Mohammed Rahamtulla

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Present : Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla Junior Civil Judge Vayalpad.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of November, 2018

O.S.No.112 of 2011

Between :

D.Ramalakshmi, wife of T.Suryanarayana, aged about 57 years, Hindu, employee, now residing at D.No.1/7/114/9, Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.…. PLAINTIFF And :

T.Varalakshmi, wife of T.Narasaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Land lady, residing at D.No.1/369, Ram Nagar Colony, Vayalpad town and post, Vaylapad mandal, Chittoor District.…. DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 24.09.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Siva Sankar Reddy and Sri V.Reddeppa, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and of Sri J.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1).This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to declare the right of plaintiff to have right of privacy and grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and

Ventilator fixed unlawfully which is causing obstruction to the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. The plaintiff purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property from its rightful owner

T.Krishnaiah for valid consideration of Rs.1,85,000/- on 21.06.2007 under a registered sale deed with specific measurements and boundaries. The defendant is also one of the attestor in the said sale deed. The plaint ‘A’ schedule property consisting of old house on southern side and there is vacant place in front of the said old house in which bathroom and lavatory 2 are situated which is shown in the rough sketch. The plaintiff wants to renovate the old house on southern side in the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and she wants to construct house in the vacant site in front of the old house shown in rough sketch.

(a). The plaintiff further averred that the defendants house is situated on Dayyalabanda which is in highly elevated place. Previously there was a kottam in plaint ‘B’ schedule property. About 2 years back in the absence of plaintiff the defendant high handedly constructed wall shown as ‘A’, ‘B’ in the rough sketch on western side shown in green colour i.e., 3 windows and one ventilator. The defendant demolished the kottam in plaint ‘B’ schedule property and constructed a wall shown as ‘A’ , ‘B’ in a plaint rough sketch i.e., plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the Eastern side of plaint schedule property in which there were windows. Further, the entrance to the defendant’s house i.e., plaint ‘B’ schedule property is on northern side.

There is open space and varanda through which also the defendant is getting sufficient air and light to the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. She is also getting Air and Light from North-East corner also. So, the defendant is not entitled to put windows on plaint ‘C’ schedule property. But she erected the windows on Plaint ‘C’ schedule property due to which there is no privacy to the plaintiff and her family members. All the movements of the inmates of the plaintiff’s house can be seen from the alleged windows and ventilator. So, the privacy of the plaintiff and her family members is being curtailed. Rainy water of plaint ‘B’ schedule property will fall in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Further, the defendant is getting air and light and she is not entitled to fix the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property.

Further, if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilator she should have left the place of two feet on western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property. But the defendant 3 without leaving any place she constructed wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule property and fixed three windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property highhandedly for which she is not entitled. The defendant is getting Air and light on northern side also as there is a coconut tree and flower plants in the coridor of defendants house i.e., Plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

(b).The Plaintiff further averred that the she came to vayalpad about one year back and on seeing the windows on the western side of the wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule properties, she astonished and questioned the defendants about her high handed and illegal acts about putting of windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property and the plaintiff wants to construct house in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. On that the defendant requested time for removing the windows and ventilator as she is not entitled to put windows on western side i.e., in plaint ‘C’ schedule property. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff to remove the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property the defendant is evading and postponing the same on some pretext or the other for removal of the same. The plaintiff came to vayalpad in September, 2010 for the death anniversary of her father in law and questioned the defendant why she has not removed the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’Schedule property for that the defendant told the plaintiff that she will not remove the windows and ventilator in ‘C’ schedule properrty. Further, the defendant and her brother Chandra Sekhar were taking panchayat water illegally without tap connection and the panchayat authorities detected the same and dis-connected the pipes and the defendant suspected that the plaintiff complained to panchayat authorities about taking of the water illegally and the defendant bore grudge against the plaintiff. The defendant abused the plaintiff in filthy language and the plaintiff felt ashame.

4

(c). The plaintiff wants to construct a house in the vacant site in plaint ‘A’ schedule property and if the said windows and ventilator are in existence there is no privacy to plaintiff due to the situation of windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. So, the plaintiff is unable to construct a house in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff wants to come to Vayalpad and settle here and to reside in plaint ‘A’ schedule property peacefully. The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 with false and untenable allegations alleging that due to fixing of windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property the plaintiff will not sustain any loss. The plaintiff gave reply notice to the defendant with true and correct facts on 27.09.2010. Hence, the suit.

3). The defendant filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and interalia contended that the rough sketch filed by the plaintiff is imaginary one and no sancity will be given to the said rough sketch. She admitted that the plaintiff purchased ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the ‘A’ schedule property from the father of the defendant and father-in-law of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dt. 21.06.2007 for a valid consideration of

Rs.1,85,000/- and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. She also admitted that she is one of the attestors in the said sale deed. She also admitted that plaint ‘A’ schedule property consists of an old house on southern side and there is a vacant place in front of the said old house in which bathroom and lavoratory are situated. The plainitff has put to strict proof of the allegation that she wants to renovate the old house on southern side in the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and she wants to construct house in the vacant site in front of the old house shown in rough sketch. There is no truth in the allegation that the defendant house is situated on Dayyalabanda which is highly elevated place, previously there was Kottam in the plaint ‘B’ Schedule property and about 2 years back in 5 the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant highhandedly constructed a wall shown as ‘A’ ‘B’ in the rough sketch on western side and erected 3 windows and one ventilator and demolished the Kottam in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and constructed a wall shown as AB in the plaint sketch i.e., plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The said allegations are invented only for the purpose of filing of the present suit.

a). It is also false to state that this defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property in which there were windows. This defendant submitted that except on western side there are no windows either on east, south, or on northern side. The defendant getting sufficient air and light to her house only through the windows existed on the western side of her house. The defendant is not getting air and light from North-East corner also. The defendant never getting any air and light from any corner as alleged by the plaintiff except through the windows and ventilator existing on western side. The defendant denied that about two years back in the absence of plaintiff the defendant high handedly constructed a wall on the western side and put up 3 windows and one ventilator. The said windows and ventilator were constructed at the time of construction of her house, but not about two years back as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff is none other than the brother’s wife of the defendant. The defendant is getting light and air since more than 15 years and the said fact is well known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property after knowing the said fact and the plaintiff requested this defendant to sell away the property belongs to her for which the defendant refused. The windows and ventilator are in existence even at the time of purchase of the said property by the plaintiff from the father of the defendant. The plaintiff had suppressed the said fact and contended with false allegations.

6

(b). The defendants constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. But not about two years back as alleged by the plaintiff. The very document filed by the plaintiff clearly reveals the said fact. Even by the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff the house of this defendant is in existence. There is no truth or substance in the allegations that this defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the eastern side of plaint schedule property in which there were windows. It is also false that there is open space and varanda through which also this defendant is getting sufficient air and light to plaint ‘B’ schedule property. There is no open space as alleged by the plaintiff. The allegation that this defendant is not entitled to erect windows on plaint ‘C’ schedule property highhandedly due to which there is no privacy to the plaintiff and her family members and that all movements of inmates of plaintiff’s house can be seen from the alleged windows and ventilator. The said windows and ventilators are fixed in the height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look through the said windows. There is not truth and substance in the allegation that if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilators she should have left the place of two feet on the western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant had constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators after leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the defendant had constructed the same within her place and this defendant also having right and title of the place of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to question the same. There is no truth or substance in the allegation that if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilators she should have left the place of two feet on the western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant had constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators after leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the defendant had constructed 7 the same within her place and this defendant also having right and title of the place of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to question the same. There is no truth or substance in the allegation that this defendant without leaving any place she constructed wall in plaint ‘C’

Schedule property and fixing ‘3’ windows and ventilator in plaint schedule property high handedly.

(c). The plaintiff regularly visiting Vayalpad and she is having knowledge about the activities in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

As the windows and ventilators are fixed about 15 years back and she constructed the wall and windows and ventilators are within the land by leaving 1 1/2 feet and thus the question of this defendant requested time and agreed to remove the same does not arise. The plaintiff filed the present suit only to knock away the plaint schedule propperty with false allegations. This defendant after construction of the said house applied for tap connection and obtained service connection to her house and she is also paying house tax and water tax to the panchayat. The allegation that this defendant and her brother Chandra Sekhar were taking panchayat water illegally without any tap connection and panchayat authorities disconnected the tap connection is false. The defendant never abused the plaintiff in filthy language at any point of time. Moreover, the plaintiff whenever come to vayalpad, pick up quarrel with this defendant and her brother without any valid reasons. The defendant never agreed to remove the said windows at any point of time as there is no other way to pass air and light in her house. The plaintiff is having sufficient space in the plaint schedule property and only to harass this defendant the plaintiff falsely contending that there is no privacy to her due to the windows and ventilators in the plaint ‘C’ Schedule property.

(d). The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 and after receipt of legal notice issued by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the 8 present suit. The plaintiff has no right to seek the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of 3 windows and ventilators. The defendant was granted house site patta by the Government for an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in the year 1999 and there after she constructed the said house by fixing windows and ventilators and that she perfected her right, title and possession with absolute rights and even by adverse possession also. The plaintiff have no manner of right, title or interest over the property of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of mandatory injunction. Further, the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4). Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5).A perusal of docket the issues framed as if the suit is for

Permanent Injunction. Hence, the above issues are recasted as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right of privacy as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and ventilator fixed unlawfully obstructing the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., Plaint ‘A’ schedule property?

3. To what relief?

6). When this court asked both the counsel whether they have any further evidence they stated that they have no further evidence.

7).Issue No.1 and 2:-

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. She purchased the same on 21.06.2007 from her father in law T.Krishnaiah under a sale deed with specific measurements and boundaries. The Plaint ‘B’ schedule house property belongs to the 9 defendant who is the sister of the husband of plaintiff. In the year 2009, in the absence of plaintiff, the defendant constructed a wall shown as ‘A’, ‘B’ in the rough sketch. The entrance for the defendants house is on northern side and she is getting Air and Light from North- East corner. The defendant fixed three windows and one ventilator on ‘A’ ‘B’ wall and she is not entitled to put windows on the said wall shown as ‘C’ schedule property.

The movements of the inmates of the house of the plaintiff can be seen from the windows and ventilator fixed by the defendant on plaint ‘C’ schedule property. So, the privacy of the plaintiff is curtailed. The defendant has to left two feet of space on western side of her house. But, the defendant high handedly constructed wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule property by erecting windows and ventilator. Further, the rain water from plaint ‘B’ schedule house falls on Plaint ‘A’ schedule property. In the year 2009, the plaintiff visited Vayalpad and on seeing the windows and ventilator she questioned the defendant about the same and the defendant requested time for removing the windows and ventilator. On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that the windows and ventilators were fixed at the time of construction of her house i.e., about 15 years back. The plaintiff purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property by knowing the said fact.

The defendant constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides.

Even on the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the house of the defendant was in existence. Further, the windows and ventilators are fixed at a height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look to the said windows. She constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators within her place and she is also having right and title of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. The plaintiff has no right to question the same.

The defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 with true and correct facts and after the receipt of the said legal notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit with false allegations. Further, the defendant 10 contended that the Government had granted house site patta to the defendant of an extent of Ac.0.2 cents in HS.No. 116/1390 in the year 1989 and thereafter she had constructed her house by fixing windows and ventilators and that she perfected her right, title and possession with absolute rights even by adverse posession.

8). To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW 1 by filing her Chief Affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint.

During the cross-examination she stated that she purchased ‘A’ schedule property under Ex.A1 in three parts. But she do not remember measurements of the above 3 parts mentioned in Ex.A1 sale deed. It was suggested to her that Ex.A1 document consists of only two parts but she denied the same. A perusal of Ex.A1 Document filed by the plaintiff it shows that the plaint schedule property consists of only two parts.

Therefore, the plaintiff has no knowledge about her own property whether she purchased in three parts or in two parts under Ex.A1. She denied the suggestion that before her purchase of plaint schedule property there was a house belongs to the defendant on eastern side. She voluntarily stated that on Eastern side of the schedule property there was a kottam (house).

It was suggested to her that the defendant constructed her house about 12 years prior to her purchase of plaint schedule property and she denied the same. She pleaded ignorance whether the Government had issued a patta in favour of the defendant to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in HS patta

No.116/1390 in the year 1989. She denied the suggestion that the defendant constructed her house in the above said two cents in or about 1991 or 1992 with a loan obtained from the Government. She admitted that the defendant got issued legal notice to her, on 17.09.2010 by stating that she constructed her house by leaving 1 1/2 feet towards west and southern side of her house. She denied the suggestion that she fixed gate on the northern side by leaving 1 1/2 feet belongs to the defendant.

11 9). In support of her case, she got examined PW 2 Nagirimadugu

Mohan who is the tenant of the plaintiff and he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he supported the case of the plaintiff.

During the cross-examination, he admitted that since 5 years he has been residing in the plaintiff’s house. He denied the suggestion that there is a distance of more than 20 feet between his portion and the defendants house, windows and ventilators and that there is no inconvenience to him and the plaintiff. He admitted that before taking the house of the plaintiff on rent by him, the defendant constructed her house.

10). In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant herself examined as DW 1 by filing her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments mentioned in her written statement. During her cross-examination she admitted that plaint ‘A’ schedule consists of old house and on the south of the said house vacant site is situated and in the said vacant site there is a

Bath room and Lavatory situated and it belongs to the plaintiff. She admitted that prior to the construction of her house there was a kottam.

Her house is situated at some upper gradient. She admitted that there is a wall on the western side of her house. There are three windows and one ventilator to her house on the western side. She admitted that her house also consisting of windows on Eastern side and southern side. The

Government had issued to her for an extent of two kuntas and she constructed her house by leaving two feet site on all sides of her house.

She admitted that the vacant site of the plaintiff, ‘A’ schedule is visible from the windows erected to the western side house wall. She denied the suggestion that the rain water from her house will fell in the vacant site in the ‘A’ schedule property of the plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that she did not construct her house by leaving two feet site on all rider and she constructed her house in her entire site. She denied the suggestion that she got mentioned in her written statement that she had left 1 1/2 feet site on western side. During the further course of cross-examination DW 1 12 stated that the plaintiff is residing at Hyderabad and she used to come to

Vayalpad once in two or three months. She denied the suggestion that she constructed her house in the year 2004. She further denied that even though PW 1 objected for construction of her house in the year 2009 pertaining to western side wall they high handedly constructed the same.

She denied the suggestion that in the month of September, 2010 she got fixed the windows and ventilator and the western side of her house highhandedly. She admitted that as per plaint sketch, the Yellow portion i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property belongs to plaintiff, plaint ‘B’ schedule property belongs to her and ‘C’ schedule property is western side wall of her house in which 3 windows and one ventilator were fixed with sunshades.

11). In support of the case of the defendant, she got examined DW 2 M.Munirathnam who is neighbour of the defendant. DW 2 filed her Chief

Affidavit in lieu of her chief examination. She stated that she is neighbour of the defendant and her house is situated towards southern side of the suit schedule property. The defendant had constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides about 15 years back. Even on the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the house of the defendant was in existence. The said windows and ventilators are fixed at a height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look through the said windows.

During her cross-examination she stated that she does not know the measurements of plaint ‘A’ schedule property pertaining to the plaintiff.

She admitted that the defendant fixed sunshades and two windows at a length of 3 feet on the western side. She admitted that the sun shades are projected towards the house of the plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property.

She voluntarily stated that the defendant erected the windows after leaving 2 1/2 feet. She does not know the measurements of plaint ‘B’ schedule property pertaining to the defendant on all sides. Her house is situated at 13

Gurramkonda – Vayalpad road on the next street of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. She admitted that the defendant constructed the plaint ‘B’ schedule property in the year 2010 by removing the thatched hut.

12). The defendant further got examined DW 3 G.Sreenivasulu who is another neighbour of the defendant. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He stated in the same lines of DW 2. During his cross- examination he stated that his house is situated in the next street of the plaint schedule property. He do not know the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and the measurements of the defendant’s house, on the western side of the house of the defendant there are 3 windows and one ventilator. It is true that the house of the plaintiff is visible from the windows erected to the house of the defendant. The defendant had constructed a kottam. He denied the suggestion that the defendant constructed a house in the year 2010 in the place of said kottam. He stated that the defendant started construction of her house in the year 2000 and completed in the year 2004. He do not know whether the defendant constructed her house by leaving 1 1/2 feet on the western side of her house.

13). From the evidence of plaintiff side and defendant side it is clear that on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property the house of the defendant is situated and on the western side wall of the defendant 3 windows and a ventilator are fixed by her. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property in two parts from the father-in-law of the plaintiff, and who is the father of the defendant. The defendant is the attestor of the Ex.A1 document. The main dispute in this case is that the defendant fixed three windows and a ventiltor in the year 2009 in the absence of the plaintiff, because of fixing of the above said windows and ventilator the privacy of the plainitff is curtailed. As per the plaint, the measurements first plot of ‘A’ schedule are as follows, East-West on northern side 26 feet. East – West on southern side 21 feet. North -South 14 on Eastern side 40 feet. North – South on western side 28 feet. Second plot

East to West 29 feet. North – South 36 feet. There is no dispute with regard to the second plot of plaint schedule property. The main dispute is that the defendant constructed ‘C’ schedule wall by fixing of 3 windows and one ventilator.

14). In this case at the instance of the plaintiff an advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the plaint schedule properties and to note down the existing physical features of Petitioner ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and shall note down the existing structures sunshades etc., on the petition ‘C’ schedule property and he shall note down and specifically shows the structures that are existing in the petition ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The learned Advocate Commissioner visited the plaint schedule property and filed his report along with sketch and photos.

The advocate commissioner was got examined by the plaintiff as PW 3.

PW 3 testified that he was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner in this case to visit the plaint schedule property for local inspection with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. On 19.09.2015 he visited the suit schedule locality by issuing notices to both parties. At the time of his inspection the

Mandal Surveyor, Vayalpad both parties and both the counsel were present.

Initially he filed interim report as Mandal Surveyor was not available. Later, he filed the final report with sketch. His report was marked as Ex.C1 and sketch was marked as Ex.C2. During his further chief examination Ex.C3 photos ‘7’ in number and Ex.C4 ‘CD’ were marked. During his cross- examination he admitted that the measurements of ‘A’ schedule are not tallied with the plaint schedule. He mentioned the same fact in his report.

‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are having different boundaries. ‘A’ schedule boundaries are talied with the warrant schedule. He denied the suggestion that there is 1 1/2 feet gap between compound wall of the defendant and the gate of the plaintiff. A perusal of the report of the

Advocate Commissioner, the boundaries of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied 15 but the measurements of the ‘A’ schedule first plot are not talied. The main dispute in this case is the windows and ventilator fixed to the wall on the western side of plaint ‘B’ schedule property which is situated on the

Eastern side of ‘A’ schedule property. As per the measurements of plaint ‘A’ schedule of first plot East-West on northern side 26 feet and East – west on southern side 21 feet. But after measuring the warrant ‘A’ schedule with the help of Mandal Surveyor he found the measurements of ‘A’ schedule on

East to West on northern side is 28.6 feet and East to West on southern side 15.8 feet, North to South measurements of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied. He further stated in his report that second plot of Warrant ‘A’ schedule East – West was talied. But, North – South it was mentioned as 36 feet, but it was found 45.4 feet. The other measurements of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied. From the report of PW 3 Advocate Commissioner there is an excess extent of 2.6 feet on East to west on northern side found and

East to west on southern side it was found 15.08 feet. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant encroached their land. It is the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant opened windows on the western side of the wall of her house which is causing in convenience for her privacy. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the defendant constructed her house in the year, 2009. the measurements on ground are not tallying with theb oundaries in the plaint. On the other hand, the documents filed by defendants i.e., Ex.B1 to B3 House tax receipts, Electricity Bills shows that she constructed her house in the year 2006. Further, the defendant’s case is that she left 1 1/2 feet on all sides, but the plaintiff denies the same.

When the plaintiff denies the same she has to prove that she did not left 1 1/2 feet site on western side of her house by aducing cogent evidence. The plaintiff has to depend on her own case.But not on the weakness of the case on the other side. Further, there is no explanation from the plaintiff about excess extent on northern side East to West of 2.6 feet. Further, rough sketch filed by the plaintiff is not showing any encroachemnt of the 16 plaintiffs land by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant opened the windows and ventilator into her site. Further, the contention of the plaintiff is that in the year 2009, the defendant constructed her house and fixed the windows and ventilators on the western side of the wall of her house. But she has not take any action against the defendant immediately and she also did not got issue any legal notice to the defendant for not fixing the windows and ventilators. Further,

DW 1 in her cross-examination stated that she constructed her house by leaving two feet site on all sides of her house. During the cross-examination of DW 1, it was suggested to her that she constructed a house in the year 2004. This suggestion also shows that the defendant constructed her house even prior to 2004 and when the defendant constructed her house in the year 2004 why the plaintiff had not taken any steps against the defendant by issuing legal notice and by filing the suit in the year 2004, for which there is no answer from the plaintiff. Further, it is pertinent to note that the defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over her property. Then, the plaintiff got issued reply notice and filed the present suit. Further, as per the case of the plaintiff in the year 2009 when she visited Vayalpad and on seeing the putting of windows on western side wall she questioned the defendant. But she had not issued any legal notice to the defendant by demanding her to remove the said windows and ventilators. Further, as per the Ex.C3 photos,

Ex.C2 Sketch, no house of plaintiff situated on the exact East or on the west of defendant’s house. The house of plaintiff situated on the southern side of vacant site of ‘A’ Plaint schedule property.

15).Further, as per Ex.C3 photos, it appears that the house of the plaintiff is situated on the southern side of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property only but not situated on the western side of plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

Therefore, the infringment of the right of privacy of the plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both 17 sides, the plaintiff failed to prove her case that the defendant fixed the windows and ventilator on the western side of the wall and causing obstruction to her right of privacy. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plainitff. From the aforegoing discussion this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

16). Issue No.3:-

In the result, the suit is dismissed. But under the circumstances without costs.

Partly typed to my dicattion and partly dictated to my Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22 nd day of November, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

PlaintiffsDefendant

P.W.1D.RamalakshmiD.W.1T.Vara Lakshmi

P.W.2N.MohanD.W.2M.Munirathnamma

P.W.3N.Ramprasad ReddyD.W.3G.Sreenivasulu

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiffs

Ex.A-1-Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by T.Krishnaiah in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to Plaint A schedule property. Ex.A-2-House tax receipt. Ex.A-3-Electricity bills pertaining to Plaint A schedule property bearing HSC No.4520. Ex.A-4-Receipt issued by APSPDC limited for Rs.1225-00 for obtaining electricity connection. Ex.A-5-Receipt issued by Grampanchayat, Vayalpad for water charges. Ex.A-6-Office copy of legal notice dt. 17.09.2010. Ex.A-7-Reply notice dt. 27.09.2010 18

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendant

Ex.B-1House Tax receipts standing in the name of defendant issued by Grampanchayat, Valmikipuram (4 in number). Ex.B-2Electricity bills issued by AP Transco, Valmikipuram for the house standing in the name of Defendant in ASC No.1183 (7 in number) Ex.B-3Electricity receipts issued by AP Trans Co., Valmikipuram for the house standing in the name of Defendant in ASC No.1183 (10 in number).

Exhibits marked by Commissioner

Ex.C1:- Report Ex.C2:- Sketch Ex.C3:- 7 Positive photographs pertaining to the schedule property snapped by PW 3 at the time of visite of the plaint schedule property. Ex.C4:- Correspondence CD of Ex.C3.

JCJ., VPD.,

Fair Judgment in

O.S.NO. 112 OF

2011

Dt. 22-11-2018

Part - I

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

Present: Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla

Junior Civil Judge,

Vayalpad.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of November, 2018

O.S.No. 112 of 2011

Between :

D.Ramalakshmi, wife of T.Suryanarayana, aged about 57 years, Hindu, employee, now residing at D.No.1/7/114/9, Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.….PLAINTIFF And :

T.Varalakshmi, wife of T.Narasaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Land lady, residing at D.No.1/369, Ram Nagar Colony, Vayalpad town and post, Vaylapad mandal, Chittoor District.

…. DEFENDANT

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to declare the right of plaintiff to have right of privacy and grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and Ventilator fixed unlawfully which is causing obstruction to the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 29-04-2011

Plaint filed on : 29-04-2011

Particulars of Valuation: The value of Plaint C schedule property is Rs.6,878-00 For the purpose of declaration half of the Market value of the plaint ‘C’ Schedule property is Rs.3,439-00 For the purpose of mandatory injunction the notional value of the plaint C Schedule property is Rs.5000/-

A court fee of Rs.298-50 under section 24 (b) of APCF Act and A court fee of

Rs.411-00 is paid U/Sec. 26 (c) of APCF Act. Total court fee is of Rs.709-50 is paid.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Ramnagar Colony, Vayalpad town, Chittoor District, where the plaint schedule property is situated, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal in the presence of

Sri. K.Siva Sankar Reddy and Sri V.Reddeppa, Advocate for Plaintiff and

Sri J.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs.

2. that the plaintiffs do bear Rs.1,811/- and defendants do bear Rs.1,102/- being the institutional costs of the suit (cost memo not filed) their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 22 nd day of November, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District, vayalpad Mandal , Property situated at Vayalpad Grampanchayath pertaining to 1st ward Koneti Street, Near C.A.Mahal Adjacent to Tarigonda to Vayalpad road at Ramnagar Colony bearing old D.No.1-20-16-33, New Door No.1/370, Assessment No.49 Bandalamidde and vacant site shown in Yellow colour Ist Plot Bounded on East: Houses of Chandra Sekhar and Varalakshmi West: Vacant site of Sreepathy. North: Rajaveedhi. South: House of Kashmun i.e., Sister of Munaf. In between the above boundaries East to West on northern side 26 feet. East to West on southern side 21 feet. North to South on eastern side 40 feet. North to south on western side 28 feet. Total 799 sq.feet or 88.77 Sq.yards. IInd plot East to West 29 feet North to south 36 feet Total 1044 square feet and also house constructed bandalumidde in it East to West 29 feet, North to South 9 3/4 feet total 282 3/4 sq.feet Bandalumidde with doors, door frames, walls on four sides paikappu poora, Penkulumidde on northern side to penkulu midde. East to West 29 feet, North to South 8 1/2 feet, Total 246 1/2 sq feet, Penkula Vasara Poora. Total extents of plots 1 and 2, 204.77 sq. Yards.

B SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District, Vayalpad Grampanchayath, Vayalpad town, post and Mandal, House property situated at Ramnagar Colony, bearing D.No.1/369. Bounded on: East: Vacant site of T.Chandrasekhar.

West Plaint A schedule property. North:Road South: House of T.Chandra Sekhar.

C SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District Vayalpad Grampanchayath, vayalpad town post and Mandal, property situate at vayalpad Grampanchayath pertaining to 1st ward koneti street near C.A.Mahal adjacent to Tarigonda to Vayalpad road at Ramnagar Colony, Situated in between A and B Schedule properties which is shown in Yellow colour in wall which runs north to south 33 feet length and width of the wall is 14 inches in which three windows and one ventilator was fixed by defendant highhandedly which is shown in green colour in plaint rough sketch. North to south 33 feet length.

East to West 14 inches width wall with three windows and one ventilator and fixed sunshades and the three sunshades are in the plaint A schedule property. Bounded on:

East:Plaint B schedule property. West: Plaint A schedule property. North: Plaint A schedule property. South: House of Chandra Sekhar.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.NParticularsPlaintiffsFor

Cost memo not filed hence

o.Defendants

institutional cost is certified

cost memo

U/s. 155 CRPC

not filed.

1VakalatRs. 2-00Rs. 2-00

2Pleaders feeRs. 1,000-00Rs.1000/-

3Plaint feeRs. 709-00

4Type chargesRs. 100-00Rs.100/-

5Process----

TotalRs.1,811-00Rs.1,102/-

JCJ.,

Vayalpad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Present : Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla Junior Civil Judge Vayalpad.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of November, 2018

O.S.No.112 of 2011

Between :

D.Ramalakshmi, wife of T.Suryanarayana, aged about 57 years, Hindu, employee, now residing at D.No.1/7/114/9, Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.…. PLAINTIFF And :

T.Varalakshmi, wife of T.Narasaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Land lady, residing at D.No.1/369, Ram Nagar Colony, Vayalpad town and post, Vaylapad mandal, Chittoor District.…. DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 24.09.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Siva Sankar Reddy and Sri V.Reddeppa, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and of Sri J.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1).This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to declare the right of plaintiff to have right of privacy and grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and

Ventilator fixed unlawfully which is causing obstruction to the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. The plaintiff purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property from its rightful owner

T.Krishnaiah for valid consideration of Rs.1,85,000/- on 21.06.2007 under a registered sale deed with specific measurements and boundaries. The defendant is also one of the attestor in the said sale deed. The plaint ‘A’ schedule property consisting of old house on southern side and there is vacant place in front of the said old house in which bathroom and lavatory 2 are situated which is shown in the rough sketch. The plaintiff wants to renovate the old house on southern side in the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and she wants to construct house in the vacant site in front of the old house shown in rough sketch.

(a). The plaintiff further averred that the defendants house is situated on Dayyalabanda which is in highly elevated place. Previously there was a kottam in plaint ‘B’ schedule property. About 2 years back in the absence of plaintiff the defendant high handedly constructed wall shown as ‘A’, ‘B’ in the rough sketch on western side shown in green colour i.e., 3 windows and one ventilator. The defendant demolished the kottam in plaint ‘B’ schedule property and constructed a wall shown as ‘A’ , ‘B’ in a plaint rough sketch i.e., plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the Eastern side of plaint schedule property in which there were windows. Further, the entrance to the defendant’s house i.e., plaint ‘B’ schedule property is on northern side.

There is open space and varanda through which also the defendant is getting sufficient air and light to the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. She is also getting Air and Light from North-East corner also. So, the defendant is not entitled to put windows on plaint ‘C’ schedule property. But she erected the windows on Plaint ‘C’ schedule property due to which there is no privacy to the plaintiff and her family members. All the movements of the inmates of the plaintiff’s house can be seen from the alleged windows and ventilator. So, the privacy of the plaintiff and her family members is being curtailed. Rainy water of plaint ‘B’ schedule property will fall in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Further, the defendant is getting air and light and she is not entitled to fix the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property.

Further, if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilator she should have left the place of two feet on western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property. But the defendant 3 without leaving any place she constructed wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule property and fixed three windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property highhandedly for which she is not entitled. The defendant is getting Air and light on northern side also as there is a coconut tree and flower plants in the coridor of defendants house i.e., Plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

(b).The Plaintiff further averred that the she came to vayalpad about one year back and on seeing the windows on the western side of the wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule properties, she astonished and questioned the defendants about her high handed and illegal acts about putting of windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property and the plaintiff wants to construct house in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. On that the defendant requested time for removing the windows and ventilator as she is not entitled to put windows on western side i.e., in plaint ‘C’ schedule property. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff to remove the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property the defendant is evading and postponing the same on some pretext or the other for removal of the same. The plaintiff came to vayalpad in September, 2010 for the death anniversary of her father in law and questioned the defendant why she has not removed the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’Schedule property for that the defendant told the plaintiff that she will not remove the windows and ventilator in ‘C’ schedule properrty. Further, the defendant and her brother Chandra Sekhar were taking panchayat water illegally without tap connection and the panchayat authorities detected the same and dis-connected the pipes and the defendant suspected that the plaintiff complained to panchayat authorities about taking of the water illegally and the defendant bore grudge against the plaintiff. The defendant abused the plaintiff in filthy language and the plaintiff felt ashame.

4

(c). The plaintiff wants to construct a house in the vacant site in plaint ‘A’ schedule property and if the said windows and ventilator are in existence there is no privacy to plaintiff due to the situation of windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. So, the plaintiff is unable to construct a house in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff wants to come to Vayalpad and settle here and to reside in plaint ‘A’ schedule property peacefully. The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 with false and untenable allegations alleging that due to fixing of windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property the plaintiff will not sustain any loss. The plaintiff gave reply notice to the defendant with true and correct facts on 27.09.2010. Hence, the suit.

3). The defendant filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and interalia contended that the rough sketch filed by the plaintiff is imaginary one and no sancity will be given to the said rough sketch. She admitted that the plaintiff purchased ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the ‘A’ schedule property from the father of the defendant and father-in-law of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dt. 21.06.2007 for a valid consideration of

Rs.1,85,000/- and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. She also admitted that she is one of the attestors in the said sale deed. She also admitted that plaint ‘A’ schedule property consists of an old house on southern side and there is a vacant place in front of the said old house in which bathroom and lavoratory are situated. The plainitff has put to strict proof of the allegation that she wants to renovate the old house on southern side in the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and she wants to construct house in the vacant site in front of the old house shown in rough sketch. There is no truth in the allegation that the defendant house is situated on Dayyalabanda which is highly elevated place, previously there was Kottam in the plaint ‘B’ Schedule property and about 2 years back in 5 the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant highhandedly constructed a wall shown as ‘A’ ‘B’ in the rough sketch on western side and erected 3 windows and one ventilator and demolished the Kottam in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and constructed a wall shown as AB in the plaint sketch i.e., plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The said allegations are invented only for the purpose of filing of the present suit.

a). It is also false to state that this defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property in which there were windows. This defendant submitted that except on western side there are no windows either on east, south, or on northern side. The defendant getting sufficient air and light to her house only through the windows existed on the western side of her house. The defendant is not getting air and light from North-East corner also. The defendant never getting any air and light from any corner as alleged by the plaintiff except through the windows and ventilator existing on western side. The defendant denied that about two years back in the absence of plaintiff the defendant high handedly constructed a wall on the western side and put up 3 windows and one ventilator. The said windows and ventilator were constructed at the time of construction of her house, but not about two years back as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff is none other than the brother’s wife of the defendant. The defendant is getting light and air since more than 15 years and the said fact is well known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property after knowing the said fact and the plaintiff requested this defendant to sell away the property belongs to her for which the defendant refused. The windows and ventilator are in existence even at the time of purchase of the said property by the plaintiff from the father of the defendant. The plaintiff had suppressed the said fact and contended with false allegations.

6

(b). The defendants constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. But not about two years back as alleged by the plaintiff. The very document filed by the plaintiff clearly reveals the said fact. Even by the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff the house of this defendant is in existence. There is no truth or substance in the allegations that this defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the eastern side of plaint schedule property in which there were windows. It is also false that there is open space and varanda through which also this defendant is getting sufficient air and light to plaint ‘B’ schedule property. There is no open space as alleged by the plaintiff. The allegation that this defendant is not entitled to erect windows on plaint ‘C’ schedule property highhandedly due to which there is no privacy to the plaintiff and her family members and that all movements of inmates of plaintiff’s house can be seen from the alleged windows and ventilator. The said windows and ventilators are fixed in the height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look through the said windows. There is not truth and substance in the allegation that if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilators she should have left the place of two feet on the western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant had constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators after leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the defendant had constructed the same within her place and this defendant also having right and title of the place of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to question the same. There is no truth or substance in the allegation that if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilators she should have left the place of two feet on the western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant had constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators after leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the defendant had constructed 7 the same within her place and this defendant also having right and title of the place of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to question the same. There is no truth or substance in the allegation that this defendant without leaving any place she constructed wall in plaint ‘C’

Schedule property and fixing ‘3’ windows and ventilator in plaint schedule property high handedly.

(c). The plaintiff regularly visiting Vayalpad and she is having knowledge about the activities in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

As the windows and ventilators are fixed about 15 years back and she constructed the wall and windows and ventilators are within the land by leaving 1 1/2 feet and thus the question of this defendant requested time and agreed to remove the same does not arise. The plaintiff filed the present suit only to knock away the plaint schedule propperty with false allegations. This defendant after construction of the said house applied for tap connection and obtained service connection to her house and she is also paying house tax and water tax to the panchayat. The allegation that this defendant and her brother Chandra Sekhar were taking panchayat water illegally without any tap connection and panchayat authorities disconnected the tap connection is false. The defendant never abused the plaintiff in filthy language at any point of time. Moreover, the plaintiff whenever come to vayalpad, pick up quarrel with this defendant and her brother without any valid reasons. The defendant never agreed to remove the said windows at any point of time as there is no other way to pass air and light in her house. The plaintiff is having sufficient space in the plaint schedule property and only to harass this defendant the plaintiff falsely contending that there is no privacy to her due to the windows and ventilators in the plaint ‘C’ Schedule property.

(d). The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 and after receipt of legal notice issued by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the 8 present suit. The plaintiff has no right to seek the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of 3 windows and ventilators. The defendant was granted house site patta by the Government for an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in the year 1999 and there after she constructed the said house by fixing windows and ventilators and that she perfected her right, title and possession with absolute rights and even by adverse possession also. The plaintiff have no manner of right, title or interest over the property of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of mandatory injunction. Further, the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4). Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5).A perusal of docket the issues framed as if the suit is for

Permanent Injunction. Hence, the above issues are recasted as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right of privacy as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and ventilator fixed unlawfully obstructing the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., Plaint ‘A’ schedule property?

3. To what relief?

6). When this court asked both the counsel whether they have any further evidence they stated that they have no further evidence.

7).Issue No.1 and 2:-

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. She purchased the same on 21.06.2007 from her father in law T.Krishnaiah under a sale deed with specific measurements and boundaries. The Plaint ‘B’ schedule house property belongs to the 9 defendant who is the sister of the husband of plaintiff. In the year 2009, in the absence of plaintiff, the defendant constructed a wall shown as ‘A’, ‘B’ in the rough sketch. The entrance for the defendants house is on northern side and she is getting Air and Light from North- East corner. The defendant fixed three windows and one ventilator on ‘A’ ‘B’ wall and she is not entitled to put windows on the said wall shown as ‘C’ schedule property.

The movements of the inmates of the house of the plaintiff can be seen from the windows and ventilator fixed by the defendant on plaint ‘C’ schedule property. So, the privacy of the plaintiff is curtailed. The defendant has to left two feet of space on western side of her house. But, the defendant high handedly constructed wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule property by erecting windows and ventilator. Further, the rain water from plaint ‘B’ schedule house falls on Plaint ‘A’ schedule property. In the year 2009, the plaintiff visited Vayalpad and on seeing the windows and ventilator she questioned the defendant about the same and the defendant requested time for removing the windows and ventilator. On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that the windows and ventilators were fixed at the time of construction of her house i.e., about 15 years back. The plaintiff purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property by knowing the said fact.

The defendant constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides.

Even on the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the house of the defendant was in existence. Further, the windows and ventilators are fixed at a height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look to the said windows. She constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators within her place and she is also having right and title of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. The plaintiff has no right to question the same.

The defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 with true and correct facts and after the receipt of the said legal notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit with false allegations. Further, the defendant 10 contended that the Government had granted house site patta to the defendant of an extent of Ac.0.2 cents in HS.No. 116/1390 in the year 1989 and thereafter she had constructed her house by fixing windows and ventilators and that she perfected her right, title and possession with absolute rights even by adverse posession.

8). To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW 1 by filing her Chief Affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint.

During the cross-examination she stated that she purchased ‘A’ schedule property under Ex.A1 in three parts. But she do not remember measurements of the above 3 parts mentioned in Ex.A1 sale deed. It was suggested to her that Ex.A1 document consists of only two parts but she denied the same. A perusal of Ex.A1 Document filed by the plaintiff it shows that the plaint schedule property consists of only two parts.

Therefore, the plaintiff has no knowledge about her own property whether she purchased in three parts or in two parts under Ex.A1. She denied the suggestion that before her purchase of plaint schedule property there was a house belongs to the defendant on eastern side. She voluntarily stated that on Eastern side of the schedule property there was a kottam (house).

It was suggested to her that the defendant constructed her house about 12 years prior to her purchase of plaint schedule property and she denied the same. She pleaded ignorance whether the Government had issued a patta in favour of the defendant to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in HS patta

No.116/1390 in the year 1989. She denied the suggestion that the defendant constructed her house in the above said two cents in or about 1991 or 1992 with a loan obtained from the Government. She admitted that the defendant got issued legal notice to her, on 17.09.2010 by stating that she constructed her house by leaving 1 1/2 feet towards west and southern side of her house. She denied the suggestion that she fixed gate on the northern side by leaving 1 1/2 feet belongs to the defendant.

11 9). In support of her case, she got examined PW 2 Nagirimadugu

Mohan who is the tenant of the plaintiff and he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he supported the case of the plaintiff.

During the cross-examination, he admitted that since 5 years he has been residing in the plaintiff’s house. He denied the suggestion that there is a distance of more than 20 feet between his portion and the defendants house, windows and ventilators and that there is no inconvenience to him and the plaintiff. He admitted that before taking the house of the plaintiff on rent by him, the defendant constructed her house.

10). In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant herself examined as DW 1 by filing her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments mentioned in her written statement. During her cross-examination she admitted that plaint ‘A’ schedule consists of old house and on the south of the said house vacant site is situated and in the said vacant site there is a

Bath room and Lavatory situated and it belongs to the plaintiff. She admitted that prior to the construction of her house there was a kottam.

Her house is situated at some upper gradient. She admitted that there is a wall on the western side of her house. There are three windows and one ventilator to her house on the western side. She admitted that her house also consisting of windows on Eastern side and southern side. The

Government had issued to her for an extent of two kuntas and she constructed her house by leaving two feet site on all sides of her house.

She admitted that the vacant site of the plaintiff, ‘A’ schedule is visible from the windows erected to the western side house wall. She denied the suggestion that the rain water from her house will fell in the vacant site in the ‘A’ schedule property of the plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that she did not construct her house by leaving two feet site on all rider and she constructed her house in her entire site. She denied the suggestion that she got mentioned in her written statement that she had left 1 1/2 feet site on western side. During the further course of cross-examination DW 1 12 stated that the plaintiff is residing at Hyderabad and she used to come to

Vayalpad once in two or three months. She denied the suggestion that she constructed her house in the year 2004. She further denied that even though PW 1 objected for construction of her house in the year 2009 pertaining to western side wall they high handedly constructed the same.

She denied the suggestion that in the month of September, 2010 she got fixed the windows and ventilator and the western side of her house highhandedly. She admitted that as per plaint sketch, the Yellow portion i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property belongs to plaintiff, plaint ‘B’ schedule property belongs to her and ‘C’ schedule property is western side wall of her house in which 3 windows and one ventilator were fixed with sunshades.

11). In support of the case of the defendant, she got examined DW 2 M.Munirathnam who is neighbour of the defendant. DW 2 filed her Chief

Affidavit in lieu of her chief examination. She stated that she is neighbour of the defendant and her house is situated towards southern side of the suit schedule property. The defendant had constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides about 15 years back. Even on the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the house of the defendant was in existence. The said windows and ventilators are fixed at a height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look through the said windows.

During her cross-examination she stated that she does not know the measurements of plaint ‘A’ schedule property pertaining to the plaintiff.

She admitted that the defendant fixed sunshades and two windows at a length of 3 feet on the western side. She admitted that the sun shades are projected towards the house of the plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property.

She voluntarily stated that the defendant erected the windows after leaving 2 1/2 feet. She does not know the measurements of plaint ‘B’ schedule property pertaining to the defendant on all sides. Her house is situated at 13

Gurramkonda – Vayalpad road on the next street of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. She admitted that the defendant constructed the plaint ‘B’ schedule property in the year 2010 by removing the thatched hut.

12). The defendant further got examined DW 3 G.Sreenivasulu who is another neighbour of the defendant. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He stated in the same lines of DW 2. During his cross- examination he stated that his house is situated in the next street of the plaint schedule property. He do not know the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and the measurements of the defendant’s house, on the western side of the house of the defendant there are 3 windows and one ventilator. It is true that the house of the plaintiff is visible from the windows erected to the house of the defendant. The defendant had constructed a kottam. He denied the suggestion that the defendant constructed a house in the year 2010 in the place of said kottam. He stated that the defendant started construction of her house in the year 2000 and completed in the year 2004. He do not know whether the defendant constructed her house by leaving 1 1/2 feet on the western side of her house.

13). From the evidence of plaintiff side and defendant side it is clear that on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property the house of the defendant is situated and on the western side wall of the defendant 3 windows and a ventilator are fixed by her. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property in two parts from the father-in-law of the plaintiff, and who is the father of the defendant. The defendant is the attestor of the Ex.A1 document. The main dispute in this case is that the defendant fixed three windows and a ventiltor in the year 2009 in the absence of the plaintiff, because of fixing of the above said windows and ventilator the privacy of the plainitff is curtailed. As per the plaint, the measurements first plot of ‘A’ schedule are as follows, East-West on northern side 26 feet. East – West on southern side 21 feet. North -South 14 on Eastern side 40 feet. North – South on western side 28 feet. Second plot

East to West 29 feet. North – South 36 feet. There is no dispute with regard to the second plot of plaint schedule property. The main dispute is that the defendant constructed ‘C’ schedule wall by fixing of 3 windows and one ventilator.

14). In this case at the instance of the plaintiff an advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the plaint schedule properties and to note down the existing physical features of Petitioner ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and shall note down the existing structures sunshades etc., on the petition ‘C’ schedule property and he shall note down and specifically shows the structures that are existing in the petition ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The learned Advocate Commissioner visited the plaint schedule property and filed his report along with sketch and photos.

The advocate commissioner was got examined by the plaintiff as PW 3.

PW 3 testified that he was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner in this case to visit the plaint schedule property for local inspection with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. On 19.09.2015 he visited the suit schedule locality by issuing notices to both parties. At the time of his inspection the

Mandal Surveyor, Vayalpad both parties and both the counsel were present.

Initially he filed interim report as Mandal Surveyor was not available. Later, he filed the final report with sketch. His report was marked as Ex.C1 and sketch was marked as Ex.C2. During his further chief examination Ex.C3 photos ‘7’ in number and Ex.C4 ‘CD’ were marked. During his cross- examination he admitted that the measurements of ‘A’ schedule are not tallied with the plaint schedule. He mentioned the same fact in his report.

‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are having different boundaries. ‘A’ schedule boundaries are talied with the warrant schedule. He denied the suggestion that there is 1 1/2 feet gap between compound wall of the defendant and the gate of the plaintiff. A perusal of the report of the

Advocate Commissioner, the boundaries of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied 15 but the measurements of the ‘A’ schedule first plot are not talied. The main dispute in this case is the windows and ventilator fixed to the wall on the western side of plaint ‘B’ schedule property which is situated on the

Eastern side of ‘A’ schedule property. As per the measurements of plaint ‘A’ schedule of first plot East-West on northern side 26 feet and East – west on southern side 21 feet. But after measuring the warrant ‘A’ schedule with the help of Mandal Surveyor he found the measurements of ‘A’ schedule on

East to West on northern side is 28.6 feet and East to West on southern side 15.8 feet, North to South measurements of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied. He further stated in his report that second plot of Warrant ‘A’ schedule East – West was talied. But, North – South it was mentioned as 36 feet, but it was found 45.4 feet. The other measurements of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied. From the report of PW 3 Advocate Commissioner there is an excess extent of 2.6 feet on East to west on northern side found and

East to west on southern side it was found 15.08 feet. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant encroached their land. It is the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant opened windows on the western side of the wall of her house which is causing in convenience for her privacy. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the defendant constructed her house in the year, 2009. the measurements on ground are not tallying with theb oundaries in the plaint. On the other hand, the documents filed by defendants i.e., Ex.B1 to B3 House tax receipts, Electricity Bills shows that she constructed her house in the year 2006. Further, the defendant’s case is that she left 1 1/2 feet on all sides, but the plaintiff denies the same.

When the plaintiff denies the same she has to prove that she did not left 1 1/2 feet site on western side of her house by aducing cogent evidence. The plaintiff has to depend on her own case.But not on the weakness of the case on the other side. Further, there is no explanation from the plaintiff about excess extent on northern side East to West of 2.6 feet. Further, rough sketch filed by the plaintiff is not showing any encroachemnt of the 16 plaintiffs land by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant opened the windows and ventilator into her site. Further, the contention of the plaintiff is that in the year 2009, the defendant constructed her house and fixed the windows and ventilators on the western side of the wall of her house. But she has not take any action against the defendant immediately and she also did not got issue any legal notice to the defendant for not fixing the windows and ventilators. Further,

DW 1 in her cross-examination stated that she constructed her house by leaving two feet site on all sides of her house. During the cross-examination of DW 1, it was suggested to her that she constructed a house in the year 2004. This suggestion also shows that the defendant constructed her house even prior to 2004 and when the defendant constructed her house in the year 2004 why the plaintiff had not taken any steps against the defendant by issuing legal notice and by filing the suit in the year 2004, for which there is no answer from the plaintiff. Further, it is pertinent to note that the defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over her property. Then, the plaintiff got issued reply notice and filed the present suit. Further, as per the case of the plaintiff in the year 2009 when she visited Vayalpad and on seeing the putting of windows on western side wall she questioned the defendant. But she had not issued any legal notice to the defendant by demanding her to remove the said windows and ventilators. Further, as per the Ex.C3 photos,

Ex.C2 Sketch, no house of plaintiff situated on the exact East or on the west of defendant’s house. The house of plaintiff situated on the southern side of vacant site of ‘A’ Plaint schedule property.

15).Further, as per Ex.C3 photos, it appears that the house of the plaintiff is situated on the southern side of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property only but not situated on the western side of plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

Therefore, the infringment of the right of privacy of the plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both 17 sides, the plaintiff failed to prove her case that the defendant fixed the windows and ventilator on the western side of the wall and causing obstruction to her right of privacy. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plainitff. From the aforegoing discussion this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

16). Issue No.3:-

In the result, the suit is dismissed. But under the circumstances without costs.

Partly typed to my dicattion and partly dictated to my Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22 nd day of November, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

PlaintiffsDefendant

P.W.1D.RamalakshmiD.W.1T.Vara Lakshmi

P.W.2N.MohanD.W.2M.Munirathnamma

P.W.3N.Ramprasad ReddyD.W.3G.Sreenivasulu

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiffs

Ex.A-1-Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by T.Krishnaiah in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to Plaint A schedule property. Ex.A-2-House tax receipt. Ex.A-3-Electricity bills pertaining to Plaint A schedule property bearing HSC No.4520. Ex.A-4-Receipt issued by APSPDC limited for Rs.1225-00 for obtaining electricity connection. Ex.A-5-Receipt issued by Grampanchayat, Vayalpad for water charges. Ex.A-6-Office copy of legal notice dt. 17.09.2010. Ex.A-7-Reply notice dt. 27.09.2010 18

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendant

Ex.B-1House Tax receipts standing in the name of defendant issued by Grampanchayat, Valmikipuram (4 in number). Ex.B-2Electricity bills issued by AP Transco, Valmikipuram for the house standing in the name of Defendant in ASC No.1183 (7 in number) Ex.B-3Electricity receipts issued by AP Trans Co., Valmikipuram for the house standing in the name of Defendant in ASC No.1183 (10 in number).

Exhibits marked by Commissioner

Ex.C1:- Report Ex.C2:- Sketch Ex.C3:- 7 Positive photographs pertaining to the schedule property snapped by PW 3 at the time of visite of the plaint schedule property. Ex.C4:- Correspondence CD of Ex.C3.

JCJ., VPD.,

Fair Judgment in

O.S.NO. 112 OF

2011

Dt. 22-11-2018

Part - I

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

Present: Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla

Junior Civil Judge,

Vayalpad.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of November, 2018

O.S.No. 112 of 2011

Between :

D.Ramalakshmi, wife of T.Suryanarayana, aged about 57 years, Hindu, employee, now residing at D.No.1/7/114/9, Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.….PLAINTIFF And :

T.Varalakshmi, wife of T.Narasaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Land lady, residing at D.No.1/369, Ram Nagar Colony, Vayalpad town and post, Vaylapad mandal, Chittoor District.

…. DEFENDANT

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to declare the right of plaintiff to have right of privacy and grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and Ventilator fixed unlawfully which is causing obstruction to the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 29-04-2011

Plaint filed on : 29-04-2011

Particulars of Valuation: The value of Plaint C schedule property is Rs.6,878-00 For the purpose of declaration half of the Market value of the plaint ‘C’ Schedule property is Rs.3,439-00 For the purpose of mandatory injunction the notional value of the plaint C Schedule property is Rs.5000/-

A court fee of Rs.298-50 under section 24 (b) of APCF Act and A court fee of

Rs.411-00 is paid U/Sec. 26 (c) of APCF Act. Total court fee is of Rs.709-50 is paid.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Ramnagar Colony, Vayalpad town, Chittoor District, where the plaint schedule property is situated, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal in the presence of

Sri. K.Siva Sankar Reddy and Sri V.Reddeppa, Advocate for Plaintiff and

Sri J.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs.

2. that the plaintiffs do bear Rs.1,811/- and defendants do bear Rs.1,102/- being the institutional costs of the suit (cost memo not filed) their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 22 nd day of November, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District, vayalpad Mandal , Property situated at Vayalpad Grampanchayath pertaining to 1st ward Koneti Street, Near C.A.Mahal Adjacent to Tarigonda to Vayalpad road at Ramnagar Colony bearing old D.No.1-20-16-33, New Door No.1/370, Assessment No.49 Bandalamidde and vacant site shown in Yellow colour Ist Plot Bounded on East: Houses of Chandra Sekhar and Varalakshmi West: Vacant site of Sreepathy. North: Rajaveedhi. South: House of Kashmun i.e., Sister of Munaf. In between the above boundaries East to West on northern side 26 feet. East to West on southern side 21 feet. North to South on eastern side 40 feet. North to south on western side 28 feet. Total 799 sq.feet or 88.77 Sq.yards. IInd plot East to West 29 feet North to south 36 feet Total 1044 square feet and also house constructed bandalumidde in it East to West 29 feet, North to South 9 3/4 feet total 282 3/4 sq.feet Bandalumidde with doors, door frames, walls on four sides paikappu poora, Penkulumidde on northern side to penkulu midde. East to West 29 feet, North to South 8 1/2 feet, Total 246 1/2 sq feet, Penkula Vasara Poora. Total extents of plots 1 and 2, 204.77 sq. Yards.

B SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District, Vayalpad Grampanchayath, Vayalpad town, post and Mandal, House property situated at Ramnagar Colony, bearing D.No.1/369. Bounded on: East: Vacant site of T.Chandrasekhar.

West Plaint A schedule property. North:Road South: House of T.Chandra Sekhar.

C SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District Vayalpad Grampanchayath, vayalpad town post and Mandal, property situate at vayalpad Grampanchayath pertaining to 1st ward koneti street near C.A.Mahal adjacent to Tarigonda to Vayalpad road at Ramnagar Colony, Situated in between A and B Schedule properties which is shown in Yellow colour in wall which runs north to south 33 feet length and width of the wall is 14 inches in which three windows and one ventilator was fixed by defendant highhandedly which is shown in green colour in plaint rough sketch. North to south 33 feet length.

East to West 14 inches width wall with three windows and one ventilator and fixed sunshades and the three sunshades are in the plaint A schedule property. Bounded on:

East:Plaint B schedule property. West: Plaint A schedule property. North: Plaint A schedule property. South: House of Chandra Sekhar.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.NParticularsPlaintiffsFor

Cost memo not filed hence

o.Defendants

institutional cost is certified

cost memo

U/s. 155 CRPC

not filed.

1VakalatRs. 2-00Rs. 2-00

2Pleaders feeRs. 1,000-00Rs.1000/-

3Plaint feeRs. 709-00

4Type chargesRs. 100-00Rs.100/-

5Process----

TotalRs.1,811-00Rs.1,102/-

JCJ.,

Vayalpad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Present : Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla Junior Civil Judge Vayalpad.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of November, 2018

O.S.No.112 of 2011

Between :

D.Ramalakshmi, wife of T.Suryanarayana, aged about 57 years, Hindu, employee, now residing at D.No.1/7/114/9, Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.…. PLAINTIFF And :

T.Varalakshmi, wife of T.Narasaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Land lady, residing at D.No.1/369, Ram Nagar Colony, Vayalpad town and post, Vaylapad mandal, Chittoor District.…. DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 24.09.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Siva Sankar Reddy and Sri V.Reddeppa, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and of Sri J.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1).This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to declare the right of plaintiff to have right of privacy and grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and

Ventilator fixed unlawfully which is causing obstruction to the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. The plaintiff purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property from its rightful owner

T.Krishnaiah for valid consideration of Rs.1,85,000/- on 21.06.2007 under a registered sale deed with specific measurements and boundaries. The defendant is also one of the attestor in the said sale deed. The plaint ‘A’ schedule property consisting of old house on southern side and there is vacant place in front of the said old house in which bathroom and lavatory 2 are situated which is shown in the rough sketch. The plaintiff wants to renovate the old house on southern side in the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and she wants to construct house in the vacant site in front of the old house shown in rough sketch.

(a). The plaintiff further averred that the defendants house is situated on Dayyalabanda which is in highly elevated place. Previously there was a kottam in plaint ‘B’ schedule property. About 2 years back in the absence of plaintiff the defendant high handedly constructed wall shown as ‘A’, ‘B’ in the rough sketch on western side shown in green colour i.e., 3 windows and one ventilator. The defendant demolished the kottam in plaint ‘B’ schedule property and constructed a wall shown as ‘A’ , ‘B’ in a plaint rough sketch i.e., plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the Eastern side of plaint schedule property in which there were windows. Further, the entrance to the defendant’s house i.e., plaint ‘B’ schedule property is on northern side.

There is open space and varanda through which also the defendant is getting sufficient air and light to the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. She is also getting Air and Light from North-East corner also. So, the defendant is not entitled to put windows on plaint ‘C’ schedule property. But she erected the windows on Plaint ‘C’ schedule property due to which there is no privacy to the plaintiff and her family members. All the movements of the inmates of the plaintiff’s house can be seen from the alleged windows and ventilator. So, the privacy of the plaintiff and her family members is being curtailed. Rainy water of plaint ‘B’ schedule property will fall in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Further, the defendant is getting air and light and she is not entitled to fix the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property.

Further, if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilator she should have left the place of two feet on western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property. But the defendant 3 without leaving any place she constructed wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule property and fixed three windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property highhandedly for which she is not entitled. The defendant is getting Air and light on northern side also as there is a coconut tree and flower plants in the coridor of defendants house i.e., Plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

(b).The Plaintiff further averred that the she came to vayalpad about one year back and on seeing the windows on the western side of the wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule properties, she astonished and questioned the defendants about her high handed and illegal acts about putting of windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property and the plaintiff wants to construct house in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. On that the defendant requested time for removing the windows and ventilator as she is not entitled to put windows on western side i.e., in plaint ‘C’ schedule property. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff to remove the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property the defendant is evading and postponing the same on some pretext or the other for removal of the same. The plaintiff came to vayalpad in September, 2010 for the death anniversary of her father in law and questioned the defendant why she has not removed the windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’Schedule property for that the defendant told the plaintiff that she will not remove the windows and ventilator in ‘C’ schedule properrty. Further, the defendant and her brother Chandra Sekhar were taking panchayat water illegally without tap connection and the panchayat authorities detected the same and dis-connected the pipes and the defendant suspected that the plaintiff complained to panchayat authorities about taking of the water illegally and the defendant bore grudge against the plaintiff. The defendant abused the plaintiff in filthy language and the plaintiff felt ashame.

4

(c). The plaintiff wants to construct a house in the vacant site in plaint ‘A’ schedule property and if the said windows and ventilator are in existence there is no privacy to plaintiff due to the situation of windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. So, the plaintiff is unable to construct a house in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff wants to come to Vayalpad and settle here and to reside in plaint ‘A’ schedule property peacefully. The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 with false and untenable allegations alleging that due to fixing of windows and ventilator in plaint ‘C’ schedule property the plaintiff will not sustain any loss. The plaintiff gave reply notice to the defendant with true and correct facts on 27.09.2010. Hence, the suit.

3). The defendant filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and interalia contended that the rough sketch filed by the plaintiff is imaginary one and no sancity will be given to the said rough sketch. She admitted that the plaintiff purchased ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the ‘A’ schedule property from the father of the defendant and father-in-law of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dt. 21.06.2007 for a valid consideration of

Rs.1,85,000/- and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. She also admitted that she is one of the attestors in the said sale deed. She also admitted that plaint ‘A’ schedule property consists of an old house on southern side and there is a vacant place in front of the said old house in which bathroom and lavoratory are situated. The plainitff has put to strict proof of the allegation that she wants to renovate the old house on southern side in the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and she wants to construct house in the vacant site in front of the old house shown in rough sketch. There is no truth in the allegation that the defendant house is situated on Dayyalabanda which is highly elevated place, previously there was Kottam in the plaint ‘B’ Schedule property and about 2 years back in 5 the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant highhandedly constructed a wall shown as ‘A’ ‘B’ in the rough sketch on western side and erected 3 windows and one ventilator and demolished the Kottam in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and constructed a wall shown as AB in the plaint sketch i.e., plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The said allegations are invented only for the purpose of filing of the present suit.

a). It is also false to state that this defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property in which there were windows. This defendant submitted that except on western side there are no windows either on east, south, or on northern side. The defendant getting sufficient air and light to her house only through the windows existed on the western side of her house. The defendant is not getting air and light from North-East corner also. The defendant never getting any air and light from any corner as alleged by the plaintiff except through the windows and ventilator existing on western side. The defendant denied that about two years back in the absence of plaintiff the defendant high handedly constructed a wall on the western side and put up 3 windows and one ventilator. The said windows and ventilator were constructed at the time of construction of her house, but not about two years back as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff is none other than the brother’s wife of the defendant. The defendant is getting light and air since more than 15 years and the said fact is well known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property after knowing the said fact and the plaintiff requested this defendant to sell away the property belongs to her for which the defendant refused. The windows and ventilator are in existence even at the time of purchase of the said property by the plaintiff from the father of the defendant. The plaintiff had suppressed the said fact and contended with false allegations.

6

(b). The defendants constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. But not about two years back as alleged by the plaintiff. The very document filed by the plaintiff clearly reveals the said fact. Even by the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff the house of this defendant is in existence. There is no truth or substance in the allegations that this defendant is getting sufficient air and light on the eastern side of plaint schedule property in which there were windows. It is also false that there is open space and varanda through which also this defendant is getting sufficient air and light to plaint ‘B’ schedule property. There is no open space as alleged by the plaintiff. The allegation that this defendant is not entitled to erect windows on plaint ‘C’ schedule property highhandedly due to which there is no privacy to the plaintiff and her family members and that all movements of inmates of plaintiff’s house can be seen from the alleged windows and ventilator. The said windows and ventilators are fixed in the height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look through the said windows. There is not truth and substance in the allegation that if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilators she should have left the place of two feet on the western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant had constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators after leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the defendant had constructed the same within her place and this defendant also having right and title of the place of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to question the same. There is no truth or substance in the allegation that if the defendant wants to fix windows and ventilators she should have left the place of two feet on the western side and should have fixed windows and ventilator in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendant had constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators after leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the defendant had constructed 7 the same within her place and this defendant also having right and title of the place of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to question the same. There is no truth or substance in the allegation that this defendant without leaving any place she constructed wall in plaint ‘C’

Schedule property and fixing ‘3’ windows and ventilator in plaint schedule property high handedly.

(c). The plaintiff regularly visiting Vayalpad and she is having knowledge about the activities in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

As the windows and ventilators are fixed about 15 years back and she constructed the wall and windows and ventilators are within the land by leaving 1 1/2 feet and thus the question of this defendant requested time and agreed to remove the same does not arise. The plaintiff filed the present suit only to knock away the plaint schedule propperty with false allegations. This defendant after construction of the said house applied for tap connection and obtained service connection to her house and she is also paying house tax and water tax to the panchayat. The allegation that this defendant and her brother Chandra Sekhar were taking panchayat water illegally without any tap connection and panchayat authorities disconnected the tap connection is false. The defendant never abused the plaintiff in filthy language at any point of time. Moreover, the plaintiff whenever come to vayalpad, pick up quarrel with this defendant and her brother without any valid reasons. The defendant never agreed to remove the said windows at any point of time as there is no other way to pass air and light in her house. The plaintiff is having sufficient space in the plaint schedule property and only to harass this defendant the plaintiff falsely contending that there is no privacy to her due to the windows and ventilators in the plaint ‘C’ Schedule property.

(d). The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 and after receipt of legal notice issued by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the 8 present suit. The plaintiff has no right to seek the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of 3 windows and ventilators. The defendant was granted house site patta by the Government for an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in the year 1999 and there after she constructed the said house by fixing windows and ventilators and that she perfected her right, title and possession with absolute rights and even by adverse possession also. The plaintiff have no manner of right, title or interest over the property of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of mandatory injunction. Further, the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4). Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5).A perusal of docket the issues framed as if the suit is for

Permanent Injunction. Hence, the above issues are recasted as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right of privacy as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and ventilator fixed unlawfully obstructing the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., Plaint ‘A’ schedule property?

3. To what relief?

6). When this court asked both the counsel whether they have any further evidence they stated that they have no further evidence.

7).Issue No.1 and 2:-

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. She purchased the same on 21.06.2007 from her father in law T.Krishnaiah under a sale deed with specific measurements and boundaries. The Plaint ‘B’ schedule house property belongs to the 9 defendant who is the sister of the husband of plaintiff. In the year 2009, in the absence of plaintiff, the defendant constructed a wall shown as ‘A’, ‘B’ in the rough sketch. The entrance for the defendants house is on northern side and she is getting Air and Light from North- East corner. The defendant fixed three windows and one ventilator on ‘A’ ‘B’ wall and she is not entitled to put windows on the said wall shown as ‘C’ schedule property.

The movements of the inmates of the house of the plaintiff can be seen from the windows and ventilator fixed by the defendant on plaint ‘C’ schedule property. So, the privacy of the plaintiff is curtailed. The defendant has to left two feet of space on western side of her house. But, the defendant high handedly constructed wall in plaint ‘C’ schedule property by erecting windows and ventilator. Further, the rain water from plaint ‘B’ schedule house falls on Plaint ‘A’ schedule property. In the year 2009, the plaintiff visited Vayalpad and on seeing the windows and ventilator she questioned the defendant about the same and the defendant requested time for removing the windows and ventilator. On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that the windows and ventilators were fixed at the time of construction of her house i.e., about 15 years back. The plaintiff purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property by knowing the said fact.

The defendant constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides.

Even on the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the house of the defendant was in existence. Further, the windows and ventilators are fixed at a height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look to the said windows. She constructed the said wall and fixed the said windows and ventilators within her place and she is also having right and title of 1 1/2 feet on both sides. The plaintiff has no right to question the same.

The defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff on 17.09.2010 with true and correct facts and after the receipt of the said legal notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit with false allegations. Further, the defendant 10 contended that the Government had granted house site patta to the defendant of an extent of Ac.0.2 cents in HS.No. 116/1390 in the year 1989 and thereafter she had constructed her house by fixing windows and ventilators and that she perfected her right, title and possession with absolute rights even by adverse posession.

8). To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW 1 by filing her Chief Affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint.

During the cross-examination she stated that she purchased ‘A’ schedule property under Ex.A1 in three parts. But she do not remember measurements of the above 3 parts mentioned in Ex.A1 sale deed. It was suggested to her that Ex.A1 document consists of only two parts but she denied the same. A perusal of Ex.A1 Document filed by the plaintiff it shows that the plaint schedule property consists of only two parts.

Therefore, the plaintiff has no knowledge about her own property whether she purchased in three parts or in two parts under Ex.A1. She denied the suggestion that before her purchase of plaint schedule property there was a house belongs to the defendant on eastern side. She voluntarily stated that on Eastern side of the schedule property there was a kottam (house).

It was suggested to her that the defendant constructed her house about 12 years prior to her purchase of plaint schedule property and she denied the same. She pleaded ignorance whether the Government had issued a patta in favour of the defendant to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in HS patta

No.116/1390 in the year 1989. She denied the suggestion that the defendant constructed her house in the above said two cents in or about 1991 or 1992 with a loan obtained from the Government. She admitted that the defendant got issued legal notice to her, on 17.09.2010 by stating that she constructed her house by leaving 1 1/2 feet towards west and southern side of her house. She denied the suggestion that she fixed gate on the northern side by leaving 1 1/2 feet belongs to the defendant.

11 9). In support of her case, she got examined PW 2 Nagirimadugu

Mohan who is the tenant of the plaintiff and he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he supported the case of the plaintiff.

During the cross-examination, he admitted that since 5 years he has been residing in the plaintiff’s house. He denied the suggestion that there is a distance of more than 20 feet between his portion and the defendants house, windows and ventilators and that there is no inconvenience to him and the plaintiff. He admitted that before taking the house of the plaintiff on rent by him, the defendant constructed her house.

10). In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant herself examined as DW 1 by filing her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments mentioned in her written statement. During her cross-examination she admitted that plaint ‘A’ schedule consists of old house and on the south of the said house vacant site is situated and in the said vacant site there is a

Bath room and Lavatory situated and it belongs to the plaintiff. She admitted that prior to the construction of her house there was a kottam.

Her house is situated at some upper gradient. She admitted that there is a wall on the western side of her house. There are three windows and one ventilator to her house on the western side. She admitted that her house also consisting of windows on Eastern side and southern side. The

Government had issued to her for an extent of two kuntas and she constructed her house by leaving two feet site on all sides of her house.

She admitted that the vacant site of the plaintiff, ‘A’ schedule is visible from the windows erected to the western side house wall. She denied the suggestion that the rain water from her house will fell in the vacant site in the ‘A’ schedule property of the plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that she did not construct her house by leaving two feet site on all rider and she constructed her house in her entire site. She denied the suggestion that she got mentioned in her written statement that she had left 1 1/2 feet site on western side. During the further course of cross-examination DW 1 12 stated that the plaintiff is residing at Hyderabad and she used to come to

Vayalpad once in two or three months. She denied the suggestion that she constructed her house in the year 2004. She further denied that even though PW 1 objected for construction of her house in the year 2009 pertaining to western side wall they high handedly constructed the same.

She denied the suggestion that in the month of September, 2010 she got fixed the windows and ventilator and the western side of her house highhandedly. She admitted that as per plaint sketch, the Yellow portion i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property belongs to plaintiff, plaint ‘B’ schedule property belongs to her and ‘C’ schedule property is western side wall of her house in which 3 windows and one ventilator were fixed with sunshades.

11). In support of the case of the defendant, she got examined DW 2 M.Munirathnam who is neighbour of the defendant. DW 2 filed her Chief

Affidavit in lieu of her chief examination. She stated that she is neighbour of the defendant and her house is situated towards southern side of the suit schedule property. The defendant had constructed her house about 15 years back and fixed the windows and ventilators in the said wall by leaving 1 1/2 feet on both sides about 15 years back. Even on the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the house of the defendant was in existence. The said windows and ventilators are fixed at a height of 15 feet and that it is not possible to anybody to look through the said windows.

During her cross-examination she stated that she does not know the measurements of plaint ‘A’ schedule property pertaining to the plaintiff.

She admitted that the defendant fixed sunshades and two windows at a length of 3 feet on the western side. She admitted that the sun shades are projected towards the house of the plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property.

She voluntarily stated that the defendant erected the windows after leaving 2 1/2 feet. She does not know the measurements of plaint ‘B’ schedule property pertaining to the defendant on all sides. Her house is situated at 13

Gurramkonda – Vayalpad road on the next street of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. She admitted that the defendant constructed the plaint ‘B’ schedule property in the year 2010 by removing the thatched hut.

12). The defendant further got examined DW 3 G.Sreenivasulu who is another neighbour of the defendant. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He stated in the same lines of DW 2. During his cross- examination he stated that his house is situated in the next street of the plaint schedule property. He do not know the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and the measurements of the defendant’s house, on the western side of the house of the defendant there are 3 windows and one ventilator. It is true that the house of the plaintiff is visible from the windows erected to the house of the defendant. The defendant had constructed a kottam. He denied the suggestion that the defendant constructed a house in the year 2010 in the place of said kottam. He stated that the defendant started construction of her house in the year 2000 and completed in the year 2004. He do not know whether the defendant constructed her house by leaving 1 1/2 feet on the western side of her house.

13). From the evidence of plaintiff side and defendant side it is clear that on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property the house of the defendant is situated and on the western side wall of the defendant 3 windows and a ventilator are fixed by her. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property in two parts from the father-in-law of the plaintiff, and who is the father of the defendant. The defendant is the attestor of the Ex.A1 document. The main dispute in this case is that the defendant fixed three windows and a ventiltor in the year 2009 in the absence of the plaintiff, because of fixing of the above said windows and ventilator the privacy of the plainitff is curtailed. As per the plaint, the measurements first plot of ‘A’ schedule are as follows, East-West on northern side 26 feet. East – West on southern side 21 feet. North -South 14 on Eastern side 40 feet. North – South on western side 28 feet. Second plot

East to West 29 feet. North – South 36 feet. There is no dispute with regard to the second plot of plaint schedule property. The main dispute is that the defendant constructed ‘C’ schedule wall by fixing of 3 windows and one ventilator.

14). In this case at the instance of the plaintiff an advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the plaint schedule properties and to note down the existing physical features of Petitioner ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and shall note down the existing structures sunshades etc., on the petition ‘C’ schedule property and he shall note down and specifically shows the structures that are existing in the petition ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The learned Advocate Commissioner visited the plaint schedule property and filed his report along with sketch and photos.

The advocate commissioner was got examined by the plaintiff as PW 3.

PW 3 testified that he was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner in this case to visit the plaint schedule property for local inspection with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. On 19.09.2015 he visited the suit schedule locality by issuing notices to both parties. At the time of his inspection the

Mandal Surveyor, Vayalpad both parties and both the counsel were present.

Initially he filed interim report as Mandal Surveyor was not available. Later, he filed the final report with sketch. His report was marked as Ex.C1 and sketch was marked as Ex.C2. During his further chief examination Ex.C3 photos ‘7’ in number and Ex.C4 ‘CD’ were marked. During his cross- examination he admitted that the measurements of ‘A’ schedule are not tallied with the plaint schedule. He mentioned the same fact in his report.

‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are having different boundaries. ‘A’ schedule boundaries are talied with the warrant schedule. He denied the suggestion that there is 1 1/2 feet gap between compound wall of the defendant and the gate of the plaintiff. A perusal of the report of the

Advocate Commissioner, the boundaries of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied 15 but the measurements of the ‘A’ schedule first plot are not talied. The main dispute in this case is the windows and ventilator fixed to the wall on the western side of plaint ‘B’ schedule property which is situated on the

Eastern side of ‘A’ schedule property. As per the measurements of plaint ‘A’ schedule of first plot East-West on northern side 26 feet and East – west on southern side 21 feet. But after measuring the warrant ‘A’ schedule with the help of Mandal Surveyor he found the measurements of ‘A’ schedule on

East to West on northern side is 28.6 feet and East to West on southern side 15.8 feet, North to South measurements of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied. He further stated in his report that second plot of Warrant ‘A’ schedule East – West was talied. But, North – South it was mentioned as 36 feet, but it was found 45.4 feet. The other measurements of warrant ‘A’ schedule are talied. From the report of PW 3 Advocate Commissioner there is an excess extent of 2.6 feet on East to west on northern side found and

East to west on southern side it was found 15.08 feet. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant encroached their land. It is the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant opened windows on the western side of the wall of her house which is causing in convenience for her privacy. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the defendant constructed her house in the year, 2009. the measurements on ground are not tallying with theb oundaries in the plaint. On the other hand, the documents filed by defendants i.e., Ex.B1 to B3 House tax receipts, Electricity Bills shows that she constructed her house in the year 2006. Further, the defendant’s case is that she left 1 1/2 feet on all sides, but the plaintiff denies the same.

When the plaintiff denies the same she has to prove that she did not left 1 1/2 feet site on western side of her house by aducing cogent evidence. The plaintiff has to depend on her own case.But not on the weakness of the case on the other side. Further, there is no explanation from the plaintiff about excess extent on northern side East to West of 2.6 feet. Further, rough sketch filed by the plaintiff is not showing any encroachemnt of the 16 plaintiffs land by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant opened the windows and ventilator into her site. Further, the contention of the plaintiff is that in the year 2009, the defendant constructed her house and fixed the windows and ventilators on the western side of the wall of her house. But she has not take any action against the defendant immediately and she also did not got issue any legal notice to the defendant for not fixing the windows and ventilators. Further,

DW 1 in her cross-examination stated that she constructed her house by leaving two feet site on all sides of her house. During the cross-examination of DW 1, it was suggested to her that she constructed a house in the year 2004. This suggestion also shows that the defendant constructed her house even prior to 2004 and when the defendant constructed her house in the year 2004 why the plaintiff had not taken any steps against the defendant by issuing legal notice and by filing the suit in the year 2004, for which there is no answer from the plaintiff. Further, it is pertinent to note that the defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over her property. Then, the plaintiff got issued reply notice and filed the present suit. Further, as per the case of the plaintiff in the year 2009 when she visited Vayalpad and on seeing the putting of windows on western side wall she questioned the defendant. But she had not issued any legal notice to the defendant by demanding her to remove the said windows and ventilators. Further, as per the Ex.C3 photos,

Ex.C2 Sketch, no house of plaintiff situated on the exact East or on the west of defendant’s house. The house of plaintiff situated on the southern side of vacant site of ‘A’ Plaint schedule property.

15).Further, as per Ex.C3 photos, it appears that the house of the plaintiff is situated on the southern side of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property only but not situated on the western side of plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

Therefore, the infringment of the right of privacy of the plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both 17 sides, the plaintiff failed to prove her case that the defendant fixed the windows and ventilator on the western side of the wall and causing obstruction to her right of privacy. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plainitff. From the aforegoing discussion this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

16). Issue No.3:-

In the result, the suit is dismissed. But under the circumstances without costs.

Partly typed to my dicattion and partly dictated to my Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22 nd day of November, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

PlaintiffsDefendant

P.W.1D.RamalakshmiD.W.1T.Vara Lakshmi

P.W.2N.MohanD.W.2M.Munirathnamma

P.W.3N.Ramprasad ReddyD.W.3G.Sreenivasulu

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiffs

Ex.A-1-Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by T.Krishnaiah in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to Plaint A schedule property. Ex.A-2-House tax receipt. Ex.A-3-Electricity bills pertaining to Plaint A schedule property bearing HSC No.4520. Ex.A-4-Receipt issued by APSPDC limited for Rs.1225-00 for obtaining electricity connection. Ex.A-5-Receipt issued by Grampanchayat, Vayalpad for water charges. Ex.A-6-Office copy of legal notice dt. 17.09.2010. Ex.A-7-Reply notice dt. 27.09.2010 18

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendant

Ex.B-1House Tax receipts standing in the name of defendant issued by Grampanchayat, Valmikipuram (4 in number). Ex.B-2Electricity bills issued by AP Transco, Valmikipuram for the house standing in the name of Defendant in ASC No.1183 (7 in number) Ex.B-3Electricity receipts issued by AP Trans Co., Valmikipuram for the house standing in the name of Defendant in ASC No.1183 (10 in number).

Exhibits marked by Commissioner

Ex.C1:- Report Ex.C2:- Sketch Ex.C3:- 7 Positive photographs pertaining to the schedule property snapped by PW 3 at the time of visite of the plaint schedule property. Ex.C4:- Correspondence CD of Ex.C3.

JCJ., VPD.,

Fair Judgment in

O.S.NO. 112 OF

2011

Dt. 22-11-2018

Part - I

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

Present: Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla

Junior Civil Judge,

Vayalpad.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of November, 2018

O.S.No. 112 of 2011

Between :

D.Ramalakshmi, wife of T.Suryanarayana, aged about 57 years, Hindu, employee, now residing at D.No.1/7/114/9, Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.….PLAINTIFF And :

T.Varalakshmi, wife of T.Narasaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Land lady, residing at D.No.1/369, Ram Nagar Colony, Vayalpad town and post, Vaylapad mandal, Chittoor District.

…. DEFENDANT

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to declare the right of plaintiff to have right of privacy and grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove three windows and Ventilator fixed unlawfully which is causing obstruction to the plaintiff to have right of privacy to the house of plaintiff i.e., plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 29-04-2011

Plaint filed on : 29-04-2011

Particulars of Valuation: The value of Plaint C schedule property is Rs.6,878-00 For the purpose of declaration half of the Market value of the plaint ‘C’ Schedule property is Rs.3,439-00 For the purpose of mandatory injunction the notional value of the plaint C Schedule property is Rs.5000/-

A court fee of Rs.298-50 under section 24 (b) of APCF Act and A court fee of

Rs.411-00 is paid U/Sec. 26 (c) of APCF Act. Total court fee is of Rs.709-50 is paid.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Ramnagar Colony, Vayalpad town, Chittoor District, where the plaint schedule property is situated, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal in the presence of

Sri. K.Siva Sankar Reddy and Sri V.Reddeppa, Advocate for Plaintiff and

Sri J.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs.

2. that the plaintiffs do bear Rs.1,811/- and defendants do bear Rs.1,102/- being the institutional costs of the suit (cost memo not filed) their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 22 nd day of November, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District, vayalpad Mandal , Property situated at Vayalpad Grampanchayath pertaining to 1st ward Koneti Street, Near C.A.Mahal Adjacent to Tarigonda to Vayalpad road at Ramnagar Colony bearing old D.No.1-20-16-33, New Door No.1/370, Assessment No.49 Bandalamidde and vacant site shown in Yellow colour Ist Plot Bounded on East: Houses of Chandra Sekhar and Varalakshmi West: Vacant site of Sreepathy. North: Rajaveedhi. South: House of Kashmun i.e., Sister of Munaf. In between the above boundaries East to West on northern side 26 feet. East to West on southern side 21 feet. North to South on eastern side 40 feet. North to south on western side 28 feet. Total 799 sq.feet or 88.77 Sq.yards. IInd plot East to West 29 feet North to south 36 feet Total 1044 square feet and also house constructed bandalumidde in it East to West 29 feet, North to South 9 3/4 feet total 282 3/4 sq.feet Bandalumidde with doors, door frames, walls on four sides paikappu poora, Penkulumidde on northern side to penkulu midde. East to West 29 feet, North to South 8 1/2 feet, Total 246 1/2 sq feet, Penkula Vasara Poora. Total extents of plots 1 and 2, 204.77 sq. Yards.

B SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District, Vayalpad Grampanchayath, Vayalpad town, post and Mandal, House property situated at Ramnagar Colony, bearing D.No.1/369. Bounded on: East: Vacant site of T.Chandrasekhar.

West Plaint A schedule property. North:Road South: House of T.Chandra Sekhar.

C SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Vayalpad Sub-District Vayalpad Grampanchayath, vayalpad town post and Mandal, property situate at vayalpad Grampanchayath pertaining to 1st ward koneti street near C.A.Mahal adjacent to Tarigonda to Vayalpad road at Ramnagar Colony, Situated in between A and B Schedule properties which is shown in Yellow colour in wall which runs north to south 33 feet length and width of the wall is 14 inches in which three windows and one ventilator was fixed by defendant highhandedly which is shown in green colour in plaint rough sketch. North to south 33 feet length.

East to West 14 inches width wall with three windows and one ventilator and fixed sunshades and the three sunshades are in the plaint A schedule property. Bounded on:

East:Plaint B schedule property. West: Plaint A schedule property. North: Plaint A schedule property. South: House of Chandra Sekhar.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.NParticularsPlaintiffsFor

Cost memo not filed hence

o.Defendants

institutional cost is certified

cost memo

U/s. 155 CRPC

not filed.

1VakalatRs. 2-00Rs. 2-00

2Pleaders feeRs. 1,000-00Rs.1000/-

3Plaint feeRs. 709-00

4Type chargesRs. 100-00Rs.100/-

5Process----

TotalRs.1,811-00Rs.1,102/-

JCJ.,

Vayalpad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

VAYALPAD

PRESENT:- Sri MOHAMMED RAHAMTULLA

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

VAYALPAD

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.93 OF 2017

Between: Revuri Reddeppa, Son of Venkataiah, aged about 39 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at yarraiahgaripalle, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District.… PLAINTIFF. AND Peetla Sreeramulu, Son of Venkatramana, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation and Business, residing at Bakivanikothavoddlapalle, Hamlet of Balaiahgaripalle, kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District. … DEFENDANT.

This suit coming before me on 13.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Dwarakanatha Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri V.Reddeppa, Counsel for the defendant and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of money basing on promissory note.

2.THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:

On 31.08.2011 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.46,600/- from plaintiff for their family necessities and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand either to him or to his order. On 15.07.2014 the defendant paid sum of

Rs.1000/- towards part payment by endorsing on the back of the promissory note. Thereafter, plaintiff made several oral demands and after issuance of legal notice on 06.01.2017 for repayment but defendant dodged the matter and he failed to pay. Hence, this suit.

3.THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT:

Defendant denied the borrowing of Rs.46,600/- from the plaintiff on 31.08.2011 and execution of promissory note in favour of the plaintiff 1 and further demands by plaintiff for repayment. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff about five years back and by that time the plaintiff obtained the Thumb impression of the defendant on empty promissory note and the defendant paid interest at 36% per annum per month for a period of 3 years and he also paid the principal amount to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff insisted the defendant to pay interest at 60% per annum for which the defendant refused. Further, the defendant doing coolie works and the plaintiff is doing contract works.

The defendant has not attended the coolie works under the plaintiff as he failed to pay the coolie amounts properly. Boring grudge against the defendant, the plaintiff has fabricated the alleged promissory note with the help of scribe and attestor. Further the defendant never paid any amount to the plaintiff and he never endorsed the same on the back of the alleged promissory note. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings my learned predecessor framed the following issues and settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the part payment endorsement dt.15.07.2014 is true and correct?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the suit amount as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5. At the stage of trial, plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and got examined the scribe of the suit promissory note as PW2. In the documentary evidence plaintiff produced Ex.A-1 suit promissory note,

dated 31.08.2011, Ex.A2 Part Payment endorsement dt.15.07.2014,

Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt dt.06.01.2017. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

6.Heard arguments of both sides.

1

7. ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

(i)PW-1/plaintiff deposed that on 31.08.2011, the defendant borrowed Rs.46,600/- from him and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum to him or to his order. Later, on 15.07.2014 the defendant made part-payment of

Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, PW-1 made several oral demands and issued legal notice to the defendant for repayment but defendant dodged the matter and he failed to repay the same.

(ii)Let us consider the defence of the defendant in this case. In written statement he contended that he borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff about five years back and by that time the plaintiff obtained his thumb impressions on empty promissory note. He further contended that his thumb impressions might have forged on Ex.A1.

(iii)Let us discuss the cross-examination of PW.1 to decide whether defendant substantiated his defence on these lines or not. In the cross-examination of PW1 it was further elicited that on 31.08.2011 the defendant executed Ex.A1 and on 15.07.2014 the defendant executed Ex.A2. At the time of execution of Ex.A1, B.Nageswara,

N.Siddaiah, P.Peeran Khan were present. The said persons signed on

Ex.A1 and the defendant affixed his thumb impression of Ex.A1. Two

Revenue stamps were affixed on Ex.A1 pronote. At the time of part- payment under Ex.A2, the defendant, himself, one Nageswar Rao,

Sreeramulu were present. The defendant came to his house and made part-payment of Rs.1000/- under Ex.A2 endorsement. The defendant affixed his thumb impression on the part payment endorsement. He denied the suggestion that the defendant made part payment of

Rs.20,000/- on one occasion and Rs.5000/- on another occasion to him.

He further denied the suggestion that at the time of borrowing of 1

Rs.20,000/- by the defendant, he obtained his thumb impressions on blank promissory note. He further denied the suggestion that the thumb impression below the part payment endorsement of Rs.1000/- does not belong to the defendant. He further denied the signatures of scribe and attestors were obtained on Ex.A1 just before filing the suit. He denied the suggestion that the defendant discharged the entire promissory note amount.

8.In support of the case of the plaintiff he got examined one

P.Nageswara as PW2 who is the scribe of Ex.A1. He supported the case of the plaintiff. He stated that on 31.08.2011 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.46,600/- from the plaintiff by executing the suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with 24 % per annum. The plaintiff paid Rs.46,600/- to the defendant. He scribed the suit promissory note.

Later, he came to know that on 15.07.2014 the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1000/- to the plaintiff towards part satisfaction of the above debt. The defendant cross-examined PW2. During his cross- examination he denied that he scribed Ex.A1 promissory note just before filing the present suit and no amount was paid in his presence. He stated that after payment of amount in his presence, he scribed Ex.A1 pronote. Ex.A1 was prepared at the house of plaintiff at 5:00 PM., The defendant is a marks man and he read over a contents of Ex.A1 to him.

Then, the defendant affixed his thumb impression of Ex.A1 pronote. The attestors, he put one signature each on Ex.A1. The defendant affixed his two Thumb impressions on Ex.A1. On 15.07.2014 the defendant made part payment endorsement of Rs.1000/-. At the time of Ex.A2 endorsement the defendant was present. After making part payment neither the defendant nor any body put their signatures under Ex.A2.

1

He denied the suggestion that the defendant repaid the amount to the plaintiff with interest.

9.Further, to disprove the case of plaintiff, the defendant got examined himself as DW1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the averments mentioned in his written statement.

During his cross-examination he stated that he did not get mention in his written statement and in his chief affidavit that he affixed his thumb impression on suit promissory note. He stated that about 10 years back he borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff i.e., cash of Rs.10,000/- and

Rs.10,000/- towards STD phone calls bill. He admitted that he did not get mention in his chief affidavit and in his written statement that he borrowed Rs.10,000/- cash and Rs.10,000/- due towards STD phone calls bill to the plaintiff. He categorically admitted that the averment mentioned in his written statement that about five years back he borrowed the amount from the plaintiff is not true. He denied thumb impression on Ex.A1. He has no objection to send Ex.A1 to the expert for comparison of Thumb Impressions on Ex.A1 with his admitted thumb impressions. He denied the suggestion that he borrowed Rs.46,600/- on 31.08.2011 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 in his favour. He admitted his thumb impression on Ex.A2 endorsement after payment of

Rs.1000/- to the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff produced positive and cogent evidence to prove the execution of promissory note by defendant. In the circumstances, this court is duty bound to invoke the presumptions under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Now the onus to prove shifts to defendant to rebut them. During the cross-examination of DW1 even though stated that a thumb impressions on Ex.A1 does not belong to him surprisingly he admitted his thumb impression of Ex.A2 part payment endorsement.

1

It is not the case of the defendant that he never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff. It is his case and evidence that he borrowed

Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained his thumb impression on blank promissory note. During the cross-examination of

PW1, the defendant suggested to him that he paid Rs.20,000/- on one occasion and Rs.5000/- on another occasion to the plaintiff towards part- payments. He further suggested to PW1 that he discharged the entire pronote amount. On one hand the defendant contended that he repaid the entire pronote amount and on another contention he made part payments of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, the contentions of the defendant are inconsistent with each other. Further, in his cross-examination he admitted that he did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff for the return of promissory note after the alleged repayment. If really the defendant repaid the suit promissory note amount and if the plaintiff did not return the said promissory note, what prevented him to give a complaint are to issue a suitable legal notice to the plaintiff. For the reasons best known to him the defendant did not issue any legal notice. Further, it is the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff might have forged his thumb impression and fabricated the suit promissory note. During his cross-examination even though he admitted that he has no objection to send Ex.A1 to the expert for comparison of

Thumb Impressions on Ex.A1 with his admitted Thumb Impressions, he did not take any steps for sending Ex.A1 pronote to the Expert.

Therefore, the defendant failed to rebut the above presumption by adducing any documentary evidence in this case. In the circumstances, it has to be inferred that his defences are baseless. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount.

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

1

11. ISSUE NO::3

In view of the discussion in Issue Nos.1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

12. ISSUE NO::4

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.1,07,453/- (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty

Three only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.45,600/- (Rupees Forty

Five Thousand Six Hundred Only) (After deducting Part-payment of

Rs.46,600- Rs.1000/-= Rs.45,600/-).

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:: PW-1: Revuri Reddeppa ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: DW1:- P.Sriramulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:: Ex.A-1: Suit Promissory Note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.31.08.2011. Ex.A2 : Part Payment endorsement dt.15.07.2014. Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt dt.06.01.2017. ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: - NIL -

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD.

1 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

VAYALPAD

PRESENT:- Sri MOHAMMED RAHAMTULLA

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

VAYALPAD

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.93 OF 2017

Between: Revuri Reddeppa, Son of Venkataiah, aged about 39 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at yarraiahgaripalle, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District.… PLAINTIFF. AND Peetla Sreeramulu, Son of Venkatramana, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation and Business, residing at Bakivanikothavoddlapalle, Hamlet of Balaiahgaripalle, kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District. … DEFENDANT. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of money basing on promissory note.

Plaint presented on : 13.04.2017 LRP: 21.04.2017 Plaint filed on : 24.04.2017 The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,07,453/- and a court fee of Rs.3,626/- is paid thereon U/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose on 31.08.2011 when the defendant borrowed Rs.46,600/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff and on 15.07.2014 the defendant paid a sum of Rs.1000/- to plaintiff and endorsed the same on the back of the suit pronote thereby acknowledged his liabllity and when plaintiff demanded several times to defendant to discharge the suitdebt due and evaded to pay the same and also on 6.1.2017 plaintiff gave legal notice through his counsel to the defendant calling upon himto discharge the debt and defendant failed to discharge the suit debt and suit pronote was executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff at Yerraiahgaripalle, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District, within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit coming on 05.03.2020 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri A.Dwarakanath Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri V.Reddeppa, Counsel for the defendant this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the suit amount

of Rs.1,07,453/- with subsequent interest at the rate of

12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of

decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date

of decree till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.45,600/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred only)

(After deducting part-payment of Rs.46,600- Rs.1000/- =

Rs.45,600/-).

1

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.8,751 /- towards institutional costs of the suit costs of

this suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 17 th day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VAYALPAD

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For PlaintiffFor Defendant S.No.Particulars (Rs.)(Rs.) Rs. 2/-

1.Vakalat

2.Plaint Fee Rs.3,626/---

3.Advocate FeeRs.4,923/-

4.Services of Process Rs.100/-

Typing charges Rs.100/- 5.

Total : Rs.8,751/-

JCJ, VPD.

Decree in

O.S.No.93 of 2017

Dt.17-03-2020

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

Present: Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla

Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

O.S.NO. 319 OF 2019

Between :

1. Sanku Mallaiah, Son of Late S.Rachaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, living by landa.

2. Sanku Eswaramma, wife of S.Mallaiah, aged about 54 years, Hindu living by landa. Both are residing at Reddeppagaripalle, Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marikuntapalle Post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

….Plaintif And :

(1). Sanku Saraswathamma, wife of S.Venugopal, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegadda Marrimakulapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(2). Bojjappa Mallaiah, Son of B.Gangaiah, aged about 54 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegada Marrikuntapalle post,Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(3). Bojja Devendra, Son of B.Gangaiah, aged about 37 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegada, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(4). Sanku Nagararthnamma, Wife of S.Santhaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle, Village, Hamletof Pathegadda, Marrikuntapalle Post,Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(5). Sanku Santhaiah, Son of S.Balaiah, aged about 69 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle village,Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrimakuntapalle Post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(6) Sanku Pedda Reddaiah, Son of S.Balaiah, aged about 75 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village,Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(7) Sanku Viswanatham, Son of S.Pedda Rachaiah, 40 years Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle Village, Hamlet of Pathegada, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(8) Sanku Nagaraja, Son of S.Rachaiah, aged 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle village,Hamleto f Pathegada Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(9) Sanku Kasamma, wife of S.Nagaraja, aged 55 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrimakulapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

2 (10) Sanku Basavaraja, Son of Late S.Nagamunaiah, aged 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal in the presence of Sri. J.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and the defendants remained exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1).This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 10 for passing of preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of Ac.0.07 cents in item No.1, Ac.0.14 ½ cents in

Item No.2, AC.0.09 ½ cents in item no.3, Ac.0.08 ¼ cents in item no.4

Ac.0.09 cents in item no.5. Ac.0.09 ¾ cents in item no.6 and Ac.0.13 cents in item no.7 of the plaint schedule properties and direct the defendants to put the plaintiffs in separate possession after the division by metes and bounds.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are : - The 2nd

Plaintiff had purchased joint extents in the plaint schedule properties from its rightful owners under registered sale deed dt.25.07.2005 and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same along with other co-owners. The 1st plaintiff is having joint share in the said items along with other co-owners. The 1st plaintiff and defendants 8,9,10 are brothers and sons of late Rachaiah. The said Rachaiah died about 4 years back. During the life time of the said Rachaiah himself, his sons ie., 1st plaintiff, 8th defendant, S.Nagaraja herein have entered registered partition deed dt.6.09.2005, wherein B schedule was allotted to 1st plaintiff. The plaint schedule properties in respect of the 1st plaintiff share is shown as ‘B’ schedule in the said registered partition deed along with other properties. After the said division, the said properties fell to the share of Rachaiah had been sold to his son Nagaraja and since then 3 the said Nagaraja is in possession and enjoyment of his share as well as the share of Rachaiah. The plaintiffs further submitted that though the joint family properties of Rachaiah were divided under registered partition deed dt.06.09.2005 all the properties are not divided by metes and bounds and all the co-sharers are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same till today. Thus, by virtue of the registered sale deed standing in the name of 2nd plaintiff and by virtue of registered partition deed the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties without division by metes and bounds.

For the past two months, the plaintiffs demanding to carve out their share by metes and bounds but in vain. The defendants by taking advantage that the same is not divided by metes and bounds, trying to sell away their share to some others and thereby causing troubles to the plaintiffs in enjoying the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs feels that it is no longer convenient or beneficent for them by any joint possession of the properties with the defendants. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons were issued to the defendants 1 to 10. On 20.01.2020 D2 and D3 were called absent and as they failed to attend

before the court and as there was no representation for them. They were

set exparte.

4. D1, D4 to D10 were present and requested time to file vakalat on their behalf. On 20.02.2020, D1 to D10 were present and submitted a written representation that they have no interest over the plaint schedule property and they have no interest over the plaint schedule property and they have no objection to pass decree in favour of plaintiffs. Since the defendants 1 to 10 appeared before this court and 4 filed a representation that they have no objection to pass decree in favour of the plaintiffs, this court opines that the defendants 1 to 10 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in the plaint. Hence, this court opines that the suit can be decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC., 5).In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed for partition of the plaint schedule properties and to allot Ac.0.07 cents in item No.1, Ac.0.14 ½ cents in Item No.2, AC.0.09 ½ cents in item no.3,

Ac.0.08 ¼ cents in item no.4 Ac.0.09 cents in item no.5. Ac.0.09 ¾ cents in item no.6 and Ac.0.13 cents in item no.7 of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds. But under the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VAYALPAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Nil.

JCJ., VPD.,

Draft Judgment in

OS.NO.319 OF

2019

Dt.20-03-2020 5 6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Present: Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla

Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

O.S.NO. 319 OF 2019

Between :

1. Sanku Mallaiah, Son of Late S.Rachaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, living by landa.

2. Sanku Eswaramma, wife of S.Mallaiah, aged about 54 years, Hindu living by landa.

Both are residing at Reddeppagaripalle, Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marikuntapalle Post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

….Plaintif And :

(1). Sanku Saraswathamma, wife of S.Venugopal, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegadda Marrimakulapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(2). Bojja Mallaiah, Son of B.Gangaiah, aged about 54 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegada Marrikuntapalle post,Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(3). Bojja Devendra, Son of B.Gangaiah, aged about 37 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegada, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(4). Sanku Nagararthnamma, Wife of S.Santhaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle, Village, Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrikuntapalle Post,Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(5). Sanku Santhaiah, Son of S.Balaiah, aged about 69 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle village,Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrimakuntapalle Post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(6) Sanku Pedda Reddaiah, Son of S.Balaiah, aged about 75 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village,Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(7) Sanku Viswanatham, Son of S.Pedda Rachaiah, 40 years Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle Village, Hamlet of Pathegada, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(8) Sanku Nagaraja, Son of S.Rachaiah, aged 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle village,Hamlet of Pathegada Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

(9) Sanku Kasamma, wife of S.Nagaraja, aged 55 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrimakulapalle post, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

7 (10) Sanku Basavaraja, Son of Late S.Nagamunaiah, aged 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Reddeppagaripalle village, Hamlet of Pathegadda, Marrikuntapalle post, Kalikiri mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 10 for passing of preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of Ac.0.07 cents in item No.1, Ac.0.14 ½ cents in Item No.2, AC.0.09 ½ cents in item no.3, Ac.0.08 ¼ cents in item no.4 Ac.0.09 cents in item no.5. Ac.0.09 ¾ cents in item no.6 and Ac.0.13 cents in item no.7 of the plaint schedule properties and direct the defendants to put the plaintiffs in separate possession after the division by metes and bounds. Plaint presented on : 03.12.2019 LRP : 11.12.2019 Plaint filed on : 11.12.2019

Particulars of Valuation: Market Value of the Plaint Schedule properties: Rs.4,51,020/- Value of the plaintiffs extent in item no.1 to 7 Ac.0.70 ¾ cents is Rs.1,07,673/-. 3/4th share of the same is Rs.80,755/- Court fee paid under Sec.34 (2) of AP Court Fee and SV Act Rs.200/-.

The cause of action for the suit arose when 2nd plaintiff purchased item no.1 to 7 of the suit schedule properties from its rightful owners under registered sale deed dt.25.07.2005 and since then the 2nd plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the same extents in the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of 1st plaintiff in his family partition deed dt.6.09.2005 and since then the 1stplaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, though there was partition between their family properties, the same had not been divided by metes and bounds and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same and for the past 2 months the plaintiffs are demanding the defendants to carve out their share by separate possession but in vain and by taking advantage of joint possession the defendants are trying to sell away their share to some unruly elements and thereby causing troubles to the plaintiffs in enjoying the suit schedule properties and that the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for division and separate possession of their Ac.0.07 cents in item no.1, Ac.0.14 ¼ cents in item no.2 , Ac.0.09 ½ cents in item no.3, Ac.0.08 ¼ cents in item no.4, Ac.0.09 cents in item no.5, 0.09 ¾ cents in item no.6 and 0.13 cents in item no.7. The plaint schedule properties which are situated at Reddeppagariopalle village Kalikiri Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal in the presence of

Sri.J.V.Ramana Reddy , Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants 8 remained exparte upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby preliminarily decreed

2. That the Plaint schedule properties shall be partitioned and the plaintif should be allotted Ac.0.07 cents in item no.1, Ac.0.14 ½ cents in item no.2, Ac.0.09 ½ cents in item no.3, Ac.0.08 ¼ cents in item no.4 and Ac.0.09 cents in item no.5, Ac.0.09 ¾ cents in item no.6 and Ac.0.13 cents in item no.7 of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds.

3. that the plaintifs and defendants do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VAYALPAD

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Kalikiri Sub district – Kalikiri Mandal, Pathegadda Grampanchayath lands situated at Reddeppagaripalle village bearing 1.Sy.No.363/6, Wet Ac.0.50 cents paiki, 1st plaintiff Ac.0.00 ½ Ac.0.07 cents 2nd plaintiff Ac.0.06 ½ cents Rs.9,450-00 Bounded on:- East :- The land of S.Basava Raju and others West:- The land of S.Nagaiah North:- The land of S.Nagaiah South:- The land of S.Basavaraju and S.Santhaiah 2.S.No.368, wet Ac.0.33 cents paiki 1st Plaintiff Ac.0.10 2nd Plaintiff Ac.0.04 ¼ cents Rs.19,238/-

Bounded on East:- The land of S.Santhaiah West:- The land of P.Gangaiah and another North:- The land of P.Sahadevaiah and another South:- The land of S.Basavaraju 3.S.No.363/7, Dry Ac.0.46 cents paiki 1st Plaintiff Ac.0.03 ¾ 0.09 ½ cents 2nd plaintiff Ac.0.05 ¾ cents Rs.11,305/-

Bounded on:- 9

East:- The land of S.Eswaramma and another West:- The land of S.Nagaiah and another North:- The land of B.Mallaiah and another South:- The land of S.Venugopal and another

4. S.No.361/2 Dry Ac.0.47 cents paiki 1st plaintiff Ac.0.04 Ac.0.08 ¼ cents 2nd plaintiff Ac.0.04 ¼ cents Rs.9,817-50/-

Bounded on

East: The joint well of plaintiff and defendants (Kanuga Cehttla bavi) West:- The land of S.Mallaiah and another North:- Chervil Katta South:- The land of S.Mallaiah and another.

5. S.No.362 , wet. Ac.0.47 cents paiki 1st plaintiff Ac.0.01 cents Ac.0.09 cents 2nd plaintiff Ac.0.08 cents Rs.12,150/-

Two wells 1/8th and two bore wells 1/8th share Rs.10,000/- Bounded on:-

East:- The land of S.Mallaiah West:- The land of S.Venugopal and another North:- Cheruvu Katta South:- Gutta 6.S.No.363/4 wet Ac.0.39 cents paiki and 2nd plaintiff Ac.0.09 ¾ cents Rs.13,162-50 One well 1/6th share Rs.5,000/- Bounded on:- East:- The land of S.Basavaraju West:- The land of S.Mallaiah and another North:- The land of V.Rachaiah and another South:- Marrimanu Gutta,

7. S.No.363/3 .. Wet … Ac.0.72 cents paiki 1st plaintiff Ac.0.03 0.13 cents 2nd plaintiff Ac.0.10 cents Rs.17,550-00

Rs.1,07,673/- Bounded on:-

East :- Cheruvu Katta West:- The land of S.Mallaiah and another North:- The land of plaintiff South:- The land of S.Saraswathamma and another.

10

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.No.ParticularsFor PlaintiffFor Defendant cost memo not filed Institutional costs allowed. Rs.

Vakalath2-00 Cost memo not filed

Plaint Fee200-00

Process 100-00

Advocate Fee2000-00

Typing charges100-00

Total2,402-00

JCJ., VPD.,

Note “The parties should apply as soon as possibleDecree in : for the return of all exhibits which they may

O.S.No.319 of

wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to 2019 be destroyed after 3 years from this date.” Dt.20.3.2020 11