O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PENUKONDA
PRESENT: Smt K.M.ZAMRUTH BEGUM
ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PENUKONDA
FAC: PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PENUKONDA
FRIDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
O.S.No.343 OF 2007
BETWEEN :
C.Aswarthanarayana … PLAINTIFF
AND 1.P.Sakunthala Bai 2.P.Suresh 3.Y.Subash Naik … DEFENDANTS
This suit is coming on 19.04.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Guruprasad & M.Sreenivasulu, Counsels for Plaintiff and of Smt K.Jayakala, Counsel for Defendant Nos.1 & 2 and Sri D.Nagaraju, Counsel for Defendant No.3, upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, the Court deliver the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 for
Declaration of Title of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property and Perpetual
Injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with the Plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF SUCCINCTLY :
2.1P.Lakshma Naik and his son Govind Naik are absolute owners of Ac.051 cents of land in Sy.No.22 within the specified boundaries as described in the Schedule annexed and they were in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. The
Plaintiff purchased Ac.051 cents of land within specific boundaries for a good and valid consideration under Registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.1992 from the said Lakshma Naik and Govinda naik and on the same date, the Plaintiff was inducted into Possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property in his own right. To the west of the Plaint
Schedule Property, the Plaintiff owns Ac.308 cents in Survey No.23 and after purchase
Page 1 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda of Plaint Schedule Property, the Plaintiff laid common fencing to the Plaint Schedule
Property. The Plaintiff planted Teak and Coconut Plants and built a big tub for flow of water to Plaint Schedule Property from the Bore wells drilled in Plaintiff’s land situated to the West of the Plaint Schedule Property and there is a Pipeline connecting the tub situated in the Plaint Schedule Property and from Tub water will be drawn to the Plaint
Schedule Property. The Plaintiff is cultivating seasonal Crops in the Plaint Schedule
Property along with Crops raised in Land owned by Plaintiff.
2.2The Property purchased by the Plaintiff is described by specific boundaries and infact the Western boundary is the Land of Plaintiff and that is why the Plaintiff purchased the Plaint Schedule Property. The Property is described in Sale Deed under which Plaintiff purchased the Property which leaves no room to dispute the identity of the Plot. The Vendors of the Plaintiff owns and possess only Plaint Schedule Property in
Survey No.22 and they intended to transfer Plaint Schedule property alone and the
Plaintiff also intended to purchase the Plaint Schedule Property as mentioned in the
Plaint Schedule. The mistake in Sale Deed is Survey Number mentioned as 227C instead of 225C and the mistake in SubDivision letter is only a misdescription which shall not affect the identity of Property.
2.3 The 1st Defendant is wife and 2nd Defendant is son of Govinda Naik who was one of the Vendor of Plaintiff. The 3rd Defendant is brother of 1st Defendant and also married the daughter of 1st Defendant. The Defendants have full and absolute knowledge of purchase made by the Plaintiff under Sale Deed dated 12.10.1992 and the effective possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property since time of purchase. The Defendants or their predecessors were not in Possession and enjoyment of property within statutory period and as such Defendants have full and absolute knowledge that their rights if any have been extinguished by law of limitation.
2.4The 3rd Defendant is powerful person and having political influence. The misdescription of Survey Number is recently came to light when Survey was effected for formation of ByePass road and the Defendants obtained 101 and 102 Accounts. In the
Adangal it is clear that Plaintiff is in Possession and enjoyment of 225C measuring an extent of Ac.051 cents within specific boundaries. By taking advantage of
Page 2 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda misdescription which will not in any way affect identification of Plot sold. With a view to create trouble to Plaintiff, the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 seems to have fabricated nominal documents in favour of 3rd Defendant and 3rd Defendant is not at all a bonafide purchaser for value and he fully well known about title and possession of Plaintiff over the Plaint
Schedule Property and fact that Defendant No.1 and 2 have no title to Property or possession within statutory period seems to have fabricated and fictitious documents and the misdescription is only a common mistake and Sale Deed of Plaintiff can always be construe as if mistake has been rectified.
2.5The formation of Byepass road, the value of Plaint Schedule Property is increased. Lured by this, the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are contemplating to deny the Title of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property and to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property. The Plaintiff is a Poor and helpless person and law abiding citizen and the Defendants are proclaiming to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule
Property. Hence the Suit.
3. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT Nos.1 & 2, IN NUTSHELL :
3.1The Defendant No.2 admitted that he is the son of Govinda Naik and 1st defendant is his mother and denied all other allegations made in the Plaint. The alleged
Sale Deed said to have been executed by Lakshme Naik and Govind Naik in favour of the
Plaintiff is the land situated in Survey No.227C and western boundary of the Property purchased by the Plaintiff is totally untrue and the land of one Eswaraiah is situated West to the land in Survey No.225C owned by this Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 till they sold the same to the 3rd Defendant. Grandfather and Father of Defendant No.2 addicted to drinking liquor and they died due to the above bad vices.
3.2The alleged Sale Deed did not contain the Left Thumb Impression and signature of Govinda Naik was forged and the alleged Sale Deed is not binding on this
Defendant and his mother as the same was not for any legal necessity or for the benefit of the joint family. The father of Defendant No.2 died on 06.04.2000 at Pavagada,
Karnataka State and he came to know about the death of his father only three days after
Page 3 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda the date of the death. The allegation made in the Plaint that the Vendors of the Plaintiff intended to transfer Land in Survey No.225C and by bonafied mistake it is mentioned in the Sale Deed as Survey No.227C is totally baseless and the boundary shown in the
Plaint also does not disclose the position on the ground.
3.3The Plaintiff laid common fencing covering the land in Survey No.225C and his land in Survey No.23 it totally false and it is equally false that the Plaintiff planted Teak and Coconut plaints in land in Survey No.225C and it is equally false and the Plaintiff has been watering the Plaints in Survey No.225C with the aid of Bore Well situated in Survey No.23.
3.4The Defendant No.3 is the absolute owner of the Land in Survey No.225C and earlier to him and the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 owned the above said land and the
Revenue Authorities after conducting due enquiry and following the procedure and issued Pattadar passbooks to father of Defendant No.2. The Defendants got the input subsidy and other benefits granted by the Government and the Plaintiff failed to prove that he exercised the right of ownership over the land situated in Survey No.225C. The father of Defendant No.2 raised the loan by mortgaging the land on 15.06.1992 in
Survey No.225C and on 22.09.1992 the Defendant No.2 and his sisters along with his father contracted loan from PACS, Somandepalli by mortgaging the Property and it is clearly reveal that the Defendant No.2 predecessors never parted with the title.
3.5The Plaintiff with a view to have a wrongful gain making a false claim. The
Plaintiff never cared to rectify the alleged mistake nor try to obtain rectification Deed from his Vendors during their life time till today. The Plaintiff did not make any claim for Pattadar passbooks before the Revenue Authorities over the land to an extent of Ac.0 51 cents in Survey No.225C. The Defendant No.2 having sisters and they are also proper and necessary parties to this Suit and the Suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The alleged sale in favour of the Plaintiff is only with regard to Survey No.227C and he cannot make a claim with regard to another property alleging that there was a mistake of the Survey Number. There is no pipe line in the Plaint Schedule Property from the land of Plaintiff in Survey No.23 and there is no cause of action for this Suit and prayed the Court to dismiss the Suit.
Page 4 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
4. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT No.3, IN NUTSHELL :
4.1The Defendant No.3 adapted all the averments of Defendant Nos.1 &2 in his Written Statements and further stated that he sold Ac.008 cents of land out of Ac.0 51 cents to one Ramesh Naik and Sankar Naik under Registered Sale Deed and Plaintiff never in possession of the Property to an extent of Ac.051 cents in Survey No.225C.
Defendant No.3 has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property from the date of purchase of the land from Defendant Nos.1 & 2 through Registered Sale
Deed dated and prayed the Court dismiss the Suit in the interest of justice.
5. ISSUES :
Basing on the respective pleadings of Plaintiff and Defendants, the following issues were settled for trial.
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Declaration of right and title over the Suit Schedule Property?
2. Whether the Defendant No.3 is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property (Survey No.225C) and earlier to him Defendants 1 & 2 are the owners of the said Property?
3. If so what relief ?
6. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS :
During trial, the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and got examined PW2 and PW3 on his behalf. On the other hand, the
Defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and got exhibited Ex.B1 & B2 and Defendant
No.3 was examined as DW2 and got exhibited Ex.B3 to Ex.B4 and got examined DW 3 to DW5 on behalf of Defendants. All the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 & DW1 to DW 5 are very much available on record in the form of depositions and the same are not reproducing here to avoid repetition.
Page 5 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the Defendants.
8.Perused the material available on record.
9. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE COURT:
9.1The Plaintiff Was examined as PW1 and reiterated the same facts stated in the Plaint in his Chief Examination Affidavit and got marked the following documents:
Ex.A1 : Registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.1992 executed by lakshma Naik and Govinda Naik in favor of the Plaintiff with respect to the Suit Schedule Property;
Ex.A2 : Adangal issued by the Tahsildar, Somandepalli in the year 2004 with respect to the Suit Schedule Property;
Ex.A3 : 101 Account dated 04.10.2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Somandepalli with respect to the Suit Property;
Ex.A4 : Report of the Surveyor dated 13.10.2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Somandepalli with regard to possession of the Suit Schedule Property;
Ex.A5 : 1B Namoona dated 07.01.2018 stands in the name of Plaintiff with respect to the Suit Schedule Property;
Ex.A6 : Adangal dated 07.01.2018 stands in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the Suit Schedule Property; and
Ex.A7 : Caveat petition served on the Plaintiff and it contained signature of Advocate.
9.2During CrossExamination, PW1 deposed that the boundaries of the Suit
Schedule Property are East : Land of Rama Naik; West : His Land; North : Land of
Jayaram Naik and South : Land of Eswaraiah, and he purchased the land an extent of
Ac.051 cents bounded by above refereed boundaries from Govinda Naik and Lakshma
Naik. PW1 further deposed that he did not file any Revenue Record to show that he was the possession of the above 50 cents land nor its ownership, but again he stated that he obtained pattadar Passbook from Revenue Authorities, but he did not file the same into the Court. PW1 admitted that 51 cents of land owned by him is situated in Survey
No.227C and Pujari Govind Naik who is the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of
Defendant No.2succeeded to an extent of Ac.051 cents of land situated in Survey
Page 6 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
No.225C from their ancestors. PW1 further deposed that the brothers of P.Govind Naik have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective portion of the land situated in
Survey No.225A, B,D. PW1 further amditted that Ex.B1 for the year 2012 – 2013 reflects his land in two entries in Survey No.225C and in Survey No.227C to an extent of Ac.051 cents each. Again PW1 deposed that as per his documents and Revenue
Records his land was shown in Survey No.227C, even though his documents reflects
Survey No.225C, he has been in Possession and enjoyment of the land situated in Survey
No.225C is nearby National Highway and the prices of land are increasing. PW1 further deposed that the land situated in Survey No.23 belongs to him, but he did not file any document to that effect. PW1 further deposed that pipeline and water tank passing from
Survey No.23 to the land situated in Survey No.225C.
9.3D.Ranganayakulu third party to the suit was examined as PW2 and stated in his Chief Examination Affidavit that he know both parties and also Suit Schedule
Property. PW2 further stated that he has a house nearby Suit Schedule Property and
Suit Schedule Property is bounded by East : Land of Ramanaik, West : Land of Plaintiff;
North : Land of Jayaramanaik and South : Land of D.C.Eswaraiah. PW2 further deposed that the Plaintiff purchased the Suit Schedule Property from P.lakshma Naik and his son
Govinda Naik about 25 years back and since then the Plaintiff has been exclusive possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Property. PW2 further deposed that after the purchase, the Plaintiff planted Teak Trees, coconut Trees and other trees in the
Suit Schedule Property. He further deposed that the Plaintiff had also erected a big Tub in the Suit Schedule Property and also laid Pipeline from the Bore Well situated in his land situated towards West of the Suit Schedule Property and with the help of the said
Bore Well, he raised trees in the Suit Schedule Property.
9.4During CrossExamination, PW2 deposed that he worked as Clerk to the
Plaintiff and he do not know the Survey number and extent of Land in Suit Schedule
Property. PW2 further deposed that the boundaries of the Suit Schedule Property is East : Land of Pama Naik; West : Land of Plaintiff; North : Land of Jayaram Naik and South :
Land of Eswaraiah. PW2 further deposed that his house is situated at a distance of 20 yards from the Suit Schedule Property and he cannot say the door number as well as the
Survey Number in which his house is situated. PW2 further deposed that about 40 Teak
Page 7 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
Trees were planted and four Coconut Trees are planted in the Suit Property but the said coconut Trees dried up due to lack of water source and ten years ago there was bore well but as of now there is no bore to pump the water. PW2 further deposed that he got
Aadhar and Ration Cards at Dharmavaram and the residential particulars in the said
Cards were shown as he was residing at Dharmavaram. PW2 further deposed that the
Plaintiff got business of Silk Sarees at Dharmavaram and he worked as assistant in the said Silk Sarees House.
9.5K.Suryanarayana third party to the suit was examined as PW3 and reiterated the same facts stated by PW2 in his Chief Examination Affidavit. In Cross
Examination, PW3 deposed that he know the Defendants and he do not know the Survey
Number of the Suit Schedule Land, but he know total extent of the Suit Survey Number is about half Acre. PW3 further deposed that the Suit Schedule Property has been in possession of the Plaintiff. Defendant counsel raised many questions, but PW3 replied that he do not know and has stated that he came to the Court at the instance of the
Plaintiff and also denied the suggestions posed by the Defendants counsel.
9.6Defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and reiterated the same facts stated in the Written Statement in his Chief Examination Affidavit and exhibited the following
Documents:
Ex.B1 : Receipts two in number issued by PACS, Somandepalli, dated 28.03.2007; and
Ex.B2 : Encumbrance Certificate dated 22.06.2007.
9.7During CrossExamination, DW1 deposed that his father has got six brothers namely 1.Venkatesh Naik, 2.Krishna Naik, 3.Jayaram Naik, 4.Govinda Naik, 5.Rama Swamy Naik and 6.Sankar Naik. DW1 further deposed that he did not file any document to show that his father died in the year 2000 and his Grandfather died one year prior to his father’s death. DW1 further deposed that except an extent of Ac.051 cents in Survey No.225C his father or his Grandfather had no land in Survey No.22 and the Survey No.225C is the in triangular shape and meeting point of the both angles is situated at Eastern side. DW1 further deposed that on the Eastern side of the Survey
NO.225C, the land of Rama Naik was situated and his son Narayana Naik sold the same to one Sali Bai and South of the Land, the Land of the D.C.Eswaraiah is situated. DW1
Page 8 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda admitted that the land in Survey No.23 is owned by Plaintiff and D.C.Eswaraiah and the land of the Plaintiff is situated on the western side and the land of the D.C.Eswaraiah is on the Southern side. DW1 again says that part of the land of the D,.C.Eswaraiah also touches on the Western side of Survey No.225C. DW1 further deposed that he has filed an Application to Tahsildar, Somandepalli to show the boundaries of Survey No.225C and the Sruveyor in his presence fixed the boundaries and submitted the Report to the
Tahsildar and the copy of the Report is given to him. DW1 further admitted that as per the contents of the Ex.A4, the Plaintiff is in Possession and enjoyment of 51 Cents in
Survey No.225C and planted Coconut trees and other trees in an extent of Ac.037 cents and erected boundary around the land. DW1 further deposed that Ex.A4 reveals that on vertification of the Plaintiff, he purchased Ac.051 cents in Survey No.227C from
D.Lakshmi Naik and Govinda Naik. DW1 further deposed that Ex.A4 was manipulated at the instance of the Plaintiff. He further deposed that he has not properly seen the copy of the Ex.A4 given to him by the Surveyor. DW1 further deposed that he has not issued any Legal Notice nor filed any appeal assailing the correctness of Ex.A4 and Ex.A4 does not reflect true and correct facts on ground and Ex.A4 is manipulated by the Plaintiff.
9.8DW1 further deposed that for the first time he came to know about Ex.A1 in the year 2007 when the Plaintiff got issued Registered Notice to him and he has not issued any reply Notice nor file any Suit for cancellation of Ex.A1. DW1 further deposed that as he is having title and possession over Survey No.225C as such he had not issued any reply notice or filed Suit. Dw1 further deposed that his Grandfather
Lakshma Naik is a an elder person among the community and as he was a child of 6 to 8 years and he do not know what transpired between the Plaintiff and his father and
Grandfather at the time of Ex.A1. DW1 further deposed that for the first time his mother informed him that the Plaintiff fabricated Ex.A1. DW1 further deposed that one
P.Ramaswamy Naik is his Junior Paternaluncle and there are no disputes between his father and his brother Ramaswamy Naik and G.Rangiaha and he know that his Junior
Paternal Uncle Ramaswamy Naik and G.Rangaiah are the Attestors to Ex.A1. DW1 admitted that he filed Caveat engaging an Advocate Smt Jayakala against the Plaintiff with respect to Survey No.225C and it is served on plaintiff which contains his signature. DW1 further deposed that he verified Ex.A1 by obtaining Certified Copy of
Ex.A1 and two months after filing Ex.A7, he sold the Suit Schedule Property to
Page 9 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
Defendant No.3 who is his brotherinlaw. DW1 further admitted that since ancient time the Survey No.227C is in possession and enjoyment of Krishna Naik, Rukminamma and others and the boundaries of Survey No.227C are different from the boundaries to
Survey No.225C. DW1 further deposed that he do not remember whether any correction in the Sale Deed executed by him and his mother in favour of Defendant No.3.
DW1 further deposed that the Suit Schedule Property is mutated in the name of Plaintiff, the Adangals are also in the name of Plaintiff. He again says that the Plaintiff got manipulated the Revenue Record in collusion with Revenue Authorities. DW1 further admitted that he know the mutation of the Revenue Record and entries in the Adangals in the name of the Plaintiff in the year 2006 itself and he has not filed any appeal or revision before the competent Revenue Authorities questioning the mutation and also entries in 101 and 102 Adangals in the name of the Plaintiff. DW1 further deposed that in Ex.A1 there are Thumb Impressions and he have not seen the signature of his father and he is not in possession of any document or any paper containing Signature of his father. DW1 admitted that Ex.A1 refers to purchase of Survey No.227C by the
Plaintiff and not Survey No.225C and they raised dispute. DW1 further admitted that he mentioned in his Chief Examination Affidavit that the missing of the alleged Thumb
Impression of Lakshmi Naik clearly reveal that the Plaintiff fabricated the Sale Deed and on each page of Ex.A1, the Thumb Impression of the alleged executent Lakshmi Naik is found. DW1 further deposed that he has not mortgaged the land after the death of the his father, but he has discharged the outstanding loan. DW1 further deposed that Ex.B2 does not disclose the existence of mortgage on the Suit Survey Number and Ex.B2 and
Ex.B3 does not contain the details of the debt and there is correction in Ex.B3 in the
Column No.B.
9.9Defendant No.3 was examined as DW2 and reiterated the same facts stated in his Written Statement in his Chief Examination Affidavit and exhibited the following
Documents:
Ex.B3 : Original Registered Sale Deed dated 19.09.2007 executed by Defendant Nos.1 & 2 in favour of Defendant No.3 with respect to Suit Schedule Property;
Ex.B4 : Pattadar Passbook issued to Govinda Naik father of Defendant No.2 with respect to the Suit Schedule Property;
Ex.B5 : Adangal for fasli 1415 with respect to Suit Property; and
Ex.B6 : Adangal for fasli 1416 with respect to Suit Property.
Page 10 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda 9.10During CrossExamination, DW2 deposed that he do not know how many
SubDivisions were made in the Survey No.22. DW2 admitted that the Survey No.23 is located to the Western side of Survey No.22 and Suit Schedule Property is bounded by the Survey N.23 on Western side. DW2 further deposed that Defendant No.2 did not apply for Survey of the Suit Survey No.225C. DW2 further admitted that the Defendant
No.2got surveyed the Suit Survey No.225C and Surveyor gave report under Ex.A4 and he was present at the time of Survey and he did not verify Ex.A4 even after his purchase of the Suit Schedule Property. DW2 further admitted that the Suit Schedule Property is triangular shape and western side and southern side of the Suit Schedule Property will meet together and the Suit Schedule Property is bounded by D.C.Eswaraiah on southern side. DW2 denied the suggestion that the Plaintiff fenced the Suit Schedule Property and the Property holding by him in the Survey No.23. He again says that the Plaintiff fenced those properties about 20 or 30 years ago and he removed the fencing about 7 years ago since he sold out the lands. DW2 further admitted that in the year 1992 the father of Defendant No.2 had no other land except the Suit Schedule Property in Survey
No.22. DW2 further deposed that he did not prefer any Revenue Appeal against the mutation of Plaintiff’s name in the Revenue Records since this Suit is pending.
9.11DW2 further deposed that he has Ex.B4 by the time of filing his Written
Statement in this Suit and there is no other entry in respect of the land in Ex.B4 except the Suit Schedule Property. DW2 further deposed that he did not file into the Court any documents to say that the Defendants 1 & 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit
Schedule Property by the time of execution of Ex.B3. DW2 further deposed that he purchased the Suit Schedule Property prior to filing the Suit. DW1 further deposed that he do not know whether a case in Cr.No.84 of 2018 was registered against him and others in Somandepalli PS and he again says that he came to know about the said case four days after its registration. DW2 further admitted that the father of Defendant No.2 and one Lakshma Naik sold out the property to Plaintiff in Survey No.227C and he know about the said purchase. PW2 further admitted that the father of Defendant No.2 has no land in Survey No.227C.
Page 11 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda 9.12A.Narasimha Murthy Attestor of Ex.B3 was examined as DW3 and stated in his Chief Examination Affidavit that he know both parties to the Suit and one Pujari
Govinda Naik was absolute owner of land to an extent of Ac.051 cents in Survey No.22 5C of Somandepalli Village Polam. DW3 further stated that the said Govind Naik died inter state leaving behind his wife Sakunthala Bai and his son Suresh Naik and after death of said Govinda naik, his wife Sakunthala Bai and his son Suresh Naik succeeded the said property and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption from anybody including Plaintiff. DW3 further stated that Subash Naik (Defendant No.3) purchased the land measuring Ac.051 cents in Survey No.225C from
Sakunthala Bai and her son Suresh Naik for valid consideration of Rs.95,000/ under
Registered Sale Deed dated 19.09.2007 and himself and one M.Nagaraju Naik attested the said Sale Deed dated 19.09.2007. DW3 further stated that the scribe of the said Sale
Deed is one H.Adinarayana who is document writer at office of SubRegistrar,
Penukonda. DW3 further deposed that the Plaintiff has taken possession on same day and he has been in possession of the said property from the date of purchase.
9.13During CrossExamination, DW3 deposed that he did not verify 1B,
Adangal or Settlement Register to say that the Defendants Nos.1 & 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property as on the date of Ex.B3 and again says he saw Pattadar passbook. DW3 further deposed that the father of Defendant No.2 had
Ac.051 cents in Survey Number 225C and except it he had no other land in Survey
No.22.
9.14M.Nagaraju, another Attestor of Ex.B3 was examined as DW4 and reiterated the same facts stated by DW3 in his Chief Examination. During Cross
Examination also DW4 reiterated the same version as that of DW3.
9.15Mallapalli Mahammad third party to the Suit was examined as DW5 and stated in his Chief Examination Affidavit that he know both parties to the Suit and he have seen the land an extent of Ac.051 cents of Subash Naik which is situated in
Somandepalli Revenue Village and he has been in possession of the said land since 11 years. DW5 further stated that the land of Subash Naik is situated towards East and
Southern boundary of one D.C.Eswaraiah Land and he have been attending the
Page 12 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
Agricultural Coolie work in the land of said D.C.Eswaraiah. DW5 further stated that the land an extent Ac.051 cents of the Subash Naik is bounded by East : Land of Salibai;
West : Land of D.C.Eswaraiah; South : D.C.Eswaraiah and North : Land of Jayaram naik.
During CrossExamination, DW5 deposed that he know that the present suit was filed by one Subash Naik and he do not know against whom the present Suit was filed. DW5 further deposed that Subash Naik (Defendant No.3) is claiming the Suit Schedule
Property and he do not know the Survey Number of the Suit Schedule Property and the
Suit Schedule Property is situated towards the East of Somandepalli.
10. MARSHALING OF EVIDENCES AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
10.1The Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 in order to prove his title. On perusal of Ex.A1/Registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.1992 discloses that Govinda Naik and Lakshma Naik sold the property an extent of Ac.051 cents in Survey No.227C with specific boundaries which was matching with Suit
Schedule Property. Ex.A2/Adangal for the year 2005 showing the land an extent of
Ac.051 cents in Survey No.225C in the name of P.Govinda Naik and Lakshma Naik with
Katha No.265 and land an extent of Ac.051 cents in Survey No.227C in the name of
Plaintiff with Katha No.562. The Plaintiff during CrossExamination, admitted that there are two entries in Adangal,, but again he deposed that he is in Possession of the Suit
Schedule Property. Further, Ex.A3/101 Account reveals that the land an extent of Ac.0 57 cents in Survey No.225C and land an extent of Ac.028 cents in Survey No.5092B stands in the name of Govinda Naik S/o P.Lakshma Naik and the land an extent of Ac.0 51 cents in Survey No.227C and the land an extent of Ac.028 cents in Survey No.5131 stands in the name of Shankar Naik S/o P.Lakshma Naik.
10.2On perusal of Ex.A4/Surveyor Report which was submitted to the
Tahsildar, Somandepalli discloses that on requisition of P.Suresh Naik (Defendant No.2) by paying Challan the land in Survey No.225C is surveyed and reported that
Aswarthanarayana (Plaintiff) raised the Plants in an extent of Ac.051 cents in Survey
No.225C and his Sale Document was verified and found the Survey Number mentioned
as 227C but the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed is same as in Survey No.225C.
Though the Plaintiff is in Possession, the Defendant No.2 Suresh Naik possess Pattadar
Page 13 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
Passbook with respect to the Survey No.225C. Ex.A5/1B Namoona and
Ex.A6/Adangal shows an extent of land Ac.057 cents in Survey No.225C in the name of the Plaintiff and Ex.A7/Caveat Petition issued by Defendants 1 & 2 against the Plaintiff with respect to the Suit Schedule Property. On perusal of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW3 with the support of all the Documents produced by PW1 before the Court clearly shows that he purchased with misdescription of Survey Number, but the land was clearly identified by the boundaries and the boundaries described by all the Witnesses in this
Case are same. Hence, there is no dispute with respect to the identification of property and there are many Supreme Court decisions making law that when land is identified with clear boundaries any misdescription of Survey Number can be ignored.
10.3On the other hand, DW1 to DW5 were examined on behalf of Defendants and DW1 clearly admitted that his father has no other land in Survey No.22 except Suit
Schedule Property. DW1 has taken the defence that Ex.A1/Registered Sale Deed, dated 12.10.1992 is forged, but he admitted in his CrossExamination that the Thumb
Impression of Lakshma Naik is identified on each paper of Ex.A1 and Registration took place only after verification of SubRegistrar. DW1 produced Ex.B1/Receipts issued by
PACS, Somandepalli dated 28.03.2007 and on perusal of Ex.B1 there is no mention of land details which was mortgaged as alleged by the Defendants or any details to show it is related to the Suit Schedule Property. Ex.A2/Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.06.2007 shows that the Survey No.225C and Survey No.2B an extent of Ac.057 cents and Ac.028 cents respectively was mortgaged by Govinda Naik in PACS,
Somandepalli in the year 1992 and the Ex.A1 is also executed in the same year 1992. So
Ex.B2 is no help to Defendants. Further, it confirms and corroborates with Ex.A3 which shows that the land in Survey No.225C an extent of Ac.051 cents and Survey
No.5092B an extent of Ac.028 cents in the name of Govinda Naik S/o Lakshma Naik.
Ex.A3 which further reveals that the land in Survey No.227C was in the name of
Shankar Naik S/o Lakshma Naik, so Govinda Naik has no right to sell the land in Survey
No.227C which was also admitted by DW1 and DW2 in their CrossExamination that
Govinda Naik has land only in Survey No.225C and not in Survey No.227C.
Page 14 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda 10.4Defendant No.3 was examined as DW2 and produced Ex.B3 to Ex.B6. On perusal of Ex.B3 Original Registered Sale Deed, dated 19.09.2007 disclosed that
Sakunthalamma (Defendant No.1) W/o Govinda Naik and P.Suresh Naik (Defendant
No.2) S/o G.Govinda Naik executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of Subash Naik (Defendant No.3) with respect to the Suit Schedule Property for the valid consideration of Rs.95,000/. The father of Defendant No.2 and husband of Defendant No.1 Govinda
Naik and Govinda Naik’s father Lakshme Naik sold the Suit Schedule Property to the
Plaintiff through Ex.A1/Registered Sale Deed with misdescription of Survey Number because the Boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 and Ex.B3 are same showing variation
East: Sali Bai, but during CrossExamination DW2 deposed that the land of Ramesh Naik situated towards Eastern side was sold by his son Narayana Naik to the Sali bai. Further,
DW1 has deposed that towards Western side and Southern Side of Survey No.225C the land in Survey No.23 is situated and the land in Survey No.23 is owned by Plaintiff and
D.C.Eswaraiah. Further, Ex.A3/101 Account which was issued by Tahsildar,
Somandepalli clearly shows that Govinda Naik S/o Lakshme Naik owns land in Survey
No.225C and Survey No.5092B and Shankar Naik S/o Lakshme Naik owns land in
Survey No.227C and Survey No.5131. Hence, Govinda Naik has right only over the
Survey No.225C and therefore it is safely believe that Ex.A1/Registered Sale Deed was executed with respect to the Suit Schedule Property with misdescription of Survey
No.227C instead of Survey No.225C.
10.5On perusal of Ex.B4/Pattadar passbook stands in the name of Govinda
Naik S/o Lakshme Naik discloses that the front page of the Pattadar Passbook, the
Thumb Impression of Govinda Naik was scratched and signature was attested and bottom part of the Thumb Impression after the scratching is clearly visible to the naked eyes. With these above observation it is clear that DW1 is trying to mislead the Court by giving false testimony during his CrossExamination that he did not possess any documents with the Signature or Thumb Impression of his father.
10.6Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 are the 1B Namoona and Adangal pertaining to the year 2004 and 2005 which shows the Survey No.225C to an extent of Ac.005 cents in the name of P.Govindappa and Survey No.227C to an extent of Ac.051 cents in the name of
Plaintiff. Plaintiff in his CrossExamination admitted that the Revenue Records
Page 15 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda pertaining to the year 2004 is showing that the land in Survey No.225C an extent of
Ac.057 cents in his name but he is in Possession of Land in Survey No.227C an extent of
Ac.051 cents and subsequently it was corrected by the Revenue Authorities and Ex.A 5/1B Namoona & Ex.A6/Adangal pertaining to the year 2018 with respect to the Suit
Survey Number 225C is in the name of Plaintiff. The Defendants has not initiated any action i.e., prefer any appeal before Revenue Authorities. Which gives adverse impression against the Defendants that they are trying to grab the land by taking advantage of misdescription of Survey Number in Ex.A1 and wrong entry in Revenue
Records pertaining to the year 2004 & 2005. On perusal of Testimonies of DW2 to
DW5 did not give any grounds to nullify the evidence of Plaintiff.
11. ISSUE No.1: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Declaration of right and title over the Suit Schedule Property?
11.1The Plaintiff has successfully proved his claim by producing cogent and satisfactory evidences and discharged his burden of proof. The Defendants did not produce any evidence to disqualify or nullify or devoid the evidences produced by the
Plaintiff. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff against
Defendants.
12. ISSUE No.2 : Whether the Defendant No.3 is the absolute owner of the
Suit Schedule Property (Survey No.225C) and earlier to him Defendants 1 & 2 are the owners of the said Property?
12.1Govinda Naik S/o Lakshme Naik has only right over the Suit Schedule
Property and execution of Ex.A1 successfully transferred the right to the Plaintiff and no right is vested in the Suit Schedule Property to be succeeded by his Legal Heirs i.e.,
Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and Defendants Nos.1 & 2 has no right to transfer right over the Suit Schedule Property to Defendant No.3. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants.
Page 16 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
11. ISSUE No.3: To what relief ?
12.IN THE RESULT, The Suit of the Plaintiff is Decreed with Costs by declaring that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Suit Schedule Property and by granting perpetual
Injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 and their men from ever interfering with the
Plaintiffs lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 18th day of June, 2021.
ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
PENUKONDA
FAC: PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
PENUKONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF
PW1C.Aswarthanarayana PW2D.Ranganayakulu PW3K.Suryanarayana
FOR DEFENDANTS
DW1P.Suresh DW2Subash Naik DW3A.Narasimha Murthy DW4Nagaraju Naik DW5Mallapalli Mohammad
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Sl.No. Date of Document Description of Document Registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.1992 executed by Govinda Naik and Lakshma Naik in favour of Ex.A1 / PW112.10.1992 Plaintiff
Ex.A2 / PW1Adangal issued by the Tahsildar, Somandepalli for the year 2004. Ex.A3 / PW104.10.2007101 Account dated 03.10.2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Somandepalli Ex.A4 / PW103.10.2007Surveyor Report dated 03.10.2007 Issued by Tahsildar, Somandepalli.
Page 17 of 18
O.S.No.343 of 2007 Date: 18.06.2021
Prl.JCJ, Penukonda
Ex.A5 / PW107.01.20181B Namoona dated 07.01.2018 stands in the name of Plaintiff Ex.A6 / PW107.01.2018Adangal dated 07.01.2018 stands in the name of Plaintiff. Ex.A7 / PW1–Caveat petition
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS
Sl.No. Date of Description of Document Document Ex.B1 / DW128.03.2007Receipts two in number issued by PACS, Somandepalli, dated 28.03.2007. Ex.B2 / DW122.06.2007Encumbrance Certificate Ex.B3 / DW219.09.2007Original Registered Sale Deed Ex.B4 / DW2–Pattadar Passbook Ex.B5 / DW2–Adangal for fasli 1415 Ex.B6 / DW2–Adangal for fasli 1416
ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
PENUKONDA
FAC: PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
PENUKONDA
Page 18 of 18