1O.S.No. 59 of 2009
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AT WARANGAL
Wednesday, the 31st day of July, 2019.
PRESENT: Smt. K. Sailaja, VII-Addl. District Judge, Warangal.
O.S.No. 59 OF 2009
Between:
Sankesi, Sambaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, aged about 63 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No.19-2-50, Rangasaipet, Warangal. … Plaintiff
AND
1. Sankesi Laxminarayana, S/o. late Veeraiah, aged about 75 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o. H.No.19-2-56, Near Ranganayaka Temple, Rangasaipet, Warangal (since died) per Lrs Defendants No.8 to 12
(Added as per the orders of the Hon’ble Court vide
I.A.No.225/2013, dated 24.08.2013).
2. Sankesi Ramaswamy, S/o. late Veeraiah, aged about 65 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o. H.No.19-2-56, Near Ranganayaka Temple, Rangasaipet, Warangal
3. Kummari Narayana, S/o. late Veeraiah, aged about 62 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. H.No.19-9-247, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
4. Kummari Chandramouli, S/o. late Veeraiah, aged about 57 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, H.No.19-9-147, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
5. Kummari Raghu, S/o. late Mallikarjun, aged about 57 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. H.No.19-9-147, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
6. Kedala Veeranna, S/o. late Sayanna, aged about 68 years, Occ: Business, 19-9-159, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
7. Sherla Krishna Murthy, S/o. late Raja Mallaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. H.No.7-1-307/11/7/D, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.
(The Defendant No.8 to 12 were impleaded as per the orders passed
by the Hon’ble Court vide I.A.No.225/2013, dated 24.08.2013)
8. Sankesi Sreenivas, S/o. late Laxminarayana, aged 52 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.19-2-56, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
9. Sankesi Vijay Kumar, S/o. late Laxminarayana, aged 48 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. H.No.198-2-56, Rangashaipet, Warangal.
2O.S.No. 59 of 2009
10.Sankesi Venkateshwarlu, S/o. late Laxminarayana, aged 46 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.19-2-56, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
11. Sankesi Rajender, S/o. late Laxminarayana, aged 45 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.19-2-56, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
12. Smt. Sankesi Venkatalaxmi, W/o. Late Laxminarayana, aged 80 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.19-2-56, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
(The Defendant No.13 to 15 were impleaded as per the orders passed
by the Hon’ble Court vide I.A.No.72/2015, dated 02.06.2015)
13. Kedala Venkatalaxmi, W/o. Late Veeranna, aged about 68 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.19-1-159, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
14. Kedala Kamalakar, S/o. late Veeranna, aged 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.19-1-159, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
15. Poshala Umadevi, W/o.late Veeraswamy, D/o. late Veeranna, aged 48 years, Occ:Household, R/o. H.No.19-1-159, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
16. Kedala Bhaskar, S/o. late Veeranna, aged 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.19-1-159, Rangasaipet, Warangal.
… Defendants
Counsel for Plaintif: Sri M.V.M.Avaneendra, Advocate, Hanamkonda.
Counsel for the Defendants 2 to 4: Sri P.V. Vidyadhar Raj, and 6 Advocate, Warangal
Defendant No.5, 7 to 12: Exparte the Defendant No.1 : Died
This Suit is coming on 01.07.2019 for final hearing; upon hearing both parties and their counsel and upon considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property filed by plaintif against the defendants 1 to 16.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 3O.S.No. 59 of 2009
The plaintif along with the Defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs and successors of late Sankesi Venkataiah and Veeraiah who in their life time constituted an Undivided Hindu Joint Family. Like wise the
Defendants 3 to 5 are the legal heirs and successors of late Kummari
Veeraiah and the Defendant 6 is the legal heir and successor of late
Sayanna, while the Defendant No.7 is the legal heir and successor of one late Serla Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam. The late Sankesi Venkataiah and
Veeraiah, Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @
Rajalingam were the Declared Protected Tenants with all that agricultural land in Survey numbers 102, 105 to 108, 120 to 123, 126 to 129, 135, 138, 152 to 154 of Thimmapur (V) of Hanamkonda (M), Warangal (D) to an extent of Ac. 192-00 guntas. As such, protected tenants late Sankesi
Venkataiah and Veeraiah, Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla
Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam cultivated the said land jointly and had equal shares in the profits accrued therefrom.
