1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIIL JUDGE :: ELURU
Present: Smt.M.Sudha Rani,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru
Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2020
O.S.No.198 of 2014
Between: 1. Garapati Mamatha Devi, W/o. Bharadwaja, Hindu, Female, Aged 64 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.1-22, Naidugudem village, Pedapadu Mandal, W.G.Dist., EJCJC.
2. Smt. Maganti Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Muralimohan, Hindu, Female, Aged 60 years, R/o.D.No.A-14, Road No.3, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Courts Limits.
... Plaintiffs
And
1. Ravuri **Nanhi Rani, W/o. Chilakarao, Hindu, Female, Aged 57 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.2-70, Yellapuram village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District, Nuzuvidu JCJC.
2. Ravuri China Saibaba, S/o.Ramayya, Hindu, Male, Aged 62 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.2-72, Yellapuram village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District, Nuzuvidu JCJC.
3. Ravuri Nagabhushanam, S/o. Ramayya, Hindu, Male, Aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.2-74, Yellapuram village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District, Nuzuvidu JCJC.
4. Ravuri Kamalakumar, S/o. Peda Chilakarao, Hindu, Male, Aged 30 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.2-73, Yellapuram village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District, Nuzuvidu JCJC. **Amended as per the orders in I.A.No.1347/2014,
dated 12.08.2014 ...Defendants
This suit is coming on 20.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Venkaiah, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri Goli Uma Sankar, Advocate for defendants; and having stood over for consideration till the day this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, relatives, associates, assignees, representatives and followers from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of OP Kattava with 200 teak trees, shown in rough sketch, situated in plaint schedule property from cutting and carrying away the said 200 teak trees and for costs.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that:
The plaintiffs are absolute owners of an extent of Ac.18.96 cents in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem and coconut, coco, palmoil and 2 teak trees were grown in the schedule property. The plaintiffs acquired the schedule property, by virtue of Will deed, dated 25.11.1983 executed by their grand-mother Ravuri Manikyamma, wherein she made several bequeaths including the bequests made to the plaintiffs and also by virtue of settlement deed, dated 18.09.1978, executed in favour of second plaintiff, and also by way of succession. It is further submitted that the schedule property and the property of the defendants, along with other lands are the ancestral property of Ravuri family. It is submitted that Ravuri Ramanna had two sons by name
Sobhanadri and Bullikondayya. Sobhanadri had three sons by name
Ramayya, Peda Seethayya, Venkatappayya, while Bullikondayya had one son by name Ravuri China Seethayya. As per the partition deed,
dated 27.02.1956, children of Sobhanadri and Bullikondayya
partitioned their joint family properties and in that partition, the schedule property was allotted to Ravuri Peda Seethayya, along with other properties. Ravuri Manikyamma is wife of Peda Seethayya and one Chukkamma is the only female issue to them and the plaintiffs are daughters of Chukkamma and Ramamohana Rao. While so, Peda
Seethayya settled immovable property in favour of his daughter
Chukkamma and her sons Anandmohan and Muralimohan, by virtue of registered settlement deed, dated 14.12.1957, by keeping remaining property with him. After his death, on 17.03.1968, his properties were kept under management of his wife Manikyamma. Manikyamma also executed settlement deeds in favour of second plaintiff, in the year 1978 and also executed a Will deed, dated 25.11.1983 in a sound and disposing state of mind, making several bequests in respect of her remaining property. The plaint schedule property is contiguous plot with coconut plants, coco, palmoil and teak trees on the kattava, which is on the eastern side of their land. To the further east of said teak kattava, there is one road, which is part and parcel of the schedule 3 property. On further east of the schedule property, the land of the defendants and their relatives are situated. It is further submitted that the teak trees, which are on the kattava are more than 30 years old and they are about 200 in number and the plaintiffs personally cultivated and grown said teak trees on OP kattava shown in the rough sketch attached to the plaint. It is further submitted that taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs are residing far away from the schedule property, the defendants conceived an illegal idea of cutting and carrying away the teak trees, by trespassing into OP kattava, made forcible attempts to cut and carry away those teak trees. But, the plaintiffs' men somehow could resist the forcible attempts of the defendants from cutting and carrying away the teak trees from OP kattava. Recently, on 05.07.2014, the defendants and their men made valiant attempts to cut and carry away those teak trees on OP kattava.
But, the plaintiffs' men could resist them with the help of the neighbours. But, the defendants still proclaiming in the village that they will cut and carry away the teak trees and appropriate the money by selling them. In fact, the plaintiffs appointed one M. Suribabu as their agent for cutting and carrying away the teak trees with the permission of Forest Department. Accordingly, said Suribabu obtained proceedings, dated 03.03.2014 from Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, for the purpose of cutting and carrying away the teak trees. Now, there is a threat to the schedule property from the hands of the defendants.
Hence this suit.
3.The first defendant filed written statement that the plaintiffs acquired landed property in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem through their ancestors, but the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.18.56 cents only, though the land is mentioned as Ac.18.96 cents in the partition deed, dated 27.02.1956. It is submitted that an extent of 4
Ac.18.56 cents is only available on ground in R.S.No.160 of
Mailavarapuvarigudem, which is in the possession of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are not legally entitled for an extent of Ac.18.96 cents as shown in the plaint schedule. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are aware of their right and title for an extent of Ac.18.56 cents only in
R.S.No.160, but, they deliberately made a false claim for an extent of 18.96 cents in the plaint schedule, with a view to obtain unlawful gain, at the expense of this defendant and her daughters. She further submits that Ravuri China Chilakayya, husband of the first defendant, owned and possessed a total extent of Ac.19.60 cents in R.S.No.159 of
Mailavarapuvarigudem and he acquired the same in joint family oral partition in the year 1980 and subsequently, a memorandum of understanding, dated 24.03.1990 was duly signed by Ravuri China
Chilakayya and his four brothers, by allotting Ac.19.60 cents in
R.S.No.159, in favour of Ravuri China Chilakayya. It is submitted that an extent of Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160 of the plaintiffs are on the west of the land of the defendants i.e., Ac.19.60 cents in R.S.No.159.
While so, in the year 1985, the plaintiffs and Ravuri China Chilakayya arranged a black thar joint road to reach their land from the main road on the south of their land, for the purpose of ingress and aggress to their respective lands, from the main road. By that time, the land of the plaintiffs were being looked after by Mulpuri Murali Mohan Rao, who is the brother of the plaintiffs. As per the said understanding, a joint road was laid by making rough estimate of their respective lands, without going into measurements at that time. But, it was specifically understood that the lands of both the parties have to be surveyed at any later date, as per mutual understanding and that if any party is found to be in possession of any excess land, they should make over the same to the party having deficit land. After laying joint road, both the parties raised coconut, coco and teak wood plantations in their 5 respective land and the Government also recognized the ownership and exclusive possession and enjoyment of Ravuri China Chilakayya for an extent of Ac.19.60 cents of land in R.S.No.159 of
Mailavarapuvarigudem and issued pattadar passbook and title deed, in favour of him, for an extent of Ac.19.60 cents and all the revenue records supports the possession and enjoyment of Ravuri China
Chilakayya for Ac.19.60 cents. Unfortunately, China Chilakayya died intestate on 06.08.2019 in road accident and consequently, said
Ac.19.60 cents in Rs.No.159 was devolved on this defendant and her daughters by name R. Deepika, S. Sailaja and V. Vimitha and they are in possession of the same and they leased out their land to one
Yesubabu, resident of Kondalaraopalem, for a period of four years commencing from 01.07.2011.
3(a). While so, taking advantage that this defendant and her children are residing at distant places, away from their land, the plaintiffs entertained a malafide intention to cause unnecessary trouble and harassment to the defendant, dictate terms to this defendant and her children to sell away their land to the plaintiffs for throw-away price and began illegal activities to take away the usufruct from the fields of the defendants. In the month of August, 2013, the plaintiffs and their brother Chandra Mohan demanded the survey of land of both the parties and this defendant has no objection for such survey.
Accordingly, this defendant took necessary steps for survey of the land and also paid the requisite survey fees, by way of challan. Ultimately in the month of January, 2014, the lands were kept surveyed by the mandal surveyor Mr. Kodanda Ram of Pedavegi mandalam, on 29th and 30th of January, 2014 and survey was conducted as per the field measurement book, in the presence of both the parties and also in the presence of owners of neighbouring plots, defendants 2 to 4 and the 6 elders by name Ravuri Chilakarao of Yellapuram, Devineni Sridhar of
Musunuru, Krishna District. In the process of said survey, the mandal surveyor also demarcated the respective lands in R.S.No.159 and 160 and fixed boundaries for both the extents of Ac.18.56 in R.S.No.160 and Ac.19.60 cents in R.S.No.159 of Mailavarapuvarigudem. The respective lands of either party have also been clearly demarcated with the consent of both the parties. By means of said survey, it is emerged that an extent of Ac.0.80 cents belonging to this defendant and her daughters, which is part and parcel of Ac.19.60 cents in
R.S.No.159 is under temporary occupation of the plaintiffs. Similarly, an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of the plaintiffs, which is part and parcel of
Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem is found to be in the temporary occupation of this defendant and her daughters. But, in view of the original understanding in between the parties, the defendants made over the excess land of Ac.0.10 cents and the plaintiffs have also made over excess land of Ac.0.80 cents noted above to this defendant. Said giving and taking of excess land took place on 30.01.2014. The Ac.0.10 cents of land taken over by the plaintiff is vacant land, whereas the land of Ac.0.80 cents taken over by this defendant consists of 40 coconut trees, 270 cocoa trees and 96 teak wood trees. The plaintiffs also declared that from the date, they do not have any interest in the said land of Ac.0.80 cents and from that date, the defendant and her children have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the entire land of Ac.19.60 cents in
R.S.No.159 of Mailavarapuvarigudem, so also the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.159. It is further submitted that even by the time of survey, the plaintiffs never claimed or represented that they have got land of Ac.18.96 cents in R.S.No.160 and they also accepted the outcome of said survey without any protest. The aforesaid making over the excess lands in favour of either party took 7 place in the presence of defendants 2 to 4 and the above said elders and it was also understood that this defendant is at liberty to raise a fencing in the demarcated lands, with a view to secure her land and to prevent further disputes. It is further submitted that both the joint pathways on the southern side was found to be located in the land of the plaintiffs in R.S.No.160 and the remaining pathway was found in the lands of the defendants in R.S.No.159. It was further agreed that there is no joint pathway and the first defendant has to form her own road in her own land in R.S.No.159, connecting to Eluru-Chintalapudi in said Ac.0.80 cents of land, which was made over to this defendant.
The present pathway is completely situated in R.S.No.159 and the plaintiffs had no right to use the said road. But, the plaintiffs mischievously alleged that said pathway is part and parcel of the schedule property. The defendants also raised barbed wire fencing, by investing Rs.80,000/- towards material and labour charges, on the boundary line in between Ac.18.56 cents i.e., the land of the plaintiffs in R.S.No.160 and Ac.19.60 cents of land in R.S.No.159 of the defendants, on 23.06.2014 and on 05.07.2014 with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and their brother Chandra Mohan. Thus, the
OP kattava of the plaint plan is located in the land of Ac.19.60 cents of the first defendant and her children and the plaintiffs had no right over it. She further submitted that the plaintiffs obtained proceedings,
dated 03.03.2014 from Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru through M.
Suribabu, taking permission to cut and carry away 112 teak wood trees in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem and they also cut down those trees. But, under the guise of said proceedings, they also intended to cut and carry away the teak wood trees situated in R.S.No.159 and it would be violating the conditions of permission granted by the D.F.O.
Moreover, the time granted for cutting the trees is also expired by 31.03.2014. In this regard, the defendants also got issued registered 8 notice, dated 14.07.2014 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru to take necessary action to prevent illegal cutting of the teak wood trees. This defendant also placed a watchman in her land and said watchman, by name Rangoli Appalaswamy and his wife have been residing in a shed located in the defendant's land. While so, the husband of the first plaintiff, Garapati Bharadwaj, brother of the plaintiff, by name
Chandramohan and others came with deadly weapons and trespassed into the lands of the defendants and the watchman and his wife and destroyed entire fencing and carried away the fencing material in tractors. Accordingly, the watchman lodged a report in Pedavegi Police
Station, which is registered as Cr.No.155/2014 under Sections 143, 447, 341, 434, 427, 506 of IPC read with Sec.149 of IPC. The defendants after received registered post came to know that the plaintiffs were granted temporary injunction. It is further submitted that by playing fraud, the plaintiffs obtained exparte injunction, by misleading the Hon'ble Court by stating that they are in the possession of Ac.18.96 cents. It is further submitted that the revenue records also clearly reveals that the plaintiffs only possessed Ac.18.56 cents in
R.S.No.160. Merely because, it was recited in some old document that the extent is Ac.18.96 cents, it will not ensure the benefit of the plaintiffs, when there is no such extent on ground. It is further submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini in the absence of a prayer for declaration of title under the circumstances of the case.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit, with exemplary costs.
4.The defendants 2 to 4 filed adoption memo, by adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant.
5.Basing on the above pleadings and upon hearing both sides, the then Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru framed the following issues for trial:
9
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
(ii) To what relief?
6.The second plaintiff filed her evidence affidavit as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered parition deed entered into between Ravuri Peda Seethayya and his brothers,
dated 27.02.1956. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of registered settlement
deed, executed by Ravuri Manikyamma in her favour, dated 18.09.1978. Ex.A3 is the attested copy of proceedings of Divisional
Forest Officer, Eluru, dated 03.03.2014. Ex.A4: Five photos with compact disc. Ex.A5 is the original Will executed by Ravuri
Manikyamma, dated 25.11.1983. Ex.A6 is the possession certificate issued by VRO, Nadipalli, for an extent of Ac.18.96 cents in R.S.No.160.
Ex.A7 is the representation made to District Collector, West Godavari,
Eluru by the plaintiffs, dated 16.04.2014. Ex.A8 is the representation made to RDO, Eluru by the plaintiffs.
During her cross-examination, she deposed that her younger brother Chandra Mohan used to look after the cultivation of Ac.18.96 cents on their behalf for the last 9 to 10 years and he died around 4 years back. She deposed that the Government issued pattadar passbooks, title deeds, jointly in favour of herself and her sister and the plaint schedule land is also noted in those title deeds and pass books. She deposed that she cannot say the reason why said title deed and passbook were not filed into the Court. She further deposed that she cannot say what has been incorporated in the plaint and that her sister i.e., the first plaintiff is also unable to give evidence in the suit, as she is pre-occupied with household affairs. She deposed that the main version for filing this suit is variation occurred at the time of survey on their land in R.S.No.160 and first defendant's land in
R.S.No.159 and that they did not accept the said survey for the reason 10 why there is deficiency in extent of their land in an extent of Ac.0.40 to 0.50 cents in their land and that neither herself nor her sisters were present at the time of said survey, which was conducted on 29th and 30th of January, 2014, by the Mandal Surveyor, Pedavegi Mandal, by name Kodandarao. She deposed that she cannot say whether the difference of land in Ac.0.40 cents to Ac.0.50 cents is emerged in the land of first defendant and others. She deposed that said surveyor furnished copies that report along with plan to her, so also to first defendant and that PW.1 challenged validity of surveyor's report and plan by filing representation before the District Collector. PW.1 further deposed that it is not her contention that the first defendant grabbed her land taking advantage of above noted survey showing deficiency in
PW.1's land. She further deposed that they filed this suit with a prayer for correct location of their land, which is found to be in deficit of
Ac.0.40 cents to Ac.0.50 cents, as per the survey mentioned above.
She admitted that previously, there is only one pathway starting from
Eluru-Chinthalapudi road to reach the land of the plaintiffs and the land of first defendant and thereafter, in the year 2014, they arranged a separate pathway from the said main road into their land, so also the first defendant arranged separate pathway into her land, on the eastern side of their pathway. She admitted that Mandal Surveyor affixed stones to their lands in R.S.No.160 and the land of the first defendant in R.S.No.159. She adds that she did not accept the survey.
She deposed that she does not know that one Rongali Appala Swamy is acting as a watchman on behalf of the first defendant and looking after that land and that he filed a report in Pedavegi Police Station, regarding destruction of barbed wire fencing. She deposed that she cannot say the area covered by OP kattava as mentioned in the plaint, as described in the plaint plan. She admitted that the defendants 1 to 4 never indulged in any acts of damage to the lands of the plaintiffs.
11
She denied the suggestion that herself and her sister entertained fradulent intention to grab the first defendant's land illegally and instructed their brother Chandra Mohan to file suit against the first defendant and others, to achieve their illegal object and that he filed suit with concocted allegations for illegal benefit. She further deposed that she accepted that they are not at all concerned with the extent of
Ac.19.60 cents in R.S.No.159 of Mailavarapuvarigudem. She denied the suggestion that even though she was aware that she had no right to file present suit against the first defendant, she come forward to depose falsely on instigation of her relatives. She denied the suggestion that only an extent of Ac.18.56 cents of land is available on the ground in R.S.No.160 and even as per the survey, it is found that
Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160. She admitted that Ex.A6 certificate issued by the VRO of Nadepally does not have any date, and that she cannot say who obtained Ex.A6 certificate from said VRO. She further deposed that neither herself nor her sister furnished their documents to said VRO to obtain Ex.A6 certificate. She deposed that she did not make any attempts to file copies of village accounts concerning their lands into the Court, by the time of filing of the suit or by the time of filing her evidence affidavit. She denied the suggestion that she deliberately avoided to file pattadar passbook or title dees into the
Court, apprehending that truth will come out that they possess only
Ac.18.56 cents of land in R.S.No.160. She further deposed that the
Hon'ble Court appointed a Commissioner for the purpose of survery of
the said land, but, she is not aware whether said Commissioner surveyed suit land and what is the report filed by him in the Hon'ble
Court. She admitted that Ex.A8 representation submitted to RDO,
Eluru is relating to the survey conducted by Mandal Surveyor,
Kodandaram on 29th and 30th January, 2014. She admitted that after
Ex.A8 herself and her sister are aware that there is deficiency in their 12 land to the extent of Ac.0.60 cents. She further deposed that so far they did not file any suit against Government for the inaction on their part on the representation under Ex.A8. She admitted that the contents of Ex.A7 representation submitted to District Collector are similar to the contents of Ex.A8.
7.One G. Ramachandra, son of the first plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit as PW.2, as on the same lines of PW.1.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he is in construction business and apart from that he is looking after the suit schedule property, apart from other fish tanks. He admitted that his evidence affidavit is the replica of the evidence affidavit of PW.1. He deposed that he had gone through all the documents about 15 years back and he knows that the first defendant had landed property in
R.S.No.159 of Mailavarapuvarigudem and according to him, she had been in possession of Ac.18.96 cents in R.S.No.159 and the plaintiffs are also in the possession of Ac.18.96 cents in R.S.No.160. He deposed that there is no fencing in between the land of plaintiff and land of the first defendant. He admitted that in the written statement, the first defendant mentioned that they had Ac.19.60 cents of land in
R.S.No.159. But, he did not give any advise to the plaintiffs to file rejoinder that the first defendant had only Ac.18.96 cents, but not
Ac.19.60 cents. He denied the suggestion that he never looked after the cultivation of the plaintiffs for their landed property and he had no personal knowledge about the lands of the plaintiff and he never go through the documents of the plaintiffs. He deposed that he verified the pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the plaintiffs. He admitted that in the said pattadar passbooks, the land of the plaintiffs is shown as Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem. He deposed that though the plaintiffs got Ac.18.96 cents in the partition, the 13 revenue officials without verifying the documents, issued pattadar passbooks for Ac.18.56 cents. He adds that they filed an application
before revenue authorities to rectify the mistake. He admitted that
pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued about 15 years back and their applications are still pending in the revenue authorities. He deposed that they did not file any civil suit against revenue authorities and he did not prefer any revision before the Hon'ble High Court. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had only Ac.18.56 cents of land in R.S.No.160 and even the ancestors of the plaintiffs are never in possession of Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160.
8.One Parvathaneni Ravindra, third party to the suit, filed his evidence affidavit as PW.3 that he worked as Supervisor under the plaintiffs from the year 2012 to 2016 to look after Ac.18.96 cents of land in R.S.No.160, along with kattav consisting 200 teak trees and that the defendants are trying to forcibly enter into the plaintiffs land to take away the teak trees. But, himself and others could resist forciblly the acts of the defendants' men and that on 05.07.2014, the defendants' men made a great attempt to cut and take away teak trees and himself and other workers, with the help of neighbours could resist the attempts also and that during his tenure, the teak trees in the kattava were entrusted to one M. Suribabu, to cut and carry the trees by taking permission from the Forest Department.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that one Challagulla
Chandramohan employed him as Supervisor for the properties of the plaintiffs and he informed him that the plaintiffs are owners of Ac.18.96 cents of land in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem. He deposed that he do not know the documents of the plaintiffs and that no measurements took place in his presence and he do not know whether the Mandal Surveyor by name Kodandaram measured the property in 14
R.S.Nos.159 and 160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem on 29.01.2014 and 30.01.2014 and fixed boundaries. He adds that during the time, he did not attend the work, as he was suffering from fever by that time. He further deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the disputes between the plaintiffs and defendants, regarding the landed properties, so also the suit particulars. He deposed that Challagulla
Chandramohan informed him that one Suribabu obtained permission from Forest Department for the teak trees in R.S.No.160. He further deposed that on 05.07.2014, he was not present at the schedule property and he do not know what happened on that day. He denied the suggestion that he never worked as Supervisor at the plaintiffs and that he is deposing false, at the instance of plaintiffs.
9.The first defendant filed her evidence affidavit as DW.1, as on the same lines of her written statement and got marked Exs.B1 to B7.
Ex.B1 is the original Pattadar Pass book in the name of Ravuri China
Chilakayya. Ex.B2 is the original Pattadar title deed in the name of
Ravuri China Chilakayya. Ex.B3 is the ceritified copy of pattadar/pahani, dated 27.06.2014 for Fasali 1423 in respect of land in
R.S.No.159 of Mailavarapuvarigudem. Ex.B4 is the cist reeipt, dated 13.11.2010 in the name of Ravuri China Chilakayya. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of registered partition deed, dated 27.02.1956 executed among Ravuri Ramaiah and his brothers. Ex.B6 is the death certificate, dated 19.08.2009 of Ravuri China Chilakayya. Ex.B7 is the consent letter, dated 24.03.1990 executed among Ravuri
Chilaka Rao and his brothers (martked subject to objection).
During her cross-examination, she admitted that they inherited landed property from her fore fathers. She also admitted that as per
Ex.A1 partition deed, item No.1 of the property fell to the share of her father-in-law i.e., Ac.18.96 cents and the maternal grand-father of the 15 plaintiff by name Peda Seethayya got Ac.18.96 cents. She admitted that there are no disputes between her father-in-law and his brothers from the year 1986 till their death and that even her husband also did not file any suit against the plaintiffs, during his life time. She denied the suggestion that the teak trees and kattava are not in their lands and that they are only in possession of Ac.18.96 cents and that teak trees and kattava are the property of the plaintiffs in their land. She admitted that the plaintiffs sold the teak trees to one Surivbabu and he obtained permission from the Divisional Forest Officer to cut down those teak trees. She denied the suggestion that on 05.07.2014, they tried to cut down teak trees in OP kattava and by that time, the plaintiffs filed this suit. She admitted that there are no direct disputes between her and the plaintiffs. She admitted that at present their property is in her supervision. She admitted that there is no written proof that the plaintiffs declared that they did not have any interest on
Ac.0.80 cents of land with trees from 30.01.2014. She admitted that the plaintiffs and others raised coconut and cocoa in their respective properties in the year 1985 and the plaintiffs arranged drip irrigation in their lands about 15 years back. She deposed that she cannot say basing on which document, they mentioned in Ex.B7 that the property in R.S.No.159 is Ac.19.60 cents. She denied the suggestion that as per
Ex.B5, her father-in-law had Ac.18.96 cents of land, but, they fabricated Ex.A7 for the purpose of the suit, by mentioning the property as Ac.19.60 cents. She admitted that it is mentioned in the written statement and evidence affidavit that while surveying the land, it is found that Ac.0.80 cents of land was in the possession of plaintiffs and Ac.0.10 cents of land was in the possession of defendants. She deposed that the plaintiffs are in the possession of Ac.0.80 cents of land till today and she admitted that including that Ac.0.80 cents of land, they had Ac.19.60 cents of land. She deposed that they did not 16 file surveyor report into the Court. She denied the suggestion that from the year 1956, the plaintiffs and the defendants are in the possession of their respective shares of Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.Nos.159 and 160 respectively and with a wrongful intention of getting 200 teak trees in OP kattava, they take false plea for this suit.
10.One Devineni Sridhar, third party to the suit filed his evidence affidavit as DW.2, as on the same lines of DW.1.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he do not know whether the father-in-law of the first defendant had acquired any other property, apart from the lands obtained in partition. He denied the suggestion that he never acted as mediator in which the defendant is agreed to hand over Ac.0.10 cents of land to the plaintiff, in turn the plaintiff has to handover Ac.0.80 cents of land to the defendant. He denied the suggestion that no barbed wire fencing was arranged to the land of the first defendant and there is no question of damaging said barbed wire fencing.
11.The counsel for the plaintiffs filed written arguments, by briefly narrating the contents of the plaint and written statement, so also the family geneology of Ravuri Ramanna and the evidence of both the parties. He argued that Ex.B7 consent letter is marked subject to objection, as the same was not registered and its nature is relinquishment of their rights over the immovable property and moreover, ignoring the actual extent in Ex.A1 i.e., Ex.B5 partition deed as Ac.18.96 cents admittedly. He argued that as per the recitals of
Ex.A1/Ex.B5 in page No.12, the first item fell to the share of Ramayya, who is no other than the father-in-law of DW.1 and the extent is
Ac.18.96 cents only. He argued that even as per the evidence of DW.1, the source of acquisition of the property by her husband and his brother is under Ex.A1/Ex.B5 only and there is no other document to 17 show that they got Ac.19.60 cents instead of Ac.18.96 cents. DW.1 also admitted that her Ac.0.80 cents of land is in the possession of the plaintiffs and the same was known to them in the year 2013 and she never issued any legal notice and never filed a suit, regarding said
Ac.0.80 cents of land. He argued that the first defendant is wrongly misinterpreting without any basis that the plaintiffs' land is only
Ac.18.56 cents only. He argued that even as per the admission of
DW.1, the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.0.80 cents till today and said Ac.0.80 cents is OP kattava, wherein teak trees are grown by the plaintiffs. Thus itself shows that the first defendant is not in the possession of Ac.19.60 cents and she was in possession of Ac.18.96 cents only. It is further submitted that the husband of the first defendant obtained pattadar passbook and title deed by submitting
Ex.B7 consent letter and without showing Ex.B5 partition deed, dated 27.02.1956 to the revenue authorities intentionally. He argued that the entries in revenue records does not create any title over the property and no person is entitled to seek title and possession, basing on the revenue records. To support his contention, he relied on a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2019(5) ALT 237 (SC),
wherein the parties are Ramesh Das (Dead) thr. Lrs. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, wherein it is held that__ "Revenue entries are of no assistance since as per the well-
established position of law the revenue documents do not
create title".
He argued that as per Sec.17(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908, the relinquishment deed requires registration to be admitted in the evidence and moreover, it is marked subject to objection. To support his contention, he relied on a decision reported in 2006(5) ALT 42, wherein the parties are T.Arthi Vs. K. Anand Reddy and others, wherein it is held that__ 18 "Relinquishment deed even if executed by a coparcener in
favour of another coparcener requires registration if it is in
respect of definite item of immovable property to his share".
He further argued that in para No.3 of written statement, the first defendant submitted that the source of acquisition of the landed property in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem by the plaintiffs, through their ancestors is admitted. In the written statement, it is also mentioned that "even though the extent of land might have been mentioned as Ac.18.96 cents in Regd. Partition deed, dated 27.02.1956".
12.He further argued that DW.1 admitted that the relationship of the plaintiffs and defendants, so also the acquisition of schedule property by the plaintiffs. Thus, as seen from the cross-examination of DW.1, the entire cross-examination on various aspects are admissions.
Moreover, the defendants 2 to 4 who are none other than the brothers of the first defendant's husband remained exparte, accepting the contention of the plaint and documents. He argued that the plaintiffs are seeking permanent injunction basing on Ex.A1/Ex.B5, whereas, the first defendant is claiming excess than what she had under Ex.B5 by virtue of concocted consent letter i.e., Ex.B7. He further argued that by virtue of Ex.A1/Ex.B5 and other documents, the plaintiff proved her title and possession by virtue of registered documents and other documents, and also about OP kattava and also teak trees by virtue of
Ex.A3 of Divisional Forest Officer. On the other hand, the defendant who laid a claim for an extent of Ac.19.60 cents in R.S.no.159 miserably failed to prove title to said extent and tried to make out a case on the basis of manipulated revenue records. Moreover, the plaintiffs disputed those revenue records by virtue of Exs.A7 and A8, made representations to the Government. He argued that it is settled 19 position of law that possession follows title, so also as per Sec.59 of
Evidence Act, all the facts except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence. He argued that the remedies under Specific
Relief Act are equitable remedies as such, the plaintiffs approached the
Hon'ble High Court with clean hands by virtue of more than 64 years
old documents i.e., Ex.A1. On the other hand, the first defendant is put-up her defense in most inequitable way ignoring that old documents, though she admitted the execution of the same i.e., Ex.B5.
Thus, she cannot approbate and reprobate by showing Ex.A1/Ex.B5 is source document, but, she is having more land what is mentioned in the source document. Thus, he prays to decree the suit, in the ends of the justice.
13.The counsel for the defendants argued that the plaint schedule property is only Ac.18.56 cents in existence physically on ground, though it is shown as Ac.18.96 cents in Ex.B5 partition deed. He argued that as per the revenue records and as per the mandal
Surveyor's report, the extent of land in survey No.160 is Ac.18.56 cents, whereas in R.S.No.159, it is Ac.19.60 cents i.e., the land of the first defendant. He argued that the land of the plaintiffs is west to the land of the first defendant in survey No.160. He argued that except
Ex.A1 partition deed, there is no document to the plaintiffs showing that they are in the possession of Ac.18.96 cents of land, and that
Ac.0.40 cents of land is deficit to the plaintiffs on ground in R.S.No.160.
He argued that in January, 2014 measurements were took place for both the lands of the plaintiffs and the first defendant and by the time of measurements, it was found that Ac.0.80 cents of land in R.S.No.159 is found in the possession of the plaintiffs. Whereas, Ac.0.10 cents of land in R.S.No.160 was found in the possession of the defendants.
Thus, 200 teak trees of OP kattaava in R.S.No.159 belongs to the first 20 defendant and not to the plaintiffs. He argued that the Mandal
Surveyor got surveyed the land by giving notice to the plaintiffs and gave a finding that Ac.19.60 cents of land is in R.S.No.160. He argued that the plaintiffs are never in possession of Ac.18.96 cents at any point of time physically on ground, so also the ancestors of the plaintiffs.
14.He further argued that the first plaintiff did not enter into witness box and that the title deed and pattadar passbooks of the plaintiffs also reveals that they had only Ac.18.56 cents and for that reason, the plaintiffs did not file the title deeds and pattadar passbooks into the
Court. He argued that when there is a dispute regarding the extent of land, the plaintiffs have to file a suit for declaration, since the plaintiffs are claiming deficit of extent of plaint schedule property. He argued that it is the plaintiffs who demolished the fencing arranged by the defendants around their site and filed this suit claiming OP kattava, which is in R.S.No.159. He argued that I.A.No.1303/2014 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was allowed on 02.03.2015 and further direction was given to Advocate Commissioner, but the same is not complied by the plaintiffs. Thus, it shows the malafide intention of the plaintiffs to suppress the material facts before the
Court. He argued that Ex.A7 copy of petition, dated 16.04.2014 addressed to the District Collector, Eluru by the plaintiffs is sufficient to say that there is a deficiency of Ac.0.50 cents of land to the plaintiffs.
He argued that there is no document filed by the plaintiffs tthat they are holding Ac.18.96 cents. Thus, even as per their representation to the District Collector they are having Ac.18.56 cents of land, as per revenue records. But, suit filed that they are having Ac.18.96 cents of land. None gave evidence that the plaintiffs are in possession of
Ac.18.96 cents. He argued that coming to the evidence of PW.1, she 21 pleaded ignorance for several suggestions filed by the defendants' counsel. Thus, an adverse inference may be drawn against her. PW.2 and other people played mischief against the plaintiffs and instigated them to file the case with false representations. DW.2, Sridhar was also present by the time of survey in January, 2014. He argued that none gave evidence that the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.18.96 cents of land. He argued that PW.1 does not know the contents of the plaint. He argued that though PW.1 admitted the survey in January, 2014, there is no whisper about the survey in the pleadings of the plaint, so also the deficit of extent in the site of the plaintiffs. It is nothing but suppression of material facts. He argued that as per the evidence affidavit of PW.3 in para No.3, it is mentioned that on 05.07.2014, the defendants' men made forcible attempt to cut and take away teak trees and that himself and other workers with the help of neighbours could resist with attempt. Whereas, in his cross- examination, PW.3 categorically deposed that on 05.07.2014, he was not present at the suit schedule property. Thus, it clearly shows that no said incident took place as stated by PW.3. He argued that the plaintiffs are in the possession of Ac.18.56 cents only, but not Ac.18.96 cents as claimed by them and the plaintiffs failed to establish that they are in the possession of Ac.18.96 cents of land and that the defendants tried to interfere with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule property. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit.
15.Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property, by the time of filing of the suit, so also the interference of the defendants, for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, over the schedule property. Whereas in this suit, the 22 plaintiffs are claiming that they are in the possession of Ac.18.96 cents of land in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem and they raised coconut, coco, palmoil, teak trees in that property. To support their contention, they got marked Ex.A1 partition deed, dated 27.02.1956, wherein Ravuri Peda Seethayya, who is the fore father of the plaintiffs got Ac.18.96 cents of land. The defendants also filed certified copy of said partition deed, which is marked as Ex.B5. Thus, it is not in dispute that Ravuri Peda Seethayya got Ac.18.96 cents of land in said partition deed. But, it is the contention of the defendants that though Ravuri
Peda Seethayya got Ac.18.96 cents of land, as per the partition deed, there is no such extent of land in R.S.No.160, and that the plaintiffs and their ancestors are in possession of Ac.18.56 cents of land only in existence in R.S.No.160, even to the knowledge of the plaintiffs.
16.According to the defendants, in January, 2014, the land of the plaintiffs and defendants were surveyed by the Mandal Surveyor, by name Kondanda Ram of Pedavegi Mandal, as per the field measurement book, and boundary stones were also fixed to an extent of Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160 of the plaintiffs, and for Ac.19.60 cents of land in R.S.No.159 of defendants and that the lands were also clearly demarcated with the consent of both the parties. They also contended that Ac.0.80 cents of land of the defendants in R.S.No.159 is under temporary occupation of the plaintiffs, and that Ac.0.10 cents of land of the defendants is part and parcel of Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160.
17.Coming to the evidence of PW.1, she categorically deposed that the main version for filing of the suit is variation occurred at the time of survey on their land in R.S.No.160 and the land of the first defendant in
R.S.No.159, and that the plaintiffs did not accept the survey for the reason that there is a deficiency of the extent of 40 to 50 cents in their lands. So, it reveals that the plaintiffs are aware of the survey of their 23 land, so also the land of the defendants on 29th and 30th of January, 2014, by the Mandal Surveyor, Pedavegi Mandal and there is deficiency of extent in S.No.160. She also deposed that the surveyor furnished the copy of the report along with plan to her, so also to the first defendant. She challenged the validity of the surveyor's report by filing representation to the District Collector. Thus, it clearly shows that there is a dispute regarding extent of the schedule property, which is said to be in the possession of the plaintiffs. PW.1 further deposed that it is not her contention that the first defendant grabbed her land, taking advantage of the survey, saying the deficiencies in PW.1's land.
She categorically deposed that they filed this suit with a prayer to correct location of their land, which is found to be in deficit of 40 to 50 cents.
18.According to PW.1, the Government issued pattadar passbooks, title deeds jointly in favour of herself and the first plaintiff and the schedule property was also shown in those title deeds and pattadar passbooks. She could not say any reason why said pattadar passbooks and title deeds were not filed into the Court. PW.2, G. Ramachandra, i.e., the son of the first plaintiff also categorically admitted that in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the land of the plaintiffs is shown as Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160 of Mailavarapuvarigudem. Thus, it reveals that in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the land of the plaintiffs is shown as Ac.18.56 cents, but not Ac.18.96 cents and that since the plaintiffs are claiming Ac.18.96 cents, they did not file pattadar passbooks and title deeds into the Court. Thus, there is a dispute regarding the extent of suit schedule property.
19.According to PW.1, she made Ex.A8 representation before R.D.O,
Eluru, relating to the survey conducting through the Mandal Surveyor,
Kondanda Ram on 29th and 30th, January, 2014. She categorically 24 admitted that after Ex.A1, herself and her sister are aware that there is a deficiency in land to the extent of Ac.0.60 cents. PW.2 also deposed that they filed an application before the revenue authorities to rectify the mistake, as the revenue officials without verifying the documents, issued pattadar passbooks for Ac.18.56 cents. Thus, the plaintiffs are well aware that even as per the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and as per the survey report on 29th, 30th of January, 2014, they are in possession of Ac.18.56 cents of land in R.S.No.160, instead of
Ac.18.96 cents as Ex.A1 partition deed. Thus, mere suit for injunction is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have to file a suit for declaration, since there is a dispute regarding extent of land. To support my contention, I relied on a decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in Appeal (civil) 6191 of 2001, wherein the parties are
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on
25 March, 2008, wherein it is held that___ ”(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title
and he does not have possession, a suit for
declaration and possession, with or without a
consequential injunction, is the remedy.
Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or
under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he
has to sue for possession with a consequential
injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with plaintiff's lawful possession
or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to
sue for an injunction simpliciter."
Moreover, as per the contents of the plaint, they are about 200 teak trees in OP Kattava and one Suribabu obtained proceedings, dated 03.03.2014 from Divisional Forest Officer for cutting and carrying away teak trees. But, as per Ex.A3, proceedings, dated 03.03.2014,
Divisional Forest Officer issued proceedings to cut and carry away 112 teak trees from OP Kattava by 31.03.2014. On perusal of Ex.A3, it is clearly mentioned that Divisional Forest Officer issued proceedings to cut 112 trees but not 200 teak trees in Ac.18.56 cents of land in Survey
No.160, but not in Ac.18.96 cents of land as claimed by the plaintiffs.
25
The plaintiffs are not disputing Ex.A3 proceedings. Thus, it clearly shows that the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.18.56 cents of land only in R.S.No.160 and 112 teak trees therein. As rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, Ex.A6 possession certificate issued by the
VRO, Nadepalli, there is no date in that certificate. The same is also admitted by PW.1. Thus, basing on it, the Court cannot come to conclusion, that plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.18.96 cents of land in
R.S.No.160, by the time of filing of suit. Even as per the evidence of
PW.1, Mandal Surveyor affixed stones in R.S.No.160 and in the land of first defendant in R.S.No.159, as per the Surveyor report, in the year 2014, but the same is not mentioned in the plaint.
20.Coming to the interference by the defendants over the schedule property, it is not at all proved by the plaintiffs. As per the evidence of
PW.1, she categorically admitted that the defendants 1 to 4 never indulged any acts of damage to the lands of the plaintiffs. She further deposed that she accepted that they are not at all concerned with the extent of Ac.19.60 cents in R.S.No.159 of Mailavarapuvarigudem.
Coming to the evidence of PW.3, he filed his evidence affidavit that on 05.07.2014, the defendants' men made a great attempt to cut and take away teak trees, and that himself and other workers with the help of neighbours could resist their damages. Whereas, during his cross- examination, PW.3 deposed that on 05.07.2014, he was not present at the schedule property and he do not know what happened on that day.
Thus, the cross-examination of PW.3 is quite contrary with the contents of his evidence affidavit. Thus, the evidence of PW.3 cannot be considered regarding the interference of the defendants with the suit schedule property.
21.As rightly contended by the plaintiffs' counsel, DW.1 herself admitted that as per Ex.B7, the share of the father-in-law of the first 26 defendant is Ac.18.96 cents, whereas they are in possession of
Ac.19.60 cents. But, to support their contention, first defendant pleaded that as per the surveyor's report, the land in R.S.No.160 is
Ac.18.56 cents, which is in physical possession of the plaintiffs and the land in possession of the defendants is Ac.19.60 cents. The first defendant also filed Exs.B1 to B3, pattadar passbook, title deeds and
Adangal Pahani shows their possession of Ac.19.60 cents in R.S.No.159.
The survey of the land and placing of the stones was admitted by PW.1.
As rightly contended by the plaintiff counsel, DW.1 admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.0.80 cents of land till today and including that Ac.0.80 cents, the defendants had possession of
Ac.19.60 cents of land. But mere stray admission of DW.1, is not sufficient to establish the possession of plaintiffs over suit schedule property.
22.As rightly contended by the plaintiff counsel, entries in revenue records does not create any title in favour of the defendants. But, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove their peaceful possession over the schedule property, by the time of filing of the suit and the plaintiffs failed to establish their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property of Ac.18.96 cents, so also the interference of the defendants over said Ac.18.96 cents.
23.Except Ex.A1, partition deed, dated 27.02.1956, there is no document in favour of plaintiffs, to establish their possession over the suit schedule property. Even in Ex.A3 proceedings of Divisional Forest
Officer also, it shows that the plaintiffs are in possession of 112 teak trees in Ac.18.56 cents in R.S.No.160, but not Ac.18.96 cents and 200 teak trees. As per Exs.A7 and A8, and as per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the plaintiffs are well aware of deficiency of their land in
R.S.No.160 even prior to filing of the suit. They are also admitting the 27 survey of their land as well as land of the first defendant, by the
Mandal Surveyor, Pedavegi on 29th and 30th January, 2014. But, by suppressing those material facts, they filed this suit for mere injunction. As rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction, as they approached the Court, by suppressing material facts.
24.With the above said observation, I intend to dismiss the suit.
25.Issue No.2: - To what relief?
In the result, this suit is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me on this the 16th day of June, 2020.
Sd/-M.Sudha Rani
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ELURU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW.1: Maganti Vijayalakshmi DW.1: Ravuri Nanhi Rani PW.2: G. Ramachandra DW.2: Devineni Sridhar PW.3: Parvathaneni Ravindra
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered parition deed entered into between Ravuri Peda Seethayya and his brothers, dated 27.02.1956. Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered settlement deed, executed by Ravuri Manikyamma in her favour, dated 18.09.1978. Ex.A3: Attested copy of proceedings of Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru,
dated 03.03.2014.
Ex.A4: Five photos with compact disc. Ex.A5: Original Will executed by Ravuri Manikyamma, dated 25.11.1983. Ex.A6: Possession certificate issued by VRO, Nadipalli, for an extent of Ac.18.96 cents in R.S.No.160. Ex.A7: Representation made to District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru by the plaintiffs, dated 16.04.2014. Ex.A8: Representation made to RDO, Eluru by the plaintiffs. FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Original Pattadar Pass book in the name of Ravuri China Chilakayya. Ex.B2: Original Pattadar title deed in the name of Ravuri China Chilakayya. Ex.B3: Ceritified copy of pattadar/pahani, dated 27.06.2014 for Fasali 1423 in respect of land in R.S.No.159 of Mailavarapuvarigudem. Ex.B4: Cist reeipt, dated 13.11.2010 in the name of Ravuri China Chilakayya.
28
Ex.B5: Certified copy of registered partition deed, dated 27.02.1956 executed among Ravuri Ramaiah and his brothers. Ex.B6: Death certificate, dated 19.08.2009 of Ravuri China Chilakayya. Ex.B7: Consent letter, dated 24.03.1990 executed among Ravuri Chilaka Rao and his brothers (martked subject to objection).
Id/-M.S.R P.J.C.J. Eluru