K. Balachander

1

DVC 15/2017

IN THE COURT OF XXII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL

Monday, 05th day of August, 2019

PRESENT:- Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., L.L.B.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Medchal

DVC No.15 of 2017

Between:

B. Malathi W/o. S. Kiran Kumar, Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.1-79/3, Jeedimetla village, Quthbullapur Mdl, Medchal District – 500 067

…..Complainant

AND

1.S. Kiran Kumar S/o. S. Ramchander, Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee

2.S. Bhagya Laxmi W/o. S. Ramchander, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Housewife

3.S. Ramchander S/o. Not known, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee

4.S. Kishore Kumar S/o. S. Ramchander, Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Nil

5.V. Shailaja W/o. V. Bal Raj, Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Housewife

6.V. Bal Raj S/o. Not known, Age: 33 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee

All are R/o. H.No.1-2-361/13, Plot No.10, Anjaneya Swamy colony, Bholakpur, Secunderabad – 500 081

….. Respondents

This petition came up before me for hearing in the presence of M/s. V. Veda Vikas, Sri P. Bosu Babu, counsels for the complainant and Sri K. Ravindar Rao, Ms Archana Guduru, Sri P. Narsing Rao, counsels on behalf of the Respondents upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

ORDER

This Petition is filed U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 for the reliefs U/secs 18, 19 and 20. The brief facts of the complaint are that R.1 is the husband, R.2 and R.3 are parents in law, R.4 is brother in law, R.5 is the sister in law of petitioner / complainant. R.6 is the husband of R.5. The complainant is the legal wedded wife of R.1 and their marriage was performed on 28.02.2016 at 2

DVC 15/2017

AMR Gardens, Kompally, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs in the presence of elders and well wishers. At the time of marriage, the parents of complainant paid an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs, 50 tulas gold, Rs.50,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam, household articles worth Rs.2.00 lakhs to the respondents. After marriage, the complainant joined the respondents at their house at Anjaneya Swamy colony, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. The marriage was not consummated due to non cooperation of R.1. Since the date of marriage, the complainant was not happy in her in-laws house. Two months after their marriage, respondents removed the maidservant in the house and forced complainant to do entire household work. The complainant is working as Asst. Manager in M/s.Genpact, Habsiguda,

Hyderabad. After retirement from her job, she used to attend entire household work without the support of anybody. R.1 to R.6 used to harass her to clean the dishes, kitchen utensils, which were already cleaned and the clothes which were already washed and tortured her physically and mentally. After one week of marriage, all the respondents started demanding the complainant to get additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs from her parents. R.2 used to beat the complainant indiscriminately for want of additional dowry. When R.1 and R.2 demanded her parents for payment of additional dowry, her father expressed his inability to pay any further amount, as he spent more amount for marriage and still he has to perform the marriage of another daughter.

2.It is further contended that on 22.06.2016, ten days before

Ashadam, her father took her to their house and after completion of

Ashadam in the month of Sravana Masam, her father telephoned R.1 and informed him to take back the complainant, but R.1 demanded

Rs.10.00 lakhs, otherwise he will not take her back. After that her father telephoned R.3, but he also did not respond properly and asked to talk with R.2. Then her parents called R.2 and requested her to take back the complainant, but R.2 also demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs, otherwise they will not allow the complainant. R.2 talked in rude manner over phone against her father stating that “Aey Ekkuva

Matlaadaku – Nenu bayata unnanante arthamavatleda raa”. On 3

DVC 15/2017 15.08.2016 father of complainant brought her to the house of respondents and dropped there, but R.2 threatened the complainant and her father stating that without payment of additional dowry of

Rs.10.00 lakhs, the marital obligations will not be performed by A.1.

The parents of complainant requested the respondents and informed that they are not in a position to pay such huge amount and went away. The respondents continued their harassment for additional dowry, as such the complainant informed the same to her parents on 20.08.2016. On that her parents came to the house of respondents on 21.08.2016 to find out the situation. In front of her parents, R.1 and

R.2 severely beat complainant and threw T-pai on her and respondents 1 and 2 necked the complainant out of their house with a demand to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs, otherwise they will not allow the complainant to live in their house. R.4 also threatened that if her parents do not pay money, they will perform another marriage to R.1 within two months and he will be blessed with a son in one year. R.2 abused the complainant and her parents in filthy language as described in the complaint and beat her with T-pai and necked them out from the house and shut the door. The complainant and her parents begged the R.1 and R.2 not to neck her out, as her parents are not in a position to meet their demand, but R.1 and R.2 necked out the complainant from their house. Having no other option, the complainant followed her parents and stayed with them at Jeedimetla. On 24.09.2016 the complainant filed complaint before the Police, Pet Basheerabad for the offence U/s 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide

Crime No.493/2016. The above cruel acts and conduct of respondents caused economic abuse, verbal and mental abuse. They also caused mental and physical cruelty and financial loss to the complainant.

Hence the complaint is filed for Protection U/s 18 of the Act, for return of dowry amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs, 50 tulas gold, Rs.50,000/- towards

Adapaduchu katnam and household articles worth Rs.2.00 lakhs and marriage expenses to the tune of Rs.3.00 lakhs from the respondents and also for grant of Rs.30.00 lakhs towards compensation along with legal expenses from the respondents.

4

DVC 15/2017

3.On the other hand, R.1 filed counter Affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of other respondents denying all the allegations made against them and contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. All the allegations are false, created and concocted, except the relationship between the parties, marriage of complainant with R.1. The respondents denied all the allegations, except going to the house of her parents by the complainant 10 days before Ashadam. It is further contended that no cause of action arose for the complainant to file complaint and they never driven out her from the marital home and she herself withdrew from the society of the respondents and left voluntarily. As such there is no domestic violence against her and she is not entitled to claim any reliefs. It is further contended that on the night of wedding day, the complainant remained at her parents house weeping stating that she cannot leave her parents as her two other sisters are living in USA, but with great difficulty and convincing made by the R.2 and R.3 and her parents, she came to the house of respondents. It is further contended that the marriage was consummated out of much difficulty and protest faced by the respondent on the wedding night. During first night, he faced huge enquiries by the petitioner with regard to his savings and properties and finally commented against him stating that he is poor and waste fellow and she would have got a better match than him as he has no savings and bank balance, except heavy home loan payable @ Rs.72,000/- per month, out of the home take salary of Rs.80,000/-.

4.The complainant used to stay only for two or three days in a week at the matrimonial home and most of the time she used to go to parents house straight away from the office without any intimation to

R.1 to R.3. Whenever it is enquired by the respondents, she used to give rude replies stating that she is not their servant to inform in advance about her whereabouts. The complainant was disrespectful not only to the respondents, but she also used to behave rudely without any care and concern to them, as if she is a stranger, needs no help and remained aloof until she left the matrimonial home on 21.08.2016. At one occasion, while the R.2 was busy with her guests in 5

DVC 15/2017 talking to them, inspite of her requests, complainant denied to prepare and offer tea to the guests and commented on the face of R.2 in front of all the guests stating that she is not her servant to prepare and serve tea. The complainant got high dreams and lives while building mirages. At the same time she is also very much attached to her parents and used to say that she cannot live leaving her parents and used to remain back with her parents most of the days in a week.

5.The complainant tried her level best to convince R.1 to join her at her parents house by leaving his parents and when he refused, she started abusing the respondents in most filthy language only in order to blackmail for monetary gains and finally she left to her parents house on 21.08.2016 by taking all her jewelery whatever she wore on the day of wedding. It is further contended that out of love and affection, R.2 and R.3 gifted Pusthelathadu, three rings, 2 nos.

Nallapusala thadulu small and long, pair of kankanallu, pair of ear tops, pair of Buttas, pair of Maatis, in all 120 grams of gold thereof worn by the complainant in the marriage and they are retained by her. R.2 and

R.3 also arranged reception as per the demand made by the father of complainant at the cost of Rs.5.00 lakhs. After first night, the complainant has never showed any concern to discharge her marital obligations / conjugal life with R.1 till she left to her parent’s house.

Though Complainant hails from lower middle class family and her father is a clerk of an advocate. She is having ego problem and feels proud of herself, feels superiority as she is employed and earns rupees more than Rs.50,000/- per month.

6.The complainant refused to go to honeymoon to Ooty on the pretext that leave will not be sanctioned to her. In fact the complainant is not interested, which is revealed by her to R.1. R.1 went to the house of complainant for several times with a request to join him even after she went back to her parent’s house permanently.

R.2 and R.3 also requested the parents of complainant to send her to their house, but their efforts went in vain and futile. Ultimately the complainant filed a present complaint and so also criminal case vide CC

No.493/2016 along with FCOP No.1262/2017 on the file of Family Judge, 6

DVC 15/2017

LB Nagar. The complainant instead of leading marital life with R.1, filed this complaints with all ill motives and for wrongful gains. Though respondents are not at fault; R.1 is still ready to receive and accept the complainant to lead happy marital life, provided that she joins him and his family members unconditionally with whole interest to lead life with him and also by withdrawing the cases filed against them, but the complainant did not consider his requests and appeals. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

7.In support of her case, complainant examined herself as Pw.1.

