1 O.S. NO. 1642011
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.
PRESENT : SRI M.K.V.ACHARI, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR
F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.
THURSDAY, THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2018.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.164/2011
Between:
K. Abdul JaleelS/o Late Khaja Hussain Sab, aged about 56 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, Maddiletivandla veedhi, R/o Maddikera village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Plaintiff
and
M. GopalS/o M.Naganna, aged about 45 years, Hindu, ExServiceman, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Cinema Talkies Road, r/o Maddikera village and
Mandal....Defendant.
This suit is filed seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant and his men not to put up any new door way towards western side wall of defendant house, which is marked as “door” and windows towards western wall of his house which is marked as “EFGH” in plaint plan and for the costs of the suit.
Plaint filed on 14122011 and filed on 14122011. JV of Rs.5,000/ and
CF of Rs.411/ is paid thereon U/S 26 (c) of APCF and SV Act,1956.
This suit is coming before me on 2672018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P.Yella Reddy,
Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court doth order and decree as follows :
i) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and ii) that each party do bear their own costs;
Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 2nd day of August, 2018.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALUR.
F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PATTIKONDA.
Page 1 2 O.S. NO. 1642011
SCHEDULE
House and Open site bearing Door No.13/34 within limits of
Maddikera Gramapanchayat,Main Door facing towards Eastern side within
the Subdistrict Registration of Pattikonda and within District Registration
of Kurnool, with the following particulars
MEASUREMENTS : House : East – West : 3 yards, NothSouth: 5 yards, Open site (infront of house): EastWest :4 yards, NorthSouth: 5 yards.
Boundaries (House and Open site) :
East : Rastha (RRR Rasta)
West: Houseof K.Khaja Hussain Sab (at present K.Abdul Kalam)
North:Hayrick yard of Maddileti Pervalaiah,
South: Houseof Narala Ramanna.
MEMO OF COSTS
Particulars For Plaintiff For defendant
Vakalath 2-00 2-00
Stamp on plaint 411-00-
Stamp on process 150-00-
Advocate Fee 3,000-003,000-00
Typing charges 50-00 50-00
Advocate-Commissioner fee1,500-00-
Total 5,113-00 3,052-00 *NB: Plaint plan is annexed to this decree.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALUR.
F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PATTIKONDA.
Page 2 3 O.S. NO. 1642011
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.
PRESENT : SRI M.K.V.ACHARI, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR
F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.
THURSDAY, THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2018.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.164/2011
Between:
K. Abdul Jaleel… Plaintiff
and
M. Gopal...Defendant.
This suit is coming before me on 2672018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P.Yella Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :
:: JUDGMENT ::
1.The suit is filed seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant and his men not to put up any new door way towards western side wall of defendant house, which is marked as “door” and windows towards western wall of his house which is marked as “EFGH” in plaint plan and for the costs of the suit.
2.The plaintiff submits that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule house open site bearing Door No.13/34 which is shown as “ABCD” in plaint plan which is situated in Maddikera village of Maddikera Mandal. The plaintiff’s mother purchased the plaint schedule house and open site infront of the said house under registered sale deed from one Medum Nettekantaiah S/o Anjinaiah.
Since the date of purchase, plaintiff’s mother is in possession and enjoyment, having title over the plaint schedule house and plaintiff got the plaint schedule house and open site in oral partition between his family members.
Page 3 4 O.S. NO. 1642011
3.The plaintiff submits that there is a rasta infront of the plaint schedule house towards eastern side and the said rasta is being used by the plaintiff for ingress and egress to reach main road from his house. The said rasta is marked as “RRR” in the plaint plan. It is also submitted that vendor of the plaintiff’s mother also used RRR rasta until its disposal.
4.The defendant started construction of new house in the place of old house after demolishing existing old house and the old house main door is facing towards the Eastern side only. The proposed construction house of defendant is shown as EFG in the plaint plan. There is no door way and windows towards western side of the old house of the defendant. The said proposed construction is going in Door No.13/62. The defendant obtained permission from Gram
Panchayat, Maddikera on 1612010 vide proceedings BLR No.28/0910 with approved plan. It is also submitted that defendant trying to put door way towards western side of his house without any right, which is not proved in the plan and plaintiff was given a complaint on 2282010 to Gram Panchayat, Maddikera, the illegal and highhanded act of defendant stating that defendant trying to put a new door way towards western side and prayed to stop act of the defendant.
5.The plaintiff submitted that the Secretary of Maddikera Gram
Panchayat in a notice dated 2482010 to defendant not to put up a door way towards western side. Then, the defendant stopped the entire construction without giving any reply and again on 7122010, the Secretary of Maddikera
Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the defendant directing defendant not to put up new door way on western side. The resolution also passed by the Gram
Panchayat, Maddikera on the written objection of the plaintiff and villagers vide resolution No.26 dated 3132011. Finally, defendant stopped construction and again on 10112011, the defendant was trying to put up a new door way towards
Page 4 5 O.S. NO. 1642011 western side without permission. Then, the plaintiff gave representation to the
Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Maddikera on 10112011 along with resolution. The defendant completed the side walls upto roof level. At about 9 a.m., on 10122011, the plaintiff averted raising of wooden frame to the door towards western side wall of the defendant with the help of village elders and neighbouring house owners. The plaintiff submits that if defendant opens new door way on western side wall,there is imminent danger and irreparable loss may be caused to ingress and egress of the plaintiff as easementary right to pass through RRR rasta. If the defendant further constructs the house and completes it,the purpose of suit will be defeated. Hence, he is constrained to file the suit.
6.The defendant filed written statement stating that suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and admitted that plaintiff is absolute owner of open site bearing Door No.13/14, which is shown as ABCD in the plaint plan and also admitted the purchase of said property by mother of the plaintiff from one Medam Nettekantaiah under registered sale deed and also admitted that there is rasta infront of house of the said house on Eastern side, which is shown as
RRR Rasta. Further, he also admitted that he started construction of new house in the place of old house by demolishing old house and said old house is having main door facing towards eastern side and also on Western side and also admitted that proposed construction of his house shown as EFGH in plaint plan and also admitted that he obtained permission from Gram Pancahyat, Maddikera on 612010 for construction of the house and also further admitted that he is trying to put door way on western side of his house and further admitted that he completed the construction upto roof level.
7.The defendant further submitted that the house shown as EFGH originally belongs to one Malleshappa S/o Nagappa and Nettekantaiah S/o
Page 5 6 O.S. NO. 1642011
Malleshappa of Maddikera village and they sold the said property to Pathuri
Maddikerappa S/o Lingappa on 951974 under registered sale deed. The defendant’s mother by name Gangamma purchased the said house under registered sale deed on 1631984 and from the date of purchase, defendant and his family is in possession and enjoyment of the same and he intends to construct new house after demolishing old house and for that he put an application to Gram
Panchayat, Maddikera and obtained permission for construction of new house as per plan dated 1612010. The said plan was approved by the Gram Panchayat.
He paid fee for the said purpose.
8.The defendant submits that plaintiff filed an application before Gram
Panchayat for cancellation of the permission, which was obtained by him for construction of house and he obtained renewal of the permission for the construction of house by paying Rs.465/ and the Gram Panchayat without any legal right, issued notice not to open door way towards western side, on 17102011. The Gram Panchayat with political influence of plaintiff, issued notice to him. The defendant submitted that defendant’s brother is ward member against the Governing body and the President of Gram Panchayat is having political enemity with the defendant’s family. He further submitted that RRR
Rasta which is shown in plaint plan is public rasta to go to busstand and main road. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, RRR is main road and every citizen has right to use public road and defendant is using said rasta prior to obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and the defendant’s house is abutting to public street towards East and the Public street is running North to South and defendant’s house is situated towards Eastern side of the public street. He has right to ingress and egress all along in the public passage and he also contended that he is also having door on the western side of his house and using whenever it
Page 6 7 O.S. NO. 1642011 is necessary. He also contended that he is having two sons and he intends to put up western side door and Gram Panchayat had no right to order defendant not to put up door on western side. It is further contended that house of defendant is situated towards South East and plaintiff’s house is situated Northwest of the defendant’s house and he did not encroach public street and no loss will be caused to plaintiff if he opens doorway on western side and pray to dismiss the suit.
9.During trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got examined one Boya Ramudu and G.Nagaraju as PW.2 and PW.3 on his behalf and got exhibited documents A.1 to A.17 on his behalf. The defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and got examined one Ramanjineyulu as DW.2 and exhibited documents Ex.B.1 to B.6 on his behalf.
10.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also defendant.
Perused record, including written arguments filed on both sides..
11.Now, the points for determination are :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction directing the defendant not to put up any new door and windows towards western side of defendant’s house which is shown as “EFGH” in plaint plan ?
2) To what relief ?
12.The plaintiff shown the plaint schedule property as Door No.13/34 which is the house and open site belongs to plaintiff. Defendant house is in the same locality of the plaintiff by having Door No.13/62. As seen from the plaint plan, the house of the plaintiff is not located in the four boundaries of the defendant’s house. In order to establish that the house i.e, plaint schedule property belongs to plaintiff, the plaintiff got marked Ex.A.1 which is original sale
Page 7 8 O.S. NO. 1642011 deed in favour of the plaintiff’s mother, who is Sherifabee, executed on 1771973 by one Medum Nettekantaiah S/o Anjinaiah and defendant’s house bearing Door
No.13/62 stands in the name of defendant’s mother by name Gangamma, who purchased said property under registered sale deed from one Pathuri
Maddikerappa. The title of the plaint schedule property and the title of the house
Door No.13/62 is no way in controversy and titles were not denied by both parties. It is clear that they are having clear titles over the plaint schedule property and house bearing Door No.13/62.
13.On going through the evidence of PW.1 as well as written statement of defendant, it is clear that plaint plan filed by the plaintiff is no way in dispute and it is very important piece of evidence, which is marked as Ex.A.12 for the purpose of case. PW.1 in his crossexamination admitted that distance between his house and defendant’s house is 25 feet and there is public rasta on the Eastern side of the house of the plaintiff, which is shown as RRR Rasta. The plaintiff also admitted that the said rasta used for travelling, going to bus stand, for going to bank, which is used by the public in general and on perusal of Ex.A.12, it is clear that the plaintiff’s house is not present within four boundaries of the house of the defendant.
14.The plaintiff contends that house of the defendant bearing Door
No.13/62 is facing towards East and main door is also towards East. It is used by the defendant for ingress and egress. The said fact is admitted by the defendant and defendant who was examined as DW.1 also admitted that in the recital of
Ex.B.1, i.e., registered sale deed, which stands in the name of mother of the defendant shows that main door of the house bearing door No.13/62 is towards
Eastern side and there is no doubt from the admission of the defendant that the old house was demolished and he intends to construct new house in the place of
Page 8 9 O.S. NO. 1642011 existing old house. The house of the defendant is shown as EFGH in the plaint plan.
15.The documents relating to the house of the plaintiff is Ex.A.1 and
Ex.A.11, except these two documents, Ex.A.2 to A.6 and Ex.A.13 does not relate to plaint schedule property. Ex.A.2 is the permission obtained by the defendant from the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Maddikera on 1612010, which is attested copy and Ex.A.3 is written complaint given by the plaintiff informing
Gram Panchayat Executive Officer that defendant intends to raise doorway on the
Western side and Ex.A.4 and A.5 are notices of Secretary of Gram Panchayat addressing to the defendant not to raise any structure on the western side i.e., door way. Ex.A.6 is the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat that defendant should not raise any door way or window on the western side wall of the newly constructed house of the defendant. Ex.A.13 is also notice issued by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat on the issue of raising wall by the defendant. The defendant relied on Ex.B.2, which is original copy of Ex.A.2 i.e., proceedings of the
Panchayat Secretary along with plan for construction of the house of defendant, which was issued on 1612010. Ex.B.3 and B.4 are receipts which were issued by
Gram Panchayat for the purpose of construction of new house and Ex.B.5 is reply notice given by defendant to Gram Panchayat office and notice received by him.
16.The plaintiff also examined one Boya Ramudu and G.Nagaraju, who are the neighbouring owners of the house of the defendant, who were examined as PW.2 and PW.3. The house of the plaintiff is situated towards North of defendant and house of Nagaraju is South of the defendant’s house. Their evidence shows that there is no doorway for the defendant on the western side of the house of the defendant. PW.2 admitted that PW.2 is having western door way to his house and PW.2 also admitted that one Thikkanna who is further South to
Page 9 10 O.S. NO. 1642011 the house of PW.3 is also having western door and it is clear from the evidence of crossexamination of PW.2 that the house of plaintiff is 40 feet away from the house of defendant and there exists a rasta which is about over 10 feet. During crossexamination of PW.3, who is resident and neighbouring house owner, who resides to the South of defendant’s house and it is elicited during the cross examination that house of the defendant is in the height of 18 feet from the rasta on the western side and width of RRR rasta which is on the western side is about 10 to 12 feet.
17.Other than the defendant, defendant also examined DW.2, who is
K.Ramanjneyulu, who gave evidence that RRR rasta is used for reaching bank,
Main Road and Gram Panchayat office and the said rasta is being used by public and it is not a private rasta. He admitted that the house of defendant is having door way on Eastern side and also admitted that PW.2 and PW.3 is also having houses one either side of the house of defendant and also admitted that prior to construction of house of defendant, there exists door way on East and the defendant got permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction of the house and he admitted that there is door way and window on the western side and it was obstructed by the villagers. It is clear from the evidence which was adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant that defendant has raised door and window on the western side and in this case, AdvocateCommissioner by name K.
Narasimhaiah, Advocate was also appointed for noting down topographical features of the locality as shown in the plaint plan, the house of the defendant and house of plaintiffand RRR rasta with the help of Mandal Surveyor and to submit a report by obtaining work memos. The report submitted by the Advocate commissioner is part and parcel of the record and the report is useful to reach just and reasonable conclusion as per the existing features of the dispute in question.
Page 10 11 O.S. NO. 1642011
According to the report submitted by the AdvocateCommissioner along with rough sketch shows that house of PW.2 is existing towards North of the defendant’s house and house of PW.3 is towards South and he also shown that defendant’s house is having door way on the Eastern side and as well as western side and window on the western side wall, which is shown as EFGH and the house of the plaintiff is shown as ABCD by D.No.13/36 which is away from the house of defendant. The house of the plaintiff is not in the four boundaries of the defendant, wherein the AdvocateCommissioner identified the house door
Number of the plaintiff and defendant and RRR Rasta and house of neighbouring land owners of the plaintiff as well as defendant as per the work memos given by the plaintiff and defendant counsels.
18.The plaintiff got marked Ex.A.14 to Ex.A.16 original photos along with CD. The said documents reflects western side of the house of the defendant showing the raised construction of the defendant and the same is reflected in the photograph which was submitted by the Advocatecommissioner. In the cross examination of the AdvocateCommissioner, he stated that there is no problem to the plaintiff or any public to travel on RRR Rasta with the doors and windows open on the Western side of the defendant’s house. It is also elicited in the cross examination of PW.4 that the street plan is available with the Executive Officer.
19.DW.1,who examined subsequently to give street plan showing rasta existing on the western side of the house of the defendant and the house of the plaintiff is far away from the defendant’s house.
20.Both the counsels of the plaintiff and defendant filed written arguments and counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that actual plan which was obtained from the Panchayat Secretary is reflected in Ex.A.2. The said plan only shows the door way on Eastern side and not on Western side and he contended
Page 11 12 O.S. NO. 1642011 that Ex.B.2 is modified showing the existing doorway and the window on the
Western side, wherein, the counsel for the defendant contended that the said document was not denied by the Gram Panchayat Secretary, for which he intended to construct house in the place of demolished old house and also contended that the plaintiff is no way related to the claimed relief of permanent injunction either by way of easementary right or he can seek his relief of permanent injunction that the suit schedule property is no way connected to the suit, which only reflects house of the plaintiff alone.
21.At the outset, on going through the oral evidence of both parties as well as written arguments and on going through the documents filed by the plaintiff and defendant and the Advocate Commissioner report, it is clear that defendant has applied for plans to the Gram Panchayat Secretary, Gram
Panchayat, Maddikera on 1612010 and the said plan reflects door way and existing window on the Western side wall and abutting to the western side wall, there is RRR rasta,which is public way used by PW.2, PW.3 and others as public way. A person can claim relief of injunction when he is in possession and enjoyment of the land in his possession, but here in the present case, defendant is no way related to the suit schedule property and the pleadings of the plaint shows that it was filed in the interest of plaintiff himself from constructing door way on the Western side by the defendant, wherein Gram Pachayat Secretary is not a party to the proceedings. The plaintiff himself stepped into shoes of the
Secretary and states that defendant violated proceedings issued by the Secretary,
Gram Panchayat, Maddikera on 1612010, which is the cause of action for filing the suit, which shows that there is no cause of action in the suit to proceed with.
Page 12 13 O.S. NO. 1642011
22.The defendant counsel filed citation in a case between Sataraboyina
Someswara Rao and others vs Sanggasetti Tirupathamma and others reported in
AIR 1988(2) APLJ 469, wherein it is held as under in para 2 :
“The trial court observes that the purchase under Ex.A.4 is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The appellate Court however, observes that the owners of the passage purchased under Ex.A.4 may obstruct the plaintiffs from using the same. Be that as it may, the appellate court also finds that the space left out in the suit public pathway after erection of sheds by the defendants is sufficient to serve the needs of the plaintiffs. However, the appellate court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court granted both the injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs on the ground that they are entitled to use every inch of the public pathway from one and to the other, relying upon the decision in Buchamma vs Venkateswara Rao AIR 1969 AP p136.”
It is also further held as under in para 10:
“No doubt the law is well settled that the owner of a land abutting a public street o a public way has every right to use the pathway for ingress and aggress all along the line of contact between his land and the public pathway.”
23.The learned counsel for the defendant also relied upon a decision in a case The Hubli Dharwad Municipal
Corporation vs Dr.W.O.Airan (deceased) by LRs. reported in 1998 (2) CCC 45 (Kar.), wherein it is held as follows in para 9 :
“The right of owner of a land to have access to the public highway from every point on the boundary of the land. Such a right is enforcible notwithstanding the fact that some open space available between the offending construction and the private citizen who owns the land and such offending construction would constitute a continuing wrong affective the right of access to the highway, which is also a right under the provisions of the Easement Act. In fact, at the alleged point of time the Bombay High Court in Gajana vs Asst.Collector of Salse held thus: “By reason of the government acquiring a part of frontage of the land belonging to the claimant, the land behind the plot acquired would by reason of such acquisition be injuriously affected.”
Page 13 14 O.S. NO. 1642011
23.The learned counsel for the defendant also relied upon a decision reported in 1969 AIR 136 A.P. in case between Movva Buchamma vs Movva
Venkateswara Rao, wherein it is held as follows in para 11:
“It will be observed that it was a case of a joint lane owned by both the plaintiff and the defendant and there no question of any obstruction to public pathway. The question really related to the mode of common enjoyment of joint private property and the fact that the defendant could continue to exercise his right of passage over such property without hindrance was taken into consideration in refusing the relief of mandatory injunction.”
24.By submitting these citations, the Counsel for defendant argued that the plaintiff can not question his right of using public rasta from his house on western side.
25.As discussed above, the plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction restraining defendant from constructing the door way or window on the western side wall in his own site, wherein, defendant relies on Ex.B.2, which is proceedings passed by the Panchayat Secretary and it was not denied any way by the Gram Panchayat. Hence, the suit is dismissed without costs.
26.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me
in the Open Court, this the 2nd day of August, 2018.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALUR
F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PATTIKONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW.1 : K. Abdul JaleelDW.1: M. Gopal. PW.2 : Boya RamuduDW.2: K. Ramanjineyulu PW.3 : G.Nagaraju PW.4 : K. Narasimhaiah, AdvocateCommissioner.
Page 14 15 O.S. NO. 1642011
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF :
Ex.A.1 : Original Registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff’s mother
dated 1771973
Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of permission granted by Executive Officer of Grama Panchayat, Maddikera vide proceedings with plan dated 1612010 Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of dated 21122011 written complaint dated 21122011 by plaintiff with villagers to Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Maddikera
dated 2282010
Ex.A.4 : Attested copy dated 21122011 Notice given by Secretary, Grama Panchayat, Maddikera to defendant dated 2482010 Ex.A.5 : Attested copy dated 21122011 Notice given by Secretary,Grama Panchayat, Maddikera to defendant dated 7122010 Ex.A.6 :True copy of resolution passed by Grama Panchayat, Maddikera dated 3132011 Ex.A.7 :Colour photograph Ex.A.8 : Colour photograph Ex.A.9 : Colour photograph Ex.A.10: Colour photograph Ex.A.11: Original House tax receipt Ex.A.12: Original plaint plan Ex.A.13: Attested copy dated 28122011 Notice given by Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Maddikera to defendant dated 5122011 Ex.A.14 : Original photograph Ex.A.15 : Original photograph Ex.A.16: Original photograph Ex.A.17 : Compact Disck relating to Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.10
FOR COMMISSIONER : Ex.C.1: Commissioner warrant Ex.C.2 : Copy of notice to both sides counsels Ex.C.3 : Notice to Tahsildar along with postal receipt Ex.C.4 : Second notice to both side counsels Ex.C.5 : Second notice to Tahsildar,Maddikera Ex.C.6 : Work Memo of plaintiff Ex.C.7 : Work Memo of defendant Ex.C.8 : Rough plan Ex.C.9 : Commissioner report Ex.C.10: Photograph Ex.C.11: Photograph Ex.C.12: Photograph Ex.C.13: Photograph Ex.C.14: Photograph
Page 15 16 O.S. NO. 1642011
Ex.C.15: Photograph Ex.C.16: Photograph Ex.C.17: Photograph Ex.C.18: Photograph Ex.C.19: Photograph Ex.C.20: Photograph Ex.C.21: Photograph Ex.C.22: Photograph Ex.C.23: Photograph Ex.C.24: Photograph Ex.C.25: Photograph Ex.C.26: Photograph Ex.C.27: Photograph Ex.C.28: Photograph Ex.C.29: Photograph Ex.C.30: Photograph Ex.C.31: Photograph Ex.C.32: Compact disc of photographs
FOR DEFENDANT : Ex.B.1 : Registered sale deed dated 1631984 Ex.B.2 :Proceedings of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Maddikera dated 1612010 Ex.B.3 : Receipt for Rs.930/ issued by Gram Panchayat, Maddikera
dated 1612010
Ex.B.4 : Receipt for Rs.465/ issued by Gram Panchayat, Maddikera,
dated 18112011
Ex.B.5 : Reply notice issued by defendant to Gram Panchayat, Maddikera
dated 5122011.
Ex.B.6 : Street Survey plan for Street No.93 of Gram Panchayat, Maddikera.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALUR
F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PATTIKONDA.
Page 16