Kolla Spandana

PJCJ/HDP 1 (O.S.435/2021)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: HINDUPUR

Present : Kum K. Spandana,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

Monday, the 30 th day of January, 2023.

O.S. No. 435 OF 2021.

Between:-

B. Narasimhappa S/o Kadirappa, aged 56 years, Hindu, Coolie, D.No.7-729, Thumakunta Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. … Plaintif

AND

1. Smt. Geethamma W/o Naveen, aged 28 years, Hindu, worker in Garments Factory, D.No.7-255, Thumakunta Village, Hindupur Mandal.

2. Naveen S/o Ramanji, aged about 32 years, Hindu, worker in Garments Factory, D.No.7-255, Thumakunta Village, Hindupur Mandal.

3. M. Narasimhappa S/o Gangappa, aged 62 years, D.No.7-255, Thumakunta, Hindupur Mandal. … Defendant

This Suit coming on 15-12-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. K. Jayaram, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents and assignees etc., from anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property (House) and for other reliefs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

The suit schedule property was originally belongs to one

Narayanappa S/o Mugappa of Thumakunta Village. The said Narayanappa has sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff herein under an unregistered sale deed dt.18.01.2010 with specific boundaries and delivered the possession

PJCJ/HDP 2 (O.S.435/2021) of the same to the plaintiff. Initially the plaintiff purchased the open site, later he constructed a house in the suit schedule property, after obtaining permission from The Grama Panchayath, Thumakunta. The house ad measures as East-West:- 21 feet and North-South:- 20 feet out of East-West:- 50 feet and

North-South:- 30 feet leaving the remaining open site for plaintiff’s usage. On recognition of the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property the Grama Panchayath, Thumakunta after assessing issued Tax

Assessment bearing No.729 with the house bearing No.7-729. In accordance to it the plaintiff has been paying the house tax to the Grama Panchayath and obtained the tax receipts. The plaintiff has also obtained Electricity service connection in the name of his wife B. Gangarathnamma. Since then the plaintiff is paying the electricity consumption charges and obtained bills for the same. The plaintiff also took water tap connection to the suit schedule property and been paying the water consumption charges to Grama

Panchayath, Thumakunta. Thus, basing on the above averments the plaintiff is claiming that he is the absolute owner and he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant demanded him to sell the open space left by him for which he denied. On account of the same as misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff and the defendants, they are openly proclaiming from the last two days before filing the suit that they would dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by trespassing into it. And if the same has been happened the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. As, plaintiff is a poor person he does not own any other property in his name except the suit schedule property specified.

The defendants on taking the advantage of weekness of the plaintiff trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On account of the same as there is no other way left over for the plaintiff except to file the present suit for permanent injunction against the

PJCJ/HDP 3 (O.S.435/2021) defendants for protection of his property, the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit. Hence the suit.

4. Dispite of receipt of summons, the defendants No.1 to 3 are called absent, and there is no representation on their behalf. Service of summons was held sufficient. Hence, the defendant No.1 to 3 are set-exparte to the suit proceedings on 28.11.2022.

5. To prove his claim, the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.5.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire record.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

A) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of permanent injunction

as prayed for”?

B) To What relief?

8. Point No.1:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

9. Since the suit is filed for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that the defendants

No.1 to 3 are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

PJCJ/HDP 4 (O.S.435/2021)

10. In order to prove his case the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 is un registered sale deed executed by C.G. Narayanappa in favour of the plaintiff, dt.18.01.2010. Ex.A.2 is House tax receipts five in number issued by Grama Panchayath, Thumakunta. Ex.A.3 is

Water tax receipt issued by Grama Panchayath, Thumakunta. Ex.A.4 is

Electricity Consumption Bills. Ex.A.5 is proceedings of the Grama Panchayath,

Thumakunta.

11. In order to prove his case the plaintiff relied on his oral evidence as P.W.1 and documentary evidence under Ex.A.1 to A.5. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and defendants did not deny the contention of the plaintiff since the defendants were set-exparte. However merely because the contention of the plaintiff is not denied and the defendants remained exparte, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought by him unless he proved his claim with cogent evidence. The oral evidence of

P.W.1, is just replica of the plaint. It is the contention of the plaintiff that originally the suit property belongs one Narayanappa and from him the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under an unregistered sale deed dt.18.01.2010, with the boundaries specifically mentioned in the said sale deed. After purchasing, the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff himself admitted in his plaint that he accquired the suit schedule property through a sale deed which is unregistered. But he claims that the non registration of the said sale deed was due to technical reasons. But as a matter of fact the plaintiff is contending that he purchased the property from its right full owner Narayanappa. In order to prove his contention the plaintiff filed the unregistered sale deed executed by C.G. Narayanappa in his favour and marked the same as Ex.A.1.

12. The plaintiff submits that on purchasing the open site through the sale deed he constructed a house in the said site, after obtaining

PJCJ/HDP 5 (O.S.435/2021) permission from Grama Panchayath, Thumakunta with the following schedule specifications, ad measuring East to West:- 50 feet and North to South:- 30 feet i.e., 166.66 sq., yards out which the constructed house bears door No.7- 729 and the West measures as 21 feet and North to South as 20 feet and the remaining open space usage by the plaintiff. On recognizing the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property the Grama

Panchayath, Thumakunta assessed the tax to the house bearing No.7-729 and issued tax assessment No.729 to it. And in accordance to the same the plaintiff was paying house tax to the said Grama Panchayath and all the available tax receipts are here with filed by the plaintiff to prove his submission and the same (House tax receipts five in number) were marked as

Ex.A.2. The plaintiff further submitted that he obtained electricity connection and water service connection to the suit schedule property and he is paying the electricity and water consumption charges to the Grama Panchayath,

Thumakunta.

13. In support of the same he filed water tax receipt one in number and electricity consumption bills which stands in name of his wife B.

Gangarathnamma, and the same were marked as Ex.A.3 and A.4 respectively in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed the proceedings issued by Grama

Panchayath, Thumakunta permitting him to construct the house (which is the suit schedule property mentioned herein) in the open site (which the plaintiff had obtained through unregistered sale deed) of area bearing Sy. No.79-1,

Plot No.31. And plaintiff has marked the same as Ex.A.5 through his examination in chief. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the documentary evidence adduced by him remained unchallenged and unreburtted by the defendants No.1 to 3, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Even though the plaintiff submitted and marked before this Court the unregistered sale deed executed in his favour, relying on the Exs.2 to 5 which are submitted by the plaintiff and as the same were not been denied neither by the defendants nor their counsel, this Court prima-facie believes that the plaintiff was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on

PJCJ/HDP 6 (O.S.435/2021) date of filing of the suit, which is the primary factor that shall be taken into the consideration before granting a relief of permanent injunction. Hence this

Court believes that the plaintiff is able to establish his right of possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property through the exhibits A.1 to A.5 marked by him. As adverted above, the contents of Ex.A.1 to A.5 clinchingly corroborate with the version of plaintiff with regard to his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, as on date of filing of the suit.

The evidence of P.W.1 further shows that the defendant trying to cause obstruction to his peaceful possession and enjoyment. In such circumstances the Court feels that it is just and proper to protect the continuous and lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by curbing the illegal acts of the defendants by way of granting permanent injunction, other wise the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The defendants did not chose to deny the said allegations made by the plaintiff, by making their appearance before this Court, in such circumstances and facts the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed. Therefore the Court holds that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

14. Point No.2:- To what relief?

15. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff, restraining the defendants No.1 to 3, his men, agents and assignees etc., from any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30 th day of January, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PJCJ/HDP 7 (O.S.435/2021)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

P.W.1:- B. Narasimhappa. NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A.1:- un registered sale deed executed by C.G. Narayanappa in favour of

the plaintif, dt.18.01.2010.

Ex.A.2:- House tax receipts five in number issued by Grama Panchayath,

Thumakunta.

Ex.A.3:- Water tax receipt issued by Grama Panchayath, Thumakunta.

Ex.A.4:- Electricity Consumption Bills. Ex.A.5:- proceedings of the Grama Panchayath, Thumakunta.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Hindupur.

In the Court of :Principal Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000007/2022 N.S.Hanumantha Reddy S/o N.Somireddy Vs Chinna Narasimha Reddy S/o late Venkata Ranga Reddy

Date : 04-04-2023

Business: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand onoy) with subsequent interest @ 24 PA from the date of suit till the date of decree thereafter @ 6 PA from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). Nature of Disposal: DECREED WITH COSTS Disposal Date: 04-04-2023

Principal Junior Civil Judge

In the Court of :Principal Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000001/2017 Rizwan Khan S/o Samiulla Khan Vs Tajunisa D/o Moula Baig

Date : 06-04-2023

Business: BNRB counsel died. No new counsel is engaged by parties and even on seeing up of notices they did not turn up before court. No representation. Even on their behalf. Defendant is also died. Steps is not taken since long time. Hence it seems no use of adjourning the matter further suit is abated against defendant as dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 06-04-2023

Principal Junior Civil Judge

In the Court of :Principal Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000001/2017 Rizwan Khan S/o Samiulla Khan Vs Tajunisa D/o Moula Baig

Date : 06-04-2023

Business: BNRB counsel died. No new counsel is engaged by parties and even on seeing up of notices they did not turn up before court. No representation. Even on their behalf. Defendant is also died. Steps is not taken since long time. Hence it seems no use of adjourning the matter further suit is abated against defendant as dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 06-04-2023

Principal Junior Civil Judge

In the Court of :Principal Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000461/2021 V. Rama Krishna S/o late Narasimha Murthy Vs R. Allabakash S/o Rasool Sab alias Abdul Rasool Sab

Date : 06-04-2023

Business: plaintiff advocate filed a memo same is recorded. matter is settled out of court hence suit is dismissed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 06-04-2023

Principal Junior Civil Judge