O.S.No.1/20141/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR
Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2017
Present: Sri P. Divakar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gudur
O.S. No.1/ 2014
Katragadda Suresh…Plaintiff
Vs.
1 Gowrabathina Padmamma 2 Katikala Suresh 3 Pichaka Guravaiah 4 Pichaka Ramanaiah
5. The State Rep by District Collector, Nellore District.
6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur
7. Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal…Defendants
This Suit is coming on 20.03.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence Sri V.S.N and Y.Aravind of advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V. Upendra Rao, and Y.Edukondalu advocates for the defendants and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
01.This is the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties.
02.The averments of the plaint are that :
The Plaintiff purchased plaint schedule properties from the respective vendors under different sale deeds, i.e., Serial No.1 of plaint schedule from the 1st
Defendantthrough the Regd. Sale Deed, dt:1.2.1999 for valuable consideration ;
Serial No.2 of plaint schedule from the 3rd Defendantthrough Registered Sale
Deed, dated 1.2.1999 ; Serial No.3 of plaint schedule from one Madana
Padmamma W/o Guravaiah resident of Nelaballi rettapalli Village, through
Registered Sale Deed, dated 1.2.1999 ; Serial No.4 of plaint schedule property from Pichuka China Munuswamy,S/o. Veera Swamy, resident of Nelaballi rettapalli
Village through Registered Sale Deed, dated 1.2.1999 ; Likewise Serial Nos.5 , 6, 7 properties were purchased through Registered Sale Deeds, dated 1.2.1999,
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
from Pichuka Subbarayulu, S/o. Munuswamy, 4th Defendant and Pichuka
Sulochanamma W/o Subbaiah respectively. On the even date, the Plaintiff was put in possession of the plaint schedule property by the respective vendors. In the year 1975 itself, The vendors of the Plaintiff, mortgaged the plaint schedule properties to the co-operative land mortgage Bank, Bhudanam. Therefore, after purchasing the said properties, the Plaintiff released the mortgage from the bank.
Since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff have been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties.
02(a). Ascertaining the Plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties, the Revenue Authorities issued Pattadar pass book, title deed, so also mutated his name in the concerned Revenue Records. While the matter stood thus, misunderstandings arose between the Plaintiff and defendants
No 6 and 7. Therefore, they colluded with defendants 1 to 4 and trying to change the Revenue Records, as if they are assigned lands, in order to restore the lands in the name of the defendants 1 to 4, which is already sold to the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that, in fact the plaint schedule properties are the Patta lands and the defendants 1 to 4 already sold away the same to the Plaintiff.
Suppressing all these facts, the defendants 1 to 4 trying to dispossess the Plaintiff from the plaint schedule properties.
02(b). It is further submitted that, if the plaint schedule properties are assigned lands, they may not be registered in the year 1999. Further, if they are assigned lands, the defendants have no right to sell the same and the Revenue
Officials may evict under due process of law. Except the Plaintiff, no body have right or possession over the plaint schedule properties. While so, since two days the defendants 1 to 4 without having right, trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.
O.S.No.1/20143/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
03.On the other hand D1, D3, D4 chosen to appear through their counsel. D2 engaged another counsel. The D5 to D7 AGP filed memo of appearance. But, D1, D3 and D4 did not chosen to file written statement even after mandatory period, therefore they were set ex-parte. Subsequently, D1, D3, D4 filed I.A 227/14 along with written statement of D1 alone, to set aside the ex-parte order dt 15.4.2014, and as per orders in I.A No 227/14 dt 30.4.2014, the ex-parte order dt 15.4.2014 was set aside and D1, D3 and D4 permitted to came on record.
For D5 to D7, AGP did not filed written statement, therefore they were set ex-parte.
03(a). The averments of the written statement of 1st Defendantare that :
The Serial No.1 of plaint schedule and other properties shown in the plaint schedule are the assigned lands, occupied by husband of the 1st defendant, 3rd defendant, 4th Defendantand they have been cultivating the same. The husband of the 1st DefendantChandraiah died in the year 1998 leaving 1st Defendantas his legal heir and she have been in possession of Item No.1 of plaint schedule. The names of the defendants 1, 3,4 mentioned as enjoydars. Subsequently, in the year 2004 the MRO, Chillakur issued proceedings in RC No B251/2004 dt 16.9.2004 in favour of husband of 1st defendant, D3 and D4. The plaint schedule properties are assigned lands. Therefore, the alleged sale transactions and delivery is baseless.
The revenue records were created by the Plaintiff in connivance with VRO,
Chillakur who suspended as per proceedings in RCA 3/5582/2013 dt 3.1.2014.
The sale deeds not binding upon the defendants, therefore prayed to dismiss the same.
03(b). The 2nd Defendantalone filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that, the entire plaint schedule property is
Government land. The sale deeds stands in favour of Plaintiff are null and void by virtue of Sec 3 (3) of A.P Assigned Lands( Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977. The pattadar pass book and title deed of the Plaintiff did not create any right to him.
The Plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
By managing the VRO, the Plaintiff got entered his name, in the revenue records.
The said VRO was suspended as per orders in RCA-3/5582/2013 dt 3.1.2004. The entire plaint schedule property assigned to different persons. The original assignees after alienation left the village and settled somewhere else, therefore the
Government initiated action to resume the land. The Item No.5 of plaint schedule is not 0.46 cents and it is 0.96 cents. The Plaintiff never cultivated the plaint schedule property.
04.Basing on the rival contention of both the parties, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property ?
2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction ?
3) To what relief ?
During the trial, the Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked
Ex.A1 to A19, so also examine one Gundala Ramesh as PW2 and one Gundala
Madhu as PW3. On the other hand, the 1st Defendantherself examined as DW1 and 2nd Defendantexamined as DW2, 4th Defendantexamined as DW3 and one
Muni Bhaskar examined as DW4, but no documents marked on his behalf.
05.The Gist of Evidence of Plaintiff and his witnesses :
The Plaintiff being PW1 filed his chief affidavit mostly reiterating the contents of the plaint, wherein in his cross, he deposed that, his mother's relative
Katamneni Venkateswar Rao, Lecturer Mining College, Gudur and his son-in-law G.
Mohan were negotiated during the purchase of plaint schedule properties. After obtaining encumbrance certificate, he purchased the property. He did not obtain any link document. He purchased the property at Rs 14,000/- per acre. He can say boundaries to the land under Ex.A1. East: Katamneni Venkateswarlu land in S.No 202,203, South: Government land, West : Government land , Noth – Pichuka
Guravaiah land in S.No 234/2. The boundaries of Ex.A2 are, East : Katamneni
O.S.No.1/20145/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
Venkateswar Rao, North : Nedurumalli Padmanaba Reddy in S.No 234/1, West:
Land of brother of Guravaiah in S.No 234/3. The boundaries of Ex.A3 property is,
South: Government land, East: Property in S.No 234/6 purchased by him, North :
Land in S.No 234/3, 234/4 , West : 234/4 which was purchased by him. The boundaries to Ex.A4 property is East: Land in S.No 234/2 purchased by him, West :
Government land, South : Land purchased by him, North : Land of Padmanaba
Reddy. The boundaries to Ex.A5 are East: Land purchased by him, West : Land purchased by him, South : Government land , North : Land purchased by him. The boundaries under Ex.A6 are South : Government land, the remaining sites purchased by him. The boundaries to Ex.A7 are South: Government land, West:
Government land, East and North purchased by him. He admitted that, there are no boundaries given in Ex.A1 to A7. He admitted that, he did not show the boundaries in the suit schedule. The total extent of S.No 234 is 272.92 cents. He do not aware about the grant of DKT pattas for most of the land in S.No 234. Since his relative
Katamneni Venkateswarlu have been running chicken form in the locality, he purchased the property for the purpose of cultivation. One Syamalamma have been working in the house of his distant relative, at Mylavaram, Krishna District. He admitted that Syamalamma belongs to Yadava community and Pws 2 and 3 are her brothers. She deposed that in the year 1999, he got mutated his name in the revenue records. He denied that, in the year 1999 Baktavasthala Reddy is the VRO.
He deposed that, in the year 1999 one S. Jayasankar Reddy is the VRO. He admitted that, VRO Bakthavatsthla Reddy suspended, but he denied that he was suspended due to false entries made by VRO in favour of PW1. He further admitted that, Tahsildar Surendranath also suspended by the Collector. He knew that D1 to
D4 filed Writ Petition No 21037/2014 before the High Court. He denied that, since the plaint schedule property is Government land, he is not entitled to purchase the same.
05(a). One Gundala Ramesh brother of Syamalamma ( relative of PW1) filed his chief affidavit to speak about the sale deeds in favour of the PW1 and his
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
subsequent cultivation till 2010. In his cross he deposed that, he do not know the sale consideration. He is watchman to the Chicken Form of Venkateswarlu and he is the brother of Syamalamma. He deposed that, till 2010 there are no disputes between parties to the suit. He admitted that, there is standing Jamayil trees in the plaint schedule property. He deposed that, after obtaining injunction orders, the 2nd
Defendantand others cut and carried away the Jamayil trees. He voluntarily deposed that, the said Jamayil trees raised by the Plaintiff.
05(b). One Gundala Madhu brother of PW2 examined as PW3 by filing his chief affidavit mostly sailing with PW2, wherein in his cross deposed that, the plaint schedule properties are settlement lands. He admitted that, he have been working under Venkateswarlu. He voluntarily deposed that the Jamayil trees raised by the
PW1.
06.The Gist of Evidence of Defendants and their Witnesses :
The 1st Defendantherself examined as DW1 by filing her chief affidavit mostly reiterating the contents of written statement, wherein in her cross she deposed that, her father-in-law name is Gowrabattina Chinnaiah. Her husband predeceased to her father-in-law. Four years after the death of her husband, her father-in-law died.
Her son name is Jayamohan. She admitted that, to the north of the land already
Teluguganga Channel dug in the year 2010. Prior to her marriage, patta given to her husband. She did not sell the property to the Plaintiff. She does not know whether her father-in-law mortgaged the documents of the land and obtain loan from the
Cooperative society Bank, Bhudanam under Ex.A11. She did not file any assignment patta stands in her favour. She does not know anything about the case.
She does not know about the written arguments filed by the Plaintiff in the CMA.
She knew one Katikala Suresh but do not know whether he is the Car owner or not.
She denied that the said Katikala Suresh used to supply Car on hire basis to the
MRO and VRO, who manipulated the revenue records. She further denied that, her son is follower of TDP and due to political influence he went against the Plaintiff.
O.S.No.1/20147/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
06(a). Katikala Suresh/2nd Defendantexamined as DW2 by filing chief affidavit mostly sailing with DW1, wherein, in his cross he deposed that, the property in dispute is Government land, however the Plaintiff claiming that it is private land. He knew Plaintiff's uncle by name Mohan Rao. He admitted that, he own a Taxi and used to provide it for hire to the Government officials, Police,
Revenue and Medical personnel. He admitted that, now his taxi was hired to the
Gudur Government hospital. He knew MLA, Gudur very well. He does not know when the Defendants sold the property to the Plaintiff. The defendants filed assignment pattas granted to them. He denied that when the Telugu Ganga Cannel passed through Plaintiff land, the Plaintiff claimed compensation, on that the revenue people bored grudge and became reason for the present dispute. Pws 2 and 3 belongs to Yadava caste and there are 10 houses of Yadava people in the village and 100 houses of their caste people houses in the village.
06(b). The Pichuka Ramanaiah/4th Defendantexamined as DW3 by filing his chief affidavit mostly sailing with Dws 1 and 2, wherein in his cross he deposed that, the contents of the chief affidavit did not read over to him. He can not say the date of proceedings of Tahsildar . From his father's era he have been cultivating the properties. He does not know the sale transaction with Suresh. He can not say, for which purpose the Plaintiff filed the suit.
06(c). One Pichuka Muni Bhaskar S/o 3rd Defendantexamined as DW4 by filing chief affidavit mostly sailing with Dws 1 and 2, wherein in his cross he deposed that, one Chandraiah is husband of Padmamma. He does not know who is
Katragadda Suresh. D4 is his father. He admitted that, since 20 years, till now his father is the priest of Ramalayam of their village. He admitted that, he used to work as a cook for the functions. He further admitted that, his father have been cultivating and looking after the Ramalayam temple lands. He has knowledge about the petition filed by the Plaintiff seeking police aid, after obtaining temporary injunction orders. He admitted that, to the north of plaint schedule property, there is
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
Teluguganga cannel. He can not say the survey number of the land which is now alleging that he is the owner.
07.The Plaintiff filed Written Arguments and Defendant did not advance any arguments. Since the Written Arguments become part of record, I did not venture to reproduce the same.
08. Issue No.1 :
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, he purchased the plaint schedule properties from D1,D3,D4 and others, through Ex.A1 to A7 on 1.2.1999 through registered sale deeds from D1, D3,D4 and others. Recognizing his title and possession, the revenue authorities issued Ex.A9 and A10 i..e., Pattadar pass book and title deed, so also mutated his possession in the concerned revenue records.
While so, the Defendants 1 to 4 with the support of Defendants 5 to 7, interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff, hence the suit. The same is contested by D1 to
D4 stating that they never entered into sale deed with the Plaintiff and the plaint schedule properties are Government lands, therefore though the Plaintiff have sale deeds, he did not acquire any better title and those sale deeds are void U/s 3 of Act 9 of 1977.
09.It is the suit for injunction simplicitor, therefore it is for the
Plaintiff to establish that he is in legal possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.
09(a).The foremost contention of the defendants D1 to D4 is that, the suit schedule properties are Government land assigned to D1, D3 and D4 and others, therefore even if any sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff, he will not get any title. Since the defendants D1 to D4 asserted the fact, the primary onus lies on him to establish the same. Except alleging orally and examined themselves as Dws 1 and 2 ( D1 and D2), no scrap of paper filed to establish the same. Even the alleged assignment pattas of D1,D3,D4 did not see the day light till now. It is pertinent to
O.S.No.1/20149/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
note that, some documents filed by the D1 to D4, in the C.M.A. 12/14 on the file of
VII ADJ which were sent for to the file of this court on filing petition by D1 to D4.
However, for the reasons best known to them, in spite of ample opportunities, they did not mark those documents. Unless and until those documents marked by the defendants, this court can not go through the documents. At the out set, it can safely say that the oral evidence of D1/D.W1 and D2/D.W2 is not enough to assume that the nature of the plaint schedule properties is Government land.
09(b). On the other hand, the Plaintiff by marking Ex.A15, A16, A19 argued that, the nature of the plaint schedule properties is 'patta' but not Government land.
For better appreciation, I have gone through those documents. In the column provided for the nature of the property titled as, భూమసవభవము, పట/ఇనం/పరభుతవము and in the space provided for mentioning nature of land, it is mentioned as ' పట ' . If at all those properties are Government lands, the entry might be 'పరభుతవము' and if at all those properties are DKT pattas, the entry must be DKT or 'ధరఖసుథ' but not ' పట . Those documents strengthen the case of the Plaintiff pertaining to nature of the property.
9(c). Adding to that, in Ex.A9 and A10, which are pattadar pass book and title deed the 'హకకసవభవము' is mentioned as 'కనుగలు' . It is pertinent to note that, the said documents issued by the revenue people only. If it is their case that the properties are assigned lands, they might have not issued those documents to the
Plaintiff. If at all, those properties are is Government lands, there might be reference in those documents. Further the Sec 6 of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass book,
Act 1971, mandates the court to shall presume the genuineness of Ex.A9 and A10 until rebutted. Both the documents signed by MRO, particularly the title deed/Ex.A10 counter signed by Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Therefore, unless and until it is rebutted, the court shall presume that the entries in Ex.A9 and
A10 are genuine.
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
9(d).Further, it is the case of the Plaintiff that, under Ex.A11 the father-in- law of D1 mortgaged the property to cooperative Society mortgage Bank,
Bhudanam. When the same is suggested to D1/DW1, she expressed her ignorance. Therefore, for better understanding I have gone through Ex.A11. Whrein, it is apparent that the father-in-law of DW1 executed document titled as “
Declaration creating charge” over the Acs 3.10 cents in S.No 234/8 i.e., Serial No.1 of plaint schedule, which is none other than Ex.A1 property. It is further apparent that the, father-in-law of DW1, declared that the said extent is not assigned land as per AP Assigned Prohibition of Ordinance No 2/77. The court have Judicial notice that, the said ordinance became Act No 9 of 77. By virtue of Ex.A11, it is clear that, the father-in-law of DW1 shown the Serial No.1 of plaint schedule as private land and specifically gave declaration that it is not assigned land.
Adding to that, It is further apparent form Ex.A11 that, as per the Declaration given, in the year 1984 itself the father-in-law of DW1, owned and possessed the
Serial No.1 of plaint schedule. At this juncture, the glaring aspect has to be considered is that in page 2, para 5, line 3 of the written statement of DW1, she simply pleaded that, the said property was occupied by her husband. When Ex.A1 clearly speaks the pledge by Gowrabattina Chinnaiah/father-in-law of DW1 pertaining to the Serial No.1 of plaint schedule, the contention of the DW1 that the property was occupied by the husband and reclaimed the same and the
Government granted patta can't be believable. Further, once in the year 1984 itself the father-in-law of DW1 gave declaration that it is not assigned land, without filing any such assignment patta by DW1 and without filing any such assignment proceedings by the Government i.e., D5 to D7, the DW1 can not establish the nature of the property.
9(e).Coming to Ex.A12, which is the document of the year 1975, alike father-in-law of D1, Pichuka Guravaiah/D3 also mortgaged the Acs 2.10 cents in
O.S.No.1/201411/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
S.No 234/2 i.e., Ex.A2 property to the Cooperative Land Mortgaged Bank, Gudur. It is further apparent that, for the Acs 2.10 cents, he paid the cist of Rs.2.84/-. For the patta lands only the cist will be collected and for the assigned lands there will be no cist. The Ex.A12 leads to assume that, the nature of Serial No. 2 of the plaint schedule is patta land but not Government land.
Coming to Ex.A13, which is also declaration of creating charge by D3 in favour of the Cooperative mortgage Bank, replicate the declaration given by D3 that the item No.2 of the plaint schedule is not assigned land. By applying the same analogy applied to Ex.A11 supra, I am of the view that, the Serial No.2 of the plaint schedule also not assigned land. To dispute Ex.A12 and A13, the D3 not even chosen to given evidence before the court.
9(f).Furthermore, though the Government is party to the suit, they simply appeared through AGP and not even chosen to file Written Statement. If at all they contested the case, this court might have had an opportunity to adjudicate the case much better. When the dispute is regarding nature of property as to ' whether it is
Government land or patta land ? ', certainly the revenue people are the apt persons to clear the ambiguity. Though they are added as parties to the suit, they did not come forward to clear the ambiguity. Their non-contest is also one of the reason to assume the case of Plaintiff that the revenue people supporting the version of D1 to
D4.
In view of the above discussion this court is of view that the nature of Plaint schedule properties are 'Patta' but not government lands.
10.Further more the Ex.A1 to A7 are registered sale deeds executed by
D1, D3, D4 and others, pertaining to plaint schedule properties. The contesting D1,
D3, D4 simply denied the execution of Ex.A1 to A7. It is pertinent to note that, Ex.A1 to A7 are the registered instruments. Unless strong evidence placed to rebut, the court has to assume the execution and passing of consideration. The D1 to D4
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
simply denied the execution of Ex.A1 to A7 and simply deposed that the
Plaintiff/PW1 is new to them. If at all the Plaintiff new to them, how they entered to
Ex.A1, A2 and A5 with the Plaintiff !. All these facts leads to doubt the trustworthiness of evidence of D.W1 to 4.
11.Adding to that, the D1 to D4 claiming the property though Assignment pattas. Since the defendants alleged that the plaint schedule properties are assigned lands, the Plaintiff may not amend the suit to declaration. In this peculiar facts of the case, this court ventured to verify the title incidentally in the simple suit for injunction. To substantiate the contention of the Plaintiff, he charted his path by marking Ex.A.P.1 to P.7, which are the Registered Sale Deeds, through which the
Plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule properties. For better appreciation, I have gone through the certified copies of Regd. Sale Deeds, i.e. Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.a.1 is the Registered Sale Deed executed for Sy.No.234/8, for an extent of Ac.3.10 cents and classified as dry land, alike for Serial No.2 and 7 of plaint schedule properties are purchased through the Regd. Sale Deeds i.e., EX.A.2 to a.7. Moreover the
EX.A.9 and A10 , which is Pattadar pass book and title deed clearly goes to show that the towards the properties purchased by the Plaintiff under Ex.A.1 to A.7 only they were issued. The Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed issued by the MRO and countersigned by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, unless until strong evidence is place to rebut, the Ex.A9 and A10 entires shall presumed as genuine.
11(a). It is a specific case of the defendants that the Serial No.1 of plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of D.1,D.3 and D.4 and Serial
NO.5 and 6 of plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the
D2 and the further contended that all the plaint schedule properties are assigned lands. . The defendants did not choose to file any document to show their entitlement over the property. On the other hand, Plaintiff filed Ex.A.8 ,9 and A10, 1-B extract and Pattadar pass book and title deed. It is conspicuous from Ex.A10 that the acquisition of property is mentioned as 'కనుగలు' . Even defendants also
O.S.No.1/201413/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
admitted the issuance of the Pattadar passbook, title deed stands in the name of
Plaintiff, however, according to them the Plaintiff obtained the same by managing revenue officials. For better conclusion, the documentary evidence filed on either side is gleaned. Ex.A.8 is computerized copies of ROR extract dated 01.11.2013. It is conspicuous from Ex.A.8 that Katragadda Suresh S/o Pitchaiah i.e., the Plaintiff herein, having title over the different extents in different survey numbers, which are none other than the plaint schedule properties. The Survey numbers and extents which are apparent in I-B Extract or R.O.R extract replicates in the Pattadar pass book and title deeds i.e., Ex.A9 and A10. As can be seen from Ex.A8/1B extract show the entitlement of the PW1 for the plaint schedule properties. The same extents replicate in Ex.A9 and A10. With the aid of all these documents it can safely say the Plaintiff could able to establish prima facie title over the plaint schedule properties.
12. So far as possession over the plaint schedule properties is concerned, the documents filed by either side are gleaned. The plaint schedule property comprised of seven items. So for as Serial No.2,3,7 the defendants did not claiming any right or possession. The only allegation of the defendants is that all the plaint schedule properties are assigned lands, and serial no.1 is in possession of D1,3,4 and serial no.4 and 5 are in possession of D2. Except alleging orally, the defendants did not produce any scrap of paper to show that the plaint schedule properties are Government lands, much less assigned lands. On the other hand since the initial onus lies on the shoulders of the Plaintiff, apart from filing registered sale deeds i.e. Ex.A.1 to A.7, Pattadar Passbook and Title Deeds i.e.
Ex.A.9 and A10, he got marked Ex.P10 which is No 3 adangals for the fasili 1423 in
I.A 3/14 in OS NO 1/14 ( order 39 Rule 1). The No 3 adangals goes to show the possession of the Plaintiff as on date of filing of the suit.
13.At this juncture, I would like to recollect the judgment reported in 2004 (5) ALD 278, delivered by His Lordship Justice Sri L. Narasimha Reddy garu, in a
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
case between “Ambem Nadpi Sailoo and others v. Premlatha Mathi and others”. In
Para No.9, it is held that, “As observed above, at this stage the Court has to see as to whether the applicants can be said to be, prima facie in possession of the suit
schedule property. The pahanis referred to above, disclose that the
appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property. Such
evidence can be rebutted by any other stronger material. The fact that the defendants were issued pattadar passbook can support their claim for title. By itself, the pattadar passbook, does not vouch for subsequent possession. It depends on the acts and commissions of the parties.”
14.Keeping in mind about the dictum in the case referred above, coming to the documents filed by the Plaintiff, as can be seen from Ex.P10 i.e. No.3
Adangals pertaining to plaint schedule properties, the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.10 cents in Sy.No.234/2, Ac.2.61 cents in Sy.No.234/3, Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.234/4, Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.234/5, Ac.1.01 cents in Sy.No.234/6,
Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.234/7, Ac.3-18 cents in Sy.No.234/8. Here the glaring aspect as to be considered is that, according to the D2, Sy.No.234/7 is comprised of
Ac.0.96 cents but not Ac.0.46 cents. Of course, as can be seen from the plaint schedule, the Plaintiff pleaded that he is possession of that Ac.0.46 cents only, but as for seen from the EX.P.10 it is apparent that the total extent in Sy.No.234/7 is
Ac.096 cents but not Ac 0.46 cents. To clear the ambiguity, I have gone through
Ex.A.6 i.e., Registered Sale Deed stands in the name of the Plaintiff, pertaining to extant covered in Sy.No.234/7. It is conspicuous from the Ex.A.6 that, the Plaintiff purchased total extent of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.234/7. Further, it is conspicuous from the Pattadar pass book and title deed i.e., ExA9 and A10 the total extent of
Ac.234/7 is Ac.0.96 cents, even the same is conspicuous from Ex.A8 ROR extract.
With the aid of all these documents, it appears that, the total extent of 234/7 is
Ac.0.96 cents only, but not Ac.0.46 cents. Nonetheless, with the aid of Ex.A.8 ,P10,
Ex.P.6 the Plaintiff could able to establish that he is in possession of Ac.0.96 cents.
Therefore, for the reasons that he stated only Ac.0.46 cents in the plaint
O.S.No.1/201415/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
schedule, it is not to say that the Plaintiff is no way concerned for the remaining
Ac.0.50 cents.
15.It is further case of the defendants that, the Plaintiff managed the authorities and got obtained the Pattadar Passbooks, Title Deeds and other
Revenue records. The counsel for the defendants argued that they managed all the
Reveinue officials and obtained the records and requested this Court not to rely upon the documents. It is further contended that the V.R.O, who helped the Plaintiff to get the documents, is suspended after departmental enquiry and R.D.O also issued proceedings. No such proceedings got marked by the defendants. Even if it is assumed that the so called V.R.O was suspended and R.DO also issued proceedings, until and until it is come into light that the so called V.R.O was suspended due to the manipulation if any pertaining to the plaint schedule properties, how the fact of V.RO's suspension, have nexus with this case ?.
Certainly not. Moreover the Ex.A9 and A10 i.e., Pattadar pass book and tilted were signed by the Tahsildar and countersigned by the R.D.O. Gudur. Except alleging that those documents cancelled by the Revenue Personnel, no acceptable evidence placed by the D1 to D4. In such a case, until the above ambiguity is cleared by the defendants, it is not safe to say that the documents filed by the
Plaintiff are manipulated.
16.It is further alleged by D1 to D4 that, for the plaint schedule properties are assigned lands and title vest with the Government. The transfers if any done or prohibited u/s.3(3) of Act, 9 of 1977. Except alleging orally the defendants did not place any material to show that the plaint schedule properties are Government lands. Further, the D1, D2 contended that through proceedings in the year 2004, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chillakur issued proceedings in
RC.No.B251/2004, dated 16.9.2004 in favour of husband of the D1 and D3 and D4.
If it is the case of defendants that government assigned land in their favour through the so called proceedings, they might have filed the copy of proceedings. If it is
O.S.No.1/2014Dt : 28.3.2017
assumed that they could not able to get the proceedings from the file of M.R.O., at least the defendants might have furnished the assignment no. (A.M.no.) or at least the year of granting assignment patta. As stated supra, though they filed some documents, did not mark the same.
17.By cumulating reading of Ex.A1 to A.7 sale deeds, ExA.8 to A10 in conjunction with the possession certificates i.e. EX.P.10, it connote that the Plaintiff could about to prima facie establish his possession over the plaint schedule properties.
18.When the Plaintiff established his legal possession over the plaint schedule properties, certainly he is entitled for relief of permanent injunction.
19.In the result, suit is decreed with costs. The defendants and their men, agents, hereby restrained from interfering with the possession of Plaintiff over the
Plaint schedule properties, by way of Permanent Injunction.
Typed to my dictation by copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2017.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GUDUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff: PW.1 : Katragadda Suresh PW.2: Gundala Ramesh PW.3: Gundala Madhu
For Defendant: DW.1 : Gowrabathina Padmamma DW.2: Katikala Suresh DW.3: Pichika Ramanaiah DW.4: Pichika Muni Bhaskar
Documents marked
O.S.No.1/201417/17 Dt : 28.3.2017
For Plaintiffs
Ex.A1: The C.C. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed dt 1.2.1999 Ex.A2: The C.C. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed dt 1.2.1999 Ex.A3: The C.C. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed dt 1.2.1999 Ex.A4: The C.C. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed dt 1.2.1999 Ex.A5: The C.C. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed dt 22.2.1999 Ex.A6: The C.C. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed dt 1.2.1999 Ex.A7: The C.C. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed dt 1.2.1999 Ex.A8The 1B extract obtained through Mee Seva Ex.A9The original pattadar pass book Ex.A10The original title deed Ex.A11The certified copy of declaration dt 27.1.1984 vide Doc No 273/1994 given by the vendors of the Plaintiff before the Agricultural Cooperative Society, Bhudanam Village, given by Sub Registrar, Gudur. Ex.A12The certified copy of mortgage deed dt 20.3.1975 mortgaged by Pichika
Guravaiah/D3 Ex.A13The certified copy of declaration dt 5.11.1980 vide Doc No 1573/1980 given by the vendors of the Plaintiff before the agricultural cooperative society given by Sub Registrar Ex.A14The 101 Account pertaining to Sy.Nos 2342,2345,2346 obtained under
Right to Information Act.
Ex.A15The No 3 adangal for the fasili 1404 obtained under Right to Information
Act Ex.A16The No 3 adangal for the fasili 1399 obtained under Right to Information
Act Ex.A17The 10(1) Account extract pertaining to Sy.No 2348 obtained under Right to Information Act Ex.A18The Namoona17 obtained under Right to Information Act Ex.A19The No 3 adangal for the fasili 1398 obtained under Right to Information
Act
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GUDUR