1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KARIMNAGAR
Present: Sri. M.Raju Judical Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), FAC: II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
Monday the 31st day of December, 2018
O.S.No.204 of 2010
Between:
1. Sardar Hazura Singh, S/o.Chanda Singh, Age:62 years, Occ:Retd. RTC Employee,
2. Shoba Kour, W/o.Sardar Hazura Singh, Age:55 years, occ:House hold (Died for L.Rs.) Both are R/o.H.No.24140, Sikhwadi, Karimnagar
3. Sardar Gurunam Singh, S/o.Hazura Singh, Age;38 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.59155, Sikhwadi, Hanamkonda town of Warangal district.
4. Sardar Ugender Singh, S/o.Sardar Hazura Singh, Age:34 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.49269/1, Sikh Chowni, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad
5. Sardar Balvinder Singh, S/o.Sardar Hazura Singh, Age:30 years, Occ;Business, R/o.H.No.49269/1, Sikh Chowni, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad
6. Sardarni Gurmith Kaur, W/o.Mahinder Singh, Age:32 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.49389, Kishanbagh, Attapur, Rajendrenagar, Hyderabad.
(Plaintiffs No.3 to 6, being L.Rs of plaintiff No.2, added as per orders in I.A.No.724 of 2017, dt.26.10.2017)
...Plaintiffs.
AND
1. Gorre Mallaiah, S/o.not known to plaintiffs, Aged:about 50 years, Occ:Deputy Superintendent of Police in Police Department.
2. Gorre Saroja, W/o.Mallaiah, Age:43 years, Occ:Correspondent of Shrusti Education Society, Karimnagar.
Both are R/o.and C/o.Challengers School, H.No.8332/2, Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar. …Defendants.
Claim: Suit for perpetual injunction
This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of M/s. G. Rajkumar and Md. Kaleem Mohiuddin, learned Advocates for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.P.Lachireddy, learned Advocate for defendants and upon hearing both the counsel and perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
: : J U D G M E N T : :
1. This suit is filed for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendants, their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the open land to an extent of 161.77 sq.yards, part of house No.83119/B (old) corresponding to H.No.83154 (new) and part of 638.61 sq.yards of land in
Sy.No.911/A situated at Bhagathnagar locality of Karimnagar and the open land to an extent of 89.03 sq.yards, part of 305.20 sq.yards of land in Sy.No.911/C 2 situated at Bhagathnagar locality of Karimnagar town, of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is husband of plaintiff
No.2. The defendant No.1 is husband of defendant No.2. They are having their respective lands and adjacent to one another as shown in the plaint map. The plaintiff No.1 is owner and possessor of suit lands in Sy.No.911/A and 911/C at
Bhagathnagar locality of Karimnagar town. D1 and D2, in the year 2005, who are having their lands towards east side of plaintiff No.1 and in Sy.No.911/A (suit schedule A property), in the name of D1, approached the plaintiff No.1 for his land of approximately 8 gts situated towards west side of 2nd defendant land and requested him that they are in need of land to an extent of 8 gts in compact block.
The plaintiff No.1 informed the defendants that from the said compact block, some of the land to an extent of nearly 3 gts of land towards west side of 20 feet and some other adjoining land towards its south side, is the subject matter of civil suit in O.S.No.56 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, filed by one
Jeeth Kour against petitioner No.1 and his two brothers for recovery of possession and declaration of title for 14 gts in Sy.No.911/C and the same was decreed against them. They preferred an appeal in A.S. No.70 of 2005 before the Hon'ble
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the same is still pending for disposal and that the plaintiff No.1, therefore, agreed to sell an extent of 658.70 sq.yards in
Sy.No.911/A which is not the subject matter of A.S.No.70 of 2005, to the defendant No.1, who, D1 at that time requested plaintiff No.1 that he will settle the subject matter with the said Jeeth Kour for the remaining land towards west side of said 658.70 sq.yards of land and he requested plaintiff No.1 for executing only agreement of sale for that land by assuring that the plaintiff No.1 will not have any liability towards defendant No.1 even plaintiff No.1 failed in his appeal suit to the extent of the said land and on that assurance, D1 entered into an agreement of sale for the land towards west side. D1 fixed the date of registration of sale on 19.05.2005 and paid sale consideration to the plaintiff No.1 and at the time of registration of sale deed, he requested plaintiff No.1 that as he is a government employee he intended to execute registered sale deed for 658.70 sq.yards and for executing agreement of sale for the remaining land, in the name of his fatherin law and on that request of D1, plaintiff No.1 executed registered sale deed dated 19.05.2005 bearing document No.6411/2005 in the name of fatherinlaw of D1 ie., Kasu Komuraiah and also executed an agreement of sale on the same day for the land which is subject matter of Appeal Suit towards west side of 658.70 sq.yards of land and agreed for executing registered sale deed, after disposal of civil
Appeal Suit pending before the High Court. The plaintiff No.1, in the sale deed
dated 19.05.2005 of Kasu Komuraiah has shown that towards west side he is
owning the land as the said land is the subject matter of A.S.No.70 of 2005.
3
D1 started construction work of 5 floors building over the land of the above mentioned agreement of sale in the name of his fatherinlaw towards west side of 658.70 sq.yards of land of registered sale deed dated 19.05.2005 and obtained
Municipal H.No.83132/2 in the name of D2. D1 without any permission from
Municipality, Karimnagar and without any documents over the said land of five floors building, got municipal door No.83132/2 for that building in the name of
D2 and later D1 got executed registered gift deed through Jeeth Kour on 02.03.2006, in favour of second defendant vide document No.2543/2006 for the said 658.70 sq.yards of land sold out by the plaintiff No.1.
D1 after three months ie., on 08.06.2006, got executed a rectification of gift deed dated 02.03.2006 through Kasu Komuraiah in favour of D2 by rectifying that the said five floors building bearing municipal No.83132/2 is over, which shows that D1 has made illegal construction of five floors building without any conveyance deed and for making the illegal building as a legal one he has created rectification gift deed.
After completion of five floors building over the land, which is subject mater of
A.S.No.70 of 2005, D1 has approached the respondent in that Appeal Suit ie.,
Jeeth Kour and offered amounts and he has influenced plaintiff No.1 for settlement with Jeeth Kour and at his instance, plaintiff No.1 has compromised in Appeal Suit though he is the owner and possessor of the said land with Jeeth Kour only for permanently ending the dispute with him to the extent of his land held by him out of the said 14 gts of land vide compromise petition in No.897 of 2007 in A.S.No.70 of 2005 and in the said compromise petition a sketch map was prepared and it was agreed that the said Jeeth Kour, after receiving sale consideration amount, shall execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 for 305 sq.yards shown in green colour and further said Jeeth Kour shall execute registered sale deed to
D2 for 311 sq.yards which is towards west side of 658.70 under agreement of sale by the plaintiff No.1, shown in yellow colour of the map and the entire consideration has already been paid to the said Jeeth Kour at the time of filing compromise petition and the same was recorded in that Appeal Suit and then the
Appeal Suit was dismissed against the petitioner No.1 in accordance with compromise petition.
The plaintiff submits that at the time of entering compromise the five floors building was in existence in the name of D2 bearing No.83132/2 and with that reason only, D2 though mentioned in the compromise deed of getting registered sale deed to be executed by Jeeth Kour in favour of D2, he has not executed any 4 registered sale deed in her favour with Jeeth Kour, due to existence of five floors building. The plaintiff No.1 in accordance with compromise in the Appeal Suit got executed registered sale deed dt.19.06.2007 bearing document No.7189 of 2007 for 305.20 sq.yards through Jeeth Kour in favour of plaintiff No.2, shown in green colour of the map enclosed with compromise petition and on the same day the said
Jeeth Kour has also got executed another sale deed dt.19.06.2007 bearing document No.7190 of 2007 for 53.20 sq.yards of land towards south side of said 305.20 sq.yards of land on consideration.
The plaintiffs suit lands A and B are in one compact block and towards west side, south side and east side they have raised compound walls and they have erected a gate towards west side and constructed a room towards east side bearing municipal door No.83119/B corresponding to new H.No.83154. The plaintiffs have not raised compound wall towards north side for all these days ie., towards the land and school of defendants due to having cordial relations with defendants.
The plaintiffs, about three months back for the settlement of their sons in their respective business, decided to sell away their land to third parties,to give the amounts to their sons with the sale considerations and with that intention, they approached defendants and shown their intention of selling their lands towards south side land of D2 and school building but the defendants did not come forward for purchasing their land and then the plaintiff No.1 approached third parties and entered into an agreement of sale and received part payment. After that agreement of sale, the third parties Gundipati Sai Reddy has given paper publication and then
D2 gave a false reply through their advocate dated 06.05.2010 to the purchaser of plaintiff No.1 and requested him not to purchase the lands of plaintiff No.1 and that third parties approached the plaintiff No.1 and forced him for cancellation of agreement of sale due to the fear of defendants. The plaintiffs then decided to construct a compound wall towards north side of their land and with that intention they started digging land for basement on 20.05.2010 and while the labours were digging the trenches for basement and for compound wall, the defendants with their men interfered with the work and stopped the labours from digging the land of plaintiff No.1 to an extent of Ac.16177 sq.yards, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule (A) property and also plaintiff No.2 land to an extent of 89 sq.yards, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule B property. Later the defendants and their men tried to occupy the suit lands but the same were resisted by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs further stated that D1 earlier worked as Reserve Inspector of
Police in Karimnagar town for several years and he is having influence over local police and at present he is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police at 5
Hyderabad and by using his influence, he is threatening the plaintiffs that he will not permit them for raising any structure over suit schedule A and B properties and the defendants planned to grab the same. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are having absolute ownership and possession over the suit schedule A and B lands respectively and they are having their respective lands in one compact block and its total area is 251 sq.yards. The defendants are having their school building and open land towards north side of suit schedule A and B lands and in between their land, there is no compound wall and by seeing the escalation of rates of lands, the defendants are planning to grab the suit schedule A and B lands. The defendants are strangers to the suit schedule A and B lands, without having any rights whether proprietory or possessory whatsoever, they are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule A and B lands and that the plaintiffs are apprehending danger that the defendants may dispossess them from the said lands at any time. The plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule A and B lands and their lands are in one compact block and threat of dispossession by the defendants are common against the plaintiffs and hence they approached this court by way of this suit seeking the relief.
3.The defendants filed their written statement admitting the relationship of the parties but denied the allegations mentioned in the plaint averements. They denied the allegations that the plaintiff No.2 is owner of suit schedule B land and submitted that one Jeeth Kour was declared as owner of land measuring Ac.014 gts, including the scheduleB land, by a decree dated 08.12.2004 passed by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.S.No.56 of 1998 and then the plaintiff No.1 has filed an appeal in A.S.No.170 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High
Court of A.P against the said decree and the same is still pending. The plaintiff
No.1, who is in wrongful possession of 616 sq.yards out of said land measuring
Ac.014, gts delivered possession of said 616 sq.yards, in sy.No.911/C to said decree holder Jeeth Kour on 06.06.2005, during the pendency of the said appeal in
A.S.No.170 of 2005, inturn said Jeeth Kour delivered possession of said 616
sq.yards, in Sy.No.911/C to D2 and her father late Kasu Komuraiah on 06.06.2005 and the said land measuring 616 sq.yards includes the scheduleB land.
The defendants submitted that D2 was having her land on the west side of land bearing Sy.No.911/A and that D2 purchased the suit lands in the year 1997 and constructed a house bearing door No.83132/1, in which Challenger High
School is being run since 2003. They submitted that late Kasu Komuraiah, father of D2, who was looking after the said Challenger High School on behalf of D2, approached the plaintiff No.1 to purchase the said land on the west side of the old 6 school building bearing door No.83132/1 and after negotiating with the plaintiff
No.1, late Kasu Komuraiah purchased 658.70 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/A from the plaintiff No.1 through a registered sale deed document No.6411 of 2005 dt.19.05.2005 but which is not covered by the decree dt.08.12.2004 passed in
O.S.No.56 of 1998 and that the said Kasu Komuraiah also entered into an
agreement of sale with the plaintiff No.1 on 19.05.2005 to purchase the land in
Sy.No.911/C measuring 175.39 sq.yards covered by the decree, for the purpose of wide opening from the western side 20' wide road to the proposed new school building. It was late Kasu Komuraiah only, who negotiated with the plaintiff No.1 and also with said Jeeth Kour and thereafter late Kasu Komuraiah entered into a separate sale agreement with said Jeeth Kour on 19.05.2005 to purchase total land measuring 616.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C, which was in occupation of the plaintiff No.1 and that said Kasu Komuraiah got assurance from both the plaintiff
No.1 and said Jeeth Kaur by paying amounts to both of them, to make settlement between themselves in respect of said 616 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C, so that he may obtain valid possession of said land and such settlement may be duly recorded in the appeal in A.S.No.170 of 2005 pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
They further submitted that late Kasu Komuraiah obtained permission for construction and constructed new building in a part of the land measuring 616 sq.yards covered by the agreement of sale dt.19.05.2005 executed by Jeeth Kaur and there was a settlement between the plaintiff No.1 and said Jeeth Kaur in respect of said land measuring 616 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C, as a result of the efforts and persuasions of late Kasu Komuraiah. The plaintiff No.1 handed over possession of land and measuring 616 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C to said Jeeth Kaur on 06.06.2005 and on the same day said Jeeth Kaur put said Kasu Komuraiah in possession of said land and then he started construction only after getting possession on 06.06.2005 and the said building so constructed by late Kasu
Komuraiah, was transferred in favour of D2 under a registered sale deed document
No.8253 of 2006 dt.08.06.2008. Hence, both the plaintiffs have no right or locus standi to challenge any transactions in respect of said five floors building door
No.83132/2 and the same is not subject matter of this suit.
The defendants also stated that they did not approach said Jeeth Kaur and
D1 did not influence them at any time. They further stated that late Kasu
Komuraiah, father of D2, was looking after the Challenger High School for D2 and had approached the plaintiff No.1 and Jeeth Kaur even before 19.05.2005 and after coming to know about the pending litigation between the plaintiff No.1 and said
Jeeth Kaur in O.S.No.56 of 1998 and in A.S.No.170 of 2005, late Kasu Komuraiah negotiated with both the plaintiff No.1 and Jeeth Kaur, persuaded them to settle 7 their claims in respect of said 616 sq.yards and both of them made settlement and the possession of said 616 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C is finally handed over by the plaintiff No.1 to said Jeeth Kaur which was recorded in the compromise memo
dated 23.04.2007 in ASMP No.897 of 2007 and then the said Jeeth Kaur handed
over possession of same 616 sq.yards to late Kasu Komuraiah on 06.06.2005. The plaintiff No.1 colluded with the said Jeeth Kaur, subsequent to06.06.2005 and instead of filing a compromise petition in A.S.M.P. No.897 of 2007 incorporated all the terms agreed as per settlement made on 06.06.2005, a false term is incorporating in that compromise that the said Jeeth Kaur agreed to sell 305 sq.yards out of total 616 sq.yards in favour of the plaintiff No.2, his wife and subsequently, collusive, fraudulent and nominal registered sale deeds document
Nos.7189 of 2007 and 7190 of 2007, both dated 19.06.2007, are brought into existence in respect of 358.46 sq.yards (instead of 305 sq.yards mentioned in the compromise in ASMP No.897 of 2007) described in plaint scheduleB, which is a part of total extent of 616 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C. Therefore the defendant No.2 has filed a separate suit seeking reliefs that said two registered sale deeds are not binding on D2 and for other reliefs and meanwhile, said Jeeth Kaur executed a registered sale deed document No.5846 of 2010 dt.12.07.2010 in favour of D2 incorporating the terms of the sale agreement dated 19.05.2005 and delivery of possession of said total 616 sq.yards was done on 06.06.2005 as per settlement made by her on 06.06.2005. D2 acquired title in respect of said total 616 sq.yards including the land described in plaint scheduleB and she has been in continuous possession of the same from 06.06.2005.
They further stated that the sketch map filed with the plaint itself shows that the lands described in plaint A and B schedules do not constitute compact block and scheduleB land forms a compact block, with the other land in Sy.No.911/C on the northern side in which D2 has constructed the building door No.83132/2.
They denied that the plaintiffs raised compound walls and erected a gate to the plaint B schedule land. But D2 raised existing compound wall and fixed the gate to the scheduleB land in the year 2005. In the southern side of the scheduleB land, this defendant constructed a platform and shed and fixed a generator in the year 2005 itself, which is still in existence and in a part of plaint B schedule land,
D2 fixed big play items permanently in the year 2005, which has been used by the
School boys of Challenger High School since 2005 and remaining part is being used for parking of the School vehicles since 2005 and that the plaint schedule B land has been in continuous possession of D2 since 2005 and that D2 has already filed in I.A.No.1377 of 2010 in this suit, for the purpose of recording the physical features existing in the plaint and schedule land.
8
They further stated that the defendants never approached the plaintiffs to sell the plaintB schedule land. The plaintiffs have no rights in the plaint schedule
B land and they have no right to sell the same and in fact they want to occupy scheduleB land for wrongful gain. Prior to 06.06.2005 the plaintiff No.1 was in wrongful possession of plaint B schedule land and originally owned by Jeeth Kaur, who is declared as owner by decree dated 08.12.2004 in O.S.No.56 of 1998. If really, the plaintiff had any valid and legal claim in respect of plaint B schedule land and with other land totally measuring 616 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C, the plaintiff No.1 would have not parted with possession of the said land by delivering possession thereof to Jeeth Kaur, the decree holder by admitting the said title of
Jeeth Kaur in respect land in of the said land measuring 616 sq.yards, as recorded in the compromise memo filed in A.S.M.P.No.897 of 2007. The plaintiff No.1 admitted the title of said Jeeth kaur and delivered possession of B schedule land and other lands in respect of land in Sy.No.911/C totally measuring 616 sq.yards to Jeeth Kaur, subsequently, the plaintiff No.1 fraudulently obtained two registered sale deeds from said Jeeth Kaur on 19.06.2007, collusively and nominally with a dishonest intention, in favour of his wife, the plaintiff No.2, without paying any sale consideration to said Jeeth Kaur.
They denied that on 20.05.2010 they interfered when the plaintiffs started digging trenches in plaint A and B schedule lands. They stated that the schedule B land was never in possession of plaintiff No.2 and they never tried to occupy the same unlawfully. They never threatened the plaintiffs and never influenced the local police. They submitted that “Sruthi Education Society” is running a high school in the two buildings door Nos.83132/1 and 83132/2 including the open land described in scheduleB land, since 2003 and 2005 respectively and on account of the existence of said school the value of the land in that area has been increased. Hence, the plaintiff developed unlawful designs to make a false claim in respect of the plaint scheduleB land, which is being used for running a high school and its play ground and which is owned by D2.
D2 has clearly admitted that she has no claim in respect of plaint A schedule land. They clearly stated that the suit is bad on the ground of misjoinder of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the misjoinder of cause of action in respect of separate pieces of land said to have been owned and possessed by the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and no common questions of fact and law arise in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff No.2 for the schedule B land. Hence, they have been stated that the plaintiff No.2 was not in possession of scheduleB land either on the date of suit or at any time before the suit and she has been always out of possession of schedule 9
B land and that she did not claim the necessary relief of declaration of title in respect of scheduleB land and hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the above rival pleadings, this court has framed the following issues;
1. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit properties as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
3. To what relief?
5.Subsequently, the plaintiff No.2 was reported died. Then the plaintiff No.3 to 6 were impleaded as legal representatives of plaintiff No.2 and later the amended fair copy was filed.
6.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws. 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A15. On behalf of the defendants, Dws. 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B12.
7.Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments of both sides and when they did not come forward to present their arguments, after conditional orders, dated 13.11.2018 and 19.11.2018 this court deemed to be heard the arguments on both sides on 19.11.2018 and posted the matter for judgment initially on 27.11.2018.
Then learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed a petition with a notice to the defendants and accordingly after hearing the matter was reopened conditionally for hearing, on the date fixed by this court, in which the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on 03.12.2018, filed written arguments and submitted the oral arguments also. But the learned counsel for the defendants did not turn up even after several conditional orders dated 03.12.2018, 10.12.2018, 21.12.2018, 26.12.2018, 28.12.2018 and on this date and hence, as per the said earlier conditional orders, it is deemed to be heard and pronounced the judgment as it is one of the oldest matters pending on the file of this court and with a view to dispose of the same as per the directions and circular instructions of the Hon'ble
Superior Courts to make '5+0' pendency, in the interest of justice.
8.ISSUES No.1 and 2:
1. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit properties as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
10
It is an established Law that the party approaching the court for equitable relief should come with clean hands. It is also an established law that when the plaintiff is claiming the equitable relief, he should discharge his burden in proving his case. Admittedly the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are husband and wife. They are seeking equitable relief over the suit schedule A and B properties to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over those properties.
9.Admittedly in the written statement, the defendants have clearly stated that they have no claim over the suit scheduleA property and it is specifically averred in the written statement that the suit scheduleA property is still in possession of the plaintiffs but they denied about the possession of suit scheduleB property by the plaintiffs and they specifically averred that the said suit scheduleB property is in their possession. Hence, as specifically they admitted the possession of suit scheduleA land by the plaintiffs, it is not necessary to decide the said aspect. DW1 in the cross examination has clearly admitted that he is not claiming scheduleA land in the present suit. Hence, the plaintiffs are in possession of suit scheduleA land as on the date of filing the suit.
10.The dispute is only with regard to the suit scheduleB land in this case between the parties. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 himself got examined as PW1 and got examined Pws. 2 and 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to
A15. To prove the case of the defendants, D1 himself got examined as DW1 and one Veraboina Mallaiah was got examined as DW2 and that they got marked Ex.B1 to B12.
11.The evidence of PW1 in the chief examination affidavit is in the same lines of the plaint averements. In the cross examination he clearly deposed that the land in
Sy.No.911/C, (suit scheduleB property) was originally owned by Jeeth Kaur of
Ac.04 gts. He clearly admitted that the said Jeeth Kaur filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration of title against him and his brother, that was decreed, against which they preferred an appeal and he clearly admitted that he entered into an agreement of sale with D2 to sell the land in his possession in Sy.No.911/C owned by Jeeth Kaur, in the year 2005, that received total sale consideration in respect of that land and delivered possession to D2 under agreement of sale in
Sy.No.11/C. He clearly admitted that D2 has been in possession of said land in
Sy.No.911/C and that he further deposed that the suit scheduleB land measuring Ac.089 sq.yards is not included in the said agreement of the year 2005 and he clearly deposed that he filed the present suit in respect of land measuring 2 ½ gts in Sy.No.911/C and also filed 1 to 2 gts of land in Sy.No.911/A, when the 11 defendants tried to occupy the same, and that the suit scheduleB land is vacant land. He clearly admitted that in the said land, sold by him under agreement, the defendants constructed five storeyed building, which shows in Ex.B1 and B2, in
Sy.No.911/C, which is immediately towards northern side of scheduleB land.
Hence, the evidence of PW1 in the cross examination is clear that he sold away the land in Sy.No.911/C, to D2 excluding the suit scheduleB land but the defendants are claiming rights over the land in Sy.No.911/C including the suit scheduleB land. In the cross examination PW1 clearly deposed that at the time of said agreement of sale in respect of land in Sy.No.911/C, he has also sold his other own land measuring 658.7 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/A to Kasu Komuraiah, father of D2 on the same day ie., 19.05.2005. He clearly admitted that he was in possession of said 5 gts 11 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C as on 19.05.2005 which is owned by Jeeth
Kaur and by that day there was a judgment against him to deliver possession of said 511 gts to Jeeth Kaur.
12.It is an admitted fact that the said Jeeth Kaur filed suit against the plaintiff
No.1 and his brother for recovery of possession and declaration of title for 14 gts in
Sy.No.911/C and the same was decreed against them ie., in favour of Jeeth Kaur, aggrieved by which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court in A.S No.70 of 2005 stated as A.S.No.170 of 2005 in W.S. Of defendants and it is originally A.S.No.170 of 2005 and when the same was pending, negotiations were held for compromising the same. To prove the said aspect, the plaintiffs got marked
Ex.A6 to A8. Ex.A6 is order of the Hon'ble High Court in ASMP No.897 of 2007 in
A.S.No.170 of 2005, wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that the learned
counsel for the respondent and appellant No.1 filed a petition requesting the court to pass a decree in terms of the memorandum of compromise entered into between them and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the lower court and the memo of compromise purporting to have been signed by the parties and their advocates and filed with the said ASMP.No.897 of 2007 and it appearing for the said memorandum of compromise that the terms of said memorandum of compromise, declare order and decree that as per the compromise the first appeal is dismissed against the first appellant as withdrawn.
13.Ex.P7 order of the Hon'ble High Court in ASMP.No.897 of 2007 clearly shows the observation in page No.2 that “the learned counsel appearing for the first appellant, submits that the appellants and the respondent/plaintiff have entered into compromise and in pursuance of the compromise, the portion of the property, which is in possession, has been delivered to the respondent/plaintiff. The compromise petition suffers from serious lacuna with regard to not impleadment of the parties, who are not cooperating with the compromise as proforma 12 respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the first appellant submits that the first appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and therefore seeks permission to withdraw the appeal so far as the first appellant is concerned. Since the defendants have specifically pleaded division of the property in the trial court, I do not see any impediment in permitting the 1st appellant to withdraw the appeal”
Whereas Ex.A8 petition in ASMP No.897 of 2007 clearly shows as under; “The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge at Karimnagar for declaration of title, recovery of possession in respect of 014 gts of land in
Sy.No.911/C situated at Kattarampur locality of (Bhagathnagar) Karimnagar revenue village within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule stating that Sardar Bagath Singh, the father of the plaintiff died leaving behind him. The plaintiff and Munnabai as his daughters and that Munnabai died and that the plaintiff, became the absolute owner of suit property in Sy.No.911/C as legal heirs of Sardar Bhagath Singh under Hindu Succession Act and whereas the defendants No.1 to 3 filed a common written statement stating that their father Sardar Chenda Singh purchased the land in Sy.No.911/C area 014 gts under an agreement of sale dated 24.02.1970 from Munnabai and that their father was in possession and that thereafter the defendants No.1 to 3 are in possession and that in the partition between the defendants no.1 to 3 in the suit land, that the defendants No.1 got the northern portion of the suit land and whereas the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar after trial decreed the suit in O.S.No.56 of 1998 by his Judgment and decree dated 08.12.2004 and whereas the defendants in O.S.No.56 of 1998 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.170 of 2005 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and whereas on the advise of the elders of the appellant No.1 defendant No.1 and the plaintiff/respondent herein, the appellant No.1 and the plaintiff/respondent herein have compromised in respect of northern portion of the land in Sy.No.911/C Kattarampur (Bhagathnagar) locality of Karimnagar revenue village in respect of 005 gts and 11 yards of land of the appellant No.1 therein, with a view to maintain cordial relationship and to shorten the litigation and to avoid unnecessary expenses on litigation, on the following terms and condition.
The appellant No.1 herein delivered possession of his 005 gts and 11 yards of land on the northern side of the suit in Sy.No.911/C Kattarampur (Bhagathnagar) locality of Karimnagar revenue village to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein being owner of the land in Sy.No.911/C area 014 gts and after delivery of possession of 005 gts and 11 yards of and of appellant No.1 herein on the northern of the suit land in Sy.No.911/C to the respondent, the plaintiff/respondent sold the said land of 005 gts and 11 yards of land now possessed by plaintiff/respondent, of an extent of 305 sq.yards to Smt.Shabha Kour, W/o.Huzura Singh aged about 55 years, R/o.H.No.24140 Sikhwada Karimnagar proper and an extent of 311 sq.yards to Smt. Saroja, W/o.Mallaiah resident of Karimnagar. The respective purchasers have paid entire sale consideration to the plaintiff/respondent, and the plaintiff/respondent acknowledging the same and agreed to execute registered sale deed in their favour. A sketch map is annexed herewith who are in the possession and enjoyment of their purchased extent of land respectively.”.
14.From the above, it is clear that the parties have compromised in respect of northern side portion of land in Sy.No.911/C ie., 5 gts 11 yards and accordingly the appellant No.1 ie., plaintiff No.1 herein, has delivered possession of 5 gts 11 yards land on the northern side in Sy.No.911/C to plaintiff ie., Jeeth Kaur, being 13 owner of land in Sy.No.911/C to a total extent of 14 gts and after delivery of possession of 5 gts 11 yards, the plaintiff/respondent ie., Jeeth Kaur sold the land from the extent of 5 gts 11 yards, now possessed by plaintiffs herein to an extent of 305 sq.yards to plaintiff No.2 herein and to an extent of 311 sq.yards to D2 herein.
It is clearly mentioned in that petition that the respective purchasers ie., plaintiff
No.2 and D2 herein have paid entire sale consideration to said Jeeth Kaur and on which she executed registered sale deeds in favour of respective purchasers.
Hence, it is clear from the above recital in that Ex.P8 ie., after getting compromise and delivery of possession by plaintiff No.1 to said Jeeth Kaur in respect of land to an extent of 5 gts 11 yards, she sold away 305 sq.yards and 311 sq.yards of lands to plaintiff No.2 and D2 respectively by taking consideration and accordingly executed the registered sale deeds in their favour.
15.To support the said transactions of executing registered sale deeds of 305 sq.yards and 311 sq.yards in favour of plaintiff No.2 and D2 respectively by said
Jeeth Kaur, the plaintiffs got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 shows that it was executed by
Jeeth Kaur in favour of plaintiff No.2 on 19.06.2007 by taking entire consideration amount in respect of land to an extent of 305.55 gts. Tn the schedule, boundaries are shown as East: land of plaintiff No.1, West: 20 feet road, North: land of D2,
South: vendors's (Jeeth Kaur) remaining land. It is further case of the plaintiffs that said Jeeth Kaur also executed another sale deed under Ex.A2 in favour of plaintiff No.2 in respect of land to an extent of 53.23 sq.yards, wherein, the boundaries clearly shows towards East: land of plaintiff No.1, West: 20 feet road,
North: purchasers lands ie., plaintiff No.2; South: vendors land. From the above schedules it is clear that the said registered documents Ex.A1 and A2 are in respect of lands initially 305.sq.yards and 53.23 sq.yards respectively which are adjacent to each other. But towards north side of 305 sq.yards under Ex.A1, the land of D2 is there and in Ex.A2, the boundary towards north side, the land of petitioner No.2 ie., Ex.A1 was shown. Hence, the plaintiff No.2 purchased the land from said Jeeth Kaur totally to an extent of 358.78 sq.yards duly supported by
Ex.A1 and A2.
16. The plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A3 to A5, which are pertaining to the land in Sy.No.311/A and as admitted by DW1 in his cross examination that he has no dispute with regard to same, hence as stated supra the plaintiffs are in possession of suit scheduleA property. PW1 has also got marked
Ex.A9 to A11 which clearly shows that he is in possession of house No.83154.
Ex.A12 and A13 encumbrance certificates which shows the transactions.
14
17.In the cross examination PW1 also clearly denied the suggestion that with an intention to cheat D2 and her father, the compromise was got recorded that Jeeth
Kaur executed registered documents to an extent of 305 sq.yards in his favour.
Further he clearly stated that subsequent to the said compromise, he got executed two registered sale deeds, one for 305 sq.yards and another is 53.23 sq.yards in
Sy.No.911/C from Jeeth Kaur in the name of his wife, plaintiff No.2. He denied the suggestion that the said documents are void since Jeeth Kaur had already executed agreement in favour of father of D2 and delivered possession of land in
Sy.No.911/C. He clearly deposed that he filed the suit for 89 sq.yards in
Sy.No.911/C, which is part of 305.20 sq.yards. Hence, the dispute is with regard to scheduleB property covered under Ex.A1 land ie., 305 sq.yards. As the execution of Ex.A1 was clearly mentioned in the compromise petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court by said Jeeth Kaur, the execution of Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff No.2 cannot be doubted and the same was established by the plaintiffs that said Jeeth Kaur executed Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of plaintiff No.2.
18.It is the case of the defendants that said Jeeth Kaur executed an agreement in favour of D2, which is marked as Ex.B3 agreeing to sell the land to an extent of 5 gts 11 yards 616 sy.yards in Sy.No.911/C, wherein the schedule shown as East:
land of plaintiff No.1 and land of Kasu komuraiah purchased by him in
Sy.No.911/C, West: 20 feet road, North: house of Jagadishwar; South: remaining land of vendor (Jeeth Kaur) in Sy.No.911/C. The said document alleged to have executed on 19.05.2005 and on the back side of first page of stamp paper it was written with date 06.06.2005 marked as Ex.A14 as under; “dated; 06.06.2005. As a result of negotiations made between Sardarni Jeeth Kaur, W/o.Dayasingh, Huzura Singh, S/o.Chanda Singh and Kasu Komuraiah, S/o. Late Rajaiah, the possession of the schedule land described in the schedule of this agreement, said Huzura Singh had handed over the possession of the schedule land to Jeeth Kaur, W/o.Daya Singh and inturn said Jeeth Kaur had handed over the possession of the schedule land to said Kasu Komuraiah, S/o. Rajaiah. Said Jeeth Kaur has agreed to get the delivery of possession in her favour duly recorded in the pending appeal AS No.170 of 2005 at an early date. Today said Kasu Komuraiah has paid the balance sale consideration Rs.1,00,000/ (one lakh only) to said Jeeth Kaur in the presence of the persons, who have signed as witnesses in the agreement of sale dated 19.05.2005”.
19.From the above recital, it is clear that Jeeth Kaur, plaintiff No.1 and Kasu Komuraiah got compromised the matter and accordingly the possession was delivered by plaintiff No.1 to Jeeth Kaur, who inturn handed over possession to
Kasu Komuraiah and also agreed to get delivery of possession in her favour duly recording the same in pending appeal A.S No.170 of 2005 and said Kasu
Komuraiah paid Rs.1 lakh as balance sale consideration to Jeeth Kaur in the presence of witnesses ie., Jagadish and Madhu Kumar. The defendants have also 15 got marked Ex.B6, the registered sale deed executed by said Jeeth Kaur in favour of D1 on 12.07.2010 which clearly shows the schedule in respect of land to an extent of 671 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C bounded by East: land of plaintiff No.1 and
Kasu Komuraiah, West: 20 feet road, North: house of Jagadishwar Chary, South:
remaining land of vendor in Sy.No.911/C. Hence, in the agreement of sale the land to an extent of 5 gts 11 yards ie., 616 sq.yards was shown but in Ex.B6 sale deed, they have shown 671 sq.yards ie., by including suit scheduleB property, which has boundaries on East: land of plaintiff No.1 and Kasu Komuraiah, West: 20 feet road, North: H.No.83136 of Jagadeeshwara Chary, South: remaining land of vendors in Sy.No.911/C, which is forming part of 305.20 sq.yards in Ex.A1.
20.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Ex.B3 agreement is an undersigned one though it was marked, which cannot give perfect title and relied on a decision reported in the case of Golla Dharmanna v. Sakari Poshetty [ALD 2013 5 490] wherein, the Hon'ble High court held that “Merely because stamp duty and penalty have been paid and the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 have been complied with, it would not automatically make the said document admissible in evidence, if as per law, the said document is also required to be registered”. Admittedly Ex.B3 is not a registered document and as per the above said decision, the document cannot be considered.
Moreover, the said sale deed Ex.B6 was executed on 12.07.2010 in respect of land to an extent of 671 sq.yards and as submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, initially the present suit was filed on 25.05.2010 and to avoid the rights of the plaintiffs, intentionally said Jeeth Kaur got executed Ex.B6 registered sale deed in favour of D2 behind back of the plaintiffs, can be taken into consideration.
21.Further the D2 also got marked Ex.B5 certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.284 of 2010 against plaintiff No.2, 1 herein and Jeeth Kaur on 22.10.2010 for declaration and alternatively for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.05.2005 in respect of land measuring 5 gts 11 yards in Sy.No.911/C and 358.46 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C. But the said suit was filed after filing of this suit and also execution of Ex.B6 registered sale deed in favour of D2 by Jeeth Kaur.
Hence, it is clear that the plaintiffs have approached this court with clean hands for the equitable relief.
22.The defendants have also got marked Ex.B7 to B12, which are alleged to have been obtained in the year 2005 but which do not show that they are in possession of the suit scheduleB property as on the date of filing the suit. Further the said receipts show about the items purchased from furniture shop and to prove the said receipts, the signatory was not at all examined before this court. Further to prove the possession as on the date of the suit, the plaintiffs got marked Ex.A9 16 to A11, which clearly supports the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit scheduleB property as on the date of filing the suit.
23.The evidence of PW2, who is son of plaintiff No.1 and 2 is duly supporting the case of the plaintiffs and in the cross examination he also clearly admitted that he was present when his father entered into an agreement in the year 2005 with
Kasu Komuraiah but he did not sign in that agreement and he also clearly supports the case of the plaintiffs by denying the suggestions and he admitted that his father sold land to an extent of 658.7 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/A to father of D2 through registered sale deed in the year 2005, which is not disputed by the defendants as DW1 has clearly admitted that he has no case with respect to that land. He clearly denied the suggestion that the play items of school children are located in suit scheduleB land, that the generator is also there towards south side of land in suit scheduleB land. He also clearly admitted about the execution of
Ex.A1 and A2 as per compromise entered into by Jeeth Kaur and his father before the Hon'ble High Court.
24.Further PW2 got marked Ex.A14 reply notice (which was marked as Ex.A14 instead of Ex.A15) given by the advocate for D2 in the public notice issued by
Gudipati Sai Reddy and others, wherein it is stated that said Gudipati Sai Reddy and others intended to purchase the land in Sy.No.911/A and 911/C to an extent of 8 gts. In that reply, it is clearly mentioned that father of D2 purchased the land in Sy.No.911/C to an extent of 348.97 sq.yards and 309.83 sq.yards from Jeeth
Kaur through her registered GPA holder ie., her son vide GPA document No.
1608/2005 dated 16.08.2005. It is clearly mentioned that by virtue of GPA, the
GPA holder i.e., Jashvinder Singh sold the said land in Sy.No.911/C by receiving sale consideration and executed agreement of sale in favour of father of D2. But the alleged agreement of sale, placed before this court under Ex.B3 clearly shows that it was executed by Jeeth Kaur but not her GPA holder in respect of land in
Sy.No.911/C, on 19.05.2005. However, the said registered GPA document
No.1608 of 2005 dated 16.08.2005 was not placed before this court and the said reply notice was issued on 06.05.2010 stating that D2 and her father purchased the said land and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of agreement of sale and adverse possession. It is clearly mentioned that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are not having any right to sell the property in
Sy.No.911/C and have no right to alienate the same. But as per Ex.A1 and A2, the plaintiff No.2 has purchased the land from Jeeth Kaur for a valid consideration and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. As stated supra Ex.B3 agreement of sale cannot be considered in the light of the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble High court.
17
25.The evidence of PW3 clearly shows that the plaintiffs have purchased the said land under Ex.A1 and A2 from Jeeth Kaur for a valid consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduleA and B properties. He clearly admitted that D2 filed suit in O.S.No.284 of 2010 against the plaintiffs seeking specific performance and declaration. He clearly admitted that he purchased 358 sq.yards in Sy.No.911/C jointly along with Medi Srinivas and Edla
Badraiah and three sons of plaintiff No.1 and they also purchased another land of 5 gts in Sy.No.911/A from the same persons and the said two properties are adjoining to each other. He clearly admitted that himself and other purchasers are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land purchased. His evidence clearly shows that when the appeal suit was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, he also participated in the compromise talks and did all his services to record the compromise between the parties before the Hon'ble High Court and accordingly the matter was settled. In the cross examination he clearly denied the suggestion that basing on compromise, false registered sale deed document Nos.7189/07 (Ex.A1) and 7190/07 (Ex.A2) were created in the name of plaintiff No.2. From such denial, it is clear that Ex.A1 and A2 were got executed by said Jeeth Kaur in favour of plaintiff No.;2 and hence the plaintiffs got the land from Jeeth Kaur in view of the said compromise. He clearly stated that the area covered by playing items in
Ex.B4 photo is not the suit land according to him. He clearly denied the suggestion that the suit scheduleB land is covered by play items, that the portion of gate appearing in Ex.B4 is not that of the gate referred in Sy.No.911/C and do not pertain to the suit scheduleB land.
26.Moreover, the evidence of DW2 in the cross examination shows that D2 has constructed five storeyed building in 212 gts of land in Sy.No.911/C during 2005 06 and installed a generator, raised playing items for school children and south side area abutting to school building in Sy.No.911/C, plaintiff also erected a gate towards west side of 20 feet width road and that school children and school vehicles passed through west side gate regularly. He clearly deposed in the chief examination itself that the plaintiff is exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 5 gts 11 yards in Sy.No.911/C and that the defendants are not in possession of land in Sy.No.911/C but he did not specifically state that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit scheduleB property and that the defendants are in possession of the same. In the cross examination he clearly deposed that the plaintiff sold his land in Sy.No.911/C to Kasu Komuraiah and again deposed that he does not know the details of sale made by plaintiff No.1, that he is not attester of any document executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of Kasu
Komuraiah. He further deposed that he has no idea whether Kasu Komuraiah, 18
Jeeth Kaur and plaintiff No.1 have entered into any agreement. He clearly denied the suggestion that the family members of plaintiffs are in possession of land to an extent of 5 gts 11 yards in Sy.No.911/C. His evidence is quite contra in that aspect to the case of the defendants. But from his evidence it is clear that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit scheduleB land and as stated by him he does not know the transactions between Jeeth Kaur, Kasu Komuraiah and plaintiff No.1 and that he is not an attesting witness in those documents executed by those parties. Hence, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration and it does not show that the defendants are in possession of suit scheduleB land.
27.Further, DW1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that he is not claiming scheduleA land, Kasu Komuraiah pressurized the plaintiffs and Jeeth
Kaur to settle their dispute in the land in Sy.No.911/C during 2005 and he is claiming rights only in the land in Sy.No.911/C. He further admitted that a wall is existing on southern side of room in Sy.No.911/A and it continued up to west side road and as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, it is clear that in the room of plaintiff bearing H.No.83119/B, which is constructed in Sy.No.911/A there is only way through gate which is towards west side road and Ex.A9 and A10 clearly supports the same that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduleA and B lands which are adjoining land towards southern side.
28.Further the defendants are claiming rights over the suit scheduleB land under agreement of sale dated 19.05.2005 ie., Ex.A14 executed by plaintiff No.1;
Ex.B3 dated 19.05.2005 executed by Jeeth Kaur in favour of Kasu Komuraiah and in continuation of Ex.B3, the continuation agreement dated 06.06.2005 under
Ex.B4 executed by Jeeth Kaur and Kasu Komuraiah and registered sale deed dated 12.07.2010, under Ex.B6. But as discussed above the unregistered documents
Ex.B3, B4 and A14 cannot be taken into consideration as per the above cited decision. Hence, the execution of those documents cannot be considered as such the case of the defendants is not at all established by them. Moreover, to show the possession of the defendants over suit scheduleB land, they relied on Ex.B7 to
B12 and they are of the year 2005 but not at the time of filing the suit to show their present possession over that land. Whereas the plaintiffs have clearly established their possession over the suit schedule properties as per Ex.A9 to A13, as on the date of filing the suit and the oral evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 also duly supports the same.
29.Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision reported by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25th March, 2008, appeal (Civil) No.6191 of 2001, wherein it is held 19 that “where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person, who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction”. It also further held at para No.13 that “In a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family member or agents or lessee/licencees”. From the above decision, in an injunction simpliciter, the plaintiffs have to establish their possession over the suit property and also the alleged interference of the defendants ie., interfering or disturbance of defendants over such lawful possession. As Pws. 1 to 3 have clearly established their case, it can be considered that the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit schedule properties.
30.It is settled law that no injunction can be granted against the true owner as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahadeo S. Savlaram Shelke and other v.
Puna Municipal Corporation and another, (1995) 3 SCC33.
31.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant
Charity Commissioner and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 137 has observed that noinjunction can be granted against the true owner.
32.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in Rama Gowda (dead) by
L.Rs vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) by L.Rs and another, (2004) 1 SCC 769, held that “possession is in no good against the rightful owner and that the assumption that he is in peaceful possession will not work and cannot operate against the true lawful owner”.
33.Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in Maria Margarida
Sequeria Femandes and others vs. Erasmo Jack de Seqneria (dead) though L.Rs.
(2012) 5 SCC 370, held that “possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannt be considered in vacuum”
34.In the present case, the plaintiff No.2 is original owner, who purchased suit schedule properties from Jeeth Kaur under Ex.A1 and A2 for valid consideration and as per the above decisions the injunction cannot be granted against the true owner, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A15 clearly shows that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit scheduleA and B properties as on the date 20 of filing the suit. On the other hand, the evidence of Dws. 1 and 2 coupled with their documentary evidence Ex.B1 to B12 does not establish their case.
Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.
35.ISSUE NO.3: To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.
Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile) FAC: II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:FOR DEFENDENTS: PW1:Sardar Hazura SinghDw1.Gorre Mallaiah PW2:Sardar Ugender Singh`DW2:Veraboina Mallaiah PW3:G.Rajkumar 21
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: CC of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.7189/07, dt.19.06.2007 executed by Jeethkour in favour of Shobhakour. Ex.A2: CC of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.7190/07, dt.19.06.2007 executed by Jeethkour in favour of Shobhakour. Ex.A3: CC of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.6411/05, dt.19.05.2006 executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of Kasu Komuraiah Ex.A4: CC of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.2453/06, dt.02.03.2006 executed by Kasu Komuraiah in favour of Gorre Saroja Ex.A5: CC of registered rectification deed bearing doc.No.8253/06, dt.08.06.2006 executed by Kasu komuraiah in favour of Gorre Saroja Ex.A6: CC of decree in ASMP.No.897/07 in Appeal suit No.170/05, dt.18.06.2007, of Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad Ex.A7: CC of order in ASMP.No.897/07 in Appeal suit No.170/05, dt.18.06.2007,
Hon'ble High court, Hyderabad.
Ex.A8: CC of compromise petition vide ASMP.No.897/07 in As.No.170/05 on the file of the Hon'ble High court, Hyderabad. Ex.A9: Property demand notice pertaining door No.83154,dt.20.10.2009 issued by Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. Ex.A10:Assessment details of door No.83154 issued by Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, dt.15.05.2010. Ex.A11:Electricity payment receipt, dt.17.05.2010 Ex.A12:Copy of encumbrance certificate, for the period 1.1.1983 to 9.5.2010, dt.10.05.2010 issued by Sub registrar, Karimnagar, pertaining the Sy.No.911/C. Ex.13: Copy of encumbrance certificate, for the period 1.1.1983 to 9.5.2010, dt.10.05.2010 issued by Sub registrar, Karimnagar, pertaining the Sy.No.911/A. Ex.A14: Agreement of sale, dt.19.05.2005 (marked in cross examination of DW1) Ex.A15: CC of office copy reply legal notice, issued from the office of P.Ashok Kumar, Advocate, Karimnagar
FOR DEFENDENTS: Ex.B1and B2: photos along with five storeyed building constructed in Sy.No.911/C Ex.B3: CC of agreement of sale executed by Sardari Jeeth Kour in favour of Kasu komuraiah and another, dt.19.05.2005 Ex.B4: Continuation of Ex.B3 agreement, dt.06.06.2005 Ex.B5: CC of plaint copy in O.S.No.284/2010 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil
Judge,Karimnagar
Ex.B6: CC of registered sale deed vide document No.5846/2010, dt.12.07.2010 executed by Sardari Jeeth Kaur in favour of Gorre Saroja Ex.B7: Copy of estimate, dt.18.06.2005 of Sri. Sai Building materials and suppliers Ex.B8: Copy of estimate, dt.19.06.2005 ofSri. Sai Building materials and suppliers. Ex.B9: Copy of quotation dt.20.06.2005 of Durgadevi Enterprises Ex.B10: Cash bill, dt.23.06.2005 issued by Maruthi Industries Steel Furniture Ex.B11: Copy of estimate dt.21.06.2005 of Sri. Chandra Cement Agencies. Ex.B12: Bill dt.21.06.2005 given by Ravi Cement products.
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile) FAC: II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.