IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT:- K. PATTABHI RAMA RAO,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR
Monday, the 13 th day of April, 2015
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 437 of 2005
Between:-
Gouravelly Muralidhar Rao, S/o. Bheem Rao, Hindu, Aged: 54 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.H.No.10-03-11, Vidyanagar locality of Karimnagar town and district.
...Plaintiff
AND
1].Palaji Ramaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, Hindu, Aged: 48 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Sulthanabad village & Mandal of Karimnagar District 2]Paloji Tharamma, W/o.Ramaiah, Age: 45 years, occupation: House hold, R/o.Sulthanabad village and mandal of Karimnagar District 3]Amaravadi Venkata Chary, S/o.Narayana Chari, Age: 50 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.H.No.10-2-275, Vidhya Nagar locality of Karimnagar town and District ….Defendants
This suit is coming on 02.04.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri I. Madhukar Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M Pratap, Advocate for the defendant No.1, of Sri E Raja Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.2 and of Sri P.V.R.N. Rao, Advocate for the defendant No.3 , having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following.
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint.
2.The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:-
Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit against first defendant and 2 OS No.437 of 2005 later defendants No.2 and 3 are added as parties as per the Orders in
I.A.No. 247 of 2006 dated 05.07.2006. The defendant No.2 is added on a petition filed by the plaintiff in response to written statement and third defendant was adduced on a petition filed by him. According, to the case of the plaintiff, he is the owner and possessor of a house plot measuring 363.00 Sq. yards in Sy.No.1206 fully described in the
Scheduled annexed to the plaint and herein after referred to as suit property. He claims that he purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6914/1978 dated 15.11.1978 from one Neerla Balamallu who delivered the possession of the same to him. It is further stated that the defendants have no legal right over the suit property and plaintiff apprehended that some false documents are created by the defendants and they are interfering of the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. It is his case that on 16.06.2005 the defendants came to the suit land and tried to dispossess him but he could resist them. Apprehending dispossession from the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction.
3The defendant No.1 entered into appearance and filed the written statement, denying the allegations of the plaint. D2 adopted the written statement filed by D1 and D3 filed separate written statement.
According to the first defendant, Neerla Balamallu is the original pattadar of Ac.1-26 Guntas of land in Sy.No.1206 sold the property to one Thatapally Bhooma Lingam,, Bachu Srinivas, and Samudrala
Chandrashekar under a registered sale deed document bearing
No.721/65 and Podichetty Rathnakumari purchased two plots measuring 363 Sq.yards each from the legal representatives of the above said 2 3 OS No.437 of 2005
Thatapally Bhooma Lingam,, Bachu Srinivas, and Samudrala
Chandrashekar under registered sale deed document No.2756/1986
dated 17.09.1986 and 2760/1986 dated 18.09.1986. According to the
first defendant, the said Podichetty Rathnakumari purchased total extent 726 Sq.yards of site in the suit Survey number. He also mentioned that before the purchase of the land by Podichetty
Rathnakumari, the vendors of Podichetty Rathnakumari filed a suit in OS
No.35/1984 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at
Karimnagar, for perpetual injunction against Neerla Ballamallu and others including the plaintiff herein who is the 14th defendant in the said suit and the suit was decreed on 28.12.1990 and later the appeal filed against the decree in AS 6 of 1991 on the file of Hon'ble Prl. District
Judge, Karimnagar, was dismissed on 05.10.1992 and the plaintiff claims
that in view of the decree, in OS No.35 of 1984 the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit and that this suit is barred by res-judicata. It also mentioned that Podichetti Rathnakumari also filed a suit in OS No.59 of 1996 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for perpetual injunction against Neerla Lingaiah who is the agnate of Neerla
Balamallu and that suit was also decreed in favour of Podichetty
Rathnakumari on 09.10.2002 and by the time of filing of the written statement, it appears that the appeal against the decree in OS No.59 of 1996 is pending in AS NO.54 of 2002 on the file IV Addl.District Court,
Karimnagar. According to the first defendant, Neerla Lingaiah the defendant in OS No.59 of 1996, while the suit was pending, executed two registered sale deeds in favour of Nandelli Janardhan and Nandelli
Swamy in respect of the land purchased by Podhichetty Ratnakumari under a registered sale deed document bearing No.2739/1997 and 3 4 OS No.437 of 2005 2740/1997 and Podhichetty Ratnakumari filed another suit against the
Nandelly Janardhan and Nandelli Swamy in OS No.74 of 2001. It is further stated that the land was in possession of Podhichetty
Rathnakumari, but some how Nandelli Janardhan occupied some part of land purchased by the Ratnakumari and constructed a shed in it, to which house Number 10-2-152/3 was allotted by Municipality and the same was renumbered as 10-02-265. It is the case of the first defendant that Nandelli Janardhan and Nandelly Swamy entered into a compromised with Podichetty Rathnakumari and these three persons executed an agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney (with possession) in favour of the defendant under a registered document bearing No.6619/2004 dated 28.06.2004 in respect of the land 726
Sq.yards in Sy.No.1206 and being the G.P.A holder, the defendant executed has executed a sale deed in favour of his wife Paloji Tharamma under registered Doc.No.671/2005 dated 19.01.2005. A rectification deed was also executed to correct a minor mistake on 26.11.2005 under a registered document bearing No.1328 of 2005 dated 26.11.2005 and the name of wife of the first defendant was mutated in respect of the house bearing No.10-2-265 in the Record of the
Municipality. Thus, the first defendant claims that his wife is in possession and enjoyment of the land 726 Sq.yards along with shed in it and that the plaintiff is never in possession of the plaint schedule property.
4Subsequently, defendant No.2 was impleaded and she adopted the written statement filed by the Defendants No.1 and defendant No. 3, who was impleaded on his application filed a separate written statement, contending that himself, one Chevuri Ramesh, T. Sudhakar 4 5 OS No.437 of 2005 entered into an agreement sale deed dated 03.02.2003 with one
Podichetti Ratna Kumari for purchasing of 726 Sq. yards in Sy.No.1206 i.e., suit survey number and the said Ratna Kumari received Rs.15,000/- as a part of total consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. According to the third defendant, Podichetty Rathna Kumari informed him that litigation is pending in the Court in respect of the suit property and after solving the same, she would receive the balance of sale consideration and thereafter, she will execute a regular sale deed. D-3 further stated that though, Ratnakumari settled the litigation, she did not inform anything about it to him and later without his knowledge, she executed a General
Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant and he also filed a suit, to get the General power of Attorney-cum-sale, executed in favour of defendant No.1 and the registered sale deed document bearing
No.671/2005 executed by D-1 in favour of D-2, declared as Null and vide and not binding on him, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court,
Karimnagar. However, the said suit was returned due to some objections and D-3 also pleaded for the dismissal of the suit. The first defendant filed additional Written Statement denying the averments made by D3 in his written statement.
5As per the pleadings, this Court has the following issues.
1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
2). What relief.
6The pleadings of the parties, indicate that number of suits are filed and there is multiplicity litigation in respect of the land in Sy.No.1206,
Karimnagar. During the pendency of OS No.35 of 1984 the plaintiff in 5 6 OS No.437 of 2005 that suit sold 726 Sq.yards of land in favour of Podichetty Ratna Kumari, again while the suit in OS No.59 of 1996 filed by Ratnakumari is pending, Neerla Ligaiah, sold the same property or Nandelli Janardhan and Nandelli Swamy. The parties to the litigations in the above suit have scant with respect for the pendency of the suits in the Court and they did not await the Orders of the Court or its Judgment for alienation of their interest. In this case, the plaintiff is examined himself as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his examination in chief, claiming that he is the possession and enjoyment of the plaint property.
During cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say the extent of the land owned by his vendor. He stated that he purchased suit property along with one Manemma and in the same year he reaised basement.
He seposed that he does not know about the alienation made by
Thatipally Bhooma Lingam and Podichetty Ratna Kumari. He admitted that the suit in OS No.35 of 1984 was filed against him, but, he stated that it is in a different content that suit was filed against him. He also pleaded ignorance of the litigation in OS No.59 of 1996 and AS No.44 of 2002. He denied the suggestions that defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff got examinedone
A.Nagabhushanam as PW-2 and he deposed that he is the son of the owner of the adjacent plot on the southern side of the suit property. He stated that his father purchased four guntas of land from Neerla
Balamallu and took delivery of the possession of the same. According to him, his father was in possession of the property till his death on 25.03.2008 and later he entered into the possession of the suit property.
PW-2 further deposed that the plaintiff purchased the suit plot from
Neerla Balammalu, which is situated towards Northern side of this plot 6 7 OS No.437 of 2005 and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said plot. During his cross-examination, he deposed that the suit land is at a distance of 2
KM from his house and he could not say full details of 4 Guntas of land purchased by his father. He also pleaded ignorance of the purchase of 726 Sq. yards by D1 and D2 from Podichetty Rathna Kumari and existence of a shed in the said plot. He repeatedly answered in his cross- examination that he does not know about the litigation pending before the Court in respect of the suit property and for almost all the questions relating to the suit property he answered that he does not know.
7The first defendant is examined himself as DW-1 and he also narrated the contents of his written statement, in his examination in chief. He stated that the plaintiff did not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the real facts. He stated that Tap connection (water supply) and electricity connection were also taken to the suit house. He stated that D-3 is nothing to do with the suit property and claimed that his wife is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-35 are marked through this witness. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the plaintiff purchased the land prior to his purchase from Podichetty Rathna Kumari, Nandelli Janardhan and Nandelli Swamy. He denied the suggestion that when he purchased the land under General Power of Attorney, marked as Ex.B-6 . The suit between Podichetty Rathna Kumari , Nandelli Janardhan and Nandelli
Swamy (his vendors) is pending. He denied the suggestion that neither
Rathnakumari nor Nandelli Janardhan and Nandelli Swamy have rights over the suit property. He made an admission that in OS No.59 of 1996 a finding was recorded by the Court that the vendor of his vendors, did not 7 8 OS No.437 of 2005 have any land (in the suit survey number). He also admitted that Ex.B-1, does not contain the survey number. He denied the suggestion that
Ex.B-21 i.e., certificate issued by the Commissioner Municipal
Corporation and Ex.B-23 the receipt issued by the Municipal Corporation
Karimnagar for payment of house tax were created by Nandeliy
Janardhan for the purpose of filing the suit in OS No.59 of 1996. DW.1 further denied the suggestion that was not in possession of the property and therefore he also could not get any title or possession of the suit property.
8Nandelly Janardhan was examined as DW-2. According to the defendants, he purchased the suit property from Neerla Lingaiah agnate of Neerla Balamallu and that Podichetty Rathna Kumari filed a suit against him and his son Swamy in OS No.74 of 2001 in respect of land measuring Ac.0-06 guntas including the suit property. He came to know about the suit in OS No.59 of 1996 filed by the Podichetty Rathna
Kumari Neerla Lingaiah, which was decreed and after knowing the fact that himself and his son, have no rights over the land purchased by them from Neerla Lingaiah and therefore they are approached the
Rathna Kumari and three of them sold the suit property to the first defendant. He deposed this fact. He further deposed that the first defendant approached him and his son Swamy to join as vendors along with actual owner Rathna Kumari and therefore they have also joined with Rathnakumari to convey the suit property to the first defendant. He deposed that he has no rights over the suit property, as his vendor also did not have rights over the same. He further deposed that the plaintiff also does not have any rights over the suit property. On his cross- 8 9 OS No.437 of 2005 examination, he deposed that at the request of the Rathna Kumari he signed in the document (G.P.A-cum-sale in favour of D-1) and that he was in possession when he signed the sale deed (G.P.A). He denied the suggestion that he does not have any right over the suit property and colluding with the Rathnakumari and D-1, invalid documents are created. One Bonala Anil Kumar is examined as DW-3. He deposed that the second defendant is in possession and the enjoyment of the suit property. He deposed about the litigation pending in respect of the suit property and the suits that were disposed in which the suit survey number is/involved. He supported the case of the D-1 and D-2. Though, he did not mention it , it appears that this Anil Kumar is a witness of
G.P.A-cum-sale executed by the Janardhan, Swamy and Podichetty
Rathna Kumari in favour of defendant No.1.
9The learned counsel for the plaintiff, did not chose to file any written argument or argue the matter and after giving a number of adjournments, the Court has reserved the matter in this case, treating that argument of the counsel for the plaintiff was heard. The counsel for the defendant No.3 also did not choose to argue the matter.
10The learned counsel for the D-1 and D-2 contends that the property was purchased by Thatipally Bhooma Lingam and others from
Neerla Balamallu and again the legal heirs of the purchasers of the land from Neerla Balamallu have sold the suit property and some other property which is also part and parcel of the suit property, to one
Podichetty Rathna Kumari. He further contends that the plaintiff was the 14th defendant in OS No.35 of 1984 filed by the vendors of Rathna 9 10 OS No.437 of 2005
Kumari and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff there and against D-14 therein who is the plaintiff herein on 28.12.1990. An appeal was preferred against the decree in AS No.6 of 1991 and the same was dismissed on 05.10.1992 doors of the court to the plaintiff to litigate the matter were actually closed. The counsel for D1 and D2 contends that the plaintiff was never in possession of the property.
11The counsel for the defendants brings to the notice of the Court that the suit filed by T Annamma and others against the plaintiff in OS
No.35 of 1984 was decreed and it operates as res-judicata. He pleads that the suit is to be dismissed.
12I have gone through the documents filed by the defendant Ex.B-1 is the certified copy of the sale in Urdu with a copy of its Translation in
English. According, to this document Neerla Balammalu, sold some other property within definite boundaries, to T Bhooma Lingam and others. This document does not contain the survey number in which the land that was sold under the document is located. While, cross- examining, DW-1, the counsel for the plaintiff suggested the same.
However, the counsel for the defendant filed the certified copy of the
Judgment in OS No.35 of 1984 which, is marked as Ex.B-13. In this judgment rendered against 23 persons including Neerla Balamallu, the vendor under Ex.B-1 and the plaintiff in this suit the Court has considered the aspect of non-mentioning of the Survey number in Ex.B-
1. It is stated that at the time of execution of Ex.B-1, Hyderabad
Tenancy and Agricultural lands, Act 1959, (the Act 21 of 1950) was in enforce and as per section 47 of the said Act, there was prohibition of 10 11 OS No.437 of 2005 transfer of agricultural lands and in order to over come the said Act, the survey Number is not mentioned. The learned Judge, discussed this issue at length in Para 12 of the Judgment and held that the survey number was not mentioned because of the prohibition contained in section 47 of the Tenancy Act and at the same time, by the time Ex.B-1 was executed, the suit property therein which includes the suit property herein seized to be agricultural land and it became part and parcel of the Karimnagar Abadi and was used for the construction of houses. The reasoning given by the Court is that though section 47 of the
Hyderabad Tendency Act, prohibits transfer of agricultural land at the time of execution of Ex.B-1 the lands seized to be agricultural land.
Therefore the transfer was valid and non-mentioning of the survey number in Ex.B-1 is to be ignored, since, the land is identifiable with the help of boundaries and the parties to Ex.B-1 did not mention the survey number to over come the prohibition. Again in OS No.59 of 1996 also the same issue came before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and in that Judgment also in Para No.10 of the judgment, the Court dealt with the issue of non-mentioning of survey number in Ex.B-1 and taking cue from the judgment in OS No.35 of 1984 the Court held that non- mentioning of survey number in Ex.B-1 cannot be a ground to disbelieve the transfer of the property. The Judgment in OS No.59 of 1996 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar is as marked as Ex.B-23. The judgment in OS No. 35 of 1984 which was confirmed by the first appellate Court in AS No. 6 of 1991 confers the rights of the vendees under Ex.B-1 and while discussing the issues, the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Karimnagar in OS No.59 of 1996 (Ex.B-23) also held that Neerla
Balamallu had conveyed the property to the vendees under Ex.B-1.
11 12 OS No.437 of 2005
Therefore, Thatipalli Bhommalingam and his successors got the property in the suit survey number including the suit property under Ex.B-1 and later during the year 1986, the successors of the Bhoomalingam and others have sold the suit property to Podhichetty Rathna Kumari. Title of
Podichetty Rathna Kumari under this documents marked as Ex.B-2 and other document marked as Ex.B-3 were confirmed by the Court of Senior
Civil Judge, Karimnagar in OS No.59/96. The effect of Ex.B-1, the
judgment of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in OS
No.35/1984 and its decree (Ex.B-21) and the judgment and decree of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in OS No.59 of 1996 (Ex.B-16 and Ex.B-17) cumulatively show that Neerla Balamallu had sold the property to T Bhooma Lingam and the suit property was sold by the successors of Bhooma lingam and other purchasers to Podichetty Ratna kumari and the title and possession of the same were validly conveyed to Podichetty Rathna Kumari However, Neerala Lingaiah who is the agnate of Neeerla Balamallu also sold the property under two different documents to one Nandelli Janardhan and his son Nandelli Swamy. By that time, the possession of the property was with Podichetty Rathna
Kumari and title stands in her name. According to the evidence of DW- 1, as well as DW-2 they approached Podichetty Rathna Kumari. It appears that Nandelli Janardhan and Nandelli Swamy and Podichetty
Rathna Kumari have decided to alienate the suit property and they got executed Ex.B-6 in favour of D-1 and however, they also delivered the possession of the same. Ex.B-6 is the General Power of Attorney-cum- sale, with possession executed by Janardhan, and Swamy in favour of
D-1. Though, Ex.B-6 may not be legally valid document, but taking into consideration that the possession of Ex.B-6 was delivered to D-1 and D- 12 13 OS No.437 of 2005 1 sold the property to his own wife to D-2 herein. Though, the validity of the Ex.B-6 and credibility of Ex.B-7 cannot be unsuspected these documents, it is also clear that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. In a suit for the relief of perpetual injunction, possession counts more than anything. Ex.B-13, Ex.B-14 and Ex.B-16 to Ex. B.19 show that Janardhan paid tax to Municipal Corporation in respect of the house in the suit property. Ex.B-9 shows that later D-2 paid tax in his name and name of defendant No.2 was mutated in the place of
Janardhan under Ex.B-2. The counsel for the defendants also filed Ex.B- 18 to show that the name of Thatipally Bhooma Lingam was entered in the Revenue records. The documents filed under Ex.B-13, Ex.B-14 and
Ex.B-16 to Ex. B.19 show that the name of Janardhan exists in the records of Municipality as owner in respect of the suit house and Ex.B-29 and Ex. B.12 show that Janardhan and his son Swamy obtained permission from Municipal Corporation, to construct the house in the suit property. These documents indicate that after the successors of Bhooma
Lingam, either Podichetty Rathna Kumari or Nandelly Janardhan and his son Nandelli Swamy were in possession of the property and the possession of the property by the plaintiff is conflictly ruled out. Thus, these documents show that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property.
13More importantly, the plaintiff is D-14 in OS No.35 of 1984 as mentioned in the Judgment marked as Ex.B-21. In that suit, the Court upheld the possession of the property by the plaintiffs therein who happened tobe the vendors of the Podichetty Rathna Kumari and others.
Thus, as per the judgment rendered by the Court is OS No.35/1984 the 13 14 OS No.437 of 2005 predecessor of the title of Podichetty Rathna Kumari were in possession of the property. D-1 and D-2 claimed their title and possession of the suit property through Podichetty Rathna Kumari who in turn derived the same from the plaintiff in OS No.35/1984. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the judgment in Nagasamudrala Vasaraiah V/s
Dsadam Kondaiah reported in 2012 (3) ALT 124 in which it was held that “once a Court of competent jurisdiction has passed a decree
for injunction, a defendant in that suit cannot be heard, to say
that he is in possession. Even if he has assumed possession
unlawfully, the Court cannot extent its helping hand”. In this case the plaintiff was injuncted by a competent Court and therefore in view of the above judgment the plaintiff cannot be heard to say that she is in possession. Even if, the decree happens to be a consent decree or a decree obtained by fraud still it operates as res-judicata. The learned counsel for the defendants further relied upon the judgment in Desi
Kedari Vs. Huzurabad Cooperative Marketing Society Limited
and others reported in AIR 1994 AP, 301, in which the Hon'ble
High Court of A.P held that, “Even the consent decree operates as res-jidicata”. In Saroja Vs. Chinnusamy reported in AIR 2007 SC 3067 the Supreme Court held that “even an exparte decree passed
in the former suit, operates as res-judicata. It is also held in this
judgment that to sustain plea of the res-judicata it is not
necessary that all the parties to the two litigations must be
common and all that is necessary is that the issue should be
between the same parties or between parties under whom they
or any of them claim”. In this case on hand also the plaintiff was the defendant in OS No.35 of 1984 and defendants have been claiming their 14 15 OS No.437 of 2005 right through the plaintiffs in that suit. Another Judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the defendants is Swamy Atmananda Vs.
Ramakrishna Tapovanam reported in AIR 2005 SC 2392, in which the
supreme Court considered “the Law relating to res-judicata and
held that res-judicata debars , a Court from exercising its
jurisdiction to determine the list if it has attained finality
between the parties”. In the case on hand, the judgment of the Court in OS No.35 of 1984 attained finality and its judgment which operates as res-judicata. As far as, the observation of the Court is OS No35 of1984 regarding non-mentioning of the survey number Ex.B-1 concerned the said observation operates as issue estoppels and now the plaintiff cannot reagitate the same issue again. Therefore, at the outset, the case of the plaintiff is clearly barred by the doctrine or res- judicata is in section of 11 of the CPC and the suit in OS No.35/1984 is the former suit and the suit is a later suit. This suit is barred by the doctrine of resjudicata. Further, Podhichetty Rathna Kumari filed a suit against Neerla Lingaiah is OS No.59/1996 the same was decreed 09.10.2002. The rights of Podhichetti Rathna Kumari are also established. Moreover, Janardhan and Swamy who purchased the land from Neeerla Lingaiah also joined P Rathna Kumari and sold the property to D-1. All these documents clearly established that the plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule mentioned property. When the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, he cannot seek for the relief of perpetual injunction. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and consequently the plaintiff is not entitled, for the relief claimed.
15 16 OS No.437 of 2005 14Though, third respondent filed the written statement, they did not further contest the suit and even according to his own pleadings, the possession of the property is not given to him and therefore in a suit for perpetual injunction he is considered to be defenseless. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 and against the plaintiff holding that he is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction s sought for.
15. Issue No.2
The court came to conclusion that that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and on the other hand there is evidence suggesting that D-1 and D-2 are in possession of the suit property.
Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants and accordingly, the suit is dismissed with costs.
16.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in Open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2015.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
16 17 OS No.437 of 2005
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. FOR THE DEFENDANT.
PW-1: Gouravelli Muralidhar Rao DW-1 P. Ramaiah PW-2: Anasuri Naga Bhushanam DW-2: N Janardhan DW-3: B Anil Kumar
Exhibits Marked.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.
Ex.A-1 Registered sale deed dated 15.11.1978
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Ex.B-1Is the original registered sale deed bearing No.721/1965, Dt: 6-4-1965 in Urdu along with the Telugu translation) Ex.B-2Is the CC of sale deed bearing document No.2756/1986 dt 17.09.1986. Ex.B-3Is the CC of registered sale deed bearing document No.2760/1986, dt 18.09.1986 Ex.B-4Is the CC of registered sale deed bearing document No.2739/1997, dt 16.05.1997 Ex.B-5Is the CC of registered sale deed bearing document No.2740/1997 , dt 16.05.1997 Ex.B-6Is the C.C. of agreement of sale cum GPA vide document No.6619/04, dt 28.06.2004 Ex.B-7C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No. 671/2005,
Dt:19.1.2005.
Ex.B-8C.C.of Judgment in OS.No. 59/1996, Dt: 9-10-2002 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar. Ex.B-9C.C.of Decree in OS.No. 59/1996, Dt: 9-10-2002 on the file of
Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar.
Ex.B-10 CC of W.S. in OS.No. 104/1979 (New number O.S. No. 35/1984), Dt: 8-11-1979 on the file of this court. Ex.B-11 C.C. of Fasal patti. Ex.B-12 C.C. of Municipal permission, Dt: 21-5-2001. Ex.B-13 CC of Tax demand notice along with plan. Ex.B-14 Property tax payment receipt.
17 18 OS No.437 of 2005
Ex.B-15 Registered rectification deed vide document No. 13284/2005,
Dt: 26-11-2005.
Ex.B-16 CC of Property tax receipt, Dt: 31-12-2004. Ex.B-17 CC of property tax receipt, Dt: 25-8-2005. Ex.B-18 CC of property demand notice, Dt: 8-11-2004. Ex.B-19 CC of property demand notice, Dt: 11-5-2005. Ex.B-20 CC of mutation proceedings, Dt: 25-4-2005. Ex.B-21 CC of Judgment and decree in OS.No. 35/1984, Dt: 28-12-1990 Ex.B-22 C.C. of decree in A.S. No. 6/1991, Dt: 5-10-1992. Ex.B-23 CC of Judgment decree and decree in OS.No. 59/1996. Ex.B-24 CC of registered rectification deed, Dt: 26-11-2005. Ex.B-25 CC of faisal patti of the year 1971-72 consisting of two cages. Ex.B-26 CC of W.S. in OS.No. 104/1979. Ex.B-27 CC of house construction permission, Dt: 21-5-2001 along with plan. Ex.B-28 CC of special property tax notice, Dt: 16-8-2001. Ex.B-29 CC of house tax payment receipt, Dt: 28-8-2001. Ex.B-30 CC of house construction permission, Dt: 11-9-2001 with sketch map. Ex.B-31 CC of house tax payment receipt, Dt: 7-9-2001. Ex.B-32 Original house tax payment receipt, Dt: 31-10-2011. Ex.B-33 Original Water tax receipt, Dt: 31-10-2011. Ex.B-34 Original water tax receipt, Dt: 30-7-2012. Ex.B-35 Original property tax receipt, Dt: 20-12-2013.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
18