Sri P. Divakar

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ELURU

Present : Sri DIVAKAR PULAKUNTLA,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Eluru.

Tuesday, this the 15th day of November, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT.No.90/2017

Between:

1.Gampa Subba Lakshmi W/o Late Subbarao, Hindu, female, aged 45 yrs, Housewife.

2.Pudi Srinivas S/o Apparao, Hindu, male, aged 48 yrs.

(Plaintiffs 1 & 2 residing in D.No.24B-11-36/1, Bala Building, Near Tobacco Godown, Pathebad, Eluru of W.G.Dist.)

... Plaintiffs

And: Smt. Md.Rahmath Unnissabegum @ Syed Meherunnissa Begum @ Mastanamma W/o Syed Mastan, Muslim, female, aged 45 yrs. Housewife, r/o D.No.24B-11-36/2, near Tobacco Godown,

Pathebad, Eluru of W.G.District. ... Defendant

This suit is coming on this day i.e., 18.10.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of SRI M.Suryanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and of SRI N.Yesurathnam, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till the day this Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction simplicitor against the defendant.

2. The Pleadings of Plaint and Amended Plaint are that:-

The 1st and and 2nd Plaintiff are sister and brothers.

The 2nd Plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property though

Regd. Sale deed dt:23.06.2007. Since then they have been in possession and enjoyment over the Plaint schedule property. There is pail in from of the house for placing Flower plants. While so, the defendant who is southern side house owner started dumping the wastage in the western side path way. Though the Plaintiffs made their efforts to restrain the defendant from doing so, they failed to do so. Hence the suit seeking Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

3.Pleadings of Written statement :-

The Defendant filed written statement denying most of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

the averments of the plaint and submitted that, the 2nd Plaintiff who is her northern side owner constructed pail on the road and causing inconvenience to her right way. Further the Plaintiffs places flowers plots on that pail. The plaintiffs did not correct boundaries and typographical features of the property. Since the

Plaintiffs approached the court with unclean hands, prayed to dismiss the same.

4.Basing on the rival contentions, since there are no elements of settlement, the following issues are settled for trail.

1. “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of

Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, her men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule property?

2. To what relief ?

5. During the trail the second plaintiff himself examined as P.W1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. So also examined P.W2 and

P.W3. On the other hand, the Defendant herself examined as D.W1 and marked Ex.B1, so also examined D.W2.

6.The Gist of evidence of second plaintiffs and their witnesses:

6(a).The second plaintiff being P.W1 filed his chief mostly reiterating the contents of plaint, wherein in his cross he admitted that defendant purchased a house south to his house, from one Siva reddy prasad. He further admitted that, there is a road to the west of his house and defendant’s house, which leading from south to north. He further admitted that, in Ex.A1 and A2 in the 2nd schedule the extent is 16-8-0 which included easementary right. He voluntarily deposed that Pail exist by the time of purchase of house and he did not construct such pail. He admitted that he is using the pail for his use. He deposed that since it is his property, he is using it.

6(b).One Tuthhika Srinivasa Rao being P.W2, who is colleague of P.W1 filed his chief, mostly sailing with P.W1 wherein his cross, he admitted that there is a pail abutting to the northern side wall of Plaintiff’s house.

6(c).One Chokkapu venkata Appala Naidu being P.W3, who is another colleague of P.W1 filed his chief, mostly sailing with

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

P.W1 wherein his cross, he deposed that he personally witnessed when the defendant created troubles to the Plaintiff.

7.The Gist of Evidence of Defendant and her witness:

7(a).The Defendant being D.W1 filed her chief as D.W1 mostly sailing with Written Statement, wherein in her cross, she admitted that, her house located to the south of 2nd Plaintiff’s house and her house is west facing towards road. She admitted that the 2nd Plaintiff purchased the house in the year 2007.

There is a bund with bricks in between her house and house of 2nd

Plaintiff. She have to reach the road by passing though in front of 2nd Plaintiff’s house 7(b).One Ayub Khan who is son-in-law of the D.W1 filed his chief mostly sailing with D.W1, where in in his cross, he deposed that,the house of D.W1 is in one locality and he is residing in another locality. The 2ndplaintiff purchased constructed building. Prior to 2nd Plaintiff, the defendant purchased site and constructed house. After purchasing the house, the 2nd

Plaintiff constructed the pail.

8. Heard argument on both sides.

9.Admitted facts:

The Defendant purchased vacant side and then constructed house. Subsequently, the 2nd Plaintiff purchased house to the north of Defendant’s house. There is road/pathway to their west in south-north direction which is the way for the defendant to reach the main road. There is a pail in front of 2nd

Plaintiff’s house on which he placed some flower pots. The 2nd

Plaintiff have been using the pail for his use. In Ex.A1 and A2 in the 2nd schedule the extent is 16-8-0 road site which includes easementary right.

10.Issue No.1:

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, her men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule property?”

Since it is the suit for Injunction simplicitor the primary onus is on the second plaintiff to establish the case.

11.Since the defendant mostly let in evidence on the aspect of pail abutting to 2nd Plaintiff house, I proceeded to decide that aspect first prior to deciding entitlement of relief

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

claimed by Plaintiff. The main issue in the perception of defendant is the pail abutting to 2nd Plaintiff’s house and placing of flower pots on it due to which there is an hindrance to the Defendant in using the road. In this context, the evidence of either side is gleaned. It is admitted fact that, initially the Defendant purchased vacant site and subsequently the 2nd

Plaintiff purchased house. On one hand, the D.W2 deposed that, the 2nd Plaintiff/P.W1 constructed the pail which was not there earlier and on other hand, P.W1 deposed that the pail exist when he purchased the house. There are clear measurements of the house and road site in Ex.A1 and A2. If at all any construction was made in deviation to the plan either by P.W1 or his vendor who is competent to say that it is an encroachment?, absolutely either

Panchayath or Municipal authorities. This is not suit filed against the Concerned Government authorities. There is no other suit/counter claim by the Defendant seeking declaration that the 2nd Plaintiff constructed the pail by encroaching or deviating the plan. In such a case, that said aspect can’t be considered as fact in issue. Nonetheless, it is made clear that, if at all any such encroachment is there it is for the concerned government authorities to look into and remove the encroachment.

12.Now, coming to actual issue and crux of the case, the execution of Ex.A1 and A2 and issuance of Ex.A3 and A4 are not disputed. The Location of the houses and existence of road to the west of both houses as shown in Ex.B1 is also not in dispute.

Even the ownership of 2nd Plaintiff over the road site measuring 16-8-0 Square feet which is item no.2 in Ex.A1 and A2 is also not in dispute. Even it is admitted fact the the defendant has to reach the main road through the western side path way/road site own by 2nd Plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that, the

Plaintiffs never objected the defendant in using the path way ,their only case is that the defendant dumping the garbage into the path way, which is causing inconvenience to the Plaintiffs.

Of course, as argued by the Defendant counsel, no photographs or other material filed to show that the defendant dumped the garbage. Is it mean that no garbage dumped at all !, certainly not. If at all no such incidents happened, why the Plaintiff taken all the pains and knocked the court doors ?. Unless and until there is an issue, the Plaintiff may not come to court of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

equity. It is unreasonable to expect document for each and every incident/aspect. It is the duty of court of equity to come to a just conclusion basing upon facts projected. Here is the case, I am of the considerable opinion that, unless there is an inconvenience to the Plaintiffs they might have not approached the court. If it is the case that the defendant never dumped garbage , even if any injunction granted there could be no problem for her. Thus, the Plaintiff could able to establish that, he is entitled for injunction as prayed for.

13.Issue No.2 :

2. To what relief ?

In view of the finding in Issue No.1, in the result the

Suit is decreed with Costs directing the defendant, her men, assignees, Legal representatives not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of Plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by Typist, corrected by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of November, 2022.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- P.W1: Pudi Srinivas. P.W2: Tuthika Srinivasa Rao. P.W3: Chokkapu venkata Appala Naidu.

For Defendant:- D.W1: Smt.Rahamthunnisa Begum. D.W2: Ayub Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:- Ex.A1 : Certified copy of sale deed dt:23.06.2007 Ex.A2 : Certified copy of regd. sale deed dt:01.02.2007 Ex.A3 : Tax receipt dt:17.02.2017 Ex.A4 : Power consumption bill and payment receipt

For Defendants:- Ex.B1 : Photographs with CD.

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC,

ELURU.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Plaint presented on 24.03.2017 Plaint filed on 24.03.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::ELURU

Present : Sri DIVAKAR PULAKUNTLA,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Eluru. Tuesday, this the 15th day of November, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT.No.90/2017

Between:

1.Gampa Subba Lakshmi W/o Late Subbarao, Hindu, female, aged 45 yrs, Housewife.

2.Pudi Srinivas S/o Apparao, Hindu, male, aged 48 yrs.

(Plaintiffs 1 & 2 residing in D.No.24B-11-36/1, Bala Building, Near Tobacco Godown, Pathebad, Eluru of W.G.Dist.)

... Plaintiffs

And: Smt. Md.Rahmath Unnissabegum @ Syed Meherunnissa Begum @ Mastanamma W/o Syed Mastan, Muslim, female, aged 45 yrs. Housewife, r/o D.No.24B-11-36/2, near Tobacco Godown,

Pathebad, Eluru of W.G. District. ... Defendant

The Plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction simplicitor against the defendant.

This is the suit filed by the Plaintiffs to grant Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, her men and representatives and followers from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the Plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Cause of action: Cause of action for the suit arose when the 2nd Plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property by virtue of regd. Sale deeds dt.23.06.2007, and from there onwards, the plaintiffs along with their family members have been residing therein, by paying all necessary taxes to the APEPDCL; when the defendant and her henchmen trying to grab the plaint schedule property with the help of the local people; Hence the suit, at Eluru where the schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Value of the suit:- This being a suit for permanent injunction the Plaintiffs value the relief under Section 26(c) of APCF and S.V.Act at Rs.25,000/-.

On which a Court fee of Rs.1586/- is paid U/Sec.26(c) A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956.

This suit is coming on this day i.e., 18.10.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of SRI M.Suryanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and of SRI N.Yesurathnam, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration today itself, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

(I) that the suit be and the same is hereby DECREED WITH COSTS;

(ii)that the defendant, her henchmen, agents, assignees, legal representatives be and hereby directed to not to interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Plaint schedule property ie., an extent of 50-Sq yards of RCCC roofed building by way of permanent injunction;

(iii)that the Defendant do pay a sum of Rs.6,628/- to the Plaintiff towards institutional costs of the suit bearing her own costs of Rs.Nil;

Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the 15 th day of November, 2022.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Eluru

Memo of costs

FOR Plaintiff( costs taxed): FOR Defendant:

1. Vakalat:Rs. 2-00No costs memo filed

2. Process:Rs. 40-00

3. Advocate fee: Rs. 3500-00 Jr.Advocate fee : Rs. 1300-00

4. Court fee : Rs. 1586-00

5. Typing charges: Rs. 100-00

6. Writing charges : Rs. 100-00 --------------------- Institutional costs taxed at Rs. 6,628-00 ---------------------

P.J.C.J-CUM-JMFC,

ELURU.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

:: ELURU ::

Present: Sri P.Divakar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Tuesday, the 9th day of March, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.553 of 2019

Between:

Nukala Pandu Ranga Vittal, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 44 years, Business, R/o. D.No.2-48/2, Nukalavari Street, Kanumolu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. …… Plaintif

And

1. Maganti Nandiswara Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, Hindu, Male, Aged 48 years, R/o. D.No.5-590, Epuru Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Maganti Nagamani, W/o. Nandiswara Rao, Hindu, Female, Aged 41 years, R/o. D.No.5-590, Epuru Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.

.….. Defendants

This suit coming on 15-03-2021 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Y.V.Prasad, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri

N.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendants and this day this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Full Satisfaction memo filed. Full Satisfaction recorded. Suit is dismissed as Full Satisfaction recorded.

Pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 9 th day of

March, 2021.

Sd/-P.Divakar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/I Addl., Junior Civil Judge

Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-Nil- Id/-P.D PJCJ. FAC/ I AJCJ, ELURU

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

:: ELURU ::

Present: Sri P.Divakar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Monday, the 22nd day of March, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.205 of 2019

Between:

Sri Vasa Naga Raju, S/o. Late Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Male, aged 45 years, R/o. D.No.16b-16-16, Pushpaleela Nagar, Tangellamudi, Eluru, W.G.Dist., …… Plaintif

And

Sri Bitra Raju, S/o. Late Ramu, Hindu, Male, aged 40 years, R/o. D.No.16B-16-1, Beside YSR Statue Road, Tapimestry Colony, 1st Road, Tangellamudi, Eluru, W.G.Dist.,

.….. Defendant

This suit coming on 22-03-2021 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Y.V.Prasad, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri M.Rajendra,

Advocate for defendant and this day this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Not press memo filed. Suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 22 nd day of

March, 2021.

Sd/-P.Divakar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/I Addl., Junior Civil Judge

Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-Nil- Id/-P.Divakar PJCJ. FAC/ I AJCJ, ELURU

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

:: ELURU ::

Present: Sri P.Divakar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Wednesday, the 17th day of March, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.345 of 2018

Between:

Sri Syed Liaqat Ali, S/o. Late S.A.Manna, Muslim, Male, Aged 66 years, R/o. D.No.17-12-9, 2nd Division, Lakshmipavarapu Peta, Eluru,W.G.Dist., …… Plaintif

And

Sri Syed Farid Basha, S/o. Syed Ibrahim Saheb, Muslim, Male, Aged 39 years, R/o. D.No.12B, 8th Floor, Pritech Park Sez, Belldur, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka State, Bangalore City Civil Courts.

.….. Defendant

This suit coming on 17-03-2021 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.V.Ramana Rao and this day this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Not press memo filed. Suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 17 th day of

March, 2021.

Sd/-P.Divakar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/I Addl., Junior Civil Judge

Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-Nil-

Id/-P.D PJCJ. FAC/ I AJCJ, ELURU

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE CUM I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS COURT, ELURU

C.C.No.223/2021Date of Disposal:08-03-2021

Result:

The defacto-coomplainant/Victim has voluntarily agreed to compound the offence against the accused. The alleged offence is punishable u/SEc.420 of IPC which are compoundable in nature. Permission was also accorded by the court concerned to compound the offence. Case is compounded. Therefore, the accused are hereby acquitted u/SEc.320(8) Cr.P.C for the offence u/SEc.420 of IPC. Memo apperance filed by the Advocate Sri A.Vijay Kumar on behalf of the Accused 1 to 56 Bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled. Read over and explained the above terms and conditions in Telugu to the both parties and they are agreed and accepted the same accordingly award is passed.