Smt M V Seshamma

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 1 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

APVS0B0007062017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

AT GAJUWAKA

Present:- Smt. M. Venkata Seshamma,

Principal Civil Judge,

(Senior Division),

Gajuwaka.

Tuesday, the 27 th day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.230/2017 and OS NO.3/2019

OS No. 230/2017

Between :

Patta Usha, W/o. Madhava Rao, aged 46 years, Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, Harihara Nilayam Apartments, Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

And :

1.Jami Nagaratnam, W/o.Govinda Rao, aged 54 years, House wife, R/o.D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

2.Jami Ajay Kumar, S/o.Govinda Rao, aged 36 years, employee, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

3.Jami Sireesha, W/o.Ajay Kumar, aged 30 years, house wife, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

… Defendants

OS 3/2019

1.Jami Nagaratnam, W/o.Govinda Rao, aged 54 years, House wife, R/o.D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 2 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

2.Jami Ajay Kumar, S/o.Govinda Rao, aged 36 years, employee, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

3.Jami Shireesha, W/o.Ajay Kumar, aged 30 years, house wife, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

… Plaintiffs

1. Ganta Madhava Rao, aged 50 years, business, R/o.Flat No. 104, Harihara Nilayam apartment, Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad (died)

2. Patta Usha, W/o. G.Madhava Rao, aged 46 years, Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, Harihara Nilayam Apartments, Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad-500028

3. Palla Vital Kumar, aged 60 years, Business, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam

4. Maneli Prabhakara Rao, aged 56 years, employee, C/o. Pragathi Public School, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhaptanm district.

(Name of the D1 amended as per orders in IA NO.326/2019 dt 02.08.2019 in OS No.3/2019) ……….defendants

These two suits have come up before me on 08.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Leela Hari Prasad, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff in O.S.230/2017 and 2nd Defendant in O.S.No. 3/2019 and Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Learned Advocate for D1 to D3 in O.S.230/2017 and Smt G.V.Rajeswari, Learned advocate for D1, and D3 and D4 exparte in

OS No.3/2019 and upon hearing and perusing the material, having

recorded the evidence in common and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

OS No. 230/2017

1.This suit is filed to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner of plaint schedule property and consequential relief for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom, to grant damages of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards use and occupation of plaintiff’s property and future damages Rs. 1000/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till realiastion and for costs of the suit.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 3 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

OS No.3/2019

2. This suit is filed to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, subordinates, servants, successors and agents etc from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

III – Brief pleadings of the Plaintiff in O.S.230/2017:

3(a).The brief pleadings of the plaint are that the plaintiff is absolute owner of property in extent of 675 sq.yards as her mother Patta

Saronjini purchased it through registered doc.No.1089/1990 dated 06.06.1990 from Doraga Rama Rao, and after her mother’s death on 18.01.1993, her father, brothers and sister by names Patta Mohana Rao,

Patta Radha Krishna, Patta Lakshmi Ramana and Patta Uma executed release deed dated 30.07.2004 vide doc.No.5229 of 2004, and that plaintiff is staying at Hyderabad and when she visited Visakhapatnam in month of May, 2016 she found that defendants occupied 120 sq.yards, which is portion of her property, and erected rooms in it, and they had wrongly shown the property under their occupation as Door number 7-85/1 in Duvvada in survey No.140/3, though actually situated in survey

No.140/2, plot No.120 in Kalayan Chakravathy Nagar layout, Duvvada

Village for extent of 675 sq.yards, and on her report to Commissioner of

Police on 17.05.2016 as defendants and others trespassed into her lands and threatened her, and it was registered as crime No.77/2016 dated 20.05.2016 U/sec.447, 427, 506 r/w section 3 & 4 land grabbing Act at

Duvvada Police station against D2, D3 and others as D1 to D3 illegally occupied 120 sq.yards out of 675 sq.yards and filed injunction Suit

O.S.No.73/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka against

plaintiff herein, and she filed written statement in it.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 4 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

3(b).She further submits that defendants had no right to occupy her property but illegally and highhandedly occupied portion of 120 sq.yards of plaintiff's property, and that due to illegal structures by defendants she cannot develop her property as such claimed damages of Rs.4,00,000/- and also future damages @ Rs.1000/- per day for un-authorised occupation from date of suit till date of realization, hence the preset suit for declaration and recovery of possession of 120 sq.yards which the defendants are wrongly showing as Door number 7- 85/1 situated in survey No.140/2, plot No.120, Kalyan Chakravathy Nagar layout, Duvvada Village for extent of 675 sq.yards and for suit costs.

V – Brief pleadings of the Defendants 2 and 3 filed Written

Statements, which is adopted by the 1 st defendant :

4.Defendant No.2 and 3 filed their written statement and same was adopted by D1. Through written statement they denied the plaint averments in specific as false and no truth, their surname ‘Jami’ but they mentioned it itnentionally as “Jammi” only to harass them and that er husband, and that the defendants 1 and 2 are mother and son, and 18 years back they occupied a pit in extent of 120 sq.yards in Government gayalu in Sy.No.140/3 of Duvvada Village, and developed the same by filling and leveliing with huge investments and raised thatched house, bath rooms, lavatory and compound wall around the said site, and residing there continuatiously which is in knoweldge of planitiff and her men, and subsequently they constructed 2 room asbestos roofed house by removing thatched house, and that electricity connection was obtained and also property tax was assessed for said hosue with D.No.7-85/1 in name of D1 and paying house tax and electricty charges, and that they applied for regularisation of the said site which are pending for consdieration, and as they refused to sell the house and vacant site for low amount to Manella Prabhakar, who is doing real estate, so he colluded with plaintiff and her family members, and on 19.05.2016

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 5 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

plaintiff, her husband Madhava Rao, Palla Vital Kumar and said Manella

Prabhakar threatened defendants to disposses from house and demolish and destroy their house, and also damaged their plants, and though they left the palce due to intervention of neighbours and their protest, but proclaiming to kill the defendants, so the defendants filed O.S.55/2016 for permanent injunction Vacation Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam against those 4 perosns including palitniff, and it was later renumbered as

O.S.73/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka which is

pending, and by suppressing the same they colluded for their unlawful gain by filign the suit, and the defendants have no intention to occupy the plaintiff’s or other’s site, and that the land covered in survey No.140/3 of

Duvvada village abutting the survey No.140/2, as such planitiff, her mother colluded with said Prabhkar and planned to grab entire land in survey No.140/3 to sell the same as alleged layout, and that vendor of planitiff’s mother already encroached some land in survey No.140/3.

5.Defendants further submit that there is no approved plan as per rules and alleged panchayat approval is not valid under law nor binding on defendants, and that plantiff, her alleged co-sharers or their vendor had no valid title over the alleged plot nor they got any conversion certficate from Government as per rules, and that plaintiff or her vendor have no right to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said hosue which is schedule property in O.S.73/2016 as the alleged sale deeds in favour of plantiff and her vendor are not binding on the defendants, and that planitiff, her husband and 2 others influanced police and got foisted false case agaisnt the defendants which is pending against D2 and D3 and they have filed their explanation in the notice issued by police, and that alleged vendor of plaintiff’s mother of Plot

No.120 and other plot owners of Sri Kalyana Chakravathy layout are necessary parties and also that one Madaka Appa Rao who is Northern boundary hosue owner of the the defendants is also necesasry party,

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 6 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

Government of A.P. and GVMC Viskahaptnam are also necessary parties and that on 04.08.2016, the plaintiff filed counter claim in OS 73/2016 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as damages and future damages @ Rs.1000/- per day from date of fling of plaintifff’s counter claim etc., from the defendants, but the same was suppressed by plaintiff in this suit, and that there is no such schedule property, and suit is hit by non joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties, and that suit is barred by limitation, and that value of suit and payment of court fee are not correct, they reserve right to file additional written statement if necessay, hence suit is liable for dismissal with compensatory costs.

VI. Issues:

6.The material on record reveals that the Court has given opportunity to both the parties for settlement in terms of Sec.89 of CPC but no steps are taken by the parties for settlement, thus the Court posted the matter for settlement of issues. Basing on the plaint and written statement, the then Presiding Officer framed the following issues:

1.Whether plaint schedule property is part of the land covered by Registered Sale deed bearing No. 1089/90 dt.

6.6.1990 or not ?

2. Whether plaint schedule property is notified as government gayalu in S.No.140/3 of Duvvada Village or not ?

3. Whether plaintiff acquired any title over suit schedule property by virtue of Registered document bearing No.

5229/04 dt. 30.07.2004 or not ?

4. Whether plaintiff can be declared as absolute owner of suit schedule property or not ?

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent

injunction against defendants as prayed for or not ?

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 7 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from defendants as prayed for or not ?

7. To what relief ?

Additional Issue (as per orders in IA NO. 5/2026 dt. 23.01.2026) :

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of

recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property

after evicting the defendants therefrom?

7.As per orders in I.A.No.5/2026 dt.23.01.2026, 5th issue i.e.

“Whether plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for or not ?” is struck off, and additional

Issue arrayed as 8th issue i.e. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom?” is framed. .

8.In support of plaintiff case in O.S.No.230/17, plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and PW2 also examined. DW1 to DW4 examined on behalf of defendants and Ex.B1 to

B8 and Ex.X1 to X4 are marked.

VII – O.S.No.3/2019 (OS.73/2016 of JCJ Court, Gajuwaka)

9.This suit is filed by the defendants O.S.230/2017 with almost similar pleas as stated supra, which are contained in written statement of

O.S.No.3/2019, sought for relief of Permanent Injunction against the

Defendants, who is Plaintiff in OS.230/2017 and also against 3 others.

10.The Defendants No.s 1 and 2 (who is Plaintiff in

OS.230/2017 and another person) filed written statement, with almost

similar pleas that of D2’s plaint in O.S.No.230/2017 as stated supra.

11.The record reveals that basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the then Presiding Officer for trial:

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 8 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

VIII – Transfer Petition Order:

12.As per orders of Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Tr.O.P.1/2018 dt. 30.04.2018, the suit in O.S.73/2016 pending before

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka was transferred to this Court and registered as O.S.3/2019. As per record, separate trials were conducted in both Suits. In Injunction Suit of OS.3/19, plaintiff evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 and markedEx.A1 to A7 for plaintiffs, and evidence of DW.1 and

DW.2 was adduced andEx.B1 to B8 are marked. In declaration Suit

OS.230/17 also plaintiff evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is completed, and at

stage of cross examination of DW.1, as per Orders in I.A.No.291/23 in

O.S.No.3/19, dt.18.07.2023, Suit in O.S.3/19 for permanent injunction is

clubbed with OS.No.230/17 for reason the Suit schedule property and the parties concerned are one an the same, since relief claimed in OS.230/17 is comprehensive suit for relief of declaration and recovery of possession in order to avoid divergent views, and posted for purpose of common trial in O.S.No.230/17. Moreover perused the documents marked in

O.S.No.3/2019, which are almost the documents marked for both parties

in Suit in O.S.No.230/2017. So common evidence is recorded in

O.S.230/2017. Thus the evidence on record, that is to be considered by

this Court for adjudication of both suits comprehensively is the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, and DW.1 to DW.4, and documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A6 and Ex.B1 to B8 and Ex.X1 to X4.

IX. Oral and Documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff &

Defendants in declaration Suit OS.230/17:

In support of plaintiff’s case, plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and also examined witness PW2. 2nd defendant

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 9 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

examined examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 to B8 are marked and also got examined revenue officials DW.2 to DW.4 by summoning them and got marked Ex.X1 to X4 through them. Both counsels filed written arguments

In support of their arguments, the defendants’ counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble AP High Court in “Nagamma and others Vs G Kanthamma and others” (2008(1) ALT 281), for proposition that plaintiff must succeed the Suit for declaration of title on strength of his own title rather than on weakness of defendants’ case.

X – Brief submissions of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in

O.S.No.230/2017:

13.The learned Counsel for plaintiff in OS.No.230/2017 argued that Plaintiff is absolute owner of plaint Schedule property which is 120 sq.yards in S.No.140/3, which is portion of her property of 675 sq.yards as she got the same though release deed dt.30.07.2004 by legal heirs of her mother and that her mother purchased the same under sale deed/Ex.A1 on 06.06.1990 from her vendor, and since then plaintiff’s mother and after her death her legal heirs including plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment of said 675 sq.yards with all the rights, and after Ex.A3 release deed by plaintiff’s father, brothers and sister she got exclusive rights over the same and since the date of release deed, she is in lawful possession and enjoyment fo the same, and taking advantage of her staying at Hyderabad, the defendants illegally and unauthorizedly occupied 120 sq.yards and raised house in it which was found by plaintiff during her visit in May of 2016 at Visakhapatnam, and even land grabbing case was registered against defendants on her report, and they threatened her to kill and to dispossess her from the schedule property, and her case is independently established from evidence fo PW.1 and

PW.2 and Ex.A1 to A6 documents irrespective of case of defendants, and nothing was established in support of their defence pleas against plaintiff’s case, as such she is entitled for Declaration and recovery of

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 10 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

possession of schedule property from defendants and damages and also future damages at rate of Rs.1000/- per day till date of realization as sought through the plaint, with suit costs, by decreeing the Suit in

O.S.No.230/17 and to dismiss the Suit in O.S.No.3/2019..

XI - Brief submissions of the learned Counsel for Defendants :

14.The learned Counsel for defendants in O.S.No.230/2017, who is also counsel for plaintiff in O.S.3/2019, submitted that the plaintiff in O.S.230/2017 filed false suit against defendants who are family members with all false allegations, and that there is no positive evidence in support of her case as to declaration of title with respect to plaint schedule property in her favour and so also for recovery of possession of the same or for any other relief including future damages, and that except collusive documents of Ex.A1 to A6 there is no no corroboration for her case either from any independent witness or from any Revenue or other Official records, and that the very document of sale deed Ex.A2 in favour of her mother Patta Sarojini is without any link document from her vendor, and layout plan Ex.A1 is not authorized nor valid as per law for its inherent lacunas including not even mentioning the extent of Survey

No.140/2 in which said layout was laid, and that Ex.A3 release deed in her favour by her family members is also suspicious one as any such family member’s evidence was not adduced and her husband is the only witness examined as PW2 for her case. It is further argued that PW1 herself admitted the possession and enjoyment of plant schedule property by defendants, and that in support of defendants case that examined

Revenue Inspector of GVMC authorities as DW2 and got marked Ex.B6 to B8 to him for his session and also adduced evidence of Tahasildar,

Gajawaka as DW3 and got marked Ex.X1 to X4, and also examined DW4

District Town and Country Planning Officer of Visakhaptnam, and with corroborating evidence of Ex.B1 to B8 coupled with oral evidence of DW1

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 11 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

to 4 they could establish that they are in possession and enjoyment of schedule property as on the date of filing of their Injunction Suit in

O.S.3/2019, and also could establish that plaintiff is not the absolute

owner of plaint schedule property as such she is not entitled for any declaration of title or consequential relief of recovery of possession and damages and future damages with respect to plaint schedule property as such suit O.S.230/2017 fails against plaintiff, hence to dismiss the declaration suit in OS.230/2017 and to decree injunction suit in

O.S.3/2019.

XII - Appreciation of evidence on record and submissions of the

Counsels:

Issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in O.S.230/2017 and Issue No.1 in

O.S.No.3/2019 :

15.The Court dealt with issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in

O.S.230/2017 and Issue No.1 in O.S.No.3/2019 hereunder as to avoid

repetition of evidence. OS No.230/2017 is Suit for Declaration of title and rights in favour of plaintiff, and consequential relief of recovery of possession of schedule property and also for damages and future damages.

16.The plaintiff in support of her case mainly relied on her mother’s sale deed Ex.A2/06.06.1990, relinquishment seed by her family members under Ex.A3/20.07.2004 through which she is claiming her rights, title and possession over the schedule property and Subject Plot

No.120 of Ex.A2 is existing in Ex.A1/ layout. As per Ex.A2/ sale deed of plaintiff’s mother Ex.A2, the schedule is vacant land and the western boundary is with lineal measurement of 130 feet, whereas no such measurement is there for said plot in layout under Ex.A1 and the discrepancy or insertion of lineal measurement on western side remained

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 12 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

unexplained by plaintiff, though opposite eastern side measurement is 140 feet. In Ex.A2 sale deed the link document is mentioned as sale deed

dt. 4183/65 of Anakapalli sub-registrar Office in favour of vendor Daroga

Ramarao of plaintiff’s mother Patta Sarojini. Admittedly no link docuemnt for Ex.A2 sale deed was filed by plaintiff.

17.This court perused the document of Ex.A1 which is Certified copy of Sri Kalyan Chakravarthy Nagar layout, Duvvada. As per Ex.A1 layout, it was approved by Duvvada Gram Panchayat resolution vide

Resolution No.11/83 on 04.02.1983 and signed by one Gantla

Appalanaidu as Sarpanch with date 04.02.1983. Admittedly no witness from Duvavda Gram Panchayat was either examined or plaintiff had taken any steps to summon any official of Duvvada Gram Panchayat or to produce any relevant registered or record of Duvvada Gram Panchayat in support of her contention as to approved layout under Ex.A1 or supporting resolution of Gram panchayat on 04.02.1983. It does not contain even seal or extent nor any units mentioned at column of ‘Total area of Plots as 39608, total area fo roads 14,842’ in the bottom of

Ex.A1. Plaintiff as PW.1 though testified that she can file resolution

No.11/83 dt.04.02.1983 passed for layout approval, but no such resolution was filed in support of Ex.A1/layout plan on ground. Further she admitted that there is no seal of Village Gram Panchayat. If at all assumed for a while that said layout was approved by Duvvada Gram

Panchayat then without seal of stamp of Duvaada Gram Panchayat also its veracity is questionable. Further in Ex.A1 though Survey No.140/2 of

Duvavda Panchayat of Sabbavaram Taluk, but extent in which layout was laid was not mentioned in it.

18.Further PW.1 also admitted that she did not apply for layout plan under Ex.A1, explaining that she enclosed original layout plan with

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 13 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

sale deed in OS.229/2017 filed against Madaka Apparao. In view of specific defence of defendants that there is no such schedule nor any such Sri Kalyan Chakravarthynagar layout on ground, then it is for plaintiff to adduce the evidence including as to when the land under Ex.A1 is converted into layout, and also as to payments of conversion charges and permissions from the concerned authorities of revenue, irrigation, revenue, VUDA, GVMC etc., to be supported by documents. But she pleaded ignorance whether said Appalanaidu did not sign Ex.A1 as

Sarpanch, nor any conversion charges are paid to convert into residential plots, nor any NALA tax was paid with penalty for her plot. Further as per

Ex.A1 there are no measurements on southern line to Plot No.117 to 120.

Thus the argument of defendants as to validity of said layout under Ex.A1 had force, as such sustainable.

19.In support of plaintiff’s case, she herself examined as PW.1 and reiterated plaint averments through her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A6 in support of her case. PW2 is husband of PW.1 and he testified his chief examination in corroboration that of PW.1 in respect of material pleadings of plaintiff. Ex.A1 is certified copy fo layout plan,

Ex.A2 is sale deed dt.06.06.1990 in her mother’s favour. Ex.A3 is release deeddt.30.07.2004 in her favour by her family members. Perused Ex.A2 which is sale deed in favour of plaintiff’s mother Patta Sarojini by her vendor Doraga Ramarao on 06.06.1990. In her cross examination, PW.1 testified that she is commerce graduate and that schedule property is physically verified by her father prior to its purchase in her mother’s name under Ex.A2 sale deed, but she did not physically verify the same and that subsequent to her mother’s death in yer 1993, later her father, 2 brothers and younger sister executed Ex.A3 release deed for schedule property in year 2004, and after 1 year of said release deed she visited the property with her husband/PW.2. She further asserted that by date of

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 14 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 there is mango tope in schedule property, and she is residing at Hyderabad prior to Ex.A2. But she admitted that she can not say the liner measurements of the site of 120 sq.yards alleged to be occupied D1 nor she can say the linear measurements of total extent of 675 sq.yards covered under Ex.A2 an Ex.A3. She further admitted that she gave report to Commissioner fo Police, Visakahpatnam under report/

Ex.B1, btu as no action was taken hence she gave report at Duvavda

Police station against defendants and one Madaka aApparao and their family members and same is registered as FIR under Ex.B2, that said

Madaka Apparao has been residing by construction house on northern side of D1, but she explained that they occupied the site illegally.

20.She also testified that there is gate on eastern side compound wall fo D1 and also bathroom and lavatory are constructed by him and he is residing in it till date with his family members and that said house had electricity connection. But she explained that she had filed case against electrical authorities for providing electricity connection to

D1’s house and also that of Madaka Apparao, but she neither filed any document in support of her case against electrical authorities nor examined any officers of electrical department. She also testified that she filed case against said Madaka Apparao and his family members for recovery of possession of her site occupied by them and that she obtained decree in it, but she did not join said Apparao in this suit as party and she did not add defendants herein in that suit against Apparao, nor even she mentioned about that Suit against Apparao in the present Suit.

She also admitted that she filed execution petition basing on said exparte

Decree passed against Madaka Apparao, and in it his wife field claim petition and also admitted that till date said Apparao and his family members are residing in the subject house of said Suit, but she is will not examine said Madaka Apparao. Though she asserted that she can file

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 15 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure her site with help of Mandal Surveyor. She filed I.A.691/2022 under Order XXVI

Rule 9 of CPC to appoint Advocate Commissioner to locate plaint schedule property with help of Mandal Surveyor and the same dismissed on merits and she did not challenge the same.

21.She pleaded ignorance whether the land in Sy.No.140/3 of

Duvvada village is Government land and recorded in revenue register as

Government Land Gayalu, nor whether its total extent is Ac.5.00 cents.

She admitted that as per Ex.A1 payout plan Plot Nos.20,19, and 120 are extended towards wast compared to other plots and south-east corner of

Plot No.120 is extended compared with other plots in government land.

She denied that she did not filed the copies of decree and Judgment to obtained by her against Madaka Apparao purposefully to suppress the real facts and he was not made a party though necessary as such suit is not maintainable and also that she intentionally did not join the

Government as party though alleged layout covers Government poramboku lands in survey No.140/1, 140/3, 140/4 and 126. She specifically denied that house of defendant is not located in survey

No.140/2 nor she is concerned with defendants house nor they interfere with her plot, but by using her influence criminal case was registered against them only to harass them as they did not agree to sell their house to her, her husband and other defendants in O.S.3/2019, and that she with her relatives tried to demolish house of defendants as such they are not liable to pay any damages nor she is entitled for any such damages. She further denied that she filed the suit basing on Ex.A1 and

A2 documents though nor concerned with plaint schedule but with wrong survey No.140/2, and that she is making efforts to grab their house by filing false case.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 16 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

22.PW.2/husband of plaintiff in his cross examination admitted that he never made any enquiries regarding the said approval of layout and he had no idea as to when said layout was approved by Gram

Panchayat and he do not whether land in survey No.140/3 is Government land or otherwise, and that they did not possess in land in Survey

No.140/3, and that he is regularly visiting suit schedule property from date of its purchase by his mother in law under Ex.A2 on 06.06.1990 till gift deed in favour of his wife/PW1 i.e., on 30.07.2004. He admitted that as per Ex.A3 standing mango trees in the subject property was not mentioned, and that he cannot tell the date of his last visit or even number times of his visits, and that defendants filed suit against him, his wife and 2 others. He further admitted that constructions made by defendants are with asbestos cement bricks with walls and compound wall is also constructed, and that he did not know the door number of defendants and had no knowledge that land grabbing case was registered basing on their report which is pending

23.Interestingly PW2 who asserted that he visited the plaint schedule property number of items but admitted that he cannot tell the measurements of encroached of land of defendants. He specifically denied that as defendants never encroached any property, hence only he cold not even tell the measurements of either encroached land or remaining unencroached land, and that as defendants denied their proposal to purchase the schedule property, hence false case was foisted against them, and that plaintiff is neither entitled for damages as no encroachment took place nor damaged any property of plaintiff, and that the document under which PW1 purchased the property is not valid as the same was not recognized layout as such they very purchase of schedule property under Ex.A2 by his mother in law is false as such subsequent relinquishment deed is not valid as per law.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 17 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

24.Thus admittedly no iota of document is filed by plaintiff in support of her contention that her mother was in lawful possession and enjoyment of schedule property from date of sale deed Ex.A2 on 06.06.1990 or her vendor’s possession and enjoyment of the same till date of sale deed or even plaintiff’s enjoyment and possession from date of release deed Ex.A3 in year 2004 or even as to her possession and enjoyment till date of filing of this suit against defendants. Even there is no whisper from plaintiff evidence or pleading that had they made any attempts even to obtain those documents for all the period from 1990 to year 2017 in which they filed the present suit. Thus the conduct of the plaintiff is not that of a prudent person who is expected to pursue their rights of title or enjoyment or possession of schedule property.

25.Though defendant counsel in his arguments and in cross examination of PW1 and PW2 tried to elicit that suit is not maintainable for not adding necessary parties of said Madaka Apparao against whom plaintiff injunction suit O.S.229/2017 and obtained exparte decree and so also for not joining Government as necessary party though alleged layout covers Government Poramboku lands. But admittedly no such issue of bad for non joinder of necessary parties is framed nor non framing of said issue was agitated by defendants at any stage except oral arguments. Thus, the argument of defence counsel that suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties is not sustainable.

26.2nd defendant examined himself examined as DW.1 in support of their defence pleaded through written statement. He asserted that he was residing in suit schedule property since 20 long years, though mentioned in his chief evidence that he has been residing in the suit schedule property since 18 years and that they are in peaceful possession of the same since 24 years, and that as per Ex.B8 property tax is being paid by them and Ex.B8 reflects name of Jami Nagarathnam/

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 18 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

D1, and that as perEx.B4 Adangal copy, the total extent of land is 11.25 in Survey No.140/2. Further asserted that M.Appa Rao land is his northern boundary, but do not know as to filing of declaration suit in

O.S.229/2017 and decreeing of the same in favour of plaintiff. He pleaded

ignorance as to purchase of schedule property by mother of plaintiff and the same was given to plaintiff by her family members through release deed date 30.07.2004.He specifically denied that he had no right over schedule property, and that plaintiff is absolute owner of schedule property.

27.DW.2 is Revenue Inspector of GVMC and his evidence adduced on summoning GVMC Commissioner to cause production of house tyax, water tax, relevant records pertaining to property issued by

GVMC n favour of D1. Ex.B7 is attested copy of online record of property tax for vacant land and Ex.B8 attested copy of online record of property tax for residential property. He further asserted that as per Ex.B8 owner name is Jami Nagaratnam with Door No.7-85/1 and construction type was mentioned as cement in both floors and wall and also that as per

Ex.B8 owner had water tap electricity in the said property. As per Ex.B7 the survey number mentioned as 140/2 and vacant land area is 567 sq.yards situated in Duvvada and Eastern side boundary is survey

No.140/3, and that assessment of tax was prepared after physical of the property and as per records. In cross examination he admitted that Ex.B8 did not reveal about location of the property particulars, and that they will allot assessment number if the property document is intact and if said property document does not belong to applicant that they will obtain indemnity bond to provide eminities of water and electricity etc. He further admitted that as per Ex.B7 property of plaintiff is situated in specific survey number but property of D1 was not specifically mentioned. He pleaded ignorance whether plaintiff sent application to cancel the

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 19 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

assessment number allotted for defendants property and also whether D1 applied for plant approval for construction in the property.

28.DW.3 is Tahasildar, Gajuwaka and he was summoned by defendants. He testified that the record for land conversion record from agricultural land to house site in Sri Kalyan Chakravathy layout in Survey

No.140/2 of Duvvada Village of Gajuwaka Mandal, was not traced in their

Office, hence letter was addressed to RDO, Visakhapatnam for which they received letter dated 04.04.2025 under Ex.X1 from RDO informing that as per circular instructions of CCLA dated 04.07.2018 notional Katha

No.300001 was given in Bhu-Seva for Sri Kalayana Chakravathy layout in survey No.104/2 in Duvvada Village, and that after submission of ground report by Tahsildar, RDO will pass approval for conversion of agricultural land in to non agricultural lands, but he do not know whether Sri Kalayan

Chakravathy layout is approved or not, but it is identified by the

Government that there are several unauthorized layouts under Gajuwaka

Manda Revenue jurisdiction, and that entire extent of land in survey

No.1402/ is Ac.11.25 cents and that approval of layout is job of VUDA, but Tahasildhar is no way concerned, and that he had no idea for land what purpose land in survey No.140/2 is converted, and that they could not trace out land conversion charges payment record in their office. As per column No.11of Ex.X4/ Attested copy of Diaglat in survey No.140/2 there are other land owners and as per Ex.X3/attested copy of 10(1) record of survey No.140/2 total land is in the name of Doroji Rama Rao.

He further testified that as the dioglat is not available in their office then addressed letter to Collectarate and Ex.X4 was sent by them.

29.DW.4is District Town and Country Planning Office at

Visakhapatnam, and that he did not produce approved layout plan Sri

Kalyan Chakravathy layout in Survey No.144/2 as they have no authority to approve layout plans in Urban area as Duvvada is situated in Urban

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 20 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

area of Gajuwaka Mandal, and that in Urban limits that width of roads in general will be 40 feet if the layout is to be approved. He also pleaded ignorance whether since 1978 Duvvada is in urban area of

Visakhapatnam. He explained that as per amended layout approval rules of 2025 the width of roads shall be 30 feet in urban area.

30.Thus from evidence of concerned authorities of DW.2 to

DW.4 and elicitation from cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 it is elicited that the layout plan under Ex.A1 out of which one Plot No.120 subject property was purchased is not approved by concerned authorities by complying the conversion rules for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural lands, and also that plaintiff could not positively establish her lawful possession over the said Plot No.120 of Plaint schedule property against defendants. Per contra the defendants with corroborative evidence of DW.1 and that of summoned official witnesses Dw.2 to DW.4 supported with Ex.B to B8 and Ex.X1 to X4 could establish their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property in

O.S.No.3/2019 entitling them for permanent injunction against defendants

therein.

31.OS.230/17 being Declaration Suit filed by plaintiff against defendants with respect to plaint schedule property, the burden of proof always lies on plaintiff only to establish their case for relief of declaration, but not on the weakness of defendants. The plaintiff had to succeed only on strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge onus on it, irrespective of question whether defendant have proved their case or not and even if title set up by defendant is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited. The said principle flows from Sec.101 and also as per Sec.102 of Indian Evidence Act, and the said legal principle is also reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 21 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

judgments. In support of said ratio, this court relied on judgment of

Hon’ble Division bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Union of

India & Ors., Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing society Ltd., & Ors.,” (AIR 2014 SC 937), in which the Lordships discussed scope of Sections 101 and 102 of Evidence Act, and reiterated that ‘in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and not on the weakness of other party’. In support of defendants arguments, their also counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble AP High Court in “Nagamma and others Vs G

Kanthamma and others” (2008(1) ALT 281), for proposition that plaintiff must succeed the Suit for declaration fo tile on strength of his own title rather than on weakness of defendants’ case. The ratio of above both judgments is apttly applicable to the facts of the present case in hand.

32.Further this Court relied on judgment between “R V E

Venaktachala Gounder Vs Arulmigu Visweswaraswami & V P Temple and

Another”(2003 (8) SCC 752), for proposition that onus of proof shifts and shifting is continuous process in evaluation of evidence, but in Suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create high decree of probability to shift the onus on defendant, in the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title.

33.Coming to Issues of damages of Rs.4,00,000/- towards use and occupation of plaintiff’s property and future damages Rs. 1000/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till realization, there is no iota of evidence for plaintiff in support of her claim except pleading and asserting through her evidence affidavit as well as her husband PW.2. Thus this court holds that plaintiff is not entitled for damages of Rs.4,00,000/- or for

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 22 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

future damages of Rs.1,000/- per month from defendants for use and occupation of plaint schedule property till date of realization.

34 .Thus, the Court, considering the material on record, from admissions and material elicitations from cross examination of PW.1 and

PW.2, and for the reasons stated supra, inclined to hold that the Plaintiff could not positively prove her title, right and possession of the schedule property for relief of declaration, thus the relief of consequential delivery of vacant possession and permanent injunction also fail in the circumstances. Thus these issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in O.S.230/2017 are answered against the Plaintiff, and Issue No.1 in O.S.No.3/2019 is decided in favour of Plaintiffs in that Suit.

XIV - Conclusion:

35.Thus, the Court, on marshalling of evidence adduced by both parties and from the supra discussion, holds that plaintiff in OS.230/2017 could not prove her title and possession for the plaint schedule property for relief of declaration, thus thereby consequential relief of delivery of vacant possession of schedule property, and claim of damages and future damages also fail in the circumstances. So issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 are answered against the Plaintiff. Further the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3/2019 (who are defendants in OS.No.230/17) could prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule property and entitled for permanent injunction against 4 defendants in O.S.No.3/2019 ( 1st defendant is plaintiff in O.S.No.230/2017) as sought for in OS.3/2019, thus issue No.1 in O.S.No.3/2019 is answered in favour of Plaintiffs in

OS.3/2019.

XV – ISSUE No.7 in OS.No.230/2017 & ISSUE No.2 in O.S.3/2019:

36.In view of deciding Issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in

O.S.No.230/2017 against plaintiff, hence Suit in O.S.No.230/2017 is

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 23 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

dismissed with costs. In view of deciding Issue No.1 in O.S.3/2019 in favour of plaintiffs, they are entitled for Permanent injunction against 4 defendants in O.S.No.3/2019 with respect to plaint schedule property, hence Suit in OS.3/2019 is decreed with costs. Accordingly Issue No.7 in

OS.230/2017 is decided against plaintiff and Issue No.2 in OS.230/2017

is decided in favour of plaintiffs.

37.In the result, the suit in O.S.230/2017 is dismissed with costs.

The suit in OS No.3/2019 is decreed with costs restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

Directly typed to dictation to Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(SENIOR DIVISION),

GAJUWAKA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendants:-

P.W.1 : Patta Usha DW1:J.Ajay Kumar

P.W.2 : Ganta Madhava Rao DW2:R.Mohan (Revenue Inspector)

DW3 :T.Srivalli( Tahasildar, GWK) DW4: D.Ramu Naidu (DTCPO)

Exhibits marked for :-

Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : CC of Panchayat approved layout plan dt.04.02.1983 Ex.A2 : CC of Regd. Sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff’s mother

dt. 06.06.1990

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 24 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

Ex.A3 : CC of Regd. Release deed executed in favour of plaintiff dt.30.07.2004 Ex.A4 : Certified copy of statement of EC issued by Sabbavaram SRO dt.22.06.2017 Ex.A5 : CC of death certificate of plaintiff’s father issued by GVMC dt.22.07.2016 Ex.A6 : CC of market value certificate issued by Sabbavaram JSRO Dt. 22.06.2017

Defendants :

Ex.B1 : Report submitted by PW1 to Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam Ex.B2 : FIR along with report in Cr.No. 77/2016 of Duvvada P.S. dt. 20.05.2016 Ex.B3 : Served copy of layout plan Ex.B4 : Pahani for the fasali 2022 (1432) dt. 10.03.2023 Ex.B5: CC of property tax pass book for D.NO.7-85/1 Ex.B6: Authorisation letter Ex.B7: Attested copy of online record of property tax in Assessment No., 1086484656 vacant land Ex.B8 : Attested copy of online record of property tax in Assessment No., 1086337798 of residential property

Ex.X1: Attested copy of letter dt. 4.4.2025 vide RC.NO.417/2024/SA.1 Dt.04.04.2025 from RDO, Visakhapatnam to Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Ex.X2 : Attested copy of CCLA circular No.1 CMRO 3/95/2018 dt.04.07.2018 Ex.X3: Attested copy of 10(1) record of SY.No.140/2 of DuvvadaVillage Ex.X4 : Attested copy of diglot record of Sy.No. 140/2

PCJ (SD)/GWK.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 1 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

APVS0B0007062017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

AT GAJUWAKA

Present:- Smt. M. Venkata Seshamma,

Principal Civil Judge,

(Senior Division),

Gajuwaka.

Tuesday, the 27 th day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.230/2017 and OS NO.3/2019

OS No. 230/2017

Between :

Patta Usha, W/o. Madhava Rao, aged 46 years, Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, Harihara Nilayam Apartments, Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

And :

1.Jami Nagaratnam, W/o.Govinda Rao, aged 54 years, House wife, R/o.D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

2.Jami Ajay Kumar, S/o.Govinda Rao, aged 36 years, employee, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

3.Jami Sireesha, W/o.Ajay Kumar, aged 30 years, house wife, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

… Defendants

OS 3/2019

1.Jami Nagaratnam, W/o.Govinda Rao, aged 54 years, House wife, R/o.D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 2 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

2.Jami Ajay Kumar, S/o.Govinda Rao, aged 36 years, employee, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

3.Jami Shireesha, W/o.Ajay Kumar, aged 30 years, house wife, R/o. D.No. 7-85/1, Sector -1, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatanm District.

… Plaintiffs

1. Ganta Madhava Rao, aged 50 years, business, R/o.Flat No. 104, Harihara Nilayam apartment, Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad (died)

2. Patta Usha, W/o. G.Madhava Rao, aged 46 years, Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, Harihara Nilayam Apartments, Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad-500028

3. Palla Vital Kumar, aged 60 years, Business, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam

4. Maneli Prabhakara Rao, aged 56 years, employee, C/o. Pragathi Public School, Duvvada, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhaptanm district.

(Name of the D1 amended as per orders in IA NO.326/2019 dt 02.08.2019 in OS No.3/2019) ……….defendants

These two suits have come up before me on 08.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Leela Hari Prasad, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff in O.S.230/2017 and 2nd Defendant in O.S.No. 3/2019 and Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Learned Advocate for D1 to D3 in O.S.230/2017 and Smt G.V.Rajeswari, Learned advocate for D1, and D3 and D4 exparte in

OS No.3/2019 and upon hearing and perusing the material, having

recorded the evidence in common and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

OS No. 230/2017

1.This suit is filed to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner of plaint schedule property and consequential relief for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom, to grant damages of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards use and occupation of plaintiff’s property and future damages Rs. 1000/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till realiastion and for costs of the suit.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 3 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

OS No.3/2019

2. This suit is filed to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, subordinates, servants, successors and agents etc from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

III – Brief pleadings of the Plaintiff in O.S.230/2017:

3(a).The brief pleadings of the plaint are that the plaintiff is absolute owner of property in extent of 675 sq.yards as her mother Patta

Saronjini purchased it through registered doc.No.1089/1990 dated 06.06.1990 from Doraga Rama Rao, and after her mother’s death on 18.01.1993, her father, brothers and sister by names Patta Mohana Rao,

Patta Radha Krishna, Patta Lakshmi Ramana and Patta Uma executed release deed dated 30.07.2004 vide doc.No.5229 of 2004, and that plaintiff is staying at Hyderabad and when she visited Visakhapatnam in month of May, 2016 she found that defendants occupied 120 sq.yards, which is portion of her property, and erected rooms in it, and they had wrongly shown the property under their occupation as Door number 7-85/1 in Duvvada in survey No.140/3, though actually situated in survey

No.140/2, plot No.120 in Kalayan Chakravathy Nagar layout, Duvvada

Village for extent of 675 sq.yards, and on her report to Commissioner of

Police on 17.05.2016 as defendants and others trespassed into her lands and threatened her, and it was registered as crime No.77/2016 dated 20.05.2016 U/sec.447, 427, 506 r/w section 3 & 4 land grabbing Act at

Duvvada Police station against D2, D3 and others as D1 to D3 illegally occupied 120 sq.yards out of 675 sq.yards and filed injunction Suit

O.S.No.73/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka against

plaintiff herein, and she filed written statement in it.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 4 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

3(b).She further submits that defendants had no right to occupy her property but illegally and highhandedly occupied portion of 120 sq.yards of plaintiff's property, and that due to illegal structures by defendants she cannot develop her property as such claimed damages of Rs.4,00,000/- and also future damages @ Rs.1000/- per day for un-authorised occupation from date of suit till date of realization, hence the preset suit for declaration and recovery of possession of 120 sq.yards which the defendants are wrongly showing as Door number 7- 85/1 situated in survey No.140/2, plot No.120, Kalyan Chakravathy Nagar layout, Duvvada Village for extent of 675 sq.yards and for suit costs.

V – Brief pleadings of the Defendants 2 and 3 filed Written

Statements, which is adopted by the 1 st defendant :

4.Defendant No.2 and 3 filed their written statement and same was adopted by D1. Through written statement they denied the plaint averments in specific as false and no truth, their surname ‘Jami’ but they mentioned it itnentionally as “Jammi” only to harass them and that er husband, and that the defendants 1 and 2 are mother and son, and 18 years back they occupied a pit in extent of 120 sq.yards in Government gayalu in Sy.No.140/3 of Duvvada Village, and developed the same by filling and leveliing with huge investments and raised thatched house, bath rooms, lavatory and compound wall around the said site, and residing there continuatiously which is in knoweldge of planitiff and her men, and subsequently they constructed 2 room asbestos roofed house by removing thatched house, and that electricity connection was obtained and also property tax was assessed for said hosue with D.No.7-85/1 in name of D1 and paying house tax and electricty charges, and that they applied for regularisation of the said site which are pending for consdieration, and as they refused to sell the house and vacant site for low amount to Manella Prabhakar, who is doing real estate, so he colluded with plaintiff and her family members, and on 19.05.2016

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 5 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

plaintiff, her husband Madhava Rao, Palla Vital Kumar and said Manella

Prabhakar threatened defendants to disposses from house and demolish and destroy their house, and also damaged their plants, and though they left the palce due to intervention of neighbours and their protest, but proclaiming to kill the defendants, so the defendants filed O.S.55/2016 for permanent injunction Vacation Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam against those 4 perosns including palitniff, and it was later renumbered as

O.S.73/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka which is

pending, and by suppressing the same they colluded for their unlawful gain by filign the suit, and the defendants have no intention to occupy the plaintiff’s or other’s site, and that the land covered in survey No.140/3 of

Duvvada village abutting the survey No.140/2, as such planitiff, her mother colluded with said Prabhkar and planned to grab entire land in survey No.140/3 to sell the same as alleged layout, and that vendor of planitiff’s mother already encroached some land in survey No.140/3.

5.Defendants further submit that there is no approved plan as per rules and alleged panchayat approval is not valid under law nor binding on defendants, and that plantiff, her alleged co-sharers or their vendor had no valid title over the alleged plot nor they got any conversion certficate from Government as per rules, and that plaintiff or her vendor have no right to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said hosue which is schedule property in O.S.73/2016 as the alleged sale deeds in favour of plantiff and her vendor are not binding on the defendants, and that planitiff, her husband and 2 others influanced police and got foisted false case agaisnt the defendants which is pending against D2 and D3 and they have filed their explanation in the notice issued by police, and that alleged vendor of plaintiff’s mother of Plot

No.120 and other plot owners of Sri Kalyana Chakravathy layout are necessary parties and also that one Madaka Appa Rao who is Northern boundary hosue owner of the the defendants is also necesasry party,

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 6 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

Government of A.P. and GVMC Viskahaptnam are also necessary parties and that on 04.08.2016, the plaintiff filed counter claim in OS 73/2016 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as damages and future damages @ Rs.1000/- per day from date of fling of plaintifff’s counter claim etc., from the defendants, but the same was suppressed by plaintiff in this suit, and that there is no such schedule property, and suit is hit by non joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties, and that suit is barred by limitation, and that value of suit and payment of court fee are not correct, they reserve right to file additional written statement if necessay, hence suit is liable for dismissal with compensatory costs.

VI. Issues:

6.The material on record reveals that the Court has given opportunity to both the parties for settlement in terms of Sec.89 of CPC but no steps are taken by the parties for settlement, thus the Court posted the matter for settlement of issues. Basing on the plaint and written statement, the then Presiding Officer framed the following issues:

1.Whether plaint schedule property is part of the land covered by Registered Sale deed bearing No. 1089/90 dt.

6.6.1990 or not ?

2. Whether plaint schedule property is notified as government gayalu in S.No.140/3 of Duvvada Village or not ?

3. Whether plaintiff acquired any title over suit schedule property by virtue of Registered document bearing No.

5229/04 dt. 30.07.2004 or not ?

4. Whether plaintiff can be declared as absolute owner of suit schedule property or not ?

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent

injunction against defendants as prayed for or not ?

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 7 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from defendants as prayed for or not ?

7. To what relief ?

Additional Issue (as per orders in IA NO. 5/2026 dt. 23.01.2026) :

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of

recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property

after evicting the defendants therefrom?

7.As per orders in I.A.No.5/2026 dt.23.01.2026, 5th issue i.e.

“Whether plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for or not ?” is struck off, and additional

Issue arrayed as 8th issue i.e. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom?” is framed. .

8.In support of plaintiff case in O.S.No.230/17, plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and PW2 also examined. DW1 to DW4 examined on behalf of defendants and Ex.B1 to

B8 and Ex.X1 to X4 are marked.

VII – O.S.No.3/2019 (OS.73/2016 of JCJ Court, Gajuwaka)

9.This suit is filed by the defendants O.S.230/2017 with almost similar pleas as stated supra, which are contained in written statement of

O.S.No.3/2019, sought for relief of Permanent Injunction against the

Defendants, who is Plaintiff in OS.230/2017 and also against 3 others.

10.The Defendants No.s 1 and 2 (who is Plaintiff in

OS.230/2017 and another person) filed written statement, with almost

similar pleas that of D2’s plaint in O.S.No.230/2017 as stated supra.

11.The record reveals that basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the then Presiding Officer for trial:

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 8 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

VIII – Transfer Petition Order:

12.As per orders of Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Tr.O.P.1/2018 dt. 30.04.2018, the suit in O.S.73/2016 pending before

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka was transferred to this Court and registered as O.S.3/2019. As per record, separate trials were conducted in both Suits. In Injunction Suit of OS.3/19, plaintiff evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 and markedEx.A1 to A7 for plaintiffs, and evidence of DW.1 and

DW.2 was adduced andEx.B1 to B8 are marked. In declaration Suit

OS.230/17 also plaintiff evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is completed, and at

stage of cross examination of DW.1, as per Orders in I.A.No.291/23 in

O.S.No.3/19, dt.18.07.2023, Suit in O.S.3/19 for permanent injunction is

clubbed with OS.No.230/17 for reason the Suit schedule property and the parties concerned are one an the same, since relief claimed in OS.230/17 is comprehensive suit for relief of declaration and recovery of possession in order to avoid divergent views, and posted for purpose of common trial in O.S.No.230/17. Moreover perused the documents marked in

O.S.No.3/2019, which are almost the documents marked for both parties

in Suit in O.S.No.230/2017. So common evidence is recorded in

O.S.230/2017. Thus the evidence on record, that is to be considered by

this Court for adjudication of both suits comprehensively is the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, and DW.1 to DW.4, and documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A6 and Ex.B1 to B8 and Ex.X1 to X4.

IX. Oral and Documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff &

Defendants in declaration Suit OS.230/17:

In support of plaintiff’s case, plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and also examined witness PW2. 2nd defendant

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 9 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

examined examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 to B8 are marked and also got examined revenue officials DW.2 to DW.4 by summoning them and got marked Ex.X1 to X4 through them. Both counsels filed written arguments

In support of their arguments, the defendants’ counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble AP High Court in “Nagamma and others Vs G Kanthamma and others” (2008(1) ALT 281), for proposition that plaintiff must succeed the Suit for declaration of title on strength of his own title rather than on weakness of defendants’ case.

X – Brief submissions of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in

O.S.No.230/2017:

13.The learned Counsel for plaintiff in OS.No.230/2017 argued that Plaintiff is absolute owner of plaint Schedule property which is 120 sq.yards in S.No.140/3, which is portion of her property of 675 sq.yards as she got the same though release deed dt.30.07.2004 by legal heirs of her mother and that her mother purchased the same under sale deed/Ex.A1 on 06.06.1990 from her vendor, and since then plaintiff’s mother and after her death her legal heirs including plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment of said 675 sq.yards with all the rights, and after Ex.A3 release deed by plaintiff’s father, brothers and sister she got exclusive rights over the same and since the date of release deed, she is in lawful possession and enjoyment fo the same, and taking advantage of her staying at Hyderabad, the defendants illegally and unauthorizedly occupied 120 sq.yards and raised house in it which was found by plaintiff during her visit in May of 2016 at Visakhapatnam, and even land grabbing case was registered against defendants on her report, and they threatened her to kill and to dispossess her from the schedule property, and her case is independently established from evidence fo PW.1 and

PW.2 and Ex.A1 to A6 documents irrespective of case of defendants, and nothing was established in support of their defence pleas against plaintiff’s case, as such she is entitled for Declaration and recovery of

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 10 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

possession of schedule property from defendants and damages and also future damages at rate of Rs.1000/- per day till date of realization as sought through the plaint, with suit costs, by decreeing the Suit in

O.S.No.230/17 and to dismiss the Suit in O.S.No.3/2019..

XI - Brief submissions of the learned Counsel for Defendants :

14.The learned Counsel for defendants in O.S.No.230/2017, who is also counsel for plaintiff in O.S.3/2019, submitted that the plaintiff in O.S.230/2017 filed false suit against defendants who are family members with all false allegations, and that there is no positive evidence in support of her case as to declaration of title with respect to plaint schedule property in her favour and so also for recovery of possession of the same or for any other relief including future damages, and that except collusive documents of Ex.A1 to A6 there is no no corroboration for her case either from any independent witness or from any Revenue or other Official records, and that the very document of sale deed Ex.A2 in favour of her mother Patta Sarojini is without any link document from her vendor, and layout plan Ex.A1 is not authorized nor valid as per law for its inherent lacunas including not even mentioning the extent of Survey

No.140/2 in which said layout was laid, and that Ex.A3 release deed in her favour by her family members is also suspicious one as any such family member’s evidence was not adduced and her husband is the only witness examined as PW2 for her case. It is further argued that PW1 herself admitted the possession and enjoyment of plant schedule property by defendants, and that in support of defendants case that examined

Revenue Inspector of GVMC authorities as DW2 and got marked Ex.B6 to B8 to him for his session and also adduced evidence of Tahasildar,

Gajawaka as DW3 and got marked Ex.X1 to X4, and also examined DW4

District Town and Country Planning Officer of Visakhaptnam, and with corroborating evidence of Ex.B1 to B8 coupled with oral evidence of DW1

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 11 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

to 4 they could establish that they are in possession and enjoyment of schedule property as on the date of filing of their Injunction Suit in

O.S.3/2019, and also could establish that plaintiff is not the absolute

owner of plaint schedule property as such she is not entitled for any declaration of title or consequential relief of recovery of possession and damages and future damages with respect to plaint schedule property as such suit O.S.230/2017 fails against plaintiff, hence to dismiss the declaration suit in OS.230/2017 and to decree injunction suit in

O.S.3/2019.

XII - Appreciation of evidence on record and submissions of the

Counsels:

Issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in O.S.230/2017 and Issue No.1 in

O.S.No.3/2019 :

15.The Court dealt with issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in

O.S.230/2017 and Issue No.1 in O.S.No.3/2019 hereunder as to avoid

repetition of evidence. OS No.230/2017 is Suit for Declaration of title and rights in favour of plaintiff, and consequential relief of recovery of possession of schedule property and also for damages and future damages.

16.The plaintiff in support of her case mainly relied on her mother’s sale deed Ex.A2/06.06.1990, relinquishment seed by her family members under Ex.A3/20.07.2004 through which she is claiming her rights, title and possession over the schedule property and Subject Plot

No.120 of Ex.A2 is existing in Ex.A1/ layout. As per Ex.A2/ sale deed of plaintiff’s mother Ex.A2, the schedule is vacant land and the western boundary is with lineal measurement of 130 feet, whereas no such measurement is there for said plot in layout under Ex.A1 and the discrepancy or insertion of lineal measurement on western side remained

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 12 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

unexplained by plaintiff, though opposite eastern side measurement is 140 feet. In Ex.A2 sale deed the link document is mentioned as sale deed

dt. 4183/65 of Anakapalli sub-registrar Office in favour of vendor Daroga

Ramarao of plaintiff’s mother Patta Sarojini. Admittedly no link docuemnt for Ex.A2 sale deed was filed by plaintiff.

17.This court perused the document of Ex.A1 which is Certified copy of Sri Kalyan Chakravarthy Nagar layout, Duvvada. As per Ex.A1 layout, it was approved by Duvvada Gram Panchayat resolution vide

Resolution No.11/83 on 04.02.1983 and signed by one Gantla

Appalanaidu as Sarpanch with date 04.02.1983. Admittedly no witness from Duvavda Gram Panchayat was either examined or plaintiff had taken any steps to summon any official of Duvvada Gram Panchayat or to produce any relevant registered or record of Duvvada Gram Panchayat in support of her contention as to approved layout under Ex.A1 or supporting resolution of Gram panchayat on 04.02.1983. It does not contain even seal or extent nor any units mentioned at column of ‘Total area of Plots as 39608, total area fo roads 14,842’ in the bottom of

Ex.A1. Plaintiff as PW.1 though testified that she can file resolution

No.11/83 dt.04.02.1983 passed for layout approval, but no such resolution was filed in support of Ex.A1/layout plan on ground. Further she admitted that there is no seal of Village Gram Panchayat. If at all assumed for a while that said layout was approved by Duvvada Gram

Panchayat then without seal of stamp of Duvaada Gram Panchayat also its veracity is questionable. Further in Ex.A1 though Survey No.140/2 of

Duvavda Panchayat of Sabbavaram Taluk, but extent in which layout was laid was not mentioned in it.

18.Further PW.1 also admitted that she did not apply for layout plan under Ex.A1, explaining that she enclosed original layout plan with

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 13 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

sale deed in OS.229/2017 filed against Madaka Apparao. In view of specific defence of defendants that there is no such schedule nor any such Sri Kalyan Chakravarthynagar layout on ground, then it is for plaintiff to adduce the evidence including as to when the land under Ex.A1 is converted into layout, and also as to payments of conversion charges and permissions from the concerned authorities of revenue, irrigation, revenue, VUDA, GVMC etc., to be supported by documents. But she pleaded ignorance whether said Appalanaidu did not sign Ex.A1 as

Sarpanch, nor any conversion charges are paid to convert into residential plots, nor any NALA tax was paid with penalty for her plot. Further as per

Ex.A1 there are no measurements on southern line to Plot No.117 to 120.

Thus the argument of defendants as to validity of said layout under Ex.A1 had force, as such sustainable.

19.In support of plaintiff’s case, she herself examined as PW.1 and reiterated plaint averments through her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A6 in support of her case. PW2 is husband of PW.1 and he testified his chief examination in corroboration that of PW.1 in respect of material pleadings of plaintiff. Ex.A1 is certified copy fo layout plan,

Ex.A2 is sale deed dt.06.06.1990 in her mother’s favour. Ex.A3 is release deeddt.30.07.2004 in her favour by her family members. Perused Ex.A2 which is sale deed in favour of plaintiff’s mother Patta Sarojini by her vendor Doraga Ramarao on 06.06.1990. In her cross examination, PW.1 testified that she is commerce graduate and that schedule property is physically verified by her father prior to its purchase in her mother’s name under Ex.A2 sale deed, but she did not physically verify the same and that subsequent to her mother’s death in yer 1993, later her father, 2 brothers and younger sister executed Ex.A3 release deed for schedule property in year 2004, and after 1 year of said release deed she visited the property with her husband/PW.2. She further asserted that by date of

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 14 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 there is mango tope in schedule property, and she is residing at Hyderabad prior to Ex.A2. But she admitted that she can not say the liner measurements of the site of 120 sq.yards alleged to be occupied D1 nor she can say the linear measurements of total extent of 675 sq.yards covered under Ex.A2 an Ex.A3. She further admitted that she gave report to Commissioner fo Police, Visakahpatnam under report/

Ex.B1, btu as no action was taken hence she gave report at Duvavda

Police station against defendants and one Madaka aApparao and their family members and same is registered as FIR under Ex.B2, that said

Madaka Apparao has been residing by construction house on northern side of D1, but she explained that they occupied the site illegally.

20.She also testified that there is gate on eastern side compound wall fo D1 and also bathroom and lavatory are constructed by him and he is residing in it till date with his family members and that said house had electricity connection. But she explained that she had filed case against electrical authorities for providing electricity connection to

D1’s house and also that of Madaka Apparao, but she neither filed any document in support of her case against electrical authorities nor examined any officers of electrical department. She also testified that she filed case against said Madaka Apparao and his family members for recovery of possession of her site occupied by them and that she obtained decree in it, but she did not join said Apparao in this suit as party and she did not add defendants herein in that suit against Apparao, nor even she mentioned about that Suit against Apparao in the present Suit.

She also admitted that she filed execution petition basing on said exparte

Decree passed against Madaka Apparao, and in it his wife field claim petition and also admitted that till date said Apparao and his family members are residing in the subject house of said Suit, but she is will not examine said Madaka Apparao. Though she asserted that she can file

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 15 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure her site with help of Mandal Surveyor. She filed I.A.691/2022 under Order XXVI

Rule 9 of CPC to appoint Advocate Commissioner to locate plaint schedule property with help of Mandal Surveyor and the same dismissed on merits and she did not challenge the same.

21.She pleaded ignorance whether the land in Sy.No.140/3 of

Duvvada village is Government land and recorded in revenue register as

Government Land Gayalu, nor whether its total extent is Ac.5.00 cents.

She admitted that as per Ex.A1 payout plan Plot Nos.20,19, and 120 are extended towards wast compared to other plots and south-east corner of

Plot No.120 is extended compared with other plots in government land.

She denied that she did not filed the copies of decree and Judgment to obtained by her against Madaka Apparao purposefully to suppress the real facts and he was not made a party though necessary as such suit is not maintainable and also that she intentionally did not join the

Government as party though alleged layout covers Government poramboku lands in survey No.140/1, 140/3, 140/4 and 126. She specifically denied that house of defendant is not located in survey

No.140/2 nor she is concerned with defendants house nor they interfere with her plot, but by using her influence criminal case was registered against them only to harass them as they did not agree to sell their house to her, her husband and other defendants in O.S.3/2019, and that she with her relatives tried to demolish house of defendants as such they are not liable to pay any damages nor she is entitled for any such damages. She further denied that she filed the suit basing on Ex.A1 and

A2 documents though nor concerned with plaint schedule but with wrong survey No.140/2, and that she is making efforts to grab their house by filing false case.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 16 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

22.PW.2/husband of plaintiff in his cross examination admitted that he never made any enquiries regarding the said approval of layout and he had no idea as to when said layout was approved by Gram

Panchayat and he do not whether land in survey No.140/3 is Government land or otherwise, and that they did not possess in land in Survey

No.140/3, and that he is regularly visiting suit schedule property from date of its purchase by his mother in law under Ex.A2 on 06.06.1990 till gift deed in favour of his wife/PW1 i.e., on 30.07.2004. He admitted that as per Ex.A3 standing mango trees in the subject property was not mentioned, and that he cannot tell the date of his last visit or even number times of his visits, and that defendants filed suit against him, his wife and 2 others. He further admitted that constructions made by defendants are with asbestos cement bricks with walls and compound wall is also constructed, and that he did not know the door number of defendants and had no knowledge that land grabbing case was registered basing on their report which is pending

23.Interestingly PW2 who asserted that he visited the plaint schedule property number of items but admitted that he cannot tell the measurements of encroached of land of defendants. He specifically denied that as defendants never encroached any property, hence only he cold not even tell the measurements of either encroached land or remaining unencroached land, and that as defendants denied their proposal to purchase the schedule property, hence false case was foisted against them, and that plaintiff is neither entitled for damages as no encroachment took place nor damaged any property of plaintiff, and that the document under which PW1 purchased the property is not valid as the same was not recognized layout as such they very purchase of schedule property under Ex.A2 by his mother in law is false as such subsequent relinquishment deed is not valid as per law.

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 17 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

24.Thus admittedly no iota of document is filed by plaintiff in support of her contention that her mother was in lawful possession and enjoyment of schedule property from date of sale deed Ex.A2 on 06.06.1990 or her vendor’s possession and enjoyment of the same till date of sale deed or even plaintiff’s enjoyment and possession from date of release deed Ex.A3 in year 2004 or even as to her possession and enjoyment till date of filing of this suit against defendants. Even there is no whisper from plaintiff evidence or pleading that had they made any attempts even to obtain those documents for all the period from 1990 to year 2017 in which they filed the present suit. Thus the conduct of the plaintiff is not that of a prudent person who is expected to pursue their rights of title or enjoyment or possession of schedule property.

25.Though defendant counsel in his arguments and in cross examination of PW1 and PW2 tried to elicit that suit is not maintainable for not adding necessary parties of said Madaka Apparao against whom plaintiff injunction suit O.S.229/2017 and obtained exparte decree and so also for not joining Government as necessary party though alleged layout covers Government Poramboku lands. But admittedly no such issue of bad for non joinder of necessary parties is framed nor non framing of said issue was agitated by defendants at any stage except oral arguments. Thus, the argument of defence counsel that suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties is not sustainable.

26.2nd defendant examined himself examined as DW.1 in support of their defence pleaded through written statement. He asserted that he was residing in suit schedule property since 20 long years, though mentioned in his chief evidence that he has been residing in the suit schedule property since 18 years and that they are in peaceful possession of the same since 24 years, and that as per Ex.B8 property tax is being paid by them and Ex.B8 reflects name of Jami Nagarathnam/

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 18 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

D1, and that as perEx.B4 Adangal copy, the total extent of land is 11.25 in Survey No.140/2. Further asserted that M.Appa Rao land is his northern boundary, but do not know as to filing of declaration suit in

O.S.229/2017 and decreeing of the same in favour of plaintiff. He pleaded

ignorance as to purchase of schedule property by mother of plaintiff and the same was given to plaintiff by her family members through release deed date 30.07.2004.He specifically denied that he had no right over schedule property, and that plaintiff is absolute owner of schedule property.

27.DW.2 is Revenue Inspector of GVMC and his evidence adduced on summoning GVMC Commissioner to cause production of house tyax, water tax, relevant records pertaining to property issued by

GVMC n favour of D1. Ex.B7 is attested copy of online record of property tax for vacant land and Ex.B8 attested copy of online record of property tax for residential property. He further asserted that as per Ex.B8 owner name is Jami Nagaratnam with Door No.7-85/1 and construction type was mentioned as cement in both floors and wall and also that as per

Ex.B8 owner had water tap electricity in the said property. As per Ex.B7 the survey number mentioned as 140/2 and vacant land area is 567 sq.yards situated in Duvvada and Eastern side boundary is survey

No.140/3, and that assessment of tax was prepared after physical of the property and as per records. In cross examination he admitted that Ex.B8 did not reveal about location of the property particulars, and that they will allot assessment number if the property document is intact and if said property document does not belong to applicant that they will obtain indemnity bond to provide eminities of water and electricity etc. He further admitted that as per Ex.B7 property of plaintiff is situated in specific survey number but property of D1 was not specifically mentioned. He pleaded ignorance whether plaintiff sent application to cancel the

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 19 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

assessment number allotted for defendants property and also whether D1 applied for plant approval for construction in the property.

28.DW.3 is Tahasildar, Gajuwaka and he was summoned by defendants. He testified that the record for land conversion record from agricultural land to house site in Sri Kalyan Chakravathy layout in Survey

No.140/2 of Duvvada Village of Gajuwaka Mandal, was not traced in their

Office, hence letter was addressed to RDO, Visakhapatnam for which they received letter dated 04.04.2025 under Ex.X1 from RDO informing that as per circular instructions of CCLA dated 04.07.2018 notional Katha

No.300001 was given in Bhu-Seva for Sri Kalayana Chakravathy layout in survey No.104/2 in Duvvada Village, and that after submission of ground report by Tahsildar, RDO will pass approval for conversion of agricultural land in to non agricultural lands, but he do not know whether Sri Kalayan

Chakravathy layout is approved or not, but it is identified by the

Government that there are several unauthorized layouts under Gajuwaka

Manda Revenue jurisdiction, and that entire extent of land in survey

No.1402/ is Ac.11.25 cents and that approval of layout is job of VUDA, but Tahasildhar is no way concerned, and that he had no idea for land what purpose land in survey No.140/2 is converted, and that they could not trace out land conversion charges payment record in their office. As per column No.11of Ex.X4/ Attested copy of Diaglat in survey No.140/2 there are other land owners and as per Ex.X3/attested copy of 10(1) record of survey No.140/2 total land is in the name of Doroji Rama Rao.

He further testified that as the dioglat is not available in their office then addressed letter to Collectarate and Ex.X4 was sent by them.

29.DW.4is District Town and Country Planning Office at

Visakhapatnam, and that he did not produce approved layout plan Sri

Kalyan Chakravathy layout in Survey No.144/2 as they have no authority to approve layout plans in Urban area as Duvvada is situated in Urban

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 20 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

area of Gajuwaka Mandal, and that in Urban limits that width of roads in general will be 40 feet if the layout is to be approved. He also pleaded ignorance whether since 1978 Duvvada is in urban area of

Visakhapatnam. He explained that as per amended layout approval rules of 2025 the width of roads shall be 30 feet in urban area.

30.Thus from evidence of concerned authorities of DW.2 to

DW.4 and elicitation from cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 it is elicited that the layout plan under Ex.A1 out of which one Plot No.120 subject property was purchased is not approved by concerned authorities by complying the conversion rules for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural lands, and also that plaintiff could not positively establish her lawful possession over the said Plot No.120 of Plaint schedule property against defendants. Per contra the defendants with corroborative evidence of DW.1 and that of summoned official witnesses Dw.2 to DW.4 supported with Ex.B to B8 and Ex.X1 to X4 could establish their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property in

O.S.No.3/2019 entitling them for permanent injunction against defendants

therein.

31.OS.230/17 being Declaration Suit filed by plaintiff against defendants with respect to plaint schedule property, the burden of proof always lies on plaintiff only to establish their case for relief of declaration, but not on the weakness of defendants. The plaintiff had to succeed only on strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge onus on it, irrespective of question whether defendant have proved their case or not and even if title set up by defendant is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited. The said principle flows from Sec.101 and also as per Sec.102 of Indian Evidence Act, and the said legal principle is also reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 21 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

judgments. In support of said ratio, this court relied on judgment of

Hon’ble Division bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Union of

India & Ors., Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing society Ltd., & Ors.,” (AIR 2014 SC 937), in which the Lordships discussed scope of Sections 101 and 102 of Evidence Act, and reiterated that ‘in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and not on the weakness of other party’. In support of defendants arguments, their also counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble AP High Court in “Nagamma and others Vs G

Kanthamma and others” (2008(1) ALT 281), for proposition that plaintiff must succeed the Suit for declaration fo tile on strength of his own title rather than on weakness of defendants’ case. The ratio of above both judgments is apttly applicable to the facts of the present case in hand.

32.Further this Court relied on judgment between “R V E

Venaktachala Gounder Vs Arulmigu Visweswaraswami & V P Temple and

Another”(2003 (8) SCC 752), for proposition that onus of proof shifts and shifting is continuous process in evaluation of evidence, but in Suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create high decree of probability to shift the onus on defendant, in the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title.

33.Coming to Issues of damages of Rs.4,00,000/- towards use and occupation of plaintiff’s property and future damages Rs. 1000/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till realization, there is no iota of evidence for plaintiff in support of her claim except pleading and asserting through her evidence affidavit as well as her husband PW.2. Thus this court holds that plaintiff is not entitled for damages of Rs.4,00,000/- or for

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 22 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

future damages of Rs.1,000/- per month from defendants for use and occupation of plaint schedule property till date of realization.

34 .Thus, the Court, considering the material on record, from admissions and material elicitations from cross examination of PW.1 and

PW.2, and for the reasons stated supra, inclined to hold that the Plaintiff could not positively prove her title, right and possession of the schedule property for relief of declaration, thus the relief of consequential delivery of vacant possession and permanent injunction also fail in the circumstances. Thus these issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in O.S.230/2017 are answered against the Plaintiff, and Issue No.1 in O.S.No.3/2019 is decided in favour of Plaintiffs in that Suit.

XIV - Conclusion:

35.Thus, the Court, on marshalling of evidence adduced by both parties and from the supra discussion, holds that plaintiff in OS.230/2017 could not prove her title and possession for the plaint schedule property for relief of declaration, thus thereby consequential relief of delivery of vacant possession of schedule property, and claim of damages and future damages also fail in the circumstances. So issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 are answered against the Plaintiff. Further the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3/2019 (who are defendants in OS.No.230/17) could prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule property and entitled for permanent injunction against 4 defendants in O.S.No.3/2019 ( 1st defendant is plaintiff in O.S.No.230/2017) as sought for in OS.3/2019, thus issue No.1 in O.S.No.3/2019 is answered in favour of Plaintiffs in

OS.3/2019.

XV – ISSUE No.7 in OS.No.230/2017 & ISSUE No.2 in O.S.3/2019:

36.In view of deciding Issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 in

O.S.No.230/2017 against plaintiff, hence Suit in O.S.No.230/2017 is

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 23 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

dismissed with costs. In view of deciding Issue No.1 in O.S.3/2019 in favour of plaintiffs, they are entitled for Permanent injunction against 4 defendants in O.S.No.3/2019 with respect to plaint schedule property, hence Suit in OS.3/2019 is decreed with costs. Accordingly Issue No.7 in

OS.230/2017 is decided against plaintiff and Issue No.2 in OS.230/2017

is decided in favour of plaintiffs.

37.In the result, the suit in O.S.230/2017 is dismissed with costs.

The suit in OS No.3/2019 is decreed with costs restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

Directly typed to dictation to Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(SENIOR DIVISION),

GAJUWAKA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendants:-

P.W.1 : Patta Usha DW1:J.Ajay Kumar

P.W.2 : Ganta Madhava Rao DW2:R.Mohan (Revenue Inspector)

DW3 :T.Srivalli( Tahasildar, GWK) DW4: D.Ramu Naidu (DTCPO)

Exhibits marked for :-

Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : CC of Panchayat approved layout plan dt.04.02.1983 Ex.A2 : CC of Regd. Sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff’s mother

dt. 06.06.1990

O.S.No.230 OF 2017 & O.S.3/2019 24 PCJC (SD)/GWK

dated 27.04.2026

Ex.A3 : CC of Regd. Release deed executed in favour of plaintiff dt.30.07.2004 Ex.A4 : Certified copy of statement of EC issued by Sabbavaram SRO dt.22.06.2017 Ex.A5 : CC of death certificate of plaintiff’s father issued by GVMC dt.22.07.2016 Ex.A6 : CC of market value certificate issued by Sabbavaram JSRO Dt. 22.06.2017

Defendants :

Ex.B1 : Report submitted by PW1 to Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam Ex.B2 : FIR along with report in Cr.No. 77/2016 of Duvvada P.S. dt. 20.05.2016 Ex.B3 : Served copy of layout plan Ex.B4 : Pahani for the fasali 2022 (1432) dt. 10.03.2023 Ex.B5: CC of property tax pass book for D.NO.7-85/1 Ex.B6: Authorisation letter Ex.B7: Attested copy of online record of property tax in Assessment No., 1086484656 vacant land Ex.B8 : Attested copy of online record of property tax in Assessment No., 1086337798 of residential property

Ex.X1: Attested copy of letter dt. 4.4.2025 vide RC.NO.417/2024/SA.1 Dt.04.04.2025 from RDO, Visakhapatnam to Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Ex.X2 : Attested copy of CCLA circular No.1 CMRO 3/95/2018 dt.04.07.2018 Ex.X3: Attested copy of 10(1) record of SY.No.140/2 of DuvvadaVillage Ex.X4 : Attested copy of diglot record of Sy.No. 140/2

PCJ (SD)/GWK.

1

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK

APVS0B0001422024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

GAJUWAKA

Present:- Smt. M. Venkata Seshamma,

Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division),

Gajuwaka.

Wednesday, 22 nd day of April, 2026

APPEAL SUIT No.35/2022

Between :

1.Esarapu Lachanna @ Lakshmana, S/o. Late Venkanna, aged 72 years, Retired Railway employee, D.No.38-32-75/1, Parvathinagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2.Esarapu Kanaka Mahalakshmi, W/o. Govindrao, ageid 36 years, D.No.38-32-75/3, Parvathinagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

..Appellants/Defendants

And : M/s. Visakha Machinery Private Ltd., a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1996 rep. By Kottapalli Murali Krishna (died), Represented by its Director K.Sarala Devi, W/o. Late Murali Krishna, aged 65 years, Plot No.177, D.Block, Autonagar, Visakhapatnam (Director name was amended as per orders in memo dt. 26.03.2026

...Respondent /Plaintiff

APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT

IN O.S.No.116/2012 DATED 08.08.2022 BY THE COURT OF

LEARNED JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA (PRESENT CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), GAJUWAKA)

Between: M/s. Visakha Machinery Private Ltd., a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1996, having regd. Office at plot NO.177, D.Block, Autonagar, Visakhapatnam rep. By its Managing Director, Kottapalli Murali Krishna, S/o. Late Subbiah, aged 67 years.

..Plaintiff

2

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK

And :

1.Esarapu Lachanna @ Lakshmana, S/o. Late Venkanna, aged 60 years, Retired Railway employee, D.No.38-32-75/1, Parvathinagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-530018

2.Esarapu Kanaka Mahalakshmi, W/o. Govindarao, aged 28 years, D.No.38-32-75/3, Parvathinagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-530018

...Defendants

This Appeal Suit had come up for final hearing on 02.04.2026 in the presence of Sri K.Madhusudhana Rao, learned Advocate for Appellants/

Defendants and Sri A.J.Stalin, learned Advocate for Respondent/ Plaintiff and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This Appeal is preferred against Decree and Judgment in

O.S.No.116/2012 dated 08.08.2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Gajuwaka, which is filed for Permanent Injunction against the

Respondent/Plaintiff with respect to Plaint Schedule Property, which was decreed with costs.

2.Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment in O.S.116/2012 dated 08.08.2022, the Defendants in the Suit preferred the present Appeal. For brevity, the parties in the Appeal are referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants as arrayed in learned Trial Court. The Appellants herein are Defendants and the

Respondent herein is Plaintiff.

I. Brief Submissions of Appellants/Defendants through Memorandum of

Appeal :

3.The suit is filed for permanent injunction by plaintiff against defendants for schedule property and defendants contested the same and that learned trial court erroeneously decreed the same, and that it had failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and settled proposition of law relied by them, and that at para No.15 of Judgment it was mentioned that 3

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK ‘though the defendants denied the Ex.A1 and A2, but they did not take any steps to prove their contention’,thus ignored basic principles of burden of proof and that the contention of respondent/ plaintiff is that he purchased the schedule property under Ex.A1 for which link document is Ex.A4 and it which is only for extent of Ac.1.50 cents but not Ac.5.41 cents as such plaintiff failed to establish and prove their right, title, possession of schedule property of Ac.

5.41 cents, and that nothing was placed by plaintiff to prove their right , title possession for schedule property though entire burden lies on plaintiff, and that if had failed to appreciate the admissions of PW1 no document for entire extent of property other than covered under Ex.A1, and that Sec.36 of Stamp

Act and Sec.49 of Registration Act for Ex.A2 was wrongly interpreted and it was received for collateral purpose, ignored the said law that Ex.A2 is hit by

Sec. 17 and 49 of Registration Act though it is inadmissible in evidence, and that the decree and judgment in under Exs.A3 and A5 were considered unnecessarily though appellants are not parties to that suit as such not binding on them as the Judgment is in personam but not in rem, and that without appreciating Ex.B1 to B3 which establish that defendants are absolute owner of property and was supported by revenue records, but simply mentioned in the judgment that there is no cogent evidence on record to support case of defendants, hence, without discussing documents Ex.B1 to B3 and that there is no discussion, and that Judgment was pronounsed without judicious mind, and that as plaintiff could not proved his right, title possession and enjoyment of schedule property under Ex.A1 and as Ex.A2 is inadmissible document, and also that other docuemnts relied by plaintiffs are not suffice for relief of

Injunction as such the judgment of trial court is obscure and perversive hence the present Appeal to set aside the decree and judgment 08.08.2022 passed in OS No.116/2012 throughout costs of the Appeal.

4

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK

4.This Court perused the record and that this Appeal was registered on the file of Hon’ble XIII Additional District Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka and subsequently transferred to this Court on administrative grounds.

II. Status of Respondent:

5.The Respondent contested the Appeal and submitted hearing through their Counsel. The learned counsel for Respondent / Plaintiff denied the Appeal grounds and reiterated their case as stated through plaint and that the learned Trial court had rightly observed that the plaintiff company established their right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property since date of their purchase under Ex.A1 / sale deed Dt.17.09.1991 and Ex.A2 relinquishment deed by D1 Dt.28.09.1991 and also their possession and enjoyment by the date of filing of the suit with cogent evidence of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence of

Ex.A1 to A7, though defendants denied the case of the plaintiff but could not establish their possession and enjoyment as pleaded in written statement with cogent evidence, thus the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction with respect to plaint schedule property against defendants, and as the learned trial court decreed the suit with costs in favour of plaintiff after discussing both oral and documentary evidence of both parties in accordance with settled legal principles and propositions, hence the Judgment and Decree of the learned

Trial court is well reasoned coupled with sound legal principles, hence, prayed to dismiss the present Appeal with costs.

III. Brief arguments of both counsels in the Appeal:

6.Heard both counsels for Appellants/Defendants and Respondent/

Plaintiff. This Court perused the grounds of Appeal, pleadings, evidence and documents marked for by both parties before the learned Trial Court. Further also persued the written arguments filed by both partees with relied

Judgments.

5

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK

7.This Court considering the submissions of both

Appellants/Defendants and Respondent/Plaintiff framed the following point for determination:

“Whether there is any irregularity in the Judgment of the learned Trial Court in decreeing the Suit with costs, if so

whether the same warrants interference by this Cout?”

POINT:

8.The Court perused the material on record, the rival pleadings of both parties and their evidence in the learned Trial Court, which are referred to hereunder:

IV. Brief averments of the Plaint in the learned Trial Court :

9.The plaintiff is absolute owner of extent of Acs.5.41 cents of dry land of Ac. 5.41 cents in Sy.No.16 of Appikonda Village as they purchased the same under regd. Sale deed vide Doc.No.935/1991 dt. 17.09.1991 from their vendors after paying entire sale consideration, and the vendors represented that it has their ancestral property and basing on their representative the same was purchased and that one week afer sale transaction, 1st defendant came to plaintiff’s managing director and raised dispute that he had interest as his father late Venkanna was one of original owners and the same was settled through village elder and vendors 1 and 9 of the sale deed and accordingly plaintiff paid Rs.7893/- to D1 and in turn he executed deed dt. 28.09.1991 in favour of plaintiff stating that he and other family members agreed to sell their plaint schedule joint family property to plaintiff and all the owners sold the same to plaintiff under regd. Sale deed dt. 17.09.1991 and also acknowledged receipt of Rs.7,893/-, giving up his all rights over the property which was attested by said Esarapu Ramudu as well as vendors 1 and 9 of sale deed and that vendor No.1 acted as manager of joint family, thus his acts binding on other owners, and that since date of purchased plaintiff is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment and subsequently as vendor No.2 attempted to 6

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK interfere the same hence, plaintiff filed OS NO.309/2007 against them for permanet injunction which was decreed in their favour on 19.04.2001 and

AS 24/2010 filed by defendants, and that on 21.04.2012 the vendors

approached managing director of plaintiff demadning for compensartion due to escalation they should be paid some compensation, which was declined stating that property was sold 20 years ago and they cannot meet their rediculous demands and that defendants with malafide intention tried to interrupt plaintiff’s possessiona dn ethat even report was given to police but in vain hence, the suit was filed for permanent injunction against defendants and their men restraining them from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

V. Brief averments of the Written Statement of D1 and D2 are that :

10. Defendant 1 filed his written statement deying the plaint avermnets and that D1 is joint family member of late Venkanna along with

Ramulu, and that neither Venkanna nor D1 nor Ramulu sold their share under regd. Sale deed dt. 02.09.1959, and there is no partition among them as such land of Ac. 1.50 covered under 1959 document was not sub-divided, and that sale deed was obtained by plaintiff excluding legal heirs of both deceased

Esarapu Venkanna and Esarapu Ramulu, as such it is fraud for their wrongful gain, and that as D1 had his share in Acs. 1.50 cents so transferred his share to D2, and that relinquishment deed dt. 28.09.1991 on insufficient stamp paper and unregistered as such it is not valid under law, and that boundaries under said sale deed were not tallied, and that though extent of 1959 document is

Ac. 1.50 cents but in 1991 sale deed extent is Acs. 5.41 cents and boundaries prevail over extent in Survey number, as such said sale deed is invalid as obtained under fraud, and that plaintiff approached hon’ble court with unclean hands by obtaining fradualent docuemnt for their wrongful gain as such plaintiff not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for and that cause of action is also not correct hence, to dismiss the suit with costs.

7

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK 11. Defendant No.2 filed her written statement deying the plaint avermnets and that D1 had no independent right to relinquish the property as it is ancestral property, and originally Esarapu Venkanna acquired land of extent of Ac.0.60 cents in family partition among his brothers and enjoyed the same till his death, and that he had 2 sons namely E.Ramu and D1, and they partitioned the said property into 2 equal shares of Ac.0.30 cents each after death of Venkanna, and since then they are in exclusive possession in their respective shares, and that D1 had 2 wives and through them he was blessed with 5 children i.e. Venkata Lakshmi, Manga and Govindarao through 1st wife

Appalanarasamma, and Kanka and Kunchu Ratnam through 2nd wife

Kothamma as such those 5 chidren had right title ove the said property, and that D2 purchased the property from D1 under regd. Sale deed dt. 25.01.2012, and as plaintiff is causing obstruction hence, D1 lodged report before police against them on 05.08.2010 and 12.11.2011, and the property was also got mutated in government records with name of D1 and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed and he sold the same to D2 as such plaintiff had nothig with the said property of Acs.0.30 cents in any manner, and that though original land by ancestors of D1 is Ac.1.75 cents only but plaintiff alleged to be purchased Ac.5.41 cents in Sy.No.16 though there is no such extent as such plaintiff created sale deed dt. 17.09.1991 and that relinquishment deed dt.

28.09.1991 is also fabricated document obtained by fraud as such non-est in the eye of law. Further that 2nd defendant is not a party to suit in OS

No.309/2007 as such its decree was not binding on the rights of D2, and that

D2 is in absolute possession and enjoymnet of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.16 of

Appikonda Village having purchased it under regd. Sale deed from D1 hence, the suit for permanent injunction is liable for dismissal.

Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the issues settled by the learned Trial Court are:

8

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit ?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants?

3. To what relief?

12.The material on record reveals that both parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence before the learned Trial Court. In support of plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 Regd.

Sale deed executed by Esarapu Varahnarasimha and others in favour of plaintiff dt. 17.09.1991, Ex.A2/ relinquishment deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff dt. 28.09.1991, Ex.A3 is certified copy of decree in OS

No.309/2007 by JCJ Court, Gajuwaka dt. 19.04.2010, Ex.A4 is Certified copy of registration extract of the sale deed doc No. 2608/1959 dt. 02.09.1959,

Ex.A5 is certified copy of decree and judgment in AS No. 24/2010 on the file of

SCJ Court, Gajuwaka dt. 21.08.2012, Ex.A6/ Pahani copy obtained through mee seva dt. 25.01.2015, Ex.A7/ Memorandum and articles of association of

Visakha Machinery of Private Ltd.

13.On behalf of defendants, DW1 is examined and got marked

Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is sale deed dt. 25.01.2012 vide Doc No. 144/2012 executed by the 2nd defendant to 1st defendant, Ex.B2 is Pattadar pass book bearing Patta NO. 212 in favour of 1st defendasnt issued by MRO, peda

Gantyada dt. 29.01.2011,Ex.B3 is land ownership document patta NO. 212 in favour of defendant No.1 issued by MRO, Pedagantyada dt. 29.09.2011.

14.The learned appellant counsel argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence adduced by both parties as per settled provisions of law, and that burden of proof was placed on defendants instead of plaintiff though there is no cogent evidence for right, title, possession and 9

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK enjoyment of plaint schedule property by plaintiff as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are fraudulently obtained, so not valid in the eye of law, and schedule property is part and parcel of ancestral properties of D1 and D2, but not exclusive property of vendors of Ex.A1 / sale deed, and also that Ex.A2 is unregistered and insufficiently stamped as such cannot be considered, and that under

Ex.A1 the extent of property is Ac 5.41 cents, whereas the property covered under its link document Ex.A4 is 1.50 cents only, and that the observation of lower court that evidence of PW1 is corroborated with PW2 is baseless and obscure as testimony of PW2 was not stood for test of cross examination,

Ex.A2 is un-registered and insufficiently stamped document, but considered for collateral purpose though directly connected to Ex.A1/ sale deed as to rights of plaintiff, and that Ex.A2 squarely covered by Sec. 49 of A.P. Registration Act and Sec. 39 of Indian Stamp Act for its in-admissibility as evidence, and that non-examination of D1 is fatal to prove Ex.A2 with Ex.B1 to B3, and that even as per decree and judgment in OS No.309/2007 under Ex.A3 and A5 defendants are not parties to that suit as such not binding on them, and that as per Ex.A2 adangal the name of pattadar is totally stranger to the suit, that the learned trial court ignored that Ex.A4 is link document for Ex.A1/ sale deed, and Ex.B1 sale deed in the name of D1, as such plaintiff failed to establish their lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on date of filing of the suit entitling for permanent injunction hence, suit ought have dismissed by the learned trial court but decreed with costs hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment in OS

No.116/2012 with costs from the plaintiff. He also filed written arguments with relied judgments which were duly discussed in written arguments in relying his case.

15.The learned Respondent counsel argued that the learned Trial court had rightly observed that the plaintiff company established their right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property since date of 10

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK their purchase under Ex.A1 / sale deed dt.17.09.1991 and Ex.A2 relinquishment deed by D1 dt.28.09.1991 and also their possession and enjoyment by the date of filing of the suit with cogent evidence of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A7, though defendants denied the case of the plaintiff but could not establish their possession and enjoyment as pleaded in written statement with cogent evidence, thus the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction with respect to plaint schedule property against defendants hence, the learned trial court decreed the suit with costs in favour of plaintiff after discussing the both oral and documentary evidence let by both parties in accordance with settled legal principles, hence the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial court is well reasoned coupled with sound legal principles, as such the appeal grounds are not tenable and not supported by either law or ratio in the judgment relied by learned appellant counsel, as such appeal is liable for dismissal with costs.

Written arguments are also filed by the learned respondent counsel.

16.In support of Plaintiff’s case its managing director examined as

PW1 reiterating the plaint averments and also got marked Ex.A1 to A7. He asserted that the land covered by Ex.A1 of Ac.1.50 cents was purchased by the plaintiff company by his vendors which they purchased under Ex.A4 and that Ac.3.91 cents is ancestral property of his vendors and that since date of

Ex.A1/ Sale deed they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same with all rights till date of filing of the suit which is for permanent junction against defendants as they tried to interfere their lawful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. In his cross examination he admitted that D1 alone executed Ex.A2 and extended boundaries of property are not mentioned in it and that as legal heirs of vendors are minors hence, Ex.A1 sale deed was executed on behalf of vendors themselves and also on behalf of their legal heirs. PW1 in cross examination of D2 admitted that he did not obtain any 11

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK revenue record for suit schedule property and that Dasari Gurayya whose name is there is pattadar under Ex.A6 is not known to him.

17. PW2 who is brother of PW1 also testified in corroboration with

PW1 at first instance though sufficient opportunities were given D1 and D2 failed to cross examination of PW2, hence, their cross examination was treated as nil. But subsequently IA.No.333/20 to recall PW.2 for cross examination was allowed, but memo filed by plaintiff that PW.2 passed away on 09.08.2020 as such they could not produce him to testify his evidence. So

Appellant counsel argued that in such circumstances the observation of the court that evidence of PW.2 is corroborated with PW.1 is obscure and beyond track of proceedings. It is settled law that if a witness dies after his chief examination, but before the opposite party cross examine, then such evidence is not automatically discarded, but its weight depends on the case. Moreover in this case initially the defendants did not choose to cross examine PW.2 inspite of ample opportunities. Thus considering the same, the observation of the Court that PW.2 is corroborated with evidence of PW.1 cannot be considered as perverse.

18.DW1 is 2nd defendant and through her evidence as DW1 reiterated her written statement contents and got marked Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is sale deed dt.25.10.2012 executed by him in favour of D1, who is his daughter-in- law, for consideration. Ex.B2 is pattadar passbook and Ex.B3 is title deed in

Patta No.212 in favour of D1. The relation of father-in-law and daughter-in-law between D1 and D2 was not reflected in their sale deed Ex.B3, though it is subsequent to Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of plaintiff and also much subsequent to passing of decree and judgment in O.S.309/2007 on 19.04.2010 as per

Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. It is clear from her cross examination that she pleaded ignorance as how Esarapu Venkanna acquried Ac.0.60 cents of land so also 12

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK as to survey number and village and also ignorance with respect to all material defence pleas. Their defence is that schedule property is ancestral property, but none of boundary in sale deed Ex.B1 shows the name of Ramulu, though their claim is that D1 is joint family member of late Venkanna along with

Ramulu and that share of late Venkanna in Sy.No.16 is still there out of

Ac.1.50 cents, hence only he transferred his share to D2 under Ex.B1.

19.1st defendant pleaded ignorance that direction of share of Ramulu had fallen to oral partition, and that boundaries shown in Ex.B1 do not reflect name of Ramulu, and whether boundaries in Ex.B1 sale deed are different than that of boundaries mentioned in suit schedule property. So DW.1 though claiming Ac.0.30 cents from his father-in-law D1 through Ex.B1 sale deed, but she did not know how D1 got the said property nor even any link document is filed.

20.But D1 was not examined in support of his defence that Ex.A1 sale deed and Ex.A2 relinquishment deed are false, created and obtained fraudulently by plaintiff, nor even any steps were taken in support of his defence by sending the thumb impression on it for scientific expert with that of his admitted thumb impression. Thus adverse inference is drawn against the said defence of forgery and fabrication of Ex.A2 relinquishment deed. Further

D1 did not deny the plaint averment that 1st vendor being manager of Joint family executed Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of plaintiff, and that all his acts are binding on the joint family members.

21.It is well settled law that granting of permanent injunction is an equitable relief, and that one who comes to equity relief must come to court with clean hands and to also to establish his case by cogent evidence both oral and documentary.

13

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK

22.Admittedly Ex.A1 is the sale deed in favour of plaintiff for property in extent of Ac.5.41 cents and the property under Ex.A4 is part and parcel of

Ex.A1, which is for Ac.1.50 cents only. Perused Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of plaintiff. At 2nd page of Ex.A1 it is recited that the subject property is acquired by its vendors through sale deed dt.02.09.1959 and also the property inherited by them and which was in possession with rights and the entire property of

Ac.5.41 cents was delivered to plaintiff under Ex.A1. Thus schedule property of

Ac.5.41 cents is out of property under Ex.A4 sale deed dt.02.09.1959 for

Ac.1.50 cents and remaining property which was inherited to them. As rightly argued by the plaintiff counsel that the original owners or the vendors of plaintiff did not dispute about extent of subject property under Ex.A1 bor made any such claim that the there is only Ac.1.75 cents in S.No.16 of Appikonda village, and moreover the same was not established by defendants through their evidence DW.1 or under Ex.B1 to B3 documents, though they pleaded so.

23.The learned Counsel for respondent/plaintiff relied on judgment between “Somisetti Venkata Rama Krishna Rao Vs Kandiboyina Kondaiah and others” (2008 (2) ALD 304), for proposition that ‘ when the recitals relating to the deliver of possession are clear and categorical int tile deeds, the discrepancy, if any in the oral evidence cannot be taken as ground to disbelieve the facutm fo possession’. Here in this case also as per Ex.A1 sale deed vendors of plaintiff delivered possession of suit schedule property of

Ac.5.41 cents to the plaintiff on the date of Ex.A1, which is corroborated with evidence fo PW.1 and PW.2 and that mere denial by defendants without substantive proof negating the possession under Ex.A1, cannot take away the legal and statutory presumption as to possession of the property under 14

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK registered sale deed Ex.A1. Thus the ratio is aptly applicable to the present case in hand.

24.It is settled legal principle that the document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered and legal presumption attached to it is that registered document is validly executed and it prima facie would be valid in law, and onus to prove otherwise is on the person who challenged the document, and he has to lead evidence to rebut the presumption and that it would require more than merely pleading and it must be proved by producing the tangible evidence. The same is reiterated by the division bench of Hon’ble

Apex Court in “Rattan Singh & Ors vs Nirmal Gill & Ors” dt. 16.11.2020.

25. In this case the initial onus is on the plaintiff with regard to execution of Ex.A1 sale deed, which plaintiff could discharge by exhibiting and marking Ex.A1 registered sale deed in their favour. As the defendants through their written statement pleaded that Ex.A1/registered sale deed and Ex.A2 relinquishment deed are created and obtained in fraudulent manner by plaintiff, so the evidentiary burden is on defendant to rebut presumption of

Ex.A1 registered sale deed, as they are challenging the same.

26.ThelearnedAppellantCounselsubmittedthat

Ex.A2/Relinquishment deed is inadmissible in evidence for plaintiff, as it is unregistered and insufficiently stamped and though it is marked as Ex.A2, but mere marking of document does not preclude it from compliance of Sec.17 and 49 of Registration Act and Sec.35 of Indian Stamp Act, otherwise said document is inadmissible. In support of his said argument, he relied on

Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment of “Balakrishna Dattatreya

Galande Vs Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and Anr.,”, and judgment os

Hon’ble High Courts in “IVRCL Assets & Holdings Limited vs. A.P.State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and another”, (2014 0 Supreme (AP) 241), “S Mohan Krishnan Vs V Varalakshmamma” (2017 5 ALD 228), 15

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK “A.P.Laly vs. Gurram Rama Rao”, (2017 6 ALD 300), “P.Srinivasa Reddy Vs.

P.Madhav Yadav”, (2021 1 ALT 70), “Nune Munthala Rama Laxmi Vs. Canara

Bank”, (2022 1 ALD 483) and “Govindu Siva Naga Jyothi and another Vs.

Varikuti Mounika at Naga Mounika”, 2025 (1) ALT 342(AP). This court also concedes with his argument and also with ratio of the supra mentioned judgments that unregistered and insufficiently stamped document if mandated by Sec.17 and 49 of Registration Act and Sec.35 of Indian Stamp Act, the same is to be complied in stricter sense as to their admissibility, and the duty equally casts on the Courts while admitting those documents in the proceedings, also that even payment of stamp duty and penalty would be not automatically make the document admissible if it is compulsorily registrable document.

27.But the present Suit is filed for permanent injunction, but not for any declaration of title or rights with respect to plaint schedule property. Even after their written statement also though taken defence plea that

Ex.A1/registered sale deed and Ex.A2 relinquishment deed are created and obtained in fraudulent manner by plaintiff, but the defendants did not either choose to alter or amend the permanent injunction Suit into Suit for declaration of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents, or cancellation of those documents. Thus as this suit is filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction with respect to plaint schedule property as such the registered sale deed Ex.A1 through which plaintiff is claiming their rights of title and possession, is to be considered with regard to possession and enjoyment of subject schedule property as on date of filing of the Suit. Thus the relied judgments by learned Appellant counsel with regard to admissibility fo Ex.A2 Relinquishment deed are not applicable to the present set of facts.

28.Coming to documents of Ex.A3 and Ex.A5/ decree and judgment in previous suit by plaintiff in O.S.No.309/2007, as per those documents Suit is 16

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction with respect to 3 items of that Suit schedule property, and out of them 2nd item is present suit schedule property and it was decreed in favour of plaintiff. But admittedly the defendants herein are not parties to the Suit, and injunction being right in personam, but not right in rem, as such that judgment and decree does not bind them, as rightly contended by the Appellant Counsel.

29. Thus, the plaintiff could establish possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property against the defendants as on the date of filing of

Suit, with corroborative oral evidence of PW1 andPW2 and documentary evidence of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 as such entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Thus the learned Trial court had rightly observed that the plaintiff company established their lawful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, as such entitled for permanent injunction against defendants.

30.The Decree and Judgment of learned Trial Court reveals that the the Suit is decreed with costs, observing that the Plaintiff proved the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the date of filing of the suit against the defendants and interference by them. The record reveals that the learned Trial Court appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 and PW.2 and DW.1 and also the documents Ex.A1 to A7 and Exs.B1 to B3 in right perspective.

This Court perused the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court.

31.Thus from the supra discussion and ratio in supra judgments, this

Court concludes that the Appellants/Defendants could not demonstrate the material as to warranting interference or to reverse the Judgment of the learned Trial Court for the reasons stated supra in the circumstances of the case. Hence, the Decree and Judgment of the learned Trial Court is confirmed by dismissing the Appeal with costs for the reasons stated supra in the 17

A.S. No.35/2022

PCJ (SD)/GWK circumstances of the case. Accordingly point is answered against the

Appellant.

32.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with costs by confirming the

Decree and Judgment of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gajuwaka (formerly called as learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka) in O.S.No116/2012 dt.08.08.2022

Directly Typed to dictation to the Stenographer GR.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22nd day April, 2026,

Sd/- SmSSDSDDDDDD

Q sD/Dsd/- M.V.SedddSsSSSSSSSS nkata SesPrincipal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gajuwaka. Sd/- P.

Esavacharyulu , APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Appellants/Defendants :For Respondent/ Plaintiff :

No additional oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this Appeal. xx /- .

Sd/- PCJ (SD)/GWK.

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 1 PCJC (SD)/GWK

APVS0B0006172018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

AT GAJUWAKA

Present:- Smt. M. Venkata Seshamma,

Principal Civil Judge,

(Senior Division),

Gajuwaka.

Thursday, the 23 rd day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.217/2018

Between :

Canara Bank represented by its Branch Manager Kurmannapalem Brancy, 31-12-1/3, Duvvada Rly station road, Visakhapatnam … Plaintiff

And :

1. Sree Venkata Lakshmi Electricals, represented by its Proprietor Rajana Venkata Laxmi, D.No.31-38-286/7, Rajeevnagar, Rasalamma colony, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam 530046.

2. Rajana Venkata Lakshmi W/o. R.Apparao, Prop of M/s Sree Venkata Lakshmi Electricals, D.No.31-38-286/7, Rajeevnagar, Rasalamma colony, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam 530046.

… Defendants

This suit came before me for hearing on 22.04.2026 in the presence of Sri G.V.S.Purushottam Rao, learned advocate for the plaintiff and Sri J.A.Naidu, Learned advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 2 PCJC (SD)/GWK

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed under Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure,

Order VII Rule 1 and Order IV Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure against the defendants for recovery of suit amount of Rs.8,10,402/- with future interest and costs of the suit.

02. a)The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff bank is a Nationalised bank constituted under Companies Act, 1970 and with its branch at Kurmannapalem, Vishakhapatnam and that Branch manager is authorised and empowered to act on behalf of plaintiff branch to represent in all legal proceedings for realisation of amount on behalf of plaintiff bank and that 2nd defendant is proprietress of 1st defendant firm doing business in name and style of M/s Sri Venkata Lakshmi Electricals and with its place of business at Main road, Rajeev Nagar and it is registered with government of A.P.Commerical tax department on 05.06.2014 and that defendants approached plaintiff bank through application for term loan for purchase of stock in electrical shop and that on consideration plaintiff bank sanctioned term loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchase of stock items through MSE – Saral Term loan sanction letter dt.29.05.2015 with loan account No.2991768000035which was disbursed on the same date and defendants executed agreement cum deed of hypothecation dt.29.05.2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 10.40% per annum with monthly rests in 60 equated monthly installments @ Rs.4250/- commencing from 29.06.2015 and also executed letter dt.10.6.2015 with particulars of hypothecated stocks with reference to agreement of hypothecation and that subsequently on 18.11.2015 1st defendant represented by 2nd defendant approached plaintiff bank for availing cash credit loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of D1 proprietary concern for working capital requirements and plaintiff bank sanctioned

Rs.5,00,000/- on the same day and they executed the documents of request for overdraft facilities, pronote dt.18.11.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/-

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 3 PCJC (SD)/GWK

agreeing to repay with interest 2.10% per annum above the Reserve

Bank of India rate with minimum of 10% per annum compounded quarterly as per guidelines of RBI from time to time and also executed cash credit agreement on security of hypothecation of stocks, book debts etc. present and future.

b)It is further submitted that defendants defaulted in payment of monthly installments in term loan account and over due amount in OCC loan account as such both loan accounts were classified as NPA and inspite of repeated requests for repayment of installments regularly but defendant did not pay hence, plaintiff bank issued recall notice on 05.10.2016 demanding them to pay liability amount of

Rs.5,06,836/- as on 1.10.2016 in OCC loan account with interest with effect from 1.10.2016, term loan account liability amount of Rs. 1,73,105/- as on 11.09.2016 with interest with effect from 11.09.2016 but there is no response from defendants and outstanding balance amount unpaid and as time limit for its repayment is going to be lapsed from date of execution of loan documents on 29.5.2015 for term loan and on 18.11.2015 for OCC loan hence, the present suit for total due sum of Rs.8,10,402/- towards both loan accounts which is manifested as per statement of account copies of 2 loan accounts which were maintained in regular course of business by plaintiff bank as the transaction is commercial transaction secured by mortgage as such entitled for future interest at contract rate from the date of suit till date of realisation and the rate of interest applicable as on date of filing of the application is @ 10.40 % per annum for term loan and @ 10% per annum towards OCC Loan hence, the present suit for passing decree and judgment for suit amount of Rs.

8,10,402/- with future interest and costs of the suit from defendants.

03.The 2nd defendant filed Written Statement, which is adopted by 1st defendant proprietary concern. Through written statement

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 4 PCJC (SD)/GWK

defendants denied the plaint averments in specific and further submitted that there is no cause of action for the suit and that bank officials visited the premises of 1st defendant and verified the stock and required bank statement etc. and while pending the dues how they granted CC loan without any further security and that they all are fabricated by the said

B.K.Govindarao by colluding with the bank manager hence, suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation, and that defendant is running small business and there is no such business and that one B.K.Govidna

Rao fabricated all those documents by misrepresenting and colluding with the concerned bank manager and that complaint is running to that effect and that said Govinda Rao was also convicted in CC No.595/2019 on the file of Hon’ble 2nd MM Court (Railway court) and that appeal in

Cr.A.No.474/2018 is pending before Hon’ble IV Addl.District Judge,

Vishakhapatnam, hence, the suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

04.The record and docket reveals that though the Suit is posted for terms of settlement under Section 89 C.P.C., by giving an opportunity to both parties to settle the Suit, but the parties did not settle the case hence, the then Presiding Officer proceeded with hearing of issues, and on perusal of Plaint, Written Statement and documents, the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled to recover the

Suit amount with subsequent interest and costs as prayed for?

2. Whether the documents filed by the plaintiff bank

are fabricated with the collusion of one

B.K.Govinda Rao as pleaded by defendants in written statement ?

3. To what relief?

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 5 PCJC (SD)/GWK

05.Perused the plaint, written statement, evidence of both parties and other material on record. In support of plaintiff case the

Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A21. 2nd

Defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and DW2 also examined and no documents are marked on their behalf.

06.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed by both parties.

Written arguments of plaintiff is nothing but reiteration of plaint pleadings, written statement pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, whereas written arguments of defendants are repetition of pleadings of their written statement.

07.The learned plaintiff counsel argued that the plaintiff bank with corroborative evidence of its Officer PW1 coupled with

Exs.A1 to A21 could establish that defendants though obtained term loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 28.05.2015 and cash credit loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 18.11.2015 and have to repay the suit claim as per account statements for term loan under Ex.A11 and cash credit loan under Ex.A12, but did not repay the same inspite of reminders, and that though defendants took plea of collusion between one B.K.Govinda Rao and the then Bank

Manager in obtaining loans by fabricating all the documents and that she even file cheque bounce case in CC No.595/2018 against said

Govindarao in which he was convicted, but the said defence pleas were not proved by any documentary evidence, and that though apart from D2 herself as DW1 she also examined DW2, but from his cross examination it was elicited that he is tutored and paid witness by D2 and that she did not deny even crediting of said loan amounts to their account, as such the defence pleas taken by defendants are neither proved nor tenable as per law thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. till date of realization and for suit costs from defendants.

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 6 PCJC (SD)/GWK

08.The learned defendants’ counsel argued that there is no cause of action for suit and that one B.K.Govinda Rao by colluding with bank manager with fabricated documents obtained loans and he even was convicted in cheque bounce case filed by D2 and that she did not execute any of the documents of Ex.A1 to A21 relied by the plaintiff bank in support of their claim and that even the term loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- was denied by defendants and interestingly the plaintiff bank disbursed cash credit loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- after 6 months of earlier term loan though defendants did not pay the EMI installments of previous loan as such the sanction of very 2 loans and their disbursement is doubtful supporting her defence that the bank officials and said BK.Govindarao colluded in obtaining those loans, and except evidence of bank official PW1 there is no corroborative evidence for plaintiff’s case, hence, to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

09. Issue Nos.1 and 2

1.“Whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled to recover he

Suit amount with subsequent interest and costs

as prayed for?”

2. Whether the documents filed by the plaintiff bank are fabricated with the collusion of one B.K.Govinda Rao as

pleaded by defendants in written statement ?”

10As issue Nos. 1 and 2 are inter-twined as such both are dealt with simultaneously in order to avoid the repetition of the evidence of both parties.

11.In support of case of plaintiff bank, its authorised person i.e.

its Officer is examined as PW.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination reiterating the contents of plaint and his oral evidence is that plaintiff bank on application of defendants by Ex.A1 dt. 28.05.2015

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 7 PCJC (SD)/GWK

disbursed term loan of Rs.2,00,000/- as per sanctioned memorandum dt.

28.05.2015/Ex.A2 and executed hypothecation agreed to pay the loan amounts with interest @ 10.40 % per annum under agreement cum deed of hypothecation on 29.05.2015/Ex.A3 on furnishing of particulars of hypothecated material under Ex.A4 and that subsequently on 18.11.2015 defendants applied for cash credit of Rs.5,00,000/- for working capital requirements under Ex.A5 and the same was sanctioned as per sanction memorandum under Ex.A6 on the same day and they gave a request letter for overdraft facilities/ Ex.A7 on the same day and also duly executed pronote Ex.A8 and also executed cash credit agreement for

Rs.5,00,000/- on the same day under Ex.A9, but defendants failed to pay the due amounts of both loans as per agreed terms so recall notice under

Ex.A10 was issued on 05.10.2016 demanding them to pay both the outstanding loan amounts with agreed interest, but as there is no response and as per account statements / Ex.A11 and A12 by the date of filing of the suit the total due amount under both loans is Rs.8,10,402/- and that defendants time to time executed revival documents and request letters for repayment under Ex.A15, Ex.A17, Ex.A18, Ex.A19 and that

Ex.A20 and A21 statement of accounts of D1 and D1 proprietary concern and D2 are filed along with certificates under Sec.2 A (a), 2 A (b) and 2 A

(c) of amended The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891. The provisions of Section 2 A of The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 is special provision for bank records, which is akin to Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence

Act,1872 and Sec. 63 (4) (c) of Bharatiya Saakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Thus, the bank account statements Exs. A20 and A21 are admissible documents being electronic records as filed with certificate under Sec.2 A

(a), 2 A (b) and 2 A (c) of amended The Bankers Books of Evidence Act, 1891, as such complied the statutory requirement of certification for the admissibility of electronic documents of Exs.A20 and A21.

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 8 PCJC (SD)/GWK

12.In this case the plaintiff bank disbursed both the loans i.e.

term loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.05.2015 vide loan account No.

2991768000035 and cash credit loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 18.11.2015 to the account No.2991261000029 of D1 proprietary concern.

One of the defence taken by defendants that suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. As per plaintiff’s case the term deposit loan of

Rs.2,00,00/- was disbursed on 28.05.2015 cash paid loan of Rs.

5,00,000/- on 18.11.2015 to the respective loan amounts of D1 proprietary concern. The record reveals that the plaint is filed on 16.04.2018 vide GR NO.4856 dt. 16.04.2018 by the plaintiff bank. Thus, the suit is in the limitation of 3 years being suit for recovery of outstanding loan amounts as per plaintiff bank account statements. The defence of defendants is that one B.K.Govinda Rao by colluding with bank manager of plaintiff bank with fabricated documents obtained loans and he even was convicted in cheque bounce case filed by D2 and that she did not execute any of the documents of Ex.A1 to A21 relied by the plaintiff bank, but they are fabricated by said Govinda Rao and the then Bank Manager, as such she is not liable to pay amount.

13.PW.1 is cross examined by Defendants’ counsel at length.

PW1 testified in his cross examination that D1 proprietary concern had current account with their bank and he has to verify whether D2 had bank account in her personal capacity and that he has to check bank statements whether defendants are irregular in repayments from 1st EMI

Itself and that after satisfying with working capital of D1 on visit of store of

D1, 2nd loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- might be sanctioned and that he had gone through registration certificate or license of D1 and that as per bank norms 2nd loan can be granted even if 1st loan is not entirely repaid and 2nd loan of cash credit was not sanctioned in EMI installments, but it is over draft basis. He specifically denied that D1 did not obtain either term loan of Rs.2.00,000/- or Rs. 5,00,000/- cash credit loan, but one private

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 9 PCJC (SD)/GWK

mediator B.K.Govinda Rao obtained loans in the name of D2 by fabricating the documents in collusion with bank authorities and that signature on letter of request dt. 02.02.2017 is not that of defendants.

14.D2, who is proprietor of D2 proprietary concern examined herself as DW1 reiterating written statement defence pleas. In cross examination she admitted that she had savings bank account in her personal capacity in plaintiff bank at Kurmannapalem in the year 2014 and one current account was opened in the name of D1 proprietary concern with plaintiff bank in the year 2015, and that cheque books were also obtained against current account. On confrontation with signatures on Ex.A13 savings bank account opening form dt. 6.6.2014 along with attested copies of voter ID, household card, property tax receipt she admitted all those signatures are that of her only. Further she also admitted signature on Ex.A14/ account opening form for current account is that of her only and so also signatures on attested copies of pan card, voter card, aadhar card along with that opening form.

15.She further admitted that she received recall notice Ex.A10 under Ex.A17 acknowledgment. She further admitted her signature on

Ex,.A18 and Ex.A19 are request letters to the plaintiff bank requesting time for repayment of the outstanding loan amounts by the respective dates of those letters. However, she explained that at the request of bank manager only she addressed those letters. However, there is no document in support of her said contention. She was confronted with

Ex.A20 bank statement as per which Rs.50,000/- was credited for loan account to her savings bank account on 02.01.2016 but she pleaded ignorance and also as to transaction of Rs.6,65,000/- through RTGS through B.Sujatha on 12.05.2015 and also that of entry of credit of

Rs.2,00,000/- from her loan account to her current account on 11.06.2015 and also as to debit of monthly installments of loan account from her current account. However, the said transactions are reflected in

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 10 PCJC (SD)/GWK

Ex.A20/bank statement and Ex.A21 bank statement. She also admitted as to conviction of B.K.Govinda Rao in cheque bounce case filed by her for Rs.15,00,000/- and criminal appeal is pending against the same.

16.She categorically admitted that she did not give any written complaint till date to concerned authorities of plaintiff bank as to alleged collusion between Govindarao and the then manager of plaintiff bank in obtaining said loans by fabricating the documents. She admitted that as per Ex.A20 there is an entry of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- on 23.09.2015 which was given to Govinda Rao on withdrawn, but she denied that the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited as term deposit on very same day and it was credit to her account on 6.10.2015, admittedly she is not an income tax assessee and that she did not issue any reply notice to recall notice of plaintiff bank under Ex.A10, She explained that she came to know about taking away loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by said Govidna

Rao of bank in the year 2015 only. However, it is not her case that even after knowing about the same he filed any complaint or any report with concerned bank authorities for the same nor filed any document in support of her said defence.

17.DW2 is 3rd party examined for defendants and his chief evidence is corroborated with defendants defence pleas and further submitted that he is residing in the house of his father in law which is neighobouring shop of defendants and that he was informed by 2nd defendant that sadi B.K.Govindarao cheated them by borrowing lakhs of amounts from her and that loan account was opened in the name of D1 defendant firm with loan account of No.299176800003 and that the documents said to be executed by defendants are collusive documents by said Govindarao and bank officials and that there is no much of stock in defendants’ shop at any point of time and that as 2nd defendant is innocent and uneducated hence, said Govindarao cheated her and she filed case for the same and its appeal is pending.

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 11 PCJC (SD)/GWK

18.DW2 is cross examined by plaintiff counsel, he admitted that he do not know account No. of his wife though she had savings account in plaintiff bank for past 10 years and that he pleaded ignorance as to how many accounts D1 had with plaintiff bank are against how many persons suit is filed and he do not know loan account number of D1. But he categorically admitted that the loan account number and date of loan in his evidence affidavit were mentioned as per instructions of DW1 and simply endorsed his signature and also that he do not know owner of premises in which DW1 is running his shop nor even evidence adduced by DW1. He also admitted that he do not know details of loan involved in the present suit and also he do not know either the then bank manager or said Govindarao and that he cannot say specific details of stock in the shop of DW1. However, he denied that he is deposing false without knowing any facts as DW1 lent money to him. Thus, in view of elicitations from cross examination as to ignorance by DW2 with respect to material facts though mentioned in his chief evidence, as such his evidence cannot be credited much. Thus, from the evidence of DW1 or DW2 defendants could not establish any material in support of their defence nor against case of plaintiff’s claim including from elicitations from cross examination of PW1.

19.In this case D1 is proprietary concern and D2 is proprietor. It is settled law that proprietorship concern and its proprietor are one and the same, but not two different legal entities as proprietorship concern is trade name given by an individual for carrying on his business. In support of this ratio, this court relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and another Vs Pilla Durga Prasad and others” (dt.26.08.2025) wherein the Hon’ble Lordships reiterated that “…

A proprietorship concern is nothing, but a trade name given by an individual for carrying on his business, A proprietorship concern is not a juristic person. It cannot sue, however, in view of Order XXX Rule 10

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 12 PCJC (SD)/GWK

CPC, it can be sued”. The Hon’ble Lordships further held that “… The use of the word can in Order XXX Rule 10 CPC only indicates that proprietorship concern may be made a party. However, it does not necessarily mean that the proprietor itself if made a party would not be enough, in as much as, the proprietorship is to be defended by the proprietor only and not by anybody else, once the proprietor has been impleaded as a part representing the proprietorship, no prejudice is caused to rather its interest is well protected and taken care of by the only and only person,who owns the proprietorship, Order XXX Rule 10 of

CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed against the proprietor. It is well settled by series of judgments that proprietorship concern cannot be equated either with a company or with a partnership firm. Order XXX deals with partnership basically, however, Rule 10 thereof refers to proprietorship. It makes very clear that proprietorship concern cannot sue but it can be sued. Whether proprietorship concern is sued in its name or through its proprietor representing the concerned is one of the same thing.” Thus from the said ratio both the defendants in this case are liable to repay the obtained loans from the plaintiff bank.

Thus from the evidence adduced by both parties the plaintiff-bank could positively established that the outstanding amounts of both loans were not repaid by the defendants as per terms and conditions of those loans, and also that the defendants could not positively establish any collusion or fabricating the documents Ex.A1 to A21 between said B.K.Govindarao and the then bank officers of plaintiff bank though pleaded in the written statement.

20.It is settled law that Court can exercise it’s discretion to reduce the rate of interest under order XXXIV Rule 11 of Code of Civil

Procedure and the same is reiterated by the Hon’ble AP High Court between “Investment Trust of India Limited Vs., P. Varahalamma and another” reported in “2013(6) ALT 212 (D.B), wherein it had dealt with

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 13 PCJC (SD)/GWK

issue as regards to the reasonable rate of interest. The Lordships in that judgment upheld that though the agreement as to rate of interest is a matter of contract between the parties, the reasonableness thereof certainly falls within the realm of adjudication on the touchstone of the settlement principles. Further this court also relied upon a decision in a case between “State Bank of India, Settipalle Branch, Tirupati represented by it’s Chief Manager Vs., P.Veeranayana” reported in “2014(1) ALT 714”, wherein it relied upon the ratio in “N.M.Veerappa Vs.,

Canara Bank” (AIR 1998 SC 1101) upheld the decision of the trial court in granting interest @ 12% per annum and reaffirmed that “civil court has discretion under order XXXIV Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure to reduce the interest depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case”. Further also relied upon a decision in a case between “Dara

Namassivaya and others Vs., Smt. Veturi Ratnalamma” (2005 (6) ALT

118) wherein the Honourable High Court held that “in mortgage suits, court has discretion in the matter of grant of interest pendente lite and subsequent interest at the contractual rate up to the date of redemption”.

21.This Court further relied on judgment between “B.Chandrasekhar Vs., D. Narasimhaiah and 23 others” Dt.11.06.2018, wherein the Hon’ble High Court by relying upon several ratios summed up the factors to be taken into consideration to determine the reasonable rate of interest. They are :

(a) the value of the security offered;

(b) the financial condition of the debtor including the result of any prior transaction;

(c) the known or probable risks in getting repayment;

(d) if the compound interest was provided for the frequency of the period of calculation of interest and

(e) the advantage which the debtor reasonably expected to derive from transaction.

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 14 PCJC (SD)/GWK

22.The plaintiff claimed future interest on suit claim of Rs.

8,10,402/- till date of realisation and rate of interest applicable as on date of filing of application is @ 10.40% per annum towards term loan and @ 10% per annum to cash credit loan. As per Ex.A3/agreement cum of hypothecation deed dt. 29.05.2015, on term loan of Rs.2,00,000/- the minimum interest 10% per annum compounded and shall pay over due interest at 2% per annum above the rate of interest charged on the borrowal account.

23.As per Ex.A9/cash credit agreement for Rs. 5,00,000/- dt.28.11.2015 the agreed interest is @ 14.65% per annum compounded on the loan subject to interest rates made by the bank from time to time.

Hence, this court can award interest pendente lite and also subsequent interest on both loans as per Sec.34(1) of Code of Civil Procedure and as per settled law with respect to interest rate guided as per ratio in catena of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts, the

Court may order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged. Considering the facts of the case this court deems it proper to levy simple interest pendete lite and future interest on adjudged loan amounts, rather than compound interest, as already agreed compound interest are calculated in the account statements of both the loans till filing of the suit.

24.Thus, as per above due discussion and consideration, and as the suit debt is outcome of term loan and cash credit loan for business activities of D1 proprietary concern, as such the interest rate pendent lite applicable for outstanding term loan account of Rs. 1,73,060/- is 12% per annum (i.e. 10% per annum and 2% per annum) and thereafter @ 6% per annum from date of decree till date of realisation on the said amount of

Rs. 1,73,060/-. Further the interest rate pendent lite applicable for outstanding cash credit loan of Rs. 6,37,342/- is 14.65% per annum and

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 15 PCJC (SD)/GWK

thereafter @ 6% per annum from date of decree till date of realisation on the said amount of Rs. 6,37,342/-.

25.Thus,considering the facts and evidence, this court concludes that the plaintiff bank is entitled for outstanding amount of term loan account of Rs.1,73,060/- with interest@ 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from date of decree till date of realisation on Rs.1,73,060/- from 2nd defendant being proprietor of D1 proprietary concern. Further the plaintiff is entitled for outstanding amount of overdraft cash credit of Rs.6,37,342/- with interest@ 14.65% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from date of decree till date of realisation on

Rs.6,37,342/-. Accordingly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of

Plaintiff bank and against defendants.

Issue No.3 ; “To what relief?”

26.In result, the suit is decreed with costs against both defendants. The plaintiff is entitled for outstanding amount of term loan account of Rs.1,73,060/- with interest@ 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from date of decree till date of realisation on Rs.1,73,060/- from 2nd defendant being proprietor of D1 proprietary concern.

Further the plaintiff is entitled for outstanding amount of overdraft cash credit of Rs.6,37,342/- with interest@ 14.65% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from date of decree till date of realisation on Rs.6,37,342/-.

Directly typed to dictation to Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the23rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.V.Seshamma

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(SENIOR DIVISION),

GAJUWAKA.

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 16 PCJC (SD)/GWK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendants:-

P.W.1 : M.Anvesh Kumar DW1: R.Venkata Lakshmi

DW2 : G.Rajeswara Rao

Exhibits marked for :-

Plaintiff :- Ex.A.1: Original Loan application for Term Loan dated 28.05.2015. Ex.A.2: Original Term Loan Sanction Memorandum dated 28.05.2015, Ex.A.3: Original Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation dated 29.05.2015. Ex.A.4: Original NF-373 Particulars of Vehicles/ Machinery /Equipment/ Livestock etc., hypothecated by defendants dated 10.06.2015. Ex.A.5: Original Loan application for OCC Loan dated 18.11.2015. Ex.A.6: Original Sanction Memorandum for CC limit dated 18.11.2015. Ex.A.7: Original request letter for Overdraft facilities dated 18.11.2015. Ex.A.8: Original Pronote executed by the 1st defendant firm dated 18.11.2015. Ex.A.9: Original Cash Credit Agreement for Rs.5,00,000/-dated 18.11.2015. Ex.A.10: Original recall Notice issued by the plaintiff Bank dated 05.10.2016 Ex.A11 : Statement of loan account No.2991768000035 for the period from 29.01.2015 to 07.04.2018 of M/s. Sri Venkatalakshmi Electricals Ex.A12: Statement of loan account No.2991261000029 for the period from 18.11.2015 to 07.04.2018 of M/s. Sri Venkatalakshmi Electricals Ex.A13 : Savings Bank Account opening form with KYC documents dated 06.06.2024. Ex.A14 : Account opening for Current account with KYC documents for the proprietorship concerned. Ex.A15 : Letter requesting for loan from the defendants dated 21.05.2015. Ex.A16 : Cheque No.251200 and the payslip in the loan account No.299126100029 Ex.A17 : Recall notice issued by the plaintiff with the Acknowledgment letter dated 05.10.2016. Ex.A18 : Request letter from the defendant for time to repay the loan amount dated 02.02.2017.

O.S.No.217 OF 2018 / 23.04.2026 17 PCJC (SD)/GWK

Ex.A19 : Request letter from the defendant for time to repay the loan amount dated 12.09.2018. Ex.A20 : Statement of account of SB A/c.No.2991101002716 with Bankers Certificate. Ex.A21 : Statement of account of A/c.No.2991201000118 with Bankers Certificate. Defendants : Nil

Sd/-M.V.Seshamma

PCJ (SD)/GWK.

O.S.No.22 OF 2021 / 27.04.2026 1 PCJC (SD)/GWK

APVS0B0003632021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

AT GAJUWAKA

Present:- Smt. M. Venkata Seshamma,

Principal Civil Judge,

(Senior Division),

Gajuwaka.

Monday, the 27 th day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.22/2021

Between :

Sivati Kondamma, W/o.Late Nooka Raju aged 57 years, employee in NSTL residing at D.No.32-9, Jaggayyapalem, Sheelanagar, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam.

… Plaintiff

And :

Taketi Pentayya, S/o.Late Appanna, aged 61 years, residing at D.No.20- 7-126, Retired Steel plant employee, Seethanagaram, Pedagantyada RHC, Visakhapatnam -53, … Defendant

This suit came before me for hearing on today i.e., 27.04.2026 in the presence of Smt. M.Pavani, learned advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale

dated 3-10-2016 directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed

in her favour for plaint schedule property after receiving balance sale

O.S.No.22 OF 2021 / 27.04.2026 2 PCJC (SD)/GWK

consideration, and on failure prays the Hon’ble Court to execute the same on behalf of defendant in favour of the plaintiff, or in alternative to direct the defendant to refund advance sale consideration of Rs. 34,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of agreement of sale and for damages and costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, which is Ground floor and first floor RCC slabbed house at Pedagantyada village, and offered her to sell the same for Rs.35,00,000/- and she agreed for the same, and on receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.34,00,000/- by way of cash from plaintiff, defendant executed sale agreement on 03.10.2016 acknowleding the said payment and also agreed to obtain permission from concerned authorities and to get the same measured for registrations purpose, and defendant agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff or her order, and that though the plaintiff expressed her readiness to pay balance of sale consideration of

Rs.1,00,000/- and to register the sale deed as per terms and conditions of agreement, but he postponed the same on some pretext or other, but plaintiff came to know that he is trying to sell away the plaint schedule property to 3rd parties at higher prices by hiding the sale agreement, so she issued legal notice dated 23.06.2021 for execution of sale deed as per sale agreement under Registered post with acknowledgment requesting to attend him at Registrar office at Peda Gantyada on 05.07.2021 to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and to register sale deed in her favour, which was received by defendant, but kept quiet and that on 05.07.2021 the plaintiff went to the Sub Registrar office at Pedagantyada and waited upto 5 p.m. but defendant was not present for registration of the sale deed, hence, he filed Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 03.10.2016 directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in her favour for plaint

O.S.No.22 OF 2021 / 27.04.2026 3 PCJC (SD)/GWK

schedule property after receiving balance sale consideration and on failure the Hon’ble Court to execute the same on behalf of the defendant or alternatively directing the defendant to pay Rs. 34,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date agreement sale and for damages and costs of the suit.

03.The defendant was set exparte as he did not attend before the Court nor make any representation inspite of due service of summons on him.

04.The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.

A1 to A3 and reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintiff evidence is closed.

05.Heard plaintiff counsel.

06.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of Contract basing on agreement of sale dt.03.10.2016

or in alternative for refund of advance amount of

Rs.34,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per

annum, for damages and costs as prayed for ?”

Point

07.The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs

A1 to A3. P.W.1 in her evidence affidavit reiterated the plaint contents and plaintiff’s contentions that the defendant offered her to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.35,00,000/- and plaintiff agreed for the same and paid advance sale consideration of Rs.34,00,000/-in cash to defendant, and then he executed sale agreement/Ex.A3 on 03.10.2016, and that though plaintiff is always ready to perform her part of contract by paying remaining sale consideration but he sought for time, and finally plaintiff demanded him to register the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, so plaintiff issued legal notice dated 23.06.2021/Ex.A1 for execution of sale deed as per sale agreement,and

O.S.No.22 OF 2021 / 27.04.2026 4 PCJC (SD)/GWK

the defendant received the same as per acknowledgment under Ex.A2, but kept quiet and in compliance of her demand, the plaintiff on 05.07.2021 went to the Sub Registrar office at Pedagantyada and waited upto 5 p.m., but defendant was not present for registration of the sale deed, hence, she is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale

dated 03.10.2016 directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed

in her favour for plaint schedule property after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and on failure the Hon’ble Court to execute the same on behalf of the defendant or alternatively directing the defendant to pay Rs. 34,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date agreement sale and for damages and costs of the suit.

08.At the stage of marking of suit document i.e. Agreement of Sale dt.03.10.2016, which is unregistered and executed on 100/- rupees adhesive stamp paper, and as defendant remained exparte, as such objection is raised by Hon’ble Court with regard to stamp duty on the said document. The learned plaintiff counsel submitted that as possession of the plaint schedule property was not delivered to plaintiff under Agreement of Sale dated 03.10.2016 though paid substantive sale consideration of Rs.34,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of

Rs.35,00,000/-, hence stamp duty of Rs.100/- is suffice, and further relied on Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Vayyaeti Srinivasa Rao

Vs. Gaineedi Jagajyothi (2026 (0) Supreme (SC) 59, if possession was not delivered then agreement of sale executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper is admissible as evidence. Perused the Judgment relied by the plaintiff counsel, and as possession was not delivered to plaintiff under

Agreement of Sale dated 03.10.2016, ratio in that Judgment is applicable to the present case, hence proceeded with marking of unregistered agreement of sale dated 03.10.2016 as Ex.A3. Thus the marked

O.S.No.22 OF 2021 / 27.04.2026 5 PCJC (SD)/GWK

Unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 03.10.2016/Ex.A3 supports the case of plaintiff.

09.As defendant remained exparte, thus the oral evidence of

PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A3 remained unchallenged. Though the plaintiff prayed for damages but no evidence adduced nor any documents were marked in support of prayer for damages nor quantified them with any substantive evidence. Hence, this

Court concludes that the plaintiff could establish her case, as such she is entitled for decree for specific performance of contract basing on sale agreement dated 03.10.2016 against the defendant as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is partly answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In result, the Suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant, directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff for the plaint schedule property in terms of sale agreement dated 03.10.2016 after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the plaintiff, within 3 months from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the registered sale deed under due process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.V.Seshamma

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(SENIOR DIVISION),

GAJUWAKA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendant:-

P.W.1 : S.Kondamma None

O.S.No.22 OF 2021 / 27.04.2026 6 PCJC (SD)/GWK

Exhibits marked for :-

Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Office copy of Registered legal notice dt.23.06.2021

Ex.A2 : Postal receipt dt. 28.06.2021

Ex.A3: Unregistered agreement of sale dt. 03.10.2016 executed in favour of plaintiff by defendant

Defendant :

NIL

Sd/-M.V.Seshamma

PCJ (SD)/GWK.