1 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: HANUMAKONDA.
Wednesday, the 17th day of December, 2025
Present:- Dr.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao,
Principal District Judge,
Hanumakonda.
A.S.NO.89 OF 2020, A.S.NO.90 OF 2020
AND
A.S.NO. 91 OF 2020
A.S.NO.89 OF 2020 :
Between:
1.Jamalpur Vidyasagar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 69 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
2.Jamalpur Mahendra Kumar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 59 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
3.Jamalpur Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 55 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda
4.Jamalpur Bhaskar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
..Appellants/Defendants
AND Pogula Rapson, S/o Joseph, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o H-No. 3-15-8, Peddammagadda, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
...Respondent
A.S.NO.90 OF 2020 :
Between:
1. Jamalpur Vidyasagar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 69 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
2. Jamalpur Mahendra Kumar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 59 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
3. Jamalpur Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 55 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanuamkonda.
4. Jamalpur Bhaskar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
..Appellants/Defendants
AND 2 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
1.Pogula Rapson, S/o Joseph, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o H-No. 3-15-8, Peddammagadda, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
2.Bandla Ravindra Chary, S/o. Laxmi Narsaiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No. 3-1-322, Peddammagadda, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
....Respondents/Defendants.
A.S.NO.91 OF 2020 :
Between:
1.Jamalpur Vidyasagar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 69 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
2.Jamalpur Mahendra Kumar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 59 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
3.Jamalpur Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 55 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda
4.Jamalpur Bhaskar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 6-7-77, Chakali Veedhi, Opp: Post Office, Hanumakonda.
..Appellants/Defendants
AND
Pogula Rapson, S/o Joseph, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o H-No. 3-15-8, Peddammagadda, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
...Respondent
The appeals are filed against the common Judgment and Decree
dated 05.08.2020 passed in O.S.No.1295 of 2011 on the file of VII
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
O.S.No.1211 of 2011
Pogula Rapson, S/o Joseph, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H-No. 3-15-8, Peddammagadda, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
...Plaintiff
AND
1.Bandla Ravindra Chary, S/o. Laxmi Narsaiah, Age: 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No. 3-1-322, Kakatiya Colony, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District
2.Jamalapur Vidyasagar, S/o. Late Malladi, Age: 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o H-No. 3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda.
3.Jamalapur Mahendra Kumar, S/o. Late Malladi, Age: 49 years, 3 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
Occ: Employee, R/o H-No.3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda.
4.Jamalapur Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late Malladi, Age: 45 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No.3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda.
5.Jamalapur Bhaskar, S/o. Late Malladi, Age: 41 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda. (Defendants No. 2 to 5 are added as per order in I.A.No.196/2012,
dated 04.06.2013)
…Defendants
O.S.No. 1295 of 2011
Between:
Pogula Rapson, S/o Joseph, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H-No. 3-15-8, Peddammagadda, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
...Plaintiff
AND
1.Jamalapur Vidyasagar, S/o. Late Malladi, Age: 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o H-No. 3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda.
2.Jamalpur Mahendra Kumar, S/o. Late Malladi, Age: 49 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H-No.3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda.
3.Jamalpur Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late Malladi, Age: 45 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No. 3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda.
4.Jamalpur Bhaskar, S/o. Late Mallaji, Age: 41 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H-No.3-2-103, Rayapur Street, Hanumakonda. …Defendants
These appeals came up before me for final hearing on 16.12.2025 in the presence of Sri A. Laxminarayana Reddy, Counsel for the appellants/ defendants in A.S.Nos. 89, 90 and 91 of 2020 and Sri K. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in A.S.Nos. 89, 90 and 91, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day this Court made the following:- – C O M M O N J U D G M E N T –
A common Judgment is being passed in these three appeals, i.e.,
A.S.Nos. 89, 90, and 91 of 2020, which are filed challenging common 4 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
Judgments passed by the learned VII learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal (before bifurcation of the judicial districts), dated 05.08.2020 in
O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 and O.S.No. 1295 of 2011. Both suits are filed by
one Pogula Rapson. Therefore, it is convenient to refer the parties as per their pleadings in the above suits.
1(b). Both suits are filed by the same plaintiffs for relief of a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, in both suits. There are five(05) defendants in O.S.NO. 1211 of 2011 and four(04) defendants in O.S.NO.
1295. Defendants Nos.1 to 5 in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 and defendant Nos.
2 to 5 in O.S.No. 1211 OF 2011, and one Bandla Ravindra Chary is defendant No.1. The parties in the Judgments are also referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants.
PLEADINGS:
2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are as follows:- The suit property in O.S.NO. 1211 to 2011 as per the schedule is an open plot of 240 square yards in Sy. Nos. 23, 41, and 47 of
Hanumakonda Revenue Village, marked as plot No.74 and suit schedule property in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 is the house bearing No. 3-1-242/A. In the above-mentioned plot, which is subject matter in O.S.No. 1211 of 2011. The suit property in O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 is herein referred to as the suit property, and in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 is herein after referred to as the suit house.
O.S.No.1211 of 2011:
3(a). The plaintiff claims that he is the owner and possessor of the suit property, having purchased the same from one Jupaka Irvin Kumar on 5 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 14.11.2011 under a registered sale deed, document No. 8207 of 2011. It is stated that one Jupaka Rajitham was the owner of the suit property who acquired title to it by allotment of the same to her by the proceedings of
Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda, on 07.09.1980 and the said Rajitham was a member of the said society. It is stated that after the demise of Rajitham, her son Irvin Kumar became the owner of the property. According to Irvin Kumar, the plaintiff purchased the same.
3(b). It is further contended that on 15.11.2011, while the plaintiff was cleaning bushes over the suit property for erecting boundary stones, the defendants, with their men, made an attempt to interfere with the suit property, which was resisted by the plaintiff f.
O.S.No.1295 of 2011:
4(a). The plaintiff has further stated that the plaintiff constructed a house with tin roof shed for which the Warangal Greater Municipal Corporation,
Warangal allotted a house No.3-1-242/A and the plaintiff claims that he has been paying property tax and he applied for pipeline and when he was fixing pipeline on 27.11.2011 and on 04.12.2011 the defendants again repeated their attempts to interfere and therefore, the plaintiff filed another suit of seeking for permanent injunction against the defendant
Nos. 1 to 4. It is pertinent to mention that O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 initially was initially filed against the first defendant. Thereafter, defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were added as parties and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are the defendants
No.1 to 4 in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011.
6 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 4(b). The defendants No. 2 to 5, who are defendants No.1 to 4, are in
O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 and defendants No. 2 to 5 in O.S.No. 1211 of
2011. Defendants No. 1 to 4in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 have filed the written statements in both cases. Since defendant No.1 in O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 was set exparte, defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 and defendants No.1 to 4 in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 are referred to as defendants in this Judgments.
4(c). The defendants contended that the suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable in law or fact, and it is stated that the plaintiff is a stranger he is not concerned with the suit property. It is also stated that the vendor of the plaintiff is a necessary and proper party to the suit. The defendants further contended that they had performed
Bhoomi Puja on 12.11.2011 and the plaintiff and his henchmen made an attempt to cause disturbance and therefore they have postponed the pooja activity on14.11.2011. It is stated that the plaintiff has created a false document and filed suit on 16.11.2011.
4(d). It is stated that in O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 was initially filed in collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The defendants claim that their father, Mallaji, was a member of Kakatiya Cooperative
Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda, who acquired the land allotted to him in plot No. 74. It is further stated that the father of the defendants constructed a compound wall with a basement in the year 1980 and after the demise of their father, the defendants acquired the same and approached to the Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society
Limited, Hanumakonda and they agreed their claim as to executed 7 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 registered sale deed in their favour on 22.07.2008 under registered sale deed, document No. 4888/2008.
4(e). It is further stated that the defendants have applied for permission for the construction of the building, and Warangal Municipal
Corporation granted permission No 12 in proceeding ROC
No.G3/37885/20, dated 14.11.2011. It is further stated that by taking advantage of the interim injunction order in O.S.No.1211 of 2011, the plaintiff raised construction of a shed with cement bricks tresspassed into the defendants' plot, raised temporary structures and also sunk a bore well.
4(f).It is further contended that the defendants wherein in possession of the suit property for about 32 years. The defendants have filed the counterclaim seeking the relief of a mandatory injunction. The trial court decreed O.S.No.1211 of 2011 and O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 and dismissed the counterclaim of the defendants.
5. A.S.No.89 of2022 is filed challenging the dismissal of the counterclaim to set aside the common Judgment and decree in question.
6. A.S. No. 90 of 2022 is filed against the Judgment in O.S.No. 2011 of 2011 and A.S.No. 91 is filed challenging the Judgment in A.S.No. 1295 of 2011.
The reasons given by the trial court:
7. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2,
D.W.1 and D.W.2 and the documents marked as Exs.P1 to 11 and Ex.B-1 to 15.
8 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
The following are the important findings of the learned trial court.
8(a). The learned trial Judge relied upon Ex.A-1, in which the President,
Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda, mentioned the recommendation of the Special Officer, Urban Ceiling,
Warangal, in which it was written that the President of the society has delivered the possession of the land to Jupaka Rajitham. The learned trial Judge also believed that Ex.A-3 cash receipt issued by Warangal
Municipal Corporation, Warangal, in the name of the plaintiff for the house bearing No.3-1-242/A and also relied upon the photographs marked as Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-8. The learned trial Judge also referred to the building permission obtained for the construction of the building by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The learned trial Judge considered that the defendants have admitted the possession of the plaintiff in the counterclaim.
8(b). The learned trial judge also took note of the case of C.C.No. 12 of 2013 under Ex.B-2, which was registered by the police for alleging trespass of the plaintiff along with B.Sudhaker Reddy, G. Ravinder
Reddy, K. Prathap Reddy and Bandaru Murthy into the land of Dr. S.
Mallesham. There was a suggestion to P.W.1 that he illegally raised the construction of the shed over the suit property. Therefore, the trial
Judge concluded that by such suggestions during cross-examination of
the defendants had admitted the possession of the plaintiff. It is further opined by the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff reported no objection to the sending of Ex.A-1 to expert opinion, and the defendants did not take any steps to send the same to the expert opinion.
9 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 8(c). It is further observed by the learned trial Judge that Ex.B-5 is a document which was dated 04.05.2012 after the filing of the counter claim. It is further opined by the learned trial Judge that even as per
Ex.B-7, which is a certified copy of a registered sale deed, document
No. 8770 of 2004 dated 25.10.2004, executed in favour of Kandukuri
Vijaya. It is stated that the vendor has the right to alienate the suit property. It is contended that Ex.B-12 does not disclose the legal rights of the vendors of the defendants and in what capacity the vendor transferred his right to Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4.
8(d). Ex.B-10 is the original allotment letter issued by the President,
Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda, dated 07.09.1980. Both Ex.A-1 and Ex.B-10 are dated 07.09.1980, and both are said to have been issued by Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society
Limited, Hanumakonda, in respect of Plot No.74. The learned trial Judge did not believe Ex.B-10 to be true and believed Ex.A-10.
9. The learned trial judge, while considering the counter claim of the defendants, stated that if the plaintiff has occupied only some extent of the suit property, it is the duty of the defendants to state the dimensions of the extent of the plot occupied by the defendants.
10. The learned trial Judge also pointed out that the defendants ought to have claimed recovery of possession of the counterclaim mentioned property. The defendants have relied upon Ex.B-12. The learned trial Judge found that the above said documents is of no help. The learned trial Judge concluded that the defendants failed to establish the clear title of lawful possession. The learned trial Judge also opined that the claim of the 10 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 defendants that they raised a basement cannot be accepted, as the
Bhoomi Puja would not performed, if any basement is raised and it is only after the Bhoomi Puja, the basement would have been constructed.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL.
11. Challenging the above judgments, the defendants No.1 to 4 filed three appeals as stated, and the following is the gist of the grounds of appeal.
i).It is contended that the plaintiff failed to establish that he is the owner and possessor of the suit property.
ii). It is contended that the plaintiff did not mention the O.S.No.
1121 of 2011 in the plaint in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011.
iii).It is contended that the father of the defendants No.1 to 4,
Mallaji, was a member of the Kakatiya Cooperative Housing
Society Limited, Hanumakonda, which made the house plots.
iv).It is contended that the registered sale deed bearing document No.8207 of 2011, dated 14.11.2011, is a fabricated document, and the plaintiff filed the collusive suit against Bandla
Ravindra Chary in O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 and obtained an ex parte injunction, and in the guise of said injunction order, he made illegal constructions.
v).It is further contended that Ex.A-1 does not have a seal or stamp of Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
Hanumakonda, and therefore, it is clear that Ex.A-2 was fabricated.
11 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 vi).It is further contended that there are no documents and material placed before the court to believe that the vendor of the plaintiff is the legal heir of Rajitham.
vii).It is further contended that Irvin Kumar is a necessary party to this suit, and due to the non-rejoinder of Irvin Kumar as a party, this suit is liable to be dismissed.
vii) It is contended that the learned did not give any findings regarding the genuineness of the documents bearing No.
8207/2011 dated 14.11.2011, which was executed on the strength of Ex.A-2.
ix).It is contended that the allotment letter and possession under
Ex.B-10 show that he was inducted into the vacant possession of the suit property.
x).It is further contended that the plaintiff did not establish his possession.
xi).It is contended that the trial court Judge considered that
Ex.A- 3 to Ex.A-11 as they are post-suit documents.
xii). It is further contended that the court did not go to Ex.B-13.
xiii). It is further contended that D.W.2 in his evidence stated that he and defendants No.1 to 4 were members of the housing society and the said society allotted plot No. 73 to him and plot No. 74 to
Mallaji on 07.09.1980. Plot No. 74 was in possession of G. Mallaji and after his demise, the defendants No.1 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
12 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 xiv. Appellant, therefore, contended that the suit ought to have dismissed and the counterclaim ought to have allowed.
Evidence of Trial Court.
12. The evidence in this case is recorded in O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 on behalf of the plaintiffs. P.W.1 and P.W2 were examined, and D.W.1 and
D.W.2 on behalf of the defendants.
13(a). P.W.1 in the examination in chief has reiterated the contents in
O.S.No. 1211of 2011 and O.S.No. 1295 of 2011 and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11
are marked. During cross-examination, he deposed that he gave a report against the defendants for the offences punishable under the provision of S.C S.T (POA) Act. He also deposed that he has filed the suit against Bandla Ravindra Chary, i.e., the first defendant.
13(b). He admitted that he did not disclose the filing of O.S.No. 1211 of 2011 in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011. According to P.W.1, his vendor was introduced to him by Vaddera Krishnam Raju in September 2011. He deposed that the sale consideration is of Rs.9,60,000/-. He also admitted that after the interference by the defendants, he informed the same to his vendor and also the President, Kakatiya Cooperative
Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda. He admitted that there is no seal and stamp of Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
Hanumakonda in Ex.A-2. He denied the suggestions that Ex.A-1 and
Ex.A-2 are fabricated. He denied the suggestion that the defendants were in possession of the suit property for about 37 years. He further deposed that H.No. 3-1-242/A was allotted to him, and he also obtained permission. He also admitted that in December 2011, he applied for 13 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 permission for the construction of a building to the municipal authorities, and he admitted the criminal cases against him and about criminal cases filed by him against others. He admitted that in the plaint O.S.No. 1211 of 2011, he mentioned that the suit property is an open plot, and the suit was initially filed against the first defendant. He denied the suggestion that his vendor has no right over the suit property. He denied the suggestions that after an enquiry, the case was filed against the defendants for the offences punishable under the provisions of the S.C. S.T (POA) Act, which was closed by the police.
14. The learned counsel for the defendants cross-examined him on the criminal cases. He denied the suggestion that plot No. 74 is allotted to the father of the defendants. It was suggested to P.W.1 that after demise of the Mallaji, the President, Kakatiya Cooperative Housing
Society Limited, Hanumakonda, Salla Venkat Ram Narsaiah executed a registered sale deed on 22.07.2008 bearing document No. 4888 of 2008. He further deposed that, except for the allotment of plot No. 74 under Ex.A-2, he does not have any other documents that he is the owner of the suit property. P.W.1 deposed that four(4) days after the incident of the interference by the first defendant, he came to know that the first defendant interfered with the suit schedule property at the instance of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. He denied the suggestion that
Susheela, who has filed the third-party affidavit in this suit, is not the owner of the plot No. 74 and plot No. 75. He denied the suggestion that under the guise of a temporary injunction, he lodged a false report 14 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 under provision of S.C S.T (POA) Act against the defendants and threatened the defendants.
15. He denied the suggestion that he illegally raised the tin shed over the suit property, and a counterclaim is made to demolish the said construction. He also denied the suggestions that the basement and compound wall was raised with a structure by the defendants with the bricks along with a shed over there.
16. According to P.W.1, he is the person who made a total construction. P.W.1 also reported that he has no objection if Ex.A-1 is sent for expert opinion.
17(a). P.W.2 deposed that the plaintiff enquired him about plot No.74 of Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda, and he informed him that plot No.74 was allotted to Jupaka Rajitham and his son Irvin Kumar inherited the same. It is stated that P.W.1 purchased the suit property from Irvin Kumar, and he has been in possession and the enjoyment of the property.
17(b). The learned counsel for the defendants cross-examined the witness at length. During cross-examination, he deposed that he has been acquainted with P.W.1 for about 10 years. He also does the business and supplies construction material. He further deposed that for about 20 years, he has been residing in Kakatiya Colony,
Hanumakonda, as a tenant. He denied the suggestions that P.W.1 and
Irvin Kumar have no rights over the suit property, and he denied that the suit schedule property was allotted to the father of the defendants.
15 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
18. The defendant No.5 gave evidence as D.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of his written statements filed by him. Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4 are marked through this witness. During cross-examination, D.W.1 has deposed that there is no mention in Ex.B12 that the suit property was allotted to the father of the defendants. He denied the suggestions that the vendor of Ex.B-12 is not a member of the Kakatiya Cooperative
Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda or a representative. He also admitted that in Ex.B-10, there is no endorsement of the name of the defendants, and in Ex.B-10 name of the father of the defendants is not found. D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff in the suit property by constructing a house. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that Rajitham is a member of Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
Hanumakonda, and that she has allotted plot No.74.
19. D.W.1 gave legal notice to Warangal Municipal Corporation,
Warangal and the Electricity Department under Ex.B-5 and asked for cancellation of the consumption connection and house number allotted to the plaintiff. According to D.W.1, the electricity connection and door number were illegally obtained.
20. D.W.1 admitted that Ex.B-12, which is a registered sale deed extending to the land in plot No.74, is only 240 square yards, whereas under Ex.B-13 permission was granted to an extent of 260 square yards. Defendant No.2 gave evidence as D.W.1, and he also reiterated the contents of the written statement. Ex.B-16 is a photograph along with a CD, marked through this witness. During cross-examination, 16 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
D.W.2 admitted that the column regarding the name of the father allotment remained blank.
21. D.W.2 deposed that on the date of Ex.B-12, i.e., 22.07.2008, the possession was given to the plaintiff. He denied the suggestions that
Ex.B-10 was created. D.W.2 categorically made an admission that in the suit property the plaintiff has raised a room along with a compound wall, and he admitted that house No. 3-1-242/A was allotted to said house. He admitted that the bore well exists on the suit property.
22. D.W.3 is a third party to the suit proceeding, and he is a retired professor of Kakatiya University. In his examination in chief, he deposed that he is running “Anand Ashraya,” and he further deposed that Mallaji, who is the father of the defendants, is his nephew. He deposed that the Mallaji had the suit-scheduled property, and after his demise, the defendants are in possession of the suit property. He stated that he was allotted plot No.73 opposite to the plot No.74, and now he sold his plot to third parties. During cross-examination, he deposed that he does not remember the details of the allotment letter.
23. The evidence of D.W.3 is not reflected in the appendix of evidence annexed to the judgment of the trial court.
24. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants (defendants) and the respondent(plaintiff). Common arguments are advanced in all three appeals.
25(a). The counsel for the appellant has reiterated the case of the plaintiff and defendants in the written arguments and it is contended that the plaintiff created a sale deed bearing, document No. 8207 of 17 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 2011 dated 14.11.2011 in respect of 240 square yards and filed suit on 16,.11.2011 against first defendant in O.S No. 1211 of 2011 and obtained exparte injunction and he trespassed into the property and constructed compound wall and a room and shed and dug a bore well in it. He also obtained electricity service and all these taken before 17.11.2011, with a neck break speed.
25(b). It is contended that the document under which the plaintiff has claimed does not contain the seal of Kakatiya Cooperative House
Society Limited, and there is no truth in the allegations levelled against the defendants, that registration of a crime in a case for the offences punishable under the provision of S.C. S.T (POA) Act.
25(c). It is contended that the plaintiff did not state whether his vendor is the sole legal heir of Rajitham and whether there are any other legal heirs. There is no proof regarding giving Ex.B-1 to Rajitham by Kakatiya
Cooperative House Society Limited, Hanumakonda, and Ex.A-1 does not confer any title to the suit property in favour of Rajitham when no valid title was passed by the vendor of the plaintiff by virtue of Ex.A-1.
25(d). It is further contended that defendant No.2, claiming rights over the property on the strength of the certificate of delivery of the possession and backward classes & weaker Section dated 07.09.1980 issued by the office of the Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society
Limited, Hanumakonda under Ex.B-10.
25(e). It is further contended that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. It is further contended by the defendants that the registered sale deed under 18 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
Ex.B12 was executed by the former President, Kakatiya Cooperative
House Society Limited, Hanumakonda and since the date of Ex.B-12, the society has become in default.
25(f). The defendants contended that the trial court comparing the
Ex.B-11 and Ex.B-12 had concluded that there is no averment that under the said documents as to how the defendants acquired the title and it is contended that the plaintiff cannot depend the weaknesses in the case of the defendants. The defendants also found fault with the observation of the trial court that they breath hot and cold, regarding the construction of the wall, on the suit property.
25(g). The learned counsel for the defendants contended that Ex.B-11 categorically shows that the Mallaji was inducted into possession under
Ex.B-10. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their possession, and that Irvin Kumar has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the trial court Judge did not go through the evidence of D.W.3. The counsel for the defendants draws my attention to the recitals under Ex.B-7 and contents that plot No.74 is shows as northern boundary in Ex.B-7 which belongs to the neighbouring land and Ex.B-7 dated 25.10.2004 and analysed that had Mallaji is not the owner of the property his name would not be mentioned as the owner of the northern side boundary.
25(h). It is further contended that Ex.A-2, which is a registered sale deed executed by Irvin Kumar in favour of the plaintiff as an invalid document and Irvin Kumar does not have any right to alienate the property. Further, it is contended that the plaintiff to refer Ex.A-1 to get 19 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 the opinion from the expert regarding Ex.A-1, and merely because
P.W.1 during cross-examination has stated that he has no objection for sending the document to the expert, the burden to prove Ex.A-1 does not turn on to the defendants.
26. The plaintiff also filed written statement arguments.
26(a). In the written appeal, the plaintiff states that the suit property was purchased in his name under Ex.A-2. He further stated about
Ex.A-1 document under which the delivery of possession of the property. Ex.A-2 is a registered sale deed under which the son of
Rajitham executed the registered sale deed, delivery of the possession.
Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 are the proper tax and electricity bills, which show that the property was in possession of the plaintiff. It is further contended that Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-10 and Ex. A-11 prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
26(b). He further contends that Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3 have nothing to do with the case. He further contends that the boundaries in Ex.B-7 do not match the boundaries of Ex.A-2. It is further contended that Ex.B-8 and
Ex.B-9 show that Mallaji was allotted the suit property in plot No.74. It is further contended that Ex.B-10 is forged, and the boundaries of Ex.
B-10 do not tally with the suit schedule property and Ex.A-2. It is stated that Ex.B-10 does not contain any kind of indication to believe the documents issued by the Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society
Limited, Hanumakonda. It is further contended that boundaries in
Ex.B10, Ex.B-11, and Ex.A-1 do not match with each other. It is further contended that Ex.B-13, which is a proceeding of Greater Warangal 20 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
Municipal Corporation, Warangal, dated 14.11.2011 is in respect of 266 square yards, though the property under Ex.B12 is 240 square yards, and this itself shows that the appellant/defendants fabricated the documents. It is contended that Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-16 do not prove the ownership and they do not support the case of the defendants. It is further stated that the name of the plaintiff is also mentioned in Ex.B-3.
It is further contended that D.W.3 is a close relative of the defendants and his evidence cannot be relied upon.
26(c). The learned counsel for the defendants further contended that there is clear admission on the part of the D.W.1 and D.W.2, who are defendants, regarding possession of the suit property by the plaintiff.
27. After hearing the arguments of both counsel, and on perusal of the material placed before the trial court, I am of the opinion that the appeal shall be adjudicated by answering the following points:-
i) Whether the lower court is correct in granting a permanent injunction to restrain defendants?
ii). Whether the court is incorrect in refusing the relief of the mandatory injunction for the defendants in the counter claim filed in O.S.No. 1295 of 2011?
iii). To what relief?
POINTS No.(i):-
28. The entire evidence of the parties on the documents filed on their behalf was analyzed by the trial court, and being the first appellant court I have carefully analysed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws 1 to 3. at the outset it is to be the learned trial Judge did not refer to 21 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 the evidence of D.W.3 in the evidence and it does not mean that the learned trial Judge did not consider it.
29. The learned trial Judge might have considered it and opined that the evidence of D.W.3 needs no mention. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff herein filed the suit for the relief of a permanent injunction.
30. The defendants have filed the counterclaim only for the relief of a mandatory injunction.
31(a). Under point No.1, I wish to discuss whether the plaintiff is entitled to establish his possession and whether he is entitled to a permanent injunction. Before dealing with the documentary evidence on the record the admissions made by the D.W.1 and D.W.2., are to be noted.
31(b). D.W.1, in his cross-examination, has admitted that “ it is true the plaintiff is residing in the suit schedule property by constructing a room”. It is true I have filed a criminal case against the plaintiff, his vendor Irvin Kumar and neighbours Susheela and D-1 Ravindra Chary.
31(c). D.W.1 in examination in chief has stated that the plaintiff made attempts to trespass and did not speak about the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. In the chief examination of D.W.1, it was deposed that the plaintiff filed suits by misrepresentation of the facts, and he has made attempts to trespass into the suit property. During cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff is residing in the suit property, and he also admitted that he has issued legal notices to municipal authorities and the electricity department under Ex.B-5 seeking cancellation of the house number and electricity connection.
22 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
The defendants who denied allotting a house number to the plaintiff
H.No. 3-2-242/A, have admitted that they have given notices to the municipal authorities and the electricity department for cancellation.
This categorically shows that the plaintiff has the possession of the suit property.
31(d). The evidence of D.W.2 is not different. In his examination in chief in para No.10 of the chief affidavit, he deposed that the plaintiff, with a breakneck speed, has constructed a shed and compound wall with cement bricks without any permission from the Warangal
Municipal Corporation. He stated that the said house is not in habitable condition.
31(e). During cross-examination, D.W.2 has admitted that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff raised a compound wall, and he has the possession of the entire suit property.
D.W.2 also admitted that the bore well also exists on the suit property, and the admission made by D.W.1 and D.W.2 makes it clear that the plaintiff is in possession. The learned counsel for the defendants contends that the said possession is a illegal possession. D.W.2, in his cross-examination, also admitted the possession of the plaintiff of the suit property and he contended that the said possession is illegal. Once the defendants have admitted the possession of the plaintiffs, to establish that the said possession is legal, it is necessary to establish that the plaintiff has entered into the possession illegally.
23 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 31(f). Precisely, the defendants fail establish that the plaintiff dispossessed the defendants and entered into possession of the property. If this factum of the possession of the defendants of the suit property is to be established, the defendants shall be able to prove that either themselves or their vendors were in possession of the suit property before the alleged illegal possession of the plaintiff. No material worth mentioning in this case is placed before the court to establish the fact of the possession of the defendants or their vendors.
31(g). The question of whether the possession of the plaintiff is legal can be discussed only if any of the parties seek the relief of a declaration of title or recovery of possession. As far as the claim of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the court has to find out whether the possession of the plaintiff is proved. The plaintiff could prove his possession, but the defendants argue that the legal status is not established.
31(h). There may be cases where the court requires to refused the relief of permanent injunction if there is cloud on the title. In this case on hand, though, the defendants have been contending title over the suit property and filed certain documents; in my opinion, the evidence adduced by the defendants is not enough to come to the conclusion that a cloud was created over the title of the suit property.
32. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy in Case No. Appeal (Civil) 6191 of 2001, dated 25.03.2008 of the Honorable Supreme Court, has clarified the circumstances in which the plaintiff needs to file the suit for the declaration of title.
24 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020
33. Mere assertion of ownership and title in the written statement or counterclaim, cannot be considered, as . As challeng to the title or the ownership pleaded by the plaintiff. There must be evidence to believe that the title of the plaintiff is defective and that the defendants have a better title. Without these two requirements, the court cannot conclude that there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiff to suit property. The documents filed by the defendants and evidence adduced by them do not weigh to the extent of creating a cloud that the title of the plaintiff.
At the same time, the court is conscious that, based on Ex.A-1 and
Ex.A-2, the title of the suit property cannot confirmed but they establish that the plaintiff obtained possession and admittedly he constructed the house therein, got property assessed for it, and also obtained an electricity connection. It is important to mention that the lengthy cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by the counsel for the defendants does not result in creating any favorable circumstances for the defendants.
34(a). The learned counsel in the trial court appears to have cross- examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 with some vengeance, concentrating more on the criminal cases filed by the plaintiff and defendants. The cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is regarding criminal cases against the plaintiff, and a good attempt is made to impeach the credibility of witness, which however, is not relevant as far as this case is concerned. It can be seen that more cross-examination of P.W.1 is with reference to sessions case and criminal cases, and it is pertinent to mention that during the cross-examination of P.W.1 itself, it was 25 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 suggested that by the time of filing of suit in O.S.No. 1211/2011 the suit is an open plot, and it was also suggested that the plaintiff illegally raised a construction of a shed over the suit property, and that he is in illegal possession of the suit property.
34(b). The defendants, however, could not establish that they had the possession of property earlier, and the plaintiff dispossed them. The evidence adduced by the defendants, both oral and documentary, in this regard will be discussed under point No.2. Point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, holding that he is in possession of the property and he is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
POINT No.(ii):- 35(a) Defendants have filed a counter claim for the relief of a mandatory injunction only. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff has the possession of the property and raised the construction.
35(b). The allegations made by the defendants are that they got a house constructed at jet speed after obtaining a temporary injunction order by filing O.S. No. 1211 of 2011 and occupied the property. The plaintiff also procured the assessment number for the house by paying property tax and electricity connection. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants, the allotment of house number clearly suggests that the plaintiff has raised construction only with an intention to establish his possession.
35(c). The plaintiff indeed established his possession by doing this act. But as stated earlier, there is no plea to show that the defendants were in possession of the property prior to the plaintiff. That apart, 26 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 when the defendants attempt to challenge the possession of the plaintiff and claim a mandatory injunction for removal of the construction, the defendants ought to have sued for relief of recovery of possession and a mandatory injunction, if not for relief of declaration of title. The defendants who ought to have filed the counter claim for a declaration of title or for recovery of possession. Claiming the relief of a mandatory injunction. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The defendants also admitted that the plaintiff had raised a construction, and there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff had the suit property earlier.
35(d). In such circumstances, without pleadings for the relief of recovery of possession, the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted. The reasons for not claiming the relief of recovery of possession or declaration of title are obvious.
35(e). In the written statement, the defendants have stated that they have been in possession of the property. Since the defendants are not admitting the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff, they did not file the claim of recovery of possession. Possession of the property by the plaintiff was stated in in chief examination of D.W.2 and there after only the defendants speak about the alleged illegal occupation of the suit property by the plaintiff. Till then, it was maintained that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. Not withstanding whether the possession is legal, the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that he is in possession of the suit property. This 27 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 possession is established one of the defendants could not place any material to show that the possession of the plaintiff is illegal.
36(a). Now I prefer to express my opinion regarding the documents filed by the plaintiff and defendants.
36(b). In order to find out whether enough material was placed before the court to create a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. It is necessary to analyze the documents filed by the defendants. Ex.B-4 is a photograph along with C.D., which is marked, during cross-examination of P.W.2. This document is of no use as it is not supported by the certificate of under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. The CD as well as the photographs filed are copies of documents, and they need to be supported by a certificate under Section 65-B Evidence Act. Mere marking of the documents without the said certificate does not validate the documents for consideration.
36(c). Ex.B-5 is a notice issued by the learned counsel for the defendants to the Warangal Greater Municipal Corporation, Warangal and Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Warangal, for the cancellation of the house number and connection allotted to the plaintiff. This indicates that the plaintiff was allotted a house number by municipal authorities and an electricity connection from the electrical department, and it supports the plaintiff's case that he is in possession of the property.
36(d). Ex.B-8 and Ex.B-9 are not proved through proper parties; even assuming that Ex.B-8 and Ex.B-9 are true, they do not pertain to the rights of the parties.
28 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 36(e). Ex.B-13 is the proceedings of Municipal Commissioner for the construction of a house, and a close perusal of this document, which was filed with a blueprint plan, shows that the proceedings did not refer to plot numbers, and they refer only to survey numbers.
Admittedly, more than 100 plots were in the above-mentioned survey numbers. A plan annexed to the proceedings is not authenticated by the authority of the Municipal Commissioner, and it also does not contain the plot number. There is no mention of plot number in Ex.B-
13. There is no dispute regarding Ex.B-14, which is the death certificate of the father of the defendants by name Mallaji.
36(f). Ex.B-15 shows that there are other legal heirs of the defendants.
Mallaji has two daughters, as per Ex.B-15 and while making a counter claim, the plaintiff ought to have impleaded them as parties.
36(g). Ex.B-16 photographs said to have been taken on 31.01.2019, and it also does not contain the certificate under Section 65 of the
Evidence Act, and therefore it cannot be looked into, and other documents based on which the defendants are claiming right are
Ex.B-7, Ex.B-10, Ex.B-11 and Ex.B-12. Ex.B-13 is said to be a letter of allotment in favour of Mallaji, under which Ex.B-14 was allotted.
36(h). Ex.B-7 is the document dated 25.10.2004 in which the name of
Mallaji is shown as the owner of the land on the northern boundary of the property mentioned in the schedule of the documents.
36(i). Ex.B-7 shows that the name of Mallaji, father of the defendants, was having land on the northern side of the property purchased with 29 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 the documents, and it is own indication that in that document, plot No.
74 is shown to be a plot belonging to Mallaji.
36(j). Ex.B-11 is a registered sale deed, executed by Salla Venkat Ram
Narsaiah in favour of Gandikopta Saramma, and it only shows that one of the boundaries of said proceeding is land owned by Susheela and that the said plot is near H.No.3-1-222. Except that no other aspects can be inferred from Ex.B-11.
36(k). Ex.B-12 is a sale deed executed by Salla Venkat Ram Narsaiah in favour of the defendants. In the said document, the vendor is the owner of Plot No.74, which is a suit property. The recitals do not show how the vendor, under the document Salla Venkat Ram Narsaiah acquired the property.
37(a). On one hand, the defendants have been claiming that plot No.
74 belongs to their father, and it was allotted to Jupaka Mallaji by
Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda. On the other hand, they have been claiming that they have purchased the suit property from Salla Venkat Ram Narsaiah, and they did not examine their vendor, and there is no explanation as to how the plot belonging to Mallaji went into the hands of Salla Venkat Rama Narsaiah. The documents filed by the defendants are contrary to each other. Ex.B-10 does not contain anything above Salla Venkat Ram Narsaiah, who has sold the property to the defendants under Ex. B-12. The defendants have been claiming the suit property through inheritance from their father, but they have also filed Ex.B-12 to state that they have purchased the same from Salla Venkat Ram Narsaiah.
30 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 37(b). Ex.B-7 is an important document which shows that the name of
Mallaji has been added as the land owner of the southern boundary and the land purchased by Kandukuri Vijaya on 25.10.2004. Ex.B-12 also shows that on the southern side of plot No. 74, the house of
Kandukuri Vijaya exists. Ex.B-7 and Ex.B-12 taken together show that as per recitals in the said documents plot No. 74 and plot No. 74 are adjacent to each other and plot No. 75 is southern side of plot No. 74 is on northern side. However, as I stated earlier, the above documents do not show how the father of the defendants lost possession and when the vendors of the defendants got the possession.
37(c). The photographs filed by the plaintiff also cannot be looked into, as there is no certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The documents under Ex.A-1 are an allotment letter in the name of Japuka
Rajitham. It does not contain the seal of Kakatiya Cooperative Housing
Society Limited, Hanumakonda. Issuance of Ex.A-16 by Warangal
Municipal Corporation, Warangal is an admitted document, and there cannot be any reason to disbelieve the said document.
37(d). The plaintiff also has not placed enough material to suggest that he acquired the title or the ownership of plot No.74, i.e., the suit property, by virtue of Ex.A-2. But the defendants also did not place enough material to create a cloud on the title of the plaintiff. The defendants ought to have filed the suit for the recovery of possession.
Though the court is not able to give any findings regarding the title or ownership of the suit property by the plaintiff, the material placed
before the court makes it clear, that plaintiff is in possession of the
31 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 suit property, and the defendants ought to have filed the suit for recovery of possession in case they need to make any claims that they are owners of the suit property.
38. In the above circumstances, the court cannot grant the mandatory injunction claimed by the defendants, and the court has to grant a permanent injunction, as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants, if the law including the law of limitation permits, may file the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. As long as the defendants do not establish their right to recover the possession of the suit property and the possession of the plaintiffs needs legal protection.
The plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction, and the defendants are not entitled to a counterclaim. The judgment of the trial court in granting the permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and refusing the counterclaim of the defendants cannot be interfered with.
39). Point No. (iii):- In view of the findings of this Court on points No.
(i) and (ii) the Court holds that the defendants failed to prove that they are entitled to get the common judgments and decrees of the trial
Court, set aside. The court holds that all three appeals have to be dismissed with costs, in the facts and circumstances of the case, confirming the common judgment and decrees of the trial Court. This point is answered accordingly. The appellants are not entitled to any relief. The respondents is entitled to costs of the appeal.
40). In the result, all three appeals i.e., A.S.No.89 of 2020, A.S.No.90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2021 are hereby dismissed with costs in the facts and circumstances of the case and the common judgment and 32 of 32 A.S.No.89 of 2020, A,S No. 90 of 2020 and A.S.No. 91 of 2020 decrees of the trial Court in O.S.Nos. 1211 of 2011 and 1295 of 2011,
dated 05.08.2020 on the file of the then VII Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Warangal, be and are hereby confirmed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17th day of December, 2025).
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA
::Appendix of Evidence:: -Nil-
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA