Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION):: PUNGANUR.
Present: Sri K.Vasudeva Rao,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Punganur.
Monday this the 1st (First) day of April, 2024.
A.S. No. 11 of 2017
Between: 1.Vontimitta Lakshmipathi Gupta ( Died). 2.Vontimitta Pandurangaiah (died). 3.V.Rajya Lakshmi. 4.V.Badrinath. 5.V.L.Sujatha. 6.V.L.Vital. (5th and 6th plaintiffs added as per orders in I.A.No.111 of 2021 dt:30.10.2022. ) … Appellants
And :
1. The Commissioner of Endowments Hyderabad.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Chittoor. 3.The Person in Management group Temples, Punganur. …Respondents.
An Appeal against the Decree and order passed in
O.S.No.147 of 2004 dt:02.02.2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Punganur.
Between:
1. Vontimitta Lakshmipathi Gupta ( Died). 2.Vontimitta Pandurangaiah (died). 3.V.Rajya Lakshmi.
4. V.Badrinath.
5. V.L.Sujatha.
6. V.L.Vital. (5th and 6th plaintiffs added as per orders in I.A.No.111 of 2021 dt:30.10.2022. ) … Plaintiffs And :
1. The Commissioner of Endowments Hyderabad.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Chittoor. 3.The Person in Management group Temples, Punganur.
…Defendants.
This Appeal is coming on 21-03-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Shivasankar Naidu, Advocate for the
Appellants and Sri S.Bhaskar Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondents 1 and 2; Sri Y.Bhaskar Reddy and Sri Y.Raghunatha Reddy,
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
Advocate for the respondent No.3 and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of 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
Unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the present appeal aggrieved on the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.147 of 2004 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur dt:02-02-2017 against respondents-defendants under Order XLI Rule I CPC praying this court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decree the suit declaring right and title over the suit schedule property and also grant of permanent injunction in their favour and against the respondents with costs.
2.The parties are referred as arrayed in the trial court as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience.
3.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs as per plaint averments filed before the trial court are:
(i).Suit schedule properties originally belongs to one
Aradigunta Nagappa and after his death, his legal heirs continued possession and enjoyment and the owners of the property mortgaged the said properties under three registered mortgage deeds dt:21.12.1992 and it was executed by Pagadi Samappa as General Power of Attorney holder of
Diwakar in favour of second plaintiff and Nagaraju in favour of first plaintiff and inducted the plaintiffs into possession since then they have been in possession and enjoyment and later, on 26.06.1993, the said
M.R.Nagaraju executed a registered sale deed in favour of first plaintiff for item No.1 of suit schedule property as he received consideration at the
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
time of mortgage and on the same day item No.2 of schedule property was also purchased by second plaintiff from the said M.R.Nagaraja under separate sale deed and since the other plaintiffs are brothers they have common interest and after obtaining the said sale deeds plaintiffs become absolute owner of suit schedule properly and they also paid house tax to municipality.
(ii).It is further case of plaintiffs that on 13.12.2000, second defendant got issued a notice claiming rents from the shop rooms proclaiming to take possession of the said shop rooms stating that suit schedule properties are also part of property of Sri Lord
Bogananjudeswara Swamy for which plaintiffs got issued reply notice
dt:20.12.2000 and thereafter, second defendant kept quiet and after lapse
of 3 ½ years, third defendant without considering the reply issued by the plaintiffs on 09.06.2004 demanded plaintiffs to pay the rents for the suit schedule properties by claiming right and title. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and they perfected their right and title over the suit schedule properties and it is not the property of the temple. It is their further case that previously in O.S.No.06 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Judge Court, Madanapalle the original owners also did not claimed title against the defendants and as defendants are now claiming right, title and possession and third defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties, plaintiffs filed the suit at the first instance for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants and later, amended the plaint as per orders in I.A.No.411 of 2010 they prayed for declaration of right and title over the suit schedule properties also and pray the trial court to pass a decree in their favour with costs.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
4. (i).Third defendant filed written statement, and defendants 1 and 2 filed memo adopting the written statement of third defendant before trial court. They totally denied the case of the plaintiffs. They denied the allegation that suit schedule properties belong to Aradigunta Nagaraja and after his death, his legal heirs have succeeded the properties. They contended that they are not aware with regard to mortgage of suit schedule properties by the General Power of
Attorney holders Pagadi Samappa to one Diwakar. They further contended that plaintiffs failed to file the alleged General Power of
Attorney and also failed to explain in what way Samappa and the said
Diwakar are connected to the suit schedule properties.
(ii).Defendants further contended that they are not aware about alleged sale deeds executed by M.R.Nagaraja in favour of plaintiffs and the said person has no such right and he is also not in possession and enjoyment. They contended that plaintiffs have divided long back and living separately and so, cause of action also differ and they are not entitled to file suit jointly. They admitted that they have got issued legal notice dt:09.06.2004 to second plaintiff and to one N.Subramanyam demanding to pay rent to Sri Bogananjudeswara Swamy temple. Inspite of receipt of notice, they did not issue reply and did not pay rents and did not vacated suit schedule properties and the first item is in possession of
Subramanyam as a tenant to the temple and first plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment and second item is in possession of second plaintiff as a tenant to the temple and not as a owner and both the plaintiffs do not derive any right, title and possession basing on the alleged registered sale deeds as they are only nominal documents and they were not acted upon.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
(iii).Defendants further contended that the suit schedule properties and other shop rooms adjoining to it belong to Sri
Bogananjudeswara Swamy temple and in the month of December, 2000 the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Group temple, Punganur was pleased to take possession of schedule properties on 13.12.2000 in
ROC.No.178/2000 as they belong to the temple as per the directions of
Commissioner Endowment, Hyderabad as per the directions of Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad in W.P.No.14327/1998
dt:08.08.2000 and W.P.No.1114/2000 dt:19.10.2000 and as the second
plaintiff failed to pay rent notice was got issued by the third defendant and to vacate the schedule properties. They further contended that since they are denying title of plaintiffs, suit for mere injunction is not maintainable.
They also contended that suit is also not maintainable against the
Endowment Department as per section 151 of Endowments Act and they have to agitate before Endowment Department but not before the civil court and hence, they pray the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. Subsequently, they have also filed additional written statement contending that after filing their written statement on 05.02.2010 plaintiffs got amended the plaint for declaration of right and title due to which, the suit is barred by limitation. They further contended that previously Endowment Department appointed trustee to the temple and as they committed mal practices, third defendant has taken possession of suit schedule properties and other adjoining shop rooms belongs to the temple so the title vest with the Endowment Department and the vendors of plaintiffs do not have any right or title and all the revenue records are also in favour of the temple and so, they pray the court to dismiss the suit.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
5.In view of rival contentions, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial court.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?
3. To what relief ?
6.The trial court at the time of disposing the suit framed additional
Issue as follows:
Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of right and title over the suit schedule property?
7.In the course of trial, before trial court, first plaintiff Vontimitta
Lakshmipathi Gupta examined himself as PW1, beside examining B.Reddy Babu,
T.Nagappa as PWs 2 and 3 respectively. Plaintiffs got marked Exs A1 to A12.
8.Third defendant represented by Executive Officer J.Ekamabaram examined himself as DW 1, beside examining G.Chengala rayudu as DW2 and got marked Exs B1 to B14.
9.After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the trial court dismissed the suit without costs.
10.Aggrieved by the decree and Judgment passed by the trial court, plaintiffs preferred appeal before this court with the following grounds.
(i).The trial court failed to consider the admission of DW1 that originally suit schedule properties belongs to Aradigunta Nagappa which is the case of the plaintiffs and it also failed to consider his further admission that plaintiffs have constructed suit schedule property in the year 1992 and they have been in possession and enjoyment and so perfected their title by adverse possession.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
(ii).The trial court failed to consider the municipal records which disclose the name of the vendors of the plaintiffs but not the names of the defendants and similarly, the name of the vendor of plaintiffs in the municipal taxes and electricity meter.
(iii).The trial court erred that the plaintiffs failed to get mutate their names in the municipal records though they disclose the vendor name of the plaintiffs .
(iv).The trial court erred upon considering Exs B1 to B3 that the suit filed by the second plaintiff was dismissed for the same property and so, he is not in possession but the said suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession but not for declaration of right and title as such the said findings are not binding to the present suit.
(v).The trial court failed to consider Ex A2 which clearly disclose that the General Power of Attorney holder has executed the mortgage deed and so, there is no necessity to file the General Power of Attorney.
(vi).The trial court failed to consider Exs A1 to A4 on proper perespective and observed that they do not contain the recital with regard to acquisition of property by the executors.
(vii).The trial court arrived to the wrong conclusion that the suit schedule properly mentioned in Exs A9 and A10 without considering the admission of DW1.
(viii).The trial court failed to consider admission of DW1 that suit schedule shop room were not handed over by the plaintiffs to the defendants and they also did not pay rents and they were not constructed by the defendants and the documents filed by the defendants do not support their case and they are created for the purpose of their defense.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
(ix).The trial court failed to consider admission of DW2 with regard to possession of suit schedule property by the plaintiffs as such Ex B 13 is proved as false.
(x).The trial court failed to consider the aspect that if the schedule properties belongs to Endowment Department, the Sub Registrar will not register Ex A1 to A4 and pray the court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decree the suit in their favour and against the defendants by declaring their title over the suit schedule properties and also grant permanent injunction in their favour and against the defendants with costs.
11.During pending of the appeal, first plaintiff died on 07.10.2020 leaving behind 5th and 6th plaintiffs who succeeded his estate and they were impleaded as 5th and 6th appellants as per orders in I.A.No.111 of 2021
dt:30.10.2022.
12.Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the entire material record.
13.Now the points for consideration are:
1.Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule properties as prayed for ?
2.Whether plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties and so, they are entitled for grant of permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for? 3Whether civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?
4. Whether suit is barred by limitation?
5.Whether the Judgment and Decree passed in
O.S.No.147 of 2004 by the learned Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Punganur dt:02-02-2017 is in proper perspective or requires interference and appeal is liable to be allowed as prayed for ?
6.To what relief?
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
POINT No.3:
14.I have taken up at first point No.3 and 4 as point No.1 and 2 are depending on the result of point No.3 and 4 .
15.It is the case of the plaintiffs that originally suit schedule properties belongs to Aradigunta family and later, his legal heirs have mortgaged the suit schedule properties to the first plaintiff and his brother by
M.R.Nagaraja and P.Diwakar under Ex A1 and A2 and later they sold the schedule property to the plaintiffs under Ex A3 and A4 and as defendants are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, at first they filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction and later, they amended the plaint seeking relief of declaration of title also.
16.It is the contention of the defendants that plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Bhogananjundeswara Swamy temple and plaintiffs are tenants in the suit schedule property and by creating Exs A1 to A4, A7,A9 to A12 claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants. It is further contention of defendants that as per section 150 of Endowments Act, any dispute between plaintiffs and Endowment Department has to be agitated
before Special Tribunal and Civil court has no jurisdiction.
17.Before considering the rival contentons of either side, it is useful to look into section 151 and 162 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowment Act 1987.
151.Bar of Jurisdiction:
No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matter of dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any court of law except under and in confirmity with the provisions of this Act.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
162. Constitution of Endowment Tribunal:
1. Government may for the purpose of this Act, constitute as many tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or the matter relating to a charitable institution, dharmadaya, religious charity, religious endowments, religious institutions or any institution as defined in the Act and also defined the local limits and jurisdiction o f each of such tribunal.
2. Where any application is made relating to any property of the institution which falls within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of two or more tribunals, such application may be made to the tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the head office or the main institution is located and where any such application is made to the tribunal aforesaid, the other tribunal or tribunals having jurisdiction shall not entertain any application for determination of such dispute, question or other matter.
18.On perusing the Judgment of the trial court, though defendants have specifically pleaded in their pleadings that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per section 151 of Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act 1987, the trial court did not frame specific issue to that effect and both parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence and hence, it can be safely believed that both parties are conscious about fact of lack of jurisdiction and proceeded with the trial. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mohd. Kareemuddin Khan and others Vs. Syed Azam1 and in
Prathyusha Exports Private Limited Vs. Manoj Tadepalle2 held that though a specific issue is not framed and when both parties having knowledge about the said disputed fact and proceeded with the trial, the court is empowered to adjudicate the said disputed fact even in the absence of framing specific issue. Hence, this court is proceeding further on the said aspect of lack of jurisdiction.
1MANU/AP/0396/1996 22015 (4) ALT 553
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
19.The Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.Anjana
Reddy and others Vs. Palvoi Rangareddy and others3 upon relying the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in Dhulabhai and other Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh4, premier automobiles limited Vs. Kamlekar Shantaram
Wadke of Bombay5 , V.R.Reddy Vs. K.S.Reddy6 in which ouster of civil court jurisdiction was dealt and after the amendment of Act 1987 special tribunals were constituted under section 161 of Act No.33 of 2007 introduced a new provision similar to the provision of wakfs Act No.43 of 1995. In the above Judgement the Honorable High court relied on
Judgment of Jampani Trilokeswari Vs. Dharmadhoyatopu represented by its fit person7 where it was held that civil court has no jurisdcition and
Endowment Tribunal is having exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of section 151 and 162 of the Act. In the above Judgement the Hon’ble High court also referred various Judgements of Hon’ble Apex court and held that tribunals as per legal fiction be deemed as civil courts and also got jurisdiction to go into and decide any title dispute even and can decide with all attributes of a civil litigation, no doubt subject to disclosure of jurisdictional facts. Once such is the case any dispute including title dispute when the tribunal can decide, civil courts jurisdiction is ousted and for that matter including of any other tribunal including the tribunals under Inams Abolition Act.
20.Admittedly, defendants 1 to 3 arrayed by the plaintiffs are represented by Endowment Department. The relief c;laimed by the plaintiffs is declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction 3 2017 (3) ALD 260 4 AIR 1969 SC 78 5 AIR 1975 SC 2238 6 AIR 1967 SC 436 7 2012 (2) ALT 294
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
against the defendants. Though the trial court did not consider civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since both parties proceeded with the trial having knowledge about the said aspect, being the first appellate court is having bounden duty to consider all the disputed facts and appreciate the entire material on record, this court upon relying the above
Judgment finds that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit including dispute of declaration of title over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered.
Point No.4:
21.As per the case of plaintiffs Ex A5 notice dt:13.12.2000 was got issued by second defendant for which Ex A6 reply notice dt:20-12- 2000 was issued by first plaintiff to second defendant. In Ex A5 legal notice second defendant has categorically claimed that the suit schedule property belong to Sri Bogananjudeswara Swamy temple and in Ex A6 the first plaintiff claimed title over the suit schedule property under Ex A1 and A2. Upon considering Ex A5 and A6, it can be safely believed that by the date of Ex A5, the defendants are denying the title of plaintiffs and they claim that plaintiffs are tenants in suit schedule proeprty. On perusing the plaint, it was filed on 18.06.2004 i.e. beyond three years.
Plaintiffs got amended the plaint for the relief of declaration only as per orders in I.A.No.411 of 2010 dt:27.06.2014 before the trial court. Even assuming for the sake of moment, the steps taken by the plaintiffs are to be considered from the date of filing of I.A.No.411 of 2010 the date of taking steps by the plaintiffs is only from 03.03.2010. When the plaintiffs have got knowledge about the defendants are denying their title over the suit schedule property under Ex A5 itself in the yar 2000. The Hon’ble
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
Apex Court after referring various Judgments in L.C.Hanumanthappa
Vs. H.B.Shivakumar case8 held that the starting point for limitatiton in a suit for declaration as per Article 58 of Limitation Act 1963 is from the date of denial of title by the defendant. Since, defendants have denied the title of plaintiffs under Ex A5 and the suit is filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2004 and plaintiffs got amended the suit only in the year 2010, this court upon relying the above Judgment finds that the suit is barred by limitation.
22.The another fact which also to be considered is the second plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.40 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Punganur for recovery of arrears of rent from 01.12.2000 to 31.12.2001
against Ontimitta Ramprasad and L.Mohan Reddy, person in-charge group of temples Venkataramanaswamy temple street, Punganur who is third defendant herein, under Ex B1 was dismissed for the item No.1 of present suit schedule property for which he did not prefer any appeal against the said Judgment. On perusing Ex B2 the said suit was filed by the second plaintiff on 19.2.2002. It also establish that second plaintiff has ample knowledge that defendants are denying their title over item No.1 of present suit schedule property. It is pertinent to observe that second plaintiff did not enter into witness box to substantiate his title over item No.1 of suit schedule property. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in Swar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr.9
While considering the concept of a party not entering into witness box to substantiate his case or defense held “Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross-examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act.” In the case on hand also as 8 (2016) 1 SCC 332 = MANU/SC/0922/2015 9 AIR 1999 SC 1341
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
second plaintiff did not choose to enter into witness box defendants lost opportunity to cross examine him on the aspect of Ex B1 and B2, upon relying the above Judgment an adverse inference shall be drawn against plaintiffs.
Since, the suit is filed by the second plaintiff in the year 2002 itself and as plaintiffs taken steps for amendment for declaration of title only in the year 2010, this court finds that the suit is barred by limitation as per Article 58 of
Limitation Act as the plaintiffs sought only the relief of declaration of title but, not recovery of possession. Accordingly, point No.4 is answered.
Point Nos.1 and 2:
23.I have taken up pint No.1 and 2 in order to avoid repetition of appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties.
24.To substantiate the title and possession over the suit schedule properties plaintiffs relied on oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with Exs A1 to
A12.
25.It is pertinent to observe that though in the pleading plaintiffs claim that the suit schedule properties originally belongs to Aradigunta
Nagappa, in the entire pleading as well as oral evidence adduced by plaintiffs, they failed to explain how Pagadi Diwakar and M.R.Nagaraja related to said
Aradigunta Nagappa. Since defendants are denying the title over the suit schedule properly and claiming exclusive title by them, burden is heavy on the plaintiffs, to establish their vendors title. On perusing Ex A1 to A4, they do not disclose how the mortgagors and vendors got title over the plaint schedule properties. It is well settled law house tax receipts, electricity bills do not establish the title and hence, Ex A7, A11 and A12 are no way helpful to prove the case of the plaintiffs.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
26.It is also well settled law plaintiffs have to prove their own case and they cannot depend on the weakens of the defendants in view of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex court in Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi
Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others10. In the case on hand also, plaintiffs are heavily depending upon stray admissions of DW1. On perusing the oral evidence of DW1, he has categorically deposed that the subject matter of suit schedule shops were existing even prior to taking his charge as Executive
Officer in the year 2007 and they were constructed by Endowment Department in the year 1994 and 1995. Though he admitted that originally Sri
Bogananjudeswara Swamy temple was constructed by Aradigunta family and they are working as archakas in the said temple, the said admission is no way helpful to prove the case of the plaintiffs. Since plaintiffs failed to establish the relationship between M.R.Nagaraju and Pagidi Diwakar with that of Aradigunta family and also failed to explain the source of title of plaintiff’s vendor, it is not safe to rely the case of plaintiffs as truthful. The trial court has meticulously dealt with Exs A1 to A4 and disbelieve the case of plaintiffs and this court concur with the finding of trial court on the said aspect.
27.Plaintiffs relied on Ex A10 certified copy of Lok Adalath Award
dt:23.4.2005 to establish their case. On perusing Ex A10 Lok Adalath Award it
consists of only one schedule situate in S.No.115-13 paimashi No.57 bearing
Door No.27/36-1 to 7 and in the Lok Adalath Award the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 5th defendant therein have entered into compromise that their progeny can administer and maintain the Mandir i.e. Bogananjudeswara swamy situate at
Punganur, Chittoor District. In the said suit i.e. O.S.No.6 of 2001 i.e. defendants 1 to 4 represent the Endowment Department, and the suit is filed by Virupakakshi
Malleswaramma and Pagidi Diwakar for declaration of right, title and possession of plaint schedule property, on considering the Ex A10 it can be safely held that 10 2014 (2) ALD 157
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
the said Padigi Diwakar and Malleswaramma did not insist to claim title over the suit schedule property. Another aspect which is to be consider is if really Ex A3 and A4 were executed by the vendors of plaintiffs in the year 1993 itself in favour of first and second plaintiff, a strong doubt raise in the mind of this court why Pagidi Diwakar filed O.S.No.6 of 2001 i.e. eight years after execution of Ex
A3 and A4 was not properly explained by the plaintiffs and hence, Ex A10 is no way helpful to prove the case of the plaintiffs.
28.Evidence of PW1 that he do not know the survey number for which he purchased and obtained mortgage deeds also establish that Exs A1 to A4 are nominal documents. His further evidence that he did not file General Power of
Attorney executed by Samappa in favour of Diwakar also creates doubt with regard to validity of Exs A3 and A4. When plaintiffs failed to establish source of title of their vendors, Exs A3 and A4 do not convey title to the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. In view of the admission of PW1 that second plaintiff and himself were residing separately even by the date of filing of the suit shall also establish that both the plaintiffs 1 and 2 do not have common interest over the suit schedule properties much particular when second plaintiff did not enter into witness box.
29.Though DW1 admitted that they have handed over the shop rooms facing towards South and East to the temple old compound wall as per the orders in W.P.No.114/2000 dt:19.10.2010 cannot be considered to believe the case of plaintiffs as PW1 testify that he is ignorant about passing of the order by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.14327/1998 directing the Endowment Department to take possession of suit schedule property and other shop rooms as the trustees of temple were misappropriating the funds of the temple and in pursuance of the said orders, a panchanama was prepared in
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
ROC.No.178/2000 dt:13.12.2000 under Ex B13 and B14 shall be considered as a strong circumstance to disbelieve his oral testimony as truthful.
30.PW2 testify that he was also one of the tenant of shops belongs to the defendants to the North of suit schedule shop. He further admitted that defendant got issued a legal notice to him. Though he deposed that plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Pagidi Diwarkar, his evidence that he do not know the sale transaction and how Pagidi Diwakar acquired the same shall be considered that he is ignorant about facts of the case and hence, his evidence is no way helpful to strengthen the case of plaintiffs.
31.PW3 testify that he do not know in which survey number temple as well as shops situate. He also deposed on the same lines of PW2 that he do not know how Pagidi Diwakar acquired the schedule property. In such circumstance, his evidence is also no way helpful to strengthen the case of plaintiffs.
32.It is well settled law marking of documents is differ from proof of document. Though plaintiffs have got marked Exs A1 and A2 registered mortgage deeds, for the best reasons known to them they did not choose to examine attestors or scribes by complying section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and hence, Exs A1 and A2 are no way helpful to prove that the vendors of plaintiffs have got title over the suit schedule property.
33.To substantiate the case of defendants, they relied on oral evidence of DW1 coupled with Exs B1 to B14. Ex B5 certified copy of 10(i) Account, Ex B6 certified copy of settlement fair adangal, Ex B8 to B12 certified copies of receipts issued by defendant Department to the tenants categorically establish that the suit schedule property belongs to Sri Bogananjudeswaraswamy temple represented by Endowment Department and plaintiffs have nothing to do with the said property.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
34.Admission of DW2 that plaintiffs 1 and 2 got constructed suit schedule shop rooms to the North side of temple compound wall cannot be considered to disbelieve the case of defendants as plaintiffs have not pleaded that they have constructed the suit schedule shop rooms .
35.Though plaintiffs claim title by way of adverse possession, as they failed to establish that the date of origin when they are in possession of suit schedule property with the knowledge of defendants and as they are also claiming independent title through their vendors this court finds that plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the title by way of adverse possession.
36.In view of the aforementioned discussion this court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit schedule property and so, they are not entitled for the consequential relief for grant of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property against the defendants . Accordingly, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered. Against plaintiffs.
Point No.5:
37.The trial court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties and disbelieved the case of plaintiffs denying title over the suit schedule property and so this court do not find any strong circumstance to interfere with the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.147 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur
dt:2.2.2017 and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point
No.5 is answered.
Point No.6:
38.In view of answering point Nos. 1 to 5 against the plaintiffs, this court finds the appeal is liable to be dismissed without costs.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
39.In the result, appeal is dismissed without costs confirming the
Judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.147 of 2004 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur dt:02-02-2017.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 1st day of April, 2024.
Sd/-K.Vasudeva Rao
Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Punganur.
Appendix of Evidence NIL.
Sd/-K.V.D.R.
Civil Judge(Sr.D)
Punganur.
Judgment in A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024
Fair Judgment in
A.S.No.11 of 2017
Dt:01-04-2024