Smt.P.Lakshmi Kumari

1 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. P. Lakshmi Kumari,

 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Friday, this the 17th day of August, 2018

O.S.NO. 250/ 2016

Between :

Doredla Venkaiah, s/o. Sangaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Business, R/o. Kanchikacherla village and Mandal, Krishna District. :: Plaintiff. And:

1. Vunnam Pulla Rao, s/o.Yellamanda, Hindu, aged about 63 years, R/o. Peddapuram village, Veerullapadu mandal, krishna District.

2. Vunnam Venkateswarlu, s/o. Yellamanda, Hindu, aged about 45 years, agriculture, R/o. Peddapuram village, Veerullapadu mandal, krishna District.

3. Vunnam Satyanarayana, s/o. Yellamanda, Hindu, Agriculture, aged about 40 years, R/o. Peddapuram village, Veerullapadu mandal, krishna District.

4. Vunnam Yellamanda, s/o. Satyanarayana, Hindu, agriculture, aged about 23 years, R/o. Peddapuram village, Veerullapadu mandal, krishna District.

5. Doredla Prasad, s/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/o. Sakhinaveedu village, Yerrupalem mandal, khammam District.

6. Doredla Raji, w/o. Prasad, Hindu, 30 years, R/o. Sakhinaveedu village, Yerrupalem mandal, khammam District. :: Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 17.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Vajraiah, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Y. Babu Rao, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for declaration to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner, title holder, possessor and enjoyer of the suit schedule property by virtue of will, dt. 08­08­2015 that was executed by Vunnam

Andalamma in favour of plaintiff bequeathing the suit schedule properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 2 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint as follows :

It is submitted that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties ie., agricultural seri dry land of Ac.0­21 ¼ cents out of

Ac.0­85 cents in RS No. 176/2 and a house with iron sheets constructed in an extent of 2 cents with D.No. 11­47, in Gramakantam, both situated in Peddapuram revenue and gram panchayat area respectively. The plaintiff got the item nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, described fully in the schedule annexed, through and under a will (notarised), dt. 08­08­2015 executed by one Vunnam Andalamma, w/o. Narasimha Rao @ Musalaiah of Peddavaram village bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of plaintiff. Since the death of Vunnam

Andalamma on 02­01­2016, the plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties by virtue of will, dt. 08­08­2015.

Through the said will, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of suit schedule properties. The executant of said will Unnam Andallama got the suit schedule properties from her mother in law Vunnam Saraswathi. Vunnam Andalamma and her husband

Narasimha Rao were issueless and after the death of her husband,

Vunnam Andallamma lived with her 4th younger brother Doredla Chinna

Singaiah, the father of plaintiff. That plaintiff and his father Chinna

Sangaiah had looked after the said Vunnam Andalamma till her death on 02­01­2016. That Vunnam Andalamma got the suit schedule properties from her husband as the share of her husband out of the properties from his mother Unnam Saraswathi, w/o. Yellamanda. The defendants 1 to 3 are the brother in laws to the deceased Vunnam Andalamma, the 4th defendant is son of 3rd defendant and the defendants 5 and 6 are the close relatives to the plaintiff are attempting to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff, though the defendants 1 to 6 do not have any manner of right, title or interest in respect of suit schedule property.

Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner, title holder and possessor of the suit 3 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

schedule properties by virtue of will, dt. 08­08­2015 (notarised) executed by the Vunnam Andalamma ; consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. Hence, the present suit.

3.The 2nd defendant filed written statement and the same is adopted by the defendants 1, 3 to 6. It is submitted that Vunnam Andalamma never executed any will, dt. 08­08­2015 in favour of plaintiff. The said will,

dt. 08­08­2015 said to have executed by Vunnam Andalamma is a forged

document. Either Vunnam Andalamma or the plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The suit schedule properties stands in the name of Vunnam Saraswathi and it is never partitioned among her legal heirs after her death. The son of 2nd defendant by name

Vunnam Siva Rajesh is in possession and enjoyment of item no.2 of suit schedule properties. That after the death of Vunnam Andalamma, the plaintiff created the will and filed the suit with all false allegations with a malafide intention to grab the suit schedule property. Hence, the 2nd defendants prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the following issues are settled for trial :

1. Whether the will deed, dt. 08­08­2015 executed by Vunnam

Andalamma in favour of the plaintiff is true and valid ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration of right and

title over the suit schedule property by virtue of will deed,

dt. 08­08­2015 ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

5. To what relief ?

4 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

5.During the course of evidence, the plaintiff got examined PW1 to

PW4 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.5 and On behalf of defendants, DW1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6. ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 :

1. Whether the will deed, dt. 08­08­2015 executed by Vunnam

Andalamma in favour of the plaintiff is true and valid ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration of right and

title over the suit schedule property by virtue of will deed,

dt. 08­08­2015 ?

Since these issues are interconnected, this court intends to answer them together.

Specific case of plaintiff that he is owner of item no.1 of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 executed by Vunnam Andallamma, w/o. Narasimha Rao of Peddapuram village and that the said Vunnam

Andallamma got suit schedule property by her mother in law Vunnam

Saraswathi and that Vunnam Andallamma and her husband are issue less and due to services rendered by plaintiff and his father to Vunnam

Andallamma, Ex.A.1 was executed in favour of plaintiff and since then plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and that defendants 1 to 3 who are brother in law of said Vunnam Andallamma and that 4th defendant who is son of 3rd defendant and defendants 5 and 6 are close relatives of plaintiff without having any right or interest over suit schedule property are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and also making attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property as such plaintiff filed suit for declaration declaring that he is absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of will deed, dt. 08­08­2015 executed by his paternal aunt Vunnam Andallamma. 

7.Specific case of defendants that Vunnam Andallamma never executed any will deed, dt. 08­08­2015 in favour of plaintiff and the said

Vunnam Andallamma is not the absolute owner of suit schedule property and therefore she cannot execute any will deed in favour of plaintiff and that Ex.A.1 is the forged document and that plaintiff was never in 5 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and that one Vunnam

Siva Rajesh is in possession and enjoyment of item no.2 of suit schedule property and that one Vunnam Saraswathi was the original owner of suit schedule property and she died about 10 years ago intestately leaving behind her 2nd defendant, 1st defendant and defendants 3 and 4 and another brother of 2nd defendant by name Narasimha Rao and the said

Narasimha Rao who is the husband of Andallamma predeceased his mother Saraswathi and that Andallamma who is wife of Narasimha Rao also died about 3 years ago and his sister by name Killa Rama Devi and another sister by name Marella Atchamma who survived by her two sons

Marella Pulla Rao and Krishnaiah and that suit schedule property was never partitioned among the legal heirs of Saraswathi and after demise of

Saraswathi, defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment over item no. 1 of suit schedule property and the present suit is filed by the plaintiff only to grab the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1.

8.Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that after the demise of husband of Andallamma the share of husband of Andallamma by name

Narasimha Rao fell to the share of Andallamma and Andallamma became the absolute owner of suit schedule property and had executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff since plaintiff and his father had looked after the well being of said Andallamma during her life time and that defendants without having any right title over suit schedule property is attempting to interfere and dispossessing the plaintiff from suit schedule property.

9.Learned counsel for the defendants argued that Vunnam

Andallamma had never executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff as Vunnam

Andallamma has got only 1/6th share in suit schedule property ie., the share of husband Vunnam Andallamma and Vunnam Andallamma had no right on the entire suit schedule property and to the property covered under Ex.A.1 and that the extent and the boundaries mentioned in item no.1 of suit schedule property is misconceived and wrongly shown by the plaintiff with an intention to grab the suit schedule property and that

Ex.A.1 is forged and created document with the help of attestors and scribe of Ex.A.1 and that the place of execution of Ex.A.1 is mentioned by 6 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

PW 1 to PW 3 is not in consonance with each other and same is contradictory in version disclosing that Vunnam Andallamma had never executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff and that plaintiff after the demise of

Vunnam Andallamma forged the thumb impression of Vunnam

Andallamma and got created Ex.A.1 with the assistance of PW 2 and PW 3 with a view to grab suit schedule property.

10. To prove the suit claim, that plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1, got examined himself as PW 1 and reiterated the plaint averments and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.5. PW 1 deposed that suit schedule property originally belongs to one Vunnam Saraswathi and the said Vunnam Saraswathi has got four sons by name Narasimha Rao, Pulla Rao, Venkateswarlu and

Satyanarayana and two daughters by name Atchamma and Ramanamma and Narasimha Rao has no issues and one Andallamma is the wife of said

Narasimha Rao. PW 1 admitted that after the demise of Saraswathi, her children had not partitioned the absolute properties of her till today and the properties of said Saraswathi was also not partitioned among her children during the life time of Vunnam Andallamma. PW 1 admitted further that all the legal heirs of Vunnam Saraswathi has got right of share in suit schedule property and his elder sister Andallamma has got only 1/6th share in suit schedule properties.

11. Plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 in proof of his contention that suit schedule property is absolute property of plaintiff having executed by Vunnam

Andallamma. Perusal of Ex.A.1 discloses that Vunnam Andallamma has executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff for an extent of Ac.0­21 ¼ cents out of Ac.0.85 cents in RS No. 176/2 Defendant disputed the genuineness of the will under Ex.A.1 and pleaded that plaintiff in order to grab the suit schedule property got created Ex.A.1 by forging the thumb impression of

Vunnam Andallamma after her demise with the assistance of PW 2 and

PW 3 and the scribe of Ex.A.1.

12.Plaintiff in order to prove the genuineness of the will had examined

PW 2 and PW 3 who are attestors of Ex.A.1 deposed before this court that 7 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

at the time of execution of the will, PW 2 and PW 3 and PW 1 were present and after execution of Ex.A.1, the same was brought to Nandigama for notarisation.

13. Ex. A.1 is the unregistered will deed and it is a compulsorily attestabledocument.Intheauthorityreportedin

AIR 1964 SC 529 between Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs. Subodh

Kumar Banerjee the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at para 4 held that the mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

Here it is pertinent to refer to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, that reads as under: Execution of unprivileged wills:­ Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition nor engaged in actual warfare, (or an airman so employed or engaged) or a mariner at sea, shall exercise his will according to the following rules:­

a) the testator shall sign or shall affix his marks to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

b) The signature mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to she writing as a will.

c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

14.A plain reading of section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 makes it clear that one of the mandatory requirements of due execution of the will is that the testator shall execute the will in the presence of two witnesses, and that the said witnesses shall see the testator signing the will and such witnesses shall sign on the will in the presence of the 8 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

testator. In the authority reported in AIR 1955 SC 346 between Girja

Datt Singh vs.Gangotri Datt Singh the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India at para 14 held that in order to prove the due attestation of the will the propounder of the will has to prove that the attesting witnesses have seen the testator signing the will, and they themselves signed the will in the presence of the testator.

15.According to section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 one attesting witness has to be examined to prove the execution of the will. In the instant case plaintiff pleads that he is absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 will deed and thereafter, plaintiff examined attestors of Ex. A.1 who is PW.2 and PW.3.

16.PW 1 in his evidence deposed before this court that at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, one Kona Murali ie., PW 3, PW 2 ie., Siva Koti

Narayana were present. PW 1 did not whisper about the presence of executant by name Andallamma at the time of execution of Ex.A.1. PW 1 deposed that the contents of Ex.A.1 was scribed in the office of one Prasad containing two pages and on the same day of execution of Ex.A.1, PW 1 got it notarised in Nandigama. PW 1 deposed that Ex.A.1 was scribed by one

Reddy garu, father name not known of Kanchikacherla.

17.Perusal of Ex.A.1 do not disclose that any Reddy garu scribed the contents of Ex.A.1 as an scribe. Since the admission made by PW 1 in his evidence that the executant of Ex.A.1 has got only 1/6th share in AC­85 cents of land out of the share of her husband by name Narasimha Rao in the share of Vunnam Andallamma, the execution of Ex.A.1 by Vunnam

Andallamma for an extent of Ac.0­21 1/4th cent of land is clearly disclosing that the executant by name Vunnam Andallamma has no right over the entire extent covered in item no.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties. 

18.PW.2 is one of the attestor of Ex.A.1 will deed deposed before this court that he was not present in Nandigama at the time of typing the contents under Ex.A.1, however deposed that the contents of Ex.A1 was 9 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

scribed and same was brought to his office situated in Kanchikacherla and expressed ignorance about the person who typed the contents under

Ex.A.1. The evidence of PW 2 discloses that he was not present at the time of scribing the contents under Ex.A.1 in Nandigama and therefore PW 2 has no knowledge whether the contents of Ex.A.1 was scribed as per the instructions of executant of Ex.A.1 or not is not known to PW2. The presence of executant of Ex.A.1 is also not whispered by PW2 at the time of scribing the contents of Ex.A.1 and therefore it can be clearly said that

PW 2 who is attestor of Ex.A.1 has not seen the executant of Ex.A.1 affixing her thumb impression on Ex.A.1 and there is no consent given to

PW 2 to subscribe his signature under Ex.A.1 as an attestor by the executant of Ex.A.1. The evidence of PW.2 discloses that the executant of

EX.A1 has also not seen the attestors subscribing their signature in presence of executant, hence, the evidence of PW 2 is no way helpful to prove the execution of Ex.A.1.

19. PW.3 is the another attestor of Ex.A.1 corroborated with the version of PW 2 on same lines with that of PW 2 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination and deposed that the other attestor of Ex.A.1 is one Vema Siva Koti Narayana of Kanchikacherla village and expressed ignorance about the the scribe of Ex.A.1 and number of pages used for typing the contents of EXA.1 . PW.3 deposed that EXA.1 was executed in the office of advocate Sri Vajraiah practicing at nandigama and at the time of execution of EXA.1 PW.1 to PW.3 were present and after execution the

EXA.1 was brought to Nandigama for notarization. There is no evidence on behalf of PW 3 that he has seen the executant of Ex.A.1 affixing her thumb impression on Ex.A.1 in presence of PW 2 and PW 3 and the scribe. The evidence of PW 3 discloses that he has also not witnessed the contents of

Ex.A.1 typed as per the instructions of Vunnam Andallamma and the scribe of Ex.A.1 is also not seen by PW 3 at the time of scribing the contents of Ex.A.1.

20.The evidence of PW 3 categorically proves that he has not seen the

Vunnam Andallamma dictating the contents of Ex.A.1 to be typed by the scribe of EXA.1 in her presence and PW 3 has not signed on Ex.A.1 on the 10 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

instructions given by Executant of Ex.A.1. The evidence of PW.3 further discloses that the executant of EX.B.1 has also not seen the attestors subscribing their signature in presence of executant, hence, the evidence of PW 3 is no way helpful to prove the execution of Ex.A.1.

21. It is significant to note that there is no evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 in their chief examination affidavits filed in lieu of their chief examination that they have subscribed their signatures on Ex.A.1 in the presence of late Unnam Andalamma . Hence, as per the mandatory of section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India referred supra it can be said that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff falls short of proving due execution of Ex.A.1, and that there is breach of mandatory requirement of section 63(c) of the

Indian Succession Act, 1925. Therefore, it is held that plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A.1, in favour of plaintiff to prove the suit schedule property is absolute property of 2nd defendant by virtue of Ex.B.1.

22.2nd defendant himself examined as DW 1 on behalf of defendants and reiterated the contents of written statement and marked no documents. DW 1 deposed that Vunnam Andallamma never executed

Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff. No suggestion given to DW 1 by the learned counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property as on the date of filing suit by virtue of Ex.A.1 and that defendants attempted to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.

23.No suggestion given to DW 1 by the learned counsel for plaintiff that

Vunnam Andallamma was the absolute owner of suit schedule property and that Vunnam Andallamma has got absolute right, title and interest over the property covered under Ex.A.1. 

24.The admission of PW1 before this court during his course of cross examination that the executant of Ex.A.1 by name Vunnam Andallamma has got only 1/6th share in Ac. 0­85 cents of land disclosing that the will deed executed for Ac.0.21 ¼ cents is beyond the extent possessed by 11 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

Vunnam Andallamma from her husband share in suit schedule survey number.

25.The evidence of PW 1 clearly discloses that the executant of Ex.A.1 by name Vunnam Andallamma has got only 1/6th share in suit schedule property and the area of suit schedule boundaries is covered to an extent of 85 cents of land . The evidence of PW 1 further discloses that one

Vunnam Saraswathi is absolute owner of suit schedule properties and the suit schedule properties was not partitioned among her children and legal heirs during her life time and during the life time of Vunnam Andallamma and all legal heirs of Saraswathi has got right of share in suit schedule property.

26.Perusal of Ex.A.3 discloses that Vunnam Saraswathi has got land to an extent of Ac.0­85 cents of land in RS No. 176/2 A. The plaintiff clearly admitted before this court that the suit schedule property is originally the property of Vunnam Saraswathi and the Vunnam Saraswathi has got four sons and one daughter and the property covered under Ex.A.1 is not partitioned among the legal heirs of Vunnam Saraswathi. Therefore with the above said discussion it is held that plaintiff is not the absolute owner of suit schedule properties. Issues no.1 and 2 answered accordingly against the plaintiff.

27.ISSUES NO 3 AND 4:

3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

Plaintiff contends that he is owner of item no.1 of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 executed by Vunnam Andallamma, w/o. Narasimha Rao of Peddapuram village and that the said Vunnam

Andallamma got suit schedule property by her mother in law Vunnam

Saraswathi and that Vunnam Andallamma and her husband are issue less and due to services rendered by plaintiff and his father to Vunnam

Andallamma, Ex.A.1 was executed in favour of plaintiff and since then 12 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and that defendants 1 to 3 who are brother in law of said Vunnam Andallamma and that 4th defendant who is son of 3rd defendant and defendants 5 and 6 are close relatives of plaintiff without having any right or interest over suit schedule property are attending to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and also making attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property 

28.Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff to prove that either vendor of the plaintiff by Vunnam Andallamma or the plaintiff has got absolute right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule item nos 1 and 2 of properties in Peddapuram village as on the date of filing of suit. Therefore under such circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule properties. Since plaintiff failed to prove his right ,title , interest and possession over suit schedule property, the question of grant of relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties in favour of plaintiff do not arise. Therefore, with the above said discussion, it is held that plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property. Issues 3 & 4 answered accordingly against the plaintiff. 

29.  ISSUE NO. 5 ;

In view of my findings given in issues nos.1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiffs is and hereby dismissed with costs.

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer,Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17th day of August, 2018.

sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nandigama. 

13 OS 250/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1/ Doredla Venkaiah DW1/Vunnam Venkateswarlu

PW2/ Vema Siva Koti Narayana

Pw3/ Kona Murali

LIST OF DOCUMENTS.

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 : 08­08­2016 : Suit will executed by vunnam Andalamma in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : 05­01­2016 : Death certificate of Vunnam Andalamma issued by the Secretary, gram Panchayat, Peddapuram.

Ex.A.3 : 16­05­2015 : Adangal for fasli 1425 for item no.1 of the suit schedule property.

Ex.A.4 : 20­06­2016 : Valuation certificate issued by the Secretary, Grampanchayat, Peddapuram.

Ex.A.5 : 07­11­2016 : Valuation certificate issued by the SRO, Kanchikacherla.

For Defendant : NIL. sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nandigama. 

1 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. P. Lakshmi Kumari,

 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Friday, this the 10th day of August, 2018.

O.S.NO. 190/ 2016

Between :

1. Darapaneni Chennaiah, s/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, 42 years, Cultivation, R/o. Cheruvukommpalem village, Peddavaram Panchayath, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Darapaneni Rajeswari, w/o. Chennaiah, Hindu, aged about 36 years, housewife, R/o. Cheruvukommpalem village, Peddavaram Panchayath, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. :: Plaintiff. And:

1. Jamallamudi Vishnuvardhan Rao, s/o. Peda venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 44 years, cultivation, R/o. Cheruvukommpalem village, H/o. Peddavaram, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Jamallamudi Siva Sankar, s/o. Peda Venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, cultivation, R/o. Cheruvukommpalem village, H/o. Peddavaram, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

:: Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 09.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Babu Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint as follows :

It is submitted that 2nd plaintiff is the wife of 1st plaintiff. One Inturi

Rajaiah was the owner of Ac.1­22 cents of land in Rs No. 433 of

Peddavaram village who was issue less. The said Rajaiah bequeathed the 2 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

said property in favour of his wife Thulasamma with life interest and after her life time to Darapaneni Venkateswarlu who is the father of 1st plaintiff under a registered will, dt. 01­06­1989. The said Darapaneni Rajaiah died 27 years ago after his demise the said will came into force. That wife of said Inturi Rajaiah also died in the year 2013, after that Darapaneni

Venkateswarlu became the absolute owner of said Ac.1­22 cents in Rs No.

433 of Peddavaram village. That the said Darapaneni Venkateswarlu also died intestate leaving behind him the 1st plaintiff and his younger brother

Darapaneni Brahmmam and his mother Lakshmi Narasamma as his class­I legal heirs and after demise of Darapeneni Venkateswarlu 1st plaintiff, his brother Brahmmam and mother Lakshmi Narasamma had partitioned their joint family properties orally and in the said partition the said Ac.1­22 cents fell to the share of 1st plaintiff and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and his name also mutated in the revenue records and was got issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour. That one Inturi Thulasamma was the owner of Ac.1­00 cents of land in Rs No. 433 of Peddavaram village and the 2nd plaintiff purchased the same from Inturi Thulasamma under a registered sale deed, dt. 20.12.12 for a valuable consideration of

Rs.2,00,000/­ and delivered the possession to the 2nd plaintiff and since then, 2nd plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the name of the 2nd plaintiff mutated in the revenue records and was got issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour and 2nd plaintiff also paying the land revenue to the Government. The said

Ac.1­00 cents of land is situated on eastern side of 1st plaintiffs and of

Ac.1­22 cents in RS No.433 and the plaintiffs made the two plots total

Ac.2­22 cents as a single plot and jointly cultivated suit schedule property.

That plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants though do not having any manner of right over suit schedule property are openly declaring in the village since 28­07­2016 to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule land, and that the plaintiffs are unable to resists the illegal act of the defendants. Hence, the present suit.

3 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

3.The 2nd defendant filed written statement and the same is adopted by the 1st defendant. Defendants submitted that since the father of 1st plaintiff namely Venkateswarlu who is having vested reminders with absolute rights after the life interest of Inturi Thulasamma as per registered will, dt. 01­06­1989 executed by Inturi Rajaiah, had predeceased the said Thulasamma long ago in the year 2004, Inturi

Thulasamma became the absolute owner of the said Ac.1­22 cents in

Rs No. 433 situated in Peddavaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna

District and during her life time, the said Thulasamma executed a WILL,

dt. 02­08­2012 bequeathing the said Ac. 1­22 cents along with an extent

of Ac.1­00 cents situated on the east of the said Ac.1­22 cents in favour of the mother of the defendants namely Jammalamudi Sakkubai and consequent on the death of Thulasamma in the year 2013, the mother of the defendants namely Sakkubai as a legatee under the WILL,

dt. 02­08­2012 became the absolute owner of the entire extent of

Ac.2­22 cents which is suit schedule property in the suit. It is submitted that due to love and affection on the 2nd plaintiff, the said Inturi

Thulasamma had intended to donate an extent of Ac.1­00 cents from out of the schedule property mentioned in the will, dt. 02­08­2012 and accordingly, the 2nd plaintiff instead of obtaining a gift settlement deed in her favour had obtained a registered sale deed, dt. 20­12­2012 in her favour and since then the 2nd plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1­00 cents from out of the suit schedule property and as such the contention of the plaintiff that both of them have been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by cultivating the same from the suit schedule property and that the defendants who are not having any sort of right and interest over suit schedule property are trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property is not true and correct and same is invented for the purpose of filing the suit with all false and frivolous allegations. It is further submitted that out of suit schedule property, an extent of

Ac.1­22 cents situated on the west of Ac.1­00 cents for which the 2nd plaintiff obtained a registered sale deed, dt. 20­12­2012 from Inturi

Thulasamma, but the 1st plaintiff taking advantage of the registered will,

dt. 01­06­1989 executed by Inturi Rajaiah claiming that this father

4 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

Venkateswarlu became the absolute owner of said property and in the oral partition, the said property had been fell to his share and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property by cultivating commonly in both the properties, the total of which is Ac.2­22 cents making it as a single plot. Thus, the 1st plaintiff is and has been in unauthorized possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.1­22 cents situated on the west of the 2nd plaintiffs property and as such the mother of the defendants intends to file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the said property. Defendants submitted that there is no cause of action arose for filing the suit and the alleged cause of action mentioned in the plaintiff is not true and correct and same is invented with a malafide intention to grab the property of the mother of the defendants ie., an extent of

Ac.1­22 cents in RS No. 433 under the guise of the registered will,

dt. 01­06­1989 executed by Inturi Rajaiah and under the guise of the

pattadar and Title deed passbook obtained in the name of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the said property, in spite of knowledge that the Thulasamma was the absolute owner of the said extent of the property as the father of the 1st plaintiff namely Venkateswarlu predeceased Thulasamma in the year 2004. Hence, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the following issues are settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5.During the course of evidence, the plaintiff got examined PW1 to

PW4 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.7 and On behalf of defendants, DW1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6. ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 :

Since, these issues are interconnected, this court intends to answer them together.

5 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

Specific case of plaintiff that 1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff are the husband and wife and that one Inturi Rajaiah, s/o. Adaiah was the original owner of Ac.1.22 cents of land in RS No. 433 of Peddavaram village and since he was issue­less and the said Rajaiah has bequeathed the said property in favour of his wife Tulasamma with life interest and after her life time to Darapaneni Venkateswarlu, father of 1st plaintiff and that after the demise of said Rajaiah, the will came into force and his wife also died in the year 2013 and thereafter the said Darapaneni Venkateswarlu became the absolute owner of Ac.1.22 cents of land in RS No. 433 of Peddavaram village and that the said Darapaneni Venkateswarlu also died intestate leaving behind the 1st plaintiff and his younger brother Darapaneni

Brahmam and his mother Lakshmi Narasamma as his class I legal heir andafter that 1st plaintiff and his brother Brahmam and his mother

Lakshmi Narasamma partitioned their joint family properties orally and in the said partition, the said Ac.1­22 cents of land in Rs No. 433 of

Peddavaram village fell to the share of 1st plaintiff and since then, 1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment in respect of said property and his name also mutated in the Revenue records and also got issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his name and that 2nd plaintiff who is wife of 1st plaintiff got Ac.1­00 cents of land situated on the eastern side of said Ac.1­22 cents of land in RS No. 433 of Peddavaram village by virtue of registered sale deed, dt. 20.12.2012 under Ex.A.2 having executed by Inturi Tulasamma, w/o. Rajaiah and since then, 2nd plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the said Ac.1­00 cents of land situated on the eastern side of Ac.1­22 cents of land and plaintiffs 1 and 2 made the said two plots into single plot and cultivating jointly and the name of 2nd plaintiff also mutated in Revenue records and were got issued pattadar pass book and title deed and 2nd plaintiff has paid revenue to the

Government and that defendants who are no way concerned to suit schedule property are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and on 28­07­2016, defendants attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property however, plaintiffs could able to resist the illegal acts, however, plaintiff is also 6 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

apprehending threat of dispossession in the hands of defendants and therefore sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from causing any sort of interference in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.

7.Specific case of defendants that father of 1st plaintiff by name

Venkateswarlu predeceased Inturi Tulasamma and therefore father of 1st plaintiff who has got vested reminders with absolute rights after the life time of Inturi Tulasamma as per the registered will under Ex.A.1 executed by Inturi Rajaiah who predeceased the said Tulasamma long ago in the year 2004, Inturi Tulasamma became absolute owner of the said

Ac.1­22 cents of land in RS No. 433 of Peddavaram village and during her life time, the said Inturi Tulasamma had executed a will deed,

dt. 02­08­2012 bequeathing the said Ac.1­22 cents of land along with

Ac.1­00 cents of land situated on the eastern side of said Ac.1­22 cents of land in favour of mother of defendants by name Sakkubai and that on the death of Tulasamma in the year 2013, the mother of defendants by name

Sakkubai as a legatee under the will deed, dt. 02­08­2012 became absolute owner of entire plaint schedule property to an extent of

Ac.2­22 cents and that the said Inturi Tulasamma out of her love and affection towards 2nd plaintiff intended to donate to an extent of

Ac.1­00 cents in favour of 2nd plaintiff out of the schedule property mentioned under will deed, dt. 02­08­2012 but the 2nd plaintiff instead of obtaining gift settlement deed in her favour had obtained a registered sale deed, dt. 20­12­2012 under Ex.A.2 and since then 2nd plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the said Ac.1­00 cents of land out of suit schedule property and therefore the contention of plaintiffs that they have been in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by cultivating jointly and that defendants have no right, interest and title over suit schedule property and are interfering with the possession and enjoyment is false and created for the purpose of filing the present suit by showing false cause of action and that defendant never attempted to interfere on 28­07­2016, in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property and hence prays to dismiss the suit.

7 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

8.Learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that by virtue of Ex.A.1, father of 1st plaintiff became the absolute owner of land to an extent of

Ac.1­22 cents in Rs No. 433 of Peddapuram village and after the demise of father of 1st plaintiff by name Darapaneni Venkateswarlu, his legal heirs ie., 1st plaintiff and his brother Darapaneni Brahmam and his mother

Lakshmi Narasamma being class I legal heir had partitioned their joint family properties orally and in the said partition, Ac.1­22 cents of land fell to the share of 1st plaintiff and since then 1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the said Ac.1.22 cents of land in RS No.

433 of Peddavaram village and the name of 1st plaintiff also mutated in the

Revenue records and the same was not disputed and denied by defendants at any point of time and that 2nd plaintiff who is wife of 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of Ac.1­00 cents of land on the eastern side of said

Ac.1­22 cents of land by virtue of Ex.A.2 also got her name mutated in

Revenue records to the knowledge of defendants and that defendants without having any right title over suit schedule property are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property.

9.1st plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7.

10.PW 1 deposed that suit schedule property originally belongs to

Inturi Tulasamma and her husband Rajaiah and that by virtue of Ex.A.1, the father of 1st plaintiff by name Dharapaneni Venkateswarlu got land to an extent of Ac.1­22 cents after the demise of Inturi Tulasamma who got life interest in the said land having executed by her husband Inturi

Rajaiah and that father of 1st plaintiff died intestate and that joint family properties of Darapaneni Venkateswarlu was partitioned orally among 1st plaintiff and his brother Darapaneni Brahmama and his mother

Lakshmi Narasamma where 1st plaintiff got land to an extent of

Ac.1.22 cents towards his share.

11. PW 1 denied that his father by name Darapeneni Venkateswarlu predeceased Inturi Tulasamma and that land covered under Ex.A.1 never 8 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

vested upon the father of 1st plaintiff and therefore, 1st plaintiff do not acquire any right in respect of Ac.1.22 cents of land covered under Ex.A.1.

PW1 denied further that the said Inturi Tulasamma became absolute owner of Ac.1­22 cents of land by virtue of Ex.A.1 and had executed registered will, dt. 02­08­2012 in favour of Sakkubayamma mother of defendants and that after execution of will deed, dt. 02­08­12 to an extent of Ac. 2.22 cents, PW.1 got executed Ex.A.2 sale deed for an extent of

Ac.1­00 cents with an intention to defeat the rights of mother of defendants so that the entire property to an extent of Ac.2.22 cents should not vest absolutely to the mother of defendants by name Sakkubaymma under the will deed, dt. 02­08­2012. PW 1 denied that Ex.A.3, A.4 and

A.6 are created documents in collusion with Revenue authorities for the purpose of this suit.

12.PW 2 corroborated the version of PW1 in same lines with that of

PW 1. PW 2 deposed that Inturi Tulasamma had executed Ex.A.2 in favour of PW.2. and plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment in respect of suit schedule property. PW.2 deposed that Inturi Tulasamma is the younger maternal aunt of Darapaneni Lakshmi Narasamma and

Sakkubayamma and the said Inturi Tulasamma came to the house of

PW 2 just prior to her death and was residing along with her. PW 2 denied that the said Inturi Tulasamma had executed will deed, dt. 02­8­2012 in respect of suit schedule property in favour of Sakkubayamma. PW 2 expressed ignorance about the date of death of her father in law, however admitted that Tulasamma died in the year 2013 and denied that after the demise of her father in law, his sons had not orally partitioned the family properties of her father in law.

13.PW 3 and PW 4 are the neighbors of suit schedule property deposed

before this court that they have got land on the western side of suit

schedule property and that plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment in respect of suit schedule property. There is no suggestion given to PW 3 and PW 4 by the learned counsel for defendants that PW 3 and PW 4 do not have their land on the western side of suit schedule property and that 9 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

plaintiffs are never in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and that plaintiffs are not jointly cultivating the suit schedule property. 

14.2nd defendant examined himself as DW 1 reiterated the contents of written statement filed on behalf of defendants and marked no documents.

DW 1 admitted that Inturi Rajaiah was the owner of Ac. 1­22 cents of land in Rs No. 433 of Peddavaram village and since the said Inturi Rajaiah was issue less the said Rajaiah had executed will deed under Ex.A.1 in favour of his wife Tulasamma vested upon with life interest and after her life time, absolute right to be Darapaneni Venkateswarlu who is father of 1st plaintiff. DW1 deposed that Darapaneni Rajaiah died about 30 years ago and Tulasamma died in the year 2013 and denied that after the demise of

Tulasamma, Darapaneni Venkateswarlu became the absolute owner of land to an extent of Ac.1.22 cents of land in RS No. 433 of Peddavaram village and that after the demise of said Darapaneni Venkateswarlu, 1st plaintiff and his brother Darapaneni Brahmama and his mother Lakshmi

Narasamma partitioned their joint family properties and in the said partition 1st plaintiff got Ac.1.22 cents of land. DW 1 admitted that 1st plaintiff got pattadar pass book and in respect of Ac.1.22 cents of land in

RS No. 433 of Peddavaram village and 1st plaintiff since then has been in possession and enjoyment over the said property and that 2nd plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over Ac.1­00 cents of land covered in

Ex.A.2.

15.D.W.1 though deposed that Darapaneni Venkateswarlu predeceased

Inturi Tulasamma long ago in the year 2004 but there isn o documentary evidencefiled before this court to prove that Darapaneni Venkateswarlu had predeceased Inturi Tulasamma in the year 2004. D.W1 further deposed that father of 1st plaintiff by name Darapaneni Venkateswarlu who has got vested reminders with absolute rights after the life time of Inturi

Tulasamma as per the registered will under Ex.A.1 executed by Inturi

Rajaiah, the wife of said Inturi Rajaiah by name Inturi Tulasamma had became absolute owner of the said Ac.1­22 cents of land in Rs No. 433 of

Peddavaram village and during her life time, the said Inturi Tulasamma had executed a will deed, dt. 02­08­2012 bequeathing the said Ac.1­22 10 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

cents of land along with Ac.1­00 cents of land situated on the eastern side of said Ac.1­22 cents of land in favour of mother of defendants by name

Sakkubai and that on the death of Inturi Tulasamma in the year 2013, the mother of defendants by name Sakkubai as a legatee under the will deed,

dt. 02­08­2012 became absolute owner of entire plaint schedule property

to an extent of Ac.2­22 cents, but the said document is not filed before this court by DW.1 in proof of his contention and on the other hand DW 1 categorically admitted before this court that he has not filed the said will deed, dt. 02­08­2012 said to have been executed by Inturi Tulasamma in favour of his mother Sakkubai before this court.

16.Therefore this court draws an adverse inference against the DW.1

I.e 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant had produced the will deed,

dt. 02­08­2012, defendants would not have been able to substantiate his

contention pleaded in his written statement. This court has placed reliance upon the Authorities reported in In Gopal Krishnaji's case (referred to 5

supra) a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held in para 5 at page

1416 as under:

17.Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.

18.The possession of plaintiffs by virtue of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 is categorically admitted by DW.1 during his course of cross examination

before this court. Defendants in their written statement pleaded that the

possession and enjoyment of 1st plaintiff in respect of Ac.1­22 cents of land of Peddavaram village is illegal and unauthorised by virtue of Ex.A.1 stating that the father of 1st plaintiff by name Darapaneni Venkateswarlu predeceased Inturi Tulasamma wife of Rajaiah who was granted absolute interest in respect of the property covered under Ex.A.1 after the demise 11 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

of Inturi Tulasamma wife of Rajaiah and that Inturi Tulasamma wife of

Rajaiah who was given life interest in respect of Ac.1­22 cents of land of

Peddavaram village and since Darapaneni Venkateswarlu predeceased

Inturi Tulasamma wife of Rajaiah, Inturi Tulassamma became absolute owner of said land and that said Inturi Tulasamma wife of Rajaiah had executed will deed will deed, dt. 02­08­2012 alleged to have been executed by the Inturi Tulasamma in favour of Sakkubayamma mother of defendants.

19. Admittedly the will deed, dt. 02­08­2012 alleged to have been executed by the Inturi Tulasamma in favour of Sakkubayamma mother of defendants is not filed before this court by the defendants to substantiate their contention. The admission of DW.1 during his course of cross examination that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex. A.1 pand Ex. A.2 and the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 who are independent witnesses and neighbours on the western side of suit schedule property also categorically deposed before this court that plaintiffs are personally cultivating the suit schedule property for the past 15 years and perusal of Ex.A.3 to Ex. A.6 also proved that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. The cause of interference is not disputed and denied by the defendants by way of giving suggestion to PW 1 to PW 4 that defendants never attempted to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property more particularly on 28­07­2016 and that defendants never threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess from the suit schedule property.

20. The evidence of PW 1 to PW 4 categorically proved that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property as on the date of filing suit and the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs are attempted to be obstructed and attempted to interfere by the defendants on 28­07­2016. Therefore, with the above said discussion, it is held that plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property.

12 OS 190/2016, PJCJ, NDG.

21. ISSUE NO.3 :

In view of my findings given in issues nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiffs is and hereby decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting Permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference and obstruction in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer,Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of August, 2018. sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nandigama. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1/ Darapaneni Chennaiah DW1/Jammalamudi Siva Sankar

PW2/Darapaneni Rajeswari

Pw3/ Pasupuleti Satyanarayana

PW4/ Singamsetti Subba Rao

LIST OF DOCUMENTS.

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 : CC of will executed by Inturi Rajaiah, Dt. 01­06­1989.

Ex.A.2 : Sale deed executed by Inturi Thulasamma in favour of 2nd plaintiff, dt. 20.12.2012.

Ex.A.3 : Online copy of I­B in favour of 1st plaintiff.

Ex.A.4 : Online copy of adangal for the fasli 1425.

Ex.A.5 : Online copy of I­B in favour of 2nd plaintiff.

Ex.A.6 : Online copy of Adangal for fasli 1426.

Ex.A.7 : Cist receipt paid by 2nd plaintiff, dt. 23­04­2016.

For Defendant : NIL. sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nandigama. 

1 O.S.NO. 57 / 2018

PJCJ, NDG.

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt. P. Lakshmi Kumari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Tuesday, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

O.S.NO. 57 / 2018.

Between :

Kuraganti Ravi Teja, s/o. Peraiah, Hindu, Agricultural labourer, 26 years, resident of Yeturu village, Chandarlapadu mandal, Krishna District. :: Plaintiff.

And:

Kuraganti Koteswara Rao, s/o. Venkataratnam, Hindu, cultivation, aged about 38 years, resident of Chintalapadu village, Chandarlapadu mandal, Krishna District. :: Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 14­08­2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Ratna Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint as follows :

It is submitted that the original owner and holder of suit schedule property is Kuraganti Peraiah. The said site is ancestral one. Kuraganti

Peraiah settled the suit schedule property in favour of his son, who is the plaintiff herein under registered settlement deed bearing document No.

5639/2017, dt. 09­11­2017 of Kanchikacherla Sub Registry and delivered the possession of the said property to the plaintiff on the even date and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same as its 2 O.S.NO. 57 / 2018

PJCJ, NDG.

absolute owner till today. That defendant who is resident of Chintalapadu village without having any right or interest is attempting to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property due to political rivalries in between the plaintiff and the defendant and that defendant by taking undue advantage of political rivalry and since the suit schedule property is situated at Chintalapadu village, the defendant is making hectic efforts and attempt to occupy the suit schedule property by threatening the plaintiff and on 04­04­2018, the defendant and his hench men trespassed into the suit schedule property with a view to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property and also attempted to erect fencing around the suit schedule property. That plaintiff on coming to know the said fact, went to the suit schedule property and resisted the acts of the defendant with the help of his relatives and neighbouring land owners and that after serious altercations and protests, the defendant and his henchmen had left the place by threatening the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit schedule property and had also threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Hence the suit. 

3.After receiving the summons from this court, the defendant failed to attend before this court. Hence, defendant remained exparte and matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence.

4.Now the point for consideration before the court is :

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint ?

ii ) To what relief ?

5. POINT NO .1 :

Specific case of plaintiff is that he is absolute owner of suit schedule property and that the said property is a vacant site situated in

Chintalapadu village Revenue area and that father of plaintiff had executed settlement deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff which is ancestral property and that since the date of execution of Ex.A.1, 3 O.S.NO. 57 / 2018

PJCJ, NDG.

plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property as absolute possessor and that no body has right or interest over suit schedule property and that defendant who is resident of Chintalapadu village is making attempt to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff due to political rivalry between plaintiff and defendant and also attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property and on 04­04­2018 the defendant along with his henchmen attempted to enter into suit schedule property and also attempted to erect fencing around land and after knowing the said fact, plaintiff went to suit schedule property and resisted the acts of the defendant with the help of neighbours and relatives and thereafter the defendant left the place by threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences. That plaintiff having no other got filed the suit claiming the relief of Permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his henchmen from causing any sort of interference in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff.

6.The defendant after receipt of summons, failed to appear before this court and hence defendant remained exparte.

7.Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property and the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff is known to defendant and to entire villagers but defendant without having any legal right, title over suit schedule property is attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property and acts of frequent visit of defendant along with his henchmen over suit schedule property apprehending the threat of dispossession to the plaintiff from suit schedule property in the hands of defendant, hence plaintiff prays to grant relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. 

8.Plaintiff in order to establish his suit claim examined himself as PW1 reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2.

4 O.S.NO. 57 / 2018

PJCJ, NDG.

9.PW 1 deposed before this court that he is absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 having executed by father of plaintiff by name Kuraganti Peraiah and that plaintiff since the date of execution of Ex.A.1 continued his possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property and that defendant who is resident of Chintalapadu village is attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property due to political rivalry and on 04­04­2018, defendant along with his henchmen entered into suit schedule property and attempted to erect fencing around the suit schedule property and after knowing the said fact when plaintiff went to suit schedule property and resisted the acts of defendant with the help of neighbours and relatives, the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property.

Therefore plaintiff apprehended threat of danger in the hands of defendant over suit schedule property as such the sought for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from suit schedule property from causing any sort of interference in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property. 

10.Defendant did not choose to appear before this court and also did not chose to cross examine PW1 and defendant on the other hand remained exparte. PW1 in order to prove his suit claim got filed Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed, dt. 09­11­2017. Perusal of Ex.A.1 discloses that suit schedule property is executed in favour of plaintiff by his father

Kuraganthi Peraiah. Perusal of Ex.A.2, Encumbrance certificate discloses that name of father of plaintiff by name Kuraganti Peraiah as executant of

Ex.A.1 and name of plaintiff as claimant of Ex.A.1 in respect of suit schedule property and there is no encumbrance over the property covered under Ex.A.1. The document under ExA.1 and A.2 proves that plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property without any encumbrance over suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit.

5 O.S.NO. 57 / 2018

PJCJ, NDG.

11.The evidence of PW1 further proves that defendant is making attempt to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and on 04­04­2018, the defendant along with his henchmen had trespassed and attempted to occupy and to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property. Therefore, with the above said discussion, this court is of opinion that plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from causing any sort of interference over the suit schedule property. Point is answered accordingly.

12. POINT NO. 2 :

In view of my findings in Point No. 1 the suit of the plaintiff is and hereby decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant restraining the defendant and his men from causing any sort of interference and obstruction in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Steno Gr.III., transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

 Nandigama. 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/Kuraganti Ravi Teja None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Registered Settlement deed vide Doc.No.5639/2017 of Kanchikacherla Sub­Registrar Executed in favour of plaintiff for the plaint schedule property. Ex.A.2 : 06­11­2017 : Encumbrance Certificate 

For Defendant: NIL sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nandigama. 

1 OS NO. 223/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt P. Lakshmi Kumari, 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama.

Monday, this the 13th day of August, 2018.

Original Suit No. 223/2017

Between:

Chalamala Venkateswara Rao, s/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, Male, Business, Aged about 59 years, R/o. Rythupet, Nandigama Town, Krishna District. :: Plaintiff.

And

Shaik Syda, s/o. Mahaboob, Muslim, male, aged about 35 years, Tailoring shop, Andhra Bank Road, Main Road, Nandigama Town, Krishna District. :: Defendant

This suit is coming on 13.08.18 before me for evidence of PW1 to PW 3 in the presence of Sri B. Subhakara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for Defendant, upon hearing the arguments on both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

01.Suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,56,600/­ being the

Principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06­12­2014

executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/­ agreeing to pay the same with interest at 24% p.a. with subsequent interest and for costs.

02The brief averments of plaint as follows :

The plaintiff submits that defendant borrowed loan amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 06­12­2014 for his family expenses and had executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff at

Nandigama village agreeing to repay the same @ 24 % per annum but inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to repay the loan amount and then plaintiff had got issued legal notice,

dt. 13­12­2016 demanding to discharge the loan amount and

2 OS NO. 223/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

defendant having received the legal notice did not choose to pay the same. Hence, the suit.

03.Defendant filed written Statement denying the material allegation made in the plaint and submitted that defendant never borrowed loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from plaintiff on 06­12­2014 under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and same is created for wrongful gain against the defendant and that plaintiff never made any demand for repaying the said loan amount under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and no legal notice, dt. 13­12­2016 got issued to the defendant demanding the defendant to repay the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and that signature of the defendant on suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff due to disputes between plaintiff and defendant only with an intention for wrongful gain against the defendant and also to harass the defendant and prays to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

05.On behalf of plaintiff, PW 1 to PW 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Defendant did not choose to cross examine

P.W.1.

06. ISSUE NO.1 :

It is the specific case of plaintiff that defendant had borrowed loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 06­12­2014 for his family expenses and got executed suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 with a promise to repay the same @ 24 % per annum but inspite of repeated requests and demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the loan amount under Ex.A.1 inspite of issuance of legal notice under Ex.A.2 though defendant received the 3 OS NO. 223/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

legal notice. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of suit amount.

07.Specific case of defendant that he never borrowed the loan amount from the plaintiff covered under Ex.A.1 and that the suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff for wrongful gain against the defendant due to disputes between plaintiff and defendant and that defendant never signed as an executant under Ex.A.1 for the loan amount covered under Ex.A.1 and hence prays to dismiss the suit claim.

08.The plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and got reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Plaintiff examined one of the attestors of suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 as PW 2 who corroborated the version of plaintiff regarding the borrowing of loan amount by the defendant on 06­12­2014 for Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1. PW 2 deposed that the suit transaction has taken place in the shop of plaintiff in Nandigama village and at that time, PW 2, PW 3, plaintiff, defendant were present and the suit promissory note was scribed by PW 3 and thereafter defendant had received loan amount from the plaintiff and signed as an executant under Ex.A.1 and thereafter PW 2 subscribed his signature as one of the attestors and PW 3 signed as scribed of Ex.A.1.

09.PW 3 who is the scribe of Ex.A.1 deposed before this court that he scribed the suit promissory note and defendant received the loan amount from the plaintiff on 06­12­2014 in presence of PW 2, defendant, plaintiff and PW 3 and defendant signed as executant under Ex.A.1 and thereafter PW 2 subscribed his signature as one of the attestors of Ex.A.1 and after signing of PW2, PW 3 subscribed his signature on Ex.A.1 as scribe.

10.Defendant disputed the suit claim of the plaintiff by way of defence taken in the written statement however, defendant did not choose to cross examine PW1 to PW 3.

11.Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the loan amount is paid by the defendant and there is compromise and settlement 4 OS NO. 223/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to suit claim amount and therefore plaintiff has no claim with respect to suit amount in view of the above said settlement between plaintiff and defendant.

12.Learned counsel for defendant submitted that since the settlement had already taken place between plaintiff and defendant with respect to suit claim. Hence, the cross examination of PW 1 to

Pw 3 will serve no purpose and as such learned counsel for the defendant reported nil in view of the settlement arrived between plaintiff and defendant.

13.This court perused the material on record pertaining to this suit and the joint memo filed by plaintiff and defendant pertaining to compromise effected between plaintiff and defendant regarding the suit amount covered under Ex.A.1. Since the suit claim amount is paid by the defendant and in proof of the said suit amount and the settlement arrived between the plaintiff and the defendant, a joint memo filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant stating that plaintiff and defendant arrived at compromise and therefore, plaintiff received the suit amount from the defendant. In view of the settlement and compromise arrived between the plaintiff and defendant, suit of the plaintiff is and hereby dismissed. Issue answered accordingly.

14. ISSUE NO. 2 :

In view of my findings in Issue no.1, the suit of the plaintiff is and hereby dismissed without costs.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Steno, Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of August,

2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA.

5 OS NO. 223/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW­1 : Chalamala Venkateswara Rao ­ Nil ­ PW­2 : Ramireddy Venkateswara Rao PW­3 : Pala Venkateswara Rao

 DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : 06­12­2014 : Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : 13­12­2016 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.P.3 : Postal acknowledgment.

For Defendant : NIL.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA.

1 OS NO. 227/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt P. Lakshmi Kumari, 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama.

Thursday, this the 16th day of August, 2018.

Original Suit No. 227/2017

Between:

Arepu Eswari Devi, w/o. Ramesh, Hindu, aged about 40 years, resident of Nandigama village and mandal, Krishna District.

:: Plaintiff.

And

Bellamkonda Nageswara Rao, s/o. Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, constable in AP Transco, R/o. D.No. 3/64­4, Valinarthipadu Road, Driver Nagar colony, Gudivada village and Mandal, krishna District. :: Defendant

This suit is coming on 16.08.18 before me for evidence of PW1 in the presence of Sri Sk. Karimullah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Md.Ameen, Advocate for Defendant and upon hearing the arguments on both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

01.Suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,24,500/­ being the

Principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 10­03­2015

executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.75,000/­ agreeing to pay the same with interest at 24% p.a. with subsequent interest and for costs.

02.The brief averments of plaint as follows :

The plaintiff submits that defendant borrowed loan amount of

Rs.75,000/­ from the plaintiff on 10­03­2015 for his family expenses and had executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff at

Nandigama village in presence of scribe of suit promissory note by

G. Durga Prasad and attestor one Merugumala Venkateswara Rao and after receiving the loan amount, the defendant signed on the suit promissory note and thereafter attestor and scribe signed on suit 2 OS NO. 227/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

promissory note and the entire transaction took place in presence of attestor and scribe of suit promissory note and the defendant agreed to repay the same @ 24 % per annum but inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to repay the loan amount and did not choose to pay the same. Hence, the suit.

03.Defendant filed written Statement denying the material allegation made in the plaint and submitted that defendant never borrowed loan amount of Rs.75,000/­ from plaintiff on 10­03­2015 and never executed suit promissory note and same is created for wrongful gain against the defendant and that plaintiff never made any demand for repayment the said loan amount under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and that signature of the defendant on suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff and the defendant has no necessity to borrow money from others much less from the plaintiff as the defendant is working in Police Department and getting ample salary for his livelihood and to maintain his family and hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant ?

2. To what relief ?

05.The plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

Learned counsel for defendant reported no defense evidence. 

06. ISSUE NO.1 :

It is the specific case of plaintiff that defendant had borrowed loan amount of Rs.75,000/­ from the plaintiff on 10­03­2015 for his family expenses and got executed suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 with a promise to repay the same @ 24 % per annum in presence of attestor and scribe of Ex.A.1 and defendant also agreed to repay the loan amount @ 24 % per annum but defendant inspite of repeated 3 OS NO. 227/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

requests and demand made by the plaintiff, did not choose to repay the loan amount under Ex.A.1, hence, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of suit amount.

07.Specific case of defendant that he never borrowed the loan amount from the plaintiff covered under Ex.A.1 and that the suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff for wrongful gain against the defendant and that defendant never signed as an executant under

Ex.A.1 for the loan amount covered under Ex.A.1 and hence prays to dismiss the suit claim.

08.The plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex.A.1. PW1 during her course of cross examination admitted that she received the suit amount from the defendant and she has no claim against the defendant regarding the suit amount.

09.Defendant disputed the suit claim of the plaintiff by way of defence taken in the written statement. 

10.Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the loan amount is paid by the defendant and there is compromise and settlement between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to suit claim amount and therefore plaintiff has no claim with respect to suit amount in view of the above said settlement arrived between plaintiff and defendant.

11.Learned counsel for defendant submitted that the settlement had already taken place between plaintiff and defendant with respect to suit claim amount and plaintiff also filed memo acknowledging payment towards full and final settlement of suit amount and hence prayed to dismiss the suit. 

12.This court perused the material on record pertaining to this suit and the memo filed by plaintiff pertaining to compromise effected between plaintiff and defendant regarding the settlement of suit amount towards full and final settlement and PW 1 had also admitted

before this court during her course of cross examination that she

4 OS NO. 227/2017

PJCJ, NDG.

received the suit amount from the defendant after filing of suit and

PW 1 has no claim against the defendant regarding suit amount.

13. Since the suit claim amount is paid by the defendant and in proof of the payment of suit amount and the settlement arrived between the plaintiff and the defendant, a memo is also filed on behalf of the plaintiff stating that plaintiff and defendant arrived at compromise and the plaintiff had received the suit amount from the defendant,hence this court under such circumstances, in view of the settlement and compromise arrived between the plaintiff and defendant is of opinion that there is no claim against defendant.

Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is and hereby dismissed. Issue answered accordingly.

14. ISSUE NO. 2 :

In view of my findings in Issue no.1, the suit of the plaintiff is and hereby dismissed without costs.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer, Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of August, 2018. SD/­

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW­1 : Arepu Eswari Devi ­ Nil ­

 DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : 10­03­2015 : Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

For Defendant : NIL.SD/­

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA.