1 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT BOATH
ADILABAD DISTRICT.
PRESENT :- P.B.KIRAN KUMAR,
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOATH
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF MAY, 2021.
O.S.No. 12 of 2016
Between :
Sontake Vachala Bai, W/o. Late Sriram, Age 65 year, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Bosara village, Mandal Bazarhathnur, Dist. Adilabad.
… Plaintif/Petitioner.
// A n d //
1. Todsam Pandurang, S/o. Late Bheema, Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Jalluguda village, mandal Bazarhathnur, Dist. Adilabad.
2. Todsam Bapu Rao, S/o. Late Bheema, Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Jalluguda village, Mandal Bazarhathnur, Dist. Adilabad.
3. Kumra Phul Chand, S/o. Late Jaithu, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Jalluguda village, Mandal Bazarhathnur, Dist. Adilabad.
… Defendants/Respondents.
This suit came before me for fnal hearing on 08.4.2021 in the presence of Sri A.Mohan Rao, Advocate for Plaintif and of Sri Waman Rao Deshpande, Advocate for Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :-
J U D G M E N T
This suit is fled by the plaintif praying this court to grant perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintif against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit land bearing Survey No.16/అ/13 to an extent of Ac.4-14 guntas, situated at Bosara Village,
Bazarhathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District bounded by East:Land of
S.Siddesh S/o Vittal (after C.C.Road), West:Land of Madavi Telanga,
North:Road, South:Land of Sontake Shanker, which is hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’.
2 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016
2.Briefly, the averments of the plaint, are as follows:-
The plaintif is the absolute owner, pattadar, possessor and cultivator of the suit schedule property and the plaintif has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Originally, S.Sriram, the husband of the plaintif was the owner, pattadar and possessor of the suit land and he died in the year 2005.
After the death of her husband, the plaintif acquired ownership over the suit land and the pattadar pass book was also in the name of the plaintif. The defendants have no right whatsoever nature over the suit land but trying to dispossess the plaintif from the suit land and trying to encroach on it. On 07.9.2016 when the plaintif along with her servants were in the suit land and started erected fencing to the suit land towards eastern side, the defendants picked up quarrel with the plaintif and threatened to dispossess her from the suit land, but with great difculty, the plaintif has been protecting her possession over the suit schedule property with the help of her well wishers. The cause of action arose on 07.9.2016 when the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit land. Left with no other alternative, the plaintif fled this suit.
3.On service of summons defendants appeared before this court and fled their common written statement. The brief facts of which are as follows:-
The boundaries mentioned in the plaint are wrongly described and colluding with the revenue ofcials of Bazarhathnoor Mandal, the plaintif obtained pattadar pass books and pahanies in her name for the years 1420F to 1426F. The husband of the plaintif was not the owner 3 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 of land in Sy.No.16/అ/13 admeasuring Ac.4-14 guntas of Bhosra village.
In fact, the land in an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.16/ అbelongs to one Digamber S/o Ramchander. The husband of the plaintif by name Sriram S/o Ramchander was the pattadar of the land to an extent of Ac.5-10 guntas in Sy.No.16/ ఇ and to an extent of Ac.4-14 guntas in
Sy.No.16/ ఏof Bhosra Village till 1984-85.
3(ii) During the life time of plaintif’s husband, he sold the land to an extent of Ac.5-10 guntas in Sy.No.16/ ఇto one Bojja S/o Surya and the same has been in possession of the said Bojja since 1984-85 and in
Sy.No.16/ admeasuring Ac.4-14 guntas, the husband of plaintif was in possession of Ac.2-07 guntas only. In the remaining area of said survey No.16/ ఏnew colony of Jalluguda village has come into existence to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas and Bheem Rao S/o Lachu (father of defendants 1 and 2), Ramrao S/o Lachu (paternal uncle of defendants 1 and 2) and Devrao S/o Lachu (paternal uncle of defendant Nos.1 and
2) have been in possession of Ac.1-07 guntas since 1987-88. After the death of father of defendants 1 and 2, their paternal uncles and D1 and
D2 are in possession of land to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas in
Sy.No.16/ఏof Bhosra Village. D1 to D3 are cultivating the above said land measuring Ac.1-07 guntas and after the death of husband of plaintif, the patta of above Sy.No.16/ ఏto an extent of Ac.4-14 guntas was mutated in the name of the plaintif, but she has been in possession of Ac.2-07 guntas but not in possession of entire Ac.4-14 guntas.
4 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 3(iii) The boundaries of Sy.No.16/ఏto an extent of 4-14 guntas of
Bhosra village are North:Sy.No.16/ఉ of Todsam Jangu Bai W/o T.Jallu after road, South: Land of Sontake Shanker, East:CC Road and thereafter land of Todsam Rava in Sy.No.16/ ఏand old Jalluguda village,
West:Land of Madavi Telanga S/o Sungu. Whereas, the plaintif intentionally mentioned the wrong boundaries and fled this false suit only to grab the land in possession of the defendants 1 to 3. When the husband of the plaintif is not in possession of total extent of Ac.4-14 guntas in Sy.No.16/ ఏ, the question of acquiring the same by the plaintif does not arise. The cause of action is invented for the purpose of fling this suit only. Hence, prayed this court to dismiss the suit.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor-in-ofce framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of suit ?
2. To what relief?
6.To substantiate her case, the plaintif examined herself as PW1 and independent witness as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, the defendants examined the defendant No.1 as DW1 and an independent witness as DW2 and marked Exs.B1 to B41.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides.
8.Issue No.1:-
It is the case of the plaintif that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and has been in continuous 5 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference and she has acquired the same from her husband after his death. In support of the claim of the plaintif, she examined herself as PW1 and another person as PW2 and also marked Exs.A1 to A8.
9.Learned counsel for the plaintif contended that the plaintif is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the plaintif also fled Exs.A1 to A8 to show that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of fling of this suit. The defendants are no way connected with this case and the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 clearly establishes that she has been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit.
10.The learned counsel for the plaintif also argued that Dw1 clearly admitted that he is no way connected with the suit schedule property and it does not belongs to him. He pointed out that DW1 admitted in his cross-examination that patta pass book was not issued to his grandfather and that himself and his father were also not issued any pattadar pass books in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas and the above said admissions clearly shows that the defendants are not in possession of the land in an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas as alleged by them. The learned counsel for the plaintif also pointed out that, in the cross-examination of DW2, he clearly admitted that he purchased his land in the year 2019 and the defendants fled the pahanies which are not relevant to this case. Lastly, he vehemently contended that the plaintif proved her case by way of oral and documentary evidence and prayed this court to decree the suit with costs.
6 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016
11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the suit is fled for perpetual injunction which is an equitable relief and the plaintif has to come to the court with clean hands and the husband of the plaintif was not the owner of the entire suit schedule property. He further contended that the boundaries mentioned by the plaintif are not correct and the same has to be established by the plaintif. The plaintif suppressed the material facts in this case and she did not come to the court with clean hands.
Learned counsel pointed out that PW1 in her cross-examination admitted that towards southern side of the suit schedule property,
Jalluguda village is existed and thereafter, the land of Shanker will be there, but in the plaint, plaintif mentioned southern boundary as land of Shanker. He also pointed that PW1 admitted that the dispute in between herself and defendants were going on before the District
Collector, but the same was also not mentioned in the plaint and the suppression of above said facts shows that the plaintif approached this court with unclean hands.
12.Learned counsel for the defendants also contended that the survey No.16/ అ/13 is a manipulated and created one and there is no such survey number in Sy.No.16. The plaintif and her relatives managed the revenue ofcials and obtained the pattadar pass book for total extent of Ac.4-14 guntas, but in fact, the plaintif has been in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.2-07 guntas only. He also contended that the pahanies fled by the defendants are very much relevant and the said pahanies clearly shows as to how the plaintif in collusion with revenue ofcials manipulated the revenue records and obtained pattedar pass book in favour of the plaintif. Healso pointed 7 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 out that the plaintif did not choose to fle any rejoinder for the written statement fled by them and she also failed to deny the map showing boundaries fled by the defendants. Lastly he contended that the plaintif has suppressed the material facts and has approached this court with unclean hands and hence, prayed this court to dismiss this suit with costs.
13.Now coming to the oral evidence of plaintif, it shows that PW1, who is the plaintif, fled her chief afdavit in lieu of her examination-in- chief and reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief afdavit. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that her husband acquired the land to an extent of Ac.15-00 from his father and her husband also acquired
Ac.4-00 of land in Sy.No.16/అ/13, but she has not fled any document to show that her husband got the above said land in his name in Sy.No.16/ అ/13. She also admitted that her husband died about fourteen years back and at the time of expiry of her husband, he is having total Ac.12- 00 of land in his name including this survey number. After the death of her husband, three acres of land were allotted to each of her two sons and the suit land and four acres of land in some other survey i.e., total 8 acres and odd of land was mutated in her name and at present she is having total 8 acres and odd of land in her name but she do not know the survey number of other land.
14.PW1 also admitted that she do not know the total extent of survey
No.16 and they have executed a partition deed at the time of partitioning the lands standing in the name of her husband among herself and her two sons and she do not know whether the said deed was fled before this court. It is also admitted that she has not fled any 8 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 document to show that the suit schedule property is bounded by the above said boundaries before this court and she do not know whether her husband got two pieces of land in Sy.No.16/అ/13. PW1 also admitted that the village namely Jalluguda was came into existence in the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas out of Ac.4-14 guntas of land and that towards southern side of the suit schedule property, Jalluguda village will be there and thereafter, the land of Shanker will be there.
She further admitted that she do not know the survey numbers of the persons who are having boundaries with the suit schedule property and she has not fled any rejoinder to the written statement fled by the defendants and that the defendants interfered with her possession over the suit schedule property in the last summer when she was fencing the land and when the defendants came to the suit schedule property there is no crop available in the suit schedule property. It was also admitted by PW1 that the defendants fled requisition before the
Collector, Adilabad alleging that the patta was wrongly granted in her name.
15.The plaintif also examined independent witness as PW2, who supported the contents of plaint in his chief afdavit. In the cross- examination, he admitted that he is having agricultural lands in
Sy.No.38 and he do not know the survey numbers of the suit schedule property and Kotha Jalluguda colony and he is the son-in-law of the plaintif. He also admitted that he do not know how many acres of land the husband of plaintif was having in Sy.No.16 and there were disputes in between the plaintif and defendants from ten or twelve years in respect of the suit schedule property and the plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property. He further admitted that he do not know 9 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 whether the plaintif is in possession of Ac.2-07 guntas, the said Kotha
Jalluguda village was in the land of Ac.1-00 guntas and the defendants are in possession of Ac.1-07 guntas or not.
16.After scanning of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, it reveals that the plaintif acquired the lands from her husband and a case was going on in between plaintif and defendants before the District Collector with regard to the suit schedule property but the same was not mentioned in the plaint. It further shows that there is a new village namely
Jalluguda came into existence in the said survey number in view of admission made by PW1 in her cross-examination that towards southern side of the suit schedule property, Jalluguda village will be there and thereafter the land of Shanker will be there. It also shows that PW2 who is examined on behalf of PW1 clearly admitted that there are disputes between the plaintif and defendants since ten or twelve years back in respect of the suit schedule property and the plaintif is in possession of the said property and he do not know the survey numbers of the suit schedule property and Kotha Jalluguda colony.
Further, it is needless to mention that as per the provisions of Indian
Evidence Act the admissions need not be proved.
17.Plaintif also exhibited documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A8 on her behalf to support her contention. Ex.A1 is the original pattadar pass book, which shows that the plaintif is the pattadar of the land in an extent of Ac.2-30 guntas in Sy.No.22/ ఇ/1 and the land to an extent of Ac.4-14 guntas in Sy.No.16/అ/13 situated at Bosra Village of
Bazarhathnoor Mandal. A perusal of the said pattadar pass book shows that there is some correction with regard to Sy.No.16/ అ /13 but the 10 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 same was acknowledged by the then Tahasildar, Bazarhathnoor. Exs.A2 to A8 are the certifed copies of pahanies issued by the revenue authorities through Mee-Seva for the fasli years 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425 and 1426 respectively and a perusal of the said pahanies shows that the plaintif is the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. Thus the documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to
A8 shows that the plaintif is the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. But, it is well settled position of law that mere entries in the revenue records does not give rights to the parties over the properties and they have to establish their possession over the said properties as on the date of fling of the suit.
18.Now coming to the oral evidence of defendants it shows that defendants examined the defendant No.1 as DW1 and another independent witness as DW2. The defendant No.1 fled chief-afdavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief and examined as DW1, who reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief-afdavit. In the cross-examination, DW1 admitted that plaintif fled this suit to an extent of Ac.4-14 guntas in Sy.No.16/అsituated at Bosra Shivar and the above said land belongs to plaintif which is the patta land and plaintif is the pattadar. He also admitted that he has no relation with the above said land and the same does not belongs to him and he never interfered with the possession of the suit land. It is also admitted that the land in an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas in Sy.No.16/ఏsituated at Bosra shivar was acquired from his grandfather and that the pattadar pass book was not issued to his grandfather in respect of above said Ac.1-07 guntas and that himself and his father were also not issued any pattadar pass book in respect of the said land of Ac.1-07 guntas.
11 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016
19.The defendants also examined independent witness as DW2, who supported the contents of written statement in the chief afdavit fled in lieu of his examination-in-chief. DW2 in his cross-examination admitted that he purchased the land in the year 2019 and the plaintif has no right over the above said land and that the plaintif has no land at their village and at present, the defendants are cultivating the disputed lands. Thus, from the evidence of Dws.1 and 2, it shows that as per the evidence of DW1, the plaintif has been in possession of
Ac.4-14 guntas and they have no relation with the said land and neither the grandfather and father of DW1 nor himself were issued pattadar pass books in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas.
Whereas, from the evidence of DW2 it shows that the plaintif has no land in their village and the defendants are cultivating the disputed lands.
20.The defendants also exhibited documentary evidence vide Exs.B1 to B41 to support their contention. A perusal of the same discloses that they are the certifed copies of pahanies for diferent years in respect of survey No.16 of Bhosra Village of Bazarhathnoor Mandal.
The learned counsel for the plaintif contended that the above said documentary evidence is no way connected with the suit survey number and they are irrelevant to the present case. Per contra,
Learned counsel for defendants vehemently argued that the documents fled by the defendants are relevant to suit survey number and Exs.B1,
B2, B4, B21, B23, B24, B27 and B28 are the crucial and important documents in this case. In view of contention of the learned counsel for defendants, this court is inclined to look into these documents at the frst instance. Ex.B1 is the certifed copy of pahani for the year 12 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 1954-55 in respect of survey No.16 of Bhosra village. A perusal of the said pahani shows that there is a survey No.16/ ఏalong with other sub survey number, but there is no sub survey No.16/ అ/13. Ex.B2 is the certifed copy of pahani for the year 1982-83 which shows that the husband of the plaintif was the pattadar and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.5-10 guntas in Sy.No.16/ ఇand the land for an extent of
Ac.4-14 guntas in Sy.No.16/ ఏ. But there is no sub survey No.16/ అ/13.
21.A perusal of Ex.B4 which is the certifed copy of pahani for the year 1987-88 shows that the name of husband of plaintif for the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.16/ ఇand also the land to an extent of
Ac.2.07 guntas in Sy.No.16/ ఏ, as pattedar and possessor, one Bheem
Rao S/o Lachma, Ramarao S/o Lachma and Devrao S/o Lachma each were shown as possessors to an extent of Ac.0-29 guntas of land and the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 was standing in the name of Kotha
Colony. Ex.B7 is the certifed copy of pahani for the year 1990-91 which shows the name of husband of plaintif as pattadar for the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.16/ ఇ and also for the land in Sy.No.16/ఏ to an extent of Ac.2.07 guntas, whereas, the extents of land were changed as 0-16 guntas, 0-16 guntas and 0-15 guntas each in favour of
Bheem Rao, Ramarao and Devrao respectively.
22.Coming to Ex.B21 which is the certifed copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007 showing the name of plaintif as pattedar and possessor for the land in an extent of Ac.2-07 guntas and Bheem Rao,
Ramarao and Devrao were shown as possessors for the land for diferent extents and for extent of Ac.1-00 of land is shown as Jalluguda 13 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 village and colony. Ex.B22 is another certifed copy of pahani for the year 2008-09 which shows the name of plaintif as pattedar and possessor for the land in an extent of Ac.2-07 guntas and only Bheem
Rao was shown as possessor for the land to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas and for extent of Ac.1-00 of land is shown as Jalluguda village. Coming to pahani for the year 2009-2010 which was marked as Ex.B23 shows that the entry with regard to Sy.No.16/ ఏ was rounded of and for
Sy.No.16/ ఏ the name of plantif is shown as pattadar and possessor for the land to an extent of Ac.2-14 guntas, one Bheem Rao was shown as possessor for the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas and Ac.1-00 of land is shown as Jalluguda village.
23.Ex.B24 which is the computerised certifed copy of pahani issued through Mee-seva for the fasli year 1426 shows that new survey
No.16/అ/1 was came into existence and one Durva Ramji was shown as pattadar and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.0-03 guntas.
Ex.B28 which is the certifed copy of pahani for the fasli year 1426 shows that the plaintif was the pattadar and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.4-14 guntas in Sy.No.16/అ/13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that when the computerized certifed copies were issued by the revenue authorities they manipulated the suit survey number and created a new survey number as Sy.No.16/అ/13 and issued pattadar pass book in the name of plaintif by including the land of the defendants and land of Jalluguda colony as suit schedule property. As seen from the above pahanies i.e., B1, B2, B4, B21, B23, it clearly shows that there is no such survey number (16/ అ/13) in the above said pahanies and suddenly, in Ex.B28, the said survey number came into existence and further, there is no 14 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 record to show that as to how the said survey number came into existence, which creates a doubt in the mind of the court about its existence and as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
The other pahanies exhibited vide Exs.B29 to B41 are related to diferent sub-divisions of Sy.No.16.
24.In view of above discussion, it can be said that there is no dispute with regard to the land in Sy.No.16/ఇ to an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas standing in the name of husband of the plaintif as pattedar and later the name of One Bojju was shown as possessor for the said extent. The dispute is with regard to Sy.No.16/ఏ for the extent of Ac.4-14 guntas. In some of pahanies the name of husband of plaintif is shown as pattadar and possessor of the said total extent and later, the name of husband of plaintif is shown for Ac.2-07 guntas only as pattadar and possessor, and thereafter the names of one Bheemrao, Rama Rao and Devrao were shown as possessors for diferent extents and name of Jalluguda village for the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 were shown in the said survey number. Thereafter, suddenly, it is to be noted that the name of plaintif was shown as pattadar and possessor for the total extent of
Ac.4-14 guntas by giving a new sub survey number as 16/ అ/13 vide
Ex.B28. It is not known as to how the plaintif has shown as pattedar and possessor of the entire extent of land.
25.The learned counsel for the plaintif contended that the plaintif by way of oral and documentary evidence clearly establishes her possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and even
DW1 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintif has been in possession of the suit schedule property. Though it is well 15 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 settled in law that for granting perpetual injunction, the plaintif has to prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit, but it is also to be noted that the said possession has to be continuous, uninterrupted and without interference from anybody.
Further, as seen from the pahanies fled by the defendants it shows that initially the husband of the plaintif has been in possession of Ac.2- 07 guntas in Sy.No.16/ఏ and later, the plaintif was shown as Ac.2.07 guntas in Sy.No.16/ఏ but thereafter, the name of the plaintif was shown as pattadar and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.4-14 guntas in
Sy.No.16/అ/13 and when the defendants questioned the possession of the plaintif over the entire extent of land there is no explanation as to how the plaintif was shown as pattedar and possessor of the entire suit schedule property and as to how new survey number came into existence in the revenue records. Further, when the defendants disputed the very title of the plaintif over the entire extent of suit schedule property in the written statement fled by them and when there is a cloud in the title of the plaintif over the entire suit schedule property, the plaintif failed to take steps to fle rejoinder which was admitted by PW1 in her cross-examination and also failed to take steps to fle comprehensive suit instead of continuing this suit which was fled for mere injunction simplicitor.
26.The learned counsel for the defendants contended that since the perpetual injunction is an equitable relief, the plaintif has to approach the court with clean hands, whereas the plaintif suppressed the material facts and fled this suit. It is well settled principle of law that in order to grant equitable relief of perpetual injunction, one has to do equity and has to approach the court with clean hands and further, the 16 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 plaintif has to establish that she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of this suit. But, as discussed supra, PW1 admitted in her cross-examination that towards southern side of her land there is a Jalluguda village in between her land and land of Shanker, whereas, the boundaries mentioned in the plaint shows that the land of Shanker is situated towards southern boundary of her land. But a perusal of plaint, it shows that the southern boundary is shown as land of Shanker which clearly shows that the plaintif shown wrong boundary towards southern side of her property by representing the material facts before this court. Further, PW1 also admitted that the dispute in between herself and defendants is pending before the District Collector but the same was not mentioned in the plaint. Moreover, as discussed above, plaintif failed to establish her possession over the total extent of the suit schedule property. Thus, from the above admissions made by the plaintif, it can be said that the plaintif suppressed the material facts and approached this court with unclean hands.
27.Furthermore, it is to be noted that the plaintif has to establish her own case and she cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendants. Though it is contended that DW1 himself admitted about the possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property, but the same is not enough to establish her possession over the entire suit schedule property, moreso, when there is a dispute with regard to the possession of the plaintif over the total extent of the suit schedule property and when Exs.B4, B7, B21, B22 and B23 shows only an extent of Ac.2-07 guntas of land was standing in the name of husband of the plaintif in Sy.No.16/ ఏ and when there is no explanation forthcoming 17 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016 from the plaintif with regard to her subsequent possession for the entire extent of suit schedule property with a sub-survey number and also when there is no document available record to substantiate her contention.
28.Thus, viewed from any angle, it can be said that the plaintif with the oral and documentary evidence vide Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A8 failed to establish her continuous possession over the entire extent of suit schedule property as on the date of fling of this suit and also failed to establish that the defendants trespassed into the peaceful possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and the plaintif approached this court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts and as such, the plaintif is not entitled to equitable relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintif.
29. Issue No.2: In view of fndings on issue No.1, this suit is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the suit is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.
Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 05th day of May, 2021.
Sd/-
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BOATH.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For plaintifs For defendants:
PW1: Sontake Vachala BaiDW1: Todsam Pandurang PW2: SangameshwerDW2: Madavi Bojju 18 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016
EXHIBITS MARKED
For plaintif
Ex.A-1: Original Pattedar pass Book pertaining to the suit land dated 26-06-2006 Ex.A-2: Certifed copy of Pahani pertaining to the suit land for the year 2010 Ex.A-3: Certifed copy of Pahani pertaining to the suit land for the year 2011 Ex.A-4: Certifed copy of Pahani pertaining to the suit land for the year 2012 Ex.A-5: Certifed copy of Pahani pertaining to the suit land for the year 2013 Ex.A-6: Certifed copy of Pahani pertaining to the suit land for the year 2014 Ex.A-7: Certifed copy of Pahani pertaining to the suit land for the year 2015 Ex.A-8: Certifed copy of Pahani pertaining to the suit land for the year 2016
For defendant:
Ex.B-1: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1954-55 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S]
Ex.B-2: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1982-83 of village Bhosra mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S]
Ex.B-3: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1983-84 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-4: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1987-88 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-5: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1988-89 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-6: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1989-90 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S]
Ex.B-7: Certifed Copy of the Pahani for the year 1990-91 is of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S]
Ex.B-8: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1992-93 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-9: Certifed Copy of the Pahani for the year 1993-94 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-10: Certifed Copy of the Pahani for the year 1994-95 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-11: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1995-96 is of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-12: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1996-97 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-13: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1997-98 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-14: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1998-99 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-15: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1999-2000 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
19 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016
Ex.B-16: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2000-01 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S]
Ex.B-17: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2001-02 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-18: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2002-03 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-19: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2003-04 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-20: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2004-05 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-21: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2006-07 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-22: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2008-09 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-23: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 2009-10 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-24: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-25: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-26: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-27: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-28: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-29: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-30: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-31: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-32: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-33: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-34: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-35: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-36: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-37: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
20 of 20 OS.No. 12/2016
Ex.B-38: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-39: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-40: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Ex.B-41: Certifed copy of the Pahani for the year 1426 of village Bhosra, mandal Bazarhathnoor, District Adilabad [T.S].
Sd/-
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BOATH.