O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
GAJUWAKA
Present:- SMT. M. MEENA DEVI,
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA.
TUESDAY, THE 1 st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
ORIGINAL SUIT No.382/2014
Between:
1. Karri Pothuraju, S/o late Pydayya, Hindu, aged 53 years, residing at D.No.30-15-9, Vadlapudi R.H. Colony, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
2. Karri Pothuraju, S/o late Somulu, Hindu, aged 51 years, residing at D.No.30-15-7, Vadlapudi R.H. Colony, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
… Plaintiffs
And :
1. Yerlagadda Raghu Babu, S/o not known to the plaintiffs, Hindu, aged 52 years, residing at Vadlapudi, besides VCS Apartments, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
2. D. Kotireddy, S/o not known to the plaintiffs, Hindu, aged 54 years, residing at D.K. Developers Private Limited, Vadlapudi, besides VCS Apartments, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
3. Chintalapudi Madhu Bala, W/o Venkataramayya, Hindu, aged about 44 years, residing at Flat No.202, Charitha residency, Vinayak Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. (died)
4. Gonthuka Suvarna, W/o Mahendra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 44 years, residing at Q.No.211/B, Sector-9, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam-32.
5. Sudamalla Prasad, S/o Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 31 years, residingatD.No.21-44-06,Nellimukku,Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44.
6. Ummadi Rajesh, S/o late Surya Rao, Hindu, aged about 31 years, residing at D.No.24-81-19, Sanath Nagar Colony, Kanithi Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-26.
7. Tummala Madhavi Latha, W/o Sri Rama Murhty, Hindu, aged about 46 years, residing at D.No.31-10-6/41, Flat No.410, Pranathi Classic Apartments, Sathavahana Nagar, Kurmannapalem, Vadlapudi Post, Visakhapatnam-46.
8. Duggirala Padmaja, W/o D. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 48 years, residing at D.No.21-44-06, Q.No.320/C, Sector-IX, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam-32.
9. Bikkina Venkatarao, S/o late Peda Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged about 52 years, residing at D.No.1-117-1/6, Flat No.302, Royal Residency, Sector-12, Ushodaya Junction, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.
10. Makineni Radhika, W/o Sri Siva Ranga Rao, Hindu, aged about 44 years, residing at D.No.9-5-21/3/1 (14), Plot No.402, MVV Paradise, Pitapuram Colony, Pitilavanipalem, Visakhapatnam.
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 2
11. Sunkara Ram Mohana Rao, S/o Kutumba Rayudu, Hindu, aged about 48 years, residing at D.No.1-4-43, Bavana Nagar Colony, 1st Ward, Ponnur, Nidubrolu, Old Town, Guntur. (Defendants 5 to 11 are impleaded as per orders dated 08.02.2019 in I.A.No.702/2018)
12. Chinthalapudi Venkataramayya, S/o not known to the plaintiffs, Hindu, aged about 61 years, resident of Plot No.151, Vinayakanagar, Vuda Colony, Gajuwaka-530026.
13. Chinthalapudi Sandeepthi, D/o Venkataramayya, Hindu, aged about 36 years, resident of Plot No.151, Vinayakanagar, Vuda Colony, Gajuwaka-530026.
14. Chinthalapudi Sai Kiran, S/o Venkataramayya, Hindu, aged about 35 years, resident of Plot No.151, Vinayakanagar, Vuda Colony, Gajuwaka-530026. (Defendants 12 to 14 are added as per orders dated 02.03.2022 in I.A.No.10/2022)
...Defendants
This suit came before me for hearing on 27.10.2022 in the presence of Sri. S. Eswara Rao, Sri. B.V. Satyanarayana and Sri. K.S. Ramakrishna, learned advocates for the plaintiffs, 1st defendant remained exparte, Sri. A. Rammohan, learned advocate for the 2nd defendant, 3rddefendant died during pendency of the suit, Sri. C. Janardana Rao, learned advocate for the defendant Nos. 4, 12 to 14, suit against 5th defendant was dismissed as not pressed and Sri. M. Pattabhi Rama Rao, learned advocate for the defendants 6 to 11 and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.Initially, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 to 4 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
During the pendency of suit, defendants 5 to 11 impleaded themselves as per orders in I.A.No.702/2018. After death of 3rd defendant, defendants 12 to 14 were brought on record as her legal representatives.
2.The averments of the neat copy of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 3
The paternal grandfathers of plaintiffs Karri Kondayya and Karri
Pothanna purchased property of an extent of Ac.0.85 cents covered by old S.No.135-6 and R.S.No.49/3 of Vadlapudi Village by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing document No.894/1927 dated 14.06.1927 from Karri Veerawamy and others for a valuable consideration and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till their demise. Thereafter, the plaintiffs’ fathers namely Karri Pydayya and Karri Somulu inherited the same and have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same along with their children including the plaintiffs herein. The 1st plaintiff’s father Karri Pydayya died in the year 1994 and 2nd plaintiff’s father Karri Somulu died in the year 2009. After their death, plaintiffs along with other family members inherited the properties and have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same, and the plaintiffs have been managing the properties as kartas of their respective families.
2.a) It was further averred that paternal grandfathers of plaintiffs and fathers of plaintiffs, during their lifetime paid land revenue to the local Government authorities in respect of above mentioned properties and the same was recognized by the Government authorities. The
Government authorities did not collect any land revenue from the land owners after 1984 as conversion of revenue system was deeply changed. The plaintiffs and their family members sold away an extent of
Ac.0.13 cents to 4th defendant out of Ac.0.85 cents by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.2649/2010 dated 22.12.2010 and an extent of Ac.0.10 cents to 3rd defendant by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing document no.2648/2010 dated 22.12.2010. Out of the remaining extent of Ac.0.62 cents, Ac.0.02 cents was merged into
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 4 road and there remained an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in two items i.e.,
Ac.0.30 cents each which belongs to the plaintiffs and their family members. The plaintiffs and their family members have been enjoying the same with absolute rights and defendants or others do not have any right, title or possession over the said property.
2.b) While things stood thus, on 23.11.2014, the defendants along with their men tried to trespass into the suit schedule property, but plaintiffs and their family members were able to resist their high handed acts because of timely intervention of the local persons.
Defendants left the schedule property and threatened the plaintiffs and their family members with dire consequences. The plaintiffs are apprehending danger to the plaint schedule property in the hands of defendants, who are highly influenced. Having no other go, plaintiffs filed the suit.
3.1st defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and inter-alia contended that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. He purchased an extent of
Ac.0.92 cents from Karri Somulu by way of three registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 3600/1983, dated 02.04.1983, 1129/1989 dated 02.02.1989 and 1129/1989 dated 04.02.1989 in respect of an extent of
Ac.0.65 cents, Ac.0.23 cents and Ac.0.04 cents respectively in S.No.49/3.
He has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same since a long time. Plaintiffs have no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is imaginary and there are no boundaries to identify the plaint schedule property. The suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking relief of
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 5 declaration. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.
3.a) The 2nd defendant filed written statement denying the averments of plaint. It is his contention that he is the Director of
Sarwagna Infratech Private Limited and plaint schedule property is absolute property of the said company and as such the suit is not maintainable against him. The said company purchased a total extent of
Ac.3.94 cents under different survey numbers situated in Vadlapudi
Village which includes the plaint schedule property also. The plaint schedule property along with other properties was purchased by the company under a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2004 vide document
No.1299/2004 from M/s Happy Home Developers Private Limited represented by General Power of Attorney-cum-sale agree agreement holder Sunil Kumar Ahuja and has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further contended that originally, the plaint schedule property along with other properties was purchased by
United Steel Allied Industries represented by its Managing Partner
Kamineni Suryanayana under different sale deeds from other persons in total extent of Ac.20.00 cents. Subsequently, the said firm was dissolved on 01.04.1989 and the partners divided the assets of the firm wherein Kamineni Suryanarayana got Ac.8.00 cents which includes the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the said Kamineni
Suryanarayana executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of 1st defendant on 27.02.1990 to deal with the properties in
S.Nos. 47, 49, 51 and 52 of Vadlapudi Village vide document
No.632/1990. By virtue of the said document, the 1st defendant executed four sale deeds in favour of Happy Home Developers Private
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 6
Limited representing by Managing Director i.e., the 1st defendant for an extent of Ac.1.20 cents situated in S.No.47/P, 3, 4P, 47/16/A/P, 18/A, 47/22/A, 23, 24/B, in document Nos.290/1998, for an extent of Ac.1.15 cents situated in S.No.49/7P, in document No.304/1998 for an extent of
Ac.1.35 cents situated in S.Nos.49/1P, 49/3P and 49/5P and in document
No.305/1998 for an extent of Ac.0.98 cents situated in S.Nos.51/8, 51/9, 51/10P and Ac.0.26 cents in S.No.52 and 52/4P of Vadlapudi Village,
Gajuwaka. Subsequently, the 1st defendant as Managing Director of
Happy Home Developers Private Limited, sold away an extent of Ac.4.94 cents to Sunil Kumar Ahuja vide registered document bearing No.
157/2004 dated 19.01.2004. Out of the total extent, an extent of
Ac.3.94 cents was purchased by Sarwagna Infratech Private Limited vide a registered sale deed bearing document No.1299/2004 and now the said firm is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute right, title and possession. The plaint schedule property is part of the said Ac.3.94 cents.
3.b) It was further contended that plaintiffs have nothing to do with the plaint schedule property and they do not have any right, title and possession over the same. The total extent in S.No.49/3 is Ac.0.92 cents which was sold to M/s United Steel and Allied Industries by Karri
Somulu under two documents bearing Nos. 3600/1983 and 1234/1989 and the remaining extent to the owners of VUDA approved layout bearing L.P.No.9/1993 which is situated to the west of the plaint schedule property and therefore either the plaintiffs or their vendors do not possess any land in S.No.49/3. Plaintiffs created two sham and nominal documents in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 only to influence the authorities as defendants 3 and 4 are having a high profile in public.
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 7
There is no cause of action for filing the suit. In fact on 24.12.2014 plaintiffs came to the schedule property and tried to occupy the same and also erected cement poles in approach road, inspite of resistance of the neighbours. So, a complaint was also lodged by Sri Ganesh Nagar
Residents and Plot owners Welfare Association at Gajuwaka Police
Station under Sections 341, 447, 506-II r/w 34 IPC. On 09.01.2015 also plaintiffs made another attempt to trespass into the schedule property.
The suit was filed only to grab the schedule property. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.
3.c)3rd defendant filed her written statement which was adopted by 4th defendant and also defendants 12 to 14. It is their contention that plaintiffs sold an extent of Ac.0.13 cents to 4th defendant vide a registered sale deed bearing document No.2649/2010 dated 22.10.2010 and another extent of Ac.0.10 cents to 3rd defendant by way of document bearing No.2648/2010 dated 22.12.2010 in S.No.49/3 and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase. This defendant never tried to interfere or trespass into the alleged remaining land of plaintiffs.
3.d) It was further contended that earlier to the sale of the property to this defendant, 2nd plaintiff’s father Karri Somulu sold an extent of Ac.0.69 cents out of Ac.0.92 cents covered by R.S.No.49/3 to
M/s United Steel Allied Industries under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3600/1983 and 1234/1989 and after the said sale, the property remained is only Ac.0.23 cents, which was sold to the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant. So, plaintiffs are not left with any other property in R.S.No.49/3. If they had any property, they would have impleaded M/s United Steel and Allied Industries as party to the
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 8 proceedings, but instead of doing the same, these defendants were impleaded. So, the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. The plaintiffs at no point of time are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.
3.e) Defendants 5 to 11 filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint and inter-alia contended that their vendors’ vendor M/s United Steel and Allied Industries, which is a registered partnership firm acquired lands in S.No.47 part, 49 part, 51 part and 52 part of Vadlapudi Village by way of registered sale deeds for an extent of
Ac.20.00 cents and the same was partitioned among the partners after dissolution of the firm. Out of that land, Ac.12.00 cents devolved on three partners, who sold the same to 20 individual persons in May,1990 by way of registered sale deeds, out of which an extent Ac.11.24 cents was plotted into house sites and also obtained approval from the VUDA in L.P.No.9/1993. The salable area of 30,492 sq. yards was plotted into 125 plots and the VUDA approved layout was named as Sri Ganesh
Nagar Layout. Defendants 5 to 11 purchased the house plots 61, 62, 75, 88, 95 and 96 from their respective vendors by way of registered sale deeds and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by paying necessary taxes to the concerned authorities. Plaintiffs are no way concerned with the layout covered by
S.No.49/3 of Vadlapudi Village. The plaintiffs do not have any right, title or possession over the suit schedule land and they are claiming house plots of these defendants and other plot owners in Ganesh Nagar Layout as their schedule property by wrong description and there is no such
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 9 land on ground physically. The suit was filed to grab the property of defendants. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.
4.From the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. To what relief?
The following additional issue has been framed subsequently.
Additional Issue:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
5.On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs got themselves examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. Third parties A. Guruvu Naidu and S. Surya Rao were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 respectively. Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked.
6.On behalf of the defendants, 2nd defendant D. Koti Reddy filed his chief examination as D.W.1, got marked Exs.B4 to B16 and was also cross-examined in part. Thereafter, he did not choose to appear
before the Court for continuation of cross-examination inspite of
direction by this Court and as such, his evidence was eschewed. The 4th defendant G. Suvarna was examined as D.W.2. Exs.B.17 and B18 were marked through her. Exs.B1 to B3 were got marked during the cross examination of P.W.1.
7.Heard the counsels for plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 14. Written arguments were filed by plaintiffs’ counsel and also 2nd defendant’s counsel.
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 10
I S S U E No.1 :
Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of
the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit?
8.The evidence of plaintiffs/P.Ws.1 and 2 is that their paternal grandfathers Karri Kondayya and Karri Pothanna purchased an extent of
Ac.0.85 cents covered by old S.No.135-6 and R.S.No.49/3 of Vadlapudi
Village by virtue of Ex.A1 registered sale deed bearing document
No.894/1927 from Karri Veera Swamy and others for a valuable consideration and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till their death. Thereafter, the said property was succeeded by their legal heirs i.e., the plaintiffs and their family members who were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. Their paternal grandfathers and fathers paid land revenue to the Government authorities, but after 1984, the land revenue was not collected due to changes in revenue system. Subsequently, they and their family members sold away an extent of Ac.0.13 cents to 4th defendant and
Ac.0.10 cents to the 3rd defendant out of Ac.0.85 cents by virtue of registered sale deeds bearing Nos.2649/2010 and 2648/2010 respectively and an extent of Ac.0.02 cents was merged into road. So, there remained an extent of Ac.0.60 cents which is in two items of
Ac.0.30 cents each i.e., the plaint schedule property and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. On 23.11.2014 defendants and their henchmen tried to trespass into the suit schedule property, but they were able to resist the same. Due to apprehension from the defendants, they had to file this suit. P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are third parties to the suit deposed that plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property, which is the ancestral property and that they have been in
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 11 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. However, during the cross-examination, they deposed that they do not know the contents of their chief-examination and they signed on it at the request of plaintiffs.
Regarding the extent of plaint schedule property, P.W.3 deposed that it is Ac.0.92 cents in S.No.49/3 of Vadlapudi Village whereas P.W.4 deposed that it is an extent of Ac.0.90 cents. So, the said cross- examination of P.Ws.3 and 4 certainly reveals that they do not know anything about the suit and as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
9.D.W.2/4th defendant deposed that she purchased an extent of Ac.0.13 cents from the plaintiff under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2649/2010 and an extent of Ac.0.10 cents was sold to the deceased 3rd defendant under document bearing No.2648/2010. Exs.B17 and B18 are certified copies of said sale deeds. She further deposed that she never tried to interfere into the remaining land of plaintiffs, as such there is no cause of action. The sale transactions under Exs.B17 and B18 are admitted by the plaintiffs also. The remaining defendants i.e., 2nd defendant and defendants 6 to 11 filed their written statements, but there is no evidence on their behalf on record as the evidence of 2nd defendant was eschewed and defendants 6 to 11 filed a memo stating that there is no evidence on their behalf. The 1st defendant remained exparte during the course of trial.
10.However, the counsels for the defendants advanced their arguments and submitted that the plaintiffs do not have title over the plaint schedule property and as such the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable and they have to file a suit for declaration. The learned counsels also argued that plaintiffs cannot depend upon the weaknesses
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 12 of the defendants or on the ground that defendants did not adduce any evidence as the burden is on the plaintiffs themselves to prove that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that except denying the title in the written statement filed by defendants, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same and because of mere pleadings denying the title, there is no cloud cast on the title of plaintiffs and as such they need not file a suit for declaration. He further submitted that the plaintiffs never relied on the weaknesses of the defendants and that the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiffs proves their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and as such the suit is liable to be decreed.
11.At this juncture, it is necessary to look into the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dated 14.06.1927 executed in favour of Karri Kondayya and Karri Pothanna by
Karri Veeraswamy and others under a registered document bearing
No.894/1927. The said document is not disputed by the defendants.
Though the defendants pleaded in their written statements that plaintiffs or their ancestors sold away the entire property in S.No.49/3, they did not choose to place any document on record to prove the same. So, by virtue of mere pleading without support of any documentary evidence, the arguments of the counsels for the defendants that the suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking the declaration, is untenable. Ex.A2 is the encumbrance certificate for the property situated in S.No.135/6 for the period of 01.01.1983 to 30.03.1991. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A2 was obtained on 13.11.2014 but it was
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 13 obtained by mentioning the old S.No.135/6 but not the new survey number. Moreover, the boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule are different from the boundaries for which encumbrance certificate has been obtained. Ex.A2 was obtained only for the period from 01.01.1983 to 30.03.1991, but not till the date of filing of the suit. The same was also admitted by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their cross-examination. So, it is no way helpful to prove the case of the plaintiffs.
12.Ex.A3 is the photographs showing vacant land with a sign board in the name of plaintiffs. P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted in their cross- examination that culverts, electrical poles and RCC buildings can be seen in Ex.A3 photographs. As per the plaint schedule, the nature of the plaint schedule property was described as vacant site. P.W.1 got marked Ex.A4 settlement form dated 05.06.2010 in the name of Karri
Kondayya, Exs.A5 to A10 are the adangal pahanis dated 30.03.1991, 01.03.1989, 23.12.1964, 09.03.1951, 29.03.1966 and 30.01.1963 relating to the years 1980, 1988, 1964, 1950, 1965 and 1962 respectively. Ex.A11 is the true copy of settlement register dated 05.06.2010 relating to Fasli 1411, Exs.A12 and A13 are the adangal pahanis for the Faslis 1422 and 1415 relating to the years 2012 and 2005 respectively. As per the chief examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, their paternal grandfathers and fathers paid land revenue to the Government authorities and after 1984 the Government authorities did not collect any land revenue from the land owners as the revenue system has been deeply changed. Exs.A5, A7 to A10 are the cist receipts relating to the years prior to 1984. Exs.A6 cist receipt and Exs.A11 to 13 are the adangal pahanis relating to the years after 1984. It was unexplained by
P.Ws.1 and 2 as to how the cist was paid for the Fasli 1398, 1399 i.e., for
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 14 the years 1988 and 1989 under Ex.A6 when the tax was not collected by the Government after 1984. As per Exs.A12 and A13, it was clearly mentioned that the land is an agricultural land. However, as per the recitals in Exs.B17 and B18 which are the sale deeds executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendants 3 and 4, the property was sold as square yards, but not as an agricultural land. In such a case, it was not known how Exs.A11 to A13 have been issued as if the property is an agricultural land.
13.It is also pertinent to mention that in Exs.A5, A6, A11 to A13, the survey number of the property was mentioned as 49/3 and the extent was mentioned as Ac.0.92 cents. The extent is important because even according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, their grandfathers purchased only an extent of Ac.0.85 cents, but not Ac.0.92 cents. During their cross-examination, when it was suggested regarding the total extent, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the entire extent is
Ac.0.92 cents, but not Ac.0.85 cents. Contrary to the same, P.W.2 deposed that originally an extent of Ac.0.92 cents belongs to their forefathers as per revenue records, but as per the sale deeds, the extent is Ac.0.85 cents. So, the documentary evidence adduced by them is contrary to their own pleadings and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is also contrary to each other regarding total extent of the property of their forefathers. Moreover, though it was specifically deposed by them that
Karri Somulu died in the year 2009 and Karri Pydayya died in the year 1994, they did not choose to file any revenue record in the names of the plaintiffs by the date of filing of the suit. The same was also admitted by them in their cross-examination, but no reason has been stated for the same.
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 15
14.Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted in his written arguments that revenue records are prima facie proof of possession and right to hold the land and as such plaintiffs proved their possession over the plaint schedule property by virtue of Exs.A4 to A13. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon by the decisions reported in
(1) Prakasho Devi and Ors. Vs Tarsem Lal and another (AIR
2003 P & H 245)
(2) N.S. Srinivas Vs Madduri Mallareddy (2005 (1) ALD 268)
(3) K.G. Krishna Murthy v. Balappa and Others (AIR 1985 NOC
6 (A.P.) (4) Ramanna v. Sambamoorthy (AIR 1962 AP 361)
In the decisions cited above, the Hon’ble High Courts held that the entries in the revenue records are prima facie evidence of possession, but not proof of title or right to the land. In the present case on hand, as already mentioned above, Exs.A4 to A13 are relating to the years 1980, 1988, 1964, 1950, 1965, 1962, 2001, 2012 and 2005 respectively i.e., much prior to the filing of the suit, but not as on the date of filing of the suit. So they do not prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit.
Moreover, even according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the schedule property is not an agricultural land, but it was not known how the adangal pahanis were issued as if the schedule property was an agricultural land. Hence, with due respect, this Court finds that the decisions cited above are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
15.During the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the counsel for 2nd defendant, Exs.B1 to B3 photographs were got marked. P.W.1 admitted that property situated inside the gate shown in the photographs belongs to the 2nd defendant, but he volunteered that his property is also
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 16 situated to some extent inside the gate as well as outside and that the road in Exs.B1 and B2 photographs was laid in the suit schedule property to some extent. He further deposed that the shed and compound wall appearing in Ex.B3 photograph were constructed by 2nd defendant and volunteered that the 2nd defendant constructed the same by occupying some extent of the plaint schedule property. During the cross-examination by the counsel for defendants 6 to 11, he admitted that the roads, drainages and constructions appearing in Exs.B1 to B3 photographs are situated in Ganesh Nagar Layout and that the said roads and drainages were made in the suit schedule property without their knowledge by the 1st defendant. But, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that shed and compound wall were constructed by 2nd defendant herein and stated that they were constructed by his ancestors and are part and parcel of the suit schedule property herein. The same was never mentioned in the plaint schedule or in the pleadings and on the other hand it is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 Therefore, from the cross- examination of P.W.1 itself it is clear that the plaint schedule property is not in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs.
Additional Issue No.1:
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
16.While deciding issue No.1, it was held by this Court that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and as such plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction. Hence, this issue is also answered against the plaintiffs.
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 17
I S S U E No.2:
To what relief?
17.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1 st day of November, 2022.
Sd/- Smt. M. Meena Devi,
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiffs :- Defendants :-
P.W.1 : K. Pothu RajuD.W.1 : D. Koti Reddy (eschewed) P.W.2 : K. Pothu RajuD.W.2 : G. Swarna P.W.3 : A. Guruvu Naidu P.W.4 : S. Surya Rao
Exhibits marked for :-
Plaintiffs :-
Ex.A.1 : Registered sale deed dated 14.06.1927
Ex.A.2 : Encumbrance certificate dated 13.11.2014
Ex.A.3 :Four positive photographs with corresponding C.D
Ex.A.4 :Settlement Fair Adangal stands in the name of Karri Pothanna
Ex.A.5 :Tax receipt dated 03.03.1991
Ex.A.6 :Tax receipt dated 01.03.1989
Ex.A.7 : Tax receipt dated 23.12.1964
Ex.A.8 : Tax receipt dated 09.03.1951
Ex.A.9 :Tax receipt dated 29.03.1966
Ex.A.10: Tax receipt dated 30.01.1963
Ex.A.11: True copy of Village Settlement Register dated 05.06.2010
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 18
Ex.A.12: Village account No.3 dated 07.06.2005
Ex.A.13: Village account No.3 dated 18.04.2012
Defendants :-
Ex.B.1 :Photographs dated 31.01.2020 (marked during cross examination of P.W.1)
Ex.B.2 : Photographs dated 31.01.2020 (marked during cross examination of P.W.1)
Ex.B.3 :Photographs dated 31.01.2020 (marked during cross examination of P.W.1)
Ex.B.4 :Certified copy of registered sale deed vide document bearing No.1299/2004 of M/s Sarwagna Infratech Private Limited dated 06.04.2004 (eschewed)
Ex.B.5 :Certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-GPA vide document No.157/2004 executed by M/s Happy Home Developers (P) Ltd., in favour of Sunil Kumar Ahuja dated 19.01.2004 (eschewed)
Ex.B.6 :Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.305/1998 executed by Yarlagedda Raghubabu (GPA holder of Kamineni Suryanaraya) in favour of M/s Happy Home Developers (P) Ltd
dated 05.03.1998 (eschewed)
Ex.B.7 : Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.304/1998 executed by Yarlagedda Raghubabu (GPA holder of Kamineni Suryanaraya) in favour of M/s Happy Home Developers (P) Ltd
dated 05.03.1998 (eschewed)
Ex.B.8 : Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.290/1998 executed by Yarlagedda Raghubabu (GPA holder of Kamineni Suryanaraya) in favour of M/s Happy Home Developers (P) Ltd
dated 03.03.1998 (eschewed)
Ex.B.9 :Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.287/1998 executed by Yarlagedda Raghubabu (GPA holder of Kamineni Suryanaraya) in favour of M/s Happy Home Developers (P) Ltd
dated 02.03.1998 (eschewed)
Ex.B10:Certified copy of registered power of attorney vide document No.632/1990 executed by Kamineni Suryanarayana in favour of Y. Raghu Babu dated 27.02.1990 (eschewed)
Ex.B11:Certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.1234/1999 executed by Karri Somulu in favour of M/s United Steel Allied Industries dated 04.02.1989 (eschewed)
O.S.No.382/2014
PSCJC/GWK 19
Ex.B12:Certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.3600/1983 executed by Karri Somulu, S/o Late Pothanna in favour of M/s United Steel Allied Industries dated 02.04.1983 (eschewed)
Ex.B13:Certified copy of Village account No.3 (Adangal/pahani) issued by M.R.O., Gajuwaka dated 27.02.2006 (eschewed)
Ex.B14:Certified copy of Field Map issued by M.R.O., Gajuwaka (eschewed)
Ex.B15:Office copy of complaint given by 2nd defendant/D.W.1 along with receipt issued by S.H.O., Duvvada dated 09.01.2015 (eschewed)
Ex.B16:Eight positive photographs with corresponding C.D and bill
dated 09.01.2015 (eschewed)
Ex.B17:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.2648/2010 dated 22.12.2010
Ex.B18:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.2649/2010 dated 22.12.2010
Sd/- Smt. M. Meena Devi,
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA.