 who is third party to the suit proceedings deposed in his examination in chief about the filing of the suits by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 herein against each other and recording of compromise in between them. During the cross examination of the PW- 2 he deposed that above the land triangular peace of 12gts in survey
No.1008, there is remaining land of survey No.1008, but the PW-2 did not state the extent of remaining land and even there is no documentary proof filed by the plaintiff to substantiate said version.
That if the above version of PW-2 is true the same might have been mentioned in the Exs.A1&A2/terms of compromise recorded in
OS.No.315 of 1980 and even there is no explanation forth coming from
the mouth of PW-2 basing on which documents he is saying like that,
OS.No.159 of 1996 24 Dt: 13-03-2024
unless there is a documentary evidence on record to show that the PW- 1 is having remaining land in survey No.1008, the simple statement of
PW-2 can not be considered.
10.B. The defendant No.1 was examined himself as DW-1 got marked
Exs.B1 to B17 and he admitted about the filing of the suits by him and plaintiff against each other and also admitted the compromise entered by them under Ex.A1 to A3. It is the contention of the DW-1 that there is no inch of land to the plaintiff in survey No.1008, to substantiate his contention the DW-1 relied upon the documents marked on his behalf. As seen from Exs.B1 the defendant No.1 purchased land to an extent of Ac.1-17gts in survey No.1008 from the plaintiff herein and the Ex.B2 reveals that one Monoharlal jain filed caveat petition against the defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.9-04gts of land in survey No.1007 & 1008 and the ExB3 and B4 reveals that the defendant No.1herein filed a suit No.244 of 1996 against the plaintiff
No.1herein and others claiming the part of land in survey No.1007 and 1008 and also filed suit No.401 of 1980. The Ex.B5 to B15 discloses that the plaintiff sold land to an extent of Ac.2-20gts to the family of defendant No.1 and even there is no dispute from the plaintiff in that
OS.No.159 of 1996 25 Dt: 13-03-2024
regard and during the cross examination of the DW-1 it is elicited that the “L” shape portion in the map marked in survey No.1007 was given to the plaintiff.
10.C. The DW-2 who is the third party to the suit proceedings deposed in his examination in chief that he is having land in survey No.1011 which is on northern side of land in survey No.1008 and the defendant
No.1 has land to an extent of 23gts in survey No.1008 abutting the
Hyderabad-Hanumakonda road and according him the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into compromise and the defendant No.1 gave 17gts of land in survey No.1007 to the plaintiff and not surrender any part of 23gts of land held by him in survey No.1008 and the defendant
No.1 divided the said 23gts of land into plots sold some of plots to defendants No.2&3 and the same is known to the plaintiff. That as per the evidence of PW-1 there is no land in survey No.1008 to him. That as per the cross examination of DW-2 the defendant No.1 constructed house in a corner of survey No.1008 which is within 200sq yards.
11. That after going through the oral and documentary evidence on record and in the above foregoing reasons and discussions, it is proved that the plaintiff is the pattedar of land in survey No.1008 and he sold
OS.No.159 of 1996 26 Dt: 13-03-2024
land to an extent of Ac.1-17gts to the defendant No.1 under Ex.B1 and also proved the compromise under Exs.A1 to A3, but the plaintiff has failed to establish that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property shown in red colour is the part and parcel of land in survey No.1008 and its identification, and also failed to establish that the same is allotted to him in the compromise decree in OS.No.315 of 1980.
Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered.
12. Issue No.2:- That in the suit schedule it is mentioned by the plaintiff that the item No.1 of the suit schedule property situated within the boundaries as shown in the schedule, but in Exs.A1&A2 no where reveals that the land allotted to the plaintiff in blue and green colour shown in Ex.A3 are within the specified boundaries, when the boundaries are not mentioned is respect of land allotted to the parties in the Exs.A1&A2, how can the plaintiff say that the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is within the boundaries as shown in suit schedule and even there is no pleading in the plaint stating that basing on a particular documents he is saying that the item No.1 of the suit schedule property is situated within boundaries as shown in the plaint
OS.No.159 of 1996 27 Dt: 13-03-2024
schedule. Unless, there is a documentary evidence on record produced by the plaintiff to prove boundaries of item No.1 of the suit schedule property, this court unable to come to the conclusion that the boundaries shown to the item No.1 of the suit schedule property are true and correct. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered.
13. Issue No.3:- It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant
No.1 trying to raise constructions in the Item No.2 and 3 of the suit schedule land in the month of April, 1996 and also trying to interfere in the open land in survey No.1008 I.e suit land shown in Blue and
Green colours in the map and numbered as item No.2 and 3 in the suit schedule appended to the plaint and on 16.06.1996 the defendant
No.1 along with unsocial elements tried to dig a well in the suit land.
That in the plaint schedule the plaintiff shown the extent of item No.2 suit schedule property as Ac.0-21½ gts out of survey No.1008 and shown the item No.3 as Ac0-15 ½ gts out of survey No.1007. But as per the Exs.A2 the land covered in green colour in Ex.A3 map is 15gts 300sq Fts which which was allotted to the plaintiff is exclusively in survey No.1007 and the land shown in blue colour which was allotted to the plaintiff is in exclusively in survey No.1008, so both lands
OS.No.159 of 1996 28 Dt: 13-03-2024
allotted to the plaintiff are in different survey numbers, as such the question of falling the the item No.2 and 3 suit schedule land in part and parcel of survey numbers 1007 and 1008 does not arise. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the suit schedule item
No.2 and 3 properties of the part and parcel of land in survey No.1007 and 1008 and also no documentary evidence on record to show that the item No.2 and 3 properties are situate within the boundaries as shown in the suit schedule. Unless there is documentary evidence on record to show that the item No.2 and 3 are the part and parcel of land in survey No.1007 and 1008 and situated within the boundaries as shown in the suit schedule, this court is unable to come to conclusion that the boundaries shown in the schedule of item No.2 and 3 true and correct. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is answered.
14. Issue No.4:- It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant
No.1 in collusion with defendants No.2 and 3 illegally occupied an area of 700sq yards within the boundaries as shown in the item No.1 of the suit schedule which is abetting to the Hyderabad main road in survey No.1008 and started the construction, but he failed to establish that he is having land in survey No.1008 part from the land allotted to
OS.No.159 of 1996 29 Dt: 13-03-2024
him in compromise decree and in view of finding given in issue No.1, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the possession of 700sq yards of land shown in red colour in item
No.1 of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the issue No.4 is answered.
15. Issue No.5: It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants tried to interfere into his possession over the item No.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property on 16.06.1996, but the defendants denied the same. As the plaintiff seeking relief of injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule item No.2 and 3 of the properties, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his possession over the item No.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property within the boundaries as shown in the suit schedule, as the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit schedule property is within the boundaries as shown in the suit schedule and in view of finding given in issue No.3. This court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, the issue No.5 is answered.
OS.No.159 of 1996 30 Dt: 13-03-2024
16. Issue No.6: In view of the findings given in issues No.1 to 5, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the issue
No.6 is answered.
17. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, and partly typed by me on desktop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2024)
Sd/-.
I. Addl Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:
PW-1: T.Upender Reddy DW-1: A. Aga Reddy PW-2: T. Venkat Reddy. DW-2: A. Damoder Reddy.
::Exhibits Marked::
For plaintiffs:
Ex.A1:Certified copy of compromise decree in O.S.No.315 of 1980, dated.24.10.1986 on the file of II-Additional District Munsiff, Warangal. Ex.A2:Certified copy of terms of compromise in I.A.No. 1690 of 1980 in O.S.No. 315 of 1980 Ex.A3: Certified copy of map attached to Ex.A2. Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-92. Ex.A6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-93. Ex.A7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94. Ex.A8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96.
OS.No.159 of 1996 31 Dt: 13-03-2024
Ex.A10: Land revenue receipt, dated 20-07-1989. Ex.A11: Land revenue receipt, dated 13-07-1994 Ex.A12: Land revenue receipt, dated 05-07-1984.
For defendants:
Ex.B1: Encumbrance certificate Ex.B2: Copy of caveat petition filed by Mohanlal Jain, dt 12-02-1996. Ex.B3: Copy of counter in O.S.No. 244/1996 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Warangal. Ex.B4: Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No. 401/1980. Ex.B5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.B6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-90 Ex.B7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-89 Ex.B8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87 Ex.B9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1983-84 Ex.B10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1982-83 Ex.B11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1981-82 Ex.B12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1979-80 Ex.B13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1978-79 Ex.B14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1977-78 Ex.B15: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-77 Ex.B16: Certified copy of Commission report in I.A.No. 237 of 1980 in
O.S.No. 401 of 1980 on the file of I-Addl. District Munsif, Warangal
Ex.B17: Certified copy of map.
Sd/-.
I. Addl Senior Civil Judge Hanumakonda.