She also examined her parents as Pws.2 and 3 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 are marked. Respondents did not lead any evidence.

8.The learned counsel for complainant has filed written arguments taking all pleas which are mentioned in the complaint.

9.On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents argued that Pw.2 is a private employee working as clerk under an advocate and it can be considered how much he could earn, as such the plea of the complainant about presentation of 50 tulas gold, Rs.10.00 lakhs cash, household articles worth Rs.2.00 lakhs and adapaduchu katnam to the respondents is false. He further argued that after closure of evidence on both the sides, the complainant came up with petition as party in person and filed Ex.P5 to show that her parents presented cash to the respondents, but nothing is mentioned about taking of any photos or videos at the time of engagement ceremony either in the complaint or in her chief affidavit. Pw.1 also admitted that the Ex.P5 also does not show father of complainant who is supposed to present cash to the respondents, but Pw.1 stated that the person who was presenting the cash is the husband of her paternal aunt, but the said person is not produced before the Court and examined. Further Ex.P5 photo is not having any certificate as required U/s 65-B of Indian

Evidence Act and no negative is also filed. Further the evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 is contradicting with each other and also contradicting with

Ex.P4 – copy of complaint filed before the police. The evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 is totally contradicting with the evidence in the criminal case vide CC No.793/2016, which is also pending adjudication along with this 7

DVC 15/2017 case. He also argued that as per the evidence of Pw.6 – mediator for marriage, who is examined in CC 793/2016 in which she stated that except there are some petty issues, there are no disputes between the

Pw.1 and R.1. She also suggested R.2 to adjust herself with Pw.1, as she will not hear to words of elders, as she is an educated lady. The complainant has not examined the mediator before the Court in this case. The complainant also not examined Pws.5 and 6 who are examined in CC No.793/2016 in this case, as they have not supported the complainant, as such she conveniently avoided to examine them in this case. Hence the evidence in CC No.793/2016 can also be taken into consideration while appreciating the facts on record in both the cases.

10.It is further argued that, even Pw.3 also admitted that R.1 visited their relative when he was in hospital and though the respondents tried to maintain cordial relations, the complainant always maintained distance. As she is not interested to lead marital life with R.1, she filed a false complaint only to extract amount from them. Even according to the evidence of Pw.1, she never stayed with the respondents for (7) days in a week and she also attended duty regularly, as such the question of making the complainant to attend household works; is utterly false. She made all false allegations only for the purpose of case and she took different pleas, at different stages in different cases, which all go to show that complainant has created stories to suit her case. Even if the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is considered, there is nothing on record that the complainant has proved that she was subjected to any domestic violence and entitled for any reliefs as prayed for by her.

Hence, he prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

11.Heard both sides.

12.Now the Point for consideration is:

Whether the complainant has proved that she was subjected to any domestic violence in the hands of respondents 1 to 6 and thereby she is entitled for any reliefs as prayed for?

8

DVC 15/2017

Point

13.The respondents did not lead any evidence. It is not out of place to mention that CC 793/2016 is also pending along with the present case for adjudication. Since CC 793/2016 is based on the complaint -

Ex.P4 marked in this case and when both the cases are tried simultaneously, the evidence let in in CC 793/2016 can also be considered to decide the present case.

14.Pw.1 filed her chief affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint. It is her evidence that her parents paid Rs.10.00 lakhs, 50 tulas gold, Rs.50,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam and household articles worth Rs.2.00 lakhs to the respondents. In the cross examination, Pw.1 stated that herself and A.1 are employees and working at the time of marriage and she worked in a multinational company from June 2007. She worked in the firm for five years. She also admitted that she is a hard working lady and regular in attending the office. Pws.2 and 3 have also filed their chief affidavits reiterating the averments made in the complaint. In their entire chief affidavits, they have not stated anything against R.5 and R.6, except making bald allegations stating that the respondents demanded additional dowry of

Rs.10.00 lakhs. Even nothing is deposed against R.3 and R.4, except stating that R.4 commented that they will perform second marriage to

R.1 within two months. Even in the entire complaint also, nothing is deposed against R.3 to R.6.

15.In the cross examination, Pw.1 admitted that herself and A.1 are employees and working at the time of their marriage and she has been working from June 2007 in a multinational company. She further admitted that she used to visit her parents in weekends on Saturday and Sunday, but again stated that she used to visit now and then. In the further cross examination, Pw.1 admitted that R.5 married and living with her husband - R.6 and children with her in-laws. She also admitted that R.5 used to stay with her parents Pws.1 to 3, as such there is nothing against R.4 to R.6 stating that they subjected the complainant to any harassment of domestic violence.

9

DVC 15/2017

16.She further admitted in the cross examination that during her stay with R.1 to R.3, she was regular in attending her duties and she is not sure whether her parents have incurred Rs.12.00 lakhs towards her clothes, ornaments, marriage expenses etc. In the further cross examination, she stated that her standard of living is better than the lives of respondents. She also admitted that marriage expenses were borne by her parents and dinner expenses were borne by the respondents, but denied the suggestion that about 500 to 600 people attended the dinner and stated that only 100 to 150 people attended.

She further stated that dinner was held at Munurkapu sangam near

Paradise hotel, Secunderabad, but denied the suggestion that respondents arranged the dinner by incurring Rs.5.00 lakhs on their demand. She also stated that she filed divorce petition against R.1 and

R.1 offered to go to Ooty for Honeymoon after marriage. In further cross examination, she stated that her parents in law have presented her gold articles, but she cannot say whether they are 120 grams. She also stated that all the gold items, including the gold items of 50 tulas presented by her parents are with her only.

17.Pw.2 deposed in his cross examination that about 500 people attended the dinner, in which the respondents have incurred expenses and for the marriage about 700 to 800 people attended. Though Pw.1 has stated that in the cross examination that she is having hand loans at the time of marriage, Pw.2 has stated that he does not know for what purpose Pw.1 availed loan and stated that Pw.1 used to pay monthly installments of loan at the time of marriage. Pw.2 also stated in his cross examination that Pw.1 used to attend duty in shift system for 8 hours and take 9 hours including journey. Pw.2 also admitted in his cross examination that Pw.1 came to his house during Ashadam and stayed about 11/2 to 2 months, during which time his elder daughter was also returned from USA. In further cross examination, he admitted that respondents tried to mediate through B. Urmila (Pw.6 in CC No.793 / 2016) for reconciliation and thereafter no mediation was made and the complaint was lodged. He also stated that Pw.1 filed a case for divorce and they are trying to take divorce through mutual consent 10

DVC 15/2017 through Sham Sunder, Urmila and Susheela. He further volunteered that respondents stated that they are not interested to take divorce and they never objected and asked Pw.1 to join with them. When a suggestion was put, that as the respondents did not consent for mutual divorce, all false cases are filed, he denied the same and volunteered that as the respondents harassed, all the cases are filed and also to put an end to the litigation. He stated that he is not ready to send Pw.1 to the company of respondents, though they are ready to take her.

18.In the cross examination, Pw.3 stated that there is a custom in their family to present cash or gold on the occasion of marriage and other functions, but denied the suggestion that the cash and gold was presented on their own and volunteered that it will be presented on the demand of in-law’s side. She also admitted that the gold items are with Pw.1 from the date of marriage and further added that the gold items prepared by the respondents are also with Pw.1 only and they are kept in Bank locker. In further cross examination, Pw.3 stated that even if R.1 is ready to put up separate family, they are not ready to send Pw.1 to join A.1 for marital life. She has not given any reason for such denial, but denied the suggestion that as R.1 refused to go to their house as illitam son in law, Pw.1 rescinded marital relationship with R.1. She also stated that she cannot say as to whether Pw.1 is interested to withdraw all the cases by taking money, but added that it is for Pw.1. When the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 is considered that all the gold including presented by the respondents is with the petitioner only and it is in bank locker, as such the prayer of petitioner for return of gold is false.

19.As discussed above, this court is not barred to consider the evidence in CC 793/2016 which is based on Ex.P4 herein. The chief affidavits of Pws.1 to 3 in this case are filed reiterating the complaint averments of this case. As per the complaint averments in this case,

R.1 and R.2 severely beat Pw.1 in front of her parents and threw T-pai on her, but in her cross examination in CC 793/2016 and in DVC complaint she has not stated that in front of her parents, A.1 and A.2 severely beat her.

11

DVC 15/2017

20.As per the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, Pw.1 attended her duty regularly and also used to attend weekends to her parents and she stayed in her parents’ house for about 11/2 or 2 months during ashadam. The marriage of Pw.1 and R.1 took place on 28.02.2016 and she left the house of respondents on 21.08.2016. When her stay in the house of respondents is considered, after deducting her regular visits during weekends and two months stay in her parents’ house during

Ashadam; it can be said that she hardly stayed in the house of respondents; only for three months in the entire six months.

21.As per the evidence of Pw.2 that Pw.1 used to attend in shift system for 8 hours and she took 1 hour for her journey, even during shifts, Pw.1 cannot expected to be in the house to attend any domestic works. According to the complaint, the respondents removed the maidservant two months after the marriage, when she could live hardly for three months in the entire six months and when she attended to duty regularly, attending to domestic works is also doubtful by her.

22.As per the evidence of Pw.4 in the criminal case CC 793/2016, he accompanied Pw.2 with cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to present the same to the respondents on the request made by Pw.2, but none of Pws.1 to 3 in this case and so also in the criminal case never stated that they took

Pw.4 along with cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 21.08.2016, but as per the complaint herein, the parents of complainant came to respondents house on 21.08.2016 only to find out the situation. She informed about the unbearable harassment of the respondents on 20.08.2016. They never whispered about the presence or accompanying of Pw.4 on the said date. When the evidence of Pw.6 in CC No.793/2016 is considered, she advised R.2 to adjust, as Pw.1 is an educated lady and she will not care the elders and she also specifically stated that there are only petty issues between R.1 and Pw.1. Another witness Pw.5 deposed that they tried their level best to make counseling between the family members of Pw.1 and R.1 in the police station, but all the parties quarreled and though he along with police convinced Pw.1 and

R.1 not to quarrel, they did not hear. Pw.5 another independent witness deposed that there was counseling between family members of 12

DVC 15/2017

R.1 and Petitioner in the police station, he also attended as an elder on behalf of petitioner and came to know that R.2 abused Pw.2 and his friends, when they visited the house of accused and in the counseling, both parties quarreled and he along with police convinced both Pw.1 and R.1 not to quarrel and live amicably.

23.When the evidence on record along with evidence of CC 793/2016 is considered, only for the incident said to have occurred on 21.08.2016, the present case and also the complaint in CC 793/2016 are filed by Pw.1. As per the evidence of Pw.1, she used to attend the office regularly and even in shift timings and she used to go to her parents house in weekends and stayed in her parents house for two months for the Ashadam, as such it can be said that she lived only for a period of three months in the house of respondents. Even according to her, the respondents removed the maidservant after two months after their marriage. Admittedly the marriage of petitioner took place with

R.1 on 28.02.2016 and she left the house of respondents for Ashadam in June 2016. When her evidence is considered that maidservant was removed two months after the marriage, she did not complain anything about removal of maidservant before she went to her parents house in

June 2016. Mere removal of maidservant does not amount to Domestic violence against the petitioner, especially when she is a working lady and went to office in the morning and returns in the evening, as such all the domestic works would be completed during the day time.

Hence, I find that the petitioner has failed to prove any sort of domestic violence against her by the respondents. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, I find that the complaint has failed to prove that she was subjected to any domestic violence in the hands of respondents. Accordingly, I feel that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

24.In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer; transcribed and typed by him, pronounced

by me in the Open Court, on this the 05th day of August, 2019.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal 13

DVC 15/2017

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner / Complainant

Pw.1 B. Malathi, complainant

Pw.2 B. Ramesh, father of complainant

Pw.3 B. Vijaya Lakshmi, mother of complainant

For Respondent

None

Exhibits Marked for Petitioner

Ex.P1 Marriage Photos

Ex.P2 Copy of Marriage invitation card

Ex.P3 Copy of Aadhar card of B. Malathi

Ex.P4 Copy of complaint dt 24.08.2016 filed before PS, Pet

Basheerabad

Ex.P5 Photo taken during Engagement day

For Defence

Nil

XXII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.356 of 2008

On this the 02 nd day of August, 2019

Between:- Sandana Mogulaiah, S/o.Late Yellaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ:Ex-serviceman, R/o.H.No.5-1-10, Yapral Village, JJ Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri Mandal, RR District … Plaintiff

and

1.Mandha Ramulu, S/o.M.Mysaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.17-99, Chennapuram, Jawaharnagar G.P., Shameerpet Mandal, RR District

2. Mandha Bharathamma, W/o.Sathyanna, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.5-1-16, Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, RR District

3. Mandha Venkatesh, S/o.M.Mysaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ:Business, R/o.5-1-25, Yapral Village, Jilla Parshad Road,

Malkajgiri Mandal, RR District ... Defendants

This suit came before me on 08-07-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri T.Narsimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri K.Amarender Reddy, learned Counsel for the defendants and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1.This suit is filed for injunction against the defendants restraining them, their henchmen and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: The plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit schedule property land admeasuring Ac.3-01 guntas in sy.No.587 situated at Chennapuram Village under Jawaharnagar G.P.,

Shameerpet Mandal, RR District, the plaintiff worked in defence service, due to his services, the “Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization Society”

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.2

allotted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and later the plaintiff developed it for cultivable purpose, since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and also paying revenue to the government whenever demanded by the concerned revenue officials but the name of the plaintiff is not recorded in revenue records even after making several requests to the revenue authorities, the defendants who are noway concerned to the suit schedule property have interfered on 20-10-2008 and also on 26-10-2008 with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, later immediately the plaintiff approached the police but they did not take any action as the matter is civil in nature, hence the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction.

3.The defendants filed the written statement by submitting that: The plaintiff is neither the owner nor possessor of the property, the schedule of property claiming by the plaintiff is belonging to the defendants and infact the father of the defendants and grand father of the defendants were cultivating the suit schedule property since decades and developed the land by investing huge funds, installed electricity connection and also fenced with barbed wire to the entire property and the plaintiff never worked in armed services. The defendants are raising paddy, jawar and vegetable crops and also constructed two rooms since more than 40 years back and all the defendants are entirely depending on the agriculture over the schedule of property for eeking their livelihood and also paying revenue to the government. The government issued pass book in favour of the defendant

No.1, therefore the allotment letter is created by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit to knock away the property of these defendants and it is true that the name of the plaintiff was not recorded in revenue records as the possessor because the plaintiff is never in possession, these defendants are

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.3

in possession and enjoyment of the property, therefore the question of interference does not arise, the plaintiff created the story to get sympathy from this Hon’ble Court, therefore these defendants requested to appoint an

Advocate Commissioner for proper adjudication of the matter, there is no cause of action to file the suit, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the pleadings and material available on record, this court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5. After framing of issues, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and also examined PW2 who is third party to the suit. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B36. Defendant No.2 is examined as DW2 and examined the third party as DW3.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. ISSUE No.1 :

(a) To prove this issue the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he worked in defence service and during that time the suit schedule property was allotted to him by the “Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization

Society” which was registered one and the said society is having authority to allot the government properties to the plaintiff or to the persons who served their service in defence and since from the date of allotment, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property by developing it for cultivable purpose.

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.4

(b). Therefore, to prove the same the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Ex.A1 is the letter of ‘Distribution of land’ by the “Jawaharnagar Land Colonization” for sake of ex-servicemen vide Registered

No.20886. As per this document, the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as

Mogulaiah, S/o.Illaiah and date of allotment is vide resolution dated 09-11- 1966, dated 09-07-1967 of general body dt. 07-04-1974 and vide reference

No. JC/74 dt.07-04-1974. The plaintiff entirely relied on this document that basing on this document the “Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization

Society” allotted the suit schedule property in his favour during his service in defence but the defendants taken a plea that the plaintiff never worked in defence service, so that the alleged allotment of the schedule of property to the plaintiff does not arise, hence the defendants are strongly disputing with regard to the service of the plaintiff in defence and also allotment of the suit schedule property on the name of the plaintiff, therefore the defendants submitting that the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are created for the purpose of grabbing the property, so at this stage, the plaintiff tried to prove that he worked in defence services and during that time the suit schedule property was allotted to him, but to prove the same except the Ex.A1, there is no single document filed by the plaintiff to show that he worked in defence services and during that time the suit schedule property was allotted to him, why because the plaintiff did not mention with regard to his date of birth and also has not mentioned with regard to the service i.e. when he entered into service and also not mentioned whether during his service or after retirement the suit schedule property was allotted to him is nowhere mentioned, the entire pleadings is silent with regard to the entry into service in defence and also retirement and also with regard to the allotment of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff why because the defendants are strongly disputing with regard to the alleged defence service of the plaintiff and also allotment of the

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.5

property, therefore the plaintiff has to clearly explain with regard to his service from which year to which year he worked in defence service and what are the particulars of his service is to be mentioned by the plaintiff but the plaintiff simply mentioned that “Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization

Society” allotted land to him, when it was allotted also it was not mentioned and the plaintiff further submitted that after allotment of suit schedule property through the Ex.A1, by spending the huge amount he developed it to do agriculture and since from the date of allotment he is doing agriculture but to prove the same there is no single document filed by the plaintiff to show that from the date of allotment 09-07-1967 till the date of filing of the suit he is enjoying the suit schedule property by raising crops, but he simply mentioned that when he approached revenue authorities they refused to mention his name in revenue records. If the revenue authorities refused to enter the name of the plaintiff in revenue records with regard to the cultivation of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has to take steps against the revenue authorities but he did not do so from 1967 till the date of filing of the suit in the year of 2008 and the same is not mentioned either in plaint or in evidence of plaintiff, therefore when the dispute is with regard to the allotment of the property, then how the plaintiff can simply take a plea that the revenue authorities refused to enter his name in revenue records even after cultivating the property by him since from the date of allotment as on today, therefore the plaintiff is not clear with regard to the allotment of the property. The plaintiff has taken a plea that the suit schedule property was allotted by the “Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization Society” but the defendants disputing with regard to the Ex.A1, so to prove the Ex.A1 document, the plaintiff would have to take steps to prove that there was “Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization Society” which was registered one, according to the reference mentioned in Ex.A1 the land was allotted to

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.6

him, but no steps were taken by the plaintiff to prove the Ex.A1 and also not filed any single document or any proof to show that he worked in defence, therefore the entire pleadings and documents are silent with regard to the service of the plaintiff in defence.

(c). Ex.A2 is the receipt of the Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization

Society dated 07-04-1974 but to prove this receipt the plaintiff would have to examine any person to show that there was Jawaharnagar Co-operative land

Colonization Society which was in existence and at that time the society was having every right to allot the properties to the persons who were serving in defence. The plaintiff also nowhere mentioned that whether the said

Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization Society is to be allot the land to only the persons who served in defence or to any other persons, there are no particulars given by the plaintiff with regard to the alleged allotment by the said society. Ex.A3 is the property tax receipt for the year of 1979-80, Ex.A6 is the property tax receipt for the year of 1980-81 but the defendants contending that at that time there was no revenue office was in existence, therefore they are submitting that these documents are created for the purpose of this suit. However, on perusal of Ex.A3 in survey number column there was a correction, on perusal of Ex.A6 in the column No.1 the date is mentioned as 16-02-1981 but whereas the date along with signature is 29- 04-1980. Ex.A4 is the ‘Boomi Sistu Pass book’ in which it is mentioned

Sy.No. 587 having Ac.3-01 guntas and tax was paying by the plaintiff for the year 1980-81, 1981-82 only but later the plaintiff has not paid tax to the revenue authorities, therefore except for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 there is no tax paid by the plaintiff and the document Ex.A5 is the memo issued by the Revenue Authorities dated 18-08-1987. As per this document, the plaintiff was in possession of Ac.3-01 guntas in Sy.No.587. Therefore, this

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.7

documents belongs to the year 1987 but this suit was filed in the year of 2008, from 1987 to 2008 there is no document filed by the plaintiff, he simply stated that the revenue authorities refused to mention his name in revenue records, if really the revenue authorities failed to enter his name, what steps he has taken against the revenue authorities is not mentioned why because to prove the injunction the plaintiff should establish the possession as on the date of filing of the suit and the plaintiff is claiming the suit schedule property i.e. agriculture land, so to prove the possession over agricultural land, atleast he has to file pahanies to show that he is cultivating the land as per his pleadings and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property, but to prove the same there is no document filed by the plaintiff to show that he is in continuous possession since from the date of allotment till filing of the suit in the year of 2008, so without documents, how the court can come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property why because the defendants are also claiming the suit schedule property, therefore the plaintiff who approached this court has to establish his possession as on date of filing of the suit but he has not filed any document or also has not filed the evidence, however in cross examination of

PW1 he clearly admitted that he has not taken any steps against the revenue authorities for not entering his name in revenue records even after cultivating the suit land. In cross examination, he stated that there was a well which was in existence but the said well was levelled with mud, but this plea is not taken in pleadings of the plaint or in chief affidavit of the plaintiff.

(d). The defendants strongly disputing with regard to the allotment and possession of the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff has to strongly prove the alleged allotment and at the same time also his possession over the suit schedule property. The further contention of the defendant is that the said

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.8

Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization Society has no authority to allot the property to anyone, therefore they are submitting that the plaintiff has not filed any authorization of the said society to allot the property under

Ex.A1, the plaintiff also not filed any documents or also not examined anyone to show that the said Jawaharnagar Co-operative land Colonization Society had right to allot the property, therefore the entire pleadings of the plaintiff is not clear and cross examination of PW1 is also not supporting his version, he admitted that other than Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 he has not filed any single document to prove the possession as on date of filing of the suit, therefore without possession, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants why because the plaintiff taken plea that he is in continuous possession and that he is cultivating the land, the defendants interfered into his possession, but to prove his possession there is no document or evidence filed by the plaintiff. The PW2 who is third party is also examined on behalf of the plaintiff but nothing was elicited in favour of the plaintiff, the entire evidence of PW2 is not supporting the version of the plaintiff, why because as per his cross examination he never worked in defence service but in chief examination he stated that he worked in defence services. As per his chief examination he is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1-33 guntas in Sy.No.615 and Ac.1-05 guntas in

Sy.No.620 at Chennapuram Village under Jawaharnagar GP, Shameerpet

Mandal but to prove the same the PW2 also not filed any document to show that he had land adjacent to the suit schedule property claiming by the plaintiff, therefore the entire evidence of PW2 also not supporting the version of the plaintiff.

(e). The defendants who filed written statement have taken defence that the suit schedule property claiming by the plaintiff is belonging to the

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.9

defendants and the father of the defendants and grand father of the defendants were cultivating the suit schedule property and they raised paddy, jawar crops till today and also constructed two rooms, the said crop is raising from the water of the borewell, so that they erected the borewell in the suit schedule property but the defendants also nowhere mentioned how they got the property, whether the government allotted the property to the defendants or father of the defendants or to the grand father of the defendants is also not mentioned, but simply it is stated that they are cultivating the land but on what basis the defendants are cultivating the land without having any title over the suit schedule property and how the defendants erected borewell and also taken electricity connection to the suit schedule property without having any right over the property is also nowhere mentioned but the defendants simply stated that since from their grandfather they are cultivating the land and developed it by investing huge amounts, therefore they are in possession but to prove the same that since from their grand father they are in possession and they are cultivating the same there is no document filed by the defendants. The defendants filed the documents under Ex.B1 to Ex.B36. Ex.B1 is the tax receipt on the name of Mandha Narsimhulu. As per this document the defendants paid tax to the land in Sy.No.587 to an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas. The other documents for the year of 1981-82, 1982-83 under Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 are the property tax receipts for the Sy.No.587. Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 are the memos issued by the

Tahsildar that there are no records available for the years of 1974-75, 1979- 80, 1989-90. The defendants also nowhere mentioned that what is the total extent of Sy.No.587 and from that how they acquired the property and who are the adjacent owners to their property are to be explained to this court but the defendants failed to explain the same but simply claiming the property that they are cultivating the land since from their grand father and received

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.10

patta certificate. Ex.B6 to Ex.B26 are the pahanies from the years of 1964- 65 to 1990-91, all these pahanies for the Sy.No.587 are having Ac.3-01 guntas but there is no owner or possessor is mentioned, therefore if the defendants really cultivating the land since from their grand father as alleged by them, then how the names of the defendants were not recorded atleast as possessor or cultivator to the property in sy.No.587 and moreover as per

Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 the property mentioned in those documents is Ac.5-00 guntas but the pahanies filed by the defendants under Ex.B6 to Ex.B26 are showing extent of Ac.3-01 guntas and there is no name of defendants or their father or grand father is mentioned but some of the pahanies are showing that the pattadar column No.12 is ‘Kareej kata’, so it is government land, so neither the plaintiff nor defendants are the pattadars or owners to the suit schedule property, the government is the owner of the suit survey No.587 as per Ex.B6 to Ex.B26. Ex.B27 to Ex.B33 are also pahanies from the year 1991-92 to 2000-2001, these pahanies also mentioned in pattadar column as “Kareej kata’ to an extent of Ac.3-01 guntas and there is no possessor name is mentioned, therefore neither the name of the plaintiff nor defendants is mentioned as possessor to the suit schedule property, therefore without mentioning the names of the defendants to show that they are in possession over the suit schedule property by raising paddy, jawar and vegetables as cultivator or possessor, then how the court can come to the conclusion that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property why because the defendants are also claiming that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land which is cultivating by them since 47 years, therefore the defendants would have to file the documents to show the possession as alleged by them but there is no revenue records filed by the defendants but they simply filed Ex.B34, then how this court can come to the conclusion that the land reflecting in photographs and the suit schedule property is one

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.11

and the same and without any supporting evidence how this court believe that photographs under Ex.B34 is suit schedule property belonging to defendants. Ex.B35 is the electricity receipts but in this document there is no survey number, therefore the Ex.B35 is not at all useful to the defendants,

Ex.B36 is the payment to the Central Power Distribution, but in this also there is no survey number or property to show that the defendants are paying electricity consumption charges which is using for the cultivation of the suit schedule property. Therefore, in this case the both parties are claiming the property which belongs to the government, the plaintiff who alleged to be allotted the suit schedule property has failed to establish with regard to his possession and the defendants are claiming the suit schedule property, but they have also not filed any documents to show that they are in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit or till today.

(f). The defendants No.1 and 2 are examined as DW1 and DW2. As per their cross examination they failed to file particulars of the property and they failed to give boundaries to the suit schedule property but simply stated that the suit schedule property belongs to them and in the cross examination of the DW2 he deposed new thing that the suit schedule property was allotted to his father in Sy.No.587 and the suit schedule property is adjacent to the

Sy.No.588 to 590 but in pleadings of written statement of defendants and the chief affidavit it is not mentioned that the suit schedule property was allotted to the father of the defendants and he further deposed that the government will allot the property to only servicemen and his father is an ex-serviceman, and to prove that there is no evidence filed and also not mentioned in written statement or chief affidavit, therefore the cross examination of DW2 is different from the pleadings. In cross examination of DW1, he stated that the

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.12

Jawaharnagar has allotted the land only to the ex-servicemen, but his father is not ex-serviceman, therefore how the property acquired by the defendants also nowhere mentioned and DW1 simply stated that after death of his father they succeeded the property, if so, how the father of the defendants acquired the property and if the defendants have succeeded the property then what are the documents filed by the defendants to prove their possession is to be explained before this court. The DW3 who is third party is also examined, he stated that he is having land in Sy.No. 678 and there is an open well in sy.No.587 but in entire pleadings of written statement the defendants have not mentioned that there is a well, the evidence of DW3 is also not useful to the defendants. Therefore the both parties are claiming the land which belongs to the government but both failed to establish that they are in possession and the plaintiff who approached this court for grant of perpetual injunction he has to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. In this case he failed to establish the same, hence the plaintiff has failed to prove the prima facie, therefore this issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiff.

9. ISSUE No.2:

As per the discussion at Issue No.1, the plaintiff failed to establish this issue, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

In the result: the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 02 nd day of August, 2019.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff PW-1: S.Mogulaiah/Plaintiff PW-2: K.Kistaiah/Witness

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.356 of 2008 Page No.13

Defendants DW-1: M.Ramulu/Defendant No.1 DW-2: M.Venkatesh/Defendant No.2 DW-3: P.Mohan Reddy/Witness

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For Plaintiff Ex.A1 Original allotment letter dated 07-04-1974 Ex.A2 Original tax receipt dt. 07-04-1974 Ex.A3 Original tax receipt dt. 29-04-1980 Ex.A4 Original pass book Ex.A5 Memo dated 18-08-1987 Ex.A6 Original tax receipt dt. 16-02-1981 For Defendants Ex.B1 Original pattadar passbook Ex.B2 Original tax receipt No.691597 Ex.B3 Original tax receipt No.691528 Ex.B4 Original memo issued by MRO, Shameerpet Ex.B5 Original memo issued by MRO, Shameerpet Ex.B6 CC of pahani for the year 1964-65 Ex.B7 CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 Ex.B8 CC of pahani for the year 1966-67 Ex.B9 CC of pahani for the year 1967-68 Ex.B10 CC of pahani for the year 1968-69 Ex.B11 CC of pahani for the year 1969-70 Ex.B12 CC of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.B13 CC of pahani for the year 1971-72 Ex.B14 CC of pahani for the year 1972-73 Ex.B15 CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 Ex.B16 CC of pahani for the year 1975-76 Ex.B17 CC of pahani for the year 1976-77 Ex.B18 CC of pahani for the year 1977-78 Ex.B19 CC of pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex.B20 CC of pahani for the year 1983-84 Ex.B21 CC of pahani for the year 1984-85 Ex.B22 CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 Ex.B23 CC of pahani for the year 1986-87 Ex.B24 CC of pahani for the year 1987-88 Ex.B25 CC of pahani for the year 1988-89 Ex.B26 CC of pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex.B27 CC of pahani for the year 1991-92 Ex.B28 CC of pahani for the year 1992-93 Ex.B29 CC of pahani for the year 1993-94 Ex.B30 CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.B31 CC of pahani for the year 1996-97 Ex.B32 CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.B33 CC of pahani for the year 2000-2001 Ex.B34 Photographs along with CD Ex.B35 Electricity bill receipts Ex.B36 Electricity consumption billing statement from the year 2003 to 2011

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 02-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.64 of 2015

On this the 30 th day of July, 2019

Between:- Gadipudi Venkateshwarlu, S/o.G.Pedda Chelamaiah, Aged 73 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-48, Morjampadu (V), Guntur District, AP … Plaintiff

and

1.Ch.Padmavathi, W/o.Ch.Pavankumar, Aged 42 years, Occ:Private Job, R/o.H.No.12-116, Adarshnagar, Quthbullapur ML, RR District

2. P.Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.Venkata Ramanappa, Aged 53 years, Occ:Service, R/o.H.No.1-6, Avanthinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad -TS

3. P.Sesha Ratnam, W/o.P.V.Raju, Aged 58 years, Occ:Pvt. Service, R/o.H.No.303/B, Road No.25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad TS

4. K.Usha Rani, W/o.Mohan Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.58, Chintal, Quthbullapur ML, RR District

5. P.Gowri Devi, W/o.Dashrath, Aged 50 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.10, Chintal, Dwarakapuri Colony, Quthbullapur ML, RR District 055

6. Chavali V.Ravindra Babu, W/o.Ch.Krishna Murthy, Aged 52 years, Occ:Business

7. Chavali Sunitha, W/o.Chavali V.Ravindra Babu, Aged 42 years, Occ:Business, Both D6 and D7 are R/o.Plot No.102, New LB Nagar, Shapurnagar, Quthbullapur MI, RR District, TS

8. Gottimukkala Jaya Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Rushyendra, Aged 39 years, Occ:Employee, R/o.Plot No.5-155, Janapriya West City, Miyapur, Hyderabad (D8 Added as per orders in IA 345 of 2015)

9. Ravindran Shai, S/o.Late Ramdhani Shahi, Aged 48 years, Occ:Govt. Service

10. Smt.Sangeetha Shahi, W/o.Ravindran Shai, Aged 43 years, Occ:Housewife, Both are R/o.H.No.7-8-312, Gouthamnagar, New Bowenpally, Hyderabad

(D9, D10 Added as per orders in IA 832 of 2015) ... Defendants

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.2

This suit came before me on 26-07-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the absence of Sri M.Padma Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff as the plaintiff has ‘Not pressed’ the suit and in the presence of Sri P.Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the defendant No.8, other defendants are set exparte and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

The defendant No.8 filed written statement with counter claim against the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff over the property claiming by the defendant in counter claim.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property open land/premises bearing plot No. 181, 182 and 190 total admeasuring 3000 Sq.yards in sy.no.80, Sri ram nagar colony, Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal having purchased the same from his vendor through sale deed on 10-08- 1990 which is re-validated before the District Registrar vide file No.

1629/2014 dated 27-03-2014, the plaintiff’s vendor’s vendor purchased the said property on 22-02-1981 from its owners through sale deed who inturn purchased from land owners long back in the year of 1968, when the plaintiff started construction of compound wall around the suit schedule property, on 19-03-2015 all the defendants without any right obstructed the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.Except the defendant No.8 the other defendants were set exparte and the defendant No.8 only filed written statement with counter claim seeking the relief against the plaintiff for perpetual injunction and during the pendency of the suit, at the time of trial the counsel for the plaintiff not

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.3

pressed the suit but the defendant counsel submitted that he filed counter claim, therefore he is interested to proceed the counter claim, hence the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as ‘Not pressed’ and counter claim of the defendant is only proceeded by them.

4.The defendant No.8 filed written statement along with counter claim by submitting that: This defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the part and parcel of the plot bearing No.H-21 (main plot No.183) admeasuring 242 sq.yards in Sy.No.30 situated at Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Gajularamaram

Village, Quthbullapur Mandal. Originally the suit schedule property including the other plots to total extent of Ac.8-21 guntas in sy.No.30 was belonging to

Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu situated at Sri Ram Nagar Colony,

Gajularamaram village and having purchased the same through the registered sale deed bearing document No.247 of 1968 and the said Sri

M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu divided the said land into house sites, later the original owner Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu sold plot bearing No.183 admeasuring 1000 Sq.yards in sy.No.30 situated at Sri Ram Nagar Colony to one Jasbir Mehta through the registered sale deed document bearing No.1477 of 1968 dt. 16-09-1968. The said Jasbir Mehta executed General Power of

Attorney in favour of Sri B.Soma Sekhar dated 10-02-1995 and it was duly validated vide document bearing No.6669/1997 dt. 06-12-1997, therefore basing on the said General Power of Attorney, the GPA holder developed plots and sub-divided the plots which were already divided by its original owner by name Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu, therefore, Sri B.Soma Sekhar being the

GPA holder of Mrs.Jasbiur Mehta sold the plot bearing No.H-21 in part of plot

No.183 admeasuring 242 Sq.yards in Sy.No.30 situated at Sri Ram Nagar

Colony, Thirumala Enclave, Gajularamaram Village through the registered sale deed bearing document No.6257 of 1997 dt. 30-12-1997 to

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.4

Smt.Ch.Padmavathi i.e. defendant No.1 and she obtained LRS proceedings

dated 04-01-2012 and in turn Smt.Ch.Padmavathi who is defendant No.1 sold

the plot through the Agreement of sale-cum-GPA vide document bearing No.

5549 of 2010 dated 30-06-2010 to Sri N.Venu Madhava Reddy, then the said

Sri N.Venu Madhava Reddy sold the said property to this defendant No.8 through the registered sale deed bearing document No. 11781/2010 dated 06-12-2010, therefore since from 1968, this defendant clearly showed the possession of the predecessors in title and their uninterrupted possession, after purchase this defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property, when the plaintiff is trying to occupy the property this defendant stopped the illegal acts of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff suppressed the material facts and came to this court with unclean hands, hence requesting to dismiss the same.

5. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the counter claim of defendant No.8 and denying the documents and also possession and title of the defendant No.8 and further submitting that the defendant is neither the owner nor possessor of the property and he is claiming wrongly the property of this plaintiff, hence requesting to dismiss the same.

6. Basing on the pleadings and material available on record, this court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the defendant No.8 is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for in counter claim?

3. To what relief?

7. Heard the counsel for defendant No.8. Perused the record.

8. In this suit, the plaintiff ‘Not pressed’ the suit against the defendants, so that the Issue No.1 is not relevant when the suit is dismissed, hence there is no need to discuss about the Issue No.1. Now, this court is passing

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.5

judgement with regard to the counter claim of the defendant No.8 only,

therefore Issues No.2 and 3 are related to the counter claim of the defendant.

9. ISSUE No.2:

Whether the defendant No.8 is entitled for perpetual

injunction as prayed for in counter claim?

(a) Defendant No.8 only filed written statement along with counter claim but the other defendants were set exparte. The defendant No.8 is claiming the relief against the plaintiff only, therefore to prove the counter claim with regard to the perpetual injunction, the entire burden lies on the defendant

No.8 to show that he is the owner and possessor over the counter claim schedule property as on date of filing of the counter claim.

(b). To prove the same, the defendant No.8 is examined as DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. In lieu of chief examination of defendant No.8, he filed chief affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, but the counsel for plaintiff stated that as he has not pressed the plaint, so that he is not interested to proceed the matter, therefore he refused to cross the DW1, therefore this court recorded the cross of DW1 by the counsel for plaintiff as ‘NIL’. As per the pleadings in counter claim of the defendant No.8, he is submitting that the property in Sy.No. 30 is having an extent of Ac.8-21 guntas which is purchased by Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu through the registered sale deed bearing document No. 247 of 1968 and later he divided the said land into house sites. The schedule of property plot No.183 was originally having 1000 Sq.yards, after that it was made into plots and named as Sri Ram Nagar

Colony and the said Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu sold the plot No.183 admeasuring 1000 Sq.yards to Mrs. Jasbir Mehta through the registered sale deed bearing document No.1477 of 1968 dated 16-09-1968 and the said

Mrs.Jasbir Mehta executed GPA dated 10-02-1995 in favour of Sri B.Soma

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.6

Sekhar which was duly validated vide document bearing No. 6669/1997

dated 06-12-1997, later the said Soma Sekhar sub-divided the plot No.183

admeasuring 1000 Sq,.yards and from that the schedule of property was purchased by Smt. Ch.Padmavathi through the registered sale deed vide document bearing No. 6252/1997 dated 30-12-1997 and she paid necessary charges for LRS through the application dated 01-12-2011 and later the said

Smt.Ch.Padmavathi in turn sold the said property through the Agreement of sale-cum-GPA document bearing No. 5549 of 2010 dated 30-06-2010 to Sri

N.Venu Madhava Reddy and the said Sri N.Venu Madhava Reddy who is the

GPA holder of Smt.Ch.Padmavathi sold the same to this defendant through the registered sale deed document bearing No. 11781/2010 dated 06-12- 2010, therefore since from 1968 till today this defendant is proving the possession of his predecessors and also the possession of this defendant, but while the matter stood thus on 14-04-2015 after filing of the suit, the plaintiff herein is trying to occupy the property of this defendant under the guise of alleged schedule of property, therefore this defendant filed counter claim.

(c). To prove the above said version, the defendant No.8 has filed the documents under Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of sale deed executed by the GPA holder of Smt. Ch.Padmavathi by name Sri N.Venu

Madhava Reddy in favour of Smt.Gottukukkala Jaya Lakshmi who is defendant

No.8 and the schedule of property is Plot bearing No. H-21, admeasuring 242

Sq.yards in Sy.No.30, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, having boundaries as North: 40 feet wide road, South: Plot No.H-22, East: 25 feet wide road and West: Plot

No.H-30. So, as per this document, the counter claim schedule of property boundaries and the boundaries mentioned in this are tallying. Ex.B2 is the

Certified copy of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA executed by

Smt.Ch.Padmavathi in favour of Sri N.Madhava Reddy who is GPA holder under Ex.B1. The property under this document is plot bearing No.H-21,

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.7

admeasuring 242 Sq.yards and the boundaries mentioned in this document are North: 40’ feet wide road, South: Plot No.H-22, East: 25’ feet wide road and West: Plot No.H-30. Ex.B3 is the Certified copy of sale deed vide document bearing No.6252 of 1997 executed by Smt.Jasbir Mehta in favour of

Smt.Ch.Padmavathi for the plot No. H-21 admeasuring 242 Sq,yards having boundaries North: 40 feet wide road, South: Plot No.H-22, East: 25 feet wide road and West: Plot No.H-30. Therefore, basing on these documents the defendant No.8 counsel submitting that they proved the title of the predecessors and also the defendant No.8 over the schedule of property as claimed in the counter claim. But as per the pleadings in counter claim, the defendant has to first of all prove the possession of original ownership of Sri

M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu who alleged to be purchased Ac.8-21 guntas in

Sy.No.30 through the registered sale deed bearing document No.247 of 1968 from its original owner and subsequently the defendant has to prove the division of the total extent of Ac.8-21 guntas in sy.No.30 and from that the plot No.183 admeasuring 1000 Sq.yards which is purchased by Sri M.Veera

Raghavulu Naidu and who divided the said land into house site plots and from that the plot No.183 to an extent of 1000 Sq.yards purchased by Mrs.Jasbir

Mehta through the registered sale deed bearing document No. 1477 of 1968

dated 16-09-1968 and later the said Mrs. Jasbir Mehta executed GPA in favour

of Sri B.Soma Sekhar and the said Sri B.Soma Sekhar sub-divided the plot

No.183 to an extent of 1000 sq.yards and from that plot, the schedule of property to an extent of 242 Sq.yards purchased by Smt. Ch.Padmavathi and she paid the LRS proceedings, later she executed GPA in favour of Sri N.Venu

Madhava Reddy and the said GPA holder Sri N.Venu Madhava Reddy executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant to an extent of 242 Sq.yards in part of the plot No.183 but in this case except Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, there are no documents filed, why because as per the counter claim averments first of all

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.8

the defendant has to file the division of total extent of Ac.8-21 guntas in

Sy.No.30 by Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu. In the entire pleadings of counter claim the defendant No.8 did not mention with regard to the layout but the said Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu made layout to total extent of Ac.8-21 guntas in sy.No.30 and whether it is approved or unapproved layout, there is no content with regard to the layout or division of the property alleged to be divided by Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu and there is no document filed by the defendant to show that how many plots he made and among these plots made by Sri M.Veera Raghavulu Naidu in entire property to an extent of Ac.8- 21 guntas in sy.No.30, the plot No.183 was in existence to an extent of 1000 sq.yards and also as per the averments of the counter claim at point No.18,

Sri B.Soma Sekhar after purchase of the plot No.183 to an extent of 1000

Sq.yards he sub-divided the said land, but how many plots he divided to an extent of 1000 Sq.yards and what is the extent of each plot for 1000 Sq.yards in plot No.183 and on what basis the said Sri B.Soma Sekhar divided the same is also not mentioned and the property claiming by the defendant No.8 is plot No.H-21 part of the plot No.183 to an extent of 242 Sq.yards, but to show that the plot No.183 was admeasuring 1000 Sq.yards as per the layout and later the said 1000 Sq.yards was sub-divided by Sri B.Soma Sekhar and schedule of property is having an extent of 242 Sq.yards and the plots are divided as H-21 and so on as claimed by the defendant, therefore there is no clarity with regard to the said sub-division alleged to be made by Sri B.Soma

Sekhar and also schedule of property plot number is H-21, why because if the plot No.183 was divided by Sri B.Soma Sekhar what are the the plot numbers and how many plots made by Sri B.Soma Sekhar and what is the extent of each plot is to be mentioned but nothing was mentioned in pleadings and also chief examination. There are no documents filed to support the division of the plots by the alleged owner Sri M. Veera Raghavulu Naidu or the alleged

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.9

sub-division by Sri B.Soma Sekhar, therefore the entire pleadings and evidence of defendant is not clear with regard to the existence of the property and except the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, there are no documents filed but the crucial documents are layout alleged to be made by Sri M.Veera

Raghavulu Naidu and also sub-division of the plot No.183 alleged to be made by Sri B.Soma Sekhar, why because to identify the property, the layout is crucial when there are several transactions took place as mentioned by the defendant in his counter claim, then he has to file the layout of entire plots or atleast he has to file rough sketch to identify the property to support the pleadings with regard to the division and sub-division, therefore this court feels that it is dispute with regard to the identity of the property and when dispute is with regard to the identity, the parties cannot claim perpetual injunction. So, as per discussion in this issue, the defendant No.8 also failed to prove his counter claim. Hence, he is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed in counter claim.

10. ISSUE No.3:

As per the discussion at Issue No.2, the defendant No.8 failed to establish his case as prayed in counter claim and the plaintiff also ‘Not pressed’ main suit and also failed to file their evidence. Hence, the defendant is not entitled to seek any relief of perpetual injunction.

In the result: the counter claim of the defendant No.8 is dismissed.

No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of July, 2019.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.64 of 2015 Page No.10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff -None-

Defendant DW-1: G.Jaya Lakshmi/Defendant No.8

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For Plaintiff -NIL- For Defendant Ex.B1 CC of sale deed bearing doc. No.11781/2010 dt. 06-12-2010 Ex.B2 CC of AGPA bearing doc. No.5549/2010 dt. 30-06-2010 Ex.B3 CC of sale deed bearing doc. No.6252/1997 dt. 30-12-1997

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 30-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

1

CC No.611 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF XXII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL

Tuesday, 06th day of August 2019 Present: Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., LL.B., XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal

CC No.611 of 2015

Between:- The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal

….. Complainant

AND

A.1Sale Padma Rao S/o. S. Ramanadham, Age: 50 yrs

A.2Sale Veeresh S/o. S. Ramanadham, Age: 40 yrs

Both R/o. Gowdavelly (V), Medchal Mdl, RR District

….. Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 30-07-2019 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri C. Krishna, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal, filed charge sheet against the A.1 and A.2 in Cr.No.326/2015 for the offences U/s 323, 290, 506, 509 R/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 22.05.2015 at 9.00 a.m., Pw.1 with the help of labourers dug pits to construct two rooms in her land located at Gowdavelly. At 9.00 p.m.,

A.1 and A.2 came there, abused her in filthy language and leveled the pits with mud, pulled her saree, as a result of which she fell down.

When Pw.2 intervened, they also pushed him to ground and threatened with dire consequences. In this regard, on receipt of complaint from Pw.1 on 27.05.2015 at 7.30 p.m., a case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded.

Notice U/s 41-A Cr.P.C., was issued to the accused on 01.07.2015 and later on completion of investigation SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of the case documents are furnished to them and they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.

2

CC No.611 of 2015

Charge U/secs 323, 290, 506 and 509 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. Pws.1 and 2 are the defacto complainant and her son. Pw.3 is one of the independent eye witnesses and Pw.4 is the Investigation Officer.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

They denied the same, reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence was closed.

6.Heard the arguments.

7.Now the Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge U/secs 323, 290, 506 and 509 IPC leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.In this case, Pw.3 the only independent eye witness examined by the SI of Police has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Pw.4 – the Investigation Officer has deposed about registration of case, recording of statements of witnesses Pws.1 to 3 and making enquiries with the Sarpanch of the village and after completion of investigation, SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

9.Now the evidence remains on the record is of Pws.1 and 2. Pw.1 is the defacto complainant, she stated that she owns a house plot at

Gowdavelly. About 2 or 3 years ago, one day, she got dug pits for raising pillars for construction. In the morning, the accused did not raise any objection, but in the night A.1 and A.2 brought 20 to 25 persons in intoxication condition and started leveling the pits by throwing the stones. When she questioned as to why they are leveling the pits, A.1 demanded to leave the way in her plot. When she refused, A.1 pushed her aside by caught holding the saree, abused and also beat her. Later A.1 and others left the place, as such 3

CC No.611 of 2015

she is unable to raise any room in her plot. In this regard, she filed complaint before the police. The complaint was marked after reading over the contents therein and she admitted the same as true and correct.

10.Pw.2 deposed that they own an open plot inherited from their ancestors. About 2 or 3 years ago, one day they got dug pits to raise construction. In the night, A.1 and A.2 brought about 20 to 25 persons in intoxication condition and started leveling the pits by throwing the stones and soil. When Pw.1 questioned, A.1 raised objection for raising construction and demanded to leave way in their plot. Both A.1 and A.2 caught hold of the saree of his mother, pushed her to ground and attacked. When he intervened, they also abused him and beat him. In this regard, Pw.1 filed complaint before the police. In the cross examination, Pw.2 stated that they have 120 sq.

yards in sy.no.331 and his father sold some plot to A.1 about 30 years ago. He also stated that there is a 12 feet road in between their plot and plot of accused. They sold 224 sq. yards to A.1. Pw.1 also stated in her cross examination that the house of A.1 was located on the back side of her house, intervened by road and she stated that she cannot say as to how much extent of plot she owns. She also admitted that some land was sold to A.1 about 40 years ago by her mother in law and also admitted that there is a road in front of the land sold to A.1. She denied the suggestion that in the document executed in favour of A.1, it is shown that there is a 20 feet road, but stated that it is only a 12 feet road and after the road, they have plot.

In further cross examination, she stated that she got all documents including Gram panchayat permission, but she has not filed any Civil suit for the alleged interference of the accused. She denied the suggestion that as she has no documents, she did not file any Civil suit and in order to grab the land of accused, this false complaint is filed.

11.The Investigation Officer stated in his cross examination that

Pw.1 has not given any documents to him to show that she has land at the disputed site. Pw.1 has also not given any specific abusive 4

CC No.611 of 2015

words used by the accused. Pw.2 has also not stated anything about specific abusive words used by the accused and he has not referred

Pw.2 to hospital. Both Pws.1 and 2 have stated that as they did not sustain bleeding injuries, they have not taken any treatment with the

Doctor. As per Pw.1, A.1 alone caught hold of her saree and pushed her. She also stated that A.1 abused and beat her. As per Pw.2, both

A.1 and A.2 caught hold saree of his mother and pushed her to ground and beat her. He has not stated that A.1 and A.2 abused his mother, but they abused him and beat him. Whereas Pw.1 has not stated anything about abusing and beating of her son by the accused. She has also not whispered about the presence of her son at the time of the incident. Though according to Pws.1 and 2 about 20 to 25 persons were brought by the accused in the night time in intoxication condition and it was also mentioned in the complaint, the Investigation Officer has not conducted any investigation in this regard to find out the whereabouts of 25 persons who said to have accompanied the accused.

12.There are corrections with regard to date and time of filing complaint. After making pencil endorsement with regard to date and time, it was corrected with pen by the Investigation Officer and he made a GD entry on 23.05.2015 at 8.30 p.m. and registered a case on 27.05.2015 at 7.30 p.m., made an endorsement that after establishing prima facie case U/secs 323, 290, 506 and 509 IPC and entrusted investigation to Pw.4. Though GD entry was made, no petition is filed before the Court seeking permission for registration of case initially for the non cognizable offences U/s 323, 290 and 506

IPC. Without examining any witnesses as to the offence U/s 509 IPC which is a cognizable offence, it is not known as to how the Inspector of Police came to conclusion that cognizable offence U/s 509 IPC is also established and registered a case on 27.05.2015.

13.The Investigation Officer or the Lw.4 – Inspector of Police, have not explained anything about the delay in registering the complaint five days after the alleged incident. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is contradicting with regard to the occurrence proper of the incident.

5

CC No.611 of 2015

Pw.1 has also not stated anything about the presence of Pw.2 at the time of incident and as admitted by Pws.1 and 2 in further cross examination that A.1 also purchased plot from the husband or mother in law of Pw.1 way back about 30 to 40 years ago. It is also admitted that there is a road in between their plot, but it is the contention of the accused that it is a 20 feet road. The Investigation Officer without collecting any proper documents from Pw.1 about the extent of road, which is root cause for the alleged incident has filed charge sheet simply recording statements of Pws.1 and 2 and one independent eye witness. The said independent eye witness also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

Though according to Pws.1 and 2 about 20 to 25 persons also came there, SI of Police has not examined any of them and as per the evidence, though he visited the village and enquired the Sarpanch, he has not examined the Sarpanch for the reasons best known to him.

14.In view of the above contradictory evidence of Pws.1 and 2 with regard to occurrence proper of the incident and also non disclosure of presence of Pw.2 by the Defacto complainant / Pw.1, I feel the presence of Pw.2 is also doubtful at the time of incident. In view of the above circumstances, I feel that there is no proper, consistent and cogent evidence with regard to occurrence of the incident.

Hence, I feel that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences leveled against them.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/secs 323, 290, 506 and 509 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required U/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 06th day of August 2019.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal 6

CC No.611 of 2015

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution

Pw.1 Afzal Begum, Defacto complainant Pw.2 Syed Younus Ali, son of Pw.1 Pw.3 K. Mahender, Independent eye witness Pw.4 M. Kishore, IO

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 Complaint dated 23.03.2015 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of independent eye witness Ex.P3 FIR dt 27.05.2015

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

OS.No.166 of 2016 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.166 of 2016

On this the 25 th day of July, 2019

Between:- Chilukuru Naresh, S/o.Ch.Eswaraiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Software Engineer, R/o.H.No.17-5-84, Subbaraopeta, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District presently residing at H.No.2-22-105/7/402, Sai Teja Residency, Vijayanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District … Plaintiff

and

1.Pericharla Sita Rama Raju, S/o.Satyanarayana Raju, aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.20, Aditya Gardens, Near Sai Nagar Colony, Bachupally Village, RR District

2. P.V.S.Ravi Kumar Raju, S/o.P.V.Sita Rama Raju, Aged about 47 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.602, ‘A’Block, Vertex Prestige, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, RR District

3. P.Raghava Kumar, s/o.Not known Aged about 42 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.4-1/92, Aditya Gardens, Bachupally, RR District

4. Namburi Sekhar, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ:Business, R/o.B-25, DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad

5. Kotta Amara Srikrishna, S/o.Rama Krishna Rao, Aged 44 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Satenapalli, Guntur District

6. Kotha Mangala Sai Krishna, S/o.Rama Krishna, Aged about 41 years, Occ:Business R/o.Satenapalli, Guntur District

7. Vedanapu Suresh, S/o.Siva Gandhi, Aged about 44 years, Occ:Business,

R/o.Gandlapally Village, Guntur District ... Defendants

This suit came before me on 03-07-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.Bheeshma Chary, learned Counsel for the plaintif and in the absence of Sri K.V.Rama Raju, learned Counsel for the defendant No.1, defendant No.3 is set exparte and the case against defendants No.2, 4 to 7 is dismissed and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

Date: 25-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.166 of 2016 Page No.2

1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property Open Plot No.90/Part admeasuring 200 Sq,yards in sy.No. 185 Part situated at Bachupally Village,

Quthbullapur Mandal, RR District having purchased through the registered sale deed vide document bearing No. 8700 of 2015 dt. 14-07-2015 from the defendant No.1 and in turn the defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property and other properties from defendant No.3 through registered sale deed vide document bearing No. 1685 of 2015 dated 08-06-2015 from its owner Tulsi Laxmi and another represented by their AGPA holder i.e.

defendant No.2 vide AGPA document No.16947 dated 20-12-2004. Prior to the execution of Registered sale deed there was an agreement of sale dated 18-06-2015 in between plaintiff and defendant No.1, out of the total consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-, the plaintiff paid Rs.4,00,000/- and paid the entire consideration on the date of registration of the sale deed, the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property and found defendant No.4 and 5 along with other persons verifying and inspecting the boundaries of the suit schedule property without the knowledge of the plaintiff, then immediately the plaintiff questioned with regard to the execution of sale deed, then they said that the defendant No.2 executed registered sale deed vide document No. 9305 of 2007 dt. 24-05-2007 in favour of the defendant No.4 and 5, therefore immediately this plaintiff approached the police but they did not take any action, hence this plaintiff filed private complaint on the file of the Hon’ble VI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal under section 420, 506 and 120-B of IPC which is pending, therefore the defendants are interfering into

Date: 25-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.166 of 2016 Page No.3

his possession, so he filed the suit for injunction.

3.The case against the defendants No. 2, 4 to 7 is dismissed and defendant No.3 is set exparte.

The defendant No.1 filed the written statement by submitting that: The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of

Rs.22,00,000/-, this defendant did not conceal any fact with the plaintiff about the prior registration done by the defendant No.2, the plaintiff by adopting criminal methods threatened this defendant with dire consequences, this defendant realized that he has been deceived by his vendor and immediately initiated criminal proceedings before the Police,

Dundigal, the said case is pending and this defendant with a proposal for amicable settlement and without any receipt with an understanding to get cancel the title deeds stands in the name of the plaintiff and agreed to pay the consideration, accordingly complied his part of obligation by paying consideration, as such the right of the plaintiff seized in respect of the suit schedule property, but deliberately without complying his promise to defendants to get it cancelled, he approached the Hon’ble court and filed the present suit, therefore there is no cause of action and the plaintiff invented the story, so the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief, hence requested to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the pleadings and material available on record, this court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

5. Heard the counsel for plaintiff but no representation from defendants even after giving sufficient opportunity, the defendants did not appear and

Date: 25-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.166 of 2016 Page No.4

also not filed any evidence. Hence, the evidence of defendant No.1 is recorded as NIL and defendant No.3 is set exparte. The case against the other defendants was already dismissed. Perused the record.

6. ISSUE No.1 :

(a) To prove this issue, the plaintiff has to establish his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit and he has to prove his title over the suit schedule property that he purchased the suit schedule property through the registered sale deed as per his pleadings.

(b) To prove the same the plaintiff is examined as PW1 but the defendants failed to cross examine the PW1. Therefore, the cross of PW1 is recorded as

NIL. In support of evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 got marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the sale deed belongs to the plaintiff. As per the Certified copy of the sale deed, the plaintiff purchased the property from Chilukuru

Naresh dt. 14-07-2015 and the boundaries of the suit schedule property are towards North: Plot No.91, South: Plot No.90 Part, East: Plot No.101 and

West: 30’-0” wide road. So, as per the schedule of property at page No.4, the plaintiff purchased the property plot No. 90 Part admeasuring 200

Sq.yards out of 300 Sq.yards, the remaining 100 Sq.yards was with the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. defendant No.1 and the vendor of the plaintiff has got acquired the property through the registered sale deed vide document bearing No. 1685/2015 dated 08-06-2015. As per this document, the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the property from Tulasi Laxmi and D.Venkatesh.

The boundaries of the property are towards North: Plot No.91, South: Plot

No.88, East: Plot No.101 & 102 and West: 30’-0” wide road. So, as per the boundaries the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. defendant No.1 purchased the property to an extent of 600 Sq.yards in plot No. 89 and 90 each having an

Date: 25-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.166 of 2016 Page No.5

extent of 300 Sq.yards. Ex.A3 is the link document of vendors vendor of the plaintiff. As per this document dated 08-06-2015 the vendors to the vendor of the plaintiff by name Tulsi Laxmi and D.Venkatesh have executed the GPA in favour of the PVS Ravi Kumar Raju. The boundaries to the schedule of property mentioned in Ex.A3 are North: Plot No.91, South: Plot No.88, East:

Plot No.101 & 102 and West: 30’-0” wide road and as per the schedule of property the plot No.89 and 90 total extent of 600 Sq.yards purchased by the vendors to vendor of the plaintiff and as per the boundaries, the Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 are tallying for the plot No.89 and 90 total extent of 600 Sq.yards and as per the plan attached to the Ex.A1 sale deed the plot No. 89 and 90 are adjacent to each other. On the northern side of the plot No.89 there is a plot

No.90 and as per the pleadings the plaintiff purchased the property to an extent of 200 Sq.yards in plot No.90 out of 300 Sq.yards. So, as per the plan map if the plaintiff purchased the property to an extent of 200 Sq.yards out of 300 Sq.yards on plot No.90, then the boundaries will be North: Plot No.91,

South: Plot No.90/Part, East Plot No.101 and West: 30 feet wide road. These boundaries are tallying the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 sale deed.

Therefore, as per these documents the vendor of the plaintiff was the owner and possessor of the plot No.90 and 89 each extent of 300 Sq.yards total 600

Sq.yards and the vendors of the vendor to the plaintiff also had the same extent of properties in same plots and out of that the plaintiff purchased the property 200 sq.yards within boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 sale deed and the plan attached to Ex.A1 sale deed is clearly showing the boundaries to the property for its identification, but the defendant No.1 who submitted with regard to the execution of the sale deed in his favour, he did not approach this court to contest the matter, he simply filed the written statement by admitting the execution of the Ex.A1 sale deed, but later he failed to appear

before this court and the other defendants have also failed to appear before

Date: 25-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.166 of 2016 Page No.6

this court. Hence, at this stage, the court can draw an adverse inference against the defendants that they are interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs. Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance Certificate from 01-01-2007 to 24-05- 2016, it is clearly reflecting the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A3. Therefore, the plaintiff established his case, why because as per the pleadings it is an open plot, so the title follows possession, therefore the plaintiff establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to seek the injunction against the defendants.

7. ISSUE No.2:

As per the discussion at Issue No.1, the plaintiff established his case, hence he is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction.

In the result: the suit of the plaintiff is decreed by restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of July, 2019.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff PW-1:Chilukuru Naresh/Plaintiff Defendant None

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For Plaintiff Ex.A1 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 14-07-2015 Ex.A2 Encumbrance Certificate dt. 28-05-2016 Ex.A3 Certified copy of link document dt. 08-06-2015 Ex.A4 Certified copy of registered AGPA dt. 20-12-2004 Ex.A5 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 24-05-2007 For Defendant -NIL-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 25-07-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal