Sri. K. Suresh

1 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT THUNGATHURTHY.

PRESENT : Sri Suresh Kamishetti, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy

Friday, this the 29th day of December, 2023.

O.S. No. 64 of 2019

Between :-

1. Maddi Anjaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 55 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

2. Maddi Laxmamma, W/o Anjaiah, Age: 40 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

3. Maddi Lingaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 52 Yrs., Occ: RTC Employee,

4. Maddi Renuka, W/o Lingaiah, Age: 45 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

5. Boyapalli Venkanna, S/o Sriramulu, Age: 48 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

6. Boyapalli Chinna Venkanna @ Boyapalli Venkanna, S/o Venkatnarsaiah, Age: 45 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

7. Boyapalli Ravi, S/o Venkatnarsaiah, Age: 37 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o. Adivemla village of Jajireddygudem mandal, Suryapet District.

....Plaintiffs.

A N D

1. Madagani Lingaiah, S/o Yadagiri, Age: 45 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

2. Nomula Venkanna, S/o Muthaiah, Age: 48 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

3. Madagani Sailu S/o Arvaiah, Age: 55 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

4. Madagani Lingaiah S/o Ramaiah, Age: 38 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

5. Madagani Srinivas S/o Veeraiah, Age: 48 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

6. Madagani Krishnaiah S/o Veeraiah, Age: 35 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o. Adivemla village of Jajireddygudem mandal, Suryapet District.

....Defendants.

@@@ 2 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

This suit is coming up before me on 08-12-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B. Srinivas, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri. R. Sathyam, Counsel for the defendants and the matter is having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivers the following :- :: JUDGMENT ::

1.This is a suit filed for permanent injunction.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are :- 2(i) That the Plaintiff No.1 to 7 are the absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.2-20 gts in Sy.No.101/EE,

Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.101/RU, Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.101/U, Ac.1- 06 gts in Sy.No.101/EE/1, Ac.1-00 gts in Sy. No.101/UU, Ac.2- 00 gts in Sy.No.101/E/3 and Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.101/E/1 situated at Adivemla village of Jajireddygudem mandal,

Suryapet District, which are hereinafter referred to as “Suit schedule properties”.

2(ii) It is submitted that originally the item No.1 to 4 i.e, item

No.1 Ac.2-20 gts in Sy.No.101/EE, Ac. 2-00 gts in

Sy.No.101/RU, Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.101/U, Ac.1-06 gts in

Sy.No.101/EE/1, Item No.2 is Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.101/UU, item No. 3 Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.101/E/3, item No.4 Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.101/E/1 are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff

No.1 to 7 and their names were also entered in the concerned revenue records and since then their ancestors and plaintiff 3 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

No.1 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the item No.1 to 7 and new Pattadar Passbook cum Title Deeds issued to the plaintiffs No.1 to 7. The plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule of property. The names of the plaintiffs is also entered in the revenue records as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property.

2(iii) That the defendant No.1 to 6 are having their lands adjacent to the suit schedule properties and seeing that the plaintiffs are getting good yield from the suit schedule properties and also recently the value of the land also increased to many folds, this became eye sore of the defendants and the defendants asked the plaintiffs to sell away the suit lands to them at cheaper rate, but all the plaintiffs refused for the same, as such all the defendants developed bore grudge against the plaintiffs and the defendants several times used to obstruct extra water from the suit schedule properties by closing the Gandi (Thoomu) of the suit schedule properties in order to damage the crops and the several times due to more water crops of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties was decomposed and the plaintiffs were sustained loss and also sometimes the defendants used to damage the bund (Gettu) of the suit 4 O.S. No. 64 of 2019 schedule properties and caused damage to the crops in the suit schedule properties with this type of acts the defendants, the plaintiffs several times sustained loss in their crops and plaintiffs several times approached the village elders and conducted panchayath but the defendants never attend for any panchayath and the defendants are waiting for opportunity to occupy the suit schedule properties illegally and that on 11-12-2019 when the plaintiffs attending their agricultural operations in their fields, the defendants along with their men illegally trespassed into the suit schedule properties, stopped their work, threatened them and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs with great difficulty resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and their men with the help of adjacent land owners and the Plaintiffs are having every apprehension from the defendants that they will dispossess them at any point of time, as such the Plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit against the defendants for grant of Permanent Injunction.

3.Having received summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. The brief averments of Written Statement as under:

5 O.S. No. 64 of 2019 3(i) The defendant categorically denied that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are the sink (Chervu

Shikham/FTL) lands of Wanalakunta @ Bothalakunta Tank within the limits of Adivemla Revenue village of

Jajireddygudem mandal, as per the Naksha of Adivemla village the tank name was recorded as Wanala Tank. The plaintiffs have got possession of the tank land illegally and thereafter they got pass book on the lands in collusion with revenue authority, the FTL lands will be cultivated only at the dried period of tank, the total extent of Bothalakunta tank as per

Irrigation Department is to an extent of Ac.10-07 gts and as per the Revenue Department is to an extent Ac.14-39 gts including tank bund is exists in Sy. No.101 of Adivemla revenue village of Jajireddygudem mandal, the Irrigation

Department has measured the tanks of their control without count of survey numbers, the Revenue Department was measured the lands only survey number vide, the total extent of Ac.14-39 gts of Bothalakunta tank land was occupied by the plaintiffs and some other villagers are disturbing the water supply from the tank under the Irrigation lands of defendants and other villagers. The Khasara Pahani for the year 1954-55 6 O.S. No. 64 of 2019 is showing the same. The letter issued by Deputy Executive

Engineer I & CAD Department, Sub-Division, Thungathurthy,

Suryapet district dated 31.01.2020 is showing the extent of tank is an extent of Ac.10-07 gts.

3(ii) The defendants categorically denied that the lands claming by the plaintiffs are not their ancestral properties. The names of plaintiffs have recorded in revenue records with fraud and collusion with the revenue staff recently and continuing the same till today, those documents are false and fabricated documents. It is submitted that the revenue authority has stopped to issue latest Pass books to the remaining occupied farmers, after the defendants gave a memorandum to the Revenue Department and to save the irrigation department lands of tank before the Collector on 11- 06-2018. On the instructions of Collector, the Tahsildar,

Jajireddigudem has stopped the issuance of passbooks of remaining occupied farmers.

3(iii) That the lands of Plaintiffs are situated above the Tank bund and the lands of defendants are situated downwards to the Tank bund. The plaintiffs are trying always to dry the tank to dig holes of the tank bund with a pro-claimer and to damage the crops of defendants and other farmers under the 7 O.S. No. 64 of 2019 irrigation of Bothalakunta Tank. With regard to the illegal acts of plaintiffs and others, the defendants and others under irrigation farmers were approached several times before the village elders and Government officers but in vain. On the complaint of defendants the VRO of Adivemla village has given a paper statement to take action against the plaintiffs to file a complaint before the Police concerned for their breach in respect of the Tank Bund, the Xerox copy of paper add dated 21-07-2009 is filed along with the Counter in I.A. No. 121/19.

The defendants denied that the defendants and their men trespassed illegally into the plaint schedule lands on 11-12- 2019, when the plaintiff's are working on their lands.

3(iv) In fact the plaintiffs are having support of antisocial elements and the support of political parties in the village, they are disturbing the water supply from the tank by removing the water from the tank illegally from the last several years. There is no cause of action to the suit and was created by the plaintiffs only for the purpose of this case. In fact the defendants have never interfered in to the possession of plaintiff suit land. The boundaries of Schedule lands and other particulars mentioned in suit lands are not correct, and the plaintiffs have not disclosed clearly the lands belonging to 8 O.S. No. 64 of 2019 whom and who are the title holders of the suit schedule land items No.1 to 4.

3(v) In fact, the Bothalakunta tank is called previously Wanala

Tank as per Naksha also it can be seen and it was drilled long back and it is a chain link tank, the flowing water, after filling the tank will be reach to Chouta tank and other Kodooru tank.

The SRSP canal water supplying first time through DCBM- 69 distributory located near to the Bothalakunta Tank, and after filling the tank the water flow will to be reach to Chouta tank which is above an ayacut of 100 Acres of Komatipalli revenue village of Jajireddigudem Mandal. The Government of

Telangana has identified the tank in Mission Kakatiya and its

I.D. No. 80961101401301, situated at Adivemula village of

Jajireddigudem Mandal. The Mandal Tahsildar Jajireddigudem had written a letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer for

Irrigation, to execute Mission Kakatiya works on Bothalakunta

Tank vide letter No.B/568/2016, dated 18-06-2016.

3(vi) As such the Government of Telangana has released the

Godavari river water first time through SRSP Canal to fill the

Tanks of all villages of the irrigated area of SRSP Canal, including Bothalakunta Tank, from last two and half months.

Since the Godavari River water reached to the Bothalakunta 9 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

Tank, the plaintiffs were breaching the Tank bund not to store the water in tank, and stopped to release of water from the canal, and they are threatening the defendants and other farmers if they tried to open and release of water to the tank through SRSP of Godavary water. The illegal attitude of plaintiffs, the farmers nearly 130 members under irrigation of

Bothalakunta Tank and Chouta Tank are suffering more and more for cultivation of their lands at this second crop season.

The plaintiffs have not heard to the requests of defendants and the village elders, not to obstruct the release of Godavari water to the Bothalakunta tank. Therefore, the defendants and other farmers nearly 130 members have approached under

Prajavani to the District Collector Suryapet and the DRO

Suryapet on 04-11-2019. Immediately the DRO Suryapet has responded and issued orders to the Irrigation officers to conduct enquire and release of water as requested by farmers.

As per the orders of DRO Suryapet the Irrigation Officers have enquired and released water from canal to the tank. The same news was reported in the District edition of Sakshi Telugu newspaper on 05-11-2019, as such that the plaintiffs have filed the above suit after they came to know about the news report and the release water to the tank as per the orders of 10 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

Collector of Suryapet, the plaintiff's were created a false story and filed this false suit before the Hon’ble Court and thereafter the plaintiffs have locked the water supply connection of canal by threatening the villagers, if any one tried to open the lock of water supply connection. In the result the irrigated farmers under the two tanks nearly 130 members are suffering for non supplying of water to their paddy crop from last one and half month. The plaintiffs have filed the suit without cause of action by filing mercy petitions before the

Hon'ble Court to misguide it. Therefore, the farmers of under

irrigation were going to loss of huge amount invested by them to grow of nursery, cultivation, fertilizers and others for this second crop and the defendants and other farmers and their family members will suffer crop loss and their loss is cannot be compensated. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed this suit with all false allegation . Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues framed for trial.

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are in actual, physical and legal possession of suit schedule properties within the boundaries stated in the suit schedule as on the date of filing of suit?

11 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the Defendants in respect of suit schedule properties as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the Plaintiffs no.1 to 7 filed their chief affidavits in lieu of their chief examination and examined as PW.1 to PW.7 by reiterating the contents of their Plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A26. Further one M. Ajay Kumar and

Boyapalli Saidulu examined as PW8 and 9 on behalf of plaintiffs.

6.On the other hand, the defendant no.1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the contents of their written statement and examined as DW1 and got marked

Ex. B1 to B14. Further one Shivarathri Veeraiah, Ojja Saidulu examined as DW2 and 3 on behalf of defendants.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Issues No.1 & 2.

8(i) This suit is filed for injunction simplicitor against the defendants. To get Injunction the plaintiffs must prove their possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing suit and the defendants interfered with their possession without having right or title and without depending on the 12 O.S. No. 64 of 2019 weakness of defendants. To substantiate the case of Plaintiff,

PW1 examined and produced documents i.e., Ex.A1 to A26 on their behalf.

8(ii) It is settled law that admitted facts need not be proved by virtue of Sec. 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further it is also settled law that who seeks the equitable relief of injunction must approach the Court with clean hands.

8(iii) The case of the Plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of their respective suit schedule properties. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have failed to file any document to show that they acquired the suit schedule properties from their ancestors.

According to the defendants the lands of plaintiffs situated above Bothlakunta cheruvu and the lands of the defendants situated downwards to the above said Bothlakunta cheruvu.

The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs intentionally stopped the flowing of Water into “Bothlakunta cheruvu” and encroached the said land and thereby the defendants are not getting water to their agricultural fields.

Thereafter a paper publication was also published in Saakshi news paper/Ex.B12 on 05-11-2019 that 130 farmers represented by Defendants no.1, 3 and 5, approached the 13 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

Collector to fill the Bothalakunta cheruvu with SRSP Water.

After the above said publication, the plaintiffs got filed this case only to encroach the Bothalakunta Cheruvu.

8(iv) PW1 and 2 categorically admitted that the defendants are irrigating their lands from the water of Bothalakunta cheruvu whereas PW3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 denied. Further the

PW2, 4 categorically admitted that through S.R.S.P. Canal water merges in the Bothalakunta Cheruvu existing in Sy.

No.101 for irrigation purpose and the excess water of

Bothalakunta Cheruvu will be collected in Pedda Cheruvu as it is under chain system whereas, PW1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 denied the above said facts.

8(v) The pleading of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties but they did not file any documents to show that they acquired the same from their ancestors and even failed to file any mutation proceedings in respect of suit schedule properties said to have been mutated in their respective names.

8(vi) There is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 to 9 in respect of whether the defendants are irrigating their lands from the water of Bothalakunta cheruvu or not and some of the witnesses of plaintiffs admitted that through S.R.S.P.

14 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

Canal water merges in the Bothalakunta Cheruvu existing in

Sy. No.101 for irrigation purpose and the excess water of

Bothalakunta Cheruvu will be collected in Pedda Cheruvu as it is under chain system and some of the witnesses denied.

8(vii) Further the PWs 2 to 6 i.e. Plaintiffs no. 4 to 7 and 1 categorically admitted that the suit lands are called as

Bothalakunta Chalka, it clearly reveals that the plaintiffs got mutated the suit schedule properties on their names in the revenue records illegally but according to their pleadings they have acquired the same from their ancestors which is against to their own pleadings pleaded in the plaint.

8(viii) To obtain the equitable relief of injunction the plaintiffs must show not only their possession over the suit schedule properties but they have to prove the alleged interference by the defendants. The contention of the plaintiffs is that when the plaintiffs while attending their agricultural operations in their fields on 11-12-2019, the defendants along with their men illegally trespassed into the suit schedule properties, stopped their work, threatened them and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties. In fact, the total extents of suit schedule properties i.e. Ac. 10-26 gts in sy. no. 101 claiming under schedules 1 to 4 of Plaint, having 15 O.S. No. 64 of 2019 different boundaries as such it is not believable that the defendants along with their men trespassed into the suit schedule properties and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs at once from their respective suit schedule properties and even the plaintiffs did not file any police report against the defendants for the alleged illegal trespass into their lands.

8(ix) Further, the plaintiffs have filed their suit after the representation of defendants no.1, 3 and 5 before the

Collector, Suryapet about the encroachment of suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs and after publication of news vide

Ex.B12 the present suit was filed as such it creates a doubt about the alleged interference by the defendants with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.

8(x) No doubt, the documents filed by the plaintiffs showing their possession over the suit schedule properties but the balance of convenience is tilting in favor of the defendants.

Further the alleged interference by the defendants into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties is not proved beyond preponderance of possibilities. The plaintiffs have suppressed the real facts and approached the court with unclean hands for which they are not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction against the defendants.

16 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

Accordingly the issues nos.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiffs and in favor of defendants.

9. Issue No.3 :- To what relief?

In view of the findings given on Issues No.1 & 2, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of

December, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC Junior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For PlaintiffsFor Defendants

PW1 – Maddi LingaiahDW1 – Madagani Lingaiah

PW2 – Maddi RenukaDW2 – Shivarathri Veeraaiah

PW3 – Boyapalli VenkannaDW3 – Ojja Saidulu.

PW4 – Boyapalli Chinna Venkanna

PW5 – Boyapalli Ravi

PW6 – Maddi Anjaiah

PW7 – Maddi Laxmamma

PW8 – Madagani Ajay Kumar

PW9 – Boyapalli Saidulu 17 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

Exhibits marked For Plaintiffs :

Ex.A1 is the Digital Pattadar cum title deed book. Ex.A2 is the CC of Form-1B ROR. Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019. Ex.A4 is the C Latest pattedar cum title deed book. Ex.A5 is the CC of Form-1B ROR. Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019. Ex.A7 is the Old pattedar pass book. Ex.A8 is the Latest pattedar cum title deed book. Ex.A9 is the CC of Form-1B ROR. Ex.A10 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019. Ex.A11 is the Old Pattedar pass book. Ex.A12 is the Latest pattedar cum title deed book. Ex.A13 is the CC of Form-1B ROR. Ex.A14 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019. Ex.A15 is the CC of Form-1B ROR. Ex.A16 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019. Ex.A17 is the Original pattedar cum title deed book. Ex.A18 is the CC of Form-1B ROR. Ex.A19 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019. Ex.A20 is the Original pattedar cum title deed book. Ex.A21 is the CC of Form-1B ROR. Ex.A22 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019. Ex.A23 is the Old Patta pass book. Ex.A24 is the letter addressed to Madagani Lingaiah, dated 29-04- 2022 under RTI Act. Ex.A25 is the information in respect of lakes/ponds in Adivemula village of Jajireddygudem mandal attested by DEE, Irrigation & Cad Dept, Sub-Division no.2, Nagarm Mandal, Suryapet District, dated 29-04-2022. Ex.A26 is the verified list of sources of Adivemula village of Jajireddygudem mandal attested by DEE, Irrigation & Cad Dept, Sub- Division no.2, Nagarm Mandal, Suryapet District, dated 29-04-2022.

(Note:- Original documents i.e. Exhibits A1, A4, A7, A8, A11, A12, A17, A20 and A23 were returned to respective petitioners vide I.A.

18 O.S. No. 64 of 2019

No. 296/2023 with a condition to resubmit before the court on or

before 10-11-2023 but the petitioner/plaintiffs have failed to

reproduce those documents before the court as ordered by this Court)

For Defendants :

Ex.B1 is the CC of Kasara Pahani for the year 1954-55. Ex.B2 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.99/ A. Ex.B3 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.98A. Ex.B4 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.94E/2. Ex.B5 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.97/ AA. Ex.B6 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.95/ A. Ex.B7 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.99/ VUU. Ex.B8 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.92A. Ex.B9 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.90/ AA. Ex.B10 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.94/VUU. Ex.B11 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2019 for the land in Sy.No.94/VU. Ex.B12 is the Sakshi district edition dated 05.11.2009. Ex.B13 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2015-16. Ex.B14 is the Attested copy of Village Naksha issued by Asst. Director Surveyor land reporter, Nalgonda.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy

Page 1 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: SURESH KAMISHETTI.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KODAD,

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.

(Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026)

O.S. No. 448 OF 2025

(Old O.S. No. 160 of 2011 on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar)

BETWEEN:

Thatikonda Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kamalanagar, H/o. Nereducherla Village & Mandal, Suryapet District, erstwhile Nalgonda District. … Plaintiff A N D

1. Phanitham Yesuratnam, S/o. Gopal, Aged about 29 years,

2. Panitham Venkatamma, W/o. Gopal, Aged about 55 years,

3. Parvatham Praramesh, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 28 years,

4. Parvatham Anjaiah, S/o. Ramalingam, Aged about 45 years,

All are by profession Coolie, R/o. Lal Laxmipuram Village,

Nereducherla Mandal, Suryapet District, erstwhile Nalgonda

District.

… Defendants @@@

This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Ambati Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri. N. Satyanarayana, Counsel for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction against the defendants.

Page 2 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011

2.The brief facts of the plaint are:- 2(i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land measuring to an extent of Ac.3-39 gts in

Sy.No. 262/6 situated at Pathepuram Revenue Village of

Nereducherla mandal, Suryapet District, erstwhile Nalgonda

District, which is hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule land”.

2(ii) The Plaintiff is a physically handicapped person, the

Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e., The Tahsildar,

Nereducherla has allotted the suit schedule land to the plaintiff under D Form Lavuni patta bearing file No. B/6326/2008, dated 10.02.2009 and its No.8820010891 and since from the date of allotment, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land to the knowledge of all including the defendants. The concerned revenue authorities also issued Pattadar passbook and title deed and he also obtained crop loan from the SBH, ADB, Gaddipally branch by depositing the original Pattadar passbook and title deed.

2(iii) The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendants with an intention to grab the suit schedule land on 01.09.2011 entered into the suit schedule property, when the plaintiff raising crop for the Khariff and tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land by

Page 3 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011 dispossessing the plaintiff but the plaintiff restrained them. The defendants proclaimed that they will not allow the plaintiff to enjoy the suit schedule land and dispossess him from the suit schedule land. That the plaintiff being single person and also physically handicapped, but on the other hand, the defendants are financially sound and having anti social elements in the village, as such the plaintiff filed this suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants.

3.Having received summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. The brief averments of written statement are as under:

3(i) The defendants submits that the Government of Andhra

Pradesh conducted 5th Vidatha Bupampini Program in the month of April 2010 and the Tahsildar, Nereducherla has allotted the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts out of Sy. No.262/2 to the wife of defendant No.1 namely Parvatham Manemma under the Lavuni Patta its bearing No.8820013073 vide File

No.3187/2010, dated 12.04.2010 and the concerned revenue authorities have also issued ROR Title Deed and Pattadar

Passbooks in favor of wife of defendant No.1 and also entered her name in the concerned revenue records. Since from the date of allotment, the wife of defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoying the same without any interruption

Page 4 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011 from any body from any corner with the knowledge of one and all in the village including the plaintiff.

3(ii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has also allotted the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts out of Sy. No.262/2 to the defendant No.4 under the Lavuni patta and the concerned revenue authorities got issued ROR title deed and his name was also entered in the concerned revenue records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of his land without any interruption from anybody from any corner with the knowledge of one and all in the village including the plaintiff. The defendants raised crops and getting good yield, the plaintiff developed evil eye and filed this suit with an intention to grab the defendant’s land. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Originally, the above case was filed before the court of

Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar and numbered as O.S. No.160 of 2011 and later, the above case was transferred to this court as per the orders of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Suryapet received in Dis. No.2566/2024/A1, dated:

25.10.2024 vide reference R.O.C. No. 7059/OP-Cell/2024,

dt: 24.10.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana at Hyderabad and same is renumbered as O.S.

No. 448 of 2025.

Page 5 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011

5.On the basis of above rival pleadings, the court of Junior

Civil Judge, Huzurnagar framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants or not ?

3. To what relief?

6.To substantiate the claim of Plaintiff, Plaintiff no.1 himself filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the contents of his plaint and examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. The plaintiff also examined Konuganti

Saidi Reddy was examined as PW-2.

7.On the other hand, the defendant No.1 himself examined as

DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B6, B17 to B19 documents.

The defendant No.4 examined as DW2 and got marked

Ex.B7 to B16 documents. One Macha Abraham was examined as DW3.

8.Heard Sri A. Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for plaintiff and

Sri. N. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for defendants.

9.Issues No. 1 & 2:- 9(i) The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction against the defendants. Since the claim of the plaintiff is that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over

Page 6 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011 the suit schedule land, the burden is lies on the plaintiff to prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land by the date of filing suit and that the defendants without having any right, interfered with such possession, as such he is entitled for the relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for against the defendants. It is well settled proposition of Law that the Plaintiff has to stand on the evidence let in by him and that he cannot take the advantage of weaknesses of the defendant’s case.

9(ii) The plaintiff has to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the day of filing suit. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, PW.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A11 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is the D-Form Lavuni

Patta Certificate, dated 10.02.2009, Ex.A2 is the Original

Pattadar Passbook, Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A4 to A8 are the Mee-seva pahanies for the fasli years from 1421 to 1425. Ex.A9 is the Mee-Seva 1-B

Namuna (ROR), dated 30-05-2019. Ex.A10 is the Assignment

Committee Register issued by the Tahasildar, Nereducherla for the year 2005; and Ex.A11 Amendment Register Nakal issued by the Tahasildar, Nereducherla.

9(iii) On the other hand, the defendants have examined DW1 to DW3 and produced Ex.B1 to B19 on their behalf. Ex.B1 is the

Original Patta Certificate of Parvatham Manemma, Ex.B2 is the

Page 7 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011

Original Pattadar Passbook of Parvatham Manemma, Ex.B3 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the Fasli year 2010 issued by

Tahsildar, Nereducherla, Ex.B4 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.B5 is the Certificate issued by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of AP namely K. Roshaiah, Dt:

14.04.2010 in favor of Parvatham Manemma, Ex.B6 is the

Pamphlet issued by the Government of AP, dt:14.04.2010,

Ex.B7 is the Original Pattadar Passbook of D4, Ex.B8 to 11 are the Mee-seva pahanies for the fasli year 1426 for sy. no. 262/5, 262/7, 262/8 and 262/12, Ex.B12 is the Mee-seva 1-B Namoona for Sy. Nos.262/8, 262/7, 262/5, 262/12, 261/EE-1, Ex.B13 is the Mee-seva Pahani for the Fasli 1426 of Sy.No.262/12; and

Ex.B14 to B16 are the Mee-seva pahanies for the fasli year 1423 for sy. Nos. 262/8, 262/7, 262/12. Ex.B17 is the List of allottee of Government land issued by the Assignment

Committee of Miryalaguda Constituency, Ex.B18 is the Original

Letter issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Nereducherla Mandal,

Suryapet District enclosing Ex.B17 comprising nine papers.(The counsel for the plaintiff objected that in Ex.B18 there is no mention about how many papers are enclosed with Ex.B18).,

Ex.B19 is the Encumbrance Certificate, Dt: 08.06.2016.

9(iv) This suit is filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff has mentioned the surname of defendants no.1 and 2 as Phanitham, whereas their

Page 8 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011 surname is Parvatham and the defendant no.1 also signed as

Parvatham Ratnam on the written statement and he also mentioned his name as Parvatham Yesuratnam, but the learned counsel for plaintiff did not make any objection and the reasons best known to the plaintiff only.

9(v) As per plaint schedule the suit schedule property i.e. the land to an extent of Ac. 3-39 gts situated in survey number as 262/6, whereas in the chief affidavit of PW1 and PW2 mentioned the survey number as 262. The Ex. A4 to A9 are showing the sy. no. as 262/1/1. Ex.A1, A2, A10 and A11 are showing the sy. no. 262.

As per plaint, the boundaries of suit schedule property as under:

East :Areti Kalva

West: Land of Konuganti Saidi Reddy

North:Pedda Bodu in sy. no. 262

South:Jangalavari houses.

The above said boundaries also reflecting in Ex.A1, which is

Lavuni Patta.

Whereas, the defendant no.1 and 3 adversely claiming ownership and possession over the suit schedule property by producing Ex.B1 to B19. As per Ex.B1 the land to an extent of

Ac.0-30 gts in sy.no. 262/2 was allotted in favor of wife of D1 namely Parvatham Manemma distribution of land under 5th

Page 9 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011 phase, which is supported by Ex.B17. The defendant no.3 produced Ex.B7 to B16, but as per the documents produced by the defendants itself, the name of Defendant no.4 was not mentioned as beneficiary of land claiming by him from the government vide Ex.B17 and B.18.

9(vi) The government allotted land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts in favor of wife of Defendant no.1 in sy.no. 262/2 vide Ex.B1 under 5th phase. The plaintiff also claiming that he was allotted the suit schedule property in his favor under 5th phase. As per

Ex.B1 the northern boundary of land of Parvatham Manemma mentioned as Amireddy Shankar Reddy, which corroborates from Ex.A10, but the name of wife of D1 was not mentioned in

Ex.A10. If really, the government allotted the suit schedule property in favor of plaintiff under 5th phase, the name of wife of D1 also certainly be reflected in Ex.A10. Moreover, the land allotted to the wife of D1 in Phathepuram, whereas the land allotted to the plaintiff as per Ex.A10 at Nereducherla.

9(vii) Further by virtue of Ex.B17 and B18 the name of plaintiff is not reflected as beneficiary under any phase of distribution of lands by the government, which creates a cloud upon the

Title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Page 10 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011 9(viii) I have come across a judicial precedent of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India held in between ANATHULA SUDHAKAR

VS. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS; AIR2009 SC 2033, wherein it was held at para 11.3.

“11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.

Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.” 9(ix) In the case on hand also, the possession of plaintiff showing as per Ex.A4 to A8, but his title to the property is in dispute and under a cloud as the defendants claiming title and possession adversely to the claim of plaintiff and in these circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have been filed the suit for declaration of his title and consequential relief of injunction instead of mere injunction simplicitor. Accordingly, the issues no.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants.

Page 11 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011

10.Issue No.3:

In view of the findings given on Issues No. 1 & 2 against the plaintiff, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

11.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

(Typed to dictation to Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21st day of April, 2026.)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KODAD,

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiffs:

PW-1 – Thatikonda Ramachandra Reddy

PW-2 – Konuganti Saidi Reddy

For Defendants:

DW-1 – Parvatham Yesurathanam DW-2 – Parvatham Anjaiah DW-3 – Macha Abraham Exhibits marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1D-Form Lavuni Patta Certificate, dated 10.02.2009 Ex.A2Original Pattadar Passbook Ex.A3Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.A4Certified copy of Pahani for 1421 Fasli Ex.A5Certified copy of Pahani for 1422 Fasli Ex.A6Certified copy of Pahani for 1423 Fasli Ex.A7Certified copy of Pahani for 1424 Fasli Ex.A8Certified copy of Pahani for 1425 Fasli

Page 12 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011

Ex.A9 1-B Namuna (ROR), obtained through Mee-SEva pertaining to Fathepuram village, Dt.30-05-2019. Ex.A10 Assignment Committee Register issued by the Tahasildar, Nereducherla for the year 2005. Ex.A11 Amendment Register Nakal issued by the Tahasildar, Nereducherla to the plaintiff pertaining to Fathepuram village for the year 2009-10 Volume-1. (Subjected to objection raised by the Counsel for the defendants that Ex.A-11 is issued by the Tahasildar, Nereducherla at present for the record pertaining to the year 2009-10).

For Defendants:

Ex.B1Original Patta Certificate of Parvatham Manemma Ex.B2Original Pattadar Passbook of Parvatham Manemma Ex.B3Certified copy of Pahani for the Fasli year 2010 issued by Tahsildar, Nereducherla Ex.B4Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex.B5Certificate issued by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of AP by name K.Roshaiah, Dt: 14.04.2010 in favor of Parvahtam Manemma Ex.B6Pamphlet issued by the Government of AP, dt:14.04.2010 Ex.B7Original Pattadar Passbook of D4 Ex.B8Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1426 in Sy.No.262/5

Ex.B9Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1426 in Sy.No.262/7 Ex.B10 Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1426 in Sy.No.262/8 Ex.B11 Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1426 in Sy.No.262/12 Ex.B12 Computarized 1-B Namoona issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1423 in Sy.Nos.262/8, 262/7, 262/5, 262/12, 261/EE-1 Ex.B13 Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1426 in Sy.No.262/12

Page 13 of 13 O.S. No. 448 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 160 of 2011

Ex.B14 Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1423 in Sy.No.262/8 Ex.B15 Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1423 in Sy.No.262/7 Ex.B16 Computarized Pahani issued by Mee-seva and duly certified by Tahsildar, Nereducherla for the Fasli 1423 in Sy.No.262/12 Ex.B17 List of allottees of Government land issued by the Assignment Committee of Miryalaguda Constituency Ex.B18 Original Letter issued by the Dy.Tahsildar, Nereducherla Mandal, Suryapet District enclosing Ex.B17 comprising nine papers. (The counsel for the plaintiff objected that in Ex.B18 there is no mention about how many papers are enclosed with Ex.B18). Ex.B19 Encumbrance Certificate, Dt: 08.06.2016

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KODAD,

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.

1 C.C. No. 388 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT :: THUNGATHURTHY

Present: Sri. K. Suresh, Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

Friday, 10th day of November, 2023.

C.C No. 388 of 2016 Between:- The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S, Arvapally (Cr. No. 106/2015) … Complainant AND

1.Pagidimarri Veeraiah, S/o. Kanakaiah, age 50 years, Occ: Cooolie,

2.Pagidimarri Nagaiah, S/o Kanakaiah, age 46 years, Occ: Coolie,

3.Pagidimarri Bharathamma, W/o Veeraiah, age 43, Occ:Coolie, All are R/o Jajireddygudem village and mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 03-11-2023 for hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and in the presence of Sri T. Sathyanarayana, counsel for accused No.1 to 3 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, PS Arvapally filed charge sheet for the offences U/Sec. 326, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC by registering in Cr. No.106/2015.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

2 C.C. No. 388 of 2016

That the complainant/Lw1//Godugu Chinna Nagamma lodged a report by stating that on 16-10-2015 she along with

Bharathamma and some others went to Vangamurthy village to attend cotton coolie work and while returning on the way at 17.00 hrs., when they reached near Ganga Devamma temple by the side of lake, the accused No.3 abused her in filthy language by alleging that she had illegal intimacy with Gollaboina Venkanna.

After reaching to their home Lw1/Chinna Nagamma informed about the incident to Lw2/G.Anjaiah, meanwhile the A3 heard about the same and came with broom in front of their house and abused in filthy language, for which the Lw2/Anjaiah questioned the A3 as to why she is abusing. On that A3 beat her husband/LW3 with broom and her husband pushed her due to which she fell on a stone and sustained bleeding head injury. On that A3 left to her house and intimate about the incident to her husband and children. Thereafter, A1 to A3 along with Pagidimarri

Naveen came to their house and said Naveen asked her husband as to why he beat his mother/A3 and beat with a stick over left hand of her husband and the remaining accused also beat her with hands and also threatened to kill them. On the next day

Lw1/Chinna Nagamma took Lw2/Anjaiah Govt. Hospital, 3 C.C. No. 388 of 2016

Thungathurthy for treatment. Hence, she lodged report before the police to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the report, LW12 registered a case in Cr. No.106/2015

U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 323 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW12 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and LW2 at police station.

On 20.10.2015 LW12 visited Jajireddygudem village examined and recorded the statements of Lw3 to 8, and he also conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized one stick which was used in the commission of offence from the scene and affixed panch chits and drew a rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of Lw9 and 10. As the involvement of Pagidimarri

Naveen is not made out, he was discarded him from the case after taking order from SDPO, Suryapet. On 13.01.2016 the accused A1 to A3 surrendered before him and voluntarily confessed this offence and produced suitable sureties and he served the notice U/s41(A) Cr.P.C. to the accused persons. After completion of investigation LW.12 laid charge sheet against A1 to

A3 for the offence U/s 326, 504, 506, 323 r/w 34 IPC after altering the section of law from 324 IPC to 326 IPC.

4 C.C. No. 388 of 2016

4.Upon available material on record, this court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 326,323,504,506 r/w 34 IPC against accused

A1 to A3. On appearance of accused A1 to A3 copies furnished to them as per section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short

Cr.P.C). Accused A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C.

and a charge framed against them for the said offences and read over the contents of charge to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MO1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appearing against them in the version of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of accused A1 to A3 for the offence U/Sec. 326,323,504,506 r/w 34

IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

POINT:

5 C.C. No. 388 of 2016

8.The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.3 abused PW1 in filthy language as she had illegal contacts with one Venkanna and after reaching to their home, while she was informing about the incident to her husband/PW2, Accused no.3 came to their house and beat PW2 with broom and when PW2 pushed her, she fell down on the ground and sustained head injury. Thereafter,

A1 to A3 along with Pagidimarri Naveen came to there and beat her and her husband, due to which they have sustained injuries.

On the next day of incident PW1 took her husband/PW2 to government hospital, Thungathurthy for treatment.

9.The learned APP argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubts and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clearly establishing the guilt of accused and prayed to convict the accused. Further the learned APPO submitted judicial precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court held in between “Balvir Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh” ; 2019 0

Supreme(SC) 184, by stating that the testimony of a witness cannot be doubted on ground that he is involved in other criminal cases. The learned APPO also submitted another judicial precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court held in “Chandrasekar and another vs State” ; 2017 13 SCC 585, by stating that evidence of 6 C.C. No. 388 of 2016 injured witness carries great weight.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that no incident was occurred and that only to counter blast the case filed by Accused no.3 against them on 18-10-2015. Further argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of

PWs 1 to 3 in respect of alleged incident. There is no consistency in the evidence of PW1 and 2 about the taking of treatment by

PW2. Further argued that the PW1 categorically admitted in her report/Ex.P1 and also in evidence before the court that PW2 pushed A3 and she had sustained head injury and only to escape from that liability, PW1 lodged this false case against the accused and thereby the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is admitted fact that one day prior to filing of this case by PW1, Accused no.3 lodged a criminal case against PW1 and 2 vide crime no.

105/2015 of PS Arvapalli. The crime number of present case is 106/2015 of PS Arvapalli. There are rival terms between the parties prior to lodging the present report as such the evidence of prosecution witnesses shall be scrutinized carefully.

7 C.C. No. 388 of 2016

12.PW1 during her cross-examination admitted that her husband beat A3 with handle of Axe over her head, due to which she sustained bleeding head injury and PW2 also admitted this fact in his chief and cross-examination.

13.Further PW1 in her chief examination deposed that in the said altercation accused persons snatched away her black bead chain and also throttled her and caused nail scratches but she did not state about the same in her report/Ex.P1 and PW2 who is her husband did not whisper about this fact, which reveals that PW1 improved her version before the court.

14.Further the contents of Ex.P1/report revealed that Pagidimarri

Naveen beat her husband on his left hand but none of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the same, which creates a doubt about the occurrence of incident.

15.PW1 deposed that they went to Govt. Hospital, Thungathurthy and on the next day they went to Vijay Mohan hospital and got cement plaster over wrist and elbow as fracture injury received.

Whereas, PW2 deposed that on the next day they went to

Sathyanarayana hospital and thereafter went to Govt. Hospital,

Thungathurthy. There is no consistency in the evidence of PW1 and 2 in respect of treatment taken by PW2. Further the 8 C.C. No. 388 of 2016 investigation office failed to produce any X-ray or radiologist report. In the absence of such X-ray or Radiologist report the genuineness of wound certificate/Ex.P5 is doubtful.

16.In the case on hand PW1 did not state about the presence of eyewitnesses at the time of incident either in her report/Ex.P1 or

before the police and PW2 also did not state before the police.

But the prosecution cited Lws. 3 to 8 are the eyewitness to the alleged incident. PW1 also did not depose before the court that at the time of incident Lws. 3 to 8 were present and witnessed the incident. PWs 4 to 6 who are the alleged eyewitness categorically deposed that they do not know about the facts of this case and they never witnessed any incident and thereby they did not corroborate the version of PW1 and 2. The presence of

PW3/LW3 at the time of incident has been not stated by PW1 in her report/Ex.P1 and remaining alleged witnesses also did not support the case of prosecution, the evidence of PW3 is also doubtful, not reliable and trustworthy.

17.The facts and circumstances in the judicial precedents and the facts and circumstances in the case on hand are not one and the same and there are material contradictions and omissions and the eye witnesses did not support the evidence of either Pw1 or Pw2 9 C.C. No. 388 of 2016 and there is no consistency in the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 in respect of where Pw2 had taken treatment as such their testimony is doubtful to proceed against the accused.

18.PW2 deposed that he had given X-Ray and radiologist report to the police whereas PW9/Investigation Officer deposed that no such documents were given to him by PW2. Further the investigation officer is also admitted about the filing of criminal case by A3 prior to one day of filing this case by PW1. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the alleged eyewitness also did not support the case of prosecution and even one of the mediators to the scene of offence panchanama also did not support the case of prosecution creates a doubt that only to counter blast the criminal case filed by the Accused no.3, PW1 lodged this false case against the accused no.1 to 3. Therefore, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Persons beyond all reasonable doubts as such the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal.

19.In the result, the accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section U/Sec. 326, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for 10 C.C. No. 388 of 2016 the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The MO.1/stick shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction,

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of November,

2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Godugu Chinna Nagamma PW-2: Godugu Anjaiah PW-3: Yesumani @ Manemma PW-4: Pagidimarri Anil PW-5: B. Jalandhar PW-6: M.Praveen PW-7: Dr.N. Ramakrishna PW-8: M. Lingaiah PW-9: A. Mohan Reddy

FOR DEFENCE: NIL EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Complaint of Pw1. Ex.P-2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4. Ex.P-3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5. Ex.P-4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6.

11 C.C. No. 388 of 2016

Ex.P-5: Medical certificate Ex.P-6: Signature of Pw8 on scene of offence p panchanama. Ex.P-7: F.I.R Ex.P-8: Scene of offence cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P-9: Section alteration memo.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Stick -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

C.C No. 1310 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SURYAPET

(Dated this the 14th day of October, 2024)

Present: Sri K. Suresh, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 1310 of 2021

Between:

The State through S.H.O. PS. Athmakur(s) ….. Prosecution

AND

A1:Dharavath Champla, S/o. Sandhya (Late), Age: 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Jagna Thanda of Chivvemla Mandal.

A2:Bhukya Upender, S/o. Gopal, Age: 20 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Jagna Thanda of Athmakur(s) Mandal.

A3:Sunkarboina Lingaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pathasuryapet of Athmakur(s) Mandal.

…..Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 09-10-2024 in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri. K. Raghupathi Reddy, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, PS. Athmakur(s) has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offence punishable under Section. 34(e) of T.S. Excise Act in Crime No. 24 of 2021.

2 C.C No. 1310 of 2021

2.The brief facts of the case are that:-

On 09-02-2020 at 5.30 hours, LW.5/T. Sathyanarayana received some credible information that two persons were going towards Jagna thanda on TVS XL bearing no. AP24AJ 7035 and Hero Glamour bike bearing no. TS 29F 9677 with black Jaggery. On that, he along with his staff rushed to outskirts of Enubamula and found the above said vehicles with black Jaggery and on their interrogation, they revealed their particulars as A1 and A2 and they confessed that they have purchased 50 Kgs black Jaggery from A3 and carrying the same to sell to the makers of illicit Arrack of Jagna

Thanda and meanwhile they caught hold them. Immediately

LW.5 secured the presence of LW3 and 4 and conducted confession panchanama of A1 and A2 and drawn samples to obtain the opinion of FSL authorities. Later he shifted them to police station along with seized contraband and vehicles to police station and he registered a suo-moto case in crime no.

24/2021 for the offence u/sec. 34(e) of TS Excise Act.

3.During the course of investigation, Lw.5/T. Sathyanarayana,

Asst. Sub Inspector of police examined Lws.1 & 2 and recorded their statements. Later Lw.6/N. Balu Naik Sub

Inspector of Police took up the investigation of this case and verified the investigation done by Lw.5 and found it is on 3 C.C No. 1310 of 2021 proper lines. Served notice U/s.41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused persons.

4.Thereafter, on 15-04-2021 Lw.6 sent the case property to

FSL, Hyderabad for examination and report, in turn said authorities analyzed the samples and sent report vide FSL file

No.EXC/76/2021 dated 15-04-2021, in which it is furnished that seized samples item No. 1 and 2 are analysed and Illicit

Distilld liquor which is injurious to health and Jaggery is found in item No.1, item no.2 is found to contain Aluminium

Ammonium Sulphate commonly known as Alum. After completion of entire investigation Lw.6 filed the charge sheet.

5.This Court took the cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.

34(e) of TS Excise Act against the accused persons basing on the material available on record.

6.After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, Accused no.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides charge under

Section 34 (e) of TS Excise Act was framed against accused, the contents of charge is read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Statement of accused were recorded U/s 313 CrPC where in they have pleaded 4 C.C No. 1310 of 2021 total denial and did not opt to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

8.In order to substantiate the charges against accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.

9.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether prosecution could able to bring home guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts for offence under Section 34 (e) of TS Excise Act?”.

11.POINT: Out of the prosecution witnesses, prosecution has examined PW-1 to 5 and among them PW-1 is the Police

Constable, PW2 and 3 are the mediators to the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused no.1 and 2, PW4 is the 1st investigation officer; and PW5 is the 2nd investigation officer. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW7 as he filed charge sheet only.

12.The evidence of PW.1 discloses that 09-02-2021 at about 5.30 hours, LW5 received credible information, on that he and

LW.2 went to Enubamula sivar where they observed two persons coming on their bikes and on their checking they 5 C.C No. 1310 of 2021 found 50 Kgs of black Jaggery each in their possession. On that they shifted the said bikes and contraband along with two mediators to the police station and LW5 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused in the presence of said mediators and basing on the confession panchanama of accused, LW5 registered a suo moto case against the accused persons.

13.PW2 and PW3 who are the alleged mediators to the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused no.1 and 2 categorically deposed that when they went to police station on their personal work, police obtained their signatures on white papers and that accused persons never confessed their guilt in their presence and police never seized anything from the possession of accused persons and thereby they did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect.

14.PW-4/T. Sathyanarayana the then ASI of Police deposed in the same version as that of PW1 except place of conducting of confession and seizure. PW1 deposed that on the information received by PW4, he and LW2 only went to the scene of offence, whereas PW4 deposed that he also went to the scene of offence. Further PW1 categorically deposed before the court that he and Lw.2 shifted the contraband, seized vehicles and mediators to the police station, where LW5/PW4 6 C.C No. 1310 of 2021 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused.

Whereas PW4 deposed that he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused at scene of offence, which is against to the version deposed by PW1. There is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 and 4 in respect of place of conducting of confession cum seizure panchanama of accused and PW2 and 3 who are the independent mediators also did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect.

15.PW4/1st investigation officer failed to collect any documents of said two crime vehicles and it’s ownership particulars to show that the accused persons are the owners or drivers of said vehicles as on the day of alleged incident. PW4 who is 1st investigation officer has also failed to examine any of the independent witnesses at the scene of offence to prove their contention. The contention of the prosecution is that PW1 and 4 caught hold the crime vehicles and the accused no.1 and 2 confessed their guilt in the presence of PW2 and 3, but they did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect.

16.As it could be seen from the above evidence, except the police officials, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution. In the absence of evidence of independent witnesses, the evidence of Police officials cannot 7 C.C No. 1310 of 2021 be taken in to consideration to proceed against the accused persons.

17. it is clear that there is no evidence brought on record that the alleged case property was seized from the possession of A1 and A2. The independent mediators examined as PW.2 and 3 but did not support the case of prosecution on any aspect.

Further the investigation officer has failed to examine any independent witnesses in this case to support their version. It is settled law that when the evidence of independent mediators do not support the prosecution’s case, no conviction can be recorded basing on the evidence of police officials alone, as they are interested in the prosecution of the case and in the out come of result of the case. As per record, the alleged confession of accused persons is recorded while they were in the custody of police and it is hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act as such no reliance can be placed on the alleged confession cum seizure panchanama.

Hence, alleged confession cum seizure panchanama of accused no.1 and 2 is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, which leads to acquittal.

8 C.C No. 1310 of 2021

18.In the result, accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for offence under Section 34 (e) of TS Excise Act and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. No property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of

October, 2024.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Pw.1: K. Nageshwer RaoAssisted to IO & Eye Witness

Pw.2: P. ThirumaleshPanch for confession and seizure panchanama of A1 & A2

Pw.3: P. UpendarPanch for confession and seizure panchanama of A1 & A2

Pw.4: T. Satyanarayana1st I.O.

Pw.5: N. Balu Naik2nd I.O.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

-NIL- 9 C.C No. 1310 of 2021

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is signature of Pw.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1.

Ex.P2: is signature of Pw.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A2.

Ex.P3: is signature of Pw.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1.

Ex.P4: is signature of Pw.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A2.

Ex.P5: is FIR.

Ex.P6: is the FSL report.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: -NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL –

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

10 C.C No. 1310 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE : AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 2258 of 2020

DATE OFDATEAPPREHENSIONRELEASED

THEOFOFON

OFFENCEREPORTACCUSEDB A I L

09-02-2021 09-02-2021 21-02-2021 24-02-2021

COMMENCEMENTCLOSUREDATE

OFOFOF

T R I A LT R I A LJUDGMENT

22-07-202409-10-202414-10-2024 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :The SHO., Athmakur(s)

NAME OF THE ACCUSED :A1:Dharavath Champla, S/o. Sandhya (Late), Age: 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Jagna Thanda of Chivvemla Mandal.

A2:Bhukya Upender, S/o. Gopal, Age: 20 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Jagna Thanda of Athmakur(s) Mandal.

A3:Sunkarboina Lingaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pathasuryapet of Athmakur(s) Mandal.

OFFENCE :Under Section 34 (e) of TS Excise Act

FINDING OF THE COURT :Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for offence under Section 34 (e) of TS Excise Act and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. No property.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :No delay

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

L r.Dis.No. /2024 Dt: . .2024 To: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,Suryapet.

1 O.S. No. 16 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT THUNGATHURTHY.

PRESENT : Sri Suresh Kamishetti, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy

Friday, this the 3rd day of November, 2023.

O.S. No. 16 of 2018

Between :-

Bayya Naresh, S/o. Venkanna, Aged about: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thungathurthy village and mandal, Suryapet District.

....Plaintiff.

A N D

Gundala Radhika, W/o. Upender, Aged about: 26 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. House No.4-2-151/344/6/2, Srinivasa Nagar, Khammam Town and District.

....Defendant.

@@@

This suit is coming up before me on 20-10-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S. Seetharama Sharma, K. Randheer,

P. Vani Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri. Karingula

Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for the defendant and the matter is having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivers the following :- :: JUDGMENT ::

1.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are :- 2(i) That the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of an agriculture lands in Sy. Nos. 704/EE/1 admeasuring 0-16 2 O.S. No. 16 of 2018 gts, 707/EE/1 admeasuring 0-13 ½ gts, Sy.No. 612/EE/1 admeasuring 0-15 gts, Sy.No. 703/EE/1 admeasuring 0-21 gts,

Sy.No. 701/EE admeasuring 0-27½ gts, Sy. No. 705/EE/1 admeasuring 0-27½ gts and Sy. No. 706/EE/1 admeasuring

Ac.2-00 gts, total agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4-30½ gts situated at Thungahturthy village and mandal, Suryapet

District, which is hereinafter referred to as “Suit schedule property”.

2(ii) The plaintiff enjoying the said property till today as he is the owner and possessor of the said property without any disputes. The plaintiff is in possession of the schedule of property. The name of the plaintiff is also entered in the revenue records as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

2(iii) That the defendant and her agents and servants who have no right or title tying to trespass in to the lands of the plaintiff’s on 15-12-2017 and again on 25-03-2018 started digging a trench with a view to encroach the plaintiff’s land in view of the rise in real estate prices. On knowing about the same through his neighbor, the plaintiff rushed to the spot and he gave a police complaint but the police refused to interfere with the matter stating that the matter is in civil nature. The 3 O.S. No. 16 of 2018 plaintiff with great difficulty resisted the illegal acts of the defendant and her men with the help of adjacent land owners and the Plaintiff is having every apprehension from the defendant will dispossess him at any point of time, as such the

Plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for grant of Injunction.

3.Having received summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her written statement. The brief averments of Written Statement as under:

3(i) The defendant categorically denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and that the defendant has no right over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendant along with their father and sister are having joint family properties i.e., in

Sy.No. 706/E/1 Ac.2-00 gts, in Sy.No.705/Ea/1 Ac. 0-27 gts, in

Sy.No. 704/Ea/1 Ac.0-06 gts, in Sy.No.703/Ea/1 Ac. 0-21 gts, in

Sy.No. 701/Ea/1 Ac. 0-27 gts, in Sy.No.612/Ea/1 Ac. 0-15 gts, in Sy.No. 707/Ea/1 Ac.0-13 gts, in Sy.No.653/A2 Ac. 1-00, in

Sy.No.682/E Ac. 5-00, in Sy.No.708/A Ac.2-35 gts and all the above said lands are situated at Thungathurthy village and mandal, which were derived from their ancestors. The said 4 O.S. No. 16 of 2018 land is cultivating by the father of the parties as he is the

Kartha of joint family.

3(ii) The defendant has been residing with her in-laws since 2011, but the father of the defendant and plaintiff has been sending the profits to the defendant derived from the ancestral property. But since October 2017 the father of the defendant and plaintiff did not sending the profits to the defendant as such the defendant demanded her father for partition of the properties, but the father of defendant was postponed the same on false and fictitious grounds. As such the defendant placed the matter before the elders, the elders also advised for amicable partition, but the father of plaintiff did not listen to the words of elders. On the other hand, the father of the defendant mutated the said land on the name of plaintiff to evade the share of defendant. Vexed with the indifferent attitude of the father of the defendant, Plaintiff, the defendant has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her ¼th share out of their ancestral properties vide O.S. No.48/2018 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge Court, Suryapet. After filing the suit, the plaintiff

received summons and as a counter blast against that case, filed this suit by creating a false story and there was no cause 5 O.S. No. 16 of 2018 of action against the defendant to file this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues framed for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff himself filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined as PW.1 by reiterating the contents of his Plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A10.

6.On the other hand, the defendant herself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendant.

7.Heard both sides. The learned counsel for Plaintiff filed written arguments also.

8.Issue No.1 8(i) This suit is filed for injunction simplicitor against the defendant. To get Injunction the plaintiff must prove his/her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing suit without depending on the weakness of defendant. To substantiate the case of Plaintiff, PW1 examined and produced documents i.e., Ex.A1 to A10 on his behalf.

6 O.S. No. 16 of 2018 8(ii) It is settled law that admitted facts need not be proved by virtue of Sec. 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further it is also settled law that who seeks the equitable relief of injunction must approach the Court with clean hands.

8(iii) The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule properties. The contention of the defendant is that she is younger sister of Plaintiff. In the case on hand the Plaintiff has failed to disclose the relationship with the defendant either in his plaint and after filing of written statement by the defendant also did not mention about the existing of relationship with the defendant in his chief affidavit also. Thus, the plaintiff has suppressed the fact of relationship with the defendant. The learned counsel for plaintiff cleverly introduced the fact of relationship of defendant with the plaintiff in his written arguments.

8(iv) During the cross-examination of Plaintiff/PW1 it is revealed that a suit has been filed by the defendant against the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of their ancestral properties vide O.S. No. 48/2018 on the file of

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Suryapet. The defendant

filed the above suit against the plaintiff on 06-04-2018. The plaintiff filed this present suit on 16-05-2018 i.e. after filing of 7 O.S. No. 16 of 2018 suit by the defendant, this suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. But the Plaintiff did not disclose about the suit filed by the defendant against him and his family members for partition and separate possession of ¼ th share of defendant out of their ancestral properties. The Plaintiff in his evidence also admitted that the suit schedule property in

O.S. No. 48/2018 on the file of Hon’ble SCJ Court, Suryapet and

the present suit is one and the same. The Plaintiff has failed to disclose about the filing of suit by the defendant vide OS No.

48/2018 on the file of Hon’ble SCJ Court, Suryapet in his plaint though he had very much knowledge about the same.

8(v) Further, the learned counsel for Plaintiff gave suggestion to the defendant during her cross-examination that after filing of partition suit by her, a panchayath was held wherein she was paid Rs. 5 lakhs cash and 10 Tula gold to withdraw the suit filed by her against the plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, after filing of partition suit by the defendant a panchayath was held and she was compensated against her claim, if it is true, what prevented the plaintiff to disclose about the same either in his chief affidavit or written arguments.

8(vi) Further except the evidence of PW1 there is no corroborative evidence to support the contention of the 8 O.S. No. 16 of 2018 plaintiff that the defendant and her henchmen interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. However, the defendant got filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share out of their ancestral properties and the plaintiff also admitted that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties and thereby the defendant may also having share and co-owner of suit schedule properties, which is pending before the Hon’ble

SCJ Court, Suryapet. It is also well settled principle that an injunction cannot be ordered against the co-owner.

8(vii) No doubt, the documents filed by the plaintiff showing his possession over the suit schedule properties but the balance of convenience is tilting in favor of the defendant.

There is a suit pending between the parties in respect of partition and there is no independent witness examined on behalf of Plaintiff to prove the fact of alleged interference by the defendant and her men. The plaintiff has suppressed the real facts and approached the court with unclean hands for which he is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction against the defendant. Accordingly the issues no.1 is answered against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant.

9 O.S. No. 16 of 2018

9. Issue No.2 :- To what relief?

In view of the finding given on Issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of

November, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC Junior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For PlaintiffFor Defendant

PW1 – Bayya NareshDW1- Gundala Raghika

Exhibits marked For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the C.C. of pahani for the fasily 1427 for the land in Sy.No.707/EE/1 Ex.A2 is the C.C. of pahani for the fasily 1427 for the land in Sy.No.706/E/1 Ex.A3 is the C.C. of pahani for the fasily 1427 for the land in Sy.No.705/EE/1For Defendants: Ex.A4 is the C.C. of pahani for the fasily 1427 for the land in Sy.No.704/EE/1

Ex.A5 is the C.C. of pahani for the fasily 1427 for the land in Sy.No.703/EE/1 10 O.S. No. 16 of 2018

Ex.A6 is the C.C. of pahani for the fasily 1427 for the land in Sy.No.612/EE/1

Ex.A7 is the C.C. of pahani for the fasily 1427 for the land in Sy.No.701/EE/1

Ex.A8 is the Encumbrance certificate dated 02-05-2018

Ex.A9 is the Mutation proceedings issued by MRO, Thungathurthy,

dated 18-07-2017 in File No.C/526/2017,

Ex.A10 is the Old Pattedar pass book

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy