O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 1 of 12
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHINNUR
Thursday, this the 11 th day of November, 2021
Present:- Sri M. Sai Kumar, Junior Civil Judge, Chinnur
OS.No. 26 of 2017
Between:
1.Akudari Sammaiah, S/o. Shivvaiah, Age: 70 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
2.Akudari Satyavathi, W/o Venkata Swamy, Age: 33 years, Occ: House Hold, Both R/o. Naspur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District.
...Plaintiffs.
And
1.Sundilla Madhunaiah, S/o. Late Pochaiah, Age: 50 yrs., Occ: Agril.,
2.Sundilla Durgaiah, S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
3.Sundilla Ramaiah, S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agril.,
4.Sundilla Posu, W/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agril.,
5.Sundilla Banesh, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agril.,
6.Nitturi Posham, S/o Durgaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agril., All R/o: Maddikal village of Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial.
...Defendants.
Suit for Permanent Injunction
This Suit is coming on 27-10-2021 this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ravinder, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and Sri M.Karthik Kumar, Advocate for Defendant No.1, 3 to 5, Sri Ramesh Chander Gilda Advocate for Defendant No.6, for Defendant No.2 abated, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over land in their men from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in Sy.No.562/1b/1 and 562/1b/3 ad-measuring Ac.1-20 gts. and Ac.1-21 gts., total Ac.3-01 gts. situated at Maddikal village of Jaipur mandal with the following boundaries, East: Land of Akudari
Ramulu, West: Land of Akudari Rathaiah, North: Land of Akudari Ramulu in
Sy.No.557 and South: Forest (Hereinafter called as Suit Land).
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 2 of 12
2.The Brief facts of the plaint are that, originally Akudari Shivvaiah was the pattadar of Ac.18-01 gts. of land in Sy.No.562 of Maddikal village. After his demise, his three sons Akudari Sammaiah, Akudari Rathnaiah and Akudari Mallaiah partitioned the same, in which plaintiff no.1 got Ac.8-01 gts of land in Sy.No.562 vide Procs.No.7/Maddikal/2007, dated 08-03-2007. Out of the said land, plaintiff no.1 sold Ac.2-00 gts. of land to N.Posham vide registered sale deed No.2197/2009,
dated 22-05-2009 and also sold Ac.1-20 gts. of land to Chintham Venkatesham vide
registered sale deed No.688/2009, dated 17-02-2009. The plaintiff no.1 out of the remaining land of Ac.4-20 gts, gifted Ac.1-20 gts to plaintiff no.2 vide registered gift deed No.12489/2014, dated 19-12-2014 and also gifted Ac.1-20 gts to Akudari
Swamya vide registered gift deed No.12490/2014, dated 19-12-2014. Subsequently the sale deeds and gift deeds were mutated in the revenue records. Thus, plaintiff no.1 is only holding Ac.1-21 gts of land i.e., part of suit land and the plaintiff no.2 is holding another part of suit land and they are in physical possession of the same.
The defendant no.6 purchased Ac.2-00 gts of land from the plaintiff no.1 through registered sale deed dated 22-05-2009, though he and other defendants do not have any manner of right or possession over the suit land developed malicious intention to grab the suit land illegally, thereby started interfering with the possession of plaintiff’s. In furtherance of their illegal intention on 11-06-2017 they all trespassed and threatened the plaintiffs for stalling the cultivation, but the plaintiffs restrained the illegal acts of the defendants. As plaintiffs are apprehending danger to their possession over the suit land from the desperate defendants, as such approached the court. Hence prayed for decreeing the suit.
3. On the other hand, defendant nos.1, 3 to 5 filed common counter denying the entire contents of the plaint in toto. Further, they contended that plaintiff no.1 apart from gift deeds executed by him, he has also sold Ac.1-20 gts. of land to one
Chintham Venkatamma vide document no.2210/2010 and the land sold to Nitturi
Posham vide document no.2197/2009. Though the plaintiffs mentioned about the alienation's made by them, but they did not mention or shown neither Nitturi
Posham nor Venkatamma on any of the boundary holder to the suit land, as such it can be said that the plaintiffs are not in actual possession of suit land. Further defendants contended that defendant no.2 was died in the year 2013 itself as such the question of defendant no.2 interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 3 of 12 the suit land along with other defendants does not arise and filed the present suit only to gain illegally. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of perpetual injunction is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4.Basing on the rival contentions of the both the parties the following issued are framed for trial
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in physical, actual and legal
possession of the suit land as on the date of filling of the
suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
5.At trial, 1st plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and his acquaintant was examined as Pw2 in support of their contention. Defendant no.5 himself examined as Dw1 and got marked Ex.B1 and the acquaintants of defendants are examined as Dw2 in support of defendants contention. Chief of DW2 and DW3 was filed by DW2 but did not turn up for either sworning for chief examination or for cross examination, as such his evidence was eschewed and the evidence of dW3 was taken as DW2 on record.
OS.No. 27 of 2017
Between:
1.Akudari Srinivas, S/o. Late Ramaiah Age: 48 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,
2.Akudari Malleshwari, W/o Srinivas, Age: 42 years, Occ: House Hold, Both R/o. Maddikal Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District.
...Plaintiffs.
And
1.Sundilla Madhunaiah, S/o. Late Pochaiah, Age: 50 yrs., Occ: Agril.,
2.Sundilla Durgaiah, S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
3.Sundilla Ramaiah, S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agril.,
4.Sundilla Posu, W/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agril.,
5.Sundilla Banesh, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agril., All R/o: Maddikal village of Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial.
...Defendants.
Suit for Permanent Injunction
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 4 of 12 This Suit is coming on 27-10-2021 this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ravinder, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and Sri M.Karthik Kumar, Advocate for Defendant No.1, 3 to 5, for Defendant No.2 abated, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
6.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the land in Sy.No.562/3/A and 562/3/B ad-measuring Ac.1-00 gts. and Ac.2-00 gts., total Ac.3-00 gts. situated at Maddikal village of Jaipur mandal, East: Land of Akudari Sammaiah, West:
Land of Kortha Kistaiah, North: Land of Rajaiah and South: Forest (Hereinafter called as Suit Land).
7.The brief facts of the plaint are that, originally Akudari Shivvaiah was the pattadar of Ac.18-01 gts. of land in Sy.No.562 of Maddikal village. After his demise, his three sons Akudari Sammaiah, Akudari Rathnaiah and Akudari Mallaiah partitioned the same, in which Akudari Rathnaiah got Ac.5-00 gts. of land in
Sy.No.562 vide Procs.No.7/Maddikal/2007, dated 08-03-2007. Out of the said land,
Akudari Rathnaiah sold Ac.2-00 gts. of land to Akudari Swamy vide registered sale deed No.3292/2009, dated 13-07-2009 and gifted Ac.1-00 gts. to his daughter-in-law i.e., plaintiff no.2 vide registered sale deed No.1345/2015, dated 04-02-2015. By virtue of the same, plaintiff no.2 become owner and pattadar of said Ac.2-00 gts.
Mutation was passed in favour of plaintiff no.2 vide proceedings No.14/2015, dated 18-01-2016. Thereafter, Akudari Rathnaiah got Ac.2-00 gts. of land in SyNo.562 and he died on 04-10-2016 leaving the plaintiff no.1 as his sole legal heir, as such he succeeded Ac.2-00 gts. of land in Sy.No.562 (now Sy.No.562/3/B as per pahani) and become the owner of the said land and he is in possession of the said land. Thus plaintiff’s No.1 and 2 and enjoyment of the suit land. The defendants do not have any manner of right or possession over the suit and developed malicious intention to grab the suit land, thereby started interfering with the possession of plaintiffs. In furtherance of their illegal intention on 11-06-2017 they all trespassed and threatened the plaintiffs for stalling the cultivation, but the plaintiffs restrained the illegal acts of the defendants. As plaintiffs are apprehending danger to their possession over the suit land from the desperate defendants, as such approached the court. Hence prayed for decreeing the suit.
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 5 of 12
8.On the other hand, defendant nos.1, 3 to 5 filed common counter denying the entirecontents of the plaint in toto. Further, they contended that the father of plaintiff no.1 and the father-in-law of plaintiff no.2 has registered the land during his life time in favour of Akudari Swamy vide registered sale deed No.3292/2009 to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts. and he also registered the land in favour of Chintham Jyothi to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts., vide registered sale deed No.688/2009 and further registered a gift deed to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts. in favour of plaintiff no.2 from the suit land survey number and the land to an extent of Ac.1-23 gts. in Sy.No.557 showing the boundaries as single compact area, that the plaintiff’s failed to prove that the land in Sy.No.562/3 and 557 are two different survey numbers and is having in single compact area. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff’s does not know the actual boundaries of the suit land and only under the guise of registered document claiming the above property and filed the present suit only to gain illegally. Further defendants contended that defendant no.2 was died in the year 2013 itself as such the question of defendant no.2 interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land along with other defendants does not arise and filed the present suit only to gain illegally. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of perpetual injunction is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
9.Basing on the rival contentions of the both the parties the following issued are framed for trial
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in physical, actual and legal
possession of the suit land as on the date of filling of the
suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
10.At trial, 1st plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and his acquaintances was examined as Pw2 in support of their contention.
Defendant no.5 himself examined as Dw1 and got marked Exs. B1 and B2, and the acquaints of defendants are examined as Dw2 in support of defendants contention.
Chief of DW2 and DW3 was filed by DW2 but did not turn up for either sworning for chief examination or for cross examination, as such his evidence was eschewed and the evidence of dW3 was taken as DW2 on record.
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 6 of 12
OS.No. 28 of 2017
Between:
Akudari Ramulu, S/o. Late Mallaiah, Age: 50 yrs., Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Naspur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District.
...Plaintiff.
And
1.Sundilla Madhunaiah, S/o. Late Pochaiah, Age: 50 yrs., Occ: Agril.,
2.Sundilla Durgaiah, S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
3.Sundilla Ramaiah, S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agril.,
4.Sundilla Posu, W/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agril.,
5.Sundilla Banesh, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agril., All R/o: Maddikal village of Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial.
...Defendants.
Suit for Permanent Injunction
This Suit is coming on 27-10-2021 this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ravinder, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and Sri M.Karthik Kumar, Advocate for Defendant No.1, 3 to 5, for Defendant No.2 abated, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
11.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over land in their men from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in Sy.No.562/4/3 admeasuring
Ac.2-00 gts. situated at Maddikal village of Jaipur mandal with the following boundaries, East: Land of A.Swamy, Nitturi Pochaiah and Nakkala Rajitha, West:
Land of Akudari Sammaiah, North: Land of Akudari Ramulu and South: Forest (Hereinafter called as Suit Land).
12.The brief facts of the plaint are that, originally Akudari Shivvaiah was the pattadar of Ac.18-01 gts. of land in Sy.No.562 of Maddikal village. After his demise, his three sons Akudari Sammaiah, Akudari Rathnaiah and Akudari Mallaiah partitioned the same, in which his father Akudari Mallaiah got Ac.5-00 gts. of land in Sy.No.562 vide Procs.No.7/Maddikal/2007, dated 08-03-2007 and the said land was acquired by him and out of the said land, plaintiff sold Ac.2-00 gts. of land to
Chintham Rajamallu vide registered sale deed No.8922/2012, dated 06-08-2012 and also sold Ac.1-00 gts. of land to Jillapally Mahesh vide registered sale deed
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 7 of 12 No.8923/2012, dated 06-08-2012 and after selling Ac.3-00 gts. of land, the plaintiff got suit land and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants do not have any manner of right or possession over the suit land developed malicious intention to grab the same illegally, thereby started interfering with the possession of plaintiff. In furtherance of their illegal intention on 11-06-2017 they all trespassed and threatened the plaintiff for stalling the cultivation, but the plaintiff restrained the illegal acts of the defendants. As plaintiff is apprehending danger to their possession over the suit land from the desperate defendants, as such approached the court.
Hence prayed for decreeing the suit.
13.On the other hand, defendant nos.1, 3 to 5 filed common counter denying the entire contents of the plaint in toto. Further, they contended that the father of the plaintiff has registered the land in Sy.No.562 and during his life time, he has mortgaged the land to an extent of Ac.121-00 vide registered document
No.180/2001 and the plaintiff has registered the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gt. to one Jillapally Mahesh vide registered document No.8923/2012, later the plaintiff has sold the land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts to one Chintham Rajamallu vide registered document No.8922/2012, as such there is no property left with the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff mentioned about the alienation’s made by him, but he did not mention or shown neither Chintham Rajamallu nor Mahesh on any of the boundaries of suit land, as such it can be said that the plaintiff is not in actual possession of suit land and filed the present suit only to gain illegally. Further defendants contended that defendant no.2 was died in the year 2013 itself as such the question of defendant no.2 interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land along with other defendants does not arise and filed the present suit only to gain illegally.
Hence, the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of perpetual injunction is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
14.Basing on the rival contentions of the both the parties the following issued are framed for trial
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in physical, actual and legal
possession of the suit land as on the date of filling of the
suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for?
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 8 of 12
3. To what relief?
15.At trial, plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and no other witness was examined to support of his contention. Defendant no.5 himself examined as Dw1 and the acquaints of defendants are examined as Dw2 in support of defendants contention. Chief of DW2 and DW3 was filed by DW2 but did not turn up for either sworning for chief examination or for cross examination, as such his evidence was eschewed and the evidence of dW3 was taken as DW2 on record.
16.Defendant in OS No.27/2017 filed IA No.110/2021 praying the court to club the OS No.26/2017 and OS No.28/2017 as defendants are one and the same in all the suits and claim of all the plaintiffs are from one common ancestor, as such in order to avoid conflicting judgments prayed for clubbing the suits. Accordingly the same was allowed vide orders, dt:27.10.2021.
17.Heard both sides and perused the record.
18. All issues in all the suits:As per the version of plaint pleadings in all the suits and evidence of PW1’s, they claimed that original pattedar and possessor of land in
Sy.No.562 to an extent of Ac.18-01 gts of Maddikal village belongs to Akudari
Shivaiah who had three sons namely Akudari Sammaiah (plaintiff no.1 in OS
No.26/2017, Akudari Rathnaiah(father of plaintiff in OS No.27/2017) and Akudari
Mallaiah (Father of plaintiff in OS No.28/2017). Further they all categorically deposed that after the demise of original pattedar A.Shivaiah, land was partitioned as follows,
Name of the ownerExtentProceeding number Sammaiah8-017/Maddikal/2007, dt 08-03-2007 Rathaiah5-007/Maddikal/2007, dt 08-03-2007 Mallaiah5-007/Maddikal/2007, dt 08-03-2007
Further all the plaintiffs categorically pleaded and deposed that to the extent of their shares as follows, Sammaiah sold Ac.2-00 gts of land in the said survey number to N.Posham vide registered sale deed No.2197/09 and another Ac.1-20 gts of land to Chintam Venkatesh vide registered sale deed no.688/09. Apart from that he also gifted Ac.1-20 gts of land to second plaintiff under registered gift deed no.12489/14 and also gifted to A.Sowmya Ac.1-20 gts under registered gift deed no.12490/14.
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 9 of 12
19.Similarly father of plaintiff in OS No.27/2017 alienated his extent of properties as follows.
Purchaser/donerNature of document andExtent number SowmyaSale deed no.3292/09Ac.2-00 gts
A.Malleshwari/plaintiffGift deed no.1345/15Ac.1-00 gts no.2 in OS No.27/17
Similarly plaintiff in OS No.28/2017 alienated his extent of properties as follows,
Purchaser/donerNature of document and numberExtent Chintham RajamalluRegistered sale deed no.8922/12Ac.2-00gts Gillepalli MaheshSale deed no.8923/12Ac.1-00 gts
All PW1s categorically deposed that after the above mentioned extent of lands they are left with the extent of suit schedule properties and in support of their contentions, they relied on sufficient documentary proof under ExP1 to ExP10,
ExP1 to ExP8 and ExP1 to ExP8 of their respective suits. In order to rebut the version of plaintiffs, defendants during cross examination of PW1s in OS
No.26/2017 and OS No.28/2017 did not got anything much relevant on record in order to discredit the evidence of PW1 to the extent of title and extent of suit land.
However in the case of OS No.27/2017 which was brought on record under ExB2 i.e., registered sale deed no.688/09 through which father of plaintiff in OS
No.27/2017 i.e., Rathnaiah sold Ac.2-00 gts of land to Jyothi. Thus PW1 claimed
Ac.3-00 gts of suit schedule property in OS No.27/2017 but after the admissions of alienation as mentioned in the above table and after bringing on the record of ExB2, plaintiff in OS No.27/2017 would not have extent of suit land of Ac.3-00 gts and he would only left with Ac.1-00 gts of land. As such the claim of plaintiff has been rebutted by the defendant with cogent evidence.
20.As per the version of plaintiff in all the suits that on 11.6.2017 all the defendants criminally trespassed into the suit lands and threatened them to stop the cultivation and leave the suit land to defendants however all the plaintiffs resisted the illegal acts of defendants has been categorically deposed by them, however as seen from the record, (as per the admission of PW1 in OS No.26/2017) during his cross examination that by the time of his filing suit defendant no.2 was no more and he was died in the year 2013. Further PW1 in OS No.26/2017 also admitted that
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 10 of 12 when defendant no.2 was died in the year 2013, the question of his interfering with the cultivation of plaintiff in the suit lands on 11.6.2017 does not arise. Despite admissions PW1 in OS No.26/2017 tried to explain that on the said day the son of defendant no.2 came on suit land as such he mentioned the name of defendant no.2 in the suit though PW1 tried to explain the incident but the same was not pleaded by him in the pleadings. As such his voluntary explanation cannot be looked into. It is settled law that plaintiff must approach the court with clean hands and without which the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. Thus as per the admissions of PW1 in OS No.26/2017 having knowledge of death of defendant no.2 in the year 2013 itself and filing the suit against death person in the year 2017 itself clearly reveals that the intention of plaintiff approaching the court for the relief of injunction. It is settled law that suit against death person is nality, however the suit against defendant no.2 dismissed as abated. The allegations leveled by all the plaintiffs that death person was illegally trespassed along with other defendants on the given date of cause of action i.e., 11.6.2017 cannot be believed at all and the same amounts to suppression of material fact by not disclosing real facts before the court and so also amounts to approaching the court with unclean hands. As such on this sole ground itself, all the suits of the plaintiffs are liable to be dismissed.
21.Further all the plaintiffs tried to examine the acquaintant of PW2 to support of their case but they all failed to support the case of PW1, as such their evidence is not helpful to the plaintiff.
22.Apart from that DW1 in OS No.26/2017 categorically deposed that the extent of land of Ac.8-01 gts of plaintiff was alienated by him to other persons namely
A.Swamy, Nitturi Pocham, Chintham Pocham, Dagam Rajaiah, Chintham
Venkatesham, Dega Thirupathi, Dega Rajaiah, Kodipe Bakkaiah but except the names of Ch.Venkatesham, Pocham no other persons were admitted by PW1 during his cross examination and DW1 has failed to file any documentary proof to substantiate his version. As such though plaintiff could able to establish existing his relevant extent of land in OS No.26/2017 and OS No.28/2017 but in view of above discussion that filing of suit against death person alleging that he was criminally trespassed on the day of alleged cause of action amounts to approaching the court with unclean hands with oblique motive. Therefore as stated supra, whoever
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 11 of 12 approaching the court with unclean hands is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered.
In the result, all the suits of the plaintiffs are dismissed. However both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of November, 2021.
Junior Civil Judge, Chinnur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN OS NO.26/2017
WITNESES EXAMINED
Plaintiff Defendant
PW1:A.SammaiahDW1: S.Banesh PW2: D.ThirupathiDW2: K.Kistaiah
PLAINTIFF DOCUMENTS
Ex.A1 is the original pattedar pass book. Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1421. Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1422. Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1424. Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1425. Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1426. Ex.A7 is the original gift settlement deed No.12489/2014. Ex.A8 is the original pattedar pass book. Ex.A9 is the ROR proceedings of MRO, Jaipur, dated 15.07.2016. Ex.A10 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1426.
DEFENDANTS DOCUMENTS
Ex.B1: CC of gift settlement deed no.12490/2014
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN OS NO.27/2017
WITNESES EXAMINED
Plaintiff Defendant PW1:A.SrinivasDW1: S.Banesh PW2: D.ThirupathiDW2: K.Kistaiah
PLAINTIFF DOCUMENTS
Ex.A1 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1421. Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1423. Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1424. Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1426. Ex.A5 is the original gift settlement deed No.1345/2015. Ex.A6 is the original pattedar pass book. Ex.A7 is the ROR proceedings of MRO, Jaipur, dated 18.01.2016. Ex.A8 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1426.
O.S. No. 26 of 2017, OS.No. 27 of 2017 and OS.No.28 of 2017
Page. No. 12 of 12
DEFENDANTS DOCUMENTS
Ex.B1: CC of sale deed no.3292/2009 Ex.B2: CC of sale deed no.688/2009
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN OS NO.28/2017
WITNESES EXAMINED
Plaintiff Defendant PW1:A.RamuluDW1: S.Banesh DW2: K.Kistaiah
PLAINTIFF DOCUMENTS
Ex.A1 is the proceedings of MRO, Jaipur, dated 08.03.2007. Ex.A2 is the original pattedar pass book. Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1421. Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1422. Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1423. Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1424. Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1425. Ex.A8 is the CC of pahani for the fasli 1426.
DEFENDANTS DOCUMENTS: Nil
Junior Civil Judge, Chinnur.