1 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
Fair
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MAHABUBABAD.
Friday, the 14th day of February, 2019
Present:- Sri L.Sreenivasa Naik
Senior Civil Judge,
Mahabubabad.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 109 OF 2008
Between:
1) Thammera Venkata Rama Rao, S/o Late Laxmikantha Rao, aGe: 61 years, Occu: Agriculture and Legal Practitioner, R/o Kantayapalem Road, Thorrur Vilalge and Mandal of Warangal (Died per L.Rs plaintiff No.2 to 4) 2). Thammera Venugopal Rao, S/o Late Venkta Rama Rao, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agricutlure
3) Thammera Ranjith Kumar, S/o Late Venkata Rama Rao, Age: 38 years, Occu: Agriculture
4) Thammera Leelavathi, W/o Late Venkata Rama Rao, Age: 62 years, Occu: Household …Plaintiffs
And
1. Chinthala Ramaiah, S/o Chandraiah, Age: 68 years, Occu: Agriculture R/o Thorrur Village and Mandal of warangal District
2. Gollepelli Venkataiah, S/o Sarangaiah, Age: 63 years, Occu: Agriculture (died per L.Rs defendant No.4 to 8)
3. Chapala Bapu Reddy, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Velikatte Village of Thorrur Mandal of Warangal District
4. Gollepalli Muthilingaiah S/o Late Venkataiah, Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Madipalli Village of Thorrur Mandal, Warangal District.
5. Gollapelli Venkatanarsu, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Madipalli Village of Thorrur Mandal, Warangal District.
6. Gollapelli Sathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Madipalli Village of Thorrur Mandal, Warangal District.
7. Orupalli Somanarasamma, W/o Chandraiah, Age: 48 years R/o Kongalakothapelli Village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District
8. Gudepudi Laxmi, W/o Somanarsaiah, Age: 45 years, Occu: Household, R/o Gundarajpally Village of Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District. (Defendant No.4 to 8 are added as per orders in I.A.No.612/2015, dt: 30.10.2015)
9. Chinthala Komuraiah, S/o Ramaiah, Age: 52 years, 10.Chinthala Venkanna, S/o Late Ramaiah, Age: 42 years 11.Chinthala Kumar, S/o Late Ramaiah, Age: 40 years
Defendant No. 9 to 11 are residents of Beerappa Nagar,. Thorrur Village, Mahabubabad District. Defendants No. 9 to 11 are added as per Orders in I.A.NO.353/2017
dt: 29.11.2017.
…. Defendants 2 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri V.Kumaraswamy, Advocate for the Defendants; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of registered sale deed document No. 2736/2005 dt: 5.12.2005 and 2801/2005 dated.14.12.2005 and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, successors-in-interest Hooligans, workers, and/or any body else claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land or any part/portion of it in any way and dispossession them therefrom and to award costs of the suit.
2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are, as follows:-
i). The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property to an extent of Ac.3-29 guntas out of Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village and Mandal,
Warangal District. The plaintiff purchased the said land from its erstwhile owner Late Chinthala Ramaiah through his guardian and father of Late
Thammera Laxmikantha Rao under a simple sale deed dated 31.1.1959 and since then he is in peaceful possession, continuous, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment over the said land for more than 30 years and the name of the plaintiff was also recorded as possessor in the pahanies by the revenue authorities.
ii) It is further submitted that the defendants No.1 and 2 are strangers and imposers to the said land having knowledge that plaintiff is in adverse possession and known that the Thorrur Mandal Head Quarter is located on the state high way rapid expansion of habitat taking place around the Abadi and the nearby agricultural lands are being converted as house plots and 3 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
the suit land is also nearer to the abadi area of Thorrur Grama Panchayath and value of the same was increased the defendant No.3 who was Surpanch of Grama Panchayat Thorrur and his follower have caste evil eye over the said land and in order to grab the same and to convert as house plots to gain wrongfully and for the same, the defendants crooked plan to succeed the suit land by adopting illegal and high handed methods. In that process defendant No.3 lured defendant No.1 and 2 to get easy money if they joined with him and they accepted to be remote agnates/relatives of original owner late Chinthala Ramaiah to lay false claims over suit land. In fact they are nothing to do with the same and they are strangers to it. The defendants in order to grab the suit land they filed false petitions before the revenue authorities by claiming themselves as successors-in-interest for issuance of occupancy certificate in favour of the defendant No.2 by contending that the suit land is an Chowthai Inam and thereby managed the R.D.O Mahabubabad and obtained occupancy certificate vide R.C.No1/1608/199 dated: 08.7.1999 in Form-III without any enquiry and not issuing any notice to the plaintiff.
Thereupon the plaintiff filed appeal before Collector, Warangal against the order of issuance of said certificate and consequently an enquiry was ordered and issued notices to defendants but defendant No.2 filed Writ
Petition before Honourable High Court of A.P vide W.P.No.7087/2001 against the R.DO Mahabubabad, M.R.O Thorrur questioning the said enquiry which is pending disposal. Except the said false certificate no single scrap of paper with defendants No.1 and 2 to claim interest over the suit land and the same was issued back behind of him without any enquiry.
iii) It is further submitted that while the matter is pending before the
Honourable High Court of A.P., the defendant No.2 tried to dispossess the
plaintiff in the year 2005 with the collusion of defendant No.1 and 3 and erected a temporary tin shed of the suit land and also tried to raise 4 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
temporary structures therein. But the plaintiff resisted their acts and informed the said illegal acts to Mandal Revenue Officer, Thorrur and having failed in their illegal attempts, the defendants created fraudulent sale deeds in the name of third parties and through them dispossess the plaintiff and to occupy the suit land. The defendants have created two registered sale deeds in favour of defendant No.3 vide document No. 2736/2005, dated 5.12.2005 for an extent of 120 sq.yards and another registered sale deed vide document No. 2801/2005 dated 14.12.2005 of Sub Registrar,
Mahabubabad for an extent of 120 sq.yards by giving false and imaginary boundaries for the purpose of take over the suit land as such the plaintiff seeking cancellation of said document as it is fictitious and bogus document and not binding on the plaintiff and defendant NO.1 and 2 who are alleged vendors of the sale deed or neither owners nor possessor to convey any title or interest over the said sale deed.
iv) It is further submitted that the plaintiff came to know the execution of said fraudulent, bogus and sham documents by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of part of the suit land, he filed an objection petition before the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayath Thorrur requesting him not to mutate their names in the Grama Panchayath reocrds in respect of the lands covered under bougs registered sale deed, then the
Executive Officer, Gram Panchayath, Thorrur issued a public notice in Andhra
Prabha Telugu Daily calling upon objections from general public and in this regard, on knowing the said publication, plaintiff got issued legal notice to
Executive Officer, Gram Panchayath, Thorrur, Divisional Panchayath Officer,
Mahabubabad, the District Panchayath Officer,Warangal and District
Collector, Warangal requesting them not to mutate the said land in favour of alleged purchasers 12 including the defendant No.3 as the registered sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 and 2 are null and void and they have no 5 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
saleable interest over the lands covered under those registered sale deeds but the Executive Officer, Thorrur under the pressure and political influence of one Bapu Reddy, the name of the defendant No.3 mutated in the Gram
Panchayath records including all other purchasers by misusing his powers.
Therefore, the plaitniff prefered an appeal before District Panchayath Officer, to set aside the said mutation orders passed by Executive Officer, Gram
Panchayath Thorrur and same was dismissed. Aggrieved by said orders, he filed writ petition vide W.P.No.8715/2006 before Honourable High Court of A.P to set aside the said orders. As such the plaintiff filed this suit for cancellation of aforesaid two registered sale deeds as the defendants are common to both documents as there are two similar causes of action against one and the same defendants.
v) It is further submitted that the defendants were quite kept for all these years and again they started their illegal interference to dispossess the plaintiff to grab the suit land by pressing the said bogus registered sale deeds by misleading the authorities as owners of the lands came to the suit land and created havoc on 2.11.2008 and attempted to plant boundary stones to locate his imaginary plot out of the said land and the plaintiff resisted them with great difficulty and defendant No.1 and 2 have no right, title or interest to sell the suit lands and defendants and their henchmen time and again creating onslaughts. As such the plaintiff approached the court unless the suit documents is cancelled by Court of law, the plaintiff is not in a position to counter the false claims of defendants. Further defendant No.3 is in collusion with defendant No. and 2 making serious efforts to grab the suit land by taking assistance of local settlement gangs and unsocial elements and tried to dispossess him from the suit land by hook and crook. That the defendant No.3 is followers of Bapu Reddy who is politically influenced person taking law into his hands to dispossess the 6 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
plaintiff who is law abiding citizen and if the defendants succeed in their illegal attempts he will put to irreparable loss. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff approached the Court for cancellation of registered document
No. 2736/2005, dated 5.12.2005 and document No.2801/2005, dt:
14.12.2005. Hence, the suit.
3. A written statement is filed on behalf of the defendant No.3, which is adopted by the defendants No.1 and 3. The main contents of the said written statement, in brief, are, as follows:-
i) It is submitted that the suit is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The pleadings in Plaint Para No.1 to 7 are false, fabricated and concocted for the purpose of this false suit, by creating a cock and bull story, against the defendants No.1 to 3, without having any legal, relevant documents and grounds. The defendant No.1 to 3 have no knowledge about the purpose of suit land by the father of plaintiff from one Late Chinthala
Ramaiah on 31.1.1999 through a simple unregistered sale deed and plaintiff failed to file the said simple unregistered sale deed before the Court to show that he is in adverse and peaceful possession and enjoyment since more than 30 years and also physical possession over the suit land. The plaintiff has not filed any single document except the certified copy of pahanies from 1985 onwards to 2005-2006 only. The plaintiff suppressed the real facts and filed this false suit against the defendants No.1 to 3 and he is a legal practitioner and having habit of filing the suits against the villagers and used to harass them by hook or crook. It is false to state that the defendant
No.1 and 2 to do illegal activities as the legal agnates and relatives of
Chinthala Ramaiah and made as false claim as original owner of the part of the suit land to the extent of Ac.1-35 guntas before R.D.O, Mahabubabad and occupancy certificate vide Rc.No.1/1608/1999 dated 3-7-1999 in Form-
III. The plaintiff who being a legal practitioner filed an appeal before the 7 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
District Collector, Warangal and also filed application before R.D.O
Mahabubabad on 2.1.2006 and another application before Executive Officer,
Thorrur on 6.12.2005 not to mutated the names of defendant NO.3 which are not at all relevant to the proceedings, that too it were clearly shows the name of the plaintiff to the extent of Ac.3-00 guntas, but not Ac.3-29 guntas in possession column but not in the patta column.
ii) It is further submitted that the plaintiff not filed any document
before Executive Officer, Thorrur to show that he is the owner and is in
physical possession of the suit land as such the Executive Officer, Thorrur mutated the names of defendant No.3 and others. The plaintiff filed application on 13.3.2006 before District Panchayath Officer, Warangal and plaintiff failed to produce connected documents showing his ownership as such passed orders that as the dispute is with regard to title, rights and ownership, the plaintiff has to seek relief before the Civil Court. During the pendency of W.P.No. 8715/2006 before Hon’ble High Court of A.P filed by plaintiff which is pending , the plaintiff filed this suit for cancellation of registered documents without having any rights and valid grounds. The defendants No.1 and 2 have got absolute title, and right over the part of the suit schedule land through registered sale deed bearing Nos.2736/2005 and 2801/2005 dated 5-12-2005 and 14-12-2005 in favour of defendant No.3.
The plaintiff failed to add the remaining legal heirs of his late father to the suit proceedings. It is clearly shows from the orders passed by the Hon’ble
High Court that the defendant No.3 is in physical possession to extent of 240 sq.yards part of the suit schedule land, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 to 3, but the plaintiff has to file a suit for recovery of possession. The question of interference on 2.11.2008 does not arise, as the defendant No.3 is in peaceful and physical possession and enjoyment over the part of suit 8 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
schedule land as per registered sale deeds. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants and also this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit is barred by limitation, as the alleged purchase of the suit schedule land as on 31.1.1959. the plaintiff is not entitled any relief as prayed for.
Iii) In this case, the legal representatives of deceased defendants No.1 and 2 not filed the additional written statement to dispute the claim of the plaintiffs.
4. After hearing both sides and perused the entire record and also perused the evidence of PW1 to 3 and DWs1 to DW.3 coupled with the documentary evidence produced by the both parties and in view of the rival contentions of both parties, it is pertinent to note here that after filing of the written statement, and even after filing of the amendment petition, this court has not framed the relevant issue with regard to the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the plaint. Therefore, this court framed the issues and even
additional issues at any point of time or even at this stage of pronouncing
judgment, So far as the matter relating to framing of issues, and strike out issues or recasting old issues is concerned, Rule 5 of Order 14 CPC empowers the court with ample powers to amend issues or frame additional issues or strike out at any stage of proceedings and it does not contemplate that the power must be exercised when application is made, on the other hand, it saddles on the Court duty to exercise power suomoto for determining the matters in controversy between the parties, if that was necessary to do so, in as much as no prejudice would be caused to the both parties, for the reason both parties have pleaded and let- in evidence.
Hence, this court has satisfied to frame an issue in view of the ruling reported in 1996 (3) ALT 424, wherein our Hon’ble Court of A.P. observed the same. Hence, basing on the pleadings of the both parties in consonance 9 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
with oral and documentary evidence, this court framed the following issues to avoid the controversy in between the parties.
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration to declare the registered sale deed document No. 2738/2005 and 2801/2005
dated 14.12.2005 is executed and registered by the defendant
No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 in Sub-Registrar Office, Mahabubabad in respect of the part of the suit land under provisions of Registration Act are fraudulent, in valid, sham and inoperative deeds and not binding on the plaintiff, and ordered them to delivered up and cancelled as per Section 31(2) of Specific Relief Act by directing the Sub-Registrar, Mahabubabad as prayed for in the plaint?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, successors- in- interest Hooligans, workers, and/or any body else claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land or any part/portion of it in any way and dispossession them therefrom as prayed for in the plaint?
3) To what relief?
5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.3 got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A37 and also got examined
PW2 and PW3. To substantiate the case of the defendants, the defendant
No.3 got examined as DW1 andand got marked Ex.B1 to B10 and also got examined D.Ws.2 and 3.
6. Sri T.Ravi Kumar, advocate for plaintiff and V.Kumaraswamy, advocate for defendant No.2 to 8 are vehemently and strenuously exchange their arguments basing on the pleadings of the both parties in both suits and also oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties herein and also filed their written arguments.
10 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
7. Issue Nos.1 and 2 :-
It is just and necessary for this court for adjudication of the matter, is- sue Nos. 1 and 2 are clubbed and answered together to avoid repetition and replica and also to avoid the controversy between the parties.
(a) The evidence of PW1 is to the same effect as that of the pleadings of the plaint on oath. In the cross examination PW1 stated that his father filed cases against thirteen persons and basing on Ex.A3, he has filed suit against the defendants, and as on the date of execution of
Ex.A3, his father was a minor. It is denied that the defendant No.1 and 2 are joint owenrs, therefore, the defendant No.3 purchased the property under
Ex.A1 and A2, Ex.B1 was executed during the pendency of the suit, and sons of the deceased defendant No.1 are the attestors of Ex.B1. It is denied that defendant No.3 purchased the property under Ex.A1 from defendant No.1and 2 who are the original owners and pattedhar of property, as such, Ex.A1 and
A2 are not liable for cancellation as pleaded in the plaint. It is stated that recitals of Ex.A36 discloses that his father paid Rs.400/- to his vendor and as per Ex.A37, he compromised the matter with defendant No.3 by name Ekam- baram and EX.A37 contains the singnature of defendant No.2 and 3.
(b) One M.Rajaiah got examined as P.W.2 and he stated in his examination of chief that the suit schedule property to extent of Ac.3-29 guntas forming part of Sy.No.133 situated at Thorrur Village purchased by late T.Laxmikantharao about 60 years ago from one Chinthala Ramaiah who belongs to washer men community in the name of his son late
T.Venkataramana Rao. Since then they are enjoying the same as true owners, his house is situated towards the western side of the suit schedule property.
The late Venkatarama Rao family is the only are the owners and possessor of 11 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
the schedule property, and no third party is having right, interest or claimover same. In the cross examination, the PW2 stated that he did not acted as attestor or scribe of Ex.A3. The person by name Chinthala ramaiah is the only one person in Thorrur village, and father of the deceased first plaintiff by name Laxmikantha Rao purchased the property from the above said Chinthala Ramaiah under Ex.A3.
(c) One T.Yakantam got examined as P.W.3 and he stated in the examination of chief that the suit schedule property to extent of Ac.3-29 guntas forming part of Sy.No.133 situated at Thorrur Village purchased by late T.Laxmikantha Rao about 60 years ago from one Chinthala Ramaiah who belongs to washer men community, in the name of his son late
T.Venkataramana Rao. It is stated that he purchased the part of the schedule proeprty to an extent of 120 sq,.yards from defendant No.1 through registered sale deed bearing document No.2737/2005 dated 5.12.2005 under the impression that it is the original and patedhar. The plaintiff No.1 filed a suit against him in O.S.No.118/2008 before this Court to declare him as the owner of the schedule property and cancellation of his registered sale deed and he too contest the case for some time, later he came to know that the deceased Plaintiff No.1 is the original owner and his vendor is not at all real owner, as such, he compromised the case by accepting the deceased first plaintiff is the original schedule property by paying a some of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiffs, therefore,the plaintiffs not pressed the suit against him and defendant No.1 and 2 are nothing to do with the schedule property and they have no right,title interest or claim of whatsoever nature over the suit schedule property. In the cross examination, PW3 stated that himself and defendant No.3 after obtaining permission from Gram Panchayath, then they tried to start the construction, then the deceased plaintiff No.1 12 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
approached the Hon’b’e High Court and filed a writ petition. It is stated that he constructed the house in the plot purchased by him from defendant No.1 and 2 and let out the same for running the liquor shop and he voluntarily stated that he constructed the house after compromise the case with the plaintiffs No.2 to 4.
(d) The evidence of DW1 is to the same effect as that of the pleadings of the written statement on oath. In the cross examination
DW1 stated that, he do not know the total extent of the land in sy.NO. 133 of Thorrur village, and the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 owned the land to extent of A.1-32 in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Vilalge and the deceased Defen- dant No.1 was owner and pattedhar of the above said land and he do not know mode of acquisition of above said land by deceased defendant No.1 and 2, and he has not filed revenue records to shows that the deceased de- fendant No.1 and 2 were the owners and pattedhar of above said land to ex- tent of Ac.1-37 guntas, he do not know how the deceased defendant N.1 and 2 became the pattedars of land in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur village, the land cov- ered in sy.No.133 of Thorrur village is a patta land, and in Ex.A1 and A2, the mode of acquisition of title of his vendor was not mentioned.
(e) One B.Ramu and Mohd Khaza got examined as D.W.2 & 3 and they stated in their examination in chief that the house of DW2 situated on the western side after R& B Road to the schedule property, the house of the DW3 situated on the southern side after R & B road to the suit schedule property,the defendant No.3 is absolute owner and he is in physically posses- sion in the suit schedule property and till today uninterruptedly. After pur- chasing the suit schedule property by defendant No.3, he obtain the permis- sion and constructed the building along with other defendant in other main suits. One T.Yakantham has given the building on lease to S.V.S Veerabhadra 13 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
Wines from October, 2018, and at the time of construction of building by the defendant No.3, the deceased plaintiff No.1 made objection and defendant
No.3 obtained orders from the Hon’ble High Court and later constructed the building in the schedule property.
(f) In the cross examination D.W.2 stated he do not know the total extent of the schedule property and he do not know how the vendors of the defendant No.3 got acquired the land covered under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. It is stated that he know that the plaintiff in O.s.No.117/2008 by name
Yakantham compromised with the plaintiff that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property purchased by Yakantham, the suit schedule property is a patta land. It is stated that the suits schedule property belongs to deceased Plaintiff No.1 and after the death ofe the the deceased plaintiff
No,,1 the plaintiff No.2 to 4 are in possession of the suit schedule property.
(g) D.W.3 in his cross examination stated that he do not know how the vendor D3 got acquired the title of property purchased by D3, and the property purchased by D3 is a patta land and he do not know the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.117/2008 by name Yakantham compromised with the plaintiffs herein
as the plaintiffs are the absolute owners ofe the property purchased by
Yakantham. It is stated that D.Venkanna also purchased the property from deceased No.1 and 2 and he entering into an agreement with D.Venkanna to purchase the house plot from him and he do not know how much amount, he paid towards advance amount for entering into an agreement with
D.Venkanna and the deceased plaintiff No.1 filed a suit against D.Venkanna, he has not filed any documentary proof to show that his situated on the southern side ofe the suit schedule property.
8. After hearing the arguments on both sides, and perusal of the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-3, and D.W-1 to D.W-3 coupled with the documentary evidence placed by both parties under Ex.A1 to Ex.A38 and 14 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
Ex.B1 to B10, the following admitted facts which are need not proved under
Section-58 of the Indian Evidence Act.
There is no dispute that, the first defendant filed a suit on 19.11.2008 against defendant No.1 to 3.
There is no dispute that, the defendant No.1 to 3 filed a written statement on 14.6.2010.
There is no dispute that, Ex.A3 and Ex.A36 reveals that the father of deceased plaintiff No.1 by name P.Laxminkantha Rao purchased the property to an extent of Ac.3-29 guntas in sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village in the name of his son (deceased first plaintiff) from late Chinthala
Ramaiah under a simple sale deed.
There is no dispute that, Ex.A6 to A28 the Certified copies of pahanies from 84-85, 87-2009 discloses that the deceased first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property to extent of Ac.3-29 guntas, and also discloses thatone Chinthala Ramaiah was the pattehdar of said property.
There is no dispute that, Ex.A29 and Ex.A30 reveals that the
Tahasildahr Thorrur got issued a pattehdar passbook and title book in favour of deceased plaintiff No.1.
There is no dispute that, as per the version of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.3 instigated the defendant No.1 and to lay a false claim over the suit schedule property and by managing the RDO,
Mahabubabad and obtained the occupancy certificate to extent of
Ac.1-36 guntas which part and parcel of the suits schedule property.
There is no dispute that, in this case, the defendant No.3/DW1 did not field any documentary proof to show that the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 got obtained the occupancy certificate (ORC) from the RDO, Thorrur.
There is no dispute that the L.Rs of the deceased defendant No.2 added as defendant No.4 to 8 vide I.A.No.612/2015 dated 30.10.2015, but they did not file any additional written statement, and even though they did not appear to adduce the evidence to support the version of the DW.1.
There is no dispute that, the L.Rs of the defendant No.1 added as 15 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
defendant No.9 to 11 vide I.A.No.353/2017 dated 29.11.2017, but they did not filed any additional written statement and also even failed to adduce evidence to support the case of the DW.1, and further during course of cross examination PW.1, the defendant No.9 to 11 reported no cross-examination to PW1.
There is no dispute that, EX.B1 relinquish deed dated 28.3.2012, it reveals that the deceased first defendant got executed relinquish deed in respect of the property covered in Sy.No.133 to an extent of Ac.3-29 guntas, and also reveals that the deceased first defendant No.1 not claim any right and authority over the suit schedule property.
There is no dispute that the deceased first defendant filed a petition
Under Order 8 Rule 9 and r/w 151 C.P.C to permit the defendant No.1 and 2 to file a fresh written statement on their own accord by rejecting the previous written of them in the interest of justice by contending that he is not the Chinthala Ramaiah and his name is Sinimous, and the defendant No.3 created a suit registered sale deed in the secret manner and pressing the same in his name and recitals of delivery of possession to the purchaser is a paper and they never in possession of the same, and defendant No.3 who is ex-surpanch and doing real estate business and created bogus sale deeds, and finally the said petition in I.A.No.23/2013 was closed as petitioner was died.
There is no dispute that, the defendant No.3 filed a petition in
I.A.no. 213/2018 U/Sec. 63 and 65-B(I) and Sec. 2 of Indian Evidence
Act r/w Sec. 151 C.P.C to receive computer output document Indian
Fiscal 1990’s “20” paise Red Revenue Stamp from Google.com as secondary evidence and the same was dismissed by the Court by observing that the computer output documents downloaded from
Google are legally not authenticated documents and said documents have no evidentiary value and the defendant No.3 did not refer any revision or appeal against the above said I.A, therefore, the order passed in the above said I.A, it becomes final.
There is no dispute that the DW1 stated that in his cross-examina- tion that the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No. 133 of Thorrur Village, but he did not file any single scrap or piece of document to prove the 16 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
above said fact, and also failed to place any documentary proof how his vendor got acquired the title over the said land.
There is no dispute that, in the cross-examination, DW2 stated that he did not purchase Inam land under Ex.A1 and A2 from the deceased defendant No.1 and 2.
There is no dispute that, the DW.2 stated in his cross-examination that the suit schedule property belongs to the deceased plaintiff No.1, and after his death the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are in the possession of the suit schedule property.
There is no dispute that, DW3 stated in his cross-examination the property purchased by D3 is a patta land.
There is no dispute that, Ex.A1 and A2 discloses that the defendant No.3 purchased the property from the deceased defendant
No.1 and 2.
There is no dispute that, EX.B8, dt: 10-3-2010 discloses that the defendant No.3/DW1 got filed a petition for construction of the house in the Thorrur Gram Panchayat.
There is no dispute that, Ex.A35 Order copy of the District
Panchayat Officer, Warangal dated 28-11-2011, it discloses that on the application of deceased plaintiff No.1 the District Panchayat Officer directed the panchayat Secretary to stop the unauthorized construction in Sy.No.133 to an extent of Ac.1-39 guntas.
There is no dispute that, Ex.B4 proceedings of the District
Panchayath Officer, dt: 13-3-2006 discloses the permission accorded by the Gram Panchayat Thorrur in Sy.No.133 to the thirteen members is hereby stayed until further orders.
9. After hearing the arguments on both sides and perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, Now the points for determination is :-
1)Whether the natural father and guardian of the deceased first plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the name of deceased first plaintiff on 31.1.1959 for a valid sale consideration as stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint is correct or not?
2)Whether during pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 executed a registered Relinquish deed in favour of deceased plaintiff No.1 in respect of 17 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
the suit schedule property covered in Sy.No133 Thorrur village under Ex.B1 as stated by the counsel for the plaintiffs is correct or not?
3) Whether during pendency of the suit, the defendants in O.S.No.118 of 2008 compromised the suit with the plaintiffs herein in respective of property covered in sy No.133 of Thorrur village under Ex.A.37 as stated by the counsel for the plaintiffs is correct or not?
4)Whether after the death of the defendant No.1 and 2, their legal heirs filed a additional written statement to dispute the case of the plaintiff ?
5)Whether the suit schedule property is a chowthai inaam land or a private patta land?
6)Whether the defendant No.3/DW.1 purchased land covered under Exs.A1 and 2 from deceased defendants No.1 and 2 is a chowthai inaam land or a private patta land?
7)Whether the defendants No.1 and got acquired land under ORC proceedings from RDO, Mahabuboobad to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in sy No.133 of Thorrur village ?
8)Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 owner and pattedar of land to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in sy No.133 of Thorrur village ?
9)Whether the defendant No.1and 2 having a title, right and authority over the part of the suit schedule property to execute the registered sale deed bearing Nos.2736/2005 and 2801/2005 dated 5-12-2005 and 14-12- 2005 in favour of defendant No.3 as stated by the defendant No.3 in written statement? if so the defendant No.3 got acquired the title and also got acquired the right to erect the temporary shed and raise temporary structure in the suit schedule property ?
10) Whether the defendant No.3 enticed defendant No.1 and 2 in order to grab the suit property to lay false claim over the suit schedule property by staking some false nexus with original owner schedule property as stated by the plaintiffs in plaint is correct or not ?
11)Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as stated in the plaint?
12)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration to declare the registered sale deed document No. 2736/2005 and 2801/2005 dated 5-12-2005 and 14-12-2005 is executed and registered by the defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 in Sub-Registrar Office, Mahabubabad in respect of the part of the suit land under provisions of Registration Act are fraudulent, in valid, sham and inoperative deeds and not binding on the plaintiff, and ordered them to delivered up and cancelled as per Section 31(2) of Specific Relief Act by directing the Sub-Registrar, Mahabubabad?
13)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as prayed for in the plaint?
18 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
10. POINT No.1 (1) Whether the natural father and guardian of the deceased first plain- tiff purchased the suit schedule property in the name of deceased first plaintiff on 31.1.1959 for a valid sale consideration as stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint is correct or not?
(a) The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the natural father and guardian of deceased first plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A3 on 31.1.1959 for Rs.620/- and on the day he paid Rs.220/- to
Chinthala Ramaiah and he delivered the possession on the same day, and subsequently the father of the deceased first plaintiff paid remaining balance of Rs.400/- on 18.6.1959 under Ex.A36. By examining the PW1 to PW3, the plaintiff proved that the natural father and guardian of the deceased first plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the name of deceased first plaintiff on 31.1.1959 under simple sale deed for a valid sale consideration.
(b) Per contra, the counsel for the defendant No.2 to 8 vehemently opposed the argument advanced by the counsel for the plaintiffs and contended thatEx.A3 and A36 are created and forged documents, and said documents never executed by the deceased defendant No.1, and the deceased first plaintiff is a legal practitioner by profession and he cooked
Ex.A3 and A36 for the purpose of the case only to grab the property covered in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village. The revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A36 not existing in the year 1959, and it is brought on right in the year 1990, therefore, the 20 paise revenue stamp affixed on Ex.A36 is crystal clearly established that it is a creative document.
(c) On careful perusal of the entire material on record and also appraisal and analysis of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and D.Ws.1 to 3 and documentary evidence placed by both parties along with the pleadings of the plaint and written statement, one thing very much crystal clearly established 19 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
that the defendant No.3/DW1 utterly failed to established that ‘20’ paise revenue stamp affixed on Ex.B36 is creative and forged document. In this case, DW.1 failed to summoning the Office of the Post Master General,
Hyderabad Region to prove that the revenue stamp affixed on Ex.B36 is not brought on light in the year 1959. In the absence of any positive steps taken by the defendants/DW.1, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the adverse inference can be drawn in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Further the contents of Ex.B1, itself crystal clear that the deceased first plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property, therefore, it deems that he purchased the same under Ex.A3 and Ex.A36.
Further, in this case, the defendant No.3 filed a petition in I.A.No. 213/2018
U/Sec. 63 and 65-B(I) and Sec. 2 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec. 151 C.P.C to receive computer output document Indian Fiscal 1990’s “20” paise Red
Revenue Stamp from Google.com as secondary evidence and the same was dismissed by the Court by observing that the computer output documents downloaded from Google are legally not authenticated documents and said documents have no evidentiary value and the defendant No.3 did not refer any revision or appeal against the above said I.A, therefore, the order passed in the above said I.A, is becomes final.
(d). From the above foregoing discussions and reasons, this court arrived a firm conclusion that the natural father and guardian of the deceased first plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the name of deceased first plaintiff on 31.1.1959 for a valid sale consideration under
Ex.A3 and Ex.A36, and late Chinthala Ramaiah delivered the possession to the deceased first plaintiff. Further, this court arrived an inescapable conclusion that the DW1 miserably and utterly failed to prove that the transaction took place under Ex.A3 and Ex.A36 never happen and it is sham transaction. Hence, this point is accordingly answered.
20 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
11. POINT No.2:
2)Whether during pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 executed a registered Relinquish deed in favour of deceased plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property covered in Sy.No133 Thorrur village under Ex.B1 as stated by the counsel for the plaintiffs is correct or not?
(a) The counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the deceased first plaintiff was absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the same is very much known by the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 and also DW.1, and on the instigation of DW1, defendant No.1 and 2 falsely claiming that they are the owners and possessors of the land to extent of Ac.1-30 guntas in
Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village. After filing of the suit, the deceased defendant
No.1 realize and executed Ex.B1 document in favour of the deceased the plaintiff No.1 by relinquished whatsoever right over the property covered in
Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village. The execution Ex.B1, itself crystal clear that the deceased plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
(b) The counsel for DW.1 vehemently contended that Ex.B1 executed by the deceased first defendant No.1 in favour of deceased plaintiff
No.1 was undoubtedly on active instigation and collusion of deceased first plaintiff. When once the defendant No.1 and 2 sold the part of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur village in favour of defendant No.3 and also delivered the possession and title, as such, the deceased first defendant has no right to execute Ex.B1 in favour of the deceased plaintiff
No.1.
(c) On careful perusal of the entire material on record and also analysis of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and DW1 to DW3, no doubt it is true that the deceased first defendant got executed Ex.B1 in favour of deceased first plaintiff by relinquished all his rights over the suit schedule property covered in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur village. Further, on careful perusal and 21 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
examination of the affidavit filed by the deceased first defendant by name
Chinthala Ramaiah in I.A No. 23 of 2013, itself crystal clearly appeared that the title and possession of property acquired by the DW.1 from the defendant
No.1 and 2 is doubtful and fog end and execution of Exs.A1 and A2 are nominal deed under eye of law, as such, the deceased first defendant has executed a Ex.B1 in favour of the deceased plaintiff No.1. In this case, DW.1 not placed any ample and cogent evidence before the Court that Ex.B1 got executed by deceased first defendant by threaten and force and also with the undue influence. In this aspect, DW.1 not placed any tangible explanation offer about the execution of the EX.B1 by the deceased first defendant in favour of deceased first plaintiff.
(d)From the above foregoing discussion and reasons , this Court arrived at a firm opinion that during pendency of the suit, the defendant
No.1 executed a registered Relinquish deed in favour of deceased first plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property covered in Sy.No133
Thorrur village under Ex.B1. Further, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the deceased defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right or authority and title over the property covered under in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur village, therefore, the deceased first defendant got executed Ex.B1 in favour of deceased first plaintiff. Hence the point is answered accordingly.
12. POINT No.2:
3) Whether during pendency of the suit, the defendants in
O.S.No.118 of 2008 compromised the suit with the plaintiffs herein in
respective of property covered in sy No.133 of Thorrur village under Ex.A.37 as stated by the counsel for the plaintiffs is correct or not?
22 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
(a) On careful perusal of entire material record, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that the deceased first plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.
118/2008 before this Court for declaration declaring the deceased first plain- tiff as owner of schedule property and to cancel the registered sale deed bearing document No.2737/2005, and during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.3/P.W.3 in O.S.No.118/2008 compromised with the plaintiffs by knowing that the deceased first plaintiff was the original owner of the land in
Sy.No.133 of Thorrur village and his vendor i.e., the defendant No.1 and 2 are not the real owners, as such,PW3 who is the defendant No.3 in
O.S.No.118/2008 is compromised with the plaintiffs by paying Rs.5,00,000/-
to them, therefore, the suit is not pressed by the plaintiff. The Ex.B37 itself crystal clear that the plaintiffs is having exclusive right and the title and also possession over the suit schedule property.
(b) Per contra, the counsel for the defendant No.1 contended that the compromise recorded under Ex.A37 is created for the purpose of the suit, as such, the same is not binding upon DW.1.
(c) On careful analysis and appreciation of the evidence of PWs1 to
PW3 and DWs.1 to 3, undoubtedly, this Court do not have any doubt that the deceased first plaintiff is also filed a suit in O.S.No.118/2008 before this Court against PW3 herein who was the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.118/2008 and the said suit was compromised and the same is proved under Ex.B37. Admit- tedly, in this case, DW.1 utterly failed to placed any cogent and concrete ev- idence to show that Ex.A37 is created for the purpose of the suit. In the ab- sence of any such cogent evidence placed by DW.1, this Court has no option to come to a firm conclusion that PW3 who is the defendant No.3 in
O.s.No.118/2008 compromised the case with the plaintiff as his vendors not
23 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
real owners, and plaintiffs are the real and original owners of the schedule property.
(d) From the above foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court ar- rived at a firm conclusion that PW3 who is the defendant No.3 in
O.S.No.118/2008 of this Court compromise with the plaintiffs by paying a
some of Rs.5 lakhs to them, as such, the plaintiffs not pressed the said suit against him, it shows that the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 are nothing to do with the suit schedule property and also they have no right or interest over the schedule property. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.
13. POINT No.4:-
4)Whether after the death of the defendant No.1 and 2, their legal heirs filed a additional written statement to dispute the case of the plaintiff ?
(a) On careful perusal of the entire material on record along with oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, no doubt, after the death of the defendant No.1 and 2, their legal heirs brought on record, but they did not contest the case and even though they did not adduce any evidence to support the version of the DW.1. Further, DW.1 has not take any steps For examination of defendant No.4 to 11 as witnesses and also to prove his version as pleaded in the written statement and in his evidence.
t(b) From above foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the legal heirs of the deceased defendant
No.1 and 2 did not contest the case and did not support the version of DW.1, it shows that they did not interest to prosecute the case of the plaintiffs.
Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
24 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
14.POINT No:5 to 10:
5)Whether the suit schedule property is a chowthai inaam land or a private patta land?
6)Whether the defendant No.3/DW.1 purchased land covered under Exs.A1 and 2 from deceased defendants No.1 and 2 is a chowthai inaam land or a private patta land?
7)Whether the defendants No.1 got acquired land under ORC proceedings from RDO, Mahabuboobad to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in sy No.133 of Thorrur village ?
8)Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 are owners and pattedars of land to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in sy No.133 of Thorrur village ?
9)Whether the defendant No.1and 2 having a title, right and authority over the part of the suit schedule property to execute the registered sale deed bearing Nos.2736/2005 and 2801/2005 dated 5-12-2005 and 14-12- 2005 in favour of defendant No.3 as stated by the defendant No.3 in written statement? if so the defendant No.3 got acquired the title and also got acquired the right to erect the temporary shed and raise temporary structure in the suit schedule property ?
10) Whether the defendant No.3 enticed defendant No.1 and 2 in order to grab the suit property to lay false claim over the suit schedule property by staking some false nexus with original owner schedule property as stated by the plaintiff in plaint is correct or not ?
Above all points are interlinked one, therefore, this court for better adjudi- cation of the matter, all the points are clubbed and answered together to avoid repetition and replica and also to avoid the controversy between the parties.
(a) In this case the main contentions of the plaintiffs that the defendants No.1 and 2 are strangers and imposers to the suit land and
Thorrur Mandal Head Quarter is located on the state high way rapid expansion of habitat taking place around the Abadi and the nearby agricultural lands are being converted as house plots and the suit land is 25 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
also nearer to the abadi area of Thorrur Grama Panchayath and value of the same was increased the defendant No.3 who was Surpanch of Grama
Panchayat Thorrur and his follower have caste evil eye over the said land and in order to grab the same and to convert as house plots to gain wrongfully. In that process defendant No.3 lured defendant No.1 and 2 to get easy money if they joined with him and they accepted to be remote agnates/relatives of original owner late Chinthala Ramaiah to lay false claims over suit land. In fact they are nothing to do with the same and they are strangers to it. The defendants in order to grab the suit land they filed false petitions before the revenue authorities by claiming themselves as successors-in-interest for issuance of occupancy certificate in favour of the defendant No.2 by contending that the suit land is an Chowthai Inam and thereby managed the R.D.O Mahabubabad and obtained occupancy certificate vide R.C.No1/1608/199 dated: 08.7.1999 in Form-III without any enquiry and not issuing any notice to the plaintiff. Except the said false certificate, no single scrap of paper with defendants No.1 and 2 to claim interest over the suit land and the same was issued back behind of him without any enquiry.
(b) In this case, the prime and foremost contention of DW.1 as per his examination in chief that the defendant No.1/ Chinthala Ramaiah is pattadar and absolute, pertaining to part of the suit land to the extent of
Ac.1-30 guntas as per the proceeding of R.D.O, Mahabubabad under occupancy certificate vide Rc.No.1/1608/1999 dated 3-7-1999 in Form-III.
The defendants No.1 and 2 have got absolute title, and right over the part of the suit schedule land and they executed the through registered sale deeds bearing Nos.2736/2005 and 2801/2005 dated 5-12-2005 and 14-12-2005 in favour of defendant No.3, thereafter, he is the owner and is in physical 26 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
possession of the suit land as such the Executive Officer, Thorrur mutated the names of defendant No.3 and others, and the defendant No.3 is in physical possession to extent of 240 sq.yards part of the suit schedule land, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 to 3, but the plaintiff has to file a suit for recovery of possession.
(c) On careful perusal of the entire material on record and as could be seen from the evidence of DW.1 to DW3, in the cross-examination
DW.1 stated that the land covered in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village is a patta land and he has not purchased the Inam land under Ex.A1 and A2 from the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 and deceased defendant No.1 and 2 were owners and pattedhar of the land in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village to an extent of Ac.1-30 guntas, and he do not know how the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 became the pattedhar of land in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur Village, and in
Ex.A1 and A2 the mode of acquisition of title of his vendor was not mentioned, DW2 and DW3 stated that the suit schedule property is a patta land.
(d) On proper analysis and appraisal of the entire material on record, this Court arrived a inescapable conclusion that the schedule land is a patta land and it is not inaam land. Further, this Court arrived irretrievable conclusion that the DW.1 failed place any substantiate evidence to show that the property covered under Ex.A1 and A2 is a inam land. Admittedly, in this case, DW1 miserably and utterly failed to place a piece of document to show that the deceased defendant No.1 having a title, right and authority over the property covered in Sy.No.133 of Thorrur village. Further, DW.1 failed to place any substantial evidence before this court that R.D.O Mahabubabad got 27 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
issued occupancy certificate vide R.C.No1/1608/199 dated: 08.7.1999 in
Form-III ROC proceedings in favour of deceased defendant No1 and 2, as such, his vendors got right to execute Ex.A1 and A2. Further, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the DW.1 in all the angles failed to prove his contention to the satisfaction of the Court. Further, DW.1 not placed any piece of document to show that his vendor having a title and possession, as such, he purchased the part of of property. Further, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the defendant No.3/DW1 has no right to construction of temporary shed or building in the schedule property as his vendor have no right over the schedule property. Further, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the defendant No.3/DW1 not placed any piece of document to show he is possession in part of suit schedule property and he got acquired the title and also got acquired the right to erect the temporary shed and raise temporary structure in the suit schedule property . Hence, these points are answered accordingly.
15.POINT No.11 and 12:
11)Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as stated in the plaint?
12)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration to declare the registered sale deed document No. 2736/2005 dt: 5.12.2006 and 2801/2005 dated 14.12.2005 is executed and registered by the defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 in Sub-Registrar Office, Mahabubabad in respect of the part of the suit land under provisions of Registration Act are fraudulent, in valid, sham and inoperative deeds and not binding on the plaintiff, and ordered them to delivered up and cancelled as per Section 31(2) of Specific Relief Act by directing the Sub-Registrar, Mahabubabad?
(a) The counsel for plaintiffs vehemently contended that on the instigation of defendant No.1, the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 lay a false claim over the suit land and also to create legal hurdles and litigation,
DW1 with the help of deceased No.1and 2 created Ex.A1 and A2 and claimed that he is the owner of the part of the suit schedule property, and there is 28 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
no boundaries as shown in the documents as existing on the spot and said sales are nominal created for the purpose to grab the suit land. The Ex.A1 to a37 are crystal clearly establish that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and suit schedule property and they are entitled for cancellation of sale deed as prayed for the in the suit. There is no evidence placed by D.W.1 to disprove the case of plaintiff and Ex.A1 and A2 transaction are genuine transaction. By examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.A1 to A37, the plaintiff proved that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are bogus and fraudulent document obtained by D.W.1, as such, the said document declared as null and void.
(b) Per contra the counsel for D.W.1 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for plaintiff, and he contended that the arguments advanced by the counsel for plaintiff are baseless and the plaintiff failed to prove that Ex.A1 and A2 are fraudulently obtained by D.W.1.
(c) On careful analysis, investigation on entire oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, undoubtedly, this court come to a firm opinion that in point Nos.1 to 10 that the father of the deceased first plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1959 under
Ex.A3 and A36, and during the pendency of the suit the deceased defendant
No.1 executed a relinquish deed in favour of the deceased first plaintiff and
PW3 who is defendant No.3 in O.S.No. 118/2008 compromised with the plaintiffs by accepting the title of the plaintiffs, and the defendant No.3 vendors have no title and authority over the suit schedule property.
(d) Admittedly, in this case, the DW.1 did not place any concrete evidence before this court before purchasing the property under Ex.A1 and
A2, his vendors having title over the suit schedule property. Moreover, the vendor of D.W.1 who executed relinquish deed under EX.B1 to relinquish his right over the suit schedule property. In this aspect there is no contra 29 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
evidence placed by D.W.1 to disprove the contents of the written statement filed by his own vendor. In the absence of any cogent and ample evidence placed by plaintiffs under Ex.B1, this court not in position to accept the contentions of the defendant No.1 and also cannot give any helping hand to him to support his version.
(e) Undoubtedly, in this case, the plaintiff proved that as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and A2, the deceased defendant No.1and 2 are not the owners of property covered under Ex.A1 and A2. when once the vendor of D.W.1 had no title, they have no right to execute any document in favour of D.W.1.
(f) From the above foregoing discussion and reasons, this court come to a firm opinion that as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and A2, the deceased defendant No.1 and 2 have no better title over the property cov- ered in Ex.A1 and A2. Further, this court arrived inescapable conclusion that defendant No.1/D.W.1 obtained Ex.A1 and A2 by colluded with deceased de- fendant No.1and 2 in the year 2005. It is therefore, the sale deed executed by the deceased defendant no.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3/DW1 is null and void and also unenforceable document under eye of law. As such,
Ex.A1 and A2 are declared as null and void and the plaintiff is entitled to dec- laration and for cancellation of registered sale deed document No.
2736/2005 dt: 5.12.2005 and 2801/2005 dated.14.12.2005 as prayed for in the plaint. Hence, the point is accordingly answered in favour of plaintiff.
16.POINT No. 13
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as prayed for in the plaint?
30 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
(a) In this case, the plaintiff contended that father of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 purchased the property under simple sale deeds i.e.,
Ex.A3 and A36, his name was mutated in the revenue record, and revenue authorities issued pattedhar pass book and title deed in his favour in respect of suit schedule property under Ex.A30 and A31, and name of the plaintiff shown in the pahanies as possessor and the same is proved under Ex.A4 to
A28, the defendant No.3/DW.1 based on Ex.A1 and A2 falsely claiming the part and parcel of scheduled property and unnecessarily interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the scheduled property, and filed a false suit in respect of non existing land covered under
Ex.A1 and A2 and also trying to made construction in the schedule property.
(b) The counsel for the defendants vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the plaintiff and contended that there is no substantial force in the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff.
(c) On careful perusal of entire material record, and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence, placed by both the parties, no doubt, Ex.A29 & A30 pattedhar pass book and title deed stand in the name of deceased first plaintiff to show that he has been in possession over the scheduled property, and further Ex.A6 to A28 crystal clearly establishes that the deceased first plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.
(d) On the other hand, the defendant No.3/DW.1 has not placed any documentary evidence to show that after purchasing the property under
Ex.A1 and A2 he is in possession of the suit schedule property. Admittedly,
D.W.1 in the cross examination stated that he has not filed any document to 31 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
show that as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and A2, his vendor was the owner of the property covered under Ex.A1 and A2 and so also even till to- day, and he has not mutated his name in the grampanchayath record as well as in revenue records. Moreover, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 are not dis- proved possession of plaintiff over suit schedule land, and D.Ws.2 and 3 are the planted witnesses of D.W.1, and their evidence cannot be believable and trustworthy. It is well settled that when the plaintiff seeking the relief of per- manent injunction, he/she must establish the possession as on the date of fil- ing of the suit and also establish the cause of action to the satisfaction of the court.
(e) From the above foregoing discussion and reasons, this court arrived irresistible conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the deceased first plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property and also the plaintiffs established her legal possession and also the cause of action as on the date of filing of the suit, as such the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence point accordingly answered.
21. Issue No.3: To what relief ?
In the light of the above foregoing discussion in points No. 1 to 12 in issues and by placing a impeachable and scintilla evidence of both parties, this court do not have any hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs proved their case to the satisfaction of the court in all the angles, as such, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.
(I)In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs as follows :
32 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
(ii) That the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration to declare the registered sale deed document No.2736/2005 dt: 5.12.2005 and 2801/2005 dated.14.12.2005 executed and registered by the defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 in Sub-Registrar Office, Mahabubabad in respect of the part of the suit land under provisions of Registration Act are fraudulent, in valid, sham and inoperative deeds and not binding on the plaintiffs as prayed for and directing the Sub-Registrar, Mahabubabad to cancelled above sale deeds as per Section 31(2) of Specific Relief Act.
iii)That the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, successors-in-interest, Hoolings, workers and anybody else claiming through them and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected
pronounced by me in the open court on 14th day of February, 2019.
Senior Civil Judge,
MAHABUBABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiffs
PW1: Thammera Venugopal Rao PW2: Macherla Rajaiah PW3:Thumanapally Yakantham
FOR DEFENDANTS:-
DW.1:Chapala Bapu Reddy DW2: Busani Ramu DW3: Mohammad Khaza
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1: CC of registered sale deed vide doc.No. 2736/2005, dt: 5.12.2005 33 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
Ex.A2 : CC of registered sale deed vide doc.NO. 2801/2005, dt: 4.12.2005
Ex.A3 : Simple Sale deed, dated 31.1.1959.
Ex.A4 : Served copy of letter to DPO, dt: 6.12.2005
Ex.A5 : Office copy of Legal notice issued EO, Grampanchayat dt: 23.12.2005
Ex.A6 : CC of Pahani for the year 1984-85
Ex.A7 : CC of Pahani for the year 1987-88.
Ex.A8 : CC of Pahani for the year 1988-89
Ex.A9 : CC of Pahani for the year 1989-90
Ex.A10 : CC of Pahani for the year 1990-91
Ex.A11 : CC of Pahani for the year 1991-92
Ex.A12 : CC of Pahani for the year 1992-93
Ex.A13 : CC of Pahani for the year 1993-94
Ex.A14 : CC of Pahani for the year 1994-95
Ex.A15 : CC of Pahani for the year 1995-96
Ex.A16 : CC of Pahani for the year 1996-97
Ex.A17 : CC of Pahani for the year 1997-98
Ex.A18 : CC of Pahani for the year 1998-99
Ex.A19 : CC of Pahani for the year 1999-2000
Ex.A20 : CC of Pahani for the year 2000-2001
Ex.A21 : CC of Pahani for the year 2001-2002
Ex.A22 : CC of Pahani for the year 2002-2003
Ex.A23 : CC of Pahani for the year 2005-2006
Ex.A24 : CC of Pahani for the year 2010-2011
Ex.A25: CC of Pahani for the year 1992-93 to 1999-2000
Ex.A26 : CC of Pahani for the year 2004-2005
Ex.A27 : CC of Pahani for the year 2006-2007
Ex.A28 : CC of Pahani for the year 2008-2009
Ex.A29 : Pattedhar Passbook bearing No. 1041/A/016984
Ex.A30 : Title deed passbook bearing No.1041/A016984
Ex.A31 : CC of order in WPNo.7087/2001, dated 5.11.2008
Ex.A32 : CC of registered sale deed vide document No.2890/2006,
dt: 5.10.2006
Ex.A33 : Attested copy of statement of Gollapally Venkataiah
dt: 1.5.2010
Ex.A34: Attested copy of letter dated 7.12.2001 issued by G.P Thorrur to DPO Thorrur
Ex.A35: letter dated 28.11.2011 in R.C.No.4039/4/2011 of DPO,Warangal 34 of 34
O.S.No.109.2008
SCJC, Mah-bad.
Ex.A36: Receipt dated 18-6-1959
Ex.A37: Memo in O.S.No. 118/2008 dated 20.8.2016
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT S
Ex.B1: CC of registered sale deed bearing No.2344/2012 dated 28.3.2012
Ex.B2: Original registered sale deed bearing No. 2736 of 2005,
dated 5.12.2005.
Ex.B3: Original registered sale deed bearing No. 2801/2005 dated:
14.12.2005.
Ex.B4: True copy of order passed by District Panchayath Officer, Warangal
dated: 13.3.2006.
Ex.B5: True copy of letter addressed to District Panchayath Officer, Warangal by E.O, G.P, Thorrur Order dated 28.2.2006.
Ex.B6: Certified copy of Order in W.P.MP.No.11106/2006, in W.P.No.8715/2006
dated 2.11.2006.
Ex.B7: Certified copy of encumbrance Certificate dated 2.12.2011.
Ex.B8: Original renewed permission given by E.O.,G.P. Thorrur dated 10.3.2010.
Ex.B9: Reply to the application filed by Ch.Vasudea Reddy dated 5.7.2018 by
Postal Department.
Ex.B10: Reply to the application filed by Ch.Bapu Reddy, dated 7.7.20177 by
Postal department.
Senior Civil Judge,
Mahabubabad.