1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:
MADANAPALLE
Present: - Sri N. Vijay Babu,
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Madanapalle.
Tuesday, this the 2nd day of June, 2020
O.S.No.389 of 2014
1. Kalannagari Uthamma, W/o Gopalu, Hindu, age 56 years,
2. Kalannagari Lakshmi Devi, W/o Aswarthanarayana, age 32 years,
Both the defendants are Hindus, cultivation, residing at Badikayalapalle village and post, B.Kothakota Revenue Mandal,Chittoor District.
. . .Plaintiffs.
Vs.
1. Maniginti Vijayamma, W/o Venkatramana, age 44 years,
2. Maniginti Venkatramana, S/o Narayanappa, age 50 years,
3. Maniginti Aravind, S/o Venkatramana, age 21 years,
The defendants 1 to 3 are Hindus, defendants 1 and 2 are living by cultivation, the 3rd defendant is student and allt he defendants are residing at
Badikayalapalle village and post, B.Kothakota Revenue Mandal, Chittoor district.
. . .Defendants
This suit is coming on 20.02.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Y.Samba Siva Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of
Sri.D.Venkatramana Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having heard and after considering the material on record, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, defendants men, agents, family members, relatives and followers from in any way interfering with their exclusive possession and enjoyment over the house bearing D.No.6/95 with bathroom, stone poles pendal, compound wall etc., in Sy.No.281,
Badikayalapalle Revenue village, B. Kothakota Revenue Mandal, B. Kothakota
SubDistrict, Chittoor District (Hereinafter referred to as suit property).
2
02. The brief facts of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs are that, plaintiff
No.1 is the motherinlaw of plaintiff No.2 and both are living by cultivation. D2 is the husband of D1 and D3 is the son of D1 and D2. The suit property shown as ABCDEF in the plaint plan originally vacant site belonged to Bhaskara Adi
Subbamma, Sankaranarayana, S/o. Adi Subbamma, Nagannagari Buchi
Reddy. The plaintiff No.1 purchased from Bhaskara Adisubbamma and
Sankaranarayana vide registered sale deed dt.26.04.1989 for proper and valid consideration with specified boundaries and measurements and took possession of the same. The plaintiff No.1 also purchased the vacant site from
Nagannagari Buchi Reddy vide registered sale deed dt.04.04.1996 for proper and valid consideration with specified boundaries and measurements and took possession of the same. The plaintiff No.1 has been in continuous and exclusive possession of the site purchased from above said 3 persons. Their family erected stone pole pendal for storing fodder in the vacant site within 15 days from the date of purchase of the site vide registered deed dt.26.04.1989. They are using the same for tethering cattle, sheep and for storing fodder to the cattle and also storing manure heap. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, B.
Kothakota issued orders on 31.12.2004 in favour of plaintiff No.2 for construction of house in an extent of Ac.0.01 ¼ cents in the site purchased by the 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff is selected as one of the beneficiaries by the
Government for construction of house by AP Housing Corporation in the site for which Mandal Revenue Officer, B. Kothakota passed orders. The 2nd plaintiff constructed house in an extent of Ac.0.01 ¼ cents in the above vacant site in the year 2004 and Government gave subsidy to plaintiff No.2 for construction of house. Original orders issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, B. Kothakota dated 31.12.2004 and the orders passed by the District Collector, Chittoor selecting the 2nd plaintiff as beneficiary for the construction of house by AP housing
Corporation are submitted to the AP Housing Corporation as such the xerox copies of the same are herewith filed. The name of 2nd plaintiff is entered in the 3
Grampanchayath records of Badikayalapalle and has been paying house tax to the house. The ownership certificate is also issued in the name of 2nd plaintiff for house in suit property. They constructed compound wall on the Southern side and Western side of the suit property shown as FAB in the plaint plan.
They also constructed bathroom on the North East corner of the suit property.
They also planted Black berry tree in front of bath room shown in the plaint plan about seven years back. The stone poles pendal is shown as GHIJ in the plaint plan. The husband of the 1st plaintiff purchased tractor and trailor in the year 2007 and since then they are parking the same in the vacant place when ever they were not used and they have been keeping Millet seed decordicator in the vacant site. The suit property has been in their actual physical possession and enjoyment. The defendants has no manner of right, title and possession in the suit property. While so on 30.10.2014 the defendants No.1 and 2 obtained a nominal and collusive registered sale deed in the name of 1st defendant from
Bhaskara Ramanatham with false recitals, measurements and boundaries and since one week the defendants are threatening to dispossess them from the suit property. They are innocent docile people and law binding citizens. The defendants without any manner of right, title and possession are threatening to dispossess them from suit property. The defendants are known for highhandedness and backed by rowdy and anti social elements in the village.
They have no capacity to resist the highhandedness of the defendants and defendants' men. Since one week the defendants have been threatening to demolish the compound wall of the suit property and forcibly occupy the same and thereby dispossess them. About a week back the defendants highhandedly tried to dispossess them with a view to occupy the suit property and on the intervention of the village elders the defendants went away proclaiming as going to forcibly occupy the suit property by dispossessing them. The defendants may put those threats into action at any point. Hence this suit.
03.The defendants entered their appearance and D1 & D3 filed written 4 statement adopted by D2. The brief facts of written statement are that, D3’s name is wrongly mentioned i.e., mentioned as Maniginti Aravind instead of
Maniginti Manikanta. They denied the averments of plaint word to word. The suit property originally belongs to the family of Bhaskara Janardhana Setty,
Bhaskara Shankar Narayana, Sons of Venkatachalam Setty and Bhaskara Adi
Subbamma, W/o. Bhaskara Venkatachalam Setty respectively who didn't partition the joint family properties with metes and bounds. Plaintiff No.1 purchased part of the site from Bhaskara Adi Subbamma and B. Shankar
Narayana without having survey number and also from Nagannagari Buchi
Reddy with false recitals, excess measurements and imaginary boundaries in two thakus vide registered sale deed dt.26041989 and in one item under registered sale deed, dt. 04.04.1996. The plaintiffs did not file the present suit in accordance with the measurements and boundaries mentioned in the above sale deed. The vendors vendor name of the 1st defendant mentioned on the
Northern boundary as vacant site of Bhaskara Janardhana for first thaku in the sale deed dt.26.04.1989 which clearly show that the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and filed this suit including the sites purchased by D1 original owner vide registered sale deed dt.30.10.2014 with metes and bounds in joint possession along with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit to harass them by some mode or the other and trying to grab away the site purchased by D1 under threats of litigation. Bhaskara
Janardhana Setty S/o Venkatachalam Setty was the share holder in the suit property who sold away respective share to one Bhaskara Ramanatham, S/o
Bhaskara Krishna vide 2 registered sale deeds 12.04.1988 and 24.12.2001 for proper and valid consideration within specified boundaries and measurements in joint and put the said person in possession of the suit property. In turn the said Bhaskara Ramanatham sold the house site property acquired through the said sale deed to 1st defendant vide registered sale deed dt.30.10.2014 for proper valid consideration with specified boundaries and measurements in joint 5 and put her in possession of the same. Her predecessors in title were in continuous possession of the said site and after purchase D1 and D1’s family members are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property even though the suit property is sold by original prudent owners to D1 and 1st plaintiff under registered sale deeds with metes and bounds but the suit property is still in joint possession. The same is revealed on the face of series of the documents of the 1st defendant and 1st plaintiff. The survey number 159 and 160 are not relating to the existing suit village houses and vacant sites and the said survey numbers are far away and by mistake & over sight those survey numbers are mentioned in the sale deed dt.24.12.2001, but, boundaries prevail. The said sale deeds clearly goes to show that the suit property is not sub divided by metes and bounds. Taking advantage of the jointness of the suit property the plaintiffs are claiming more extent than actually entitled. As such to avoid misunderstandings and quarrel among them and plaintiffs they requested the plaintiffs for amicable division of the suit property as per the schedule mentioned in respective sale deeds. The plaintiffs agreed the request for amicable division of suit property as per schedule mentioned in respective sale deeds by metes and bounds on one hand. On the other hand bore grudge against them for purchasing the house site from Bhaskara Ramanatham which is situated in the suit property as such filed the present suit for permanent injunction against them with all false, fictitious and frivolous allegations to grab the house site of D1. The plaintiffs have no any manner of right and title and are not in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs filed the present suit with all false, fictitious and invented allegations with a view to dispossess them from respective share and possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs who have no manner of right, title and exclusive possession over the entire suit property and the suit for mere permanent injunction against them is not maintainable as they are coowners of the suit property. The plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for partition and separate 6 possession of respective shares of property actually entitled. The plaint schedule is incorrectly described and plaintiffs did not come to this court with clean hands and they reserve their right to file the additional written statement at appropriate point of time with the leave of this court. There is no cause of action to file this suit and alleged cause of action set out in para No.7 of the plaint is totally false and the same is invented for the purpose of filing of this suit. The particulars of valuation and consequent payment of court fee shown in para No.8 of the plaint is not in accordance with law. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
04.Basing on the above material the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of suit property which is described as ABCDEF in the plaint plan?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction is prayed for?
3. To what relief ?
05.In order to prove the respective contentions, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1, PW2 S. Peeran Sab and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. The defendant examined D1 as DW1, DW2 N. Pradeep Reddy, DW3 V.
Venkatramana, DW4 B. Chandra Sekhar, DW5 K. Venkatramana and got marked Ex.B1 to B3.
06.Heard both sides. Perused the record.
07.Issue Nos.1 & 2:
PW1 in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of their chief examination reiterated the averments of the plaint.
ii. PW2 in his chief affidavit stated that he know both the parties to the suit and suit property originally vacant site. He supported the plaintiffs case in toto without mentioning the date of purchases made by the plaintiffs.
b. DW1 in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of the written statement.
ii. DW2 in his chief affidavit stated that the suit property situated in his 7 village, that the property purchased by the defendants from rightful owners for valid consideration within boundaries and the same was registered in the name of D1. The plaintiffs also purchased the property, but, the boundaries shown are not correct. The plaintiffs shown boundaries by including the property of defendants.
iii. DW3 in his chief affidavit stated that he know both the parties. The suit property is situated in his village. Property purchased by the defendants from its rightful owner for valid consideration within boundaries and the same was registered in the name of D1. The plaint schedule boundaries are not correct and within the boundaries Ex.B1 property is also existing. The plaintiffs also purchased the property, but, the boundaries shown are not correct. The plaintiffs shown boundaries by including the property of defendants.
iv. DW4 and DW5 in their respective chief affidavits deposed in similar lines to that of DW3.
c. The contention of the plaintiffs is that, under Ex.A2 and A3 they purchased the suit property obtained loan from AP State Housing Corporation constructed the house, bathroom, erected stone pole pendals, keeping Tractor and Trailer and Millet decorticating machine and residing in the same. The suit property also consist of one Black berry tree. The Advocate Commissioner who visited the suit property on the date of filing of the suit itself filed report and it supports the said physical features. The defendant witnesses admitted the said physical features as well as their possession. Therefore Exs.A5 to A11 clearly proves that they are the owner and possessor of the suit property. The defendants are claiming right, title and possession under Ex.A4. Ex.A4 boundaries and survey number are contrary to the suit property. Further Ex.B2 and B3 are contrary to Ex.B1/A4. Ex.A4/B1 does not contain any house or other constructions like pendal, bathroom, Blackberry tree etc., Ex.B1/A4 is 17 days prior to the filing of this suit. Therefore it cannot be presumed that within these 17 days those structures were brought up by the defendants which 8 falsifies defendants claim. D.W.1 in cross stated that vendor of DW1 constructed a stone terraced house in the property covered by Ex.B1 and also paid tax to the same. But no evidence is produced in support of the same. At first in cross D.W.1 denied existence of front compound wall and gate and on confronting photos admitted the same as pertains to suit property which consists of compound wall, gate and other structures. D.W.2 cross supports their purchase under Ex.A2, A3 and disproves that Ex.B1 covers the suit property. DW3 cross clearly over throws the case of the defendants regarding to their purchase under Ex.B1. DW3 cross also supports the existence of house in the name of plaintiff no.2 and purchase by them under Ex.A3, physical features and their possession. DW3 has got disputes with regard to FP shop with plaintiff no.2’s husband. DW4 gave wrong boundaries to the suit property and he belongs to B.Kothaktoa village and affiliated to TDP party. In chief DW4 stated that suit property is located in his village i.e B.Kothakota whereas the suit property is located in Badikayalapalle village. DW5 is the brotherinlaw of
D3 and his cross shows that he don’t know much about the suit property. the documentary evidence coupled with admissions in the cross of DWs 1 to 5 clearly proves their possession over the suit property . Hence prayed to decree the suit.
d. The contention of the defendants is that, the plaintiff’s case is resting upon the two documents, Ex.A2 and A3. Ex.A2 schedule shows 2 thakus. The measurements of 1st thaku are EastWest 55 feet, North to South 10.4 feet, 2nd thaku with measurements East to West 28 feet, North to South 19.8 feet, it contains different boundaries. More particularly, the Northern boundary for 1st thaku is shown as the Avaranam of Bhaskara Janardhana. So the property under Ex.A2 is not in a rectangular shape and it is with different boundaries and size. Whereas Ex.A3 sale deed executed by Buchi Reddy dt.04.04.1996 is containing measurement as East to West 47 feet, North to South 21 feet and it is shown as the property situated on the north of the property of Ex.A2. So, the 9 plaint schedule will not be in a rectangular shape, but in 3 different sizes. The plaintiffs described without any measurements of 3 thakus, but gave only 4 boundaries in the plaint schedule. The plaintiffs also failed to furnish the measurements as per the sale deeds in the rough plan and it is also not throwing any light upon the measurements of the property. The whole plaintiff’s claim rests upon the documents Ex.A2 and A3. The very description of the property in the documents, Ex.A2 and A3 are not reflected with measurements either in the plaint plan, Ex.A1 or in the plaint schedule. Therefore, no blanket order of permanent injunction can be granted to the plaintiffs for the property which is not tallying with the documents, Ex.A2 and A3. Moreover, the boundaries that are contained in the plaint schedule do not tally with the boundaries that are found in Ex.A2 and A3 and the same are quite different. A reading of the boundaries in the documents and the plaint schedule clearly indicates this lacuna in the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the plaintiffs have got to prove own case by describing the property in accordance with the documents to seek the relief of permanent injunction, which the plaintiffs have failed to do so.
The plaint plan and the plaint schedule also does not contain about the actual place available and the existing house shown in the plaint plan. The house shown in the plaint plan is small in size when compared to the vacant site and it relates to D.No.6/95 for which, the plaintiffs obtained ownership certificate, house taxes, electricity, charges water tax charges under Ex.A5 to 11. But, so far as the vacant site is concerned, no record is placed by the plaintiffs. The shape of the property itself shows that the plaintiff’s approach is not with clean hands and it is not in conformity with the documents, Ex.A2 and A3.
Admittedly, the suit property belongs to Bhaskara Venkatachalam Chetty who died leaving behind wife and 2 sons. The plaintiffs have not purchased the share of one son, Janardhana Chetty and they can also make out that the share is kept aloof since the northern boundary in Ex.A2 at page 7 of the document clearly shows that it is vacant site of Janardhana Chetty which was 10 purchased by the vendor of the 1st defendant, under Ex.B2 and B3 who inturn sold the same to the defendants under Ex.B1. Therefore by stepping into the shoes of Janardhana Chetty under Ex.B1 to B3, the defendants have become co owners in the plaint schedule property and it is admitted fact that there is no partition deed between Adi Subbamma and her two sons. When it is so, the suit property becomes a joint property among the plaintiffs and defendant and the plaintiffs cannot seek for relief of permanent injunction against the co owners.
The plaintiffs examined PW2 who admitted that “The boundaries of the suit property are East: Rice mill of Sakala family, West: Road and house of Gopalu,
North : House of Suda Venkatramana, South : by the house of Kareemullah and site of Sakala Family. I don’t know the extent within above boundaries.
Originally the property within the above boundaries belonged to Buchi Reddy,
Sankaranarayana and Subbamma. It is true originally the property within the above boundaries, belonged to one Janardhana Chetty. He don’t know whether one Ramanatham Chetty purchased property from Janardhana Chetty”. This witness further admitted that there are civil disputes between himself and the defendants in OS.No.796/2011 and also about the criminal cases between himself and defendant’s family which lead to SC.No.46/2012 and he also says that he was not present when the sale transaction took place between plaintiffs and Adi Subbamma and its details. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not proved their case about their title and possession to the suit property and they by filing their documents, Ex.B1 to B3 and by examining DWs 1 to 5 have successfully proved that the suit property is joint property among themselves and plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands. Injunction can't be granted against true owner and to the person who approaches the Court with unclean hands. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
e. As can be seen from the record, the plaintiffs are claiming to have 11 purchased the suit property under Ex.A2 & A3, obtained loan from AP State
Housing Corporation constructed the house, bathroom, erected stone pole pendals, keeping Tractor and Trailer and Millet decorticating machine and residing in the same, that the suit property also consists of one Black berry tree planted and raised by them. The main contention of the defendants is with regard to boundaries, measurements and shape in the plaint plan and as per the arguments it is the contention of the defendants that their property is within the boundaries and they are coowners. As per Ex.A2 & A3 the plaintiffs purchased the following properties i.e., with the boundaries i.e., under Ex.A2 two thakus and under Ex.A3 one thaku:
1st Thaku in Ex.A2 East: Voodu GopalWest:SarkarNorth:BhaskaraSouth: 2nd Thaku Reddy and Sakala(Government) RajaJanardhan Compound Gurrappa's compoundsVeedhi 2nd Thaku in Ex.A2 East:SakalaWest:KalannagariNorth: 1st ThakuSouth:Sakala Gurrappa's compoundMallanna and PoolaGurrappa's compound Fakeer Sab etc., buildings Ex.A3 property East: Sakala GurrappaWest: Raja Veedhi North:SoodaSouth: own site of etc., machine buildingVenkataramanappa'spurchaser. building Combined boundaries of Ex.A2 and A3 becausethose properties are adjacent to each other East:SakalaWest: Raja Veedhi andNorth:SoodaSouth:Sakala Gurrappa's compoundbuildingsofVenkataramanappa'sGurrappas compound and machine andKalannagari Mallannabuilding Voodu Gopal Reddy'sand Poola Fakeer Sab compound Plaintschedule boundaries East: The rice mill ofWest: Raja VeedhiNorth: House of SooduSouth: The vacant site the sons of SakalaVenkatarmanaand house of G. Gurrappa setty and theKareemulla and the houses of the sons ofvacant site of the sons Voodu Gopal Reddyof Sakala Gurrappa's family. The Eastern and Northern boundaries are similar to the combined 12 boundaries of Ex.A2 & A3. But, the Western boundary and Southern boundaries are partially correct and the buildings of Kalannagari Mallanna and
Poola Fakeer Sab are not shown as Southern boundary for item No.1 of Ex.A2 and Western boundary of plaint schedule. Infact, the plaint plan also supports that Eastern portion is wider towards South than the Western portion which means the Western boundary of said extended portion can't be Raja Veedhi alone, particularly when the Southern boundary is shown as the vacant site and house of G. Kareemulla and vacant site of the sons of Sakala Gurrappa's family, the Western boundary of the said extended portion can be the Southern boundary of the entire property, but, not Raja Veedhi alone as shown in the plaint schedule. DW2 in cross stated that the rice mill of Sakala Gurrappa was sold and third party constructed house therein. There is no mention about the properties of Kalannagari Mallanna and Poola Fakeer Sab which are shown as western boundaries of 2nd Thaku in Ex.A2 property.
ii. The plaint plan doesn't show the measurements and boundaries. The measurements of the three thakus are different. 1St Thaku of Ex.A2 is with the measurements East to West: 55 feet, North to South: 10.4 feet and the same is to the North of 2nd Thaku with measurements East to West: 28 feet, North to
South: 19.8 feet and the property under Ex.A3 is with the measurements East to West: 47 feet, North to South: 21 feet. The property under Ex.A3 is to the
North of Ex.A2 property. Therefore, the three thakus are having three different measurements. But, the same doesn't reflect in the plaint plan. Therefore, the shape of the plaint plan also is not exactly correct. The plaintiffs didn't show the boundaries, measurements and extent in the plaint plan for giving clarity.
The plaintiffs also didn’t show the measurements and extents in plaint schedule. If they have done the same they would have very well known the mistakes committed by them in giving the shape in the plaint plan and boundaries in the plaint schedule. PW1in cross stated that she don’t know the extents purchased under Ex.A2, A3, boundaries mentioned therein, that she 13 can’t say the extents within the boundaries even approximately. PW2 also in cross stated that he don’t the extent within the boundaries. When the case of the defendants is that the plaint schedule boundaries contain their extent also, then the burden lies on the plaintiff to show what is the exact extent within boundaries especially when there is discrepancy with Southern boundary of
Ex.A2 1st Thaku and Western boundary in the plaint schedule.
iii. The defendants are not disputing the purchase under Ex.A2 property and as per the arguments they are mainly depending on the Northern boundary mentioned in Ex.A2 i.e., Bhaskara Janardhan i.e., vendor's vendor of the defendant No.1 and as per Ex.B1 they purchased the property. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs by creating Ex.A3 trying to grab the same. As per the arguments the claim of the defendants is that, Bhaskara
Janardhan is one of the coowners along with Bhaskara Adi Subbamma and
Sankaranarayana and they purchased the vacant site which is adjacent to the house. As per Ex.A2 the plaintiff No.1 purchased the said property from
Bhaskara Adi Subbamma, W/o. Venkatachalamaiah Setty and
Sankarnarayana, S/o. Adi Subbamma. It is true the Northern boundary for 1st
Thaku in Ex.A2 is shown as Bhaskara Janardhan's compound. Admittedly under Ex.A3 the plaintiffs purchased the Northern side property of Ex.A2, but, not from Bhaskara Janardhana, but, from Nagannagari Buchi Reddy, S/o.
Gopal Reddy. PW2 in cross at first stated that originally the suit property within originally the suit property within the above boundaries belonged to the vendors under Ex.A2 & A3 and again on suggestion admitted that originally the suit property within the above boundaries belonged to Janardhan Setty i.e., who is shown as Northern boundary in Ex.A2. There is no explanation coming from the plaintiffs with regard to the said discrepancy. DW1 cross shows that the site in which the bathrooms are shown to be existing belongs to Buchi
Reddy. DW2 in cross stated that the vendor under Ex.A3 Buchi Reddy is his
Junior paternal uncle and has got right in the suit property and admitted that 14
Buchi Reddy sold the same to plaintiff No.1 under Ex.A3. DW3 cross also supports the same.
iv. With regard to the contention of the defendants that the property purchased by D1 was included within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule and filed this suit to grab the same is concerned, the defendants are claiming that the vendor of D1 purchased the property under Ex.B2 & B3 and inturn sold the same to them under Ex.B1. As per Ex.B2 & Ex.B3 one
Bhaskara Ramanatham purchased the properties from one Bhaskara
Janardhan Setty, S/o. Venkata Chalamaiah Setty. Out of the said properties the defendant No.1 purchased the residential property of Badikayalapalle
Village under Ex.B1 from Bhaskara Ramanatham vide Ex.B1. Under Ex.B3 the vendor of D1 purchased 1/3rd share out of the said residential property in three thakus and under Ex.B2 the vendor of D1 purchased the remaining 2/3rd share of 1st Thaku, 1/6th share in 2nd and 3rd Thakus i.e., under
Ex.B2 & B3 the vendor of D1 purchased the entire 1st Thaku, ½ share in 2nd and 3rd Thakus. But, under Ex.B3 no survey numbers were mentioned. Under
Ex.B2 the Sy.Nos.159 & 160 were mentioned. But, under Ex.B1 the suit survey number i.e., 281 is mentioned. It is necessary to point out here that, no survey number is mentioned under Ex.A2 & A3, but, in plaint schedule the survey number is mentioned as 281. Therefore, the boundaries play an important role to see whether both are claiming same property/part of same property. The description of the said property purchased under Ex.B1 which was inturn said to be purchased under Ex.B2 & B3 are as follows:
As per Ex.B2 & B3 vacant site in Badikayalapalle 1st Thaku (1/3rd share under Ex.B3 and the remaining 2/3rd share under Ex.B2 purchased out of East to West: 3 1/4 yards, North to South: 4 15 1/2 yards)
East: NagannagariWest: Raja Veedhi, North: Raja Veedhi South: 2nd Thaku Hanumanthareddy 's oblong (Addapu) house, 2nd Thaku (1/3rd share under Ex.B3 and 1/6th share under Ex.B2 (i.e., 1/3 + 1/6 = 1/2) purchased out of East to West: 8 yards and North to South: 6 1/2 yards) Boundaries as per Ex.B3 East: 3rd ThakuWest: Raja Veedhi North:South: NagannagariNagannagari HanumanthareddyHanumantha and K. MallannaReddy house and houses1st Thaku
East: 1st ThakuWest: Raja Veedhi North:South:K. NagannagariMallannalime Hanumanthareddystone house oblong house 3rd Thaku (1/3rd share under Ex.B3 and 1/6th share under Ex.B2 (i.e., 1/3 + 1/6 = 1/2) purchased out of East to West: 9 yards, North to South: 13 yards) Boundaries as per Ex.B3 East:West: 2nd ThakuNorth:South:Sakala SakalavandlaNagannagariGurrappaSetty paddymachineHanumanthaVacant site and Voodu GopalReddy land Reddy house
Boundaries as per Ex.B2
East:West: other's land. North:South:2nd Thaku SakalavandlaNagannagariand paddymachineHanumanthaBadikayalavandla and Voodu GopalReddy sitehouses Reddy houses Ex.B1 schedule 1st Thaku (East to 16
West: 9.75 feet, North to South: 13.5 feet)
East: NagannagariWest: Raja VeedhiNorth:South: 2nd Thaku HanumanthareddyNagannagari etc., site Hanumantha Reddy etc., site 2nd Thaku (1/2 share out of East to West: 24 feet and North to South: 19.5 feet) East: 3rd thakuWest: Raja VeedhiNorth:South: NagannagariGummadikayala HanumanthaPeeran Sab etc., Reddy etc., siteshouses 3rd Thaku (1/2 share out of East to West: 27 feet and North to South: 39 feet)
East:SakalaWest: 2nd Thaku North:South:Sakala family etc., flourNagannagarifamily etc., site mill and VooduHanumantha BuchiReddyReddy etc., site house v. On comparison of boundaries Ex.B3 boundaries are not in consonance with Ex.B2 boundaries as can be seen from the above table itself. Further,
Ex.B1 boundaries are not in consonance with Ex.B2 & B3 boundaries as can be seen from the above table itself. Further more, three thakus under Ex.B3 or three thakus under Ex.B2 or three thakus under Ex.B1 don’t correlate with each other. For example the Southern boundary for 1st thaku in Ex.B1 to B3 is shown as 2nd Thaku which means for the 2nd Thaku, 1st Thaku should be the
Northern boundary. But, the Northern boundary of 2nd Thaku is shown as
Nagannagari Hanumantha Reddy site. In Ex.B2 & B3 the Southern boundary for 2nd Thaku is shown as Nagannagari Hanumantha Reddy house and 1st
Thaku. But, in Ex.B1 the Southern boundary of 2nd Thaku is shown as
Gummadikayala Peeran Sab etc., house. The Northern boundary of 1st Thaku in Ex.B2 and B3 is shown as Raja Veedhi. But, in Ex.B1 the Northern boundary of 1st Thaku is shown as Nagannagari Hanumantha Reddy etc., site.
Admittedly there is no Raja Veedhi existing to the North of suit property as per 17 the cross of PWs1, 2 & DWs1 to 3. As per Ex.B3 the western boundary for 3rd
Thaku is 2nd Thaku, but, as per Ex.B2 the Western boundary is other's land.
In Ex.B1 again the Western boundary is shown as 2nd Thaku. Further, the defendant No.1 or her vendor purchased ½ share in 2nd and 3rd Thakus and they utterly failed to state to whom the remaining ½ share belongs. If really the claim of the defendants that they are coowners along with vendors under
Ex.A2 is true, then it is for the them to state without partition how their vendor's vendor under Ex.B2 & B3 acquired total property in 1st Thaku with specific boundaries. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.B1 to B3 are not correlate with each other and doesn't give a clarity of the property purchased under the said documents. Basing on those ambiguous boundaries without survey number the defendants can't claim title over the said property and claim the same as part of suit property. The oral evidence of DW1 to DW5 is not of much use to the defendants to clarify the above lacunaes.
vi. Further, Ex.B1 is just prior to the filing of this suit. DW1 in cross admitted that the suit property is bounded by West: Raja Veedhi, East: the rice mill of Sakala Gurrappa Reddy, South: house of Gummadikayala Kareemulla.
As per DW1 the Northern boundary is site of Buchi Reddy i.e., as per the plaintiffs the same is purchased by them under Ex.A3. DW2 in cross admitted that the suit property is bounded by East: rice mill of Sakala Gurrappa Setty (presently the said rice mill was removed and site was sold away and 3rd party constructed house), West: Raja Veeedhi, South: vacant site and house of G.
Kareemulla, Northern boundary: house of one Suda Venkata Ramana, Ex.B1 was executed on 30102014 i.e., 18 days prior to filing of this suit. But, for the reasons best known the defendants obtained Ex.B1 with 12 boundaries when it is within four boundaries as per DW1 & DW2 cross. DW3 also stated the boundaries in similar to DW1 and further stated that after 5 feet vacant site of
Buchi Reddy i.e., after Northern boundary of suit property the house of Suda
Venkata Ramana is located. The house of Suda Venkata Ramana is shown as 18
Northern boundary in the plaint schedule. Buchi Reddy sold his property under
Ex.A3 to the plaintiffs. DWs1 & 3 in their cross admitted the physical features i.e., existence of house, stone pole pendal, bath room, Black berry tree etc.,
DW3 admitted the said house is sanctioned by Government under Indiramma housing scheme and constructed by plaintiff No.2 etc., DW1 also admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the Blackberry tree which is adjacent to bathroom and as per her in the site of Buchi Reddy. DW1 admitted the Ex.A7 photos as pertains to suit property and admitted that they don't have any tractor and the photos show a Tractor and Trailer are kept in the suit property. Compound wall is constructed to the South and West of the suit property as per Ex.A7 photos.
vii. The defendants in arguments are admitting the possession with regard to the house, but, they disputed with regard to the remaining vacant site. Ex.A5, A6, A8 to A11 are ownership certificates, house tax receipts, water tax receipt and electricity bills pertains to house in the name of plaintiff No.2.
The above discussion including the admissions in cross of DW1 to DW3 shows that the suit property is within the compound and the plaintiffs are in possession of the same. However, as already discussed supra there is discrepancy in boundaries especially the Western boundary, no measurements and extents were given in the plaint schedule. As per Ex.A7 photos also the
Western boundary of house alone is not Raja Veedhi it appears as some other's property. Eventhough, the plaintiffs claimed existence of iron gate to the suit property in the Western side compound wall, there is no such gate as per Ex.A7 photos. But, as per the plaint plan and commissioner report there is a gate entrance. Therefore it can be certainly presumed that the said gate was kept between the period of taking photos to the date of visit of the Advocate
Commissioner. As per the photos the compound walls also appears to be constructed recently. As the boundaries are not in consonance with the documents and as the plaintiff failed to give the measurements and extents 19 can't be said to have complied Order VII Rule 3 of CPC in the circumstances of this case. Any decree of permanent injunction in view of the above discrepancies only lead to multiplicity of litigation. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit property especially in view of discrepancy with regard to Western boundary of house portion alone and as such not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.
In view of the aforementioned discussion the issue Nos.1 & 2 are decided against the plaintiffs.
09. Issue No.3:
In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 & 2 against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree.
In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs in the circumstances of this case.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2nd day of June, 2020.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Madanapalle.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for plaintiff Witnesses examined for defendant:
PW1: K.Lakshmi DeviDW1: M.Vijayamma
PW2 S. Peeran Sab DW2 N. Pradeep Reddy,
DW3 V. Venkatramana,
DW4 B. Chandra Sekhar,
DW5 K. Venkatramana
Exhibits marked for plaintiff:
Ex.A1 is the plaint rough sketch,
Ex.A2 is the Registered sale deed dated 26.04.1989 executed Bhaskar Adi Subbamma and her son Sankaranarayana in favour of Kalannagari Uthamma (1st plaintiff),
Ex.A3 is the registered sale deed dt.04.04.1996 executed by Nagannagari Buchi Reddy in favour of Kalannagari Uthamma (1st plaintiff),
Ex.A4 is the Registration copy of sale deed dt.30.10.2014 obtained by the defendants 1 and 2 in the name of 1st defendant from Bhaskara Ramanatham, 20
Ex.A5 is the ownership certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Badikayalapalle Grama Panchayat in the name of 2nd plaintiff for the house bearing D.No.6/95,
Ex.A6 is the House tax receipt issued by Panchayat Secretary, Badikayalapalle Grama Panchayat in the name of 2nd plaintiff for the house bearing D.No.6/95,
Ex.A7 is the positive photographs of the plaint schedule property Nos.7 with compact disk,
Ex.A8 is the electricity consumption charges bill for the months of February and March, 2017,
Ex.A9 is the House tax payment receipt dated 11.07.2017 issued by the Badikayalapalle Gram Panchayath in the name of 2nd plaintiff,
Ex.A10 is the Water tap connection payment receipt dated 11.07.2017 issued by the Badikayalapalle Gram Panchayath in the name of 2nd plaintiff,
Ex.A11 is the Ownership certificate issued by the Badikayalapalle Gram Panchayath.
Exhibits marked for defendant:
Ex.B1 is the registered sale deed dt.30.10.2014 executed byBhaskar Ramanatham in favour of Defendant No.1, Ex.B2 is the registration copy of sale deed dt.24.12.2001 executed by Bhaskara Janardhana Setty in favour of the Bhaskara Ramanadham, Ex.B3 is the registration copy of sale deed dt.12.04.1988 executed by Bhaskara Janardhana Setty in favour of the Bhaskara Ramandham.
P.J.C.J., MPL.
Draft/Fair Judgment in OS.389/2014
dated 02.06.2020.
PART I