K. Krishnavamsi

O.S.No.253 of 2017 1 PCJ(JD), Punganur

APCH0E0008122017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PUNGANUR

Present :Sri. K. Krishnavamsi

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.253 of 2017

Between:

Kandukuri Subramanyam, S/o Late K.Munivenkatappa, aged about 59 years, Hindu, Cultivation and r/at Chinnakondamari, Chowdepalli Panchayat and Chowdepalli Mandal.

... Plaintiff.

And

1. K.Kesavulu s/o late Gangulappa, aged about 60 years,

2. K.Ramakrishna s/o Kesavulu, aged about 30 years,

3. K.Abbodu @Venkataramana s/o late Gangulappa, aged about 55 years,

4. K. Raaraju s/o K. Abbodu @ Venkataramana, aged about 26 years,

All are Hindus, living by cultivation and r/at Chinnakondamari, Chowdepalli Panchayat and Chowdepalli Mandal. … Defendants.

This suit has come before me on 27.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V. Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri S.

Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for

O.S.No.253 of 2017 2 PCJ(JD), Punganur

plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 1 to 3, their men and agents, from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit's scheduled property.

1. The suit scheduled property is a land admeasuring 35 cents in Survey

No. 89/1 in Chowdepalle Mandal, Chowdepalle Revenue Village,

Chinnakondamari Village-Dhakala, Chowdepalle Cheruvu Asara.

2. It is contented by the plaintiff that the suit land was partly owned and possessed by one K. Balappa and his wife Narayanamma, who acquired the property through a gift deed. The remaining part of the suit land ancestorally belonged to D. Sreenivasulu and Venkatramana. It is further contented that on 17.09.2001, said Balappa and Narayanamma with their son Sudhakar

Sreenivasulu, Venkatramana sold away the suit land to plaintiff through a registered sale deed and the plaintiff took the possession on the same day and has also got all the relevant revenue records mutated in his name.

3. Plaintiff further contends that in the year 1997, when the plaintiff was digging a well in Survey No. 89/3, father of D1 and D3, namely late

Kangulappa, prevented him from doing so, as his agricultural land would deplete if plaintiff sunk the well and there have been misunderstandings between the both families since then. Keeping the said misunderstandings in mind, about 15 days prior to the suit, the defendants trespassed the suit land and damaged the coconut plants etc. on the suit scheduled land. Hence this suit.

O.S.No.253 of 2017 3 PCJ(JD), Punganur

4. Defendant no. 3 has filed his written statement and the rest of the defendants have adopted the same by denying the averments maintained by the plaintiff. Defendant further submits that the land of the plaintiff is a wet land and the land belonging to defendants is a dry land. The defendant further contends that, D1 and D3, along with their elder brother, have purchased an extent of 1 acre 19 cents with specific boundaries from G. Parvatamma under a registered sale deed on 03.05.1984 along with an extent of 1 acre 31 cents of paramboke land on the eastern side of the 1 acre 19 cents vide a separate transaction and since then they are in the possession. He further contends that D1, D3 and their brother executed a registered gift deed in favour of their father Kangulappa for the extent of 1 acre 19 cents and the remaining 1 acre 31 cents was kept with them. After death of their both parents, they again took back the possession of the 1 acre 19 cents as stated supra. They have also stated that they constructed tombs in the said place for their parents. Hence the defendantare in the possession and enjoyment of 2 acre 50 cents. The defendant further contends that plaintiff being the adjacent owner tried to encroach in the defendant's land and tried to plant mango trees high handedly for which defendant resisted. It is admitted by the defendant that plaintiff is entitled to only an extent of 35 cents as purchased under registered sale deal on 17.09.2001 in Survey No. 18/1 and he cannot go beyond this said extent high handedly. The defendant further submits that even before their purchase of the land, their vendor has dug a well in the poramboke land and it is still there in their land and hence the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Basing upon their rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial.

i) Whether the plaintiff is in a lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date and date of the institution of the suit?

O.S.No.253 of 2017 4 PCJ(JD), Punganur

ii) Whether the suit is bad for the misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties, as pleaded by the defendants?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

iv) To what relief?

6. ISSUE No.2:This Court feels it is proper to answer the Issue No. 2 first, as it involves a mixed question of law and fact.

Whether the suit is bad for the misjoinder and non-joinder of the

necessary parties, as pleaded by the defendants?

7. When a party to the suit is unintentionally added, it is a case of misjoinder. Conversely, where a person who is necessary or proper party to a suit has not been joined as a party to the suit, it is a case of non-joinder. The concepts of nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties address issues arising from improper inclusion or exclusion of parties in a suit.

8. In the present case, it was pleaded by the defendant that this suit is hit by the misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of parties. This defence was pleaded by the defendant by stating that this suit cannot be maintained as there is a misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. . A necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding

9. As the present suit is for the grant of permanent injunction and this would ordinarily lie against a person who is causing the obstruction in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and it is the plaintiff who seeks the relief against the appropriate parties whom he contends that

O.S.No.253 of 2017 5 PCJ(JD), Punganur

they are interfering in the possession of the schedule property. Moreover, the defendant has just stated that the suit is hit by the misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and he has not taken any step to show that a necessary party is not added or the suit would not lie against them. Hence there is no material to show that there is either misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary parties and hence this issue is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit can be proceeded with against D1 to D4.

10. ISSUE NO.1:

PW1 is the plaintiff, who has filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint. PW2 is a third party who is examined to substantiate the case of the plaintiff. Exhibit A1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed

dated 17.09.2001. Exhibit A2 is the E. Pattadhar Passbook dated 25.10.2016.

Exhibit A3 is the 1B. Namuna obtained through MeeSeva dated 19.07.2017.

Exhibit A4 is the Pattadar Adangal for fasli 1425 and 1426 dated 07.07.2017.

11. At the outset, to claim the relief of Perpetual Injunction the plaintiff must establish his legal right and also his exclusive possession over the suit schedule lands and the court shall exercise its judicial discretion, only to prevent the breach of an obligation which is in existence in favour of the plaintiff. So, now the plaintiff must prove and establish that the suit schedule property is in his exclusive possession and enjoyment by the date of filing the suit and that the defendants have caused breach of an obligation which is in his favour, to get the relief of Permanent Injunction in his favour.

12. Since the suit is filed by the plaintiff, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property and that defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property by plaintiff. To prove his case, the plaintiff heavily relied on the evidences of PW1, PW2 and

O.S.No.253 of 2017 6 PCJ(JD), Punganur

Exhibits A1 to A4. Thus, this Court must appreciate the evidences of PW1 and

PW2 and Exhibits A1 to A4 to decide this issue.

13. The plaintiff, examined as PW-1, affirmed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint and marked documents as stated above. Apart from reiterating the contents of the plaint, PW1 has further deposed that in the year 1997, when the plaintiff was digging a well in his land, in Survey No. 89/3, late

Gangulappa i.e. the father of D1 and D3 prevented him from doing so. And in this context, the said Gangulappa even went on to the extent of stabbing the plaintiff. He further submitted that on the very same day, the said Gangulappa ended his life by committing suicide. In the cross-examination, questions were put relating to the flow of title towards the plaintiff i.e. Purchase of the property under Exhibit A1 from Balappa and 5 others. The plaintiff admitted the transaction in Exhibit A1 and he further stated that some of the extent of the suit schedule property was acquired by way of gift to the vendors of the plaintiff and when the question was put relating to the non-filing of the said gift deed etc. the PW1 has stated that as it was not given by the vendors to him he could not file the same. When the questions were put relating to the extents claimed by the defendants in their written statement of 1 acre 19 cents and 1 acre 31 cents, the PW1 has stated that he has no idea about the said transactions.

14. One K Changalrayappa who is a third party to the suit proceedings was brought in as PW2 to support the contention of the plaintiff. He stated that he knew both the plaintiff and defendants and he also has idea about the suit property so also its boundaries. PW2 states that the property originally belonged to one Balappa and his family members and about 20 years ago plaintiff has purchased it from the rightful owners and since then plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and about 5 years back defendants are trying to interfere in the possession of the plaint. In the

O.S.No.253 of 2017 7 PCJ(JD), Punganur

cross-examination of PW2, apart from the questions which were put relating to his profession etc., nothing material was elicited. Only the relevant portion would be that PW2 has stated that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of only 35 cents alone. PW2 was also able to demonstrate the boundaries of the suit schedule properties as it is.

15. From the crux of the evidence of PW1, there is no material evidence.

that can be drawn by the defence to defeat the claim of plaintiffs. It is the defendants who are claiming to have purchased some extents of 1 acre 19 cents and 1 acre 31 cents through another transaction, whereas the plaintiff has nowhere mentioned about the said transactions nor has he claimed about the property as mentioned in the defendants. The plaintiff from day 1 has put his stand only on the extent of 35 cents in Survey No. 89/3. Even the evidence of PW2 supports the contention of the plaintiff. And in the cross-examination, it was made out by the counsel for the defence that the plaintiff is entitled only for 35 cents. Surprisingly, in the cross examination, the counsel for the defendant has constantly made his efforts to prove that the plaintiffs are in the possession of only 35 cents when the case of the plaintiff itself is for 35 cents

16. Right from the written statement of the defendants, It is the stand of the defendants that the plaintiff is entitled only to the extent of 35 cents in 89/3, but not of anything more than that. The defendants have continuously contended about their transactions relating to 1 acre 19 cents and 1 acre 31 cents, but nowhere in his plaint or in his evidence does the plaintiff stated about his possession over the said extent of 2 acre 50 cents. From day one the plaintiff is always claiming the property in 35 cents. The defendant in his written statement itself has admitted that the plaintiff is entitled for 35 cents and nothing more than that. Even the cross-examination was made in the similar lines to extract that the plaintiff is having the possession only in 35 cents. Hence this Court is satisfied that this issue can be answered clearly in

O.S.No.253 of 2017 8 PCJ(JD), Punganur

favour of the plaintiff as it was admitted by the defendant in the written statement as well as it was made out in the cross-examination of PW1 and

PW2 that the plaintiff is entitled only for the extent of 35 cents. Also the

Exhibits A1 to A4 discloses that the suit schedule property is of 35 cents and the plaintiff is in the possession of the property. Exhibit A1 discloses the transaction between one K. Balappa and others in favour of the plaintiff i.e. it shows the mode of acquisition of the property by the plaintiff and the schedule discloses that the plaintiff has made a purchase of land admeasuring 35 cents in the Survey No. 89/1. Exhibit A2 is the E-pattadar passbook issued in the name of the plaintiff and it contains that in Survey No. 89/1, the plaintiff is having a land for 35 cents and which is acquired to him by way of "KONUGOLU" that means a purchase. Exhibit A3 and A4 i.e. the 1B namuna and Adangal pahani copies disclose that he is in the possession of the said 35 cents as on the date of the filing of the suit.

17. In the present case, the plaintiff has produced strong documentary evidence of his possession i.e., Ex.A1-A4, while the defendants have failed to let any evidence on their side and infact made an admission in the written statement that plaintiff is entitled to the relief for 35 cents alone. The evidence clearly indicates that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession. Accordingly, this

Court concludes that the plaintiff has established his continuous, peaceful and lawful possession of the suit property and has further shown that the defendants attempted to interfere with such possession. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.

18. Upon considering the evidence adduced it is safe to say that the plaintiff has established his possession in the suit schedule property through his documentary evidence alongside the oral evidence, whereas defendants have not exhibited any document on their behalf.

O.S.No.253 of 2017 9 PCJ(JD), Punganur

19. Hence, it can safely be said that 1st issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

20. Issue no.3 iii)

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent

injunction against the defendants as prayed for?”

In view of the findings in Issues No. 1, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for.

21. Issue no.4:

iv) To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III of Principal Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Punganur corrected, signed and pronounced by me in

the open Court, this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

O.S.No.253 of 2017 10 PCJ(JD), Punganur

PW.1: Kandukuri Subramanyam -None-

PW.2: Kandukuri Chengalrayappa

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.17.09.2001.

Ex.A2is e-pattadar pass book dt.25.10.2016.

Ex.A3is 1-B namoona obtained through mee-seva dt.19.07.2017.

Ex.A4is pattadar adangals for fasalis 1425 and 1426 dt.07.07.2017.

Exhibits marked for Defendants: Nil.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

O.S.No.291 of 2022 1PCJ(JD), Punganur

APCH0E0008162022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PUNGANUR

Present : Sri. K. Krishnavamsi

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Punganur.

Thursday, this the 23 rd day of April, 2026

O.S.No.291 of 2022

Between:

1. R.Krishna Reddy, S/o Veerappa Reddy @ Veera Reddy, aged about 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

2. R.Venkata Lakshmamma @ Venkatalakshmi, W/o R.Krishna Reddy, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

Both are residing at Arantlapalli village, H/o Nethigutlapalli, Mittachinthavaripalli Post, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

... Plaintiffs.

And

1) R.Sankar Reddy s/o late Veerappa Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

2) R.Gangi Reddy, s/o late Veerappa Reddy, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

3) A.Bhaskar, S/o A.Nallappa, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Arantlapalli village, H/o Nethigutlapalli, Mittachinthavaripalli Post, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor Dist.

… Defendants.

O.S.No.291 of 2022 2PCJ(JD), Punganur

This suit has come before me on 23.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Jahoor Basha, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of plaint are as follows :-

a) It is averred that the "suit schedule properties" originally belongs to one

C.R.Chennamma, 1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff and now in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The said C.R.Chennamma is the mother of the 1st plaintiff and she is the 2nd wife to the 1st plaintiff's father ie. Veera Reddy who also having first wife and through her the defendants 1 and 2 were born and the 1st wife's family was residing separately. The C.R.Chennamma and the 1st plaintiff, 2nd plaintiff were residing separately and said Veerappa Reddy was looking after both the families. C.R.Chennamma died on 03-09-2010 leaving behind her the 1st plaintiff being the sole legal heir to her since the 1st plaintiff's father died about 15 years ago.

b) During the life time of C.R.Chennamma, she and 1st plaintiff about 25 years back, both have occupied the item No.1 and they made the same fit for cultivation and, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Punganur has issued D-form patta about 25 years back in the name of the said C.R.Chennamma and she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and she got D-form patta in her name, which was misplaced and it is beyond recovery. She availed loan and she submitted original pattadar Pass-Book and title deed in the Bank. In the 1-B Namoona and Adangal /pahani obtained from Grama Ward Sachivalayam shows that C.R.Chennamma got the land through Darakasthu patta.

O.S.No.291 of 2022 3PCJ(JD), Punganur

c) It is averred that said C.R.Chennamma had purchased the item No.2 of the suit property from its rightful owners ie., owners ie., Kotiki Lakshmanna s/o

K.Subbanna and K. Venkatramana S/o K.Ramanna under a registered sale deed

dt: 6-2-1989 and she was put in possession and enjoyment of the same and her

name also mutated in all revenue records and pattadar pass-book and title deed were also issued in favour of C.R.Chennamma. 1-B Namoona and Adangal /pahani from Grama Sachivalayam shows that C.R.Chennamma got the land by way of purchase.

d) After demise of C.R.Chennamma and the 1st plaintiff has been succeeded the estate of C.R.Chennamma and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff's father also died about 15 years back and so her only son the 1st plaintiff has succeeded the property of his mother and even now the revenue records are standing in the name of C.R.Chennamma and he is raising dry crops regularly.

e) It is averred the 1st plaintiff and his wife ie., the 2nd plaintiff have occupied the item No.3 of the suit property about 25 years ago and reclaimed the same and made it fit for cultivation and considering the long standing possession same, the then Mandal Revenue officer, Punganur has issued D-form patta in favour of R.Venkatalakshmamma ie., 2nd plaintiff and her name also mutated in all revenue records and she got pattadar pass-book and title deed were also issued in favour of 2nd plaintiff. In the 1-B Namoona and Adangal / pahani.

f) It is further averred that the 1st plaintiff has purchased the Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the suit schedule properties from its rightful owners ie., Kotiki Lakshmanna s/o K.Subbanna and K. Venkatramana S/o K.Ramanna, under a registered sale deed dt: 25-09-2000 and possession was also delivered to him and he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and it is his self acquired property. He got pattadar pass-book and title deed were also issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff and also obtained the 1-B Namoona and Adangal / pahani which shows that 1st plaintiff got the land by way of purchase.

g) It is further averred that the 1st plaintiff has purchased the Item No.6 of the suit schedule property from one Pilli Venkatappa s/o Kotiki Subbanna under a

O.S.No.291 of 2022 4PCJ(JD), Punganur

registered sale deed dt: 29-08-1983 and he is put in possession and enjoyment of the same. He submitted claim applications several times and due to political influence the said claim application of the 1st plaintiff is kept pending and it is in possession and enjoyment of the 1st plaintiff and his name is not entered, but his vendors are no way caused obstructions to the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the item No.6 of the suit schedule property. Both the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the item Nos. 1 to 6 of the suit properties and regularly raising dry crops like groundnuts, Ragi, maize and other crops. At present the plaintiffs have ploughed the lands and made ready to sow seeds in the suit lands.

h) It is averred that the defendants have no manner of right or title over the suit schedule property., but they causing troubles with the help of rowdy elements and they are making hectic efforts to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. About fifteen days back, when the plaintiffs and their family are ploughing again to sow the groundnut and ragi seeds, the defendants, their men and agents came to suit property and caused obstruction and the intervention of the village elders, the plaintiffs resisted the high handed acts of them. About three days back once again the defendants proclaimed in the village that they will again come and dispossess the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 are called absent. No representation. Inspite of ample opportunities defendants 1 and 2 did not file written statements. Mandatory period also completed. Hence defendants 1 and 2 are set exparte. On 12.07.2024 and

Summons to D3 served. D3 called absent. No representation. Hence D3 is set exparte on 23.01.2024.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Now the point that arise for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant, his men and agents from interfering with his peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property”?

7. P O I N T :-

O.S.No.291 of 2022 5PCJ(JD), Punganur

(i) As mentioned earlier defendants were set exparte. Merely because the defendants remained exparte would not be a ground to the plaintiffs to avail the judgment in their favour and it is for them to prove that the plaintiffs have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of suit and that the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession over the suit schedule property. To substantiate the case of plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of her examination-in- chief by reiterating the averments of plaint.

(ii) To prove the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property 1st plaintiff got examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 which are is Adangal/Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favor of R. Chennamma dated 23.05.2022, 1-B namoona obtained trough grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R.

Chennamma dated 23.05.2022, Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favor of R. Chennamma dated 23.05.2022 for Sy. No.60-2A,1-B namoona obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Krishna Reddy

dated 23.05.2022 for item No.4 and 5, 1-B namoona obtained through grama ward

sachivalayam in favour of R. Venkatalakhmi dated 23.05.2022 for item No.3,

Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R.

Venkatalakshmi dated 23.05.2022 for Item No.3, Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Krishna Reddy dated 23.05.2022 for item

No.4 and Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of

R. Krishna Reddy dated 23.05.2022 for item No.5.

(iii) On perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and ocular evidence of PW.1, it is evident that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. The evidence of PW.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property has been intact and remained unchallenged as the defendants remained exparte in the suit. The ocular evidence of PW.1 is well supported by the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to

A8 as such the plaintiffs have successfully proved that they have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit.

O.S.No.291 of 2022 6PCJ(JD), Punganur

The evidence of PW.1 that the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property has been intact and unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendants their men and agents from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Punganur corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

PW.1: R. Krishna Reddy -None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is Adangal/Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favor of R. Chennamma dated 23.05.2022. Ex.A2 is 1-B namoona obtained trough grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Chennamma dated 23.05.2022. Ex.A3 is Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favor of R. Chennamma dated 23.05.2022 for Sy. No.60-2A, Ex.A4 is 1-B namoona obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Krishna Reddy dated 23.05.2022 for item No.4 and 5. Ex.A5 is 1-B namoona obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Venkatalakhmi dated 23.05.2022 for item No.3. Ex.A6 is Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Venkatalakshmi dated 23.05.2022 for Item No.3.

O.S.No.291 of 2022 7PCJ(JD), Punganur

Ex.A7 is Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Krishna Reddy dated 23.05.2022 for item No.4. Ex.A8 is Adangal / Pahani obtained through grama ward sachivalayam in favour of R. Krishna Reddy dated 23.05.2022 for item No.5.

Exhibits marked for Defendants: Nil.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

O.S.No.197 of 2024 1PCJ(JD), Punganur

APCH0E0005782024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PUNGANUR

Present :Sri. K. Krishnavamsi

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Punganur.

Friday, this the 24 th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.197 of 2024

Between:

Smt Kuthala Bhudevi, W/o Jayachandra, aged about 41 years, Hindu, Living by Cultivation, R/at Kuravapalle, H/o Khagathi, Chowdepalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Plaintiff.

And

Sri Papugani Rajanna, S/o Muni Venkatappa, aged about 52 years, Hindu, Living by cultivation, R/at 6-51, Marikuntapalle Village H/o Khagathi, Chowdepalle Mandal, Chittoor District. … Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 16.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from

O.S.No.197 of 2024 2PCJ(JD), Punganur

interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of plaint are as follows :- The plaintiff submits that the plaint schedule property originally was Government land which was un-even to construct the houses. As the plaintiff who was a shelter less poor person occupied the same and leveled the same to fit for construction of house and enjoying the same without any kind of interruption with the knowledge of whole villagers including the defendant by spending huge amounts apart from her manual labor. Thereafter on the application the

Government represented by the Tahsildar got issued Anubhava

Druvapatramu-cum-Nivesa Sthala Swadeena Druveekarana Patramu under

Plot No.4 situated in Sy. No.314/1 an extent of Ac.0.03 cents with specific boundaries to the plaintiff Dt.12.01.2024 and entered her name in the entire records. The Mandal surveyor, Chowdepalle also given the Lay out, Field

Sketch, Village Map along with Sites allotment list vide plaintiff's serial No.4 and to prove the same, the plaintiff is herewith filed the afore mentioned records along with Original VHS Patta for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court.

It is further averred that except the plaintiff none else has got any iota of right over the plaint schedule property and she constructed a house roofing with Iron sheets and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by availing Electricity Connection fromconcerned authorities vide Service

No.5811106002749. While being in lawful possession of plaintiff, the defendant who is having no any iota of right, title, possession and enjoyment over the same, due to village politics unnecessarily giving troubles to the plaintiff in enjoying the plaint schedule property and then the plaintiff chastised the defendant through the village elders and on that he bored grudge over the plaintiff and is canvassing in the village that he has to mismanage the concerned with an intention to get revenue records in order to cause loss and hardship to the plaintiff on seeing the developments made in the plaint

O.S.No.197 of 2024 3PCJ(JD), Punganur

schedule property by her. The defendant is powerful person in the locality and backed by rowdy elements as well as politicians and yesterday i.e., on.17.06.2024 when the plaintiff is at the plaint schedule property and at that time the defendant along with his henchmen came there and tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and at that time when the neighboring owners came there and chastised them and when they went from the place openly warned that at any cost they will achieve their goal by hook or crook and the plaintiff is a lonely person and being a lady unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendant and his men and hence the plaintiff has no other option except to approach this Hon'ble court seeking for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property.

3. Defendant is called absent. No representation. Summons served personally. Hence, defendant was set exparte on 09-08-2024.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Now the point that arise for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction

restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with

his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property”?

7. P O I N T :-

(i) As mentioned earlier defendant was set exparte. Merely because the defendant remained exparte would not be a ground to the plaintiff to avail the judgment in her favour and it is for her to prove that the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of suit and that the defendant is trying to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property. To substantiate the case of

O.S.No.197 of 2024 4PCJ(JD), Punganur

plaintiff, she herself was examined as PW.1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief by reiterating the averments of plaint.

(ii) To prove the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 which are anubhava Druvapatramu cum

Nivasa Sthala Swadeena Druveekarana Pathramu dated 12.01.2024, Field layout given by the Mandal Surveyor, Chowdepalle Mandal, Field sketch given by the Mandal Surveyor, Chowdepalle Mandal, village map given by mandal

Surveyor, Chowdepalle Mandal, Property photos and electricity consumption bill for the month of May, 2024 dated 05.06.2024.

(iii) On perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and ocular evidence of PW.1, it is evident that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. The evidence of PW.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property has been intact and remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte in the suit. The ocular evidence of PW.1 is well supported by the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 as such the plaintiff has successfully proved that she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. The evidence of PW.1 that the defendant is trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property has been intact and unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendant his men and agents from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

O.S.No.197 of 2024 5PCJ(JD), Punganur

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III of Principal Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Punganur corrected, signed and pronounced by me in

the open Court, this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

PW.1: Kuthala Bhudevi -None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is anubhava Druvapatramu cum Nivasa Sthala Swadeena

Druveekarana Pathramu dated 12.01.2024.

Ex.A2is Field layout given by the Mandal Surveyor, Chowdepalle Mandal

Ex.A3is Field sketch given by the Mandal Surveyor, Chowdepalle Mandal

Ex.A4is village map given by mandal Surveyor, Chowdepalle Mandal

Ex.A5is Property photos

Ex.A6is electricity consumption bill for the month of May, 2024 dated 05.06.2024.

Exhibits marked for Defendants: Nil.

O.S.No.197 of 2024 6PCJ(JD), Punganur

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

1

APCH0E0019902023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PUNGANUR

Present : Sri. K. Krishnavamsi

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

O.S.No.501 of 2023

Between:

G.Kamakshamma, D/o G.Venkatesu Setty, aged about 72 years, Hindu, Dependent, residing at Door No.3-58- Lakkanapalli village, Byreddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

..... Plaintiff.

And

G.Narasimhulu Setty, s/o G.Venkatesu Setty, aged about 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Pedda Velagaturu village and post, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendant.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 21.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffand defendant was set ex- parte to the suit proceedings and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This is a suit filed to pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff for division of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares by taking into consideration of good and bad soil and allot one such share to the plaintiff and 2 direct the defendant to put the plaintiff in separate possession of such share in the plaint schedule properties after division by metes and bounds. And directing the defendants to pay the costs of suit and pass the chadar and a few further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows.

That the suit schedule properties originally are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant, which are in the name of their father G. Venkateshu

Shetty. The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff and defendant alone are the legal representatives and jointly succeeds the estate of the deceased father and now they are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties by enjoying the same with approximate extents. The plaintiff further submits that as on the date of the filing of the suit the name of the father of the plaintiff And defendant is continued in all the revenue records such as the plaint, such as 1B, Adangal etc.

The plaintiff further submits that since last 1 month the defendant has taken advantage of his high handedness and is trying to create some nominal documents in favour of his kin and also trying to sell away some scheduled properties to third parties without the consent of the plaintiff only with the intention to defeat her legitimate half share in the suit scheduled properties. And if any such documents are created by the defendants, those are not binding of the plaintiff and would also put plaintiff to irreparable loss. Hence, this suit.

3. Summons issued to the defendant. An advocate has filed vakkalathnama in favour of the defendant. But, in spite of giving ample of opportunities, written statement of defendant was not filed and he was set ex parte on 01.03.2024.

3

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself was present and sworn in as

PW1 and has got marked Exhibits A1 and A2 in her favour to support her case.

5. The point for determination is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to half share of the suit schedule properties as prayed for?”

6. On perusal of the chief affidavit of PW1, it clearly shows that the plaintiff is having a share in the plaint schedule property. Further, partition is not affected and the plaint schedule property is in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff is having equal share in it. The evidence of PW1 is unchallenged by the defendants as the remained ex parte. In the view of the evidence available on hand, Exhibit A1 i.e. 1B ROR issued in the name of G. Venkateshu Setty discloses 4 properties located in Survey Nos. 134/1A, 134/2B/1, 141/2, 143/3A/1 admeasuring a total extent of 2 acres 41 cents. Exhibit A2 is the set of adangals which consists of the aforementioned properties in the name of late G. Venkatesu setty and all the properties were self-acquired properties of late Venkateshu Setty.

Hence this court is satisfied that the plaintiff and defendant have equal shares in the suit schedule property and plaintiff is entitled to the relief of division and separation of the suit schedule property. It is clear that the plaintiff proved his case and entitled for the relief of partition as prayed for.

7. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed by granting preliminary decree as follows:

a. It is ordered that the suit schedule property shall be divided into two equal shares, and the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for each one such share.

4 b. The defendant shall put the plaintiff in separate possession of such share in the plaint schedule properties after the division by metes and bounds, and if he fails to do so, the same may be done by the plaintiff through process of law.

c. The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, PJCJ Court, Punganur corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW.1: G.Kamakshamma -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is 1-B namoona stands in the name of G. Venkatesh Setty dated 22.06.2023

Ex.A2: is pattadaruni adangal/ Pahani stands in the name of G.Venkatesh Setty

dated 22.06.2023.

For Defendants: Nil.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur

APCH0E0013752025

O.S.No.441 of 2025 1PCJ(Jr.Div.,), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

PUNGANUR

Present : Sri. K. Krishnavamsi

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

O.S.No.441 of 2025

Between:

N.Surendra Reddy S/o late Rami Reddy, aged about 52 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at college road, Sadum town and post and Mandal, Chittoor D.T. and A.P. … Plaintiff.

And

S.Mahabub Basha @ Mahab Basha S/o late Lalu Saheb, aged about 50 years, Muslim, cultivation and business, residing at Koturu village, Kondamarri post, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor D.T. A. P.

… Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 17.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.S. Harinatha Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was remained exparte, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.84,800/-(Rupees Eighty four thousand and eight hundred only) from the defendant along with

APCH0E0013752025

O.S.No.441 of 2025 2PCJ(Jr.Div.,), Punganur

subsequent interest and for costs of the suit basing on suit promissory note

dated 22.12.2022.

2. The brief averments of plaint are as follows:- On 22.12.2022 the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family and legal necessities, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed suit promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff orally the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff towards the suit promissory note debt. The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 11.01.2025 to the defendant demanding to repay the debt borrowed under suit promissory note together with interest and the same is acknowledged by the defendant.

But the defendant failed to discharge the debt under the suit promissory note.

Hence, this suit is filed.

3. Defendant called absent. No representation. Service held sufficient.

Hence, defendant was set exparte on 13-02-2026.

4. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

APCH0E0013752025

O.S.No.441 of 2025 3PCJ(Jr.Div.,), Punganur

6. Now the point that arise for determination is

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed

for” ?

7. P O I N T:-

Even though the defendant is set exparte, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case to avail judgment in his favour. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 who filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of plaint. To prove the ocular evidence of PW.1 that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 22.12.2022 from plaintiff and did not repay the same, the plaintiff exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 which are Original suit promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.50,000/- dt.

22.12.2022, Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to defendant dt.

11.01.2025, and Postal tracking report of defendant. On perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 it is evident that the defendant had borrowed a sum of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.12.2022 and executed suit promissory note on the same date agreeing to repay the same with

APCH0E0013752025

O.S.No.441 of 2025 4PCJ(Jr.Div.,), Punganur

interest at 24% p.a. On perusal of ocular evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3, the evidence of PW.1 to that effect has been unchallenged. As seen from evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note and that inspite of several demands the defendant failed to discharge the due amount. Further, suit is filed within limitation period. Therefore, this Court is of considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for Rs. 84,800/-(Rupees Eighty four thousand and eight hundred only) along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization on the

principal amount of Rs.50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge(Jr. Div.,), Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

APCH0E0013752025

O.S.No.441 of 2025 5PCJ(Jr.Div.,), Punganur

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

PW.1: N. Surendra Reddy -None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original suit promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.50,000/- dt. 22.12.2022.

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to defendant dt.

11.01:2025.

Ex.A3Postal tracking report of defendant.

Exhibits marked for Defendant: Nil. Prl. Civil Judge(Jr. Div.,), Punganur