Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012)
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: JAGTIAL
Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,
Senior Civil Judge,
Jagtial
Tuesday the 05th day of May, 2026.
O.S.No. 138 of 2024
(Old O.S.No. 171 of 20 12 )
Between:
Dindu Santhosh Kumar S/o Somaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Myadampally village of Mallial Mandal.
… Plaintiff
And
Alishetti Gopi Krishna S/o Maharaj, Age: 45 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o.H.No.2-2-9, Weekly Bazaar, Jagtial proper and Mandal.
… Defendant
CLAIM: PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
Plaint Filed U/Sec.26 r/w Order IV &VII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Date of presentation of plaint: 09.08.2012
Date of registration of plaint: 09.08.2012
This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.R. Rajesh, Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri.M. Pratap, Counsel for the Defendant and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: (This suit was originally numbered as O.S. No.171 of 2012 on the file of Prl.
Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial and was subsequently transferred to this court
and renumbered as O.S. No.138 of 2024.) 1 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012)
::J U D G M E N T::
1.The Plaintiff filed this suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant with respect to land to an extent of Ac:00-03 ½ gts in Sy.No.427/D situated at
Mothe shivar, Jagtial Municipality limits and bounded on:
Boundary Description of boundary
EastRoad
WestHouse of M. Prakash
NorthRoad
SouthLand of S. Anand
Hereinafter ‘Suit Property’
2.Case of the Plaintiff:(i) That the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and possessor of the suit property having purchased the same by plaintiff and two other persons from its original owner one Kasturi Laxmi Staya Bai through registered sale deed vide doc.No.1873 of 2003/Ex.A1 for valid consideration and the possession was delivered on the same day. The name of the plaintiff was also recorded in revenue records.
(ii)That the defendant have no right, claim, title or interest over the suit property, but are unnecessarily interfering into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. That the plaintiff has requested the defendant not to cause any interference in his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property 2 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) but the defendant did not heed to the request of the plaintiff. Further on 01.08.2012 the defendant illegally tried to occupy the part of suit property which the plaintiff resisted.
(iii)That the defendant despite the efforts of the plaintiff is continuing his illegal interference into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and hence anticipating further threat from the defendant the plaintiff approached this court for the relief of perpetual injunction and prayed to decree the suit with costs.
3.Case of the Defendant: (i) The defendant filed his written statement along with sketch map as shown below.
3 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012)
(ii)The defendant denied the contents of the plaint and setup his defense by contending that the father of this defendant by name Alishetti Maha Raj purchased Ac.00-03 gts in Sy.No.428, which was subsequently reassigned as
Sy.No/428/A of Mothe Revenue Shivar through simple sale deed Dt: 15-03- 1965 for sale consideration of Rs.85/- and possession was delivered. That the western side open place as shown in the map in blue colour is a narrow stretch and is not useful for anyone and hence his father requested the same vendor/Madhu Anasuya to sell the same and she agreed and also permitted the father of the defendant to get permission for construction of compound wall and tin shed including the 176 Sq.yards, totaling to Ac.00-04 gts & 55 Sq yards and accordingly he got obtained permission from Jagtial municipality for construction of compound wall and slab vide proceeding no.225/74 Dt: 22-10- 1974 by paying Rs.17/- under receipt no.99581 Dt: 22-10-1974 and the compound wall and thatched hut was constructed in the said land.
(iii)That subsequently some differences arose between his father and the vendor/Madhu Anasuya with regard to 176 Sq.yards and the father of the defendant filed OS No.132 of 1978 on the file of District Munsiff, Jagtial seeking relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction for three guntas of land existing within the boundaries and map shown in the said suit and obtained consent decree on 21-07-1978 and the land covered under the decree is shown 4 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) in yellow colour annexed to the written statement herein. That the father of the defendant basing on the decree in OS No.132 of 1978, has applied for mutation and the MRO, Jagtial after due enquiry has issued mutation proceedings in file no..B/1300/2003 Dt: 15-12-2003 by recording the name of father of the defendant as owner, pattedar & possessor of Ac.00-03 gts of land in
Sy.No.428/A.
(iv)That the father of the defendant has executed registered gift deed in favour of the defendant vide doct.no.1443 of 2004 Dt: 27-05-2004 for an extent of 239.40 Sq.yards in Sy.No.428/A as per the map enclosed in the said gift deed and this defendant has accepted the gift, the said land is shown in between points ABCD in the map annexed and the revenue officials have after inquiry issued proceedings in the name of Defendant vide proceeding no.B/914/2006
Dt: 09-01-2007 and his name is recorded as owner, pattedar and possessor of
the land to an extent of 239.40 Sq.yards in Sy.No.428/A and the remaining land of 123.60 Sq.yards is shown in the name of the father of this defendant in the revenue records.
(v)That the father of the defendant died on 02-10-2006 and at the request of this defendant and his family members the original owner Madhu Anasuya executed a registered sale deed no.4368 of 2012 Dt: 24-08-2012 in favour of this defendant for an extent of 176.00 Sq.Yards stating that the possession was 5 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) already delivered in 1978 after receiving Rs.1500/- from the father of this defendant and thereby the defendant and his father together became owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.00-04 gts & 55 Sq.yds along with shed in the said land.
(vi)That the suit land shown within the boundaries mentioned exist in
Sy.No.428/A and not in Sy.No.427 and the suit survey number infact is situated adjacent to Sy.No.428. That the alleged vendor of the plaintiff is not the owner of any piece of land in Sy.No.427/D and the sale deed no.1873 of 2003 and the map annexed to it are wrong and that no land to an extent of Ac.00-03 ½ gts exist in Sy.No.427/D.That in the year 2003, one Muduganti Gopal Reddy worked as V.R.O. of Mothe Revenue village and he in collusion with the plaintiff and his father by name Dindu Somaiah tampered the revenue records in respect of patta land of one Kasturi Raja Narsaiah and wrongly tampered his name as Kasturi Narsimulu in this regard Kasturi Raja Narsaiah lodged a report
before the S.H.O. Jagtial P.S. then police registered the case against the
Muduganti Gopal Reddy and also Revenue officials removed the said
Muduganti Gopal Reddy from service after due enquiry. That mere execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff does not confer title unless it is shown that the vendor is competent to execute the said sale deed and further stated that if a 6 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) competent surveyor is appointed to demarcate the boundaries then the true facts would come out.
(vii)That the defendant obtained electricity connection vide no.25111 and has been paying the electricity bills regularly and has given the said suit land on rent to one Nagula Bhaskar and Samalla Gangadhar who are running toddy shop and cycle taxi respectively till today in the said premises and that there are no merits in the suit filed by the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.After perusing the rival contentions, the below issues were framed for trial:
(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction?
(2) To what Relief?
5.Plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A8 are marked through
PW.1, and PW.3 was examined as independent witness and the chief of PW.2,
PW.4 to 6 were eschewed. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to
B15 are marked through DW.1 and independent witnesses were examined as
DW.2 to DW.4 and the chief of DW.5 was eschewed, and advocate commissioner was examined as court witness i.e., CW.1 and Ex.C.1 is marked.
Arguments:
6.Heard both sides and perused the record.
7 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012)
Discussion on Issue no.1:
7.It is settled law that in a suit filed for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff coming to court by asserting facts mentioned in the plaint have to prove his possession as on the date of the filing of the suit over the suit property within the boundaries mentioned and that such possession is lawful.
8. The plaintiff filed his chief affidavit as PW.1 in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint. In cross examination it was clearly elicited that this witness has not filed any documents to show that her vendor was owner of the land in suit survey number/427/D and he admitted that he is no way concerned with the land in Sy.No.428/A. The PW.1 further admitted that the the total land available on the spot is Ac.00-04 gts & 55 Sq.yards including the suit land and the boundaries to the total Ac.00-04 fts & 55 Sq.yards shown in the sketch map shown in written statement are correct.
9.From the above admissions of the plaintiff, what has clearly come on record is that the boundaries as shown in the written statement for Ac.00-04 Gts & 55 Sq.yards including the suit property is true and on perusal of the boundaries mentioned in the plaint and in the written statement the plaintiff has shown a different boundary towards south side and when he admitted that the boundaries shown in the written statement are true, then he ought to have explained why the southern side boundary is shown wrongly in the plaint.
8 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012)
10.In further cross examination this witness has also admitted that there is a toddy shop to the south western corner of the Ac.00-04 gts & 55 sq.yards as shown in the written statement sketch map and the defendant has given the thatched hut on rent to one Nagula Bhaskar & Samala Gangadhar for running toddy shop and the same is being run for the past six or seven year and is still existing. Now, the present suit is filed in the year 2012 and the plaintiff was cross examined in the year 2014 and six years prior to the time of deposing the evidence is somewhere around the year 2008 and when the plaintiff admitted that the said shop was given on rent by the defendant he is admitting the possession of the defendant to the southern side of the boundaries of the suit land and why he has not shown the name of the plaintiff towards the south despite having the knowledge is not stated and this shows that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and by disclosing all facts and the boundaries mentioned in the plaint are incorrect.
11.This witness/PW.1 in further cross examination has also admitted that in the plaint he stated that he along with two others purchased the suit property and stated he has not filed any document to show the same and that the other two persons have transferred their share to this plaintiff. He further stated that he raised compound wall upto 1 feet height within the suit land and at that time the defendant interfered and threatened him to kill and only then the plaintiff filed 9 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) the suit but on perusal of the plaint averments there is no mention of the plaintiff raising any wall and the defendant interfered at the time of construction of the compound wall, and denied suggestion that the suit property is in
Sy.No.428/A and not in Sy.No.427/D.
12.The PW.3 who deposed on behalf of the plaintiff in his chief affidavit stated that he is residing near the suit property for the past ten years and hence he knows all the facts and stated that the suit property is in Sy.No.427/D and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff constructed the compound wall around the suit property during the pendency of the suit and fixed gates. Now this piece of evidence in the chief examination of this witness goes entirely against the case of the plaintiff as the plaintiff during his cross examination has time and again stated that he constructed the compound wall of one feet height around the suit property and when the defendant interfered he filed the suit and this stand of the plaintiff in his cross examination fell flat as the chief evidence of PW.3 went against the contents of cross examination of
PW.1 and this again shows that the Plaintiff in order to cover the lacunae is trying to bring the evidence on record without there being any plea.
13.In cross examination this witness/PW.3 stated that he does not have any house or vacant land near the suit property and that he does not know of any existing compound wall around the suit property or toddy shop towards 10 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) southern side and he observed the suit property in the year 2003 at the time of giving earnest money and he admitted that he did not visit the suit property after 2003. The chief affidavit of this witness no where contains any statement that the facts mentioned therein are told to him by plaintiff and third parties and he filed the chief as if he has first hand information of all the facts stated in the chief and from the cross examination it is proved otherwise and in such circumstances the contents of the chief affidavit about he knowing the suit property as he is residing near the same and that the plaintiff constructed the compound wall during the pendency of the trial can safely held to be false.
14. The defendant was examined as DW.1 reiterating the contents of his written statement. The counsel for the plaintiff during the cross-examination of this witness has suggested that originally one Kasturi Raja Narsaiah @
Narsimham was the original owner of the suit land in Sy.No.427/D and that after his death his wife’s name was mutated in revenue records. This particular suggestion given has no basis as there is no averments to that extent either in the plaint or in the evidence of PW.1 be that as it may, the defendant denied this suggestion and during the further cross-examination the counsel for the plaintiff suggested that the father of the defendant got the decree under Ex.B7 in the year 1978 but his name got mutated in revenue records only in the year 2003 and this witness admitted and denied the suggestion that his father influenced the 11 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) revenue authorities and got his name mutated. The plaintiff suggested that he constructed compound wall around suit land during the pendency of the suit which the DW.1 denied, but this suggestion is in complete contradiction to facts stated by plaintiff during his cross-examination as PW.1 stated that when he constructed the wall then the defendant interfered due to which he filed the present suit. The evidence of DW.1 is consistent and the plaintiff could not, through the cross-examination of DW.1, prove that the suit property is in
Sy.No.427 and also the ownership of the vendor of the plaintiff is not proved neither through any documents nor through the cross-examination of DW.1.
15. The defendant got examined Nagula Bhaskar as DW.2 to whom it is contended that part of suit land is let out for running of Toddy shop. The DW.2 in his evidence as in his chief evidence spoken that he entered the premises as tenant in the year 2007 and at that time there was a cycle taxi by the side of the
Toddy shop towards the northern side and suit land in Sy.No.428/A and defendant herein has constructed the compound wall in the year 2012 on all three sides and erected Iron gates and there is also electricity connection obtained to run the Toddy shop and electricity bills are being paid regularly.
16. The defendant to support this aspect has got marked the electricity demand bills and payment receipts marked as Ex.B12. Which are in the name of defendant and his father. In cross-examination the counsel for the plaintiff 12 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) suggested that the shop is setup in the private land with the consent of its owner, but has not pursued the cross-examination, as who the owner is, however the
PW.1 in his cross-examination himself stated that the defendant has leased the land within Ac:00-04 gts and 55 sq. yds for the purpose of running Toddy shop and in the entire cross-examination of this witness there is no specific denial that the DW.2 has not entered into the premises as tenant in the year 2007. This witness was suggested that towards the eastern side of suit property there is house of Gumpa Kailasam after the road and adjacent to his house there is
Veerabathini Rayalingu thereafter there is an Oil mill which DW.2 admitted.
The counsel for the plaintiff basing on these suggestions and admissions contended that the suit property is clearly identified.
17. This court does not find force in the arguments, as the contention right from the beginning is that the suit property is in Sy.No.428/A and not in
Sy.No.427/D and the entire issue between the parties is with regard to the survey number and the ownership of the said survey number. Now the suit land is identifiable with the boundaries and both parties have stated the same boundaries on three sides and the plaintiff on the southern side have shown the different boundary. However, this identification of the land in itself does not prove that the suit property is in Sy.No.427/D.
13 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012)
18.The DW.3 another independent witness who supported the case of the defendant too stated the boundaries of the suit property as contended by the defendant and this witness in cross-examination has stated that his father purchased the house plot from the same vendor of the father of the defendant and the distance between his house and the house of the defendant is 1,000 yds and there are 60 to 70 houses in between them and though it is elicited in his cross-examination that he does not have any land or house adjacent to the suit land but the suggestion given to him that there is no Toddy shop run by the
DW.2 was denied and he supplemented by stating that the Toddy shop is being run even today in the suit property.
19. The DW.4 who is one of the attestor to the gift deed No.1443 of 2004/Ex.B9, has stated that the said land is in Sy.No.428/A and is in possession of the defendant and this witness during the cross-examination denied the suggestions that the suit property is in Sy.No.427/D and stated that the suit land and the house of defendant are in the different places and his house is at a distance of half kilometer from the suit property and he even went on to state that towards western side of the suit land one Mahakali Prakash is having his house and the counsel for the plaintiff has not even denied his suggestion as the plaintiff himself in the plaint as shown the eastern boundary of the suit property 14 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) as house of M. Prakash and this witness evidence also shows that the suit property is in Sy.No.428.
20. The defendant filed an application for appointment of Advocate
Commissioner to ascertain whether the suit property is in Sy.No.427/D or in
Sy.No.428/A and this court has allowed the said petition and appointed Sri
Chandra Mohan as Advocate Commissioner and he has carried out commission and filed the report into the court along with the report of the Mandal Surveyor and location sketch map of Sy.No.427, 428 and the suit property. The Advocate
Commissioner report was marked as Ex.C1 and both counsels for plaintiff and defendant who were present have reported no cross-examination and subsequently the counsel for the plaintiff filed re-open and re-call of the
Advocate Commissioner which was dismissed by this court and same was carried in revision to Hon’ble High Court and the same was dismissed by
Hon’ble High Court on 10.11.2025 and in view of the order of the Hon’ble High
court the report of Advocate Commissioner marked as Ex.C1 is part of record.
21. Now on perusal of the Ex.C1 the Advocate Commissioner has duly carried out the commission by issuing notices and answering work memos to the extent he is authorized to carry the commission and after the entire commission was carried out the counsel for the defendant filed objections by stating that Mandal Surveyor is not regular surveyor and the commissioner in 15 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) the said report has categorically contended that Mandal Surveyor Sri Raju is deputed by Tahasildar, Jagtial. Now on perusal of the report of the Advocate
Commissioner the Sy.No.427 & 428 were demarcated through Mandal
Surveyor by identifying the boundary stones and the Mandal Surveyor has issued Two location sketch maps clearly demarcating and identifying the
Sy.No.428 and that the suit property is in Sy.No.428. On perusal of the sketch maps prepared by the Mandal Surveyor the boundaries existing on the field are as stated in the written statement and plaintiff though mentioned three boundaries matching with that of the report of the Mandal Surveyor but the southern side boundary is shown wrongly in the plaint and the counsel for the plaintiff has not explained this even during the arguments. Now with the Ex.C1 i.e., the report of the Advocate Commissioner along with the location sketch prepared by Mandal Surveyor this court holds that the suit land shown is in
Sy.No.428 and not in Sy.No.427.
22. It is no doubt a settled preposition of law that when it comes to the identification of the immovable property, the boundaries would prevail over the extent and survey number. However in the present case the defendant has raised two specific issues that firstly the vendor of the plaintiff does not have any land in the suit survey number and that Smt. Madhu Anasuya is the original owner of the sell property and by raising this as disputed the very title of the plaintiff 16 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) through which the plaintiff alleged to have become owner this at the cost of reputation states that the plaintiff failed to file a single peace of document showing the ownership of his vendor over the suit property and that she has right to sale the property and the plaintiff derived valid rights from the execution of the sale.The issue of title is strongly raised by the defendant right from the beginning and in support of his contention that the title to the suit property initially vested in his father has relied on the Judgment & Decree passed in OS No.132 of 1978 on the file of district munsiff and got them marked as Ex.B6 & Ex.B7 respectively. On perusal of the Ex.B4 to B7, Ex.B4 is the plaint and Ex.B5 is the written statement filed by the vendor of the father of the defendant admitting suit claim and Ex.B6 is the judgment declaring title and possession of the defendant over the land to an extent Ac:00-03 gts in
Sy.No.428 and Ex.B7 is the decree along with rough sketch. The counsel for the defendant contended that this judgment is still in force and the title vested in the father of the defendant by virtue of Ex.B6 & Ex.B7.
23.Now it is to be seen whether the Ex.B6 & B7 which are judgment and decree, declaring the title are binding on the plaintiff or not, and this court gainfully refers the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Booz Allen &
Hamilton Inc. Vs SBI Home Finance Ltd. - (2011) 5 SCC 532, on the binding nature of decree, wherein at para 37 Honble SC held thus:
17 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) “...A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large, as contrasted from right in personam which is an interest protected solely against specific individuals. Actions in personam refers to actions determining the rights and interests of the parties themselves in the subject matter of the case, whereas the actions in rem refer to actions determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves but also against all persons at any time claiming an interest in that property. Correspondingly, a judgment in personam refers to a judgment against a person as distinguished from a judgment against a thing, right or status...”
24.From the above dicta of the hon’ble supreme court it is clear that the action of the court determining the title to property is an action in rem, binding all the persons claiming interest in the property at anytime and in the present suit since it has come on record that the property being claimed by the plaintiff though by stating a different survey number, the title was already vested in the father of the defendant by virtue of the Judgment and decree under Ex.B6 &
Ex.B7 and the same is binding on them and the plaintiff without seeking to set aside the judgment & decree cannot seek any relief for the same property claiming title throug his vendor.
25. The counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment of Anathula
Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) - 4 SCC 594 and contended that since the title itself has in issue the plaintiff could not file mere suit for injunction and this court finds force in the arguments of the counsel for the defendant, since the defendant has been disputing the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff atleast after filing of the written statement should have sought the relief of declaration of the title. Further as observed above ought to have sought the relief of cancellation of judgment & decree marked as Ex.B6 & Ex.B7 but for the reason best known 18 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) to plaintiff, has not choosen to do the same and this court has firmly believes that the suit filed for Perpetual Injunction is not maintainable in view of the title dispute and hence from the entire foregoing discussion this court feels that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint and also failed to prove his case that the suit property exist in
Sy.No.427 and further since the title through Ex.B6 & Ex.B7 was also vested in the father of the defendant have not sought an appropriate relief of cancellation of decree and also have not sought the relief of Declaration of title and in circumstances the suit of the plaintiff must fail and the issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Answer to the Issue No.1 – Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction?- No.
Answer to Issue No. 2
26.In view of the findings of this court of Issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction.
27.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff be and is here by dismissed with costs. Pending I.A.s are closed.
Typed to my dictation by personal assistant and corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 05 th day of May, 2026. .
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
JAGTIAL
19 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
PW.1: Dindu Santhosh KumarDW.1: Alishetti Gopi Krishna PW.2: Kokkula Anand (Eschewed)DW.2: Nagula Bhaskar PW.3: Thanneeru Bal RajuDW.3: Simharaj Chandra Shekar PW.4: Donakanti Shankar (Eschewed)DW.4: Macha Srinivas PW.5: Kasthuri Laxma Reddy (Eschewed) DW.5: B. Laxmi Narayana (Eschewed) PW.6: Naluvala Srinivas (Eschewed)---
COURT WITNESS
CW.1: K. Chandra Mohan
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered saleEx.B1: Municipal permission in deed vide doc. No.1873/2003,proceedings No.225/1974, dt.22.10.1974. dt.02.07.2003.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for theEx.B2: Approved permission plan. year 2007-08.
Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for theEx.B3: Permission fee receipt No.99581, year 2007-08.dt.22.10.1974.
Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for theEx.B4: C.C. of plaint in O.S. No.132 of year 2005-04.1978.
Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for theEx.B5: C.C. of W.S. in O.S. No.132 of year 2009-10.1978.
Ex.A6: Certified copy of pahani for theEx.B6: C.C. of judgment in O.S. No.132 of year 2009-10.1978, dt.21.07.1978.
Ex.A7: Certified copy of pahani for theEx.B7: C.C. of decree in O.S.No.132 of year 2006-07.1978, dt.21.07.1978.
Ex.A8: Certified copy of pahani for theEx.B8: Mutation proceedings in file year 2011-12.B/1300/2003, dt.15.12.2003.
---Ex.B9: Original gift settlement deed No.1443/2004, dt.27.05.2004.
---Ex.B10:Mutationproceedings No.B/914/2006, dt.09.01.2007.
20 of 21
Fair O.S. No.138/2024 (Old O.S. No.171/2012) ---Ex.B11: Original regd. sale deed No.4368/2012, dt.24.08.2012.
---Ex.B12: Electricity demand bills (05) and payment receipts (03).
---Ex.B13: Digital photos with C.D.
---Ex.B14: Acknowledgment, dt.21.09.2012.
---Ex.B15: C.C. of pahani for the year 2011-12.
COURT WITNESS
Ex.C1: Commissioner Report, dt.10.03.2021.
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
JAGTIAL
21 of 21