1 OS.No.31 of 2009
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: AT NALGONDA
Present: - Ms. D.Keerthi Chandrika Reddy,
Prl. JCJ cum JFCM, Nalgonda. FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
Dated this, the 24th day of April 2023
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 31 of 2009
Between: -
1.Vootukuri Jaipal Reddy S/o Late Malla Reddy, Aged: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture.
2.Vootukuri Narayana Reddy S/o Late Malla Reddy, Aged: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture.
3.Vootukuri Narsi Reddy S/o Late Malla Reddy, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
4.Vootukuri Krishna Reddy S/o Late Malla Reddy, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture.
All are R/o Girkabavigudem H/0 Marrigudem village of Nalgonda Mandal and District
... Plaintiffs
And
1.Bojja Bixmaiah S/o Siddaiah, Aged: 35 years,
2.Bojja Venkanna S/o Maraiah, Aged: 40 years,
3.Bojja Muthaiah S/o Kistaiah, Aged: 60 years,
4.Bojja Bixamaiah S/o Muthaiah, Aged: 40 years,
5.Bojja Maraiah S/o Ramaiah, Aged: 58 years,
6.Bojja Yadaiah S/o Gopaiah,Aged: 45 years,
7.Bojja Yadaiah S/o Muthaiah, Aged: 35 years,
8.Bojja Yellaiah S/o Papaiah, Aged: 45 years,
9.Bojja Janaiah S/0 Papaiah, Aged: 40 years,
10.Bojja Iddaiah S/o Papaiah, Aged: 55 years,
11.Bojja Kistaiah S/o Muthaiah, Aged: 42 years, 2
12.Bojja Linga Swamy S/o Yellaiah, Aged: 35 years,
13.Bojja Mallaiah S/ Kistaiah, Aged: 50 years,
All are agriculturists and R/o Marrigudem village of Nalgonda
Mandal and District.
14. Borra Sudhakar S/o Kistaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ:
Agriculture R/o Nalgonda town and District.
... Defendants
This suit is coming on for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.
Narsimha Reddy, learned advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.M.
Narayana Rao counsel for the D1 to D14 and upon hearing counsel, on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff for relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Agriculture lands situated at Nalgonda Village and Mandal (herein after called as “Suit schedule property”).
The averments of plaint briefly as follows:
2. The plaintiffs are own brothers being sons of Late Vootukuri Malla
Reddy and Late Anasuyamma. The plaintiffs submit that originally the landin Sy.No.813 is to an extent of Ac. 8-07 guntas and out of which Ac.
0-28 guntas is the foot karab and the remaining Ac. 7-19 guntas of land is cultivable land situated at Nalgonda Revenue village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District. As per the entries in the Faisal patti for the year 1969- 70, the joint family of Thummala Ram Reddy and his brothers had originally owned and possessed an extent of Ac. 8-07 guntas in Sy.No.
813.
3
3. The plaintiffs further submit that the said Thummala Ram Reddy and his son Lachi Reddy and also Thummala Galamma W/o Narayana
Reddy sold an extent of Ac.2-33 guntas in Sy.No.813 in favour of
Vootukuri Anasuyamma the mother of the plaintiffs herein through un–
Registered Sale deed dated 15-4-1976 and the land to an extent of Ac. 2- 33 guntas is more clearly described in the plaint schedule and the same is hereinafter called as the suit land. The said Vootukuri Anasuyamma and her sons continued to be in possession and enjoyment over the suit land. After her death, the patta of the suit land has been mutated in favour of these plaintiffs showing the plaintiff No.1 as owner and possessor of Ac.0-28 guntas, the plaintiff No. 2 as owner and possessor of Ac.0-28 guntas, the plaintiff No. 3 as owner and possessor ofAc. 0-28 guntas and plaintiff No. 4 as owner and possessor ofAc. 0-29 guntas out of the suit land Pattadar Pass books and Title deeds are also issued to the plaintiffs. Though the names of the plaintiffs are being recorded in pahanies showing them as the pattadars and actual cultivators of their respective lands, no partition with metes & bounds is affected between them so far and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit land.
4. The plaintiffs further submit that, the defendants or their predecessors are no way concerned with the suit land and they have no manner of rights, title or possession in or over any portion of the suit land. The defendants have got nothing to do with the suit land of the plaintiffs. They are neither owners nor possessors of any portion of the suit land at any time. The defendants developed an eye sore against the plaintiffs and hatching plants to grab away the suit land or encroach upon a portion of the suit land by causing wrongful dispossession of the plaintiffs there from.
4
5. Taking undue advantage of the numerical strength of the defendants, the defendants with the active support of some third parties who are on enimical terms with the plaintiffs have tried to interfere with the peaceful and exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land on 28-1-2009. The said illegal interference has been resisted by the plaintiffs with the support of neighboring land holders. It is submitted that the defendants have got no right, title, interest or possession in or over any portion of the suit land and the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are mustering strength of gunda elements and bent upon grabbing away the suit land by force unlawfully. As such the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction.
6.On receipts of summons, the defendants appeared before the court through their counsel and filed their detailed written statement by denying the averments of plaintiffs.
BRIEF AVERMENTS OF WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
7. The defendants contended that the entries in Paisalpatti for the year 1969-70 are fabricated one and at no point of time neither the
Thummala Ram Reddy nor his brothers never owned and possessed an extent of Ac.8-07Gts in Sy.No.813 and it is not the joint family property.
Originally the said land belongs to Akramunnisa Begum and Mohd.
Ghouse Abdullah, and grandfathers of the Defendants cultivated the lands, basing on that, the Protected Tenancy was given to them. Further,
Under Sec. 38 -E of A.P.T.A Tenancy Agril. Land Act 1950 a certificate was granted. Since then the grand fathers and after their death, the fathers of the Defendants and at present the Defendants No.1 to 13 are in possession and enjoying the schedule lands.
5
8. The defendants further contended that since 1953 onwards till date the defendants and their predecessors are in possession and they have got every manner of right title and possession over the Suit schedule lands. In fact the Plaintiffs are not owners and possessors of the schedule lands at any time. The defendant Nos.1 to 13 further contended that the real facts of the case are that the Defendants No.1 to 10 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, against the
Plaintiffs and the said authority disposed the matter on 13/02/2009 in
Proc.No.B/2594/08 Dt. 13/02/09.In the said order, it was decided that the above petition schedule lands are not belonging to Plaintiffs and the grand fathers of the Defendants No.1 to 13 are the Protected Tenants and 38-E Certificate was granted in their favour. Since then the present
Defendants are in possession and enjoying the properties, the Tenancy
Act of Telangana Area 1950 is a piece of progressive legislation which was made against the big land lords and 38-E certificate is granted, if the grantee are not in possession or his legal heirs, the Tahasildar has got every right to dispossess the persons who are in possession and 38-E
Holders are entitled for the possession. In the instant case the suit schedule lands are Tenancy lands, the Thasildar, Nalgonda conducted panchanama and observed that the defendants raised horse Gram crop in the Suit schedule land and also the Revenue Divisional officer orders clearly speaks that the Plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the possessors of the Suit schedule lands and only basing on spurious records they are claiming relief from the court and the same may not be granted.
9. Thus all the above facts would clearly goes to show that the
Plaintiffs have got no manner of rights what so ever over the said 6 property and only basing on a forged document they are trying to usurp the said property under the colour of litigation.
10. Defendant no.14 was later impleaded as a party to the suit as he had purchased the property from the defendants.
AVERMENTS WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.14 :-
11. It is the contention of defendant no.14 that originally the land in
Sy.No.813 has a total extent of Ac.8-07 Gts and out of which Ac.0-28 Gts is the Pootkarab and the remaining Ac. 7-19 Gts of land is cultivable and the same is shown in Form-I (see Rule 4 (1)) Provisional List of Protected
Tenants to whom ownership of land is to be transferred under Sec.38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950.
12. The entries in Paisalpatti for the year 1969-70 are fabricated one and at no point of time neither the Thummala Ram Reddy nor his brothers never owned and possessed an extent of Ac. 8-07 Gts in
Sy.No.813 and it is not the joint family property.
13. The defendant further contend that it is far from truth to allege that
Thummula Ram Reddy and his son Latchi Reddy and also Thummula
Galamma w/o Narayana Reddy sold an extent of Ac.2-33 Gts in
Sy.No.813 in favour of Uttkor Anusuyamma who is the mother of plaintiffs herein, through an unregistered sale deed, dt. 15-04-1976.
Further, it is the contention of the defendant no.14 that the said sale deed was validated under the A.P. Rights and Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act in the year 1996, If it so why the plaintiffs have not filed the proceedings of validation conducted by the revenue authorities under
ROR Act. Further, the defendant contends that the allegation that
Uttokuri Anusuyamma and her sons continued to be in possession and enjoyment over the suit land and after her death the suit land has been 7 mutated in favour of the plaintiffs showing as owners and possessors
Ac.O.28 Gts each in favour of plaintiff No. 1 to 03 and Ac.0-29 Gts in favour of plaintiffs No.4 and issuance of Pattadar Pass books in their favour are all fabricated documents which were brought into existence and which are no way connected. Because in the provisional list of P.T.
Lands prepared by the Revenue Authorities, the nature of the land belongs to Protected Tenancy agricultural lands. Originally the said land belongs to Akramunnisa Begum and she was pattadar of the said land and the land was covered by the Tenancy Certificate issued on the name of Bojja grandsons, who are defendants No.1 to 13 herein. Thus all were
Protected Tenants, even as per the records of revenue department during the preparation provisional list of Protected List to whom ownership of land is to be transferred under Sec.38-E of the Tenancy Act, 1950. It is specifically shown that Bojja Yellaiah died Bojja Rajaiah has been shown as Protected Tenant in respect of the land in Sy.No.813 to an extent of
Ac.7-19 Gts showing the owner/land lord as Akramunnisa Begum and said Tenant is entitled to ownership right in respect of said extent of land. Thus it is apparent that the said land in Sy.No.813 was covered by protected tenancy subsequently vide proceedings No.E/455/75, ownership had been granted to Bojja Rajaiah for various lands including the land in Sy.No.813 by order of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nalgonda dt. 12-11-1975, thus the family of the defendants from No.1 to 13 are declared as Protected Tenant of the said land. Further the grandfather of the defendants No.1 to 13 cultivated the lands basing on the Protected Tenancy Certificate given to them. Further under Sec. 38-E of A.P.T.A Tenancy agricultural Land Act 1950 certificate was granted since then, the grand fathers and after their death the fathers of the defendants No.1 to 13 continued to be in possession up-to 2011. Further 8 in the year 2011 the defendant No.14 purchased Ac.2-33 Gts through a registered sale deed bearing No. 12434 of 2011, dt. 05-09-2011 and the
Revenue Authorities basing on the registered document carried out amendment No: 18/2011-12, dt. 29-01-2012 and got mutated the name of the defendant No.14 in all revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds are issued and defendant No.14 name is recorded in
Certified copies of pahanies from 2011-12 to till date because he is in physical and actual possession over schedule land.
14. Since 1953 onwards till date the defendants and their predecessors are in possession and they have got every manner of right title and possession over the suit schedule lands. In fact the plaintiffs are not owners and possessors of the schedule lands at any time.
15. He further contended that if any permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs who are not in actual and physical possession it amounts to mis-carriage of justice and under guise of the said order the plaintiffs/petitioners who are not in physical possession will forcibly come and they occupy the suit land. It is further submitted that the
Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit according to Sec.
99 of the A.P. Telangana Area Tenancy Act 1950 only the revenue Courts are proper forum to dispose the matters and it is liable to be dismissed.
The real facts of the case are the defendant No.01 to 10 filed an appeal
before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, against the plaintiffs
and the said authority disposed the matter on 13-02-2009 in proc.No.B/2594/08, dt. 13-02-2009 in the said order it was mentioned that the above petition schedule lands are not belongs to plaintiffs nor
Thummula Ram Reddy and his son Latchi Reddy or Galamma's family, the grand fathers of the defendants No.01 to 13 one Bojja Yellaiah who died and Bojja Rajaiah are the Protected Tenant and 38-E certificate was 9 granted in their favour. Since then the present defendants No.1 to 13 are in possession and enjoying the properties, the Tenancy Act of Telangana
Area 1950 is a piece of progressive legislation which was made against the big land lords and 38-E certificate is granted if the grantee are not in physical possession or his legal heirs the Tahasildar got every right to dispossess the persons who are in actual and physical possession under
Sec. 18 of Tenancy Act and 38-E certificate holders are their legal heirs are entitled to the possession. In the instant case the suit schedule lands are Tenancy lands the Thasildar, Nalgonda conducted panchanama and observed that the defendants No.1 to 13 raised horse gram crop in the suit schedule land and also the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer clearly speaks that the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the possessors of the suit schedule lands only basing on spurious records they are claiming relief from the Court and the same may not be granted.
16. The defendants further contended that and in Sy.No.813 is a protected Tenant Land belongs to Akkaraunhisa Begum in the year 1975 one Bojja Rajaiah was granted Protected Tenancy Rights by proceedings
No. E/455/75ownership accordingly is legal heirs were in physical and actual possession upto 2011. Later on the defendant No. 14 by way of purchase came into possession of the suit land. Further neither the
Nazeer Ahamed, Syed Faquruddin and Khaja Mouinuddion are not having any right to sell the property in favour of Tumulla Ram Reddy and others and they are not having any right to sell the land in favour of V.
Anusuryamma who she is the mother of the plaintiffs, because it is
Protected Tenancy Land. Bojja Rajaiah became real owner in the year 1975 itself. Further the defendant No.14 purchased the land from legal heirs of Bojija Rajaiah who are none other than Defendant No.1 to 13 and the defendant No.14 is in physical and actual possession over the 10 suit land under the provisions of Telangana Tenancy Act under Sec. 48-A the original PT holders are their legal heirs after enjoying the property for 8 years they can alienate the property to any others, in the instant case also the legal heirs of Boija Rajaiah sold the land and defendant No.14 got right to purchase the property, after purchasing he was put in possession and the revenue authorities mutated his name and he got every right and title. The revenue records clinchingly establishes i.e.
Pattadar Pass Book, title deed C.C. of pahanies from 2011 to till date and
I-B issued by the Thasildar, Nalgonda showing the physical and actual possession. Hence D14 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
17. Basing on the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of perpetual
Injunction against the defendants, as prayed for?
2. To what relief ?
In continuation of trail this court framed the following issues.
1.Whether the plaintiffs are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
18. During trial, the Plaintiff himself was examined as PWs-1 and also examined PW2 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A18 on their behalf and on behalf defendants DWs.1 to 3 are examined and Ex.B1 to B20 are marked.
19. Heard the both sides.
20.Perused the material available on record.
Issue No.1 1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of perpetual Injunction against the defendants, as prayed for?
11
In order to substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and Plaintiff no.3 examined himself as P.W.2 and got marked EX-A1 to A14.
In a suit for perpetual injunction besides satisfying the essential elements under sec-38 of SR Act,1963 to grant perpetual injunction, the plaintiff’s have initial burden of proof casted upon them as per sec-101 of
Indian evidence Act, to prove that theyare the owner’s and they are in the possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that too with in the specified boundaries.
In order to draw much strength this court would like to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in BALKRISHNA DATTATRAYA
GALANDE v. BALKRISHNA RAMBHAROSE GUPTA AND ANOTHER
2019 (2) ALT 7 (SC) (D.B) held that – wherein it was held that Under
Section 38 of Specific Relief Act an injunction restraining the
defendant from disturbing possession may not be granted in favor of
plaintiff unless he proves that he was in actual possession of the
suit property on the date of filing the suit.
let us have a glance over the evidences of plaintiff’s
EVIDENCES OF PLAINTIFF’S
21. The plaintiffs in order to discharge their burden of proof filed their chief -examination affidavit and reiterated the entire contents of the plaint in toto. P.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff’s are the owners and possessors of Suit Schedule Property. He deposed that originally the total extent of land is Sy.No. 813 of Nalgonda revenue village, Nalgonda mandal and district is of Ac.8.07gts and out of which an extent of
Ac.0.28 gts was foot kharab and the remaining Ac.7.19 gts of land was cultivable land and the entries of faisal patti pertaining to the year 1969- 70 shows that the Suit Schedule Property belongs to joint family of 12
Thummala Ram reddy and his brothers and they owned an extent of
Ac.8.07 gts in Sy.No.813. He further deposed that the said Ramreddy and his son Lachi reddy and also Thummala Galamma W/O;:-
Narayanreddy sold an extent of 2.33 gts in Sy.no.813 in favor of
Vootukuri Anasuyamma the mother of plaintiff’s herein by way of unregistered sale deed dt:- 15-4-1976 and the said sale deed was validated in 1996 and since then the mother of plaintiff’s has been in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and after her demise the patta for the suit land has been mutated in favor of plaintiff’s showing to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts for plaintiff no.1/P.W.1 and to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts for plaintiff no.2 to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts for plaintiff no.3 to an extent of Ac.0.29 gts for plaintiff no.4 as owners and possessors and they were issued with pattedar pass books and title deeds and pahaanies also shows their names. He further deposed that the plaintiff’s have not partitioned the said Suit Schedule Property even though their names were appearing in the revenue records and they are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. He further deposed that the defendants or his predecessors who are no way concerned with the Suit Schedule Property are trying to interfere in to the Suit Schedule Property and they tried to interfere in to the Suit
Schedule Property on 28.01.2009 with an intention to grab away the Suit
Schedule Property.
22. In order to substantiate their contention, the following documentary evidences were adduced by the plaintiff’s
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY PLAINTIFF’S
Ex.A1: Certified copy of paisal patti for the year 1969-70
Ex.A2: Original 1-B Certificate 13
Ex.A3: Certified copy of amendment register for the year 1996-97
Ex.A4: Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.1
Ex.A5: Original title deed of plaintiff No.1
Ex.A6: Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.3
Ex.A7: Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.4
Ex.A8: Original title deed of Plaintiff No.4
Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1975-76
Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02
Ex.A11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03
Ex.A12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04
Ex.A13: Letter dt.27.01.2009 issued by the bank of India Nalgonda Branch.
Ex.A14: Orders in WPMP No.9684/2012 dt.12.04.2017 on the file of Hon’ble High court of AP.
Ex.A15: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.1.
Ex.A16: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.2.
Ex.A17: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.3.
Ex.A18: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.4.
FLOW OF OWNERSHIP ON TO THE PLAINTIFF’S:-
32. From EX-A1, it is evident that originally the Suit Schedule Property situated in Sy.No.813 was mutated on to the names of Thummala Ram reddy and his brothers and it belongs to the joint family property of tummala ram reddy and the contention of the Plaintiff’s that originally the Suit Schedule Property belongs to the joint family of tummala ram reddy is established and further from EX-A2, it is evident that the palintiff’s mother Vootukori Anasuyamma has purchased Ac.2.33 gts in
Sy.No. 813 from said tummala ram reddy, tummala raj reddy and tummala galamma and she was issued with 13B certificate in the year 14 1996 and her purchase was validated and is clearly established. From
EX-A3, it is further established that Ac.2.33 gts in Sy.No. 813 Suit
Schedule Property was purchased by said Anasuyamma and her name has been entered in revenue records by making amendment in the amendment register pertaining to the year 1996-97. Further from EX-A4 and A5, it is evident that plaintiff no.1/P.W.1 Vootukuri Jaipal reddy was issued with original pattedar passbook and title deed with respect to the land to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts in Sy.No 813, From EX- A6, It is evident that the plaintiff no.3/Vootukuri Narsi reddy was issued with pattedar pass book with respect to the land to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts in Sy.No 813, From EX-A7 and A8, It is evident that plaintiff no.4 was issued with pattedar pass book and title deed with respect to the land to an extent of
Ac.0.29 gts in Sy.No.813, Further from EX-A9/pahaani for the year 1975-76, it is evident that the name of Thummala ram reddy was shown as possessor of land to an extent of Ac.8.07 gts in Sy.No 813, Further from EX-A10,A11,A12 Pahaanies for the year 2002-03,2001-02,2003-04, it is evident that the plaintiff’s no.1 to 4 are in the possession of land to an extent of Ac.0.28gts,0.28gts,0.28gts,0.29gts in Sy.No. 813 respectively and according to their respective shares.From, EX-A13, it is established that plaintiff no.2 was also issued with pattedar pass book and title deed and same was held by Bank of India, Nalgonda branch towards security as a mortgage. From EX-A14 it is evident that plaintiff’s have filed a Writ
Petition in W.P.No.9684 of 2012 before Hon’ble High court and the said
WP was disposed off by Hon’ble HC by confirming the validity of 13B certificate/EX-A2 issued to the plaintiff’s mother with respect to the her purchase of suit schedule property. From Ex.A15 to A18 which are the digital pattedar pass books of plaintiffs 1 to 4 further shows that plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule property. Hence, 15 from the above said documentary evidences the plaintiff’s are able to establish that they are owners and possessors of Suit schedule property.
Testing the veracity of P.W.1 through Cross-Examination:-
24. When P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination he reiterated the purchased of Suit schedule property by his mother Anasuyamma and he denied the suggestions that the Suit schedule property belongs to
Akramunnisa begum and Md.Ghouse Abdulla and he admitted that in the year 2009 cases were filed in the revenue court vide proceedings
No.B/2594/2008 by the plaintiff/P.W.1 and the revenue court has delivered the judgment stating that the Suit Schedule Property belongs to
D1 to D13 and they are protected tenants and the same was confirmed by Joint collector in the appeal preferred by him. He further deposed that against the orders of JC he had preferred a writ petition before Hon’ble
High court and Hon’ble HC passed orders in their favor. He denied the suggestion that the Suit Schedule Property belongs to grandfather of D1 and other defendants and it doesn’t belong to Galamma. He even denied the suggestion that the ancestors of defendants no.1 to 13 namely, Bojja
Rajaih and Yellaiah were the protected tenants and they became owners of the suit schedule property in the year 1975 itself by granting 38-E certificate and that vendor of his mother has got no right to alienate the
Suit property to his mother. He further denied the suggestion that the said Bojja Rajaiah and Yellaiah were in the possession of Suit Schedule
Property and he even denied the suggestion that either the vendor of his mother or his mother were never in the possession of the Suit Schedule
Property. He denied the possession of the defendants 1 to 13 over the
Suit Schedule Property since the year 1986 itself and he even denied the 16 suggestion that D14 has been in the possession of the Suit Schedule
Property since 2011.
EVIDENCE OF P.W.2: -
25. P.W.2/V.Narsi reddy S/o: - Venkat Reddy deposed that he is a 3rd party to the proceedings and he also got agricultural land admeasuring
Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.271 towards adjacent to north side of the suit land and he also deposed in similar lines as that of P.W.1 in his chief- examination affidavit.
TESTING THE VERACITY OF P.W.2 BY CROSS-EXAMINATION: -
26. When P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination he deposed that the mother of the plaintiff purchased Ac.2.33 gts of land in Sy.No.813 and he even deposed the following boundaries
NORTH: - Land of Laxmaiah
SOUTH: -Land of Yadagiri Reddy
EAST: -Land of Yadagiri Reddy
WEST: -Way and Land of Raji Reddy.
27. He deposed that his land is situated after the land of Laxmaiah (North boundary) He deposed that the mother of the plaintiff purchased suit schedule property in the year 1976 from thummala ram reddy, lachi reddy,Galamma. He further denied the suggestion that the suit land was a protected tenancy land prior to 1975. He further denied the suggestion that the mother of the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and it was in the possession of D1 to D13 and after 2011, it is in possession of D14.
28. Upon carefully scrutinizing the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with documentary evidences, it is evident that the plaintiff’s mother have 17 purchased the Suit Schedule Property from Thummala Ram Reddy and his family members by an unregistered sale deed and her purchase of
Suit Schedule Property was validated by 13B/EX-A2 certificate issued in the year 1996 and after her death the plaintiff’s have been in the possession of the Suit Schedule Property. Hence, the plaintiff is successful in discharging his initial burden of proof as he had successfully established that the plaintiff’s are in the possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property suit and the same is being established from EX-A10 to A12 pahaanies and their ownership is being established through EX-A3 to A8, through CC copy of amendment register 1996-97 and pattedar pass books and title deeds of plaintiff’s.
29. Since, the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden of proof the onus now shifts upon the defendants to adduce their evidences and rebut the case of the plaintiff.
30. When plaintiff is successful in discharging his burden of proof the only the onus automatically shifts and in order to draw much strength this court would rely on the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
1. 2006 (4) CTC 524 ( Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh );
2. 2007 (3) CTC 691 ( M.Durai v. Madhu and others) and
3. 2011 (12) SCC 220(Rangammal v. Kuppuswamy and another) for the principle that the plaintiff who first of all discharge the burden of proof so as to succeed in his case and then only the burden could be shifted from plaintiff to disprove the case of the plaintiff.
Let us move on to the evidences of defense and see whether they are able to rebut the case of plaintiff and discharge the burden of proof casted upon them.
18
DEFENCE EVIDENCE: -
31. It is the contention of the defendants that the Suit Schedule
Property was never in the possession of the plaintiff’s and the entries in faisal patti were fabricated. According to the defendants, originally the
Suit Schedule Property belongs to Akramunnisa begum and Mohd.
Ghouse Abdullah and grandfathers of D1 to D13 used to cultivate the lands and since they were cultivating Suit Schedule Property they were issued protected tenancy certificate under sec-38 E of AP.T. A Tenancy agricultural Act,1950 and after their death the defendants came to the possession of Suit Schedule Property and after 2011 the D14 purchased the Suit Schedule Property from D1 to D13 and since then he is in the possession of Suit schedule property.
32. In order to substantiate their contention Defendants examined
DWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B.20. DWs.1 to 3 reiterated the contents of their written statement in their chief examination.
Defendants contended that suit schedule property is protected tenancy land and it belongs to Akramunnica Begum and Md. Ghouse Abdulla. As the grand fathers of defendants cultivated suit schedule property they were issued with protected tenancy certificate U/sec.38-E of A.P.T.A
Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950. They filed Ex.B3 proceedings of Addl. RDO to prove their contention. The said proceedings Dt:
28.11.1995 contends that the grandfather of defendants B. Yellaiah is having 38-E certificate only with respect to land in Sy.No.811 and
Sy.No.800. The suit Survey number is not mentioned. Further form No.II (Rule 5 (1)) annexed to Ex.B3 dt: 28.11.1995, the ownership of lands in
Sy.No.811 and Sy.No.800 was only transferred to legal heirs of B.
Yellaiah but not that of suit schedule property. Further form No.II (Rule 5(1)) and sec.38-E certificate with proceedings No.E/455/75 dt: 12.11.75 19 annexed to Ex.B3 shows that B. Rajaiah was issued with Sec.38-E certificate with respect to land in Sy.No.813, but no details were mentioned as to what extent the land is given to B. Rajaiah. Further no explanation or clarity was given as to why the said Sy.No.813 was not reflected in Ex.B3. There is no proper flow of suit schedule property from grandfather of defendants to that of defendants. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are decree copies and which shows that agnates of defendants had filed suits for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the relatives of
Akramunnica Begum as stated by defendants and obtained decree in their favour. The said Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 shows land in Sy.No.813 to an extent of Ac.2-0 ½ gts., but it is not made clear before the court whether the said property is suit schedule property or not. Because the total land in Sy.No.813 is said to be of Ac.8-07 gts., and out of the said land, it is to be proved before the court that suit schedule property and property under Ex.B1, Ex.B2 are one and the same. But there is no clarity on this aspect. Ex.B4 shows that the name of T. Ram Reddy, Narayan Reddy and other name was substituted with respect to land in Sy.No.813, 816, 879,
882. From Ex.B1 to Ex.B4, the possession of D1 to D13 as on the date of filing the suit is not established. DW.1 also admitted about the contents of Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 in his Cross examination. Dw.2 stated that he purchased suit schedule property from defendants through registered sale deed bearing document No.12431/2011 dt: 05.09.2011 marked as
Ex.B5 and he was issued with 1-B ROR with respect to suit schedule property marked as Ex.B7, and pahanies were issued in his favour under
Ex.B8 to B13. He was issued with Ex.B15 ownership certificate, original pattedar pass book. Dw.2 purchased property during pendency of the suit and the rights of Dw.2 are subject to outcome of the suit. When defendants themselves couldn’t prove their rights and possession over 20 suit schedule property, then they cannot transfer property with valid rights to DW.2. Further, defendants are claiming suit schedule property through Sec.38-E certificate issued in favour of grandfather of defendants, but Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.9684 of 2012 stated that suit schedule property is not reflected in the proceedings and validated 13-B certificate of plaintiffs. So, when there is finding given by Hon’ble
High Court, then the contention of defendants didn’t hold value. When the rights and possession of D1 to D13 over suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit is not established, then the transfer of Suit schedule property to D14 will be nothing but transferring Suit schedule property without valid rights. Further D14 is challenging the title of plaintiff’s over Suit schedule property, but this is a suit for injunction simplicator and title should only be looked incidentally. This court cannot decide upon the title between parties in a simple suit for injunction. D14 can challenged the title of plaintiff’s through suit for declaration. In view of afore cited discussion, this court is of the opinion that, plaintiffs have established their possession over Suit schedule property as such they are entitled for the relief of Perpetual injunction.
Hence point no.1 is answered.
Issue No.2.
To what relief:-
33. In the result suit is decreed and Perpetual injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff’s defendants No.1 to 14 and their, heirs agents, henchmen and the associates are hereby restrained from causing any interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s over
Suit schedule property. Parties should bear their own costs.
21
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April 2021.
Prl. JCJ cum JFCM, Nalgonda. FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
PW-1 Vootkuri Jaypal Reddy
PW-2 Vootkoori Narsi Reddy
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS : -NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1: Certified copy of paisal patti for the year 1969-70
Ex.A2: Original 1-B Certificate
Ex.A3: Certified copy of amendment register for the year 1996-97
Ex.A4: Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.1
Ex.A5: Original title deed of plaintiff No.1
Ex.A6: Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.3
Ex.A7: Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.4
Ex.A8: Original title deed of Plaintiff No.4
Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1975-76
Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02
Ex.A11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03
Ex.A12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04
Ex.A13: Letter dt.27.01.2009 issued by the bank of India Nalgonda Branch.
Ex.A14: Orders in WPMP No.9684/2012 dt.12.04.2017 on the file of Hon’ble High court of AP.
Ex.A15: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.1.
Ex.A16: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.2.
22
Ex.A17: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.3.
Ex.A18: Original Digital Pattadar pass book cum title deed of plaintiff no.4.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS :
Ex.B1: CC of plaint in OS 434/1988 on the file of District Munsiff, Nalgonda.
Ex.B2: CC of decree in OS 435/1988 dated 04.04.1988 on the file of District Munsiff, Nalgonda
Ex.B3: The proceedings of Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda in Prcdgs.No.E/405/1995, dated 28.11.1995.
Ex.B4: The proceedings of Tahsildar, Nalgonda vide proceedings dated 03.06.1970.
Ex.B5: Original sale deed vide Document.No.12431/2011, dt 05.09.2011.
Ex.B6: Proceeding of Tahsildar Nalgonda, dt 27.01.2012.
Ex.B7: Mee Seva copy of 1-B ROR.
Ex.B8: Mee Seva copy of pahani falsi 1422.
Ex.B9: Mee Seva copy of pahani falsi 1423.
Ex.B10: Mee Seva copy of pahani falsi 1424.
Ex.B11: Mee Seva copy of pahani falsi 1425.
Ex.B12: Mee Seva copy of pahani falsi 1426.
Ex.B13: Mee Seva copy of pahani falsi 1427.
Ex.B14: 1-B Samachara Prathi and receipt.
Ex.B15: Certificate and Ownership certificate.
Ex.B16: Original Pattadar pass book and Title Deed.
Ex.B17: Report & panchanama of MRI & VRO dated 04.09.2020
Ex.B18: CC of Extract of Amendment for the year 2011- 12.
Ex.B19: IA No.01/2020 in writ Appeal No.403/2020 petition on the file of Honble High Court.
Ex.B20: Photos and CD.
Prl. JCJ cum JFCM, Nalgonda. FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda