1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHARMAVARAM
Present: Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, Additional Junior Civil Judge.
Thursday, this the 27 th day of June, 2019
O.S.No.85/2014
Between :
G.Akkulappa s/o Mallappa, aged about 34 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at D.No.2/86, Narasampalli village, Kanaganapalli Mandal. … Plaintiff.
And
1.S.Narasimhappa s/o Hanumanthappa, aged about 62 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at D.No.1/33, Narasampalli village, Kanaganapalli Mandal.
2.N.Sarojamma w/o Lakshmaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.5/1, Bommeparthi village, Rapthadu mandal.
3.N.Thulasamma w/o Ramaswamy, aged about 46 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.2/33, Ramagiri village and mandal.
4.P.Gopal s/o Seshaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.1/33, Narasampalli village, Kanaganapalli Mandal. …Defendants.
This suit having been come on 10.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nagaraju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Suryaprakash Rao, Sri M.P.Subba Rao, Advocates for the defendants 1 to 4 and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and defendants and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining them, their men, agents and representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
2.The averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the item No.1 of the suit schedule property, which is ancestral property, fell to the share of the plaintiff in an oral partition about 10 years back among his family members and his name was incorporated in the revenue records, issued pattadar pass book and title deed. Since the date of oral partition, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. Further 2 submitted that one Mallanna who is the father of the plaintiff, during his life time has filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Authority and in the said declaration shown that the property of an extent of Ac.21.97 cents in Sy.Nos.333, 332-2 and 335 belongs to his father, at that time the plaintiff has not born, therefore his name has not appeared in it. Further submitted that the property in Sy.Nos.332-2 and 335-1 were sub divided on 06.11.2000 under 8A-Dis.No.13/1410 by Mandal
Revenue Officer, Kanaganapalli. According to sub division, item Nos.2 and 3 fell to the share of the plaintiff and his name was incorporated in the revenue records, has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the said authorities issued pattadar pass book in his favour and also he obtained adangals with regard to the possession over the said property. Except the plaintiff, nobody has got right, title and possession over the suit schedule properties and with an intention to grab the suit schedule properties and to cause much inconvenience to the plaintiff, threatening and declaring to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property with the influence of powerful persons of the defendants. If the defendants are not restrained, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, the suit.
3.The defendants made their appearance through their counsel, 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was duly adopted by the defendants 2 to 4 denying all material allegations made against them, unless which are expressly admitted, further submitted that the ancestors of the defendants i.e., one Somara Nalla Narasappa, Krishnamurthy and Poojari Rangaiah gari Seshaiah are the original owners of the suit schedule survey number 333 comprising of
Ac.17.84 cents, and their names had been entered in the RH register, diglot and 10- 1 extract. The pattadar pass books and title deeds, adangals adverted to the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, they obtained by misrepresentation of facts by using influence on revenue officials. They never alienate the same in favour of the 3rd parties much less in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiff at any point of time till date.
3
4.Further submitted that Somara Nalla Narasappa has enjoyed the suit schedule survey number jointly along with the other co-owners till his death and died leaving behind him, his three sons namely one Ramappa, Hanumanthu @
Hanumanthappa and Musalappa, and their names has mutated in the settlement register after demise of his father. The said Hanumanthu had two sons namely
Narasimhappa (1st defendant) and Ramanjaneyulu. The said Ramanjaneyulu died about 7 years back leaving behind his wife Lakshmidevamma who is not a party to the suit. One Thimmaiah gari Narasimha Reddy is joint owner of the suit survey number and enjoyed the property along with co-owners till his death and died leaving behind his only son Krishnamurthy and his name has been mutated in the settlement register. The said Krishnamurthy died leaving behind his three daughters namely Lakshmi Devi, Meenakshmamma and Papamma. In oral partition among them, the suit schedule survey number fell to younger daughter Papamma and died leaving behind has only daughter Sarojamma (2nd defendant). Papamma has no male issues. The third and fourth defendants belong to branch of Poojari
Rangaiah gari Seshaiah, who is the joint co-owners of the suit schedule survey number.
5.Further submitted that, mere possession of pattadar pass books and title deeds do not confirm any title in favour of the plaintiff. Further the defendants had made a representation before the revenue divisional officer, Dharmavaram in
Rc.903 of 2013, challenging the validity of the issuance of pass books, title deeds in
favour of the plaintiff and others in respect of the suit survey number and the same is pending before the said authority. The plaintiff suppressed the material fact i.e., pendency of appeal before the RDO of Dharmavaram. The plaintiff has neither title nor possession over the suit schedule property and the pass books and title deeds are not support to the plaintiff’s case and the defendants are absolute owners of the suit property. When the title is in dispute the suit for bare injunction without declaration of title does not lie and prays to dismiss the suit.
4
6.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as claimed? (2) To what relief?
7.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A15 on his behalf. The 1st defendant is examined himself as
DW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B5 and also examined the DW.2.
8.Heard on both sides.
9.Issue No.1 :
The plaintiff to prove his title, right, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, examined himself as PW-1, reiterated the contents of the plaint in his examination-in-chief, further submitted that the suit schedule property in survey No.333 was orally purchased by his great grandfather by name Peddanna from one Nalla Narasappa for an amount of Rs.80/- about 50 years back, and also the properties in Sy.No.332-2 and 335 were orally purchased for an amount of
Rs.90/- by one Pedda Akkulappa, who is the elder brother of his grandfather
Akkulappa, about 40 years back. Since the date of sale transactions the names of the said Peddanna and Pedda Akkulappa was incorporated in the revenue records.
Therefore, the said properties are ancestral properties and the following documents are marked (1) Pattadar pass book issued by the Tahasildar, Kanaganapalli in favour of the plaintiff, as Ex.A1; (2) Mee seva copy of adangal issued in favour of the plaintiff in Sy.No.332-2 dated 16.11.2014, as Ex.A2, (3) Mee seva copy of adangal issued in favour of the plaintiff in Sy.No.333-2C dated 16.11.2014, as Ex.A3; (4)
Mee seva copy of adangal issued in favour of the plaintiff in Sy.No.332-2 dated 22.12.2014, as Ex.A4; (5) Mee seva copy of 1-B namuna issued in favour of plaintiff dated 16.11.2014, as Ex.A5; (6) Certified copy of orders in IA.No.178/2014
dated 24.07.2014, as Ex.A6; (7) Certified copy of declaration before Land Reforms
Authority, as Ex.A7; (8) Certified copy of No.10(1) account issued by Tahasildar,
Kanaganapalli, as Ex.A8; (9) Certified copy of sub-division orders dated 5 23.07.1996, as Ex.A9; (10) Certified copy of sub-division orders dated 06.11.2000, as Ex.A10; (11) Certified copies of cist receipts (6 in No.), as Ex.A11; (12) Certified copy of adangals for fasils 1396 & 1397, 1401, 1402, 1406 and 1398-1399, 1400, as Ex.A12; (13) Certified copy of counter in Rc.No.1692/2013(B) on the file of RDO,
Dharmavaram, as Ex.A13; (14) Certified copy of counter in RC.No.903/2013(B) on the file of RDO, Dharmavaram, as Ex.A14 and (15) Certified copy of orders in
WPMP.No.8524/2015 in WP.No.6408/2015 on the file of High Court dated 13.03.2015, as Ex.A15. In his cross examination deposed that the suit schedule property consisting in three survey numbers i.e., Sy.No.333 to an extent of Ac.4.20 cents is 1st item, Sy.No.332 to an extent of Ac.4.87 cents is 2nd item and Sy.No.335 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents is 3rd item, originally belongs to his grandfather
Akkulappa and acquired from them. The defendants have filed an appeal before the RDO vide RC.No.903/2013. He has not filed any document to show that the plaint schedule property is an ancestral property. There is an oral partition and separation of their ancestral property among him and the plaintiffs in OS.Nos.84, 86 and 87 of 2014. His father has been cultivated the suit schedule property, after demise of his father, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He knows the boundaries of the suit schedule property. He denied that
Somara Nalla Narasappa, Krishnamurthy, Poojari Rangaiah gari Gangaiah had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, during their lifetime.
10.To rebut the version of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant is examined himself as DW.1 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement in his examination-in-chief, and the following documents are marked (1) certified copy of the registration of holding issued by Sub Registrar, Chennekothapalli, as Ex.B1; (2) certified copy of the appeal petition filed by the defendant before the RDO,
Dharmavaram in RC(B) 1692/2013, as Ex.B2; (3) Certified copy of the EC issued by the Sub Registrar, as Ex.B3; (4) Certified copy of the diglot, as Ex.B4 and (5)
Certified copy of the genealogy issued by the VRO, Narasampalli, as Ex.B5. In his cross examination deposed that his great grandfather’s name is Somara Peddanna and grandfather name is Nalla Narasappa. According to Ex.B4, his grandfather 6 name is Nalla Narasappa. The survey number 333 has not appeared in Ex.B1.
Further stated that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that his grandfather, and Somara Ramappa, Hanumanthappa and Musalappa had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule survey number and also he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule survey number. Further stated that the Government assigned land in Sy.No.334-3 to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in his favour as he made darkasth under landless poor person, which is situated towards East of the Sy.Nos.332 and 335, and his name was mutated in the revenue records, obtained pattadar pass book, 1-B namuna and adangal. There was no partition with regard to the property in Sy.Nos.332, 333 and 335 between his senior paternal uncle and junior paternal uncle. He admitted that the property in
Sy.No.335 was subdivided in the year 1996 among Mallaiah, Peddanna and
Nagabhushanam. Further he does not know whether the land in Sy.Nos.332 and 335 was sub divided in the year 2000 between Mallikarjuna and Akkulappa. He denied that about 50 years ago plaintiff great grandfather had orally purchased the property in Sy.No.333 for an amount of Rs.80/- and also in Sy.Nos.332 and 335 for an amount of Rs.90/- from one Somara Peddanna gari Nalla Narasappa. Further he denied that the Tahasildar, had issued sub division orders to the land in Sy.Nos.332, 333 and 335 in favour of the plaintiff and their ancestors.
11.DW.2 A.Venkataramudu who is the third party to the suit, knows both the parties and the suit schedule property, reiterated the contents of the written statement in his examination-in-chief. In his cross examination stated that the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by raising crops therein and the remaining defendants has not been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Further, he does not know where the properties of the defendants are situated and their details. The sons of Mallaiah filed four suits against Narasimhulu. He does not know in whose name RH register, diglot, 1-B extract and resettlement register stands 7
12.On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is elicited from them that originally the suit schedule property was orally purchased by the ancestors of the plaintiff from one Nalla Narasappa in Survey
Nos.332-2, 333 and 335. The said fact has not been denied by the defendant as they have not been put any question upon PW.1 in cross examination with regard to the purchase of the suit schedule properties orally from the ancestors of the defendants, hence, it is considered that the properties in Sy.Nos.332-2, 333 and 335 was orally purchased by the great grandfathers of the plaintiff, and his brother in OS.No.86/2014 and the plaintiffs in OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014 i.e., Peddanna and Pedda Akkulappa. Further, the great grandfather of the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the declaration
before the Land Reforms Authority issued in the year 1973 i.e., Ex.A7. Further,
Ex.A8 and A12 10-1 and fasili stands in the name of the great grandfather of the plaintiff, with regard to the suit schedule properties. Further, the plaintiff and his brother in OS.No.86/2014 and their cousin brothers who are plaintiffs in OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014, orally partitioned their joint family properties, later the said joint family properties were subdivided on 23.07.1996 and on 06.11.2000 i.e., Ex.A9 and
Ex.A10, respectively, and the same factum was admitted by DW.1 in his cross examination. Further, the great grandfathers of the plaintiff had paid tax with regard to the suit schedule properties from the year 1972 to 1989 i.e., Ex.A11.
Furthermore considered that the adangal pahani which stands in the name of
G.Mallaiah with regard to the suit schedule property of Elukuntla village fasili 1396 and 1397 i.e., Ex.A12. Therefore, the great grandfather and grandfather, the plaintiff, his brother in OS.No.86/2014 and their cousin brothers in OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, after demise of their ancestors. Further, Ex.A1 pattadar pass book with regard to the properties in Sy.No.333-2C1 to an extent of Ac.4.20 cents, Sy.No.332-2B to an extent of Ac.4.87 cents and Sy.No.335-1B to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents was issued by the Tahasildar of Kananganapalli in favour of the plaintiff. Further, his name was incorporated in the revenue records i.e., Exs.A2 to A5. Therefore, the plaintiff has 8 been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, after demise of their ancestors, his name was incorporated in the revenue records.
13.To rebut the version of the plaintiff, DW.1 has adduced evidence to prove his version as stated in the pleadings and filed the documents shows that he and the other defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties.
Originally the suit schedule properties belong to ancestors of the defendants i.e.,
Ex.B1 and B4, after their demise the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, DW.1 has not filed any documentary proof to show that their ancestors had been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property during their lifetime, after their demise, he and other defendants has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till date. Furthermore,
DW.2 who is the third party to the suit, knows both the parties, categorically stated
DW.1 alone has right over the suit schedule property, other defendants has no right, title and possession over the same. Further, DW.1 admitted that he made darakasthu before the Government for assignment of land in his favour as he was landless poor person, after due enquiry, assigned the land of an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.334-3 and issued pattadar pass book, 1-B namuna and adangal, and his name was mutated in the revenue records, and the said property is situated towards East of the suit schedule properties in Sy.Nos.332 and 335. Further, the defendant himself admitted that the plaintiff, his brother in OS.No.86/2014 and their cousin brothers in OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014 made sub division of suit schedule properties among them i.e., Exs.A9 and A10.
14.Further, the defendants’ counsel argued that the plaintiff suppressed the material facts about the filing of an appeal by the defendants against him,
before the revenue authorities for cancelation of pattadar pass book issued in
favour of the plaintiff, his brother in OS.No.86/2014 and their cousin brothers in
OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014. Mere filing of appeal before the revenue authorities does not considered to be material facts and the said appeal is pending, has not passed any order till date. If the revenue officials have passed any order with regard to the appeal and canceled the issued pass book in favour of the plaintiff and 9 other plaintiffs, which would be considered as material fact.
15.Further, the defendants counsel argued that the plaintiff do not sought for permanent injunction without seeking for declaration of title over the suit schedule properties.
The defendants counsel filed judgment relied upon - Ediga
Ranganayakulu (Died) per LRs and others Vs. B.Venkatesu and others - in
2015 ALD 461 wherein the Lordship held that – Injunction-Title-As a matter of law, suit for mere injunction without seeking prayer for declaration of title is maintainable.
16.As supra, correctly stated that mere sought for bare injunction against the defendants without seeking of relief for declaration of title over the suit schedule property, is maintainable.
17.I have been viewed considered and clinching evidence and meticulous observation and material available on the record that the plaintiff and the plaintiffs in OS.No.86/2014 are brothers and the plaintiffs in OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014 are brothers, and they were sub divided their ancestral properties under Exs.A9 and
A10, then, the suit schedule properties in Sy.No.333-2C1 to an extent of Ac.4.20 cents, Sy.No.332-2B to an extent of Ac.4.87 cents and Sy.No.335-1B to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents fell to the share of the plaintiff. The suit schedule properties originally belong to Nalla Narasappa, which were orally purchased by the great grandfather Peddanna and Pedda Akkulappa of the plaintiff and his brother in
OS.No.86/2014 and their cousin brothers in OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014. After
purchase of the said properties, they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties i.e., Ex.A12, further they paid tax to the Government i.e.,
Ex.A11 showing that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, after demise of their grandfather. Therefore, the great grandfather and grandfather of the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. After their demise, the plaintiff and his brother in
OS.No.86/2014 and their cousin brothers in OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014 were sub
10 divided the suit schedule properties i.e., Exs.A9 and A10. If really the defendants and their ancestors had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, they might have been made an objection at the time of sub division proceedings passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanaganapalli either by their ancestors or DW.1 or other defendants before the concerned authorities about the illegal possession of the plaintiff and their ancestors over the suit schedule properties. Further, DW.1 himself admitted that he made an application before the
Government for grant of assignment of land in his favour as he was landless poor person, after due enquiry, assigned the land of an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in
Sy.No.334-3, as he was landless poor person which was adjacent to the suit schedule properties. It itself sufficient to draw a conclusion and consideration that the defendants and their ancestors were not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further, the names of the ancestors of the defendants in
Exs.B1 and B4 do not confirm any title or possession over the suit schedule property.“Mere entries in the Revenue records would not constitute proof of the
Government’s title”. Referred a case in between P.Suresh Vs. A.P.State 2009(3)
ALT 419. Further, the DW.1, other defendants have not filed a piece of paper that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, after demise of their ancestors over the suit schedule property. Therefore, all the material evidence and the oral evidence available on the record, clearly and obviously shows that the ancestors of the plaintiff, had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property during their lifetime, after their demise, their legal heirs PW.1, his brother in OS.No.86/2014 and their cousin brothers in
OS.Nos.84 and 87 of 2014 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. PW.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, on considering the same the then Tahasildar of Kanaganapalli has issued pattadar pass book i.e., Ex.A1 and their name was mutated in the revenue records i.e., Exs.A2 to A6. Therefore, the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property has proved the possession and enjoyment of the property, and he is entitled to relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.
11
Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
18.In view of my discussion and findings on issue No.1, wherein it is held that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendants have no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction.
19.Issue No.2:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, restraining the defendants, their men, agents and representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff by way of permanent injunction.
Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of June, 2019.
Sd/- M.Srinivasa Rao,
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff: Defendant: PW.1 : G.AkkulappaDW.1 : S.Narasimhappa DW.2 : A.Venkataramudu
Exhibits marked for plaintiff
Ex.A1 : Mee seva copy of pattadar pass book issued by the Tahasildar, Kanaganapalli in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 : Mee seva copy of adangal issued in favour of the plaintiff in Sy.No.332-2
dated 16.11.2014.
Ex.A3 : Mee seva copy of adangal issued in favour of the plaintiff in Sy.No.333-2C
dated 16.11.2014.
Ex.A4 : Mee seva copy of adangal issued in favour of the plaintiff in Sy.No.332-2
dated 22.12.2014.
Ex.A5 : Mee seva copy of 1-B namuna issued in favour of plaintiff dated 16.11.2014. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of orders in IA.No.178/2014 dated 24.07.2014. Ex.A7 : Certified copy of declaration before Land Reforms Authority. Ex.A8 : Certified copy of No.10(1) account issued by Tahasildar, Kanaganapalli. Ex.A9 : Certified copy of sub-division orders dated 23.07.1996. Ex.A10 : Certified copy of sub-division orders dated 06.11.2000. Ex.A11 : Certified copies of cist receipts (6 in No.).
12
Ex.A12 : Certified copy of adangals for fasils 1396 & 1397, 1401, 1402, 1406 and 1398-1399, 1400. Ex.A13 : Certified copy of counter in Rc.No.1692/2013(B) on the file of RDO, Dharmavaram. Ex.A14 : Certified copy of counter in RC.No.903/2013(B) on the file of RDO, Dharmavaram. Ex.A15 : Certified copy of orders in WPMP.No.8524/2015 in WP.No.6408/2015 on the file of High Court dated 13.03.2015.
Exhibits marked for defendant
Ex.B1 : Certified copy of the registration of holding issued by Sub Registrar, Chennekothapalli.
Ex.B2 : Certified copy of the appeal petition filed by the defendant before the RDO, Dharmavaram in RC(B) 1692/2013.
Ex.B3 : Certified copy of the EC issued by the Sub Registrar.
Ex.B4 : Certified copy of the diglot.
Ex.B5 : Certified copy of the genealogy issued by the VRO, Narasampalli.
Ild/- MSR A.J.C.J.