OS NO.267/2004
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: : PUNGANUR
Present: Sri K.Mothilal, B.A.,LL.M.,
Principal Junior Civil Judge.
MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY,2014
O.S.NO.267 OF 2004
Between:
Palavala Janardhana Reddy, s/o. late P.Venkata Reddy, aged about 32years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Munireddigarivaripalli village, h/o.Somala post and Mandal, Chittoor District.
..Plaintiff
And:
1.Palavala Papi Reddy, aged about 42 years/
2.Palavala Muni Reddy, aged about 45years.
3.Palavala Chinna Venkata Reddy, aged about 47 yers.
4.Challapalli Buchi Reddy, s/o. Chinnappa Reddy, aged about 45 years.
5.Challapalli Rajamma, w/o. Buchi Reddy,aged about 35 years.
Defendants 1 to 3 are sons of P.Kondreddy. all are Hindus, cultivation, residing at Munireddiaripalli village, h/o.Somala post and Mandal, Chittoor District.
..Defendants.
This suit is coming on 22.07.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Bhaskara Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G.Shivasankar Naidu, advocate for defendant. Having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for granting of perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants, their men and their agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff late Venkata Reddy and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same of his own independent right till his
OS NO.267/2004
2 death. During the life time of plaintiff’s father and at the time of survey and settlement operations the suit schedule property wrongly classified as Kunta poramboke. Even afterwards also the father and mother of the plaintiff continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying tax to the Government under B-Memo. Considering the pre-existing right and possession and enjoyment of the father of the plaintiff the Mandal Revenue officer of Somala Mandal has granted Form of Licence granting for planting trees in Government poramboke lands (standing order No.19-B,Paragraph-
2) in favour of the plaintiff’s father in his office proceedings R.Dis.
(A)/1232/2000, dt. 16.9.2000 for the suit schedule property. Even after issuance of the said patta the father of the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the same usual. Even before grant of patta i.e. licence, the father of plaintiff drilled two bore wells, one is in the year 1977 and another is in the year 2000 and taken electricity service connection in his name in
S.C.No.836 and raising crops therein continuously. The father of plaintiff died on 24.08.2004 leaving behind the plaintiff and the mother of plaintiff
P.Sanamma, the brothers of plaintiffs P.Muninatha Reddy and
P.Chandrasekhar Reddy and the sister of plaintiff viz. P.Jayalakshmamma to succeed to all his estates including the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is managing the joint family of himself and the other members stated above.
There is no conflict of interest in between the plaintiff and the other joint family members. The plaintiff filed the suit as manager of the joint family for the benefit of the joint family. After granting of licence, the revenue authorities have entered the name of the father and mother of the plaintiff in all the relevant revenue records conducted enquiry under R.O.R. and after enquiry the Mandal Revenue Officer, Somala had issued pattadar pass book and title deed book for the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s father had planted and reared up coconut trees and jackfruit trees in the suit schedule.
OS NO.267/2004
3
The plaintiff further submits that the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they never in possession of any extent of the suit schedule property. All these years the defendants never objected the possession and enjoyment of the father of the plaintiff and now the plaintiff of the suit schedule property. After the death of the father of the plaintiff taking advantage of it the defendants demanded the plaintiff to part away some extent in the suit schedule property to them. For that plaintiff refused.
Since then the defendants have been trying to come upon the suit schedule property at the active instigation of the enemies of the plaintiff and his family to disturb their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants are powerful persons capable of mobilizing men and material as they have got huge gathering of unruly people in their hands with the support of the enemies of plaintiff and his family. The defendants are trying in all possible manner methods to put all obstacles in process of enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and his family members. In fact on 26.10.2004 when the plaintiff and his family members are in the suit schedule property by cleaning waste material, the defendants, their men and their agents were tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff and his family members somehow withstand for their high handed acts and stopped them to enter into the suit schedule property.
Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.
3. The defendant No.3 has filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 1,2,4 and 5 by stating as follows:-
The suit schedule property originally belonged to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 3. The father of the defendants 1 to 3 formed a small kunta with his own efforts to raise crops in the adjoining lands. During the survey and settlement operations by observing the same as kunta the authorities surveyed and named it as Kandireddikunta. Since such period the same is
OS NO.267/2004
4 called as above also entered in all the revenue records. The father of the defendants 1 to 3 used and enjoying the waters in the kunta by bailing operation and used to raise crops. During unseason used to raise dry crops in the kunta, after the demise of the father of defendants 1 to 3 the defendants used to enjoy the same as his father enjoyed. As per the enjoyment in all records the name of the 3rd defendant also entered.
Hence, the name of 3rd defendant and the name of plaintiff’s father is one and the same. By taking advantage of the same the plaintiff after demise of his father manipulated all the revenue records filed the suit and petition.
The documents which are filed along with the suit are totally manipulated by stage managing the concerned. The documents filed along with the suit are not tally with the original documents in the Mandal Revenue office, Somala.
The defendants also reserving their right to summon all the originals along with the concerned who issued the present manipulated copies. The allegation that the Mandal Revenue officer, Somala issued a licence in favour of plaintiff’s father is not at all correct. The same is also challenged by revenue officials themselves and as per the directions of Sub Collector,
Madanapalli the M.R.O, Somala had a personal inspection and noticed that the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant are in occupation of the same. And further directed the concerned not to cultivate the land in the next season onwards, as such a report also prepared by the M.R.O. Somala and sent the same to Sub Collector. The plaintiff is known about the same. The licence is also manipulated one which is not having any extent and other things. The body of the licence is only to raise plants but not to drill bore wells which is against the latest amendment passed by the Government to safeguard the water source and also rivers, kuntas etc. The paramount owner of the schedule property is the Government but legal possession is with the defendants 3 and 4. The revenue records also gives clear evidence about possession of defendants 3 and 4. There are no bore wells and the said bore wells are in other Sy.No. The APSEB pas book also not related to the plaint
OS NO.267/2004
5 schedule property. There is no filled in S.F.No. in the documents. There are no trees in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and his late father to defraud the defendant and to claim the same created the baseless documents and filed the suit and further the plaintiff and his family members never in possession of the same. The later father of defendants 1 to 3Kondreddi and after him the defendants 1 to 3 are in perfect possession and enjoyment of the same. The 3rd defendant allowed the defendants 4 and 5 defendants conducts to cutlvate Ac.0.50 cents of land with permission as tenants under the registered deed. Even now the defendants 4 and 5 are in possession of Ac.0.03 cents of land and 3rd defendant is in possession of
Ac.1.47 cents peacefully till date. The plaintiff approached this court with unclean hands to grab the land which is in possession and enjoyment of defendants 3 to 5. The plaintiff in collusion with some of the revenue officials and Assistant Secretary of Somala illegally created the documents with anti dated which are not seen the day light on the date of filing of the suit. The plaint in collusion with them tampered some of the revenue records taken advantage of 3rd defendant name and of plaintiff’s father is one and the same. The defendants also approached the high revenue and placed all the tampered documents of plaintiff before them for necessary action. The same is pending disposal and the subordinate are directed to inspect the field and further directed to send the reports on that the Mandal Revenue officer,
Somala visited and noticed the possession of defendants and also reported accordingly. The plaintiff by suppressing the real facts filed the suit. There is no cause of action and balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff.
Hence, pray for dismissal of the suit.
8. Basing on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial.
(i)Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
OS NO.267/2004
6
(iii) To what relief?
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants
D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.
6. ISSUE NO.1: The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff late
Venkata Reddy and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death the plaintiff and his family members have been in possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff’s father and his mother have been paying tax to the Government under B.Memo. Considering the pre- existing right and possession and enjoyment of the father of the plaintiff the
Mandal Revenue officer of Somla Mandal has granted Form of Licence granting for planting trees in Government poramboke lands(standing order
No.19-B,Paragraph-2) in favour of the plaintiff’s father in his office proceedings R.Dis.(A)/1232/2000, dt. 16.9.2000 for the suit schedule property. The said licence is marked as Ex.A1. The plaintiffs’ father drilled two bore wells, one is in the year 1977 and another is in the year 2000 and taken electricity service connection in his name in S.C.No.836 and raising crops therein continuously. Ex.A3 is the said electricity slab pass book stands in the name of plaintiffs’ father Venkata Reddy. The father of plaintiff died on 24.08.2004 leaving behind the plaintiff and the mother of plaintiff
P.Sanamma, the brothers of plaintiffs P.Muninatha Reddy and
P.Chandrasekhar Reddy and the sister of plaintiff viz. P.Jayalakshmamma to succeed to all his estates including the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed the suit as manager of the joint family for the benefit of the joint family. After granting of licence, the revenue authorities have entered the name of the father and mother of the plaintiff in all the relevant revenue records and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Somala had issued title deed book for the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff which is marked as
OS NO.267/2004
7
Ex.A2. The plaintiff’s father had planted and reared up coconut trees and jackfruit trees in the suit schedule. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants are strangers to the suit lands and they have no any right in the suit property.
On the other hand, the contention of the defendants is that suit schedule property originally belonged to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 3 and their father ormed a small kunta with his own efforts to raise crops in the adjoining lands and during survey and settlement the said kunta is named as
Kandireddikunta. The father of the defendants 1 to 3 used the said kunta by taking water and with the said water he raised dry crops. The name of 3rd defendant and plaintiff’s father is one and the same and taking advantage of the same the plaintiff manipulated all revenue records and filed the suit.
During the personal inspection by the Mandal Revenue officer, Somala on the directions of Sub Collector, Madanapalli noticed that the defendants 3 and 4 have been in occupation of the said kunta. There are no bore wells and the said bore wells are in other Sy.No. The late father of defendants 1 to 3 Kondreddi and after him the defendants 1 to 3 are in perfect possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff in collusion with some of the revenue officials and Assistant Secretary of Somala illegally created the documents with anti dated and filed the suit. The plaintiff by suppressing the real facts filed the suit.
7. To establish the case of the plaintiff, he is examined as P.W1 and he deposed in his chief examination as per his contentions mentioned in the plaint. He deposed that after abolition of Punganur Zamindari and at the time of survey and settlement operations the Survey and settlement authorities wrongly classified the suit schedule property as Kunta poramboke. Even afterwards his father and other continued to be in possession of the suit property by paying tax to the Government under B-
Memo. Considering pre-existing possession and enjoyment of his father the
OS NO.267/2004
8
Mandal Revenue Officer Somala issued Ex.A1 Form of licence granting for planting trees in Government Poramboke lands (standing orderNo.19-
B,Paragraph-2) in favour of his father vide prodding R.Dis.No.
(A)/1232/2000dt.16.9.2000 for suit property. After granting of Ex.A1 the
Plaintiff’s father got drilled two bore wells in the year 1997 and 2000 and taken service connection vide S.C.No.836 and the same is marked as Ex.A2.
Subsequently Mandal Revenue officer, Somala issued apttadasr pass book and title deed for suit lands in favour of plaintiff’s father Ex.A3 is the title deed. P.w1 further deposed that his father paid cist for suit lands and Exs.A4 to A8 are the cist receipts and also further deposed that his father planted and reared coconut trees, jackfruit trees and fruit bearing trees in the suit land. P.W2 deposed in support of the plaintiff. In the cross-examination
P.w2 deposed that there is no Kondreddy kunta in Somala Mandal and also deposed that there are neem trees, coconut, panasa, lemon are there in the suit land and also deposed that the well was dug by Venkata Reddy about 40 years back.
8. In support of the contention of the defendants, 3rd defendant
P.Venkata Reddy is examined as D.W2 he deposed in his evidence that his faher formed a small kunta with his own efforts to raise crops in the adjoining lands and during survey settlement operation, the survey authorities surveyed and mentioned as “ Kondreddikunta” and since then the said kunta found place in all revenue records. After demise of father of D.W1 the defendants have used to enjoy the same. As per their enjoyment his name is entered in all revenue records. His name and 1st plaintiff’s father name is one and the same including surname. By taking advantage of the same plaintiff manipulated all the revenue records and filed suit. Dw1 further deposed that after seeing the licence in favour of plaintiff’s father he approached the Sub collector, Madnapalli and on the direction of Sub collector the Mandal Revenue Officer had inspected the plaint schedule
OS NO.267/2004
9 property and on the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Somala the Sub collector granted stay on the license stands in the name of plaintiff’s father.
Defendant No.4 filed his chief examination affidavit and subsequently the same is eschewed as per the memo filed the defendants. The then Mandal
Revenue Inspector, Somala Mandal examined as D.w3 in chief and subsequently his evidence is also eschewed at request. Again the 4th defendant is examined as D.W5 and he deposed that suit schedule property is called as Kondreddi kunta and in the un seasons the same is used to raise dry crops in the kunta. After the demise of Kondreddi i.e. father of defendants 1 to 3 the same is in possession and enjoyment of defendants 1 to 3. He is also in possession of Ac.0.50 cents in suit land under lease from
Defendants 1 to 3 since 20 years. In the cross-examination D.W5 deposed that he is a native of Buddareddipalli near Agraharam, Sodum mandal and he migrated to Munireddigaripalli about 30 years back. The Thahsildar,
Somala is examined as D.w3 he deposed that Ex.A1 is not carried out in their records maintained by their office. D.W3 further deposed that the intention and guidelines are only to plant trees in Government lands and not for cultivation, he visited property mentioned in Ex.A1 and found there are no trees in Sy.No.224/3 but there is old dried well and there are trees around old dried well. D.W3 further deposed as follows:- “
as per our record relates to 224/3 i.e. suit sy.no. belongs to the
Government and Government is paramount owner. Generally the
pass books will be prepared basing on 1-B extract maintained by our
office. As per our 1-B record patta No.308 and pass book No.314943
stands in the name of Palavali Venkata Reddy, s/o. Muni Reddy.
There are number of corrections in the pass books stands in the
name of P.Venkata reddy,s/o.Muni Reddy. In respect of suit Sy.No.
there is no entry in original 1-B Register and further no pass book
will be issued to Government land i.e suit schedule property
mentioned as Kondreddy cheruvu in our revenue records”.
He further deposed that as follows:- “ I do not know how Ex.A4
and on what basis was issued by Asst. Secretary, Revenue office,
Somala, 10(1) account. As per our record No.3 account the enjoydar
in col.No.13 are shown P.Venkata Reddy, s/o.Kondreddy and
Buchireddy son of Chinnappa Reddy as per Ex.A4 in Col.No.13 the
OS NO.267/2004
10
names are shown as Palavala Sanamma, w/o.Venkata Reddy. As per
latest entry 1417 fasali col.no.13 the name of P.Venkata Reddy is
strike off.
In the cross-examination,D.W3 further deposed that “ simply in
1417 fasali the enjoydhar name P.Venakta Reddy has been simply
strike off and no enjoydar name shown attested by Secretary. The
adangal for 1409 to 1415 in col.No.13 the enjoydars name has been
shown P.Venkata reddy in Red ink the subsequent entries in
col.No.13 has been in blue ink. I cannot say who wrote the said two
entries.
When the court put a question to D.W3 stated that according to his visit either the plaintiffs or the defendants have no possession over the suit schedule property. D.W3 in the further cross-examination he deposed as follows: “ “It is true there are 26 coconut trees in suit schedule property around the well. The well it is in border of suit schedule property. It is true there are two tombs are there at border of the suit property. I have located the suit schedule property with the help of mandal surveyor. The tombs are there on the border of suit schedule property. There are two panasa and one lemon tree and three neem trees are in different place in the suit schedule property. There is one mango trees is also there and also one electrical pole service connection 836 is there. A bore well is situated in the suit schedule property and at present there is no pipe line”
As seen from the evidence of D.W4 who is the Thahsildar, Somala deposed in different versions in his evidence during chief examination and cross- examination.
9. On perusal of Ex.A1 form of licence granted to Palaala Venkata
Reddy, s/o. Muni Reddy and the description of trees are coconut, mango, teak etc. trees noted in the margin of Kondreddikunta in Survey field 224-3 kunta pormboke of Somala Mandal. As per Ex.A1 licence it was issued after noting the coconut, mango ,teak trees by Palavala Venkata reddy, s/o. Muni reddy. As per the evidence of P.w1 is that considering the pre-existing possession and enjoyment of his father the Mandal Revenue officer,Somala pleased to issue form of licence granting for planting trees in Government poramboke land. It means before issuance of Ex.A1, the plaintiff’s father
Venkata Reddy has been in possession of the said Kondreddikunta. Ex.A2 is the title deed issued in the name of plaintiff’s father P. Venkata Reddy for
OS NO.267/2004
11 the suit Sy.No.224-3 to an extent of Ac.1.77 cents and other lands. Ex.A3 is the APSEB Board electricity service connection pass book for S.C.No.836. As per the evidence of D.W4 S.C.No.836 is there in the suit schedule property with one electric pole. Ex.A4 No.2 adanal and No.3 Pahani pathrika in which the suit Sy.No.224-3 to an extent of ac.1.77 cents of dry lands and bore is also situated stands in the name of Palavala Venakata Reddy, s/o. Muni
Reddy and the enjoydar is Palavala Sanamma W/o. Venkata reddy. It is clear as per Ex.A4 the suit schedule Sy.No.224/3 to an extent of Ac.1.77 cents was in possession of Palavala Sanamma w/o. Palavala Venkata reddy.
The defendants are not disputing the Palavala Sanamma is the wife of
Palava Venkata Reddy. It shows that Palavala Sanamma who is the mother of plaintiff and wife of Palavala Venkata Reddy was in possession of suit schedule property. Therefore it cannot be said that the 3rd defendant was in possession of suit schedule property for the fasali 1414 i.e. for the year 2004. The plaintiff filed Ex.A5 bunch of B.Memos and one cist receipt issued by the Thahsilar, Punganur to Venkata Reddy to evict the suit schedule property as the said Venkata reddy had occupied and was in possession of suit schedule property. Therefore , it clearly be said that the plaintiff’s father Venkata Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of issuance of B.Memos under Ex.A5. One cist receipt filed under Ex.A5 that one Palavala Sanamma, w/o.Venkata reddy has paid Cist to the suit Sy.No.224/3. Therefore, Exs.A1 to A5 are clearly show that the plaintiff’s father Palavala Venkata Reddy had been in possession and enjoyment of suit Sy.No.224/3.
10. Per contra, the defendants filed Ex.B1 Fair adangal it shows that the
Suit S.No.224/3 is a Kondreddikunta cheruvu and it is does not show who is in possession of said Sy.No.224/3. EX.B2 is the copy of 10(1) account, it does not contain the suit Sy.No. Ex.B3 is the No.3 adangal it shows that the suit Survey No.224/3 to an extent of ac.1.77 cents is Kondreddi cheruvu is
OS NO.267/2004
12 in possession of P.Venkata Reddy, Chellapalli Buchi reddy, s/o. Chinnappa
Reddy and it discloses that there are 15 coconut trees, well, paddy crop. Ex.
B3 shows that there are coconut trees are existing in the suit Sy.No. But as per the contention of the defendants that there are no coconut trees in the suit survey No. and as per the contention of plaintiff there are coconut and other trees are situated in the suit Schedule property. Therefore, the contention of the defendants cannot be believed and accepted. The defendants filed Ex.B4, Ex.B5,Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 do not contain the suit
Sy.No.224/3. Ex.B8 is the No.3 adangal copy, it shows that the suit
Sy.No.224/3 Ac.1.77 cents is classified as Kondreddi cheruvu and in the remarks column it is mentioned that there is well, bore and coconut trees.
The defendants never claimed that they planted coconut trees or other trees in the suit survey number. Only the defendants are claiming that during unreason they are used to raise dry crops in the suit survey number. But the documents filed by the defendants do not show that there are dry crops raised by anybody and only they show that there is well, bore and coconut trees. The plaintiff is claiming that his father Venkata reddy drilled bore well and took service connection and planted and reared trees in the suit Sy.No.
Therefore the document filed by the defendants are clearly shows that the plaitniff’s father Venkata reddy had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit Sy.No.
11. On perusal of Ex.B13 appeal orders passed by the Sub Collector,
Madanapalli dt. 5.7.2011 stating that the lease granted in favour of the respondent by the then Mandal Revenue officer, Somala in Roc.R.Dis.No.
(A) /1232/200,dt. 16.9.200 in respect of the land in S.No.224/3 of Somala village is hereby cancelled. It shows that that the respondent in the said appeal is Venkata reddy and thus the lease granted in his favour is cancelled. It means that the said Venkata Reddy has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit Sy.No.224/3 as on the date of orders passed under
OS NO.267/2004
13
Ex.B13 but the defendants are not in possession of the same as on that date. Always the defendants have been challenging the licence issued in favour of the father of plaintiff viz. Venkata reddy before the revenue officials. As per Ex.B10 the suit Sy.No.224/3 is shown as Kondreddy cheruvu and the name of the enjoydhars in the said document are struck off.
Ex.B11 Fair adangal it shows that the suit Sy.No.224/3 is in possession of
Kondreddi family but it does not show who is the person has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit Sy.No. Though the defendants have been claiming that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but they did not file any relevant document to show their possession over the suit schedule property. As per the documents filed by the plaintiff and also by the defendants that there is bore well, coconut trees are in existence in the suit survey number and the same is also claimed by the plaintiff. But the defendants at anywhere they claimed that they drilled bore well and planted any trees in the suit sy.No. As per the contention of the defendants that they raised dry crops in the suit survey no. but no document is showing that there is any crop in the suit schedule property. As per Ex.B13 appeal orders the plaintiff’s father Venkata Reddy is described as a encroacher. It is well settled law that even the encroacher is also entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction against the real owner. Though the suit Sy.No.224/3 is a Government land the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injucntion as during the life time of his father venkata Reddy and his mother Sonamma had been in possession of the suit schedule Sy.No. and
Ex.A1 Licence was also issued in favour of plaintiff’s father Venkata reddy.
Exs.A1 to A5 are very clearly shows that the plaintiff’s father palavala
Venkata reddy had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit Sy.No. The defendants have not filed any document like patta, licence, pattadar pass book and title deed or any document to show that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule Sy.No. Thus, the plaintiff has established that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint
OS NO.267/2004
14 schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
12. ISSUE NO.2: In view of the finding given in issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
13. ISSUE NO.3: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Dictated to the Personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of July,2014.
Sd/-XXXXXX
Principal Junior civil Judge
Punganur
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined.
For plaintiff fordefendants.
P.W1: P.Janardhana Reddy.D.W1: P.Venkata Reddy.
P.w2: N.Yerrakka. D.w2:C.Buchi Reddy (eschewed)
P.W3: G.Ramachandraiaha.D.W3: C.Sreenivasulu.
Dw4: N.Rajasekhar.
D.w5: C.Buchi Reddy.
Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff
Ex.A1: form of licence.
Ex.A2: title deed.
Ex.A3: electricity slab pass book.
Ex.A4: 10(1) and no.2 adangal.
Ex.A5: B-Memos.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants.
Ex.B1: Fair adangal.
Ex.B2: 10-1 account.
OS NO.267/2004
15
Ex.B3: No.2 account.
Ex.B4: 1-B abstract.
Ex.B5: 1-B Namoona.
Ex.B6: 1-B Namoona.
Ex.B7: 1-B Namoona.
Ex.B8: No.3 Adangal copy.’
Ex.B9: proceedings of the Sub Collector, Madanapalli.
Ex.B10: No.3 adangal pahani.
Ex.B11:Fair adangal.
Ex.B12: 1-B.Namoona.
Ex.B13: appeal order dt.5.11.2011.
Sd/-XXXXXX
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Punganur