It is submitted that after the demise of Sankesi Venkataiah and
Veeraiah, Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @
Rajalingam the said Protected Tenancy and ownership rights over the aforesaid agricultural lands devolved onto the Plaintif and the
Defendants 1 to 7 as protected Tenants. One Bajjurii Mallaiah and others contested the said objection before the R.D.O., Warangal, whereof the said authority under order dated 06.07.1998 in File No.B/8257/92 confirmed the issuance of Protected tenant certificates in favour of late
Sankesi Venkataiah and Veeraiah, Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam. Thereafter, the said Bajjuri 4O.S.No. 59 of 2009
Mallaiah and others also preferred an appeal before Joint Collector,
Warangal whereof the said authority confirmed the orders of the R.D.O.,
Warangal vide its order dated 05.03.1998 in FileNo.B6/3747/96 confirming the issuance of Protected Tenant Certificates in favour of late
Sankesi Venkataiah and Veeraiah, Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam. The said orders were challenged
before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., by the said Bajjuri Mallaiah and
others vide C.R.P.1358/1998, whereof the Hon’ble High Court also upheld the orders of the R.D.O. and Joint Collector and confirmed the issuance of
Protected tenant certificates in favour of late Sankesi Venkataiah and
Veeraiah, Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @
Rajalingam. Thereafter,the Plaintif and the Defendants 1 to 7 were subjected to litigation again when the lands in Survey Numbers 102, 105 to 108, 120 to 123, 126 to 129, 135, 138, 152 to 154 of Thimmapur (V) of Hanamkonda (M), Warangal (D) to an extent of Ac. 192-00 guntas, was sought to be acquired as surplus land by the Tribunal for Land reforms and R.D.O., Warangal vide CC.No.2741, 1743/WGL/75, whereof the said tribunal after enquiry and by its orders dated 26.04.2006 held that late Sankesi Venkataiah and Veeraiah, Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala
Sayanna, and Serla Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam are protected tenants with respect to the afore said lands and after computing surplus land to be acquired had found that late Sankesi Venkataiahand Veeraiah,
Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna, and also Serla Rajamallaih @
Rajalingam are protected tenants with respect to the aforesaid lands and after computing surplus land to be acquired and found that Late Sankesi
Venkataiah and Veeraiah, Kumamari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla 5O.S.No. 59 of 2009
Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam and as their legal heirs to the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 7 were entitled to all that agricultural land to an extent of Ac.141-38 guntas., in Survey numbers 102, 105 to 108, 120 to 123, 126 to 129, 135, 138, 152 to 154 of Thimmapur village of
Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District which forms a composite block and is hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property hereinafter for the sake of convenience and brevity. Further the said suit schedule property was allotted between Late Sankesi venkataiah and Veeraiah,
Kummari Veeraiah, kedala Sayanna, and Serla Rajamalliah @ Rajalingam in the following manner.
a.Serla Rajalingam: Ac.41.26 guntas b.Sankesi Veeraiah: Ac.33.10 guntas c.Kedala Sayanna: Ac.40.20 guntas d.Kummari Veeraiah: Ac.26.22 guntas
It is submitted that the entire aforesaid litigation till the entitlement of suit schedule property between the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 7 was financed by the plaintif on behalf of the defendants 1 to 7 at their behest. The suit schedule property comprising of suit schedule properties I.a to I.d forms a composite block of agricultural land ad-measuring Ac.141.38 guntas in Survey numbers 102, 105 to 108, 120 to 123, 126 to 129, 135, 138, 152 to 154 of
Thimmapur village of Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, it is imperative that the same be partitioned of as suit schedule I.a to I.d properties between the plaintif and defendants 1 and 2 on one hand and the defendants 3 to 7 on the other. Further, on such partition the 6O.S.No. 59 of 2009 suit schedule I.d property be further partitioned of between the plaintif and the defendants 1 and 2 in 3 equal shares.
It is submitted that despite the persistent requests of the plaintif by himself and through well wishers and elders, the defendants 1 to 7 are not coming forward to partition the suit schedule property as suit schedule I.a and I.d properties between the plaintif and defendants 1 and 2 on one hand and the defendants 3 to 7 on the other hand on such partition the suit schedule I.d property be further partitioned of between the plaintif and the defendants 1 and 2 in 3 equal shares. In the said state of afairs, it had been reliably learnt by the plaintif that the defendants 1 to 7 in collusion among themselves had been negotiating to sell away the suit schedule property. In such backdrop the plaintif again confronted the defendants 1 to 7 on 05.06.2009 to come forward for the partition of the suit schedule property but the said defendants 1 to 7 had only chosen to dodge the matter.
It is further submitted that the suit schedule property is a joint property being a composite bloc of agricultural land between himself and the defendants 1 to 7 and as such all of them are in joint possession of the same. As such the same is liable to be partitioned of between them as suit schedule properties I.a to I.d and on such partition, suit schedule I.d be property further partitioned of between the plaintif and the defendants 1 and 2 in 3 equal shares with each of them being entitled to 1/3 share therein. Given the attitude and intentions of the defendants 1 to 7, the plaintif has no other option to seek the intervention of the Court in the matter. Hence, this is suit for partition.
7O.S.No. 59 of 2009
4.The defendants 5,7 to 12 remained exparte and defendant No.1 died. The written statements of defendants 13 to 16 are forfeited.
5.The written statement was filed by the defendants 2, 4 & 6. They denied plaint averments and the facts are that Sankesi Veeraiah was the protected Tenant in respect of lands in Sy.No.102, 105 to 108, 120 to 123, 126 to 129, 135, 138, 152 to 154 to an extent of Ac.48.00 guntas of dry land situated at Thimmapur Haveli of Jakkaloddi village,
Hanamkonda mandal, Warangal District. Subsequently ownership under section 38 (E) of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Act, 1950 was assured in favour of Sankesi Veeraiah in file No.F4/20139/74, dt.25.09.1975. Since then the said Ac.48.00 guntas was in the exclusive possession, ownership of Sankesi Veeraiah. Along with Sankesi Veeraiah some other protected tenants namely Kedela Sayanna (Father of the defendant No.6), Kummari Veeraiah (father of the defendants 3 and 4 and grand father of defendant No.5) and Sherla Rajamallaiah also obtained ownership in respect of Ac.48.00 guntas each in the above survey numbers. The total extent of above said survey numbers is more than Ac.150.00 guntas.
According to them, Sankesi Veeraiah died in the year 1980 leaving his seven sons i.e., I) S.Jogaiah, ii) S.Agaiah, ii) S.Bhadraiah, iv)
S.laxminarayana, V) S. Rama Swamy (defendant No.5), vi)
S.Jagannadham and vii) S.Sankaraiah as his legal heirs and successors for him and his estate. S.Jogaiah, S.Agaiah and S.Bhadraiah died leaving their children as successors. The plaintif intentionally avoided the legal 8O.S.No. 59 of 2009 heirs of deceased sons of Veeraiah. S.Jagannadham and S.Sankaraiah are also not added as parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
It is further submitted that neither the plaintif nor his father
Venkataiah or his grand father Yellaiah are the share holders or joint holders of the schedule property along with Sankesi Veeraiah and his sons.
It is further submitted that defendants 3 to 7 are not the family members of Sankesi Veeraiah. They are not necessary or proper parties to the suit, as such the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties.
They further submitted that the plaintif or any of his family mmebers having right and possession over the suit schedule property.
The plaintif is having three brothers namely Gattaiah, Muttaiah and
Laxmaiah and the plaintif deliberately avoided his brother in the present suit without specifying any reasons.
It is further submitted that after confirmation of ownership in favour of Sankesi Veeraiah and other protected tenants, one Bajjuri
Mallaiah filed the petition before the Revenue Court and also Hon'ble
High Court of A.P in various civil revision petitions and finally the R.D.O.,
Warangal, in the file No.B/4037 of 1989 passed the orders in favour of
Sankesi Veeraiah and other tenants. Aggrieved by the said orders Bajjuri
Mallaiah and other filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Warangal.
9O.S.No. 59 of 2009
The Joint Collector after thorough enquiry observed that the protected tenants are in possession of their respective lands. The Joint collector dismissed the Revision on 05.02.1998. Aggrieved by the orders of the
Joint Collector, Warangal, Bajjuri Mallaiah and others filed a
C.R.P.No.1358/1998 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. After thorough enquiry, the Hon'ble high Court on 03.04.2003 dismissed the same. The plaintif is not the party in any of the proceedings before the Revenue
Courts and High Court of A.P. But the plaintif by managing the officials of Revenue Department got entered his name as respondent No.58 in order, dt.26.04.2006 in file No.C.C.2741, 2743, 3956/WGL/75 before the
R.D.O., Warangal, More mentioning of the name of the plaintif the cause title does not confirm the ownership and possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property. The plaintif taking advantage of his name in the cause title of the order passed by the Tribunal land Reforms/R.D.O,
Warangal, filed the present suit to grab the property.
The proceedings of the Joint collector, Warangal in file
No.E5/6252/2000 is not connected to the schedule property.
Lastly they contended that the plaintif is neither the joint owner nor possessor of the schedule property along with the defendants, as such the suit is not maintainable, therefore, they prays the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5.On the said rival pleadings, this Court has settled the following issues for trial :- 10O.S.No. 59 of 2009
i) Whether the Plaint Schedule properties are in joint possession of the both parties to the suit?
ii) Whether the Court fee paid is incorrect ?
iii) Whether the plaintif's father by name Sankesi Venkataiah is of a protected tenant to the plaint schedule properties ?
iv) Whether the Plaintif is entitled for a share in the plaint schedule properties, if so to what extent ?
v) Whether the Suit is bad for Non-joinder of necessary parties?
vi) Whether the Suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?
Vii) Whether the boundaries mentioned are in correct?
Viii) To what relief?
6.On behalf of plaintif side, examined as Pws.1 and 2 and got marked the documents as Exs.A1 to A3 and on behalf of defendant side, examined Dws. 1 and 2 and none were marked.
7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.
The plaintif himself got examined as Pw1 and according to him, he along with defendant No.1 and 2 are the successors of Late Sankesi
Venkataiah and Veeraiah who in their life time constituted a joint
Undivided Hindu family and defendants 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of one
Late Kummari Veeraiah and the defendant No.6 is the legal heir of Late
Kedala sayanna. The defendant No.7 is the legal heir and successor of
Serla Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam. The plaintif also reiterates that the
Late Sankesi Venkataiah and Veeraiah along with Late Kummari
Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @ Rajalingam were the 11O.S.No. 59 of 2009 declared protected tenants with respect to agricultural land in Survey
Nos. 102, 105, 108, 120 to 123, 126 to 129, 135, 138 and 152 to 154 of
Thimmapur village of Hanamkonda and they were issued protected tenancy certificates and it was contested before the R.D.O., Warangal and an appeal was preferred by one Bajjuri Mallaiah before the Joint
Collector, Warangal and Joint Collector confirmed the orders of R.D.O,
Warangal and orders were challenged before the Hon'ble High court of
A.P vide C.r.P No.1358 of 1998 where of the Hon'ble High Court also upheld the orders of R.D.O and Joint collector and confirmed the issuance of protected tenancy certificates to the above persons and thereafter he along with defendant No.1 to 7 had to face another litigation I..e, an extent of Ac.192.00 guntas was sought to be acquired as surplus land by the Tribunal for Land Reforms and R.D.O Warangal after enquiry held that Late Sankesi Venkataiah, Veeraiah, Late
Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @
Rajalingam were protected tenants in respect of aforesaid lands and as the successors plaintif along with defendant No.1 to 7 were entitled to all that agricultural land to an extent of Ac.141.38 guntas in Thimmapur village of Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, accordingly, the suit schedule property was allotted to Late Sankesi Venkataiah, Veeraiah,
Late Kummari Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Serla Rajamallaiah @
Rajalingam and he is filed entire litigation for the entitlement and thereafter the plaintif herein seeks partition of the suit schedule property.
During his examination, the following documents are marked.
Ex.A1 is Certified true copy attested by Divisional Administrative officer 12O.S.No. 59 of 2009 which was marked with objection. Ex.A2 is the served order copy of the
Joint collector, Warangal.
But during his cross examination, the witness has stated that the suit land to an extent of 144 Acres and land in Sy.No.102 to 154 of
Thimmapur village is of suit schedule property. At the same time, he admitted that the survey numbers are not covered under Ex.A2/ The order copy of the Joint collector.
He further admitted that tenancy certificate under Sec.38 (3) was issued in respect of petition schedule property lands in the name of
Sankesi Veeraiah, U.Veeranna and Gadela Sayanna and Sherla
Rajalingam and all the above said persons are no more. The Legal heirs of the persons have sold away his share and all the above four persons are still joint tenants. The Legal heirs of Serla Rajalaingam sold his share in the joint property. Sankesi Veeraiah also sold some of his joint tenancy property and Kummari Veeraiah and Sayanna all together sold away 95 acres of land to Venkateshwara Developers. Therefore, he further stated that he came to know about the same through one of the purchaser
Amarender Reddy practicing Advocate. He further admitted that 10
Acres was registered in the name of Sri Amarender Reddy and he came to know about his purchase two years back and he denied the suggestion that either he or his father has no right in the petition schedule property or his grand father. He further admitted that he was not the party of the litigation under Ex.A1 and as per the advise of the elders, their senior uncle as shown as party. He denied the suggestion that he has no relationship with the defendant No.1 except their 13O.S.No. 59 of 2009 surnames are common. Lastly he denied the suggestion that he has no right in the property and he has filed false suit.
Pw2 is the son of Pw1 who has narrated the contents of the plaint, he failed to give survey numbers, boundaries of the plaint schedule property and according to him, the petition schedule property to an extent of Ac.33.00 and it is situated in Sy.No.102 to 154 and he is not acquainted with the sons of names of other persons namely Jogaiah,
Agaiah, Bhadraiah, Laxminarayana, Ramaswamy, jagannatjham and
Shankaraiah and whether they are the sons of Sankesi Veeraiah. He further denied the suggestion that his paternal grand father Venkataiah or his father Samabiah had no concern with plaint schedule land and only Serla Rajalingam, Sankesi Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Kummari
Veeraiah are only the owners of the petition schedule property. He further adds that he is claiming share in the interest of Sankesi Veeraiah.
Except that, the plaintif did not adduce any evidence in support of his right to partition the property.
Dw1 is the son of Late Veeraiah and according to him, Sankesi
Venkataiah is not the tenant and he was never declared as protected tenant in respect of the above mentioned lands. He further contended that Sankesi Venkataiah never cultivated the land jointly along with others and he was not the share holder and according to him, Serla
Rajalingam, Sankesi Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Kummari Veeraiah were declared as protected tenants neither the plaintif nor his father were in possession of the suit property and plaintif is not entitled of the 14O.S.No. 59 of 2009 partition of the suit schedule property. According to him, Sankesi
Veeraiah died in the year 1980 leaving his seven sons. The plaintif intentionally avoided the legal heirs of the deceased sons of Veeraiah and S.Jagannadham and S.Sankaraiah were not added in the party. He further contended that the plaintif is also having three brothers namely
Gattaiah, Muttaiah and Laxmaiah and the plaintif deliberately avoided his brother in the present suit. He further contended that the plaintif is not the party in any of the proceedings in the revenue courts and taking advantage of his name in the cause title of the order passed by the
Tribunal Land Reforms/R.D.O, Warangal, filed the present suit for grabbing the suit schedule property.
Similarly, Dw2 K.Chandramouli also had stated that his father
K.Sayanna died leaving him and his brother K.Veeranna as his legal heirs and they have acquired his extent of land Ac.48.00 guntas in the said survey number who are share holders in the extent of land and defendants 3 to7 are not the family members of Sankesi Veeraiah and therefore, the plaintif family members having right over the suit schedule property.
Issue No.1 ,3 and 4
i) Whether the Plaint Schedule properties are in joint possession of the both parties to the suit?
iii) Whether the plaintif's father by name Sankesi Venkataiah is of a protected tenant to the plaint schedule properties ?
iv) Whether the Plaintif is entitled for a share in the plaint schedule properties, if so to what extent ?
15O.S.No. 59 of 2009
Except filing of the proceedings of Tribunal Land Reforms/R.D.O,
Warangal which as marked as Ex.A1 and the proceedings
No.E5/6252/2000 of the Joint Collector vide Ex.A2 wherein the RoR proceedings in the file of M.R.O., Warangal file No.B1/3024/98 and
B1/3025/98 were held irregular and also has filed the Hon'ble High Court orders of Joint Collector having been confirmed. There is no other documents on record to substantiate that the petition schedule property are in the joint possession of both the parties. In the proceedings, the name of the plaintif nor his father has not been shown as the protected tenants under the APTA Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act 1950 and only Serla Rajalingam, Sankesi Veeraiah, Kedala Sayanna and Kummari
Veeraiah were issued refined ownership to that extent, therefore, the right of shares nor the joint possessors of suit schedule property does not arise. Merely, mentioning of the name of S.Sambaiah in the column, as respondent no.58 in order dt.26.4.2006 in C.C.Nos.2741, 2743, 3956
before the RDO does not confirm title or ownership and possession of
the plaintif over the suit schedule property.
Thus the plaintif was failed to prove that he is either the coparcener or the successor of the protected tenants and his father name S.Venkataiah is not found in the list of protected tenants or in the documents filed by the plaintifs, accordingly, Issue No.1,3,4 are answered against the plaintif.
16O.S.No. 59 of 2009
Issue No.2 ii) Whether the Court fee paid is incorrect?
It is evident that the plaintif is not in a possession of the suit schedule land and therefore, he cannot simply pay the notional fee required for partition. Therefore, it is held that the plaintif has not filed the Court fee correctly as he is not in possession of suit schedule property
Issue No.5 & 6
v) Whether the Suit is bad for Non-joinder of necessary parties?
vi) Whether the Suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?
Firstly it is an admitted fact that the plaintif has not cited all the legal heirs i.e., sons of the defendants are necessary parties and instead of it, and has not tried to enquire about the legal heirs of all defendants and even he has not mentioned of having three brothers viz., Gattaiah,
Mallaiah and Laxmaiah. Thus the suit is barred for Non-Joinder of necessary parties as well as Mis-joinder of necessary parties.
Accordingly, Issue No.5 & 6 are answered against the plaintif.
Issue No.7
Whether the boundaries mentioned are in correct?
The plaintif have failed to prove the boundaries of the suit schedule land and there is no single document adduced by the plaintifs 17O.S.No. 59 of 2009 to ascertain the boundaries of the suit schedule property as the plaint schedule property does not reveal the boundaries of the suit land except mentioning the survey numbers. In such circumstances, the plaintif cannot harp only on Ex.A1 which no way connects the father of the plaintif.
In the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the suit is devoid on merits as it is the duty of the plaintif to prove that he is the successor of the person who is in possession of the suit schedule property and he awarded as a protected tenant.
Issue No.8
To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
(Partly typed and partly dictated by the stenographer, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of July, 2019)
VIIADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff: For Defendants:
PW-1: Sankesi Sambaiah DW-1: Sankesi Ramaswamy
PW-2: Sankesi Kamalakar DW-2: Kedala Chandramouli
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 Certified True Copy of proceedings of the Land Reforms attested by Divisional Administrative Officer,R.D.O., Warangal
Ex.A2 Served order copy of Joint collector, Warangal 18O.S.No. 59 of 2009
EXHIBITS MARKED THROUGH DW1
Ex.A3 Signature of Dw1 at Sl.No.6 on Power of Attorney of DW1
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Defendants:
-Nil-
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
19O.S.No. 59 of 2009