Sri. N.sasidhara Reddy

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,465 court orders on record since 2015. 4 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP cases.

1,465

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/238/2015

P. Anandamma vs G. Anasuya Devi

25 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE 1 st ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TIRUPATI

Present: Sri NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY,

1 st Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati.

Wednesday, the Twenty fifth (25 th ) day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 238 of 2015

P.Anandamma… Plaintiff

Vs.

1. G.Anasuya Devi.

2. M.Subramanyam.

3. V.Sambasiva Rao.

4. D.Ramana… Defendants

This suit coming on 20.04.2018 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao and Sri M. Hema Sundar – Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.Sekhar Advocate for the 1st and 2nd defendants and of Sri N. Manohar – Advocates of the 3rd and 4th defendants, and upon hearing both sides, upon perusal of material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that:The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from one T.K. Thimmarusu through a registered sale deed on 23.06.2005. Prior to that, the vendors’ vendor by name T. Mangamma has purchased the plaint schedule property from P.

Gurrappa Naidu through a registered sale deed on 13.10.1986. The entire lands in Settipalli Revenue village are Inam lands and Ryotwari Pattas were issued in favour of P.Gurrappa Naidu in respect of the suit schedule property. It was clearly mentioned in the revenue record more particularly in 2 the scanned image issued by the Central Survey Officer, Hyderabad that the land is in Sy.No.426/2 and old Sy.No.41. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the revenue officials when tried to dispossess her she has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.38489 of 2013

before the Hon’ble High Court and got interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.

47840/2013. In order to level the plaint schedule land, the entire land was cleared and a thorny wire fence was erected around the schedule mentioned property and internal roads are being laid. On 19.06.2015 at about 9.00 a.m., the defendants along with their men trespassed into the plaint schedule property and damaged the fence and tried to dispossess her and with the help of her friends and elder persons she could able to thwart the illegal acts of the defendants and their men. The defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and they are influential persons and giving threats to her and then the matter was reported to the

Alipiri Police Station, but they refused to entertain the same as it is of civil nature. She is not in a possession to be present physically at the schedule mentioned property and to alienate the same and in order to file suits on her behalf executed a special Power of Attorney appointing at the first instance one P.Haribabu under a deed dated 24.05.2015 and then she appointed

J.Sankar Kumar as new Special Power of Attorney on 04.05.2016 and the

Special Power of Attorney holder filed this present suit against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction.

3. The case of the defendants 1 & 2, in brief, is that:All the allegations in the plaint pleadings are false except those that are specifically admitted by them. There is no cause of action to file the present suit. The suit schedule property originally belongs to A. Guravaiah as he got patta in the year, 1939 and after his death his son A. Subramanyam became 3 absolute owner of the property and sold away on 29.10.1997 to one

Peddireddygari Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy. The said Bhaskar

Reddy had executed a GPA in favour of K.Venkataramana on 09.08.2005 and the said GPA executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 1 st defendant as well as her husband on 09.12.2005 in which one Shamsher

Syed was the first attestor. Basing on the agreement of sale the 1 st defendant got registered sale deed from the said GPA K.Venkataramana on 24.03.2008 for the suit schedule property for a valid consideration. Since the date of purchase she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. The said GPA K.Venkataramana had executed an agreement of sale for the plaint BSchedule property to one

P.Prasanth and the said K.Venkataramana also executed an agreement of sale to the plaint schedule property to one B.Swarnalatha wife of B.

Satyanarayana Raju and the 1 st defendant purchased the property from the said three persons through registered sale deeds. Basing on the agreement of sale executed by K.Venkataramana the 1 st defendant also got a registered sale deed on 14.06.2010 in respect of the suit schedule property. The said facts are aware of the plaintiff and since the date of purchase, the 1 st defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

One Shamshare Syed had tried to interfere with the plaint schedule property in the year, 2011 and then she made a complaint before the S.H.O., Alipiri

Police Station and a case was registered against the said Shamshare Syed and others in Crime No.283 of 2011 and meanwhile he got interim stay orders from the Hon’ble High Court and it is pending for disposal. On 03.05.2014 at about 11.00 a.m., third parties came to the plaint schedule property along with their men engaging JCBs and tried to demolish the compound wall and the same was resisted by the 1 st defendant along with 4 the elders of the locality and for that the 1 st defendant made a complaint

before the S.H.O of Alipiri Police Station, but they did not take any action

and then she filed a suit in O.S.No.120 of 2014 before this Hon’ble Court for grant of injunction. It is contended that the 1 st defendant has sold away a portion of the plaint schedule property to one Tirupathi Rao who is the father of 3 rd defendant on 31.12.2014 and on the same day she delivered possession to him. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the previous Power of Attorney was cancelled and the present Special Power of

Attorney is a genuine one and it is in force till date. Therefore, they pray to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. The case of the defendants 3 & 4, in brief, is that: All the allegations in the plaint pleadings are false except those that are specifically admitted by them. There is no cause of action to file the present suit. They are not having any property in the suit schedule locality and they were added as unnecessary parties and not added the real owners as party with an intention to get wrongful gain. One V. Tirupathi Rao is the absolute owner of the written statement schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as the same was purchased by him on 31.12.2014 from the 1 st defendant and that the 1 st defendant who purchased the same on 14.06.2010 from GPA agent of Peddireddigari Bhaskar Reddy. The said transactions are entered in the encumbrance certificates issued by Sub

Registrar Office, Renigunta. Thus, the father of 3 rd defendant purchased the written statement schedule property and he is not necessary party to the suit proceedings. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property?

(2) Whether the defendants 3 and 4 are unnecessary parties to

the suit?

(3) Whether there is cause of action to file this suit?

(4) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 are examined and

Exhibits A.1 to A.5 are marked.

(i) On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 to D.W.5 are examined and

Exhibits B.1 to B.5 are marked.

7.Heard both sides and I have perused the entire material available on record.

ISSUE Nos. (1) to (3):

8. All the issues are interrelated besides interdependent, as such; the same are taken up together, to avoid redundancy in my discussion.

(i)According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property originally belongs to P. Gurrappa Naidu who got Ryotwari patta and he has sold the same under the original of Exhibit A.1 registered sale deed to one T.

Mangamma and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from one

T.K. Thimmarasu under the original of Exhibit A.2 registered sale deed who is the son of T.Mangamma and Exhibit A.3 scanned Revenue record clearly shows about her right and title over the property through P.

Gurrappa Naidu and due to interference by the Revenue authorities, she has filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and got interim orders under Exhibit A.4. As she is unable to attend before the court and to alienate the suit schedule property she has appointed a Special Power of

Attorney by name Shankar Kumar under Exhibit A.5 and the defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property.

(ii)On the other hand, the defendants contends that the suit schedule property originally belongs to 1st defendant and she sold away the 6 same in favour of the father of 3rd defendant under the original of Exhibit

B.1 registered sale deed as the 1st defendant got the said property under the original of Exhibit B.2 registered sale deed from K.Venkataramana,

GPA holder for Peddireddigari Bhaskar Reddy. The said Peddireddigari

Bhaskar Reddy got the property under the original of registered sale deed in Exhibit B.3 and encumbrance certificate under Exhibit B.4 clearly shows the transactions in respect of the suit schedule property and the 1st defendant clearly deposed before this court in O.S.No.136 of 2014 under

Exhibit B.5 and got decree for the said property and the suit is not maintainable against the 3rd and 4th defendant who are no way concerned.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that one Gurrappa

Naidu got Ryotwari patta from Survey Department for the land in

Sy.No.41/2 and the new Sy.No.426/2 and that the 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.136/2014 for different survey number and property which is no way concerned to the present suit schedule property and the defendants have no claim over the suit schedule property in Sy.No.426/2.

The defendants also clearly admitted in their evidence that they are no way concerned with the property mentioned in this suit and the plaintiff through her G.P.A holder successfully established her case by placing cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

10.The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 argued that one Shamsher Syed is the root cause for the entire litigation and the identity of the suit schedule property is doubtful and there is a cloud over the right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff by name P.Anandamma did not enter into the witness box and got cross examined and as per the settled law the General

Power of Attorney holder can speak about the facts only and cannot step 7 into the shoes of the principle. As on the date of the suit the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the property and the entire evidence goes to show that the plaintiff failed to prove her case and suppressed several material facts and that she has not been in possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore, she is unable to attend before the court and depose as the facts may come out. As per the evidence on behalf of her it is crystal clear that the plaintiff P.Anandamma is hale and healthy and therefore, on that ground the suit is liable to be dismissed.

11.The learned counsel for the defendants 3 and 4 argued that the Power of Attorney executed by P.Anandamma in favour of P.W.1 under

Exhibit A.5 is not valid and the entire contents are false. The plaintiff did not choose to file the original documents before the court and not explained the reason for nonfiling of the original documents. The defendants 3 and 4 are not having any properties in the area located in the suit schedule property and the suit schedule and the written statement schedule are different. There is no cause of action to file the present suit by P.W.1 as per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 to P.W.3 categorically stated that they do not know the defendants 3 and 4 and the plaintiff is not having any valid title and not in possession and enjoyment of the property. The documents which are filed by her are not valid and binding on the defendants 3 and 4 and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

12.The Special General Power of Attorney holder who is examined as P.W.1 has stated that the plaintiff has purchased plaint schedule property under Exhibit A.2 and her vendor got the property under Exhibit

A.1. He stated that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Due to interference by the government officials the plaintiff also filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and under 8

Exhibit A.4 and got orders and the defendants are no way concerned with the property. Whereas in his crossexamination he stated that one

Anasuyamma filed the present case against one Ramana and 3 others and he do not know their names. He further stated that the plaintiff is no way concerned to him and for the past 13 years he is residing near to the suit schedule property and he does not know the total extent of land, but the suit schedule survey number is 426. He is having a house in Sy.No.426/1 which was purchased by him from one Ramana who got G.P.A from Sathar

Saheb and plotted the site. He knows the boundaries for the suit schedule property and he was not present at the time of purchase of the property by the plaintiff and he is not an attestor. He came to know about the extent and survey numbers through the plaintiff only and he knows the facts of the suit schedule and do not know one Shamsher Syed. He do not know whether the plaintiff has sold away the property including the suit schedule to anybody and also about her possession or otherwise. He stated that at the time of visit of Surveyor and measurement of the property he was present and his house is located on the northern side of the land in Sy.No.426/2 and he do not know about the conducting of proceedings in this court for the same suit schedule property and previous case facts. He do not know about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.136/2014 by defendants 1 and 2 against one Shamsher Syed, Venkataramana and

Mohan and about the mention of purchase of the property from

Anandamma by Shamsher Syed in his written statement. He stated that originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Guravaiah and from him Anandamma got the same and he do not know about the sale of the property by the children of Guravaiah after his death to one

Preddireddigari Bhaskar Reddy and the said Bhaskar Reddy gave GPA to

Venkataramana and also sale agreement executed by G.P.A.

Venkataramana in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule property. He further stated that the suit schedule property is a vacant site. At one time there was some galata between the defendants 1 and 2 with Shamsher Syed and Mohan and the plaintiff was never participated in the said altercations and nobody got any altercations with plaintiff at any time. He stated that he do not know for what purpose the defendants 3 and 4 are added in the suit proceedings and he do not know for what reason the present suit is filed against them. He is not seeking any relief against the defendants 3 and 4 in respect of the property in the written statement. The documents filed by the defendants 3 and 4 are true and correct.

13.As seen from the evidence of P.W.2 who is a third party to the proceedings, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from one

T.K.Thimmarusu in the year, 2005 and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. In his crossexamination he stated that he is residing on the northern side of the land of the plaintiff and the defendants and he is doing sundry business in the said place. He do not know who filed this case against whom and not seen the documents of the plaintiff so also the defendants. He do not know the survey numbers of the lands of plaintiff and the defendants and do not know about the moving of the Hon’ble High Court by the plaintiff in respect of the property and do not know about the galata in the suit schedule property in between the plaintiff and the defendants. He does not know about the total extent of the property in Sy.No.426. He never seen the 3rd and 4th defendants and do not know about them. He did not read the chief affidavit as he is an illiterate.

14.According to PW.3, the plaintiff purchased the property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the defendants 10 tried to trespass and plaintiff on 19.06.2015 and he also accompanied the plaintiff to Alipiri Police Station and tried to lodge a complaint. In his crossexamination he stated that he has not seen the defendants 3 and 4 and do not know the documents filed by them. He further stated that the plaintiff is no way concerned with the land in Sy.No.426/3. The suit schedule property is an agricultural land and do not know whether the plaintiff got permission for conversion of the land in Sy.No.426/2 as non agricultural land. He does not know the date of visit of Alipiri Police

Station in respect of the dispute of the suit schedule property but it may be about three years back. He was outside the station and plaintiff only went into the Alipiri Police Station and he does not know what was happened in the police station but she informed about the matter. The plaintiff is aged about 58 years and he is hale and healthy.

15.From the above said evidence, it is very much clear that P.W.1 to P.W.3 does not know the defendants 3 and 4 and that they are no way concerned with the suit proceedings. P.W.1 stated that he came to know about the extent and survey numbers of the properties through the plaintiff and he do not know one Shamsher Syed and stated that one

Anasuyamma who is the 1st defendant herein filed the present case against one Ramana and 3 others. It seems that he is not having any knowledge about the suit property and the case facts and he further stated that the suit schedule property is a vacant site. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff in all aspects as they do not know anything about the case facts and they simply came to the court and deposed on behalf of the plaintiff. From the said evidence, it is very much clear that the defendants are able to elicit that there was no any cause of action to file the present suit and the defendants never tried to dispossess the plaintiff at any point of time and it seems that the present suit has 11 been filed without any cause of action. Only they have stated that the plaintiff purchased the property from one T.K.Thimmarasu except that nothing was stated by them.

16.To substantiate the case of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.5 are examined.

(i)The 3rd defendant who is examined as D.W.1 reiterated the written statement pleadings in his chief affidavit. In his crossexamination he categorically stated that his father purchased property under Exhibit

B.1 from the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant has retained some property and constructed a house and compound on the further south of vacant land in Sy.No.426/5. He further stated that the 1st defendant laid plots and one plot was purchased by him and no plot number was allotted.

The 1st defendant is having some other property in addition to the schedule mentioned in Exhibit B.1 with same boundaries. The 1st defendant constructed a compound for her entire property which includes his property. There was no any mention in Exhibit B.1 about the compound wall constructed by the 1st defendant. He is not claiming any property in

Sy.No.426/2. He does not know about the grant of settlement patta in favour of P.Gurrappa Naidu for the land in Sy.No.426/2 by the concerned authority and do not know about the revenue records and filing of writ petition by the plaintiff against the government in respect of land in

Sy.No.426/2.

(ii)The 1st defendant who is examined as D.W.2 corroborated the evidence of D.W.1 in her chief affidavit. In her crossexamination she stated that the present suit is filed for Sy.No.426/2 and her land is in

Sy.No.426/3 and 4. She do not know about the Ryotwari patta granted to one Gurappa for paimashi No.14 and existence of the name of P.Gurrappa in the revenue records in respect of Paimashi No.14. She does not know 12 about the orders got by the plaintiff against the government. She filed

O.S.No.136/2014 in respect of the land in Sy.No.426/3 & 4 and she is not

having any right over the property in Sy.No.426/2. In the year, 2005 they got private survey for the land purchased by her. The property of the plaintiff is separate and their property is a different one. Her property is located from the property of the plaintiff at a distance of 100 feet on the western side and she is not having any right over the property in

Sy.No.426/2.

(iii)According to DW.3, he do not know the plaintiff in the present suit, he know the suit schedule survey number as Sy.No.426/2. The 1st defendant got sale deed in respect of the property in Sy.No.426/2. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and he knows the said fact. He further stated that the plaintiff sold away the property in Sy.No.426/2.

(iv)According to D.W.4, he constructed 3 feet height compound from south to north of a length of 172 feet in respect of the property of the 1st defendant. He does not know the total extent of site got by 1st defendant and one aged women came and obstructed while constructing rooms. He did not ask about their names but the 1st defendant informed about their names who came and obstructed. He does not know the survey number of the suit schedule property.

(v)According to D.W.5, he has deposed on behalf of one

Shamsher Syed as a witness in his suit and the said case was held in between Shamsher Syed and Anasuyamma. He does not know the survey number of the land and total extent in which Shamsher Syed formed a colony.

17.From the above said evidence nothing was elicited by the plaintiff except suggesting that the suit schedule property belongs to the 13 plaintiff in Sy.No.426/2 and the property of the defendants is in some other survey numbers and the 1st defendant got filed a suit for some other survey number and nothing was elicited in favour of the plaintiff from the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.5.

18.A conjoint reading of the pleadings of both parties and the evidence, oral and documentary adduced by them, and the material on record, makes it clear that the plaintiff is claiming right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property, whereas, the defendants 1 and 2 are seeking the right, title and possession over the said property.

Further the plaintiff did not enter into the witness box and deposed in respect of her case. The documents which are filed by the plaintiff under

Exhibits A.1 to A.4 are not in dispute except submitting that the original documents have not been and there was no any explanation from the plaintiff. Exhibit A.5 was questioned by the defendants 3 and 4 that the said General Power of Attorney is invalid, but nothing is placed before the court. The documents filed by the defendants under Exhibits B.1 to B.5 have not been disputed by the plaintiff at any point of time except putting suggestions that the plaintiff is having land on the western side of land in

Sy.No.426/3 and the plaintiff has got the suit schedule property in

Sy.No.426/2. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff did not mention about the suit in O.S.No.136/2014 filed by D.W.2 who is the 1st defendant herein and did not speak anything that the 1st defendant has got land in

Sy.No.426/3 which amounts to suppression of material facts.

Furthermore, the plaintiff did not attend before the court and states her own case on oath and does not offer herself to be cross examined by the other side, and a presumption would arise that the case set up by her is not correct. Though P.W.3 categorically stated that the plaintiff is hale and healthy and aged about 58 years, but she did not enter into the witness 14 box and the same was questioned by the defendants at each and every stage and challenged the evidence of P.W.1 therefore, evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is untrustworthy. The plea taken by the plaintiff was not supported by entering into the witness box. She did not state the facts pleaded in the plaint on oath in the court and avoid the witness box so that she may not be cross examined. Thus, by itself, is enough to reject her claim that there was no any cause of action.

(i)In this aspect, I am fortified a decision reported in AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT (Civil) 1441 in between Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao and another wherein it was observed that “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbaksha Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh reported in AIR 1997 PC 230.

19.From the above said evidence, it is very much clear that the plaintiff though hale and healthy and aged about 58 years did not attend

before the court and did not enter into the witness box and did not state

the facts pleaded in the plaint on oath. As already stated that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are inconsistent in respect of the cause of action and that the said testimonies did not speak anything about the plaint pleadings except saying that the plaintiff has purchased the property, but they are not the attestors and are not present at the time of registration. It is also an admitted fact that during the pendency of suit the special General

Power of Attorney who has filed the suit was changed by another person who is now examined as P.W.1, but he did not state anything about the case facts including the extent and boundaries. For that, the learned counsel for the defendants 3 and 4 placed reliance on the following decisions____

(i)AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 439 in between Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Limited and others 15 wherein it was observed that “If the power of attorney holder has rendered some ‘acts’ in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be crossexamined.”

(ii)AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 134in betweenShri H.D.Vashishta Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (I.) (P).) Ltd. Wherein it was observed that “the material facts necessary to constitute a cause of action about the illegality of the dismissal had not been averred in the plaint.”

(iii) AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2182 in between K.Seetharam Vs. B.U.Papamma and another wherein it was observed that “In a suit of relief of injunction, the question for determination is whether the defendant, while constructing the building, had encroached upon a portion of the suit land. If the question is answered in the negative, the suit will fail for want of cause of action.”

(iv) 2008 AIR SCW 1310 in between Sri Thimmaiah Vs. Shabira and others wherein it was observed that “In a suit the plaintiff has to establish that he is in possession in order to be entitled to a decree for permanent injunction.”

20.With the above oral and documentary evidence, it has to be decided whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction and there is cause of action and that the defendants are trying to encroach the same. Having regard to the dispute as to the right, title and interest set forth by both sides, it calls for taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence. It is a fact that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under Exhibit A.2 in Sy.No.426/2 and it is also an admitted fact that the defendants got the property in Sy.No.426/3 and 426/4 which is on the eastern side of the land in Sy.No.426/2. Case of the plaintiff is that she got right over the plaint schedule property through the documents under Exhibits A.1 to A.5, whereas, the case of the defendants is that they got their property under Exhibits B.1 to B.5. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not enter into the witness box and testified her contention in 16 the plaint, but the defendants consistently stated that there was no any cause of action and they are no way concerned with the land in

Sy.No.426/2 and it is also an admitted fact that the 1st defendant got filed a suit in O.S.No.136 of 2014 which was not stated by the plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction based on

Exhibits A.1 to A.4, but did not speak anything about the documents by entering into the box. At the instance of the plaintiff the Special Power of

Attorney entered into the box as P.W.1, but did not speak anything about the case facts and simply stated that the 1st defendant has filed the present case against one Ramana and 3 others and he do not know their names.

On a careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is very much clear that P.W.1 who is a General Power of Attorney does not know anything about the case facts and he has not deposed for the acts done by the principal and the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are applicable to the case on hand. Furthermore, P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not speak anything about the cause of action and also the material facts necessitates to constitute a cause of action and as per the said evidence, it seems that there was no any cause of action to file the present suit by the plaintiff. It is also crystal clear that the 1st defendant is having property on the eastern side of the suit schedule property and got constructed a compound and the said evidence was not denied by the plaintiff at any point of time except putting suggestions that no such compound was constructed for the property of the 1st defendant. It is also crystal clear that the plaintiff has sold away the property in Sy.No.426/2 and not denied the said suggestion and therefore, the question of seeking the relief does not arise. Undisputedly, the suit was one for permanent injunction and in such a suit the plaintiff has to establish that she is in possession in order to entitle a decree for permanent injunction. In the instant case the 17 plaintiff failed to prove her case and there is cause of action and that the defendants 3 and 4 are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.

P.W.1 to P.W.3 categorically stated that they did not know the date of alleged incident and do not know the defendants 3 and 4 and they never seen them. Therefore, it is clear that the defendants 3 and 4 are no way concerned with the present cause of action and they are unnecessary parties to the proceedings. Furthermore, the possession of the plaintiff was not explained by P.W.1 to P.W.3 and they simply stated that the plaintiff purchased the property and from the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.5 that the plaintiff has no property in Sy.No.426/2 was not disputed by the plaintiff at any point of time by placing cogent and convincing evidence.

On a careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff the same is not corroborative with the plaint pleadings and the plaintiff is not claiming any right over the property in Sy.No.426/3 and 426/4 and that there was no any cause of action against the defendants herein. Without cause of action it seems that the plaintiff approached the court through the Special General Power of Attorney and during the pendency of the proceedings she has changed the General Power of

Attorney holder and not filed the cancellation deed to confirm that the

General Power of Attorney under Exhibit A.5 is in existence and the previous General Power of Attorney holder was cancelled. Further, P.W.1 to P.W.3 admitted in their evidence that the defendants never interfered into the possession of the plaintiff and as per sections 38 and 34 of

Specific Relief Act the plaintiff failed to prove her case and the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the defendants only.

(i) In view of my above discussion and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is unable to prove or establish her case over the plaint schedule property 18 and also about her enjoyment and there is cause of action to file the present suit and the defendants 3 and 4 are necessary parties and accordingly, the issues 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE No.(4):

21.In view of my findings on issues 1 to 3, it is clear that the plaintiff failed to prove her case and also failed to prove that there was an interference of her possession by the defendants and there was cause of action to file the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for, as it is purely a discretionary relief. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

22.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April 2018.

Sd/ N.Sasidhara Reddy 1 st Additional Junior Civil Judge Tirupati

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

P.W.1:J.Shankar KumarD.W.1:V.Sambhasiva Rao. P.W.2:P.RaviD.W.2:G.Anasuya Devi P.W.3:P.NaguruD.W.3:A.Jagapathi D.W.4:M.Suresh D.W.5:R.Yellaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1:Dated 13.10.1986, Attested copy of sale deed in favour of T.Mangamma executed by P.Gurrappa Naidu. Ex.A2:Dated 23.06.2005, Certified copy of sale deed in favour of P.Anandamma executed by T.K.Thimmaraju. Ex.A3:Dated 27.11.2015, Certified copy of scanned Revenue Record 19 issued by the Central Survey Office, Hyderabad. Ex.A4:Dated 17.04.2014, True Copy of order in W.P.M.P.No.47840 of 2013 in W.P.No.38489 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Ex.A5:Dated 04.05.2016, Special power of Attorney executed by P.Anandamma in favour of plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1:Dated 31.12.2014, Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of Upputuri Tirupati Rao executed by G.Anasurya Devi.

Ex.B.2:Dated 14.06.2010, Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of G.Anasuya Devi executed by Peddireddigari Bhaskar Reddy through GPA K.Venkataramana.

Ex.B.3:Dated 29.10.1997, Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of P.Bhaskar Reddy executed by A.Subramanyam.

Ex.B.4:Dated 31.07.2015, Certified copy of encumbrance certificate statement No.13214299 of S.R.O., Renigunta for 21 years from 24.03.1994 to 30.07.2015 along with FMB sketch.

Ex.B.5:Deposition of D.W.2 in O.S.No.136/2014 on the file of I

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati.

Id/ N.S.R. 1 st ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

// True Copy //

Draft/Fair Judgment in O.S.238/2015

dated 25.04.2018 (Title Suit)

OS/44/2015

Reddamma vs B. Syam Mohan David Raju

25 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE 1 st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TIRUPATI

Present: Sri NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY,

1 st Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati.

Wednesday, the Twenty fifth (25 th ) day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 44 of 2015

I.Reddamma… Plaintiff

Vs.

1. B.Syam Mohan David Raju.

2. K.Gangadharam.

3. Monteesori Educational Society, Regd. No.380/11, represented by its Secretary, Didla Sangeetha Rao.

4. Didla Ratnamala. (D.3 and D.4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.95/2016, Dt. 03.08.2016) … Defendants

This suit coming on 20.04.2018 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri D.Ramamurthy Reddy – Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M. Vijay Sekhar Advocate for the defendants, and upon hearing both sides, upon perusal of material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering in the rights of ingress and egress over plaint B and C schedule properties to reach plaint A Schedule property from Pakalavaripalle village which is shown in the rough sketch and for costs.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that:She purchased plaint

Aschedule property under a registered sale deed on 28.01.2002 from its lawful owners N. Radhakrishnaiah Chetty and others and another sale deed, dated 20.06.2002 from one N. Anand Chetty and others and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. She has also purchased rights over ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule mentioned properties in order to enjoy plaint A schedule property and there is no other road or passage or bandibata to reach the suit Aschedule property and hence, she is having right over B and C schedule properties for ingress and egress to reach ASchedule property from 2

Pakalavaripalle Village. The defendants are also having landed property on the side of B and C schedule properties. Last week of January, 2015 the defendants demanded her to sell the rights over B and C schedule properties and for that she refused to do so, as she has no other road or passage or bandibata to reach her plaint ASchedule property. The defendants hatched a plan to knock away the said property in order to encroach upon B and C schedule properties though they have no right, title over B and C schedule mentioned properties. After filing of the suit the 1 st defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 and under the guise of registered sale deed along with defendants 1 and 2, the defendants 3 and 4 are also creating troubles to her and therefore, she has added 3 rd and 4 th defendants in the suit. She has filed a caveat petition before the Hon’ble

Court on 02.02.2015 and after reading the contents in the caveat the defendants along with their men came to the suit schedule properties on 14.02.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., and tried to interfere with her rights over B and C schedule properties.

In that connection mediation was also held at the village, but the defendants did not care the advice of elders and tried to dispossess her from the plaint B and C schedule properties and hence, she forced to file this suit.

3. The case of the defendants 1 & 2, in brief, is that: All the allegations in the plaint pleadings are false except those that are specifically admitted by them. The plaintiff suppressed the material facts and came to court with mala fide intention to deceive them and thereby induce them to deliver their landed property to her, in order to get wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to them. In fact there are no such B and C schedule mentioned bandibata/road leads to ASchedule property. That was the reason, in the registered documents referred by the plaintiff does not disclose the extent of Bandibata/road was in existence to the ASchedule mentioned property. Furthermore, the documents of the plaintiff are silent about that how the vendors of plaintiff have got right over B and C schedule mentioned properties. Furthermore, the cement road starts from Pakalavaripalli

Village to temple and gravel road continues from temple to the Sy.No.818/2B land.

It is the end of the road without further extension as per the revenue records, survey plan and the registered documents. All these clearly shows that there was no such bandibata/road as mentioned in B and C schedule property leads to A

Schedule property. The 1 st defendant is the absolute owner of the landed property covered under registered sale deed dated 24.01.2015 duly executed by 2 nd defendant in favour of the 1 st defendant for valid consideration and also delivered possession of the land. Since then the 1 st defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without interference by anybody. Prior to that, the vendor of the 1 st defendant had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The Revenue authorities have recognized the possession and enjoyment of the 1 st defendant in respect of the property covered under the document, dated 24.01.2015 and issued pattadar passbook, 1B extract and adangal. Prior to that the 2 nd defendant was in legal possession and enjoyment of the said property covered under the registered sale deed, dated 06.05.2000. The revenue authorities have also recognized 2 nd defendant legal possession and enjoyment of the property and issued pattadar passbook, 1B extract and adangal.

The documents of the 2 nd defendant are prior documents of the plaintiff. The sketch filed by the plaintiff is self served document and created one for the purpose of this case though there is no existence of B and C schedule properties. Thus, the 1 st defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the B and C schedule properties as absolute owner and with an ulterior motive the plaintiff filed this suit.

The Chandragiri Surveyor has issued survey map regarding the land in 6 survey numbers which is enclosed to the written statement which clearly shows that there will be no such existence of Bandibata/road as per revenue records. Except the pleadings of the plaintiff, she never had any right of ingress and egress over B and

C schedule mentioned properties which are not valid in the eye of law. The plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience and no irreparable loss is being caused to her. The plaintiff has approached this court with clean hands and failed to disclose the material facts which are relevant and concealed the entire 4 facts. The suit is not a bona fide one and there is no cause of action and therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint

B and C schedule properties to reach plaint A Schedule property from Pakalavaripalle Village?

(2) Whether there is cause of action to file this suit?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed for?

(4) To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 are examined and Exhibits

A.1 to A.9 are marked.

(i) On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 is examined and Exhibits B.1 to

B.5 are marked.

6.Heard both sides, and I have perused the entire material available on record.

ISSUE Nos. (1) to (3):

7. All the issues are interrelated besides interdependent, as such, they are taken up together to avoid redundancy in my discussion.

(i)The admitted facts in this case are that, the plaintiff has purchased the plaint ASchedule property under Exhibit A.1 to an extent of Ac.1.75 cents out of Ac.3.50 cents bounded by East – Lands of Varadiah; West – Land of Gangaiah;

North – Lands of Nagamma and others; South – Lands of N. Anand and others and also right of way to reach the said property. Plaintiff also purchased another land in Sy.No.714/2 of an extent of Ac.3.54 cents under Exhibit A.2 bounded by

East – I. Munemma and others lands; West – Gangaiah and others lands; North –

A.G. Guravaiah and A. Munaswamy lands; South – Swarnamukhi river and the lands of one Tapala Ramaiah with mango trees and also right of ingress and egress to reach the said property. The said documents are not disputed by the defendants. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st defendant purchased land of an 5 extent of Ac.3.52 cents in Sy.Nos.783/1, 783/2A, 2B, 818/2B, 782/A, 784/A bounded by East – T.Seshadri Garden; West – Pakala Muneppa and

P.B.Ramachandraiah lands and North – P.B.Ramachandraiah and

P.Subramanyam lands; South – Swarnamukhi river. It is also an admitted fact that on the southern side of the property in Exhibit A.2 and in Exhibit B.1 there is Swarnamukhi River. It is an admitted fact that the vendors of the 1st defendant purchased the land through Exhibit A.7 in Sy.No.783/1, 783/2A, 783/2B of an extent of Ac.1.63 cents bounded by East – Thangavelu land; West – Bandibata;

North–P. Ramachandraiah land; South – Thangavelu land and burial ground. The said vendor also purchased through Exhibit A.8 to an extent of Ac.0.95 cents in

Sy.Nos.782, 783, 784 with specific boundaries. The vendor of the 1st defendant purchased land from N. Radhakrishnaiah and Anand who are the vendors of the plaintiff for the land in Sy.No.782 and 784 of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents under

Exhibit A.9. It is also an admitted fact that for the land in Exhibits A.8 and A.9 the northern side boundary is mentioned as Bandibata and for the lands in

Exhibit A.7 the western side boundary is mentioned as Bandibata. Whereas, the lands purchased by the plaintiff through Exhibits A.1 and A.2 there was no any specific mention of Bandibata or road on either side. All the documents which are filed by the defendants under Exhibits B.1 to B.5 have not been disputed or challenged by the plaintiff at any point of time. The documents filed by the plaintiff under Exhibits A.4, A.5 and A.6 are challenged by the defendants by saying that they are self serving documents without any proof. In a nut shell the documents under Exhibits A.1 to A.3, A.7 to A.9 and Exhibits B.1 to B.5 are not in dispute and unchallenged.

8.As seen from the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff she categorically stated in her crossexamination that the properties under Exhibits A.1 and A.2 are different and no way connected, but she has mentioned as plaint ASchedule property. She further stated that her vendor Radha Krishna got property on the northern side as per Exhibit A.5 which was mentioned in Exhibits A.8 and A.9 as ‘retained bandibata by Radhakrishna’. She further stated that the southern side 6 boundary land owners did not use BSchedule property as a way to go to their lands including tractor. She stated that one Munaiah, Tapala Ramanaiah used to reach their lands from bandibata from Amavasyavaripalli. She stated that B

Schedule property shown in the rough sketch under Exhibit A.5 is on the western side of her property. The 1st defendant purchased land from 2nd defendant which is on the eastern side of CSchedule property. She categorically stated that the property of 1st defendant is located in between A and C schedule properties. From the evidence of P.W.1 the defendants clearly elicited that except the plaintiff nobody are said to have been using the alleged bandibata shown as Plaint B and

C schedule properties and the said B and C schedule properties are located in the property of the 1st defendant.

9.According to P.W.2, he does not know the survey number of the suit schedule property and extent and came to court and deposing at the request of the plaintiff who is residing at Tirupati. He stated that the plaintiff purchased the property in the year, 2002, whereas the 1st defendant purchased property in the year, 2015. On the western side of the suit schedule property the 1st defendant is having his lands. He was present at the time of survey of the land and not seen the report of the surveyor.

10.According to P.W.3, the plaintiff filed this case against the 1st defendant for the purpose of way and he does not know the survey number of the suit schedule property including measurements and boundaries. He stated that he has not seen the sale deed, dated 28.01.2002 under Exhibit A.1. On the West of the suit schedule property the 1st defendant purchased the land and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He further stated that he do not know the names of the defendants 3 and 4 and cannot say their details.

11.From the above said evidence, it is clear that on the western side of the suit Aschedule property, the 1st defendant has purchased his land and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also clear that there was no any specific mention of bandibata or road in the sale deeds of the plaintiff except mentioning that including the right of way to reach Aschedule property.

12.On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of 1st defendant who is examined as D.W.1, he reiterated the written statement pleadings in his chief affidavit. In his crossexamination he stated that the plaint ASchedule property is on the eastern side of his property and southern boundary of his property is

Swarnamukhi River. He stated that on the eastern side of his property there is a vacant space and then Mango garden is located which belonged to the plaintiff and he do not know about the enjoyment of the said property by the plaintiff

before his purchase of the property. He stated that there is a way from the village

to go to Swarnamukhi River and the said way is located on the western side of his property. The way which was mentioned by him is found in the plaint schedule rough sketch as CSchedule. He does not know about the using of said way by the plaintiff to go to ASchedule property through B and C schedules. He denied the suggestions that plaint B and C schedule properties are the bandibata from the village to reach ASchedule by the plaintiff and that to occupy the said bandibata he is deposing falsely. He does not know the western boundary shown in Exhibit A.7 as bandibata. He stated that the documents under Exhibits A.7 to

A.9 belonged to his vendors and vendors’ vendors and northern side boundary is shown as bandibata. He stated that the lands in Sy.Nos.782 and 784 the southern boundary is shown as Swarnamukhi River. He has not filed the report of the Surveyor before the court. He executed a registered sale deed on 06.04.2015 in favour of his wife and the Institution (D3 & D4). He stated that the plaint averments are mentioned in Para No.4 of his chief affidavit that there was existence of bandibata in the rough sketch and he is not admitting the said version. Except the evidence of 1st defendant no other witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendants.

13.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that in the written statement at Para 11 and 12 there are admissions in respect of the existence of the plaint B and C schedule properties and there is one Bandibata and originally the entire property belonged to one Nagaram family. He submitted that plaintiff purchased plaint ASchedule property and B and C schedules under Exhibits A.1 8 and A.2. The 2nd defendant purchased the property under Exhibit A.7 from one

Muniraja and they are crucial documents to show the existence of bandibata on the western side and it was shown as bandibata on the northern side in Exhibits

A.8 and A.9. He submitted that a combined reading of Exhibits A.1 and A.2, A.7 to A.9 goes to show that there is existence of B and C schedule properties and there is bandibata for ingress and egress to reach plaint ASchedule property. He submitted that the 1st defendant is relying on Exhibit B.1 document and nothing else and the 1st defendant purchased the property available and existing property and claimed only through Exhibits A.7 to A.9. The 1st defendant suppressed the material facts and shown wrong boundaries in Exhibit B.1 which is in violation of boundaries mentioned in Exhibits A.7 and A.9 which are the parent documents.

He further submitted that there is no any other way except plaint B and C schedule bandibata to reach plaint ASchedule property which was mentioned in

Exhibits A.1 and A.2. Therefore, he prays to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff or else, she will put to irreparable loss in injury.

14.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 vehemently argued that the 1st defendant never admitted the plaint pleadings in the written statement at Para 11 and 12 which were clearly denied by the 1st defendant and only stated that the plaintiff purchased the bata/way as per his documents which cannot attract the provisions under sections 13 and 15 of

Easements Act. The plaintiff is mainly relying on Exhibits A.1 and A.2 which does not disclose on which side the right of way is located and existence of Bandibata and the recitals of the said documents clearly supported the version of the defendants. In Exhibits A.1 and A.2 the west and northern boundaries are shown as the lands of Pakala Muneppa and A.Guravaiah and on southern side boundary shown in the said documents there is Swarnamukhi river and one Ramaiah land, from it she can reach Pakalavaripalli Village and the plaintiff did not establish her case by placing cogent and convincing evidence. The measurements mentioned in the plaint in plaint B and C schedules have not been disclosed in any of the documents filed by the plaintiff except in the plaint schedule and therefore, the 9 plaintiff could not establish the width and length of the alleged bandibata/road and could not establish the existence of B and C schedule property and the plaint is lack of pleadings. The evidence of the plaintiff also does not disclose about the said measurements which is mentioned in plaint B and C schedule properties.

Exhibits A.7 to A.9 documents are no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff and cannot confer the right of the alleged bandibata and she miserably failed in establishing the alleged right as per Section 38 of Specific Relief Act and she also suppressed the material facts. The plaintiff categorically admitted in her evidence that except herself nobody is using the alleged B and C schedule bandibata. He submitted that the properties in Exhibits A.1 and A.2 are in a contiguous bit as per the plaintiff during crossexamination and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

15.A thorough analysis of the documentary evidence adduced by both parties reveals as follows___ The plaintiff purchased the plaint ASchedule property under Exhibits A.1 and A.2 from one N. Radhakrishnaiah and others and N. Anand Chetty and another which is not in dispute. Exhibit A.3 is the electricity payment bill. Exhibits A.7 to A.9 are no way concerned in respect of the plaint schedule properties and existence of bandibata. Exhibit A.4 is the caveat petition which is the replica of plaint pleadings which was totally denied by the defendants. Exhibit A.5 is the rough sketch shown the location of the property of the defendants is on the western side of plaint ASchedule property and the defendants challenged the said document as self made document which is not admissible in evidence. In respect of the documents under Exhibits B.1 to B.5 there was no any dispute except saying that the 1st defendant purchased the property from 2nd defendant under Exhibit B.1 and the 1st defendant got adangal and 1B extract which are in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The said documents have not been challenged by the plaintiff at any point of time except trying to elicit that there is existence of bandibata adjacent to the plaint A

Schedule property to reach Pakalavaripalli Village through B and C schedules.

16.A conjoint reading of pleadings of both parties and evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by them, and the material available on record, makes it clear that the plaintiff and the defendants are claiming right, title and possession over the plaint B and C schedule properties. Further, the plaintiff did not state anything in her evidence and placed any documentary proof about the width and length of the B and C schedule property, except pleadings and only relying on the documents under Exhibits A.1 and A.2 and A.7 to A.9. The recitals in the sale deeds Exhibits A.1 and A.2 does not reveal anything about the existence of bandibata and on which side the said bandibata is located. On a careful scrutiny of the recitals in Exhibits A.1 and A.2 it reveals that the plaintiff has purchased the properties and the right of way to reach plaint ASchedule property and except that nothing was pleaded and placed before the court by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff filed Exhibit A.5 rough sketch, but it does not confer any right over the B and C schedule properties. P.W.1 categorically admitted in her evidence that on the west of her property there is the property of the 1st defendant and further categorically admitted that except her, nobody is using B and C schedule properties and from that an inference can be drawn that there is no any bandibata. PW.1 categorically admitted that the 1st defendant got surveyed the land before purchase of his property, which clearly shows that the 1st defendant is having his property which was purchased under Exhibit B.1 on the western side of plaint ASchedule property and there was no any existence of

B and C schedule properties. Furthermore, the plaintiff has purchased her properties in the year, 2002 through Exhibits A.1 and A.2, whereas the vendors of the 1st defendant have purchased the properties on the western side of the plaint

ASchedule property in the year, 2000 which is prior to the purchase of the land by the plaintiff and therefore, mere mentioning of bandibata on the northern side of the property in Exhibits A.8 and A.9 cannot confer any right, title and possession over the same by the plaintiff.

(i) According to Section 13 it is very much clear that ‘if such an easement is apparent and continuous and necessary for enjoying the said 11 property as it was enjoyed when the transfer or bequest took effect, the transferor or the legal representative of the testator, shall, unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, upon entitled to such easement’. In this case the plaintiff did not elicit anything from the evidence of D.W.1 or from her own evidence that the alleged bandibata is in existence for times immemorial and also she did not get any right through the provision under section 15 of Easement Act by way of prescription in order to claim an easement right what is required in law is assertion of hostile claim with consciousness to exercise such hostile claim on the property of others and these necessary ingredients are not found to be available in the present case. It is also very much clear from the oral and documentary evidence that the plaintiff is inaccessible except by passing over the adjoining land or by trespassing on the land of a stranger and the plaintiff is entitled to a right of way, for agricultural purposes only, over adjoining land in which was purchased by the 1st defendant, and the plaintiff has purchased the property under Exhibits A.1 and A.2 with a right of way. Section 13, 15 and 20 to 31 of Easement Act, 1882 clearly shows that prescriptive right of easement, easement of necessity and restrictions and limitations putforth in exercising such right. It is very much clear from the documentary evidence and oral evidence that the plaintiff making use of way to her agricultural land under plaint

ASchedule property from Pakalavaripalli Village through the lands of the defendants only, without actual existence of bandibata as such. Rights of liabilities of plaintiff and defendants are subject to limitations prescribed under sections 20 to 31 in chapter III of Easement Act which regulate the enforcement of

Easementary Rights.

17.Surprisingly, during the crossexamination the 1st defendant who is examined as D.W.1 clearly admitted that in Exhibits A.8 and A.9 the northern boundary is shown as bandibata and retained property of one Radhakrishnaiah

Chetty and Ananda Chetty who is the vendors’ vendor of the 1st defendant herein.

He also admitted in his evidence that there is a way from the village to go to

Swarnamukhi River and the said way is located on the western side of his 12 property. He also admitted that the way which was mentioned by him is found in the plaint rough sketch as CSchedule and he do not know about the using of the said way by the plaintiff to go to ASchedule property through B and C schedules.

He also admitted that the plaint ASchedule property is on the eastern side of his property. From which evidence it is very much clear that the plaintiff has been using as a way to reach his plaint ASchedule property from Pakalavaripalli

Village through CSchedule and through property the property of 1st defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff can use the said way as not a matter of right to reach her plaint ASchedule property, but with restrictions as mentioned in Sections 20 to

31. Furthermore, right of access by way of prescription, in order to establish the same, one has to show that the incumbent has been using the land as of right peacefully and openly without any interruption for the last 20 years. In this case the plaintiff failed to prove the same since what date to which date she is using the access for the last 20 years and she has to aver specific pleadings and categorical evidence, and therefore, she is not entitled the right of access by way of prescription. Furthermore, she did not place any material before the court about the length and width of the said alleged bandibata except in the pleadings.

According to the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff she has failed to place the material before the court and her evidence is also inconsistent, but the documents and other evidence clearly establishes that there is only a mention of way to reach the plaint ASchedule property and there was no any bandibata or existence of B and C schedule properties as pleaded by the plaintiff.

18.On a careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence goes to show that the plaintiff miserably failed in establishing her case except her pleadings and admittedly the plaintiff has been using a path way to reach

Pakalavaripalli Village for agricultural purposes through the lands of her western side and through the land of 1st defendant and the road which is mentioned as C

Schedule. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 relied on a decision reported in 2005 (2) ALD 16 (SC) in between Justiniano Antao and others Vs. Bernadette B.Pereira wherein it was observed that “there should be 13 clear and categorical pleading and proof that since what date to what date one is using said right for last 20 years, openly, peaceably and uninterruptedly.”

19.In the instant case, there is no any specific averment in the plaint or in the statement of witnesses showing that the access from the land of the defendants was used as of right for the past 20 years. The evidence on hand clearly shows that the plaintiff has been using as a way only and not as of a right on the western side of her property since a long time. Therefore, it is clear that it is not the case of the plaintiff that she has been using the access of right through the property of defendants since the date of her purchase of plaint Aschedule property. It is also crystal clear that there is other way to reach plaint ASchedule property as she did not deny the suggestions put by the learned counsel by the defendants. I have gone through all the documents filed by both parties and except the recitals in Exhibits A.1 and A.2 that there is a right of way, but nothing was shown on which side the said way is available and length and width of the said way. Exhibit A.7 shows that there is bandibata on the western side of the land in Sy.No.783/1, 783/2A, 783/2B and there is a bandibata on the northern side for the lands mentioned in Exhibits A.8 and Ex.A.9 for the lands in

Sy.No.782, 783, 784 and as seen from the Field Map which was not exhibited

before the court, but available in the record does not show any such ‘bandibata’

and the property of the plaintiff is located in Sy.No.714 which is on the eastern side of the said survey numbers. It is crystal clear that the plaintiff was unable to prove her case by placing cogent and convincing evidence except the above said discussion. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish her lawful possession of the plaint B and C schedule property and using the same as a right of way to reach plaint ASchedule property and I believe the version of the defendants from the pleadings and also the documents placed before the court.

(i) As seen from the plaint pleadings and also on a careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence it is established by the plaintiff only to the effect that she is using the land on the western side in Sy.Nos.783, 782, 784 only for the purpose of passing over the same to reach plaint ASchedule property and 14 she is not entitled to any easement right of path way and right of prescription as per the provisions under sections 13 and 15 of Easements Act, 1882.

Furthermore, there is no cause of action to file the present suit as nothing was placed before the court that the defendants have obstructed her and on which date they have obstructed are not explained by her. Accordingly, the version of the plaintiff is unbelievable and the version of the defendants are believable and therefore, she is not entitled to any relief as prayed for which is purely a discretionary relief. In view of my above discussion and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is unable to prove or establish her case over the plaint B and C schedule properties.

Accordingly, the issues 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE No.(4):

20.In view of my findings on issues 1 to 3, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case and also failed to prove that there is cause of action.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

21.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April 2018.

Sd/ N.Sasidhara Reddy 1 st Additional Junior Civil Judge Tirupati

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

P.W.1:I.ReddemmaD.W.1:B.Syam Mohan David P.W.2:P.Chengalraya Chetty P.W.3:Marri Venkatesu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Dated 28.01.2002, Certified copy of the registered sale deed, 15

Doc.No.61/2002 executed by N.Radhakrishnaiah Chetty & others in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2:Dated 20.06.2002, Certified copy of the registered sale deed, Doc.No.849/2002 executed by N.Ananda Chetty & another in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A3:Electricity payment bill issued in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A4:Office copy of Caveat filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Ex.A5:Rough sketch. Ex.A6:Photos with C.D along with Video C.D. Ex.A7:Dated 16.08.1997, Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of D2 filed by the plaintiff. Ex.A8:Dated 05.06.2000, Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of D2 filed by the plaintiff. Ex.A9:Dated 06.05.2000, Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of D2 filed by the plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1:Dated 23.01.2015, Registered sale deed vide Doc.No.200/2015 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. Ex.B.2:Mee Seva copy of adangals (06 in number) stands in the name of 1st defendant. Ex.B.3:Mee Seva copy of 1B register stands in the name of 1st defendant. Ex.B.4:Mee Seva copy of adangals (06 in number) stands in the name of 2nd defendant. Ex.B.5:Mee Seva copy of 1B register stands in the name of 2nd defendant.

Id/ N.S.R. 1 st ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

// True Copy // 16

Draft/Fair Judgment in O.S.No.44/2015

dated 25.04.2018 (Title Suit)

OS/504/2017

Fusion Advanced Materials PVt., Ltd., rep. by its Director Sri. S. Manohar Raju, vs M/s. Mantek Electrodes Pvt., Ltd., rep by its Managing Director.

27 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE 1 st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

TIRUPATI

Friday, the Twenty seventh (27th) day of April, 2018.

PRESENT: Sri Naga Sasidhara Reddy, 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.504/2017

Fusion Advanced materials Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director

Sri S.Manohar Raju... Plaintiff

1. M/s. Mantek Electrodes Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director.

2.M/s. Mantek Electrodes Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Accounts Department.

.. Defendants

This suit is coming before me this day i.e., on 27.04.2018 for consideration in the presence of Sri Salva Rajendra Raju -

Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri C.Lakshmi Reddy - Advocate for the defendants and in view of both parties agreed for passing of a compromise Award (decree) this court delivered the following.

AWARD

Suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,99,975/- being the Principal of Rs.50,000/- and interest of Rs.2,625/- due on A marked cheque dated 10.08.2016 and principal of Rs.50,000/- and interest of Rs.2,625/- due on B marked cheque dated 30.09.2016 and principal of Rs.50,000/- and interest of Rs.2,625/- due on C marked cheque dated 18.10.2016 and principal of Rs.40,000/- and interest of Rs.2,100/- due on D marked promissory note dated 21.10.2016 issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum.

Matter referred to Mediation Centre and a memorandum of agreement under section 89 CPC r/w Rule 336 of Civil Procedure

Code Alternative Dispute Resolution and Civil Procedure Mediation

Rules, 2005 have been arrived in between the plaintiff and 2 defendant and the Award is received by this court.

Both parties attended before the court and explained the terms and conditions in the agreement and they have agreed for the same voluntarily. Accordingly, award is passed.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27 th day of April,

2018.

Sd/- N.Sasidhara Reddy

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

// True Copy //

Draft/Fair Award in O.S.504/2017

Dt 27-04-2018 (Money)

EP/200024/2017

K. Kodandaiah vs Nazeer Basha

27 Apr 2018

Order Record 1,406 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/200024/2017	K. Kodandaiah vs Nazeer Basha	27 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/84/2014	Siddala Mohana Ramaiah vs Kommireddy Raghunadha Reddy	27 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/504/2017	Fusion Advanced Materials PVt., Ltd., rep. by its Director Sri. S. Manohar Raju, vs M/s. Mantek Electrodes Pvt., Ltd., rep by its Managing Director.	27 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/44/2015	Reddamma vs B. Syam Mohan David Raju	25 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/238/2015	P. Anandamma vs G. Anasuya Devi	25 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/92/2015	Nataru Krishna Reddy vs R.V.Prabhakar Naidu	24 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/94/2015	Smt M. Devika vs K. Khananjayulu	24 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/374/2017	The Andhra Bank, vs T.K.S.Srikrishnan	23 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/376/2017	The Andhra Bank, vs Bhaskar Rajani	23 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/470/2017	Allapakam Dileep vs Boogmudi Venkatesh	22 Apr 2018	Other	—
EP/200008/2017	A. Ramu vs A. Chandrasekhar Reddy	20 Apr 2018	Other	—
EP/200058/2016	Kola Ravi Sankar vs K. Munirathnam Naidu died	20 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/116/2017	G. Chandra Sekharam vs K. Pushpa	20 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/200/2015	P. Rajasekhar Reddy vs M. Krishnamurthy @ Jalaja M. Krishnamurthy	20 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/262/2017	G. Prathapa Simha vs K. Sobha	20 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200040/2017	M. Poojith vs Smt. M. Bujjamma	19 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/214/2014	T. Narendra Naidu vs B. Sunanda Devi	19 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/338/2015	Ms. The oriential Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Transport Corporation of India Ltd.,	19 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200050/2017	P. Vijayasimha Reddy vs P.M. Dhamodar	17 Apr 2018	Order	—
EP/200038/2017	M/s Margadarsi Chit Funds, Ltd vs N. Damodara Reddy	16 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/58/2018	Bhusetty Venkataramana vs Dandolu Vasanthaiah	16 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/68/2016	Sri. Seetharamanjaneyaswamy Bajana Mandir vs Thota Purushotham	16 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/238/2015	P. Anandamma vs G. Anasuya Devi	13 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/290/2017	Kanchi Dhanalakshmi vs S.M. Srinivasulu	13 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/336/2014	Sannisetty Krishnamurthy vs Middela Muneswarulu	13 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/566/2017	Smt. O. Rathnamma vs Kondepati Yugandhar Naidu	13 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/606/2017	J. Ramesh Babu vs M. Vasu	13 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200072/2016	Jangam Sampoornamma - Died vs K. Vanajakshamma	12 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/444/2015	Smt. A. Dharani Vijaya vs Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt	12 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/458/2017	G. Sreenivasulu Naidu vs G. Damodaram	12 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/526/2016	Narra Venkatakrishnama Naidu vs J. Munirathnam	12 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/536/2016	Gunda Bathini Munedra Babu vs Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati.	12 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/634/2017	M/s. Srivari Industries, vs M/s. Senthil Textiles,	12 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/138/2013	Shaik Beebi Jan and 2 others vs Shaik Chotima Bee and 5 others	11 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/462/2017	Vijaya Bank, Tirupati Branch vs Shaik Jarina Taj	11 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/506/2016	N. Jayaprakash vs K. Prakash Rao	11 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/506/2016	N. Jayaprakash vs K. Prakash Rao	11 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/564/2017	P. Kanthamma vs M. Mathamma	11 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/4/2018	E. Sree Kalavathamma vs Mada Chitti Babu	10 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/162/2015	Jadapalli Rajeswari vs Manyam Dhanamma	10 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/550/2017	T. Venkatesu vs Smt. M. Lakshmi	10 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/640/2016	G. Venugopal Naidu vs V. Munaiah	10 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200005/2018	G. Tirupathi Reddy vs R. Vijaya Babu	09 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/424/2016	T. Suseela vs A. Vani	07 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/88/2017	P. Priyatham vs K. Narayanamma	06 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/262/2017	G. Prathapa Simha vs K. Sobha	06 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/352/2015	Chakrala Naresh Kumar vs D. Rajendar	06 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/320/2016	Guluru Devarajulu vs APSRTC	04 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/462/2016	Kasavarjjula Satyanarayana Sarma vs Gontumukkala Harish Roa	04 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/690/2016	K. Bhavyasri vs Kuchi Adikesavulu Naidu	04 Apr 2018	Order	—
EP/200048/2017	Mangala Gajendra vs M. Uma Sankar	02 Apr 2018	Other	—
EP/200067/2016	S. Rajendra Reddy vs A. Sulthan Modeen	02 Apr 2018	Other	—
EP/200067/2017	P. Venugopal Pillai vs P.K. Eswara Pillai	02 Apr 2018	Other	—
OS/626/2017	D. Naveen Kumar vs R. Prabhakar Reddy,	02 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/200206/2012	Dr.K.Kasthuri vs M.Sreenivasulu	02 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/92/2017	P. Tarakarama Reddy vs G.Padmanabha Reddy	29 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/116/2015	Challappa Maistry Memorial vs Y. Munikrishnaiah	29 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/522/2017	T. Harikumar vs M. Mani @ Bommala Mani	29 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/584/2017	Soora Raghurami Reddy vs Kandra Vijaya Bhaskar	29 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200019/2017	V. Sireesh Kumar vs V. Kavitha	28 Mar 2018	Other	—
EP/200034/2016	Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited, Tirupati. vs G. Koteswara Rao	28 Mar 2018	Other	—
OS/14/2018	N. Lemuel Moses vs K. Eswaramallu	27 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/52/2017	T. Eswaramma vs T. Santhi	27 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/134/2017	V. Suresh Babu vs P. Sarada	27 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/166/2017	D. Mohanrama Reddy @ Mohan Reddy vs P. Dhanamma	27 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/60/2016	G. Bhaskar vs A. Devaki	24 Mar 2018	Other	—
EP/200063/2017	N. Manikya Rao vs S. nagabhushanam	23 Mar 2018	Other	—
EP/200065/2017	B. Krishna Murthy vs M. Subramanyam	23 Mar 2018	Other	—
OS/92/2015	Nataru Krishna Reddy vs R.V.Prabhakar Naidu	23 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/500/2017	K. Gopal vs Pudi Bagyaraj	23 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200073/2017	Y. Hanumanthaiah vs P. Kondandaramaiah	22 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/200074/2017	V. Jhon Devanand vs M. Eswaraiah	22 Mar 2018	Other	—
OS/680/2016	Derangula Chengal Raju vs K. Madhusudhan Raju	22 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/386/2017	Ch, Sambasiva Reddy vs P. Syamala	21 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/500/2016	M. Govindarajulu vs A. Kokilamma	21 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200066/2017	R. Krishnaiah Chetty vs T. Kasi	20 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/664/2016	P. Venkatamuni reddy vs Smt. B. Venkatasatya Ramana	20 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/200063/2016	A. Yuvaraju vs P. Krishna Moorthy	19 Mar 2018	Other	—
OS/94/2015	Smt M. Devika vs K. Khananjayulu	19 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/132/2017	D. Kalyan vs P. Basha	19 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/528/2017	A. Neelakanteswara Rao vs N. Balakrishna	19 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/598/2017	P. Ramachandraiah vs M. Chengamma	19 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200011/2018	Tandlam Munikrishna Reddy vs Mucheli Bhaskar Reddy	16 Mar 2018	Other	—
OS/212/2017	S.N. Jayaraman vs The Manager, Bugga Math	16 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/472/2015	Pralaya Kaveri Prabhakar Reddy vs Yanadhi Bujjamma	16 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/534/2017	G. Gangadharam Naidu vs R. Madhusudhana Reddy	16 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/616/2016	Smt. M. Sumathi vs Sri. M.K.Surendra Babu	14 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/200003/2018	K. Sampornamma vs P.R.J.Babu	13 Mar 2018	Other	—
EP/200004/2018	Dharmareddigari Munaswamy Reddy vs P.R.J. Babu	13 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/92/2015	Nataru Krishna Reddy vs R.V.Prabhakar Naidu	12 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/416/2017	Bank of India, Main Branch, vs Mudiseti Janardhana	12 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/156/2017	P. Venkataramana vs M Devanamma	09 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/396/2017	Bank of India, Main Branch, vs Shibyala Sahadeva	09 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
EP/200007/2018	Pujala Narasamma vs Y. Krishnaiah	08 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/200021/2017	S. Mohananmma vs D. Govindu	08 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/264/2017	M. Srinivasa Rao vs K.S. Ganesh Kumar	08 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/472/2015	Pralaya Kaveri Prabhakar Reddy vs Yanadhi Bujjamma	08 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/200032/2017	M. Ramaiah vs T. Krishnamurthy	07 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/200057/2017	M. Mallaiah Naik vs M. Venkatesulu	07 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/264/2016	Indian Overseas Bank, Renigunta vs Sivathma S.H.G.	07 Mar 2018	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,406 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2018		55
Mar 2018		60
Feb 2018		57
Jan 2018		45
Dec 2017		32
Nov 2017		66
Oct 2017		59
Sep 2017		54
Aug 2017		54
Jul 2017		40
Jun 2017		59
May 2017		22

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY handled?

Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY has handled 1465 court orders since 2015 at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 42 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY hear?

Based on available records, Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka).

Where is Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY currently posted?

Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY is posted as I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY available online?

Yes. 4 judgments by Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY dispose cases?

Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY disposes approximately 42 cases per month, based on 1465 orders handled over their tenure at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka).

Since when is Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY serving?

Sri. N.SASIDHARA REDDY has been serving at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka) since 2015.

Case Types

OS 84%

EP 16%

Posting History

May 2015 — Apr 2018

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 1,465 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M. Guru Nath

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

982 orders

Smt. G. Archana

IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

763 orders

Sri. G.ramagopal

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

1,544 orders

Sri S.Krishnan Kutty

X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Smt. S P D Vennela

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1 orders

Smt. B. Vanisree

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

3,171 orders

Sri C.K.V.Satyakanth Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2,834 orders

P. Koteswara Rao

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2,177 orders

Smt. M. Sandya Rani

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

950 orders

Sri G. Srinivas

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

3,773 orders

← View all judges at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka)

Sri. N.sasidhara Reddy

Present:­ Sri NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY,

1 st Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Wednesday, the Twenty fifth (25 th ) day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 238 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the

(2) Whether the defendants 3 and 4 are unnecessary parties to

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

DOCUMENTS MARKED

TIRUPATI

Present:­ Sri NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY,

1 st Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Wednesday, the Twenty fifth (25 th ) day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 44 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

DOCUMENTS MARKED

TIRUPATI

TIRUPATI

ORIGINAL SUIT No.504/2017

AWARD

// True Copy //

Present: Sri NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY,

Present: Sri NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY,