Sri K.P. Balaji

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:SRI K.P.BALAJI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

TUESDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

O.S.NO. 172/2017

Between: Paladugu Tirumala Rao, S/o.Late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 56 years, R/o.D.No.4-4, Kazipet, Guntupalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. …Plaintif AND

1) Paladugu Surendranadh, S/o.Late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 68 years, R/o.P.B.No.49/45, Riyadh, Kingdom of Sowdi Arebiya, Now residing at D.No.4-3, Kazipet, Guntupalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

2) Paladugu Rani, W/o. Surendranadh, Hindu, aged 54 years, R/o.D.No.4-3, Kazipet, Guntupalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

... Defendants

This suit coming on 6.3.2020 before me in the presence of Sri L.L.Narasimham, Advocate for plaintif, of Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendants (a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property or by demolishing the building bearing D.No. 4-4 under threat of force and violence in any manner whatsoever, (b) for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to make construction of the bathroom and lavatory in the place where they are lying earlier prior to 1.3.2017 which is on the south-west corner of the plaint schedule building property within the time stipulated by the Court and for costs.

2)The averments in the plaint are as follows:-

The 1st defendant is the husband of the 2nd defendant. The plaintif is the 3rd younger brother of the first defendant. Originally an extent of 396.86 sq. yards of site with two RCC buildings therein constructed in a

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 2

plinth area of 1500 sq. feet belonged to the father of the plaintif and first defendant herein. The 1st defendant herein who is the elder son having stayed at Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, fraudulently obtained a registered sale deed dt. 14.5.1998 from his father, Venkateswara Rao, and claiming absolute title over the said property. Subsequently the 2nd defendant as GPA holder of the 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.NO. 228 of 2008 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada on 28.2.2008 for recovery of possession of the part of the property covered by the sale deed

dt. 14.5.1998 i.e., the RCC building consisting of three rooms with separate

bath room and lavatories situate on the south-west corner of the said building adjacent to southern side National Highway road by ejecting the plaintif and his mother Kamala, which is morefully described in the plaint.

During the pendency of the said suit, in view of the disputes that arose between defendants 1 and 2, the 1st defendant herein executed an

Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintif whereunder he authorized him to live in the plaint schedule property along with his family and his mother and manage the said building properties as well as the landed properties situate in Vedurupavuluru, h/o Mustabada Gram

Panchayat. In the said GPA dt. 26.11.2014 the 1st defendant not only authorized him to lookafter all his properties stated in the GPA but also permitted him to sell the said properties to the intending purchasers and execute sale agreement, sale deeds etc., in their favour on his behalf and he will ratify whatever actions that may be carried out by him on his behalf with a further recital that the said Irrevocable GPA cannot be cancelled in any circumstances either by him or the 1st defendant herein. The said

Irrevocable GPA dt. 26.11.2014 is still in force and the same is not cancelled either by the plaintif or by the 1st defendant. The certified extract of the said GPA is filed herewith for perusal of the Court. Subsequent to the execution of the said GPA, having reconciled that there is no need to keep the suit O.S.No. 228 of 208 pending, the 1st defendant personally filed a

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 3

memo through his counsel for not pressing the suit and accordingly the said suit was dismissed as not pressed by order dt. 28.11.2014 by the IV Addl.

Sr. Civil Judge, (FTC), Vijayawada. The certified extract of the suit register which contains the result of the suit dt. 28.11.2014 is filed for perusal of the court. As per the recitals in the Irrevocable GPA dt. 26.11.2014 he is entitled to stay in the plaint schedule property as long as possible along with his family including his mother, Kamala and the said POA cannot be cancelled either by the plaintif or by the 1st defendant under any circumstances and as such under the guise of the said POA he is entitled to stay in the plaint schedule property without any interruption from any corner without any interruption which includes the bathroom and lavatory lying in the south-west corner of the plaint schedule property building and also the compound wall constructed beyond the said bath room and lavatory on their south. As per the recitals in the said GPA he along with his family and mother have been residing in the plaint schedule property without any interruption by making payment of electricity consumption charges as and when the Department issued demand notices to the plaintif. Some of the electricity bills along with receipts pertaining to the payment of the said demand notices are filed herewith for perusal of the

Court. His mother Kamala died recently on 16.12.2016 unable to bear the physical and mental torture of both the defendants. The 1st defendant being the elder son did not choose to attend to her funeral obsequies and the same were performed by her other three sons including the plaintif.

Whileso, the 1st defendant while staying in the separate house in the north of the plaint schedule property along with his wife i.e., the 2nd defendant since last 10 days with a malafide intention to throw him out and his family members at the first instance got demolished the compound wall as well as the bathroom and lavatory situate on the south of the plaint schedule property through JCB bearing No. AP 16 DL 9675 in his absence at his house and when his wife, Sridevi, obstructed the illegal and unauthorised activities

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 4

of the defendants they openly proclaimed that if they interfere with their activities they will see their end. On knowing about the said incident he lodged a complaint on 1.3.2017 to the SI of Police, Ibrahimpatnam PS and to provide security to their lives but they did not take any action on the influence of the first defendant. Prior to the incident dt. 1.3.2017 in view of the illegal and highhanded activities of the first defendant, he made a complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam on 21.2.2017 but no action is taken against the defendant. The defendants having demolished the bathroom and lavatory situate in the south-west corner in front of the plaint schedule house property causing inconvenience to him and other family members for day to day natural calls, they have no other alternative except to go to the house of his sister bearing D.No. 1-201 situate at a distance of half a furlong during day hours and come back to the plaint schedule property during night hours. The 1st defendant being the elder of the family did not loookafter the afairs of the family. The 1st defendant under the dictates of his wife, the 2nd defendant, is acting illegally and highhandedly towards him and other sisters and brothers. By demolition of the lavatory and bathroom in front of the plaint schedule house property on 1.3.2017 has afected the privacy rights of the plaintif and his family members. Hence the suit.

3)The 1st defendant filed written statement contending as follows:-

All the allegations made in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true are denied as false and they are invented for the purpose of the suit. Except the relationship between the parties all the other allegations made in the plaint are denied as false. He is the absolute owner of the house property situate in Guntupalli of

Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and agricultural landed property in an extent of Ac.

4.72cents in R.S.No. 237/2 situate in Vedurupavuluru village of Gannavaram

Mandal. There are agricultural lands at Mustabad which are the joint family

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 5

properties of the plaintif and this defendant and their two other brothers

P.Sambasiva Rao and P.Bala Prasad. There are several disputes between him and the plaintif since one and half decades past. He has been working in Riyadh since more than 35 years and he purchased the building property at Guntupalli village from his father under a registered sale deed in the year 1998. He also purchased a vacant site at Mutyalampadu. His father, at the instance of the plaintif, got filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed obtained in the year 1998 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation against his father and for permanent injunction. After filing of the said suit in O.S.No. 324/2001 his father died in the year 2002 and his legal representatives including the plaintif were impleaded as plaintifs 2 to 5 in the said suit. After elaborate trial the said suit was dismissed. As against the said Judgment and decree the plaintif herein and their mother Kamala preferred A.S.No. 10 of 2007 on the file of VII ADJ,

Vijayawada which was also dismissed on merits. Thereafter he filed O.S.No.

228 o 2008on the file of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for eviction of the plaintif and other family members as they are in unauthorised possession and enjoyment in a portion of the building property i.e., schedule property. The plaintif tried to grab the Mutyalampadu vacant site property and there was also litigation between them in or about the year 2000 in which the plaintif did not succeed in his illegal eforts to grab the vacant site property. With a view to develop his brother, the plaintif herein, he took him to Riyadh and got him some job there in or about 1982. But the plaintif did not behave properly in Riyadh which is an Islamic country and he was imprisoned for six months for theft and after imprisonment he was sent back to India. Even after coming back to India he did not change his attitude and starting causing headache to him. Because of the intolerable attitude of the plaintif, he never entrusted any work to him and instead he gave GPA to his father-in-law, Sri Gurram Raja Rao when his wife,

P.Rani, was in Riyadh because of the employment of her husband there.

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 6

Subsequently she came back to India, he gave GPA to his wife who used to manage his properties at Guntupalli and Mustabad. He and the plaintif were at logger heads since long and there is no change in the attitude of the plaintif who had an evil eye on his properties. The plaintif used to disturb the mind of his wife making false complaints against him and he also tried to create gap between them and their children. Because of the false and unbelievable complaints made to him about his wife, the plaintif made him to cancel the GPA dt. 8.8.2008 executed in favour of his wife by executing GPA cancellation deed dt. 23.11.2014 and also made a publication in Enadu Daily on 24.11.2014. The plaintif also got an irrevocable GPA dt. 26.11.2014 by playing fraud, undue influence, false representation etc., on him for management of all the properties.

Pretending as though he is protecting his properties made to him to not press the eviction suit in O.S. No. 228 of 2008 on the file of IV Addl. Senior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada by applying pressure on him by changing his (D1)

counsel therein. The plaintif also obtained his signatures on some papers saying that they are necessary for management of the properties. He never informed the plaintif to sell the agricultural landed property at

Vadurupavuluru in order to purchase another property at Guntupalli. The plaintif in collusion with one Kagita Ravindra Babu and M.Ramakrishna created and brought into existence an agreement of sale dt. 10.9.2015 and got filed O.S.No. 2 of 2016 on the file of XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada for specific performance of the said agreement of sale which is being contested by him. Only an agency coupled with interest is irrevocable under the provisions of Indian Contract Act as per which having received some amount as consideration under the agreement of sale cum GPA the purchaser having an interest in the property covered by the agreement, the vendor is dis-entitled by law to cancel/revoke the agreement of sale and as such the impugned irrevocable GPA dt. 26.11.2014 is illegal, invalid and inoperative though it is styled as Irrevocable GPA which can be revoked or

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 7

cancelled as per law. As per the said GPA the plaintif is only an agent of the first defendant and he is not the owner of the property. He informed the plaintif personally that there is no necessity to sell the properties and cancelled/revoked the Irrevocable GPA dt. 26.12.2014 in writing on 8.10.2015 by realizing the dishonest intentions of the plaintif and had taken back all the original documents and link documents pertaining to all the properties from the plaintif and at that time the plaintif informed him that no transaction whatsoever took place in respect of the plaint schedule properties. After cancellation of the said GPA the said document has lost his enforceability coupled with the fact that it was obtained by using undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation violating the said GPA. The plaintif as GPA holder of this defendant in collusion with others is trying to create and fabricate documents purporting to be sales in respect of his properties with a view to grab the same. After revoking the GPA dt. 26.11.2014 executed in favour of the plaintif, he executed a GPA dt. 19.1.2016 in favour of the 2nd defendant for management of the properties and also to defend him in any civil and criminal courts and to conduct all legal proceedings on his behalf and also to give evidence. He executed a registered settlement deed dt. 7.10.2015 in favour of his three daughters in respect of Ac. 4.72 cents of agricultural land in R.S.No. 237/2 of

Vedurupavuluru village of Gannavaram Mandal of Krishna District. The fact that all the original documents of title pertaining to all his immovable properties are with him proves the factum of revocation/cancellation of the

Irrevocable GPA in favour of the plaintif by him. As on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintif is not in possession of the plaint schedule property having vacated the same voluntarily after taking some money from him. So the question of grant of permanent or mandatory injunction in his favour does not arise. The door number shown in the plaint is not correct and the northern boundary shown as the building property under the occupation of this defendant and his wife is also not correct in view of the fact that the

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 8

entire Guntupalli village building property is in possession of this defendant and his wife. As the plaint schedule is not correct the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. The suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.

4)The 2nd defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the 1st defendant.

5)The plaintif filed a rejoinder to the written statement contending as follows:-

All the allegations made in paras 1 to 7 of the written statement are denied as false. It is true the suit O.S.No. 324/2001 filed by his father and the appeal preferred there against in A.S.No. 10 of 2007 were dismissed. In fact, the 1st defendant filed O.S.No. 228 of 2008 against him and other family members for eviction. Due to the disputes with his wife, the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant cancelled the earlier GPA dt. 8.8.2008 executed in her favour by virtue of the cancellation deed dt. 24.11.2014 and thereafter with his free will and consent he executed an Irrevocable GPA on 26.11.2014 in his favour to lookafter and manage his immovable properties including the plaint schedule property, whereunder he authorized him to reside in the plaint schedule property along with his family members, to sell the properties for reasonable rates, execute sale agreements and sale deeds in favour of prospective purchasers and also to register the sale deeds in favour of the vendees/purchasers. The present suit is only in respect of a terraced building consisting of three rooms with amenities of electricity service connection, bathrooms, lavatories within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. If really the 1st defendant cancelled the

Irrevocable GPA dt. 26.11.2014 in writing on 8.10.2015 lot of procedure is provided under law and any acts made subsequent to the cancellation of the same by virtue of the deed dt. 8.10.20156 are not binding on him. The said procedure is not followed by the 1st defendant after alleged cancellation of Irrevocable GPA dt. 26.11.2014 vide document

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 9

dt. 8.10.2015. On the other hand, unilateral cancellation of the Irrevocable

GPA dt. 26.11.2014 vide document dt. 8.10.20156 is hit under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Indian Registration Act and as such the contention of the first defendant does not hold good. By virtue of the powers vested on him under the GPA he performed his duties and as GPA holder of the 1st defendant he entered into an agreement of sale

dt. 19.2.2015 in favour of one Subba Rao who filed O.S.No. 190/2016 on the

file of II ADJ Vijayawada against him and the first defendant and his three daughters as the 1st defendant executed a gift deed in their favour suppressing the existence of sale agreement dt. 19.2.2015. He also entered into an agreement on 18.8.2015 with one I.Subba Rao in respect of

Ac. 3.72 cents of land who also filed O.S.No. 49 of 2016 against him, the 1st defendant and his daughters as he executed a settlement deed in their favour suppressing the said agreement in favour of I.Subba Rao. With regard to the balance extent of Ac. 1.00 out of Ac. 4.72 cents he entered into an agreement of sale with one K.Ravindra Babu and M.Ramakrishna of

Vijayawada who also filed a suit against him,1st defendant and his three daughters in O.S.No. 2 of 2016. By virtue of the Irrevocable GPA executed in his favour on 26.11.2014 by the 1st defendant he entered into the above agreements, received nominal amounts from the vendees and entrusted the same to the 1st defendant in the presence of his brother-in-law and

Nephew of the plaintif and the 1st defendant and hence the contention of the 1st defendant that he created fraudulent and collusive documents with the help of his henchmen is not correct. The other allegation in the written statement that he voluntarily vacated the plaint schedule property and that he is not in possession of the same as on the date of filing of the suit is not true and correct. Hence a decree may be passed in his favour as prayed for in the suit.

6)Based on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 10

the trial of the suit.

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7)The plaintif examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked through him. Though the chief examination affidavits of P.Ws. 2 and 3 were filed into court, they were not tendered for cross examination and hence their chief examination affidavits came to be eschewed by order

dt. 20.3.2019. The 2nd defendant is examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.B.5

were marked through her. In spite of granting several adjournments being granted, even by imposing costs, for cross examining D.W.1, the learned counsel for the plaintif did not turn up and hence the cross examination of

D.W.1 was recorded a NIL on 11.2.2020. When the matter came up for

Arguments on 6.3.2020 neither the plaintif was present nor there was any representation on his behalf. Hence he was treated as heard. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendants and perused the material available on record.

8)Issue Nos. 1 and 2 :-

As both these Issues are inter-connected, they are taken up together for consideration.

The relationship between the plaintif and defendants 1 and 2 is not disputed. Similarly there also does not appear to be any dispute with regard to the fact that the 1st defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from his father, Venkateswara Rao, under a registered sale deed in the year 1998. It is also not disputed that the suit filed by the father of plaintif and 1st defendant for cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed and the Appeal filed against the judgment and decree in the said suit was also dismissed on merits by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 11

contention of the plaintif in the plaint that the 1st defendant obtained a registered sale deed from his father by playing fraud etc., on him cannot be accepted. As a necessary corollary it must be held that the first defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

9)The plaintif claiming to be the agent or POA holder of the 1st defendant under the Irrevocable GPA executed by the first defendant on 26.11.2014 filed the suit for the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions on the ground that the 1st defendant along with his men highhandedly and illegally removed the bathroom and lavatory in the south west corner of the plaint schedule property and that they are also trying to interfere with his alleged possession over the plaint schedule property. As could be seen from the written statement filed by the first defendant, according to him, the said GPA was obtained by the plaintif by playing fraud, misrepresentation etc., on him and that it has been cancelled by him by executing a cancellation deed o and that he in turn executed another

GPA in favour of his wife, the 2nd defendant on 19.1.2016 and hence the

Irrevocable GPA said to have been executed by him in favour of the plaintif is not in force. It is also the contention of the first defendant that the plaintif is not in possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit as he voluntarily vacated the same. Whether the 1st defendant has authority to cancel the original of Ex.A.1 or not is not a question to be decided in the present suit.

10)P.W.1 is the plaintif in the suit and in his chief examination affidavit he reiterated the very same facts stated by him in the plaint. He admitted in the cross examination that there is litigation between him and the 1st defendant from 2000. He admitted that he was punished for violation of

Islamic law at Riyadh when he went there in 1982 and that he was sent back by the Government after serving the sentence of imprisonment. He further admitted that after the 2nd defendant came back to India, the GPA

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 12

was given to her. This admission of the plaintif makes it amply clear that the earlier GPA executed in his favour has been impliedly cancelled. He feigns ignorance about the publication made in Eenadu daily on 24.11.2014. It is elicited through him that before execution of Ex.A.1, the earlier suit O.S.No. 228 of 2008 was withdrawn. He stated that he has no evidence to show that the 1st defendant authorized him to sell the properties under various agreements. It was suggested to him that by informing the first defendant that he did not enter into any transactions, he handed over the original documents to him. When the case of the first defendant as set out in the written statement was put to him, he denied the same. In the cross examination made on 28.10.2019 he stated that at present he is living in his sister’s house as bath room and latrine were demolished and that the said house is situate at a distance of 1 KM from the plaint schedule property. At the fag end of the cross examination he stated that he does not know about the cancellation of GPA executed in his favour, from which it is clear that he is not speaking the truth.

11)D.W.1 is the 2nd defendant in the suit and she is also the POA holder of the 1st defendant. In her chief examination affidavit she reiterated the very same facts stated by the 1st defendant in the written statement.

Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked through her. The plaintif’s counsel failed to cross examine the witness and hence the statements made by her in the chief examination affidavit remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

12)Even as could be seen from the plaint pleadings and the chief examination affidavit of the plaintif, he and his family members were permitted to live in the plaint schedule property as long as possible by virtue of the original of Ex.A.1, GPA dt. 26.11.2014, which has been subsequently cancelled on 8.1.2016 as per the contentions raised in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant. Thus, the plaintif is claiming the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions as an agent or POA

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 13

holder of the 1st defendant alleging that he has every right to continue in possession of the property.

13)Now the only question to be considered is whether the plaintif, who claims to be in possession of the property as a licensee or in permissive possession of the 1st defendant by virtue of Ex.A.1, is entitled to the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions as prayed for by him in the suit or not. The question is no more res integra.

14)In Mahabir Prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh 1 it was held that possession of a servant or agent is that of his master or principal, as the case may be, for all purposes and the former cannot maintain a suit against the latter on the basis of such possession.

15)In Puran Singh v. State of Punjab 2 it was held that occupation of the property by a person as agent or servant at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession.

16)In Sham Lal v. Rajinder 3 it was held that merely because the plaintif was employed as a servant or chowkidar to look-after the property, it cannot be said that he had entered into possession of the property as to exclude even his mater from enjoying or claiming possession of the property or as would entitle him to compel the master from staying away from his own property.

17)In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De

Sequeria (dead) through L.Rs.,4 a three- Judge Bench of the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that there is a presumption that possession of a person other than the owner, if at all it has to be called as possession, is permissive on behalf of the title holder, and it will be for the person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a right to continue in possession, to 1 (1999) 8 SCC 274 2 (1975) 4 SCC 518 3 LAWS (DLH) 1994 8 55 4 AIR 2012 SC 1727 : 2012(4) ALD 1 (SC)

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 14

establish that he has such a right. It was also held in the above decision that a caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in property irrespective of his long possession and he has to give possession forthwith on demand. It was further held therein that the Courts are not justified in protecting possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for sometime as a friend, relative, caretaker or servant.

18)Admittedly in the present case, the plaintif did not put forward any legal claim or right to continue in possession of the plaint schedule property and on the other hand it is the admitted case of the plaintif both in the plaint as well as in his evidence that he was permitted to live in the plaint schedule property by the first defendant by virtue of the original of Ex.A.1.

That being the case, in view of the above legal position, the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions against the true owner, the 1st defendant, is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Both the

Issues are accordingly answered against the plaintif.

19)Issue No. 3 :-

In view of the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, it is held on this Issue that the suit of the plaintif is liable to be dismissed with costs.

20)IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of March, 2020.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: Paladugu Tirumala Rao

FOR DEFENDANTS: D.W.1: Paladugu Rani

OS.NO.172/2017

Date: 17.3.2020 15

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1Registration extract of the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by 1st defendant in favour of P.W.1 Ex.A.2:Certified copy of suit registered extract in O.S.No.228/08 and the result of the suit bear in. Ex.A.3:Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.4: Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.5:Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.6:Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.7:Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.8:Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.9:Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.10: Original demand notice issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Ex.A.11: Attested true copy of Aadhar card standing in the name of plaintif (compared with original and original given to P.W.1) Ex.A.12: Office copy of complaint, dated 21.2.2017 given by plaintif to Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam. Ex.A.13: Office copy of complaint given by plaintif, dated 1.3.2017 to S.I.of police, Ibrahimpatnam. Ex.A.14: Death certificate of plaintif’s mother (P.Kamala), dated 24.12.2016 Ex.A.15: Certificate issued by Ayush Hospital Ex.A.16: Bunch of 4 photographs with C.D.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1:Bunch of 3 photographs with C.D. Ex.B2:Registration extract of the settlement deed, dated 7.10.2015 executed by 1st defendant in favour of his 3 daughters Ex.B3:Electricity consumption charges paid receipts dated 27.11.2019 Ex.B4:Electricity consumption charges paid receipts dated 27.11.2019 Ex.B5:House tax demand notice, dated 15.4.2019.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:SRI K.P.BALAJI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

TUESDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

O.S.NO. 223/2019

Between: Sri Sai Ram Traders, Represented by its Sole Proprietor, G.L.V.S.Sarma, S/o.Late Subbarao, aged 45 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.101, Rukumani Apartments, Bhagyanagar Society, Opp: K.P.H.B. Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. …Plaintif

AND

1) The Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

2) The Superintending Engineer, P.R. Circle, Near Collectorate Backside, Vijayanagaram, Vijayanagaram District.

3) The Executive Engineer, R.W.S. Division, Near Collectorate Backside, R.W.S. Division, Vijayanagaram, Vijayanagaram District.

... Defendants

This suit coming on 5.3.2020 before me in the presence of Sri K.Ravinder Babu and Sudhakar Rao, Advocates for plaintif, of Sri Y.Kondal Reddy, Government Pleader for defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of money for supply of goods to the defendants and for costs.

2)Originally the plaintif filed the suit against the defendants before the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District which was numbered as O.S.No.

1177 of 2010. The defendants entered appearance and raised objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the said Court for entertaining the suit.

Upon hearing both sides, the plaint was returned to the plaintif on 26.7.2018 for presentation before proper Court. Thereafter the plaintif presented the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram on 10.8.2018 who after hearing the then learned counsel for the plaintif again returned the plaint for presentation before proper court in view of the

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 2

bifurcation of the State, by order dt. 5.11.2018. The plaintif then presented the plaint before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada which was numbered as O.S.No. 223 of 2019 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law. That is how the suit came before this Court for trial and disposal.

3)The averments in the plaint are as follows:-

He is running business relating to office stationery, furniture,

Computer Stationery, serving instruments, printing items, hand pump materials and general suppliers in the name and style of Sri Sam Traders.

As per the notification dt. 8.3.2002 issued by the 3rd defendant requested to supply quality control material. As per the specification of the notification the plaintif supplied quality control goods to the defendant worth Rs.

2,44,430/-. As per the quotation he supplied the quality control materials to the defendants which was accepted by them vide challan NO. 28 dt.

24.3.2002. The 3rd defendant expressed satisfaction with regard to the quality and quantity of the material supplied by the plaintif. Thereafter the defendants agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,44,430/- to the plaintif as per the contingent bill dt. 3-.3.2002. After receipt of the contingent bill dt.

30.3.2002 the defendants have paid an amount of Rs. 76,467/- through a cheque. The defendants are still due in a sum of Rs. 1,67,983/-. The plaintif several times approached the defendants and requested them to release the due amount of Rs. 1,67,983/- but the defendants avoided to pay the amount on some pretext or the other. The defendants are not entitled to withhold payment of the amount after receiving the quality control material supplied by the plaintif without any objection. Because of the attitude of the defendants the plaintif faced so many financial constraints in its day to day business activities. Being vexed with the prolonged postponement of payment for years together he was constrained to issue statutory legal notice to the defendants under Sec. 80 CPC. In spite of

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 3

receipt of the said notice the defendants failed to act upon till date. After receipt of the legal notice the 3rd defendant addressed a letter on 3.1.2007 to the 2nd defendant admitting the payment of Rs. 1,67,953/- and requested the 2nd defendant to obtain permission from the 1st defendant for payment of the dues pending. In spite of the above circumstances the defendants failed to discharge their legal obligation to clear the balance amount due to the plaintif. Thereafter the plaintif again issued a legal notice dt.

16.12.2018 to the defendants under Sec. 80 CPC. Since the defendants failed to pay the amount due over a long period of time they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a., for delayed payment. Hence the suit.

4)The 3rd defendant filed written statement contending as follows:-

The plaintif filed a false, frivolous and vexatious suit against them.

The plaintif was not a participant in the notification dt. 8.3.2002 issued by this defendant and has not supplied materials against the said notification.

The plaintif has supplied materials as per the purchase order dt. 16.3.2002 placed by the Superintending Engineer, Vizianagaram and not by the 2nd defendant. The plaintif has supplied materials worth Rs. 2,44,430/- to this defendant. The payment to the extent of grant available i.e., Rs. 76,497/- from T & P grant to which expenditure is debitable was made to the plaintif. The balance amount of Rs. 1,67,953/- could not be paid due to non availability of grant in question. Since then the matter was being pursued with the higher authorities for release of grant and there is no delay for arrangement of the balance bill. Defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the above transaction. The plaintif has made them as parties in the suit without any concern. Since the grant is not available the payment could not be made in time and the payment will be arranged soon after receipt of grant for this purpose. Payment of interest may be disallowed as there is no such provision for delayed payments from Government side.

Due to lack of grant the payment is being delayed. The matter is being

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 4

pursued with higher authorities for settlement of dues to the plaintif. The balance amount of Rs. 1,67,953/- will be paid soon after receipt of grant.

Since the matter pertains to Government transactions, the payment of interest may be waived. The plaintif is entitled to receive only

Rs.1,67,983/- which is due to him and he is not entitled to interest as claimed at 12% p.a., The suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. The suit is barred by limitation as the plaintif has supplied the material in the year 2002 and there is a delay of 8 years in filing the suit.

This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The plaintif did not approach the court with clean hands. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5)Defendants 1 and 2 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant.

6)Based on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for the trial of the suit.

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendants?

2. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit?

3. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief?

7)On behalf of the plaintif, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants and it is reported by the learned AGP that he has no evidence, either oral or documentary, to be adduced on behalf of the defendants.

8)Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

9)Issue NO. 2:-

Since pursuant to the objection raised by the defendants in their written statement about the jurisdiction of the Ranga Reddy Courts to entertain the suit, the plaint was returned to the plaintif twice for

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 5

presentation before proper Court, this Issue has become redundant and no finding need be given on this Issue.

10)Issue No. 3 :-

Since it is one of the contentions of the 3rd defendant in the written statement that the suit claim is barred by limitation, this Issue is taken up first for consideration, as it goes to the root of the matter.

11)P.W.1 is the plaintif in the suit and in his chief examination affidavit he reiterated the very same facts stated in the plaint. Ex.A.1 is the copy of purchase order dt. 16.3.2002. Ex.A.3 is the office copy of the bill dt.

27.3.2002. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of the letter issued by Superintending

Engineer RWS Vizianagaram to the Executive Engineer, Water Supplies

Department dt. 20.3.2002. Ex.A.4 is the office copy of lawyers notice and

Ex.A.5 is the bunch of postal acknowledgment. Ex.A.6 is the copy of correspondence between the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

12)The fact that the materials as per the bill dt. 27.3.2002 have been supplied by the plaintif to the defendant No. 3 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that part of the bill amount was paid to the plaintif and the 3rd defendant has to pay the remaining bill amount of Rs.1,67,983/-. In the cross examination P.W.1 admitted that he has not directly supplied the material to the defendants 1 and 2. Admittedly the goods were supplied in

March 2002. P.W.1 further admitted that there is no clause for payment of interest. P.W.1 further admitted that except the month and year no date is mentioned in Ex.A.4. He further admitted that there is no reference to

Ex.A.4 in Ex.A.6. P.W.1 further admitted that Ex.A.6 was addressed by the

Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. He further admits that it was not addressed to him or to his counsel. He cannot also say how he got possession of the said document. In the written statement the 3rd defendant stated that due to non availability of the grant the amount could

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 6

not be paid and that soon after the grant is received the payment will be made. It appears initially a sum of Rs.76,467/- was paid on 30.3.2002 for the material supplied under Ex.A.2 Bill dt. 24.3.2002. Therefore, the limitation for filing a suit for recovery of the amount for the goods supplied to the defendants on 24.3.2002 is 3 years from 30.3.2002, when part payment of was made and the suit ought to have been filed on or before 30.3.2005. But the suit was filed on 31.12.2009 long after the period of limitation, after issuing notice under Sec.80 CPC in the last week of

December 2009.

13)Under Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act, any acknowledgement of debt or liability must be made before the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed under the law of Limitation. Admittedly in this case no such acknowledgment has been made within three years from 30.3.2002. Ex.A.6 is a communication between defendants 2 and 3 dated 3.1.2007 on which strong reliance is placed by the plaintif to contend that the period of limitation starts from the said date. But his contention cannot be accepted as it was not made within a period of three years from 30.3.2002 to construe it as an acknowledgment. Ex.A.6 also does not come within the purview of Sec. 25(3) of the Contract Act also to construe it as a promise to pay a time barred debt, as it is only a intra-departmental communication between defendants 2 and 3 and not even communicated to the plaintif or his counsel. Viewed from any angle, the claim made by the plaintif is hopelessly barred by limitation. This Issue is accordingly answered against the plaintif.

14)Issue No. 1 :-

In view of the finding on Issue NO.3, it is held on this Issue that the plaintif is not entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants.

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 7

15)Issue NO. 4 :-

In view of the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 3, it is held on this Issue that the suit of the plaintif is liable to be dismissed, but without costs as the defendants failed to adduce any evidence.

16)IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed, but without costs in the circumstances of the case.

Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of March, 2020.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W.1: G.L.V.S.SarmaNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1Copy of purchase order, dated 16.3.2002 (marked subject to objection) Ex.A.2:Office copy of letter issued by the Superintending Engineer RWS, Vijayanagaram to the Executive Engineer Water Supplies, dated 20.3.2002 Ex.A.3:Office copy of the Bill, dated 27.3.2002 Ex.A.4: Office copy of legal notice Ex.A.5:Postal acknowledgement Ex.A.6:Copy of Correspondence in between the Executive Engineer RWS VijayanagaramandSuperintendingEngineerRWS Vijayanagaram.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:SRI K.P.BALAJI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

TUESDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

O.S.NO. 223/2019

Between: Sri Sai Ram Traders, Represented by its Sole Proprietor, G.L.V.S.Sarma, S/o.Late Subbarao, aged 45 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.101, Rukumani Apartments, Bhagyanagar Society, Opp: K.P.H.B. Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. …Plaintif

AND

1) The Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

2) The Superintending Engineer, P.R. Circle, Near Collectorate Backside, Vijayanagaram, Vijayanagaram District.

3) The Executive Engineer, R.W.S. Division, Near Collectorate Backside, R.W.S. Division, Vijayanagaram, Vijayanagaram District.

... Defendants

This suit coming on 5.3.2020 before me in the presence of Sri K.Ravinder Babu and Sudhakar Rao, Advocates for plaintif, of Sri Y.Kondal Reddy, Government Pleader for defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of money for supply of goods to the defendants and for costs.

2)Originally the plaintif filed the suit against the defendants before the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District which was numbered as O.S.No.

1177 of 2010. The defendants entered appearance and raised objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the said Court for entertaining the suit.

Upon hearing both sides, the plaint was returned to the plaintif on 26.7.2018 for presentation before proper Court. Thereafter the plaintif presented the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram on 10.8.2018 who after hearing the then learned counsel for the plaintif again returned the plaint for presentation before proper court in view of the

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 2

bifurcation of the State, by order dt. 5.11.2018. The plaintif then presented the plaint before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada which was numbered as O.S.No. 223 of 2019 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law. That is how the suit came before this Court for trial and disposal.

3)The averments in the plaint are as follows:-

He is running business relating to office stationery, furniture,

Computer Stationery, serving instruments, printing items, hand pump materials and general suppliers in the name and style of Sri Sam Traders.

As per the notification dt. 8.3.2002 issued by the 3rd defendant requested to supply quality control material. As per the specification of the notification the plaintif supplied quality control goods to the defendant worth Rs.

2,44,430/-. As per the quotation he supplied the quality control materials to the defendants which was accepted by them vide challan NO. 28 dt.

24.3.2002. The 3rd defendant expressed satisfaction with regard to the quality and quantity of the material supplied by the plaintif. Thereafter the defendants agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,44,430/- to the plaintif as per the contingent bill dt. 3-.3.2002. After receipt of the contingent bill dt.

30.3.2002 the defendants have paid an amount of Rs. 76,467/- through a cheque. The defendants are still due in a sum of Rs. 1,67,983/-. The plaintif several times approached the defendants and requested them to release the due amount of Rs. 1,67,983/- but the defendants avoided to pay the amount on some pretext or the other. The defendants are not entitled to withhold payment of the amount after receiving the quality control material supplied by the plaintif without any objection. Because of the attitude of the defendants the plaintif faced so many financial constraints in its day to day business activities. Being vexed with the prolonged postponement of payment for years together he was constrained to issue statutory legal notice to the defendants under Sec. 80 CPC. In spite of

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 3

receipt of the said notice the defendants failed to act upon till date. After receipt of the legal notice the 3rd defendant addressed a letter on 3.1.2007 to the 2nd defendant admitting the payment of Rs. 1,67,953/- and requested the 2nd defendant to obtain permission from the 1st defendant for payment of the dues pending. In spite of the above circumstances the defendants failed to discharge their legal obligation to clear the balance amount due to the plaintif. Thereafter the plaintif again issued a legal notice dt.

16.12.2018 to the defendants under Sec. 80 CPC. Since the defendants failed to pay the amount due over a long period of time they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a., for delayed payment. Hence the suit.

4)The 3rd defendant filed written statement contending as follows:-

The plaintif filed a false, frivolous and vexatious suit against them.

The plaintif was not a participant in the notification dt. 8.3.2002 issued by this defendant and has not supplied materials against the said notification.

The plaintif has supplied materials as per the purchase order dt. 16.3.2002 placed by the Superintending Engineer, Vizianagaram and not by the 2nd defendant. The plaintif has supplied materials worth Rs. 2,44,430/- to this defendant. The payment to the extent of grant available i.e., Rs. 76,497/- from T & P grant to which expenditure is debitable was made to the plaintif. The balance amount of Rs. 1,67,953/- could not be paid due to non availability of grant in question. Since then the matter was being pursued with the higher authorities for release of grant and there is no delay for arrangement of the balance bill. Defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the above transaction. The plaintif has made them as parties in the suit without any concern. Since the grant is not available the payment could not be made in time and the payment will be arranged soon after receipt of grant for this purpose. Payment of interest may be disallowed as there is no such provision for delayed payments from Government side.

Due to lack of grant the payment is being delayed. The matter is being

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 4

pursued with higher authorities for settlement of dues to the plaintif. The balance amount of Rs. 1,67,953/- will be paid soon after receipt of grant.

Since the matter pertains to Government transactions, the payment of interest may be waived. The plaintif is entitled to receive only

Rs.1,67,983/- which is due to him and he is not entitled to interest as claimed at 12% p.a., The suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. The suit is barred by limitation as the plaintif has supplied the material in the year 2002 and there is a delay of 8 years in filing the suit.

This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The plaintif did not approach the court with clean hands. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5)Defendants 1 and 2 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant.

6)Based on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for the trial of the suit.

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendants?

2. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit?

3. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief?

7)On behalf of the plaintif, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants and it is reported by the learned AGP that he has no evidence, either oral or documentary, to be adduced on behalf of the defendants.

8)Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

9)Issue NO. 2:-

Since pursuant to the objection raised by the defendants in their written statement about the jurisdiction of the Ranga Reddy Courts to entertain the suit, the plaint was returned to the plaintif twice for

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 5

presentation before proper Court, this Issue has become redundant and no finding need be given on this Issue.

10)Issue No. 3 :-

Since it is one of the contentions of the 3rd defendant in the written statement that the suit claim is barred by limitation, this Issue is taken up first for consideration, as it goes to the root of the matter.

11)P.W.1 is the plaintif in the suit and in his chief examination affidavit he reiterated the very same facts stated in the plaint. Ex.A.1 is the copy of purchase order dt. 16.3.2002. Ex.A.3 is the office copy of the bill dt.

27.3.2002. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of the letter issued by Superintending

Engineer RWS Vizianagaram to the Executive Engineer, Water Supplies

Department dt. 20.3.2002. Ex.A.4 is the office copy of lawyers notice and

Ex.A.5 is the bunch of postal acknowledgment. Ex.A.6 is the copy of correspondence between the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

12)The fact that the materials as per the bill dt. 27.3.2002 have been supplied by the plaintif to the defendant No. 3 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that part of the bill amount was paid to the plaintif and the 3rd defendant has to pay the remaining bill amount of Rs.1,67,983/-. In the cross examination P.W.1 admitted that he has not directly supplied the material to the defendants 1 and 2. Admittedly the goods were supplied in

March 2002. P.W.1 further admitted that there is no clause for payment of interest. P.W.1 further admitted that except the month and year no date is mentioned in Ex.A.4. He further admitted that there is no reference to

Ex.A.4 in Ex.A.6. P.W.1 further admitted that Ex.A.6 was addressed by the

Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. He further admits that it was not addressed to him or to his counsel. He cannot also say how he got possession of the said document. In the written statement the 3rd defendant stated that due to non availability of the grant the amount could

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 6

not be paid and that soon after the grant is received the payment will be made. It appears initially a sum of Rs.76,467/- was paid on 30.3.2002 for the material supplied under Ex.A.2 Bill dt. 24.3.2002. Therefore, the limitation for filing a suit for recovery of the amount for the goods supplied to the defendants on 24.3.2002 is 3 years from 30.3.2002, when part payment of was made and the suit ought to have been filed on or before 30.3.2005. But the suit was filed on 31.12.2009 long after the period of limitation, after issuing notice under Sec.80 CPC in the last week of

December 2009.

13)Under Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act, any acknowledgement of debt or liability must be made before the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed under the law of Limitation. Admittedly in this case no such acknowledgment has been made within three years from 30.3.2002. Ex.A.6 is a communication between defendants 2 and 3 dated 3.1.2007 on which strong reliance is placed by the plaintif to contend that the period of limitation starts from the said date. But his contention cannot be accepted as it was not made within a period of three years from 30.3.2002 to construe it as an acknowledgment. Ex.A.6 also does not come within the purview of Sec. 25(3) of the Contract Act also to construe it as a promise to pay a time barred debt, as it is only a intra-departmental communication between defendants 2 and 3 and not even communicated to the plaintif or his counsel. Viewed from any angle, the claim made by the plaintif is hopelessly barred by limitation. This Issue is accordingly answered against the plaintif.

14)Issue No. 1 :-

In view of the finding on Issue NO.3, it is held on this Issue that the plaintif is not entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants.

OS.No.223/2019

Date: 17.3.2020 7

15)Issue NO. 4 :-

In view of the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 3, it is held on this Issue that the suit of the plaintif is liable to be dismissed, but without costs as the defendants failed to adduce any evidence.

16)IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed, but without costs in the circumstances of the case.

Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of March, 2020.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W.1: G.L.V.S.SarmaNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1Copy of purchase order, dated 16.3.2002 (marked subject to objection) Ex.A.2:Office copy of letter issued by the Superintending Engineer RWS, Vijayanagaram to the Executive Engineer Water Supplies, dated 20.3.2002 Ex.A.3:Office copy of the Bill, dated 27.3.2002 Ex.A.4: Office copy of legal notice Ex.A.5:Postal acknowledgement Ex.A.6:Copy of Correspondence in between the Executive Engineer RWS VijayanagaramandSuperintendingEngineerRWS Vijayanagaram.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APKR040005262017

Presented on : 01-06-2017 Registered on : 06-06-2017 Decided on : 20-03-2020 Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 19 days

IN THE COURT OF

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada AT ,KRISHNA Presided Over by Sri. K. P. Balaji

OS/369/2017

Exhibit No.:

: Shaik Mahaboob Basha Age: 63 Occupation : Address: Muslim properties R/o Flat No. F4 Dr.No. 9-11 Ram Residency chakali Bazar Gollapudi Vijayawada rural 2: Shaik Mastan @ Mastan Basha Age: Occupation :

3: Shaik Moulali Age: Occupation :

4: Smt Shafiunnisa Age: Occupation :

5: Shaik Qamrunnisa Age: Occupation :

6: Smt Shaik Azeemun Age: Occupation :

7: Smt Taherunnisa Age: Occupation :

8: Mohammad Sadiq @karima Age: Occupation

VERSUS : Shaik Khadar Basha Age: 63 Occupation : Address: Muslim retd rly employee and properties r/o Dr.No.11-4-221 4th line Rajagarithota Guntur 2:Smt Patan afia Age: 60 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : AARIF MOHAMMED Advocate for : appearing for Shaik Khadar Basha: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

ORDER

judgment pronounced VSJ in the result the suit is decreed granting preliminary decree directing division of the plaint schedule property is to 72 equal shares and declaring that plaintiff 1 and 2and the 1st defendant are entitled to 2/9 th share each plaintiff 3,4,5 are entitled to a 2/54th share each plaintiff 7 and 9 are entitled to 1/18th share each 8th plaintiff is entitled to 2/18 th share plaintiff 10 and 11 are entitled to a 1/12th share each (the share of deceased 6 th plaintiff) and the 2nd defendant is entitled to 2/18 th share if the property could not be divided in terms of the above preliminary decree with in a reasonable time the parties are at liberty to move the count for passing off a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree the plaintiff are directed to filed separate application for determination of past present and future mesne profits under order 20 rule 12 cpc upon which a decree for meanse profits would ensue each party to bear their own costs.

Date : 20-03-2020 (Sd/- K.P. Balaji)

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

KRISHNA

APKR040005262017

Presented on : 01-06-2017 Registered on : 06-06-2017 Decided on : 20-03-2020 Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 19 days

IN THE COURT OF

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada AT ,KRISHNA Presided Over by Sri. K. P. Balaji

OS/369/2017

Exhibit No.:

: Shaik Mahaboob Basha Age: 63 Occupation : Address: Muslim properties R/o Flat No. F4 Dr.No. 9-11 Ram Residency chakali Bazar Gollapudi Vijayawada rural 2: Shaik Mastan @ Mastan Basha Age: Occupation :

3: Shaik Moulali Age: Occupation :

4: Smt Shafiunnisa Age: Occupation :

5: Shaik Qamrunnisa Age: Occupation :

6: Smt Shaik Azeemun Age: Occupation :

7: Smt Taherunnisa Age: Occupation :

8: Mohammad Sadiq @karima Age: Occupation

VERSUS : Shaik Khadar Basha Age: 63 Occupation : Address: Muslim retd rly employee and properties r/o Dr.No.11-4-221 4th line Rajagarithota Guntur 2:Smt Patan afia Age: 60 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : AARIF MOHAMMED Advocate for : appearing for Shaik Khadar Basha: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

ORDER

judgment pronounced VSJ in the result the suit is decreed granting preliminary decree directing division of the plaint schedule property is to 72 equal shares and declaring that plaintiff 1 and 2and the 1st defendant are entitled to 2/9 th share each plaintiff 3,4,5 are entitled to a 2/54th share each plaintiff 7 and 9 are entitled to 1/18th share each 8th plaintiff is entitled to 2/18 th share plaintiff 10 and 11 are entitled to a 1/12th share each (the share of deceased 6 th plaintiff) and the 2nd defendant is entitled to 2/18 th share if the property could not be divided in terms of the above preliminary decree with in a reasonable time the parties are at liberty to move the count for passing off a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree the plaintiff are directed to filed separate application for determination of past present and future mesne profits under order 20 rule 12 cpc upon which a decree for meanse profits would ensue each party to bear their own costs.

Date : 20-03-2020 (Sd/- K.P. Balaji)

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

KRISHNA