1
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT: SRI M.NAGARAJU,
V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.
Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2019
O.S.NO. 105/2013
Between:
Bahunuthula Ravinder Naidu s/o.Chalapathi Naidu, 59 yrs, occ:Bank Employee, r/o.H.No.19-21, LIC road, Huzurabad at present r/o.H.No.4-3-331, Esamia Bazaar, Hyderabad.
…Plaintif And.
1Rontala Anandam s/o.Late Komuraiah, 63 yrs, occ:Business r/o.Gandhinagar, Near bus stand, Huzurabad, Karimnagar dist. 2Rontala Vykuntam s/o. Late Komuraiah, 67 yrs, occ:Municipal Employee r/o.Gandhinagar, near bus stand, Huzurabad, Karimnagar district 3Rontala Chokkaiah s/o.late Komuraiah, 56 yrs, occ:Employee in Medical Department, r/o.Gandhinagar, near bus stand, Huzurabad, dist.Karimnagar. 4Rontala Sudheer s/o.Vykuntam, 28 yrs, occ:Pvt.employee r/o.Gandhinagar, near bus stand, Huzurabad, Karimnagar dist.
…Defendants --- This suit is coming before me on 27-3-2018 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri P.Lachi Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and that of Sri K.Gopal Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.1 to 4, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::
1)This suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendants for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of land measuring Ac.1-25 gts in
Sy.No.2418/5, situated at Huzurabad proper.
2) The brief averments of plaint are that, the plaintif is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land measuring Ac.1-25 gts in
Sy.No.2418/5 situated at Huzurabad village and mandal specifcally shown in the schedule annexed hereto. The plaintif has purchased the suit land from its original owner B.Yellaiah on 23-11-1976 for a valid 2 consideration of Rs.6,000/- and got executed a regd.sale deed doc.No.5139/76 dt.23-11-1976. The vendor of the plaintif put the plaintif into possession of the suit property and since the date of purchase the plaintif has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land as absolute owner.
The name of the vendor of the plaintif B.Yellaiah was recorded as pattedar in revenue record prior to Khasra and in subsequent revenue record till the name of plaintif entered. The name of B.Yellaiah is also recorded in “Shetwar” record which is being considered as primary title of property. Subsequent to the purchase of plaintif, his name is recorded as pattedar and possessor in revenue record in “Jamabandi” for the year 1976-77 and since then the name of plaintif is being recorded as owner and possessor in the pahanies. The plaintif has been issued pattedar passbook and title book in respect of the suit land. The C.C. of pahani fled by the plaintif with efect from 1960-61, “Shetwar” 1-B and registered sale deed which are fled herewith by plaintif clearly indicate his ownership and possession over the suit land. That the suit land is wet land and plaintif has been raising paddy every year in the suit land by engaging labour. The plaintif and irrigation water pipe line into the suit land long ago about 30 years back from the well situated in their other land standing in the name of his father to irrigate the suit land.
The defendants have no legal right or interest over the suit land in any manner. The defendants who are owning land in Sy.No.2814/4 on a corner of west side of plaintiffs land, are making illegal attempts to occupy the suit land since it is abutting to a road. In that attempt the defendants caused damage to the pipe line in the suit land in April, 2013 taking advantage of the absence of the plaintif in the village. The plaintif made a complaint to the police, Huzurabad in this regard but no action is taken so far. On 23-6-2013 when the plaintif along with his labour went to the suit land and preparing to cultivate the suit land, the 3 defendants along with their followers came there and threatened the labour engaged by the plaintif not to proceed with any work in the suit land and send them away and also threatened the plaintif with dire consequences if he proceed with the cultivation. The concerned police are not taking any action in spite of complaint made by the plaintif.
Hence, the plaintif has no other remedy except to fle the suit seeking injunction against the defendants.
The plaintif who is having clear and absolute title and possession over the suit land is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants who have no legal interest or right to interfere with the possession of the plaintif. Hence the suit.
3)The defendants No.1 to 4 have fled his written statement by denying the contents of plaint and further stated that the land in
Sy.No.2814 is a Government Shikham land and it was subdivided into 2418/3, 4,5 and 7. As father of defendants Rontala Komuraiah belongs to Schedule caste community and a landless poor person, the
Government of Andhra Pradesh assigned the land in Sy.No.2418/3, 4, 5 and 7 by issuing Laoni Patta certifcate comprising of Ac.2-09 gts in
Sy.No.2418/4; Ac.0-18 gts, in Sy.No.2418/3, Ac.1-25 gts in Sy.No.2418/5 and Ac.0-04 gts in Sy.No.2418/7, thus the said Rontala Komuraiah was granted patta certifcate under Laoni rules to total extent of Ac.4-16 gts in the above said Survey numbers. The total extent of Sy.No.2418/4 consist of Ac.3-33 gts out of which Ac.2-09 gts is assigned to their father
Rontala Komuraiah and the remaining extent of Ac.1-24 gts was assigned to the vendor of the plaintif B.Yellaiah who belongs to schedule caste community and he is landless poor person. For his welfare the
Government assigned the land measuring Ac.1-24 gts, in Sy.No.2418/4 of
Huzurabad village and the possession of the same was delivered to him as per the assignment rules he has got right to enjoy the assigned land 4 by making cultivation, but he has no right to alienate or transfer to any other person and even as per the assignment rules, the assigned land cannot be transferred to any other person except the person belonging to schedule caste community. The plaintif belongs to forward class community as such he cannot be permitted to acquire the assigned land either by way of purchase, gift or mortgage and sale transaction with regard to assigned land is null and void. After assignment of the land to the father of these defendants and also said B.Yellaiah necessary entries were made in the revenue records including Sethwar showing the particulars of the land allotted to each of them and as per the said records the vendor of plaintif B.Yellaiah is assigned land measuring Ac.1- 24 gts in Sy.No.2418/4 only, but not 2418/5 as claimed by the plaintif.
It is further submitted that the sale deed under which the plaintif is claiming title voer the property it did not contain the boundaries of the land allged to have been purchased by him. Though no boundaries are mentioned in the document the plaintif furnished boundaries in the schedule annexed to the plaint showing that the suit land is abutting to road on the eastern side. When the document under which he purchased the property, boundaries are not mentioned the plaintif has not given any explanation as to how he got those boundaries and on what basis he can give the particulars of the boundaries. Since, the said document is a defective and unenforceable document the plaintif cannot claim title and possession over it.
It is further submitted that when the revenue authorities made wrong entries in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.2418/5 in the name of B.Yellaiah instead of 2418/4 these documents submitted representations to the R.D.O., Karimnagar to order for rectifcation of the entries as per the Laoni patta certifcate issued in favour of their father
Rontala Komuraiah and Borugala Yellaiah. Accordingly, the revenue
Divisional Ofcer, Karimnagar directed the Tahasildar, Huzurabad to 5 conduct spot inspection and verify the entries in the revenue records. In pursuance of it the Tahasildar, Huzurabad got the land in Sy.No.2418/3 to 7 surveyed through the Mandal Surveyor and after verifying all the records issued notices to the plaintif and also to B.Yellaiah to submit documentary proof in support of their claim over the land in
Sy.No.2418/5. Inspite of giving several opportunities the plaintif and his vendor failed to submit any documentary proof as the plaintif is very well aware of the fact that the land claimed by him is a Govt.land assigned to landless poor which cannot be alienated or transferred and that his vendor is the owner of land in Sy.No.2418/4 only. Since, they failed to give any answer the Tahasildar, Huzurabad submitted report to the revenue divisional ofcer, Karimnagar on 16-4-2013, 30-1-2012, 14-11- 2012 clarifying that B.Yellaiah was assigned with Ac.1-24gts in
Sy.no.2418/4 only but not in Sy.No.2418/5 and basing on the report of the
Tahasildar, Huzurabad R.D.O., Karimnagar passed order for rectifcation of entries in the revenue records rectifying the name of plaintif from
S.No.2418/5 to 2418/4 and notices are issued to him calling for his reply.
Several times notices were issued to him, but the plaintif and his vendor did not appear before the said authority and instead of doing so fled the present suit seeking a decree for injunction by suppressing the real facts of the case. When the plaintif claimed that his name is entered in 1-B register and Faisel patti in respect of the land in Sy.No.2418/5, these defendants submitted application to issue certifed copy of the same, but the Tahasildar, Huzurabad issued a memo dated 24-9-2012 stating that there are no changes in the Faisal patti which clearly shows that the plaintif is making a false claim over the said land.
It is further submitted that himself and other defendants are legal heirs of Rontala Komuraiah who died in the year 2004 and after his death they being his Class-I legal heir succeeded to the land in sy.No.2418/3, 6 4,5 and 7 totally measuring Ac.4-16 gts., of Huzurabad and they have been cultivating the same. Their land in Sy.No.2418/5 abuts PWD road and the land assigned to B.Yellaiah in 2418/4 measuring Ac.1-24 gts., is far away from the road, but due to increase in the value of the land adjoining road the plaintif is claiming that his land adjoins to R & B road by showing eastern boundary as road. In fact the said statement of plaintif is wrong as no boundaries are mentioned in his sale deed and no proof is fled in support of his claim. Plaintif suppressed all these facts and fled the present suit and misrepresented the facts before this Court with a malafed intention to occupy the land of plaintif. When the plaintif did not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit land which is a
Government land the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and no injunction can be granted in respect of assigned land.
5.Basing on the above pleadings this court has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintif ii entitled for injunction ai prayed for ?
2. Whether the plaint ichedule property ii a Govt.Shikam land ?
3. Whether the vendor of plaintif .Yellaiah hai no ialable intereit in the plaint ichedule property ?
4. Whether Civil Court hai no juriidiction to try the iuit ?
5. To what relief?
6. At the time of trial, the plaintifs got examined Pws 1 to 4 on his behalf and got marked Ex A-1 to Ex A-28. On the other hand, the defendants got examined DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked Ex B-1 to Ex B-16 on their behalf.
7) Heard arguments on both sides and and perused the entire material available on record.
8. To substantiate his case, the plaintif examined himself as
PW1 and one Gannarapu Mogili as PW2, Gandrakota Mondaiah as 7 PW3 and K. Seshaiah, an attesting witness to the registered sale deed, as PW4 and marked Exs.A1 to A28 . Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dt. 23-11-1976 executed by Borgala Yellaiah in favour of the plaintif in respect of the suit land. Exs.A2 to A24 are the CCs of pahanies of various years from 1960-61 . Ex.A25 is the true copy of sethwar of 1953. Ex.A26 is the CC of 1-B register. Exs.A27 and
A28 are CCs of registered sale deeds of third parties to the suit executed in the year 1974. They are exhibited to establish that there was no practice of incorporating the boundaries of the agricultural lands in the sale deeds at that point of time.
9.On the contrary, the defendants examined D1 as DW1, one
Garige Mallesham as DW2 and Errolla Sanjeev, a farm servant of late Rontala Komraiah, as DW3 and marked Exs.B1 to B16. Ex.B1 is the CC of village map in which the survey numbers are in telugu and not in ususal arabic numerals and as per DW1 S.No: 2418 does not fnd place in it. Ex.B2 is the letter dt. 30-1-2012 of the
Tahsildar seeking permission of the RDO for recording the names of
Rontala Komraiah and three others against S.No: 2418/5 to an extent of Ac.1-25 guntas. Ex,B3 is the representation of D1 to the
Tahsildar requesting to cancel the name of the plaintif and record the names of the defendants as against S.No: 2418/5. Ex.B4 is the letter of the RDO requesting the Tahsildar to take appropriate action in regard to the rectifcation of the entries. Exs.B5 and B6 are naksha tounch . Ex.B7 is the CC of panchanama whereunder S.Nos.
2418/3, 4, 5 and 7 were demarcated by the Inspector of Survey.
Exs.B8 to B10 and B12 are the CCs of pahanies. Ex.B11 is equivalent to Ex.B4. Ex.B13 and B14 are CCs of sethwars. Ex.B15 is 8 the copy of representation of D1 requesting the Collector for issue of certifed copy of laoni patta given to his father. Ex.B16 is the memo in response to Ex.B15 informing D1 that the concerned fle was destroyed as per rules.
The learned counsel for the plaintif submitted that there is no dispute that the land in S.No. 2418 is a government land and a part of it was assigned to the vendor of the plaintif , that though Ex.A1 does not contain the boundaries of the suit land, the defendants do not dispute the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule, that there is no condition not to alienate the assigned land to persons other than SC community as per Laoni Rules, that the plaintif purchased the suit land for valid consideration and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of it and his possession tacked with that of the vendor is refected in Exs.A2 to A24, that this Court is competent to entertain the suit which is fled for injunction simpliciter and that the suit may be decreed.
10.The learned counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, submitted that the land in S.No: 2418 was sub-divided and the revenue record exhibited by the defendants establishes the fact that Borgala Yellaiah was assigned Ac.1-25 guntas out of Ac.3-33 guntas in S.NO. 2418/4 and not in S.No: 2418/5 as claimed by the plaintif, that since the land mentioned in Ex.A1 is not identifable in the absence of boundaries, Ex.A1 is incomplete and moreover,
Ex.A1 though refects as if it was drafted on 8 pages, it contains 7 pages only, that the sethwars fled by the defendants also show the name of Borgala Yellaiah as an assignee of S. No: 2418/4 only, that the plaintif and his vendor did not choose to appear before the 9 revenue authorities during enquiry and as such the Tahsildar had no option than to pass order rectifying the entries, that the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to pass orders in respect of assigned land and that the suit may be dismissed.
13.ISSUE NOi:2 to 4: The plaintif seeks from this Court an injunction simpliciter only and not a declaration of title or possession of property. The land in S.No: 2418 was admittedly assigned to the vendor of the plaintif and the father of the defendants and others with sub-division numbers. The A.P.
Assigned Lands ( Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) came into force with efect from 21-1-1977 i.e., subsequent to the alienation of land under Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintif which took place on 23-11-1976. Laoni Rules, 1950 came into force with efect from 16-11-1950 without any prohibition for transfer of assigned land. The condition of non-alienability of assigned land was enforced in 1958 under G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue,dated 25-7-1958.
Hence, the land assigned without a condition of non- alienability does not fall within the mischief of Sec. 3 of Act 9 of 1977. Though the suit land forms part of Government Shikam as admitted by
PWs.3 and 4 and the entire land in S.No.2418 was assigned to landless poor after making sub-divisions about 50 years back, the defendants have not placed before this Court any document or rule showing that there was condition of non- alienability of land assigned to the vendor of the plaintif under the Laoni rules . It is the Civil Court which is competent either to grant injunction in case the plaintif establishes his case or to decline to grant of injunction in the event of the plaintif failing to establish his case. The 10 grounds raised by the defendants that the vendor of the plaintif by name Borgala Yellaiah had no saleable interest in the suit land and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit have no substance in the eye of law. Consequently, issue Nos. 2 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.
14.ISSUE NO.1 : PW1 in his examination-in-chief afdavit reiterated the plaint averments. In his cross-examination he, of course, denied that S.No: 2418 is Government shikam land. He pleaded ignorance about the sub-division of the said land and assignment of diferent sub-divisions to diferent persons including his vendor and the father of the defendants. He admitted that he has not fled mutation proceedings and pattadar pass book and title deed issued in his favour. He also pleaded ignorance of assignment of Ac 2-09 guntas in S.No; 2418/4 and Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No: 2418/5 in favour of the father of the defendants. He denied the suggestion that his vendor was assigned Ac.1-24 guntas in
S.No: 2418/4 and not Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No: 2418/5 as claimed by him. He also denied the suggestion that he avoided attending
before the Tahsildar despite notice before rectifcation of entries in
respect of S.No: 2418/4 and 5. According to him, he laid irrigation pipe line about 30 years back to the suit land from the well situate in the land belonging to his father Jagannath Naidu.
15. PW2 claims that his house is situate near the suit land, and thus he knows the plainiffs possession and enjoyment over the suit land. PW2 in his cross-examination pleaded ignorance as to the sub-divisions and assignment of those sub-divisions . He 11 admitted that his father Komraiah fled O.S.No: 57/89 against the defendants and the District Collector for declaration of title and injunction in respect of 0-04 guntas of land assgined in S.No:
2418/7. He pleaded ignorance if that suit ended in dismissal on 22- 6-1994. According to him, he and his younger brothers fled O.S.No:
61/2016 against the defendants and the revenue ofcials in respect of S.No: 2418/7. He denied the suggestion that since all the litigations fled by him and his father against the defendants ended unsuccessful, he chose to give false evidence as if he knows possession and enjoyment of the plaintif.
16.PW3 claims that he took the suit land on lease and cultivated it for about 10 years and raised paddy crop and thus know possession and enjoyment of the plaintif and boundaries, but he does not know how the vendor of the plaintif as well as the plaintif acquired the land. He denied the suggestion that the plaintif is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. PWs. 2 and 3 in one voice supported the case of the plaintif with regard to the boundaries as deposed by him and as mentioned in the plaint schedule. There was no suggestion to any of PWs 1 to 3 that the suit land is not situate within the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule or as spoken to by them.
17.PW4 is a material witness being an attesting witness to Ex.A1 apart from being a participant in the negotiations for purchase of the suit land by PW1 from Borgala Yellaiah. He stated in his examination-in-chief afdavit that he, plaintif and plaintiffs father 12 Jagannath Naidu approached Borgala Yellaiah for purchase of the suit land, verifed the boundaries in possesion of Yellaiah and thereafter the deal was struck for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- and accordingly Ex.A1 was executed by Yellaiah for which he acted as a witness along with one N.B.Das, Advocate and two others. PW4 was a practising advocate at Huzurabad where the suit land is situate and according to him, possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintif on the date of Ex.A1 itself and that subsequent to purchase he went to the suit land many a time along with Jagannath Naidu and the plaintif. He pleaded ignorance if
Borgala Yellaiah was assigned land of Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No:
2418/4.
18.DW1 in his examination-in-chief afdavit reiterated the averments made in the written statement. In his cross-examination, he stated that the government assigned the total land of Ac.12 -00 and odd in S.No: 2418 to his father and others after making it into bits in the year 1956 by issuing certifcates. According to him, he does not possess the original assignment certifcate as it was destroyed in his hut. He states that Borgala Yellaiah was assigned land of Ac.1-24 guntas in S.No: 2418/4 only and not in S.No: 2418/5.
He further stated that the land of A.1-24 guntas in S.No:
2418/4 belonging to Borgala Yellaiah is still owned by him and it is fallow whereas the plaintif does not own any land and he never cultivated any land therein. According to DW1, the suit land which is situate within the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint, belongs to him and is situate at a distance of 50 yards from PWD road.
13
13. DW2 stated in his chief afdavit that the government assigned a total extent of Ac.6-00 to Rontala Komraiah in S.No:
2418/3, 4, 5 and 7 whereas land of Ac.1-24 guntas in S.No: 2418/4 to Borgala Yellaiah. He claims that he worked as a village sunkari and thus he is aware of possession of the parties and the situation of lands . According to him, the defendants are still cultivating the suit land .
14. DW3 claims to have worked as farm servant under Rontala
Komraiah for 30 years and thus he states in his chief afdavit that
Borgala Yellaiah was assigned Ac.1-24 guntas in S.No: 2418/4 whereas Rontala Komraiah was assigned Ac.6-00 of land in S.No:
2418/3, 4, 5 and 7. In his cross-examination he stated that he cannot say the boundaries of 6 acres of land owned by Komraiah and that since last 25 years he does not know about the suit property.
15.The simple case of the plaintif is that he has been in possession and enjoyment of S.No: 2418/5 within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. Nonetheless Ex.A1 does not refect the boundaries. Yet, no signifcance need be attached to it for the reason frstly as is evident from Exs.A27 and A28 sale deeds of third parties there was no practice or custom prevalent in those days to incorporate the boundaries of the agricultural land in the registered sale deed if the entire land is sold and secondly the defendants do not dispute the situation of the suit land within the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule and as spoken to by
PWs. 1 to 3. It is not as though the case of the defendants is that 14 the plaintif has mentioned wrong boundaries with a view to grab some other land. The crux of the issue is that while the plaintif claims that he purchased that land under Ex.A1, the defendants too claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of that land it having been assigned to their father Rontala Komraiah somewhere in the year 1956.
16.It is no doubt true that the rules framed by the
Inspector General of Registration under Sec.69 of the Registration
Act and which have been approved by the A.P.State Government with efect from 1-1-1960 contemplate that whenever a non- testamentary document presented for registration relates to land, the Registering Ofcer shall satisfy himself that the land comprises of one or more sub-divisions, the document must specify the number of each sub-division and a further description of the land sufcient for its identifcation. In the case on hand, as stated above, both the parties to the suit claim the suit land as having situate within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule only. The only dispute raised by the defendants is that Borgala
Yellaiah was assigned Ac.1-24 guntas out of Ac.3-33 guntas in S.No:
2418/4 and not Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No: 2418/5 which is the subject matter of the suit. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, Ex.A1 contains 7 sheets only while the registering ofcerfs endorsement reveals 8 sheets. No explanation was sought in this behalf from PW1. Had there been a suggestion to him, he would have explained the reason for missing of the last page. Be that as it may, no material part of the document appears to have been parted . Thus in view of the fact that the defendants do not 15 dispute the boundaries of the suit land as mentioned by the plaint and as deposed by PWs. 1 to 3, much importance need not be attached to the factum of absence of boundaries in Ex.A1 the identifcation of the property being certain on both sides.
17.The defendants took the plea that their father was assigned 0-18 guntas in S.No:2418/3, Ac 2-09 guntas ( out of Ac.3- 33 guntas ) in S.No: 2418/4, Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No:2418/5 and 0- 04guntas in S.No: 2418/7, totalling to Ac4-16 guntas, and that
Borgala Yellaiah was assigned the remaining Ac.1-24 guntas in
S.No: 2418/4. Though his chief afdavit reiterates the same, his cross examination gives a diferent picture wherein he stated that his father was assigned 6 acres in S.No: 2418 out of a total extent of 12 acres and odd. DWs 2 and 3 in their chief afdavits reiterated that Rontala Komraiah was assigned a total extent of 6 acres in S.Nos: 2418/3, 4,5 and 7. Coming to Ex.B13, which is the oldest document fled by the defendants, it refects the name of
Rontala Komraiah against 0-18 guntas in S.No: 2418/3 and A.2-09 guntas in S.No: 2418/4; other sub-divisions are not mentioned in
ExB13. It is Ex.B14 which pertains to other sub-division numbers wherein the name of Rontala Komraiah is mentioned as against
Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No: 2418/5 and 0-04 guntas in S.No: 2418/7.
The total extent of land assigned to Rontala Komraiah as per
Exs.B13 and B14 comes to Ac.4-16 guntas only which is not in consonance with the evidence of DWs. 1 to 3 who deposed that
Rontala Komraiah was assigned land to an extent of 6-00 acres in
S.Nos: 2418/3, 4, 5 and 7. Coming to Exs.B8 to B10, the entries reveal a diferent picture from that of Exs.B13 and B14.
16 According to Ex. B8, Rontala Komraiah is the pattadar and possessor of 0-18 guntas in S.No; 2418/3 and Rontala Komraiah,
Borgala Yellaiah and three others are the pattadars and possessors of Ac.3-33 guntas in S.No: 2418/4 and Rontala Komraiah and three others are pattadars and possessors of Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No:
2418/5 . Ex.B9 shows the name of Komraiah as pattadar of 0-18 guntas in S.No; 2418/3, Komraiah , Yellaiah and three others are shown as pattadars of Ac 3-33 guntas in S.No: 2418/4, Komraiah and three others are recorded as pattadars whereas Yellaiah was recorded as possessor as against Ac.1-24 guntas in S.No: 2418/5 and Rontala Komraiah is shown as pattadar of 0-04 guntas in S.No:
2418/7. The entries in Ex.B10 are identical to that of Ex.B9. Thus the case of the defendants that Rontala Komraiah was assigned
Ac.2-09 guntas and Yellaiah was assigned Ac.1-24 guntas in S.No:
2418/4 has no substance since three more pattadars are shown as against S.No 2418/4 in Exs.B8 to B10. The total extent of land in
S.NOs. 2418/3, 4, 5 and 7 as per Exs.B9 and B10 comes to Ac. 6-00 and if Ac.1-24 guntas, which is alleged to have been assigned to
Borgala Yellaiah, is subtracted out of it , the remaining extent comes to Ac.4-16 guntas which ought to have been assigned to the father of the defendants, whereas the evidence of Dws. 1 to 3 is that he was allotted 6 acres of land . By any stretch of imagination, the case of the defendants as to the assignment of land and the entries in Exs.B8 to B10 cannot be believed.
18. Now coming to the case of the plaintif, who is supposed to establish his case notwithstanding any defciencies or weakness in the case of the defendants, Exs.A2 to A13 pahanies refect the 17 name of the plaintif as possessor of Ac.1-25 guntas out of S.No:
2418/5 and the name of Borgala Yellaiah fnds place as such in
Exs.A14 to A24. It is pertinent to mention that the names of other assignees including Rontala Komraiah are also refected in Exs.A18 and A19 mentioning the extents and sub-division numbers of each of the assignees . The oldest pahani fled by the plaintif is of 1960-61 which is marked as Ex.A24 wherein the name of Rontala
Komraiah is recorded as against S.No.2418/3 ,4 and 7 to an extent of 0-18 guntas, Ac.3-33 guntas and 0-04 guntas respectively whereas the name of Borgala Yellaiah fnds place as against Ac.1-25 guntas in S.No:2418/5. Thus the plaintif could establish his long standing possession and enjoyment over the suit land tacked with that of his vendor right from 1960-61. I see no ground whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of PWs1 to 4 as regards possession and enjoyment of the plaintif.
19.The case of the defendants that the revenue authorities made rectifcation of entries after due process of law of issuing notice to the plaintif and his vendor is not supported by any evidence. No record is fled before the Court evidencing that notices were in fact sought to be served on the plaintif or his vendor or that the plaintif and his vendor either received or refused to receive and abstained willfully from making their appearance before the Tahsildar for enquiry. Exs.B2, B4 and B7 appear to have been passed behind the back of the plaintif and his vendor. Exs.B5 and B6 Naksha tounch do not in any way help in rendering a decision in the facts and circumstances of the case.
18 From the foregone discussion, this Court holds that the plaintif made out a case for the relief of perpetual injunction, which is an equitable and a discretionary one, to be granted based on the possession followed by incidental title. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif.
20.ISSUE NO.5: In the result, the suit is decreed without costs and there shall be a perpetual injunction as prayed for.
In the result this suit is decreed without costs and perpetual injunction is granted against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintif over the suit land measuring Ac.1-25 gts in Sy.No.2418/5 situated at Huzurabad village and mandal, Karimnagar district.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.
V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW-1Bahunuthula Ravinder Naidu DW-1R.Anandam PW-2G.MogiliDW-2G.Mallesham Pw.3G.MondaiahDW-3E.Sanjeev PW.4K.Sheshaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED.
FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex A-1Original regd.sale deed dt.23-11-1976 executed by B.Yellaiah in favour of plaintif. Ex A-2C.C. of pahani for the year 2011-12 Ex A-3C.C of pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex A-4C.C of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex A-5C.C of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex A-6C.C. of pahani for the year 2003-04 19 Ex A-7C.C. of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex A-8C.C. of pahani for the year 2001-02 Ex A-9C.C. of pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex A-10C.C. of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex A-11C.C. of pahani for the year 1984-95 Ex A-12C.C. of pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex A-13C.C. of pahani for the year 1977-78 Ex A-14C.C. of pahani for the year 1976-77 Ex A-15C.C. of pahani for the year 1974-75 Ex A-16C.C. of pahani for the year 1973-74 Ex A-17C.C. of pahani for the year 1971-72 Ex A-18C.C. of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex A-19C.C. of pahani for the year 1968-69 Ex A-20C.C. of pahani for the year 1966-67 Ex A-21C.C. of pahani for the year 1963-64 Ex A-22C.C. of pahani for the year 1962-63 Ex A-23C.C. of pahani for the year 1961-62 Ex A-24C.C. of pahani for the year 1960-61 Ex A-25True copy of Sethwar for the year 1953 Ex A-26C.C. of I-B Ex A-27C.C. of regd.sale deed vied doc.No.2933/74 Ex A-28C.C. of regd.sale deed vied doc.No.4173/74
FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex B-1C.C.of map dt.7-5-2011 Ex B-2Original order dt.30-1-2012 Ex B-3Ofce copy of complaint Ex B-4C.C. of order dt.28-3-2018 Ex B-5Original Naksha tonch map dt.7-5-2011 Ex B-6Original Naksha tonch map dt.16-5-2011
Ex B-7C.C. of Panchanama dt. 22-5-2013 Ex B-8C.C. of pahani patrika for the year 1963-64 Ex B-9C.C. of pahani patrika for the year 1964-65 Ex B-10C.C. of pahani patrika for the year 1966-67 Ex.B-11True copy of order dt.28-3-2013 ex.B-12C.C. of pahani patrika for the year 1954-55 Ex.B-13C.C. of sethwar Ex.B-14C.C. of sethwar Ex.B-15Original complaint dt.27-7-2018 Ex.B-16Original memo issued by A.O.,Collectorate, Karimnagar
V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.