1
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT NARSIPATNAM
Present: Smt N.Reddy Prasanna,
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Narsipatnam.
Monday, this the 27th day of March, 2023
O.S.No.1 9/2012
Between:
1.Baddam Uma, W/o Eswararao, Hindu, Aged 26 years, Residing at
Baligattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Narsipatnam District.
2.Junnuri Janakiramaiah, S/o Late Daniah, Hindu, Aged 66 years,
Residing at Saradanagar, Narsipatnam Municipality, Narsipatnam
District. (Died)
3.Bathala Jayalakshmi, W/o Sadasivanaidu, Hindu, Aged 34 years,
Residing at Saradanagar, D.No.2-126, Baligattam Village,
Narsipatnam Municipality, Narsipatnam District.
4.Bathala Munikrishna, S/o Late Muniswamynaidu, Hindu, Aged 33 years, Residing at Saradanagar, D/No.2-126, Baligattam Village,
Narsipatnam Municipality, Narsipatnam District.
5.Kaaruparthi Rajeswari, S/o Rajarao, Hindu, Aged 53 years,
Resident at Saradanagar, D.No.2-267/13, Narsipatnam
Municipality, Narsipatnam District.
6.Kolla Vijayalakshmi, W/o Muralikrishna, Hindu, Aged 61 years,
Residing at J.P.Nagar, Bangalore.
7.Kalluri Mahlakshmi, W/o K.S.Prakash, Hindu, Aged 58 years,
Residing at Jayanagar, Bangalore.
8.Muralidaran Lakshmi Kantham, W/o Muralidar, Hindu, Aged 56 years, Residing at Manhatan City, Newyork.
9.Junnuri Srinivasarao, S/o Late Janakiramaiah, Hindu, Aged 51 years, Residing at CBM Compound, Asilmetta, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
(The plaintiffs 6 to 9 are the legal heirs of deceased 2nd plaintiff and are added as parties as per orders in IA 2/2019 dated 19.12.2019) . . . . Plaintiffs 2
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
AND
1.Lagudu Rajubabu, S/o Late Pedakonda, Hindu, Aged 70 years, Residing at 7th ward, Baligattam Village, Narsipatnam
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Lagudu Rajulamma, W/o Rajubabu, Hindu, Aged 57 years,
Residing at 7th ward, Baligattam Village, Narsipatnam
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3.Lagudu Appalanaidu @ Peddabai, S/o Rajubabu, Hindu, Aged 37 years,Residing at 7thward, Baligattam Village,
Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4.Lagudu Kondababu @ Chinna, S/o Rajubabu, Working as
Teacher, Hindu, Aged 32 years, Residing at 7th ward,
Baligattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam
District.
5.L.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o Rajubabu, Hindu, Aged 30 years,
Private Job, Residing at 7th ward, Baligattam Village,
Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
. . . .Defendants
This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 16-03-2023 in the presence of Sri S.Vasavadatta, Advocate for plaintiffs 1, 3 to 5 and
Sri M.Bulli Dora and Smt S.Ramalakshmi, Advocates for the plaintiffs 6 to 9 and Sri M.A.Prasad, Advocates for the defendants 1 to 5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants, their men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
3
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:- the plaint schedule property consisting of four items in an extent of
Ac.0.28 cents. The 1st plaintiff purchased the item No.1 of plaint schedule property in an extent of Ac.0.14 cents from One Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @
Arjunarao under a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2005 for valuable consideration. The 2nd plaintiff purchased Item No.2 of plaint schedule property an extent of 291 Sq. feet from one Gavireddy Subhramayam, registered G.P. holder of original owner of Kommoji Meenakshi under a registered sale deed dated 25.04.2011 for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 jointly purchased the item No.3 of plaint schedule property in an extent of 243 Sq. feet from Lagudu Kannayanaidu @ Arjuanrao under a registered sale deed dated 07.02.2011 for valuable consideration. The 5th plaintiff purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents from Lagudu Kannayanaidu under a registered sale deed
dated 16.03.2011 for valuable consideration. From the date of purchase, they
are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective items without any interruption from anybody and they have right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property of their respective items. They are paying taxes to government and on recognition of the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment, the revenue authorities also entered the plaintiff’s names in revenue records and village Adangal No.1 account. The defendants are closely related with each other and having lands towards southern side of the plaint schedule property and taking advantage of it the disgenerous defendants with an evil idea to grab the plaint schedule property from the plaintiffs without having any right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property tried to enter in to the same, on 19.02.2012, the plaintiffs succeeded to stop the defendants to enter into the plaint schedule 4
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
property with a great deal of difficulty. While so, the defendants are openly proclaiming in the village that they would occupy the plaint schedule property in any way which is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs.
They are in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of all villagers including the defendants.
The defendants have no right, title, possession and enjoyment whatsoever over the plaint schedule land. Unless the injunction is passed against the defendants they would materialized their threats into action, which would result in irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.
3.The 1st defendant filed written statement by denying the plaint averments and the written statement filed by the 1st defendant is adopted by the defendants 2 to 5. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:
The plaint schedule property and other properties are the ancestral properties of them. The defendants and vendors of the plaintiffs and another brother by name Lagudu Appalanaidu and they are the sons of Late Lagudu
Peda Konda. After the death of their father, the ancestral properties are partitioned between the brothers of the defendants. In that partition the plaint schedule properties and other properties are fell to the share of plaintiff’s vendor’s father i.e., Chinnabbai @ Tatayya. The plaintiff’s vendor executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 22.06.1977 settling the plaint schedule properties and some more items of land on this the then minor son, declaring the vendor of the plaintiffs mother as his guardian.
During the minor of plaintiffs vendor, the mother of plaintiff, vendor executed an agreement of sale dated 22.04.1986, the plaint schedule property in favour of them. On the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiffs, vendor mother delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property to the 5
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
defendants is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. After attained majority the, the plaintiffs vendor filed a suit in
O.S.163/1997 on the file of this court for declaration of title and recovery of
possession against the defendant, he contested the referred suit. After full trial, this court passed a decree in favour of plaintiff’s vendor on 05-08-2005 and he preferred appeal in A.S.2/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Narsipatnam against the same. In that appeal he filed IA 69/2006 in
A.S.2/2006 to stay execution of decree and all the further proceedings in
O.S.163/1997 and granted stay in A.S.2/2006 in respect of the plaint schedule
properties. During the pendency of the above said suit the plaintiff’s vendor sold away an extent of Ac.0.14 cents of dry land in S.No.384/2 under a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2005 and pendency of litigation, the 1st plaintiff purchased the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is not binding on him. During the pendency of appeal the plaintiff’s vendor sold away item No.2 in an extent of 291Sq. Feet and Item No.3 an extent of 243
Sq. feet and Item No.4 an extent of Ac.0.03 cents under registered sale deeds
dated 25.04.2011, 07.02.2011 and 16.03.2011 respectively in favour of
plaintiffs 2 to 5 do not binding on him. By the date of purchasing of item No.s 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule property, the vendor of plaintiff has no salable interest over the same. The above referred documents are sham nominal collusive documents. The vendor of the plaintiffs have no right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property.
3(a). The 1st defendant further submitted that after decreed the suit, he filed a suit in O.S.89/2005 on the file of this court for specific performance contract on the basing on agreement of sale dated 22.04.1986 against the vendor of the plaintiff and he filed a written statement. There is no recital that the vendor of the plaintiff sod away the plaint schedule to the plaintiffs.
6
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
In the middle of the suit, the above matter is compromised, the decree was passed in favour of him and the same is binding on the plaintiffs. He is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 22.04.1986 under the protection 53-A T.P.Act. The vendor of the plaintiffs did not filed any
EP in this court to delivery of the plaint schedule property. So the vendor of the plaintiff has no lawful possession or he has no lawful title. The plaintiffs never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. The plaint schedule is not correct. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule is not correct. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule, south and west are not tallied with registered sale deed. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule , south and north are not tallied with registered sale dded. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint are not correct and the defendant never obstructs at any point of time. The suit is not maintainable under law without asking declaration simple suit for injunction is not maintainable. Hence prays the court to dismiss the suit.
4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for prohibitory injunction as prayed for?
2.Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property as contended by the defendants?
3.Whether the plaint schedule is not correct as contended by the defendant?
4.To what relief?
Additional Issue No.1:
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief as prayed?
5.Issues No.1:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for prohibitory injunction as prayed for?
Additional Issue No.1:
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief as prayed?
7
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
For the sake of convenience both the issues are answered together.
It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, the 1st plaintiff purchased Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule property which is an extent of Ac 0.14 cents from one Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @ Arjunarao under a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2005. The 2nd plaintiff purchased Item No.2 of plaint schedule property which is an extent of 291 Sq feet from one Gavireddy Subrahmanyam who is a G.P.A holder of the original owner by name Kommoji Meenakshi under a registered sale deed dated 25.04.2011. The 3rd and 4th plaintiffs jointly purchased Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property which an extent of 243
Sq feet from Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @ Arjunarao under a registered sale deed dated 07.02.2011. The 5th plaintiff purchased Item No.4 of the plaint schedule property which is an extent of Ac 0.03 cents under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011. Since then, the plaintiffs are in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. The plaintiffs are paying taxes to the Government. On recognizing the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the properties, the revenue authorities entered their name in the revenue records and in Village No.3 Adangal account. While so, the defendants who are the close relatives to each other and have lands towards southern side of the plaint schedule properties are trying to grab away the plaint schedule properties and interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the properties. While so, on 19.02.2012, the defendants tried to enter into the plaint schedule properties, but they stopped the defendants to enter into their property. The defendants are proclaiming in the village that they would occupy the plaint schedule properties which are in their possession and enjoyment. Hence the suit.
8
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
6.On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the plaint schedule properties and other properties are the ancestral properties of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant, the father of the vendor of the plaintiffs No.1 and 3 to 5 by name Chinnabbai @ Tatayya and Lagudu Appalanaidu are the sons of late Lagudu peda Konda. After the death of their father, the ancestral properties are partitioned among the 1st defendant and his brothers. In that partition the plaint schedule properties and other properties fell to the share of Chinnabbai @ Tatayya and he executed a gift settlement deed dated 22.06.1977 and settled the plaint schedule properties and some other properties in favour his minor son who is the vendor of the plaintiffs No.1 and 3 to 5 by representing his wife as guardian. Subsequently the mother of the plaintiff’s vendor executed an agreement of sale dated 22.04.1986 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties and also delivered the possession of the property to him. Since then, he is in the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties. While so, the vendor of the plaintiffs No 1 and 3 to 5 after attaining majority, he filed a suit in
O.S.163/1997 on the file of this court for declaration of title and recovery of
possession against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant contested the suit and after full trial the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs vendor. The 1st defendant preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment in
A.S.2/2006 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam.
In the said appeal, he filed a petition in IA 69/2006 and prays the court to stay the execution of decree and further proceedings and obtained stay order. During the pendency of above said suit, the plaintiff’s vendor sold away item No.1 of plaint schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac.0.14 cents of dry land in S.No.384/2 under a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2005 to the 1st plaintiff. Further during the pendency of appeal, the plaintiff’s vendor sold 9
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
away item No.2 (241 sq.feet), Item No.3 (243 sq. feet) and Item No.3 (Ac.0.03 cents) of plaint schedule properties under the registered sale deeds dated 25.04.2011, 07.02.2011 and 13.06.2011 in favour of plaintiffs No. 2 to 5. On the date of the sale of properties, the plaintiff’s vendors has no saleable interest and the registered sale deeds are not binding upon the 1st defendant.
Further all the registered sale deeds are sham and nominal and collusive documents. Further the vendor of the plaintiffs did not disclose about the sale transactions with the plaintiffs in the written statement in O.S.89/2005 and during the pendency of the suit the matter is compromised and decree is passed in favour of the 1st defendant. As such, the said decree is binding upon the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant is in the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property from 22.04.1986 and his rights are protected under
Section 53-A Transfer of property Act, 1872 and the vendor of the plaintiffs has no any right, title and possession over the plaint schedule properties.
Therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled any relief over the plaint schedule properties. Hence prays the court to dismiss the suit.
7.In order to seek the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish that they are in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the date of the filing of the suit. Now it has to be seen whether the plaintiffs established their right, title and possession over the plaint schedule properties.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of plaint schedule properties and they purchased the properties from a lawful owner. Since then, they are in the peaceful possessed and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. Further she contended that the present plaint schedule property is not the property covered in the suit proceedings between the vendor of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant.
10
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
The survey number, extent and boundaries of the properties are different.
The survey number of the plaint schedule properties is S.No.384-2, while the survey number in O.S.89/2005 is S.No.383/2 and the survey numbers in
O.S.163/1997 are S.No.394-2 and S.No.383-2. Therefore the properties in the
present suit and the earlier suits are not one and the same. Further the learned counsel for plaintiffs contended that to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs produced their original sale deeds and also the revenue records. On behalf of the plaintiffs Ex.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On the other hand, there is no document produced by the 1st defendant to prove that he is in the possession of the plaint schedule property. Hence prays the court to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
9.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the properties in the present suit and also in O.S.163/1997 and O.S.89/2005 are the same properties and the 1st defendant is in the possession of the plaint schedule properties. Further to prove the case of the defendants, they examined the vendor of the plaintiffs as D.W.4. D.W.4 in his chief examination he categorically deposed that the 1st defendant is in the possession of the plaint schedule properties. Further he clearly deposed that the properties in all the cases are one and same. Further the plaintiffs after filing the suit they sold away the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd parties under Exs B.5 to B.8. The transactions made by the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 are come under lispendency and they are not tenable under the law and it also clearly shows that the plaintiffs are not in the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties. Hence prays the court to dismiss the suit.
10.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff was examined as
P.W.1, the 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. P.W.3 is the GPA holder and he sold away item No.2 of plaint schedule property on behalf of Kommoji 11
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
Meenakshi and Exs A.1 to A.12 are marked. On the other hand, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1. The younger brother of 1st defendant was examined as D.W.3. The vendor of plaintiff No.1, 3 to 5 was examined as
D.W.4 and Exs B.1 to B.8 were marked. P.W.1 and 2 reiterated the averments of the plaint in their chief examinations and even in their cross examinations, they deposed that they purchased the plaint schedule properties and their in the possession of the same.
11.In the present case, it is the specific case of defendants that the vendor of plaintiff Nos.1, 3 to 5 had no saleable interest and he has no right, title and possessed over the plaint schedule properties and the 1st defendant is in the possessed and enjoyment of item No.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties. In the present case the burden shifts on the defendants to prove that the 1st defendant is in the possession of the plaint schedule properties.
Further in the present case there is no dispute with regard to that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the 1st defendant and the vendor of plaintiff No.1, 3 to 5. Admittedly the plaint schedule properties are their ancestral properties. Further there is no dispute with regard to that after the death of the father of the 1st defendant by name Lagudu Peda Konda, the ancestral properties were partitioned among the 1st defendant and his brothers and in that partition, the plaint schedule properties and some other properties fell to the share of the father of the vendor of plaintiff No.1, 3 to 5 by name Chinnabbai @ Tatayya. Admittedly, the plaint schedule properties and some other properties are allotted to the share of the father of the vendor plaintiff Nos 1, 3 to 5. The main dispute aspect is with regard to that the plaintiffs right, title and possession over the plaint schedule properties.
Therefore the burden heavily lies on the plaintiffs to prove that they are in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties. In the 12
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
present case it is specific case of 1st defendant that when the vendor the plaintiffs was minor, his mother executed an agreement of sale dated 22.04.1986 in his favour in respect of the plaint schedule properties and also delivered the possession of the property to him. Since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.
However the 1st defendant did not produce the above said agreement of sale
dated 22.04.1986 to prove the sale transaction between himself and the
mother of vendor of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule properties.
The said agreement of sale is the relevant document to establish the case of the 1st defendant that he is in the possession of the properties. But the defendant did not produce such relevant document to prove his case. The 1st defendant herein failed to establish that he purchased the plaint schedule properties from the mother of the vendor of the plaintiffs. Further the mother of the vendor of the plaintiffs is the guardian to his minor son onlyand she is in the status to represent her minor son and she is not absolute owner of the properties and she cannot sell away the same to the 1st defendant. As such, the 1st defendant cannot get a better title over the properties (nemo dat quod non habet).
12.Further it is the specific case of the defendants that the vendor of the plaintiffs after attaining majority, he filed a suit in O.S.163/1997 against the 1st defendant and obtained decree. The 1st defendant also filed a suit for specific performance against the vendor of the plaintiff Nos 1, 3 to 5 in
O.S. 89/2005 and the properties in the above said suits and in the present
case are one and same. Further it is the case of the defendants during the pendency of suit in O.S.89/2005 the matter is compromised between the parties and the 1st defendant obtained decree in his favour. As such the 1st defendant is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule 13
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
properties. To prove the case of defendants they produced Exs B.1 to B.4.
Ex.B.1 is the Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S.89/2005. Ex.B.2 is the Certified copy of decree in O.S.163/1997. Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of order EP No.89/2014 in O.S.No.89/2005 and Ex.B.4 Certified copy of order in
EP 82/2012 in O.S.163/1997. From the contents of Ex.B.1 certified copy of
decree and judgment in O.S.89/2005 it clearly shows that the 1st defendant filed a specific performance suit against the vendor of plaintiff Nos 1, 3 to 5 and obtained decree in respect of wet land which is an extent of Ac.0.60 cents out of Ac.5.80 cents in S.No.383/2. Further from the contents of Ex.B.2 certified copy of decree in O.S.163/1997 it clearly shows that the vendor of plaintiff No.1, 3 to 5 by name Lagudu Kannayyanaidu filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession against the 1st defendant and his family members and obtained decree in respect of dry land which is an extent of Ac.0.40 cents or 0.160 hectors in S.No.394-2 and zeroiti dry land to in an extent of Ac.0.32 cents in S.No.383-2. By comparing the plaint schedules in O.S.89/2005 and in O.S.163/1997 it clearly shows that the survey numbers, extent and boundaries in the above said suit proceedings are different and they are not tallying with each other. Further, the extent, survey number and boundaries of the properties in O.S.89/2005 and in
O.S.163/1997 are not tallying with the plaint schedule properties of the suit.
The survey number of present the plaint schedule property is S.No.384-2.
Therefore it clearly shows that the above said suit proceedings i.e.,
O.S.89/2005 and O.S.163/1997 are not filed in respect of the plaint schedule
properties.
13.Further Lagudu Kannayyanaidu who is the vendor of the plaintiffs was examined on behalf of the defendants and he deposed that the properties in all the litigations are one and the same. However the oral 14
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
evidence of D.W.4 is not corroborated with the documentary evidence i.e.,
Ex.B.1 certified copy of decree and judgment in O.S.89/2005 and Ex.B.2 decree in O.S.163/1997. As said earlier the survey number of the plaint schedule property is not mentioned in the suit proceedings i.e., O.S.89/2005 and O.S.163/1997. Further D.W.4 in his cross examination he deposed that the 1st defendant is in the possession of plaint schedule properties even today. Further in the present case, it is also the case of the 1st defendant that he is in the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property since the date of agreement of sale dated 22.04.1986. However there is no sufficient material placed by the 1st defendant to prove his possession over the plaint schedule properties. There is no documentary evidence produced by the 1st defendant to prove that he is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since 22.04.1986. Further from the contents of the Ex.B.4 certified copy of order in EP 82/2012 in O.S.163/1997 it clearly shows that the execution proceedings filed by Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @ Arjuana Rao against the 1st defendant was dismissed with a findings that the D.Hr/the petitioner failed to prove that the 1st defendant possessed the properties. Further from the contents of Ex.B.4 order copy in E.P.82/2012 it shows that during the enquiry Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @ Arjuna Rao stated that the properties in
S.No.384/2 is with Lagudu Rajubabu and he again stated that no body possessed the properties. The evidence of Lagudu Kannayyanaidu is inconsistent with regard to the person who possessed the properties. Further from the inconsistent statement of Lagudu Kannayyanaidu, it creates a doubt with regard to the 1st defendants possession over the plaint schedule property. Further D.W.4 did not produce any documentary evidence to establish that the 1st defendant is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants failed to prove that the 15
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
1st defendant is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties since 22.04.1986.
14.In the present case it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they purchased the plaint schedule properties and they are in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of respective shares and their names are also entered into the revenue records. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs produced Exs A.1 to A.12. From the contents of Ex.A.1 registered sale deed dated 02.06.2005, it clearly shows that the 1st plaintiff purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property from Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @
Arjuna Rao. From the contents of Ex.A.2 registered sale deed dated 25.04.2011, it clearly shows that the 2nd plaintiff purchased item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from a GPA holder by name Gavireddy
Subrahmanyam. From the contents of Ex.A.3 registered sale deed dated 07.02.2011, it clearly shows that the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs purchased item
No.3 of the plaint schedule property from Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @ Arjuna
Rao. From the contents of Ex.A.4 registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011, it clearly shows that the 5th plaintiff purchased item No.4 of the plaint schedule property from Lagudu Kannayyanaidu @ Arjuna Rao. Further from the contents of Exs. A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8 tax receipts dated 19.02.2012, it shows that the 1st plaintiff, 2nd plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff and 5th plaintiff are paying revenue tax in respect of item Nos.1, 2,3 and 4 of plaint schedule properties respectively. From the contents of Ex.A.9 true copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1421, it clearly shows that the name of the 1st plaintiff entered in to the revenue records in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. From the contents of Ex.A.10 true copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1421, it clearly shows that the name of the 2nd plaintiff entered in to the revenue records in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. From the contents of 16
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
Ex.A.11 true copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1421, it clearly shows that the name of the 3rd plaintiff entered in to the revenue records in respect of item
No.3 of the plaint schedule property. From the contents of Ex.A.12 true copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1421, it clearly shows that the name of the 5th plaintiff entered in to the revenue records in respect of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. From the contents of Exs A.1 to A.12 it shows that plaintiff
No.1, 2 and 5 have right, title and possession over item No.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties respectively. Further it shows that the plaintiff No.3 and 4 have right, title and possession over item No.3 of the plaint schedule property.
15.Further it is the serious allegation against the plaintiffs that plaintiff
No.1 to 5 sold away the plaint schedule properties during pendency of the suit. To prove the case of the defendants, the defendants produced the sale deeds of the plaintiffs i.e., Exs B.6 to B.9 which are executed in favour of the 3rd parties in respect of plaint schedule properties. From the contents of
Ex.B.5 registered sale deed dated 28.02.2015. it clearly shows that plaintiff
No.1 and 2 sold away land to an extent of 193.66 in S.No.384-2 out of item
No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties to Setty Rama Krishna. From the contents of Ex.B.6 registered sale deed dated 28.02.2015, it clearly shows that plaintiff No.3 and 4 sold away item No.3 of the plaint schedule property to Kesanakurthi Uma. From Ex.B.7 possessary sale agreement cum general power of attorney dated 30.07.2015 it clearly shows that plaintiff No.5 executed general power of attorney in favour of Kesanakurthy Uma in respect of item No.4 of plaint schedule property. From the contents of Ex.B.8 registered sale deed dated 18.11.2015, it clearly shows that the GPA holder of 5th plaintiff sold away item No.4 of the plaint schedule property to Rapeti
Appala Raju. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Exs A.1 to A.12, it shows 17
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
that the plaintiffs are in the possession of the plaint schedule properties.
However from the contents of Ex.B.5 to B.8 registered sale deeds, it clearly shows that plaintiff No.1 to 5 sold away the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd parties during pendency of the suit. Further it clearly shows that the possession of the properties are also delivered to the 3rd parties. The plaintiffs after they sold away the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd parties, they have no right, possession and enjoyment over the properties. Further the plaintiffs did not make any efforts to add their purchasers in the present suit in order to proceed the case. The conduct of the plaintiffs disentitled the equitable relief of injunction. Therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled the relief of injunction. Accordingly both the issues are answered against the plaintiffs in favour the defendants.
16.Issue No.2 and 3:
2.Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property as contended by the defendants?
3.Whether the plaint schedule is not correct as contended by the defendant?
The present issue relating to the 1st defendant possession over the plaint schedule properties are elaborately discussed in issue No.1. In the present case the 1st defendant did not produce evidence to prove that he is in the possession of plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant failed to established that he is in the possession of plaint schedule properties. Further there is no material placed by the defendants to prove that the plaint schedule is not correct. The defendants herein failed to established that the plaint schedule is not correct. Accordingly the issues are answered against the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs.
17.Issue No.3: To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
18
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March, 2023.
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Narsipatnam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1: Junnuri Janakiramaiah P.W.2: Baddam Uma
P.W.3: Gavireddy Subramanyam
FOR DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1: Lagudu Raja Babu
D.W.2: Kuracha Appalaraju (Eschewed)
D.W.3: Lagudu Appalanaidu
D.W.4: Lagudu Kannayyanaidu
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A.102.06.2005Registered sale deed in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Ex.A.225.04.2011Registered sale deed in respect of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property.
Ex.A.307.02.2011Registered sale deed in respect of Item No.3 of the suit schedule property. Ex.A.4 13-06-2011Registered sale deed in respect of Item No.4 of the suit schedule property.
Ex.A.519-02-2012Tax receipt in respect of Item No.1.
Ex.A.619-02-2012Tax receipt in respect of Item No.2.
Ex.A.719-02-2012Tax receipt in respect of Item No.3.
Ex.A.819-02-2012Tax receipt in respect of Item No.4.
Ex.A.9 -True copy of No.3 account for Fasali 1421 in respect of Item No.1. Ex.A.10-True copy of No.3 account for Fasali 1421 in respect of Item No.2.
Ex.A.11-True copy of No.3 account for Fasali 1421 in respect of Item No.3.
19
Fair Judgment in O.S.19/2012 dt.27.03.2023 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam.
Ex.A.12-True copy of No.3 account for Fasali 1421 in respect of Item No.4.
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B.120-12-2011Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in
O.S.89/2005 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s
Court, Narsipatnam. Ex.B.205-08-2005Certified copy of Decree in O.S.163/1997 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam. Ex.B.315-02-2016Certified copy of order in EP 89/2014 in O.S.89/2005 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Narsipatnam. Ex.B.421-07-2016Certified copy of order in EP 82/2012 in
O.S.163/1997 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s
Court, Narsipatnam. Ex.B.528-02-2015Registered sale deed executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of Setti Ramakrishna. Ex.B.628-02-2015Registered sale deed executed by plaintiffs 3 and 4 in favour of Kesanakurthi Uma. Ex.B.730-07-2015Registered GPA cum sale agreement executed by plaintiff No.5 in favour of Kesanakurthi Uma. Ex.B.818-11-2015Registered sale deed executed by 5th plaintiff in favour of Rapeti Appala Raju.
PJCJ/NRPM