Smt .M.Shyam sri

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SMT. M.SHYAM SREE,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

THURSDAY, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S.No. 342 of 2015

Between:

Smt. P.Vijaya Shree, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Govt. Employee R/o. H.No.22-55, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District. … Plaintiff

AND

B. Subhash, S/o B N Rao Aged about 46 years, Occ: Employee R/o H.No.4-193, Sri Satya Sai Nagar Colony, Zillelaguda Village and Gram Panchayath Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Defendant

This Suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Deekonda Ravinder, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri. E. Chandra Mohan Reddy, advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed under Section 26, Order.VII Rule-1 of

C.P.C by the Plaintiff eviction, Recovery of possession and Arrears of

Rent and Mesne Profits from the defendant.

2

1.The Brief averments of the plaint is that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the House bearing No.4-193 on Plot No.1 (part) & 6 (part) admeasuring 122.66., situated at Block No.2

Venkata Sai Enclave, Sri Satyasai Nagar Colony. She purchased the open land of the suit schedule property under Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.7446/2001 dated 12-10-2001 from Sri B

Goverdhana Chary for valuable sale consideration and later subsequently she got constructed a house over it in the year 2002.

2. It is further submitted that the Defendant has approached the Plaintiff in the year 2006 and obtained the suit schedule property on rent and accordingly both the Defendant and the Plaintiff have entered into oral lease. As per the said oral lease, the defendant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- (Rupees

Fifteen Hundred only) towards monthly rent exclusive of electricity charges on or before 5th day of every English calendar month and agreed to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.300/- on the said rent of

Rs.1500/- after one year. The Lease was commenced from

December 2006 for the suit schedule property. The Defendant has failed to pay the monthly rents as agreed for a period of one year from the date of lease i.e., from December 2006 to October 2007 and 3 later the Defendant has paid the rents from November 2007 to

October 2008 through cheques to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 19-1-2009 through Registered Post with

Acknowledgment due calling upon the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay the arrears of rents. The Defendant has received the said notice but failed to comply the notice but gave reply notice with all false statements and allegations.

3.It is further submitted that the Defendant failed to comply notice, the Plaintiff filed R.C.No.7/2009 on the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking

Eviction and to Handover the Vacant Physical Possession of the suit schedule property and also for payment of arrears of rents. The

Defendant has also filed a suit vide OS.No.1158/2008 against the

Plaintiff and another for Perpetual Injunction on the file of I

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property on all false averments and allegations. The Plaintiff submits that after passing the said judgments immediately she was unable to file any Appeals against the said order and Judgment &

Decree passed in R.C.No.7/2009 and OS.No.1158/2008 due to lack 4 of legal knowledge and also improper legal advice by her the then counsel on record and the Plaintiff was waiting for the vacation of the suit schedule property by the Defendant. The Plaintiff submits that several times she requested the Defendant to pay the arrears of rents and also to vacate and handover the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property for which the defendant gave evasive replies giving an impression that the defendant is no more willing to vacate and handover the possession of the said property and also to pay arrears of rents.

4.It is further submitted that the Defendant received the said notice and got issued reply notice dated 12-3-2015 with all false statements and allegations. In fact the Provisions of the A.P.

Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act 1960 have no application to the lease between the parties to this suit as the suit schedule property (Building) constructed in the year 2002 and the age of the building was below (10) ten years by the date of lease and further the suit schedule property is within the limits of gram panchayath Jillelaguda village. The provisions of section 106 of

Transfer of Property Act is applicable to the lease between the parties to this suit. The Defendant caused damage to the doors, 5 windows gate etc., and also caused damage to the slab with which rain water is breaking into the house. In the above circumstances the Plaintiff has no hopes of securing the possession of the suit schedule property arrears of rent and mesne profits without the help of this Hon'ble Court. Hence the suit.

5.The Brief averments of the written statement filed by the

Defendant are that the Defendant specifically submits that the suit of the Plaintiff is hopelessly barred by Limitation and also liable to be dismissed since the issues raised in the Plaint have already been decided by the Hon'ble Court in R.C.No.7/2009 and in

OS.No.1158/2008 as such the suit of the Plaintiff is not

maintainable under Section 11 of C.P.C. Since the principle of resjudicata will apply to the facts of the case.

6.It is further submitted that it is false to state that due to lack of legal knowledge and improper legal advise by the counsel for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not prefer any Appeal aggrieved by the Orders made in R.C.No.7/2009 and OS.No.1158/2008, but as a matter of fact, the Plaintiff herein is a Post-Graduate and also working as Lecturer, as such the allegation that she had no legal 6 knowledge is all false, baseless and created for the purpose of filing the suit. The suit is not tenable and all the issues raised in the present suit have already been settled by the Hon'ble Prl.Junior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District in R.C.No.7/2009 vide orders dated 07-

6-2011 and by the Hon'ble I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District in

OS.No.1158/2008 vide Judgment Dated 21-2-2012 as such the suit

of the Plaintiff is hopelessly barred by Limitation and also not maintainable under Section – 11 of C.P.C in view of principle of resjudicata. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the defendant herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff, with costs, in the interest of justice.

Basing on the rival contentions this court framed the

following issues :-

1. Whether the quit notice dt: 12.3.2015 is legally

valid and binding on the defendant ? If so whether the

plaintiff is entitled for the eviction of the defendant from

schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent

of Rs.63,900/- towards arrears of rent and damages of

Rs.6000/-p.m from 01.5.2015 till the date of delivery of

possession as prayed for ?

3. To What relief ?

7

7. At the event of trial on behalf of the plaintiff herself

got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A22 and on

behalf of the Defendant himself examined as DW.1 and got

marked Exs.B1 to B10.

8. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

ISSUE No.1 :- Whether the quit notice dt: 12.3.2015 is legally

valid and binding on the defendant ? If so whether the

plaintiff is entitled for the eviction of the defendant from

schedule property ?

9.Admitted facts are that the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant in the schedule property and there is also no dispute with regard to the quantum of rent. It is also on record that prior to this suit the plaintiff had filed a R.C.7/2009 against the defendant seeking eviction, and the same was dismissed.

Similarly, the defendant had filed suit vide OS.No.1158/2008 for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed. Though it was pleaded that the defendant was due of arrears of rent later during the course of trial and at the time of the arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant had deposited 8 the monthly rent in OS.1158/2008. So, now there is no dispute inbetween the plaintiff and defendant with regard to the arrears of rent also.

10.It is also not disputed that the plaintiff had sent notice under Section 106 of Transfer of property act and the same was received by the defendant and given a reply to which the plaintiff had also given a rejoinder. The only defence is that the suit is barred by resjudicata as the plaintiff had already opted to file

RC.7/2009 and the same was dismissed on merits, hence, the

present suit is barred by Resjudicata.

11.However, it is the plaintiff who had approached the court seeking the relief of eviction, therefore it is for her to establish that the present suit is not barred by resjudicata and she is entitled for the relief. And to establish the same she got examined herself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A22 which are Ex.A1: CC of

Registered Sale deed bearing doc.No.7446/2001 dt.12.10.2011,

Ex.A2: CC of Legal Notice dt.19.1.2009, Ex.A3: Certified copy of postal receipt (1 No), Ex.A4: CC of reply notice dt.21.2.2009, Ex.A5:

CC of Petition in RC.No.7/2009, Ex.A6: CC of counter filed by the 9 defendant in RC.No.7/2009, Ex.A7: Certified copy of plaint in

OS.No.1158/2008, Ex.A8: CC of written statement filed by the

defendant in RC.7/2009, Ex.A9: CC of decree and order passed in

RC.7/2009 dt.7.6.2011, Ex.A10: CC of Judgment and decree in

OS.1158/2008 dt.21.2.2012, Ex.A11: CC of Plaint in OS.75/2014,

Ex.A12: Office copy of the Legal Notice dt.10.2.2015, Ex.A13:

Original Postal receipts, Ex.A14: Original acknowledgment card,

Ex.A15: Original Reply notice issued by the defendant, Ex.A16:

Original Rejoinder notice issued by the plaintiff, Ex.A17: Original

Postal Receipts, Ex.A18: Original Acknowledgment card, Ex.A19:

Original Voter card issued by the Election commission of India,

Ex.A20: Original Electricity bills No.18-128, Ex.A21: Original

Telephone Bills of H.No.18-128 & Ex.A22: Photographs. None of the documents are disputed by the other side.

12.As seen from the cross examination of PW.1 she stated that she did not prefer any appeal against the orders passed in

R.C.7/2009. It is her version that the previous counsel had given

her improper legal advice, hence she filed RC.No.7/2009. But whereas the rent control have no jurisdiction. In her cross examination she stated that she did not take any legal action against 10 the previous counsel and she stated that the windows and doors of the schedule property were damaged and the same was shown to her by the defendant's wife. But as on that date she cannot say whether the damaged is still subsisting or not as she was not allowed into house by the defendant's wife. She was confronted with the affidavit filed by her in OS.1158/2008 in which she stated that the defendant herein had vacated the premises. Though she admitted that the said paragraph is part of the affidavit filed by her she says that she had signed the said affidavit without going through that para.

13.However, whether the suit is barred by resjudicata (or) not is the legal aspect. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as on date of filing of the RC.No.7/2009 the age of the building was below 10 years hence the rent controller had no jurisdiction.

Therefore, the present suit is not barred by resjudicata for the reason that apart from other ingredients it is necessary that the suit must be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction.

14.As per Section.32 of the act the rent control act will not apply to certain buildings “To any building constructed or

subsequently removed, either before or after commencement of

11

this act for a period of 15 years from the date of completion of

said construction or substantial renovation”.

15.As seen from Ex.A1 through which the plaintiff had purchased the schedule property it is in the year 2001 and the nature of the property that was purchased by her was vacant land.

Though there is no evidence adduced by the plaintiff that when she had constructed the building even it is assumed that in the year 2001 itself she had constructed the building. Even then by the year 2009 when the RC.No.7/2009 was filed the age of the building does not exceed ten years. On the other hand it has to be seen whether principle of resjudicata is applicable in the petitions filed seeking eviction of the tenants. Our Hon'ble High Court held in decision in between

TEXTILA TRADING SYNDICATE

V/S

G LAKSHMINARAYANA

reported in “2001 LAWSUIT(AP) 1235” at Para No.8 as:

“The changed circumstances always can be treated as

question of fact and this aspect will depend upon the facts and

12

circumstances of each case, which cannot be specified or

defined by following any straight jacket formula in this regard.

In the decision referred (6) supra it was held that the right of

the landlord to ask for eviction on the ground of personal

requirement must be held to be a continuing and recurring

cause of action. The Apex Court in the decision referred (5)

supra held that where a suit for eviction from premises

comprising of shop on ground of bona fide need was dismissed,

a second suit on the same ground would be competent and the

bona fide need must be considered with reference to the time

when a suit for eviction is filed and it cannot be assumed that

once the question of necessity is decided against the landlord,

it has to be assumed that he will not have a bonafide and

genuine necessity ever in future. In the decision referred (4)

supra, while genuine with a case under Bihar Buildings Renat

and Eviction Control Act, 1947 it was held that the dismissal of

an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement will

not bar a subsequent eviction petition on the same ground in

changed circumstances”.

“In matters of eviction, it cannot be said that merely

because that a particular point of time, the eviction petition

13

was thrown out on a particular ground, for all time to come a

subsequent eviction petition on the same ground in view of the

changed circumstances or changed facts, cannot be maintained

at all”.

16.Therefore, it is clear that the owner is not barred from filing an eviction petition, subsequently even on the same ground.

So, in either ways it can be safely concluded that this suit is not barred by resjudicata. This suit is filed under the provisions of

Transfer of Property act so it has to be seen whether the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is in accordance with Section.106 of Transfer of Property Act (or) not.

Sec.106 Transfer of Property act reads as:- “106.Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or

local usage:- In the absence of a contact or local law or usage to

the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or

manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year

to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six

months notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy;

and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall

14

be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on

the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days notice

expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy.

Every notice under this section must be in writing,

signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent

by post to the party who is intended to be bounded by it or be

tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his

family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery

is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the

property”.

2). Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for

the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-sec. (1)

shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.

3). A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be

invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short

of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or

proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in

that sub-section.

4). Every notice under sub-sec.(1) must be in writing, signed

by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by

15

post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be

tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his

family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery

is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous of the property.”).

17.As seen from Ex.A12 it is clearly mentioned by the advocate at the instructions of the plaintiff that the defendant within 15 days from the receipt of the notice has to vacate the schedule property treating it as a quit notice. Admittedly there is no written lease agreement or contract that was entered by the plaintiff and defendant at the inception of tenancy and Ex.A12 is the 15 days notice issued by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy of the defendant. And it is also undisputed that the said notice was received by the defendant herein. The intention of the plaintiff (i.e) terminating the tenancy of the defendant was communicated to the defendant, there is absolutely no ambiguity in Ex.A12 in expressing the intention of the plaintiff seeking the eviction of the defendant.

Therefore, Ex.A2 had met all the required Mandatory ingredients of

Sec.106 on Transfer of Property act. Ex.A12 is in consonance with provision of law, so Ex.A12 is a valid quit notice.

16 18.On the otherhand the defendant in his cross examination admitted that he had taken the schedule property on lease in the month of December' 2006 and by that date he was working as Police constable. And he also admits that the schedule property comes within the jurisdiction of Jillelaguda gram panchayath and the he had fixed the CC Cameras in the schedule property and got filed

Ex.B1 to B10 which are Ex.B1: CC of chief affidavit of DW.1 in

OS.1158/08 9th para marked, Ex.B2: CC of Decree in

R.C.No.7/2009, dt. 7.6.2011 on the file of Prl.Junior civil judge,

R.R.Dist, Ex.B3: CC of Judgment in R.C.No.7/2009, dt.7.6.2011 on the file of Prl.Junior civil judge, R.R.Dist, Ex.B4: CC of Judgment in

OS.No.1158/2008, dt.21.2.2012 on the file of 1st Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

R.R.Dist, Ex.B5: Copy of Rejoinder Legal Notice dt.27.3.2015, Ex.B6:

CC copy of Challan No.266876, Ex.B7: CC copy of Challan

No.108719, Ex.B8: Photographs (2Nos), Ex.B9: Certified copy of

Cheque petition in I.A.No.188/17 in OS.1158/2008 & Ex.B10:

Certified copy of Docket Order in I.A.No.188/17, dt.16.3.2017 in support of his defence.

19.But none of these documents were disputed by the other side as they themselves admitted that the rent was being deposited 17 by the defendant and hence given up their claim. It was also admitted by PW.1 that she had filed the cheque petition and withdrawn part of the amount deposited by the defendant. But these factors will not help the defendant to continue in the premises.

Once the Quit notice held to be valid the landlord need not assign any other reason for seeking eviction of the tenant. Any unwanted tenant can be evicted by following the procedure contemplated in

Transfer of Property act, which the plaintiff had done. Adding to that as seen from the record the very plea of the defendant that plaintiff cannot filed a suit for eviction at any time itself discloses that he do not want to leave the schedule property and he went an extent of fixing CC Cameras to the tenanted premises.

20.But the argument of the defendant is that it is the fraud played by the plaintiff over the court, hence she is not entitled for the relief.

And relied upon the decisions reported in :

1.State of Uttar Pradesh vs Nawab Hussain reported in “1977

AIR 1680”.

18

2.Nandikishore Lalbhai Mehta … Appellant(s) Versus New Era

Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Respondent(s)

3.Sneh Gupta vs Devi Sarup & Ors

4.Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule … Appellant versus State of

Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

5.Meghmala & Ors. ..Appellants versus G. Narsimha Reddy &

Ors. … Respondents

6.T. Arivandandam Vs T.V.Satyapal & Another reported in “1977

AIR 2421”.

7.H.H.Srirama Varma Vs Commissioner of Income Tax.

21.But the facts of the above decisions are different than that of the facts on hand. It might be true that it was mentioned by the plaintiff in affidavit that the defendant had vacated the premises.

And it is also on record that she did not turn up for cross examination and it is only affidavit that she had filed in the Court.

So, her version that she was guided improperly may not be ruled out. As it is apparent that on the date of filing of RC.7/2009 the 19 rent controller is not having jurisdiction to try the said case. Even for a moment if we assume that the said fact was mentioned by the plaintiff wantonly. What would be the advantage to the plaintiff in making such statement contrary to her own interest. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had played any fraud upon the court as far as this suit is concerned. The plaintiff had established that Ex.A12 is a valid Quit notice, hence the same is binding upon the defendant. Accordingly 1st issue is answered.

Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of

rent of Rs.63,900/- towards arrears of rent and damages

of Rs.6000/-p.m from 01.5.2015 till the date of delivery of possession as prayed for ?

22.During the course of trial it was stated by plaintiff that the defendant had deposited the arrears of rent, hence she is giving up the consequential relief. The defendant is depositing rents in

OS.1158/2008 so there are no arrears of rent that need to be

recovered by the plaintiff. Accordingly 2nd issue is answered against the plaintiff.

20

Issue No.3:- To What relief ?

23.In the result suit is hereby decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate the schedule property within 2 months from this day and handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 13 th

day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

PW.1: Smt.P. Vijaya Shree

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: CC of Registered Sale deed bearing doc.No.7446/2001, dt.12.10.2011

Ex.A2: CC of Legal Notice dt.19.1.2009 21

Ex.A3: Certified copy of postal receipt (1 No)

Ex.A4: CC of reply notice dt.21.2.2009

Ex.A5: CC of Petition in RC.No.7/2009

Ex.A6: CC of counter filed by the defendant in RC.No.7/2009

Ex.A7: Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.1158/2008

Ex.A8: CC of written statement filed by the defendant in RC.7/2009

Ex.A9: CC of decree and order passed in RC.7/2009 dt.7.6.2011

Ex.A10: CC of Judgment and decree in OS.1158/2008 dt.21.2.2012

Ex.A11: CC of Plaint in OS.75/2014

Ex.A12: Office copy of the Legal Notice dt.10.2.2015

Ex.A13: Original Postal receipts

Ex.A14: Original acknowledgment card

Ex.A15: Original Reply notice issued by the defendant

Ex.A16: Original Rejoinder notice issued by the plaintiff

Ex.A17: Original Postal Receipts

Ex.A18: Original Acknowledgment card

Ex.A19: Original Voter card issued by the Election commission of

India

Ex.A20: Original Electricity bills No.18-128

Ex.A21: Original Telephone Bills of H.No.18-128

Ex.A22: Photographs.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

On behalf of the Defendant:

DW.1: B. Subash 22

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

On behalf of the Defendant:

Ex.B1: CC of chief affidavit of DW.1 in OS.1158/08 9th para marked,

Ex.B2: CC of Decree in R.C.No.7/2009, dt. 7.6.2011 on the file of Prl.Junior civil judge, R.R.Dist,

Ex.B3: CC of Judgment in R.C.No.7/2009, dt.7.6.2011 on the file of

Prl.Junior civil judge, R.R.Dist

Ex.B4: CC of Judgment in OS.No.1158/2008, dt.21.2.2012 on the file of 1st Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, R.R.Dist,

Ex.B5: Copy of Rejoinder Legal Notice dt.27.3.2015

Ex.B6: CC copy of Challan No.266876

Ex.B7: CC copy of Challan No.108719

Ex.B8: Photographs (2Nos)

Ex.B9: Certified copy of Cheque petition in I.A.No.188/17 in

OS.1158/2008

Ex.B10: Certified copy of Docket Order in I.A.No.188/17, dt.16.3.2017

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SMT. M.SHYAM SREE,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

THURSDAY, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S.No. 412 of 2013

Between:

Smt. Bandi Swapna, W/o. Srinivas, Aged about: 30 years, Occ: House Hold R/o. H.No.3-25, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Colony, Ragannaguda Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Plaintiff

AND

1.Yengali Krishna, S/o.Muthaiah, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Labor, R/o Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Mayyari Narender, S/o Babaiah, Aged about 25 years Occ: Labor, R/o Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.Aavula Babu, S/o Papaiah, Aged about: 38 years, Occ: Labor, R/o Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

4.Karadi Anjaiah, S/o Maisaiah, Aged about: 35 years, Occ: Labor, R/o Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5.Sula Ravi, S/o Babaiah, Aged about: 34 years, Occ: Govt Service, R/o Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2

6.Yengali Yadagiri, S/o Estari Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Pvt Service, Social Service, R/o H.No.1-138, Jillelaguda Old Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(Amended as per orders Dt 26/8/2016 in IA No.332/2016) … Defendants

This Suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Trivikrama Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri. J. Sundara Rao, advocate for Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and K.

Francis, advocate for Defendant No.6 and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for perpetual Injunction against the Defendant Nos.1 to 6.

1.The Brief averments of the plaint is that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the House bearing

No.1-145/2, having plinth area of 100 sft, constructed in the land admeasuring 70 square yards in Gramakantam. The Plaintiff acquired the said property through a registered Gift Settlement Deed from her mother, vide registered document No. 13418/2013, 3 dt.31.7.2013. The Plaintiff's mother Sula Neelamma was the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property, which she acquired from her ancestors. Said Neelamma had obtained permission from the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,

Jillelaguda, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 9/3/2003 and constructed a room admeasuring 100 sft in the suit schedule property and was running a vegetable shop in said room.

2.It is further submitted that the Plaintiff accepted the said

Gift and planning to renovate the existing room and constructed compound wall along the boundary of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that on 20/8/2013 the Defendants along with some other persons have come to the suit schedule property, when the

Plaintiff was discussing with her mother about the construction of the house in the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the Plaintiff could resist the illegal activities of the

Defendants with the help of her mother and the local people. The

Plaintiff submits that on 21-8-2013, the Defendants came to the suit schedule property along with some unknown persons and 4 threatened the Plaintiff stating that if the Plaintiff further proceeds with any construction in the suit schedule property, she will have to face dire consequences. The Defendants are now trying to occupy the suit premises. The Defendants went away threatening that they will occupy the suit land at any cost within no time. The Defendants are not law-abiding citizen and have no respect to morals or persons.

3.The Brief averments of the written statement filed by the

Defendant No.1 and the same averments were adopted by Defendant

Nos.2 to 5 are that the defendant humbly submits that originally the suit schedule property is the gramakantam land, which is allotted by the Grampanchayath, Jillelguda village to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Youvajana Sangham, vide Regd.No.1797, Jillelguda village,

Saroornagar mandal, R.R.District, the Defendants 1 to 5 are the members of the said Youvajana Sangham. Since 1988 the said

Youvajana Sangham is in the possession and enjoyment of the said property.

4.It is further submitted that in the month of April, 2013 the plaintiff's mother Smt.Sula Neelamma approached and requested the Defendants who are the members of the 5

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham, to install a small Buddi in front of said suit schedule land for the purpose of selling vegetables for her livelihood, the Defendants accepted her request on humanitarian grounds. The plaintiff's mother obtained electricity connection from her own house situated otherside of the road for her business purpose. Thereafter the plaintiff's mother taking advantage of her buddi, got executed a Registered Gift deed vide

Doc.No.13418/2013 dated 31-7-2013 in favour of her daughter

Bandi Swapna i.e. plaintiff herein in respect of the suit schedule property behind back of the Defendants herein without having any right, title or possession whatsoever manner.

5.It is further submitted that before filing of the present suit the plaintiff dumped the sand, bricks etc., with an intention to construct a compound wall over the suit schedule property, on seeing the same the Defendants obstructed the plaintiff to construct the compound wall, since the said land is belongs to the Defendant's sangham i.e., Dr. Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham. The Defendants humbly submit that in the suit schedule property the

Grampanchayath dug a bore well in the suit schedule land for the purpose of supply of drinking water to the general public. The 6 electricity bills shows by the plaintiff are belongs to her mother's residential house, not belongs to the suit schedule property herein.

No electricity connection is to the suit property. The plaintiff's father was a retired Revenue employee, taking advantage of that he influenced the revenue authorities and created the false documents in favour of the plaintiff and her mother. The plaintiff and her mother created false and forged documents and filed the present suit before this Hon'ble Court with a malafide intention to grab the suit schedule property of the Defendants. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

6.Defendant No.6 filed separate written statement but with the same averments pleaded in the written statement filed by the

Defendant No.1.

Basing on the rival contentions this court framed the

following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit

? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

perpetual injunction against the defendants ?

2. To What relief ?

7

7. At the event of trial on behalf of the plaintiff herself

got examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 to PW.4 and got

marked Exs.A1 to A5 and on behalf of the Defendants DW.1 &

DW.2 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

8. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and defendants.

ISSUE No.1 :- Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession

over the suit schedule property on the date of filing of

the suit ? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants ?

9.It is the case of the plaintiff that originally her mother was the owner of the schedule property which is admeasuring 70

Sq.yards bearing No.1-145/2 in which a room was constructed of 100 Sq.feet, which she acquired from her ancestor and she had executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff had tried to construct a compound wall the defendants had interfered and obstructed from raising construction.

10.Though Defendant No.1 to 5 & 6 had filed separate written statements it is their common defence that the defendant 8

Nos.1 to 6 are the members of Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham and the property being claimed by the plaintiff is the land given to the

Ambedkar Youvana Sangham by the Gram panchayath. But the plaintiff by getting the documents fabricated trying to grab their land. And they also mentioned that the vegetable shop was erected by plaintiff's mother with the consent of Ambedkar Youvajana

Sangham and she had taken the electricity connection from her own house which is situated towards the other side of the road. By taking advantage of the permission she had illegally executed a registered gift deed.

11.As seen from the pleadings of both the parties it is not only the possession that is in dispute. The defendants had disputing that the title of the plaintiff and her mother over the schedule property. However, it is the plaintiff who had approached the court, therefore, it is her burden to establish that she is entitled for the equitable relief. To prove her case she got examined as PW.1 and her mother as PW.2 and father as PW.3 and third party as PW.4 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5.

12.PW.1 in her cross examination stated that since her 9 marriage she is residing at Maneguda and her mother have no avocation and she resides in her own house and the said residential house is situated opposite to the schedule property, that she had taken electricity connection in her name for the schedule plot, but did not take any house number from the gram panchayat. She further stated that she inherited the schedule plot from her paternal grand father, that the shop that was erected by her mother is adjacent to the land belonging to the Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham which is the land allotted by Gram panchayath. Borewell, foundation stone and the statue of B.R.Ambedkar are adjacent to the schedule property, and she stated that no one had demanded to remove the shop.

13.PW.2 who is the mother of plaintiff and executant of

Ex.A1 says in her cross examination that they inherited the schedule property from her father-in-law and his father-in-law from his grand father. She says that in the year 2011 or 2012 she had taken electricity connection to the shop, she admits that her residence is opposite to the shop and after obtaining permission from Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham, she had started the shop. She identified from Ex.B2 photographs that the land which is behind the 10 board which is erected as “land belongs to the Gram panchayath” is her property. She admits that the area where the board is erected belongs to gram panchayath.

14.PW.3 who is father of the plaintiff stated that the schedule property is his ancestral property but not his wife. And he also admits that the place where the board was erected by the gram panchayath belongs to them and that the land belongs to Ambedkar

Youvajana Sangham is situated to adjacent to the schedule property and they perform Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham, republic day etc.,

And he also says that borewell is adjacent to the suit schedule property.

15.The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 itself is contrary to their own pleading. According to the pleadings the schedule property was the ancestral property of the mother of the plaintiff, so in capacity of owner she had executed a gift deed which is apparent from Ex.A1 that in capacity of owner she had executed Ex.A1. But whereas

PW.1 to PW.3 stated that the schedule property originally belongs to the ancestors of the plaintiff's father. It is not explained how the plaintiff's mother had got right or title to execute Ex.A1 in favour of 11 the plaintiff. Apart from this it is version of the plaintiff that she had obtained electricity connection for the shop. But whereas PW.2 stated that she had obtained electricity connection for running the shop. But as seen from electricity bills all stands in the name of mother of the plaintiff (i.e) PW.2. Adding to this plaintiff stated that she did not obtained any house number. But whereas the schedule property has a house number i.e., 1-145/2. All Ex.A2 electricity bills were issued to the said house number which stands in the name of plaintiff's mother.

16.Apart from this the description of the schedule property that was given in the plaint was that they had constructed a 100 sq.feet room in which Vegetable shop is being runned. Even in

Ex.A1 the type of construction is shown as walls. But the photographs which are admitted by all PW.1 to PW.3 reflects that it is the temporary structure raised with the iron sheets in which the vegetable shop is being runned. PW.1 to PW.3 while admitting the existence of borewell, Gram panchayath board and foundation stones simply says that the plot which is behind these belongs to them. And it is also admitted that the area where Gram panchayath board was erected is the place belonging to the gram panchayat.

12 17.PW.1 admitted in her cross examination that there is a gram panchayat land which is allotted to the Ambedkar Youvajana

Sangham but it is situated adjacent to the schedule plot. Whereas,

PW.2 stated that after taking permission from Ambedkar Youvajana

Sangham she had started running the shop. It is not explained when the land belongs to the plaintiff what made them to seek permission from the Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham. However on seeing the photographs PW.1 to PW.3 admitted that there is some land belonging to the Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham in which they celebrate B.R.Ambedkar Jayanthi, republic day etc., but it is adjacent to the schedule property. As seen from the boundaries of the Ex.A1 and plaint schedule, on three sides of the schedule property there exists road and on one side there is a residential house. But there is no mention regarding the existence of land belonging to the Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham. So the description given by the plaintiff in the plaint (Ex.A1) do not fit to the description even as admitted by the plaintiff themselves.

18.Adding to that it is the clear averments of written statement that the plaintiff's mother had taken the electricity connection from the residential house which is situated opposite to 13 the schedule property and those bills are filed in the court. When it is their defence it is for the plaintiff to establish that these exists separate electricity connection by producing atleast the electricity consumption bill of their residential house. But the bills that are filed Ex.A2 are in the name of plaintiff's mother and that is of residential house. Apart from pleading the plaintiff had not chosen to adduce any other evidence to establish the existence of two electricity connection one is in the name of plaintiff's mother for residential house and one in the name of plaintiff for the schedule shop, it is also not established by the plaintiff what is the personal interest of Defendant No.1 to 6 in obstructing the construction being raised in the schedule property. Apart from being the members of

Ambedkar Youvajana Sangham.

19.It is absurd that only the place where the board erected that “the land belongs to gram panchayat” only belongs to gram panchayat. This area is very small and more particularly this gram panchayat land is not reflected in Ex.A1. Even otherwise the Ex.A1 is doubtful as the PW.1 to PW.3 unanimously claims that the property belongs to the father of the plaintiff. So it is needless to say that the person who has no right or title cannot pass the same.

14 20.However, though it is the suit filed for injunction simplicitor, as it is filed by the plaintiff claiming herself as owner to the schedule property it is her burden to establish her legal possession over the schedule plot when the defendants particularly claims that the property is left for the benefit of public and they had had undertaken certain activities for the benefit of the local residents. The plaintiff had failed to establish that there are equities in her favour for seeking this relief and that the house number and the other documents filed by the plaintiff pertains to the suit schedule property. When the description of the schedule property and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff itself do not co-relates with each other, establishing the possession over the same doesn't arise.

So the plaintiff failed to discharge her initial burden so the rebuttal of evidence by the defendants doesn't arise. Accordingly 1st issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:- To What Relief ?

21.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 13 th

day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

PW.1: Smt. Bandi Swapna

PW.2: Sula Neelamma

PW.3: G. Bhikshapathi

PW.4: Sula Shankar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Registered Gift Settlement Deed Doc.No.13418/13, dt.31.7.2013

Ex.A2 : Original Electricity bill S.C.No.250804506

Ex.A3 : Construction permission issued by Sarpanch Gram panchayat Jillelaguda

Ex.A4 : Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1.10.2007 to 15.8.2013

Ex.A5 : Copy of NOC Certificate Date.30.1.2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS

On behalf of the Defendants:

DW.1: Yengali Yadagiri

DW.2: Etamalla Chandraiah 16

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

On behalf of the Defendants:

Ex.B1: Photos (3 Nos)

Ex.B2: Photos (2 Nos)

Ex.B3: Photos (1 No)

Ex.B4: Application given to P.S. Meerpet dt.27.9.2013

Ex.B5: Republic day and Independence day celebration photographs (7) along with CD

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SMT. M.SHYAM SREE,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

THURSDAY, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S.No. 132 of 2014

Between:

K. Savithri, W/o.Late K.R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, Aged 39 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.2-10-240/2, E.C.Nagar, Cherlapally Village, Ghatkesar Mandal. … Plaintiff AND

1.Smt.K. Bharathamma, W/o.Late Kottakapu Sanga Reddy, Age: 68 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.2-18-208/74, Keesara (V & M), R.R.District.

2.Smt.M. Hema Latha D/o Late K.Sanga Reddy, Aged 45 years Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.10-34, Phase-II, E.C.Nagar, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

3.Smt.K. Pushpa Latha, W/o. Prabhakar Reddy, Aged: 43 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Keesara (V & M), R.R.District. … Defendants

This Suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Rathnaiah, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.

T. Naveen singh, advocate for Defendant No.1 and Sri.J.

Indravardhan Goud, counsel for Defendant No.2 & 3 and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for perpetual Injunction against the Defendant No.1 to 3.

1.The Brief averments of the plaint is that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the House bearing No.2-10- 240/2, (Old No.2-10-11/240) on Plot No.240, by virtue of Gift

Settlement Deed Doc.No.1512/13. The Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of K.R.Chandra Shekar Reddy, S/o.Late K.Sanga Reddy and out of wedlock the Plaintiff blessed with 2 daughters by name Shivani

Pravalika aged about 17 years and Surya Sangavi aged about 14 years and there was a family disputes between the plaintiff and her husband K.R.Chandra Shekar Reddy and due to the serious differences between them, the plaintiff and her husband obtained the mutual divorce vide O.P.No.471/14, dt.21-9-13 on the file of

Family court Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District and out of the settlement of the both side elders the husband of the plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for the welfare of the children and permanent alimony through Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.1512/13 registered before SRO, Uppal and since then, she is in peaceful possession of the same.

3

2. It is further submitted that the Sri K.R. Chandra Shekar

Reddy was died on 9.3.2014 and after the death of K.R. Chandra

Shekar Reddy, his mother, Sister-in-laws, who are the defendants herein came to the suit schedule property on 15.3.2014 and created nuisance and have threatened to the plaintiff that the suit schedule of property is belongs to them without any manner and right over the property and tried to disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule of property. The Plaintiff constructed the first & second floors on the gifted property with her Sridhan and let out the premises to the tenants and on monthly rental income the plaintiff and her two daughters are surviving. If the defendants are succeeded their attempt the plaintiff and her daughters will be suffer irreparable loss and injury. Hence the suit.

3.The Brief averments of the written statement filed by the

Defendant No.1 and the same averments were pleaded by Defendant

No.2 & 3 are that the suit property herein and other properties were acquired by the husband of the Defendant No.1 herein by name

Kothakapu Sanga Reddy, who died intestate leaving behind his widow (Defendant No.1), daughters (Defendants No.2 and 3) and the only son i.e., the husband of the plaintiff as his legal heirs to his 4 entire estate, who have become the joint owners and possessors of the entire estate of deceased husband of the Defendant No.1. It seems under coercive circumstances to yield the plaintiff the husband of the plaintiff might have executed the alleged gift settlement deed the plaintiff seems to have given divorce to her husband. In fact the suit property is part of the properties which are in joint possession and enjoyment by the husband of the plaintiff and the defendants herein and the husband of the plaintiff has no manner of right to execute the alleged gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and even he executes the same the same does not create any right in favour of the plaintiff over the suit property or any part thereof.

4.It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 herein filed a suit vide OS.No.2170/2013 on the file of the District Judge,

R.R.District against the husband of the plaintiff and the defendants

No.2 and 3 herein for partition of the joint properties and separate possession, which is pending before the Hon'ble Court. But all of a sudden after the death of her husband, the plaintiff, who was never in possession of the suit property, came up with the present suit with all false allegations and false claims under the alleged gift 5 settlement deed, which is a void document. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit under reply with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.

Basing on the rival contentions this court framed the

following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

2. To What relief ?

5. At the event of trial on behalf of the plaintiff herself

got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and on

behalf of the Defendants DW.1 & DW.2 was examined and got

marked Exs.Nil.

6. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and defendants.

ISSUE No.1 :- Whether the plaintiff is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?

7.Undisputed facts are that Defendant No.1 is the mother- in-law and Defendant No.2 & 3 are sisters in law to the plaintiff and 6 the husband of the plaintiff expired on 9.3.2014, prior to that the plaintiff and deceased Sri K.R.Chandrasekhar Reddy got divorce on mutual consent. Now the case of the plaintiff is that during the life time of her husband when their marriage was subsisting he had executed a registered gift deed in her favour pertaining to the suit schedule property and upon his demise with her Sridhana she had constructed two floors and she is in possession of the schedule property. But whereas the defendants are trying to dispossess her highhandedly.

8.Defendant No.1, 2 & 3 had filed written statement separately but with the same contention that they are not aware regarding the execution of the gift deed till filing of the present suit and that the schedule property was originally self acquired property of the husband of the defendant No.1 and he died intestate. So all the defendants along with the husband of the plaintiff have equal share in the schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim relief of injunction against them. It was also averred by them that the plaintiff who was never in the possession of the suit schedule property came up with the present suit with false allegations.

7 9.As the defendants disputes the possession of the plaintiff it is for the plaintiff to establish her possession and that she is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, to prove the same she got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. PW.1 in her cross examination admitted that defendant No.1 to 3 are also legal heirs along with her husband to the Sanga Reddy (father in law) but none of defendant No.1 to 3 were witnesses or executants of

Ex.A1. She also stated that the present suit is filed basing upon

Ex.A1 and she is eaking her livelihood and paying fees to the children from the rents being collected from the schedule premises.

Whereas she further stated that her father in law had executed a

WILL but she did not filed in the court and the same is with her.

10.Though the plaintiff stated that she has a WILL with her, but in Ex.A1 it is clearly mentioned that the husband of the plaintiff had inherited the property on basis of oral WILL which is not recognized form of bequeathing the property as per Hindu

Succession act. There is no mention regarding the other legal heirs or any details in Ex.A1 but however the said document is the registered document and as this document is executed in favour of the plaintiff she had given up her claim over future 8 maintainence and accepted this gift towards permanent alimony which is apparent from Ex.A8 order copy in OP.471/2013. The other documents Ex.A2 to A7 also reflects the name of the husband of the plaintiff during his lifetime and later the name of the plaintiff.

11.The defendants in written statement stated that they are also joint owners and possessors of the schedule property. In cross examination of defendant No.1 she clearly stated that she resides at

Keesara along with her grand daughter and she further says that she do not know with whom the daughters of the plaintiff are residing as she do not stay along with them. She also do not know where the plaintiff is residing and to that matter she also do not know what the daughters of the plaintiff are studying and she also categorically admitted that she visited the suit schedule property when his son had expired but do not remember the date, but at that time some disputes had taken place as she was not allowed by the plaintiff to enter the suit schedule property for performing the last rights of her son. She further stated that she do not know that the plaintiff is residing at the schedule property along with her daughters and eaking their livelihood on the rents of the schedule property.

9 12.DW.2 is the daughter of DW.1 also stated that she do not know that the plaintiff along with her children is residing at the schedule property, but her mother is residing but she resides at E.C.

Nagar. Though DW.2 stated DW.1 is residing at the schedule property she herself clearly stated that she do not reside in the schedule property and also she was not allowed into the schedule property by the plaintiff, hence, the dispute had taken place. They did not even deny the suggestion that the plaintiff is not residing at the schedule property. They simply stated that they do not know that the plaintiff is residing their. However, it is the admission of the DW.1 and DW.2 that by the date of death of plaintiff's husband she used to reside at the schedule property. Later also she continued the possession as admittedly neither the defendants (nor) their tenants are in possession. It is sufficient to hold that plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property but not the defendants.

Issue No.2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual

injunction as prayed for ?

13.It is the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant that the defendants are the co-owners, hence no injunction can be granted against them. As on date the registered

Gift deed which is executed in favour of the plaintiff is in force and 10 in this suit no finding can be given upon the validity of the said gift deed. Though the defendants had stated that they had filed a suit seeking partition, they did not choose to file any document

before this court to see whether the schedule property is the subject

matter of the partition suit or not. It is also not on record that after the demise of the husband of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff was impleaded in the said partition suit. There is absolutely no diversion of opinion in the legal possession set forth by the Learned counsel for defendant but the fact that the defendants are co-sharers, either should be adjudicated or should be an admitted fact, then the injunction cannot be granted against them.

14.But in the present suit, the registered gift deed was not challenged by the defendants nor it was adjudicated in any competent forum that the defendants are also having equal share as that of the plaintiff in the schedule property. It also raises doubt that when the plaintiff is residing in the schedule property even at the time of death of her husband and continued the same why the defendants had not taken any appropriate legal action against her to protect their alleged legal right.

11 15.As seen from the evidence it is apparent that it is only for the reason that Ex.A1 was executed she had given up her future maintenance claim. And it is also not brought on record by the defendants that during the life time of Sanga Reddy itself the two floors was constructed but not by the plaintiff, because the documents filed by the plaintiff discloses that it is only a ground floor that was existing during that period and whereas she had applied for LRS claiming that she had constructed the other two floors. Therefore, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present suit it is just and necessary to protect the possession of the plaintiff who is residing along with her two daughters until their rights are finally adjudicated by the competent forum.

ISSUE NO.3:- To What Relief ?

16.In the result, the suit is hereby decreed without costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants and their henchmen in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 13 th

day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

PW.1: K. Savithri

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : CC of Gift Settlement Deed No.1512/13 dt.11.2.2013

Ex.A2 : Original Tax Receipt

Ex.A3 : Electricity Bills (4 Nos)

Ex.A4 : CC of Encumbrance certificate

Ex.A5 : Original Mutation Proceedings issued by Deputy

Commissioner GHMC

Ex.A6 : Original Tax Receipt

Ex.A7 : Electricity Bill (Nos.4)

Ex.A8 : CC of Order copy in OP No.471/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS

On behalf of the Defendants:

DW.1: Smt. K.Bharathamma

DW.2: M. Hema Latha

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

On behalf of the Defendants:

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

13

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SMT. M.SHYAM SREE,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

TUESDAY, THE 18 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S.No. 581 of 2015

Between:

M. Maheshwari Reddy W/o. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Aged about: 36 years, Occ: Jr. Advocate, R/o. Plot No.159/B, Krushinagar Colony, Shivalayam Street, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Uppal Mandal, Hyderabad-500068. … Plaintiff

AND

G. Satish Reddy S/o. G. Linga Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, Presently R/o. H.No.12-1-87/105/A, Shivaninagar, Bandlaguda-68, Permanent Address H.No.9-7-132, Near Rama Talkies, Kothagudem, Khammam. … Defendant

This Suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Padmaja Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri. R. Venkatesh Goud, advocate for the Defendant and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for Recovery of Money of Rs.2,31,000/- from the Defendant.

2

1.The Brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff is wife of Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari and the Defendant as a family friend.

The defendant approached the plaintiff and her husband for a loan requested to advance an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- explaining the circumstances and urgent family needs and meet his business expenditure etc., requested to advance. As at that time as the plaintiff was having amount readily at that time Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash to the defendant on 24.9.2012. Having received the amount the defendant executed demand promissory note and acknowledge the receipt of the same. The transaction is witnessed by the witness by the plaintiff's husband Anil Kumar Tiwari who signed the pronote as witness and are scribed by the defendant agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum and executed a cheque in favour of the plaintiff drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Balanagar Branch at Balanagar, Hyderabad. On 1st of October the plaintiff deposited the same on 1.10.2012.

2.It is further submitted that the cheque got returned on

dated 4.10.2012 with an endorsement of insufficient funds and

Drawers signature differ and when the plaintiff approached the defendant several times and requested demanded to pay the due 3 amount. The defendant requested the plaintiff and expressed the defendant problems of the business and family problems the plaintiff considered waited till date where the date of promissory note is also coming for expiry, even now also when ever the plaintiff approached the defendant, the defendant never give any heeds to the complainant it is crystal clear that the defendant is cooking all cock and bull stories to evade and avoid to repay the said amount to the plaintiff the defendant is neither interested to pay the amount nor giving proper reasons to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has no remedy to recover the amount claimed in the suit from the defendant except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

3.The Brief averments of the written statement filed by the

Defendant are that the defendant is no way connected with the plaintiff the question of taking hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- does not arise. The dates mentioned are invented and created only for the purpose of create cause of action and this defendant having no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action and jurisdiction. At the outset this defendant submits that the plaintiff is a practicing advocate who filed several cases against her husband. This 4 defendant submits that the defendant having good health and wealth, this defendant's wife a Government School Teacher she is drawing near about Rs.60,000/- per month. This defendant also doing construction business getting good amounts for every month.

It is evident from the above that the defendant is in a good financial position, so the question of borrowing amount from this plaintiff does not arise. It is also relevant to mentioned that the defendant never executed any promissory note as alleged by the plaintiff, this defendant is never issued any cheque to the plaintiff, this defendant not having any account in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Balanagar

Branch. This defendant is reserving his right to file appropriate civil and criminal cases against the plaintiff. In view of above facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.

Basing on the rival contentions this court framed the

following issues:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover entire suit amount from the defendant ?

3. To What relief ?

5

4. At the event of trial on behalf of the plaintiff got

examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and on

behalf of the Defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and got

marked Exs.Nil.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

ISSUE No.1 :- Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid

and binding on the defendant ?

6.This suit is filed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by executing a promissory note and thereafter had given a cheque, and the cheque was dishonoured. Even on repeated requests the defendant had not repaid the amount. Whereas, it is the defence that the defendant had never executed neither promissory note nor cheque and they are forged and fabricated documents.

7.However, it is the plaintiff who has to primarily establish that the defendant had executed the promissory note and to prove the same she got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A6. In her cross examination she stated that the witness to Ex.A1 6 promissory note is her husband but as there are differences in between them she cannot examine him. She further stated that she has no objection if the record is called from the bank in which the defendant is alleged to have a bank account. She also stated that she has no objection for sending the promissory note and cheque for seeking expert opinion.

8.DW.1 also stated that he has no objection to send the promissory note and cheque for seeking expert opinion. However, it is the defendant who had opted to send the promissory note, cheque along with the signatures of the defendant which were taken in the open court for seeking expert opinion. However, the same was returned by the FSL with an observation that the standard signatures should be in similar pattern as that of the signatures on the disputed documents. So it is needless to say that the entire pattern of the signature which is on promissory note and cheque differs from the standard signatures of the defendant.

9.As seen from Vakalat, written statement and his evidence affidavit all are in the similar pattern as that of the signatures given by him in the open court. But this pattern do not tally with the 7 signature pattern on Ex.A1 & A2. There could be any element of doubt that the defendant wantonly changed his signature as he had put these signatures after filing of the suit. Admittedly plaintiff had sent a notice Ex.A4 to the defendant and the same was received by him through postal acknowledgment card Ex.A6. While receiving the registered post unless he signs the acknowledgment, he cannot open the cover, so he cannot anticipate what is in the register post cover unless he opens it. So even prior to opening he had put the signature on Ex.A6 which tallies with his signature given by him

in the court and vakalat, written statement etc.

10. It is the argument put forth by the learned counsel of the plaintiff that the cheque issued by him was dishonoured. If it was really not issued by him the same would be endorsed by the bank.

But as seen from Ex.A3 cheque return memo the bank has clearly endorsed as insufficient funds and drawers signature differs. So, there is no force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as the bank also returned the cheque as the signature differed.

8 11.Above all it is for the plaintiff to establish that the defendant had executed the promissory note. But simply got herself examined and got marked Ex.A1 & A2 which are not sufficient to establish her case. She states that she has no objection for calling for the records from the bank but it is her burden to call for the relevant records atleast to establish the pattern of the signature of the defendant, and then send the same to expert opinion or rest her case upon that. But the plaintiff had not taken any risk to prove her own case.

12.Apart from that it is in the year 2012 Ex.A1 & A2 were alleged to be issued. But till the year 2015 the plaintiff had not initiated any legal action nor atleast issued a legal notice when

Ex.A2 was returned with an objection that the drawers signatures differs. It cannot even be considered that the plaintiff that due to ignorance of law she had waited for all these years, because admittedly plaintiff is an Advocate. It is elicited in the cross examination of DW.1 that the husband of the plaintiff is the proprietor of marble showroom. It is not explained by the plaintiff, that when her husband is in good financial position to lend the amount, if it is really needed by the defendant why did she agree to lent the amount. There is absolutely no reason for any of the 9 objections raised by the defendant. Therefore, it can be said that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had executed Ex.A1 promissory note and borrowed the amount. Accordingly 1st issue is answered.

Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the

suit amount from the defendant ?

13.Plaintiff failed to establish that by executing the Ex.A1 defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and failed to repay the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of suit amount.

ISSUE NO.3:- To What Relief ?

14.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 18 th

day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

PW.1: M. Maheshwari Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory Note dt.24.9.2012

Ex.A2 : Original Cheque bearing No.300308, dt.1.10.2012

Ex.A3 : Cheque return memo dt.4.10.2012

Ex.A4 : Copy of Legal Notice dt.19.8.2015

Ex.A5 : Postal Receipt dt.20.8.2015

Ex.A6 : Postal Acknowledgment card dt.22.8.2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

On behalf of the Defendant:

DW.1: G. Satish Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

On behalf of the Defendant:

Nil.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

11

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SMT. M.SHYAM SREE,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

THURSDAY, THE 20 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S.No. 561 of 2015

Between:

C.J. Bhupati S/o C. Hara Gopal, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, Partner in M/s Vidhatha Annex (Jockey show room) Shop No.3-120 and 3-120/A, Beside G.Pulla Reddy Sweets, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad, R.R.District. … Plaintiff AND

Smt. G. Srividya Reddy, D/o.G. Raghava Reddy, Aged about 33 yrs, Occ: House wife, Residing at 6-3-879, Green Land Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad, T.S. … Defendant

This Suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.S.Rajpurohit, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri. P. Lakshmana Rao, advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for perpetual Injunction against the Defendant.

2

1.The Brief averments of the plaint is that the Plaintiff is a tenant in respect of shop No.1 in ground floor in premises No.3-120 and 3-120/A. On a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- exclusive of electricity charges of the defendant. The Plaintiff submits that, the defendant lease-out suit schedule property initially on a monthly rent of Rs.17,000/- in the year 2009. The monthly rent in respect of the suit schedule premises is payable on 5th day of succeeding month. The defendant collected monthly rent in respect of suit schedule premises by cheque and cash i.e., Rs.12,000/- by cheque and Rs.6,000/- by cash upto August, 2015 from the plaintiff.

2. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff is doing business under the name and style M/s VIDHATHA ANNEX (Jockey show room) in the suit schedule premises under partnership. The Plaintiff paid rent for the month of August, 2015 on 05.9.2015, by cheque and cash and acknowledgment is passed by defendant on the voucher of the plaintiff's firm. On 10-9-2015 suddenly the defendant's relatives came to suit premises and without any valid grounds asked the plaintiff to vacate the same. Again on 22-9-2015 the defendant's relatives, associates came to suit property and tried to evict the plaintiff illegally from the suit schedule property. The 3 plaintiff gave police complaint to Police station Chaitanyapuri, on 22-9-2015, but police failed to took any action against the defendant's relatives and their associates and further advise the plaintiff to approach to civil court as matter relates to Civil in nature. The acts of the defendant, her relatives and their associates are illegal against the Law and the plaintiff left with no other alternative except to file the present suit against the defendant for a decree of perpetual injunction. Hence this suit.

3.The Brief averments of the written statement filed by the

Defendant are that the Defendant is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and that the Plaintiff is tenant. It is submitted that initially the Plaintiff entered into the Rental Agreement in the year 2009 on a monthly rent of Rs.17,000/- per month for the purpose of running his business under the name and style of 'M/s

JOCKEY SHOW ROOM' and after that the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into Rental agreement on 5th day of July, 2012 on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- per month exclusive electricity bill and other incidental charges and as per the rental agreement the tenancy period commencing from 01-6-2012 and it was only for a period of

Eleven months.

4

4.It is further submitted that as per the clause No.12 of

Rental Agreement dated 5th day of July, 2012 it hereby agreed that after the expiry of the Lease period the Plaintiff/Second Party shall vacate the demise premises (Schedule premises) and deliver vacant possession thereof in as good a condition as it was taken on lease without raising any objection to the Defendant/First party. If the

Plaintiff/Second Party fails to deliver vacant possession of the demised premises at the expiry of the tenancy, he shall have to pay compensation to the Defendant/First Party at Rs.1,200/- per day till he vacates the demised premises.

5.It is further submitted that after expiry period of lease period i.e. in the month of June, 2013 the Defendant approached the Plaintiff and requested him to vacate the suit schedule premises for which the Plaintiff requested the Defendant and sought some time for vacate the suit schedule premises by narrating his family problems for which the Defendant on humanitarian grounds honour the request of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff fail to pay the monthly rents from June, 2013 onwards to the Defendant inspite of repeated demands by the Defendant. The Plaintiff possession in the suit schedule premises is unauthorized and illegal from June, 2013. The 5

Receipt filed by the Plaintiff are not relevant to the rents and the said receipts are created and concocted only for the filing the present suit. Therefore, it is, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.

Basing on the rival contentions this court framed the

following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction ?

2. To What relief ?

6. At the event of trial on behalf of the plaintiff himself

got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and on

behalf of the Defendant herself examined as DW.1 and got

marked Exs.B1 & B2.

7. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

ISSUE No.1 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of

perpetual injunction ?

8.Admitted facts are that plaintiff is the tenant and the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. And that the 6 defendant had inducted as tenant in the year 2012 on monthly rent of Rs.17,000/-. And there was a rental agreement initially in between them. The plaintiff did not disclosed the details of the rental agreement but according to the defendant the rental agreement was executed on 15.7.2012 for 11 months and thereafter the same was no other lease agreement.

9.However, it is the grievance of the plaintiff that though he is regular in payment of rents the defendant and her relatives are highhandedly trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. To establish the same the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. PW.1 in his cross examination stated that as per the clause of the rental agreement the defendant has to issue three months notice for eviction but the same was not done by the defendant till date. He also stated that he intend to vacate the schedule property immediately after getting the alternative suitable premises. Ex.A1 to A5 were filed to show that the plaintiff was regular in payment of rents.

10.Even DW.1 in her cross examination stated that the defendant was paying monthly rents regularly but did not pay the 7 arrears of rent. But she did not mentioned any where during what period the rent was not paid by the plaintiff and what is the amount that is due for arrears. Adding to that admittedly the plaintiff had filed a suit vide OS.48/2017 seeking eviction of the defendant from the schedule property but even in that (Ex.B2) the plaintiff had not sought the relief of recovery of arrears of rent.

11.They had asked the plaintiff to vacate the schedule premises in the year 2013 and as he sought time the defendant had given it. But the present suit has been filed in the year 2015 which shows that though the defendant do not want to continue the tenancy of the plaintiff in the year 2013 itself, did not initiate any legal action for two long years, even though the plaintiff did not vacate the premises. The Plaintiff had also filed the photographs to show the inconvenience and the obstruction being caused by the defendant in running his business. Even it is not explained by the defendant why she had not initiated eviction proceedings immediately after filing of the suit. It is after two years from the filing of this suit, now the defendant had chosen to file a suit for eviction.

8 12.However, as the plaintiff is the tenant in the schedule premises and he is also paying the rents to the landlord, his possession has to be protected unless the same is recovered by him through due process of law. He himself stated that he is eaking his livelihood on the earnings of the business being runned in the schedule premises and he also expressed his willingness to vacate the premises when ever he finds the suitable alternative. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction.

ISSUE NO.2:- To What Relief ?

13.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff thereby restraining the defendant, and person claiming through and under her from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule premises except due process of law.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 20 th

day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

PW.1: C.J. Bhupathi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of Statement of Bank Account

Ex.A2 : Rough Sketch plan of suit schedule premises

Ex.A3 : Original letter wherein Rent in respect of suit schedule

Premises is served to the Defendant

Ex.A4 : Payment Voucher dt.5.9.2015

Ex.A5 : Payment Voucher dt.5.7.2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

On behalf of the Defendant:

DW.1: Smt. G. Srividya Reddy

DW.2: D. Nagaraj

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

On behalf of the Defendant:

Ex.B1: Office copy of Legal Notice dt.26.8.2016

Ex.B2: Office copy of Plaint copy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

10