Sri P Laxmana Chary

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 1 of 20

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SANGAREDDY

AT :: SANGAREDDY

Present: Sri P.Laxmana Chary

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­Judicial Magistrate 

of First Class, Sangareddy

Thursday this the 17th day of October, 2024

O.S.No. 161 of 2016

Between:­

B. Sanjay Reddy, S/o: B. Krishna Reddy, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2­1­556/4/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

 ...Plaintiff

And

1. P. Aruna, W/o: Brahmananda Rao, Aged about: 48 years, Occ:Household, R/o: H.No.12­13­829/1, Plot No.102, Beheti Arcade, Gokun Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

2. Angadala Ajay Kumar, S/o: Sheshagiri Rao, Aged about: 40 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Suryanarayanapuram, J.P. Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

3. Magapu Shankar Srinivas, S/o: Sathyam, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Nidadavole, West Godawari District.

4. B. Kista Reddy, S/o: B. Narayan Reddy, Aged about: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.2­69/2, Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. (Defendant No.4 Died and suit against him abated)

...Defendants

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 2 of 20

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Narsimulu, advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri K.Narsing Rao, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and the Defendants No.2 and 3 were set­exparte and Defendant No.4 died and suit against him abated and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following: ­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed for prohibitory perpetual injunction restraining the

Defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the residential open plot bearing Nos.178, 179 and 180, in Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of 400 Sq. yards(common in one block) situated at Isnapur Village,

Patnahceru Mandal, Medak District.

2.The residential open plot bearing Nos.178, 179 and 180, in

Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of 400 Sq. yards(common in one block) situated at Isnapur Village, Patnahceru Mandal, Medak District which is bounded by:­

North:Plot No.181; South:Plot No.177; East;Plot Nos.183, 184 and 185; West;30’ wide Road; (hereinafter referred as ‘suit schedule property’).

3.The brief averments of the plaint are that:­

(i) The Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property who purchased the same from it’s original owners through registered sale deed vide document bearing No.4185/1989, dated: 28­09­ 1989. Since from the date of purchase the Plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any disturbance. Later, the

Plaintiff approached the revenue authorities and got mutated the suit

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 3 of 20

schedule property on his name in the revenue records and the revenue authorities also issued patta pass book and title deed in favour of the

Plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.

(ii)The Defendants who are not having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property who are also strangers to the Plaintiff. On 22.05.2016, the Defendants along with their henchmen came to the suit schedule property and tried to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the defendants also tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, however the Plaintiff managed to send the Defendants and their supporters away from the suit schedule property and could protect his possession over the suit schedule property, but while leaving the suit schedule property the defendants openly threatened the Plaintiff that they will come again in future and will not allow the Plaintiff to be in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff apprehending danger to safeguard his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in the hands of the defendants and their supporters. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

4.On receipt of summons, the Defendants No.1 and 4 got appeared through their counsels Sri K.Krishna Rao and Sri K.Narsing Rao advocates and they filed their written statements independently. Summons were served against the Defendants No.2 and 3 by way of substitute service by making paper publication, none appeared on behalf of the Defendants No.2 and 3, hence they were set exparte. The Defendant No.4 died the suit against him was abated as no steps taken to bring his legal heirs on record.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 4 of 20

5.The Defendant No.1 filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and contended that:­

(i)As per the case of the Plaintiff, the suit schedule property is plots, in such a case, there is no such law either in the ROR Act or anywhere to effect mutation in respect of residential plots in the revenue records thereby the very approach of the Plaintiff to the revenue authorities itself shows that the Plaintiff wanted to create some more evidence in order to grab the part of the land bearing Sy.No.490, measuring to an extent of

Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak

District. The conduct of the Plaintiff itself shows that knowingly fully well he has no title over the property nor possession over the property wants to create an evidence to implement his name in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue records. Hence, the socalled revenue entries and pattedar pass book and title deed in respect of the suit schedule property has no consequence, it cannot be looked into for any other purpose and the

Plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(ii).The land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­ 38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village is not converted agriculture to non agriculture nor any approved layout plan from competent authority and the so called layout plan filed by the Plaintiff is another fabricated document for the purpose of knocking away Sy.No.490. Isnapur Village was within the purview of HUDA and the question of grant of layout sanctioned plan by any local authority will not arise and the Plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 5 of 20

(iii).This Defendant made enquiries regarding source of title of her vendor and came to know that the land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.03­36 guntas, standing in the name of Venkat Reddy, S/o:

Nagi Reddy as per Khasra Pahani. Though the said property stands in the name of Venkat Reddy, S/o: Nagi Reddy, his brother Janakiram Reddy was the share holder, he owned and possessed half extent of share in the said survey number.The said Janakiram Reddy died in the year­1967 and the said property stands in the name of the elder member of the family i.e.,

Venkat Reddy, S/o: Nagi Reddy. After death of Venkat Reddy, the said property was mutated in the name of his son Rangareddy. Though the property mutated in the name of the Rangareddy, the branch of Janakiram

Reddy had half share and he was in an exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property and cultivating the said property with absolute rights.

(iv).The said Janakiram Reddy died leaving behind his wife

Satyamma and son Kistareddy. After death of Janakiram Reddy, his only son Kistareddy enjoyed the property with absolute rights though the property stands in the name of Rangareddy, S/o: Venkat Reddy in the revenue records who never claimed total extent of land and he claimed only to an extent of half share i.e., Ac.01­38 guntas and admitted the remaining land in Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas belongs to their share holder Kistareddy, S/o: Janakiram Reddy.

(v).The said Kistareddy, S/o: Janakiram Reddy died leaving behind his wife Satyamma and five daughters namely Padmamma, Rukkamma,

Kamalamma, Sugunamma and Shamamma. Since, Satyamma had no male issues, she kept Padmamma at his home and brought one Narayan Reddy as illitom son­in­law married to Padmamma who blessed with five sons namely

Manik Reddy, Anji Reddy, Kistareddy(Defendant No.4), Narsimha Reddy and

Bhoopal Reddy.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 6 of 20

(vi).During the life time of Satyamma, she gave statement before

ROR authorities 1989­90 when enquiry is being conducted by the recording authority and she stated that she gave the property in favour of her grand son namely Kistareddy, S/o: Narayan Reddy(Defendant No.4). Basing on the said statement, the recording authority has recorded the name of

Kistareddy, S/o: Narayan Reddy in respect of land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village.

The revenue authorities also issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in the name of the Defendant No.4. During the life time of Satyamma, the land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas transferred in the name of the Defendant No.4.

(vii).The name of Defendant No.4 is being continued as owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.38 gts., and he was cultivating the land whenever as per the rainy season as there is no water source to cultivate the land. This defendant came to know that Rangareddy S/o: Venkat Reddy said to have sold the land in favour of the third party. The recording authority due to oversight it was wrongly recorded in revenue records as plots including the land belonging to the

Defendant No.4, but the defendant never sold any part of the land in favour of anybody nor executed any document whatsoever except in favour of Ajay

Kumar i.e., vendor of this Defendant.

(viii). The Plaintiff is falsely claiming that the property said to have been purchased by way of plots, but in fact the so called vendor has no subsisting right, title, in respect of Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.01­38 guntas., consequently he cannot transfer any better title in favour of anybody, as such the so called sale deed relied by the Plaintiff has no legal sanctity in the eye of law as Manik Reddy was not competent to execute either GPA or any type of document in favor of anybody. The Plaintiff

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 7 of 20

knowingly fully well have suppressed all the above said facts for ulterior motives.

(ix).The Defendant No.4 Kista Reddy was in need of money for his family and legal necessities, accordingly the Defendant No.4 sold the property in favour of A. Ajay Kumar S/o: Seshagiri Rao, as per his desire.

The Defendant No.4 executed Agreement of Sale cum GPA on 18­03­2008 vide Doct.No. 4038 of 2008 and delivered vacant physical possession of land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, with specific boundaries in favour of A. Ajay Kumar and the said Ajay Kumar was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property by virtue of the above said purchase.

(x).Subsequently, the said A. Ajay Kumar as a Agreement of Sale cum GPA holder sold the property in favour of P. Aruna, W/o: Brahmananda

Rao, this Defendant No.1 through Registered Sale Deed dated 27­12­2010 vide Doct. No. 730 of 2011. Basing on the said Registered Sale Deed this

Defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute right. Thereafter this Defendant filed an application before recording authority and mutation is effected in her name in respect of purchased property land bearing Sy.No.490/AA, admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village, thereafter the revenue authorities issued pattedar pass book and title deed, thus this Defendant is the owner and possessor of the purchased property land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village.

(xi).The Plaintiff went to an extent of manipulating the documents i.e., revenue records. As per the claim of the Plaintiff, the land in Sy.No. 490 was divided into plots and sold to various persons when the land was divided into residential plots the question of effecting any mutation in the revenue

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 8 of 20

records will not arise. That itself shows that how the things have been manipulated by the Plaintiff. As far as the land of this Defendant is concerned which was purchased from the Defendant No.4 still it is an agricultural land and there are no sine of plot to the said land. The plaintiff is not definite where his so called plots are situated. The Plaintiff without disclosing the location of the said purchased plots the Plaintiff filed this suit against this defendant and seeking a discretionary relief of perpetual injunction which is not permissible under law. There is no cause of action of the suit, the said cause of action is fictitious one and invented for the purpose of filing of the suit, hence the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.The Defendant No.4 filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and contended that:­

(i)As per the case of the Plaintiff, the suit schedule property is plots, in such a case, there is no such law either in the ROR Act or anywhere to effect mutation in respect of residential plots in the revenue records thereby the very approach of the Plaintiff to the revenue authorities itself shows that the Plaintiff wanted to create some more evidence in order to grab the part of the land bearing Sy.No.490, measuring to an extent of

Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak

District. The conduct of the Plaintiff itself shows that knowingly fully well he has no title over the property nor possession over the property wants to create an evidence to implement his name in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue records. Hence, the so called revenue entries and pattedar pass book and title deed in respect of the suit schedule property has no consequence, it cannot be looked into for any other purpose and the

Plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the same.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 9 of 20

(ii).The land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­ 38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village is not converted agriculture to non agriculture nor any approved layout plan from competent authority and the so called layout plan filed by the Plaintiff is another fabricated document for the purpose of knocking away Sy.No.490. Isnapur Village was within the purview of HUDA and the question of grant of layout sanctioned plan by any local authority will not arise and the Plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(iii).The land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.03­ 36 guntas, standing in the name of Venkat Reddy, S/o: Nagi Reddy as per

Khasra Pahani. Though the said property stands in the name of Venkat

Reddy, S/o: Nagi Reddy, Janakiram Reddy was the share holder, he owned and possessed half extent of share in the said survey number. The said

Janakiram Reddy died in the year­1967 and the said property stands in the name of the elder member of the family i.e., Venkat Reddy, S/o: Nagi Reddy.

After death of Venkat Reddy, the said property was mutated in the name of his son Rangareddy. Though the property mutated in the name of the

Rangareddy. Janakiram Reddy had half share and he was in an exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property and cultivating the said property with absolute rights.

(iv).The said Janakiram Reddy died leaving behind his wife

Satyamma and son Kistareddy. After death of Janakiram Reddy, his only son Kistareddy enjoyed the property with absolute rights though the property stands in the name of Rangareddy, S/o: Venkat Reddy in the revenue records who never claimed total extent of land and he claimed only to an extent of half share i.e., Ac.01­38 guntas and admitted the remaining land in Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas belongs to their share holder Kistareddy, S/o: Janakiram Reddy.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 10 of 20

(v).The said Kistareddy, S/o: Janakiram Reddy died leaving behind his wife Satyamma and five daughters namely Padmamma, Rukkamma,

Kamalamma, Sugunamma and Shamamma. Since, Satyamma had no male issues, she kept Padmamma at his home and brought one Narayan Reddy as illitom son­in­law married to Padmamma who blessed with five sons namely

Manik Reddy, Anji Reddy, Kistareddy(Defendant No.4), Narsimha Reddy and

Bhoopal Reddy.

(vi).During the life time of Satyamma, she gave statement before

ROR authorities 1989­90 when enquiry is being conducted by the recording authority and she stated that she gave the property in favour of her grand son namely Kistareddy, S/o: Narayan Reddy(Defendant No.4). Basing on the said statement, the recording authority has recorded the name of

Kistareddy, S/o: Narayan Reddy in respect of land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village.

The revenue authorities also issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in the name of this Defendant. During the life time of Satyamma, the land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas transferred in the name of this Defendant.

(vii).The name of this Defendant is being continued as owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.38 gts., and he was cultivating the land whenever as per the rainy season as there is no water source to cultivate the land. This defendant came to know that Rangareddy S/o: Venkat Reddy said to have sold the land in favour of the third party. The recording authority due to oversight it was wrongly recorded in revenue records as plots including the land belonging to this

Defendant, but this defendant never sold any part of the land in favour of anybody nor executed any document whatsoever.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 11 of 20

(viii). The Plaintiff is falsely claiming that the property said to have been purchased by way of plots, but infact the so called vendor has no subsisting right, title, in respect of Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.01­38 guntas., consequently he cannot transfer any better title in favour of anybody, as such the so called sale deed relied by the Plaintiff has no legal sanctity in the eye of law as Manik Reddy was not competent to execute either GPA or any type of document in favor of anybody. The Plaintiff knowingly fully well have suppressed all the above said facts for ulterior motives.

(ix).This Defendant was in need of money for his family and legal necessities, accordingly this Defendant sold the property in favour of A. Ajay

Kumar S/o: Seshagiri Rao, as per his desire. This Defendant executed

Agreement of Sale cum GPA on 18­03­2008 vide Doct.No. 4038 of 2008 and delivered vacant physical possession of land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, with specific boundaries in favour of A. Ajay Kumar and the said Ajay Kumar was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property by virtue of the above said purchase.

(x).This Defendant came to know subsequently, the said A. Ajay

Kumar as a Agreement of Sale cum GPA holder sold the property in favour of

P. Aruna, W/o: Brahmananda Rao (Defendant No.1) through Registered Sale

Deed dated 27­12­2010 vide Doct. No. 730 of 2011. Basing on the said

Registered Sale Deed the purchaser is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute right. Thereafter the Defendant No.1 filed an application before recording authority and mutation is effected in her name in respect of purchased property land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village, thereafter the revenue authorities issued pattedar pass book and title deed,

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 12 of 20

thus the Defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the purchased property land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village.

(xi).The Plaintiff went to an extent of manipulating the documents i.e., revenue records. As per the claim of the Plaintiff, the land in Sy.No. 490 was divided into plots and sold to various persons when the land was divided into residential plots the question of effecting any mutation in the revenue records will not arise. That itself shows that how the things have been manipulated by the Plaintiff. As far as the land of this Defendant is concerned which was sold to the Defendant No.1 still it is an agricultural land and there are no sine of plot to the said land. The plaintiff is not definite where his so called plots are situated. The Plaintiff without disclosing the location of the said purchased plots, the Plaintiff filed this suit against this defendant and seeking a discretionary relief of perpetual injunction which is not permissible under law.

(xii).When this Defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property, then Y. Manik Reddy, S/o: Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o:

Isnapur Village tried to interfere with peaceful and lawful possession and enjoyment of this Defendant in respect of land in Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, upon that this Defendant filed suit vide

O.S.No.338 of 2007 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy

against Y. Manik Reddy and the same was decreed on 31.01.2008 in favour of this Defendant. This Defendant alone is concerned with the property till it was sold to Ajay Kumar i.e., this Defendant executed AGPA in his favour.

Thereafter some transactions took place as per law, for which the plaintiff cannot question the same. There is no cause of action of the suit, the said cause of action is fictitious one and invented for the purpose of filing of the

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 13 of 20

suit, hence the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

7.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trail.

I. Whether plaintiff established his legal possession over the suit

schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

II. Whether defendants are interfering with legal possession of

plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

III. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed

for?

IV. To what relief?

8.During the trial. In order to prove the suit claim, on behalf of the

Plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 by filing chief­affidavit in lieu of chief­ examination by re­iterating the contents of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is Registered sale deed vide document No.4185/1989,

dated:28.09.1989. Ex.A2 is Old Pattadar Pass Book. Ex.A3 is Mutation

Proceeding dated:17.03.1999. Ex.A4 is Mee­Seva pahani for the fasli year 1423. Ex.A5 is Mee­Seva pahani for the fasli year 1425. Ex.A6 is Market value certificate. Ex.A7 is Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A8 Layout copy issued by Panchayath Secretary Grampanchayath Isnapur obtained under

RTI.

9.The chief affidavit of PW1 was send to the Defendant No.1 through

RPAD which is returned for the reason unclaimed which is deemed service notice of chief affidavit of PW1 to the Defendant No.1 who is contesting the suit. Hence, the court constrained to proceed further, accordingly PW1 deposition recorded. After recording the evidence of PW1, the Plaintiff

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 14 of 20

reported no further evidence, hence plaintiff side evidence closed and the suit was posted for Defendant No.1 side evidence.

10.Subsequently, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity also, the

Defendant No.1 did not choose to appear before the court to adduce evidence on his behalf. Hence, the court constrained to proceed further, accordingly, the Defendant No.1 side evidence closed.

11.After closure of evidence. Heard arguments and perused the record.

12.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property who purchased the same through registered sale deed vide document No.4185/1989, dated:

28­09­1989 which is marked under Ex.A1, since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any disturbance. He further argued that the Defendants who are not having any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, on 22­05­2016 the Defendants along with their henchmen came to the suit schedule property and tried to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the same and also tried to dispossess him from the suit schedule property, however, the plaintiff managed to sent them away, but while leaving suit schedule property, the Defendants openly threatened the plaintiff by stating that they they will come again in future and will not allow the plaintiff to be in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. He further argued that by producing oral and documentary evidence, the Plaintiff proved his claim. Finally, prayed to decree the suit.

13.Subsequently, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity also, the

Defendant No.1 did not choose to appear before the court to submit arguments on his behalf, hence Defendant No.1 side arguments treated as heard.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 15 of 20

14.Basing on the contentions of both sides the issues are answered as under.

15.ISSSUES NO.I to III:Since these three issues are interconnected, this court is proceeding to answer these issues simultaneously.

16.In a suit for perpetual injunction the plaintiff needs to establish that he is the lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendants unlawfully interfering into his possession.

17.It is the case of the plaintiff that by virtue of Ex.A1 registered sale deed he became owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, but the defendants who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, more particularly on 22.05.2016.

18.As per the written statements of Defendant No.1, it is the contention of the defendant that the land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.03­36 guntas, standing in the name of Venkat Reddy, S/o: Nagi Reddy as per Khasra Pahani, though the said property stands in the name of Venkat

Reddy, S/o: Nagi Reddy, his brother Janakiram Reddy was the share holder, he owned and possessed half extent of share in the said survey number, the said Janakiram Reddy died in the year­1967 and the said property stands in the name of the elder member of the family i.e., Venkat Reddy, S/o: Nagi

Reddy, after death of Venkat Reddy, the said property was mutated in the name of his son Rangareddy, though the property mutated in the name of the Rangareddy, the branch of Janakiram Reddy had half share and he was in an exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property and cultivating the

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 16 of 20

said property with absolute rights, the said Janakiram Reddy died leaving behind his wife Satyamma and son Kistareddy, after death of Janakiram

Reddy, his only son Kistareddy enjoyed the property with absolute rights though the property stands in the name of Rangareddy, S/o: Venkat Reddy in the revenue records who never claimed total extent of land and he claimed only to an extent of half share i.e., Ac.01­38 guntas and admitted the remaining land in Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas belongs to their share holder Kistareddy, S/o: Janakiram Reddy, the said

Kistareddy, S/o: Janakiram Reddy died leaving behind his wife Satyamma and five daughters namely Padmamma, Rukkamma, Kamalamma,

Sugunamma and Shamamma, since, Satyamma had no male issues, she kept Padmamma at his home and brought one Narayan Reddy as illitom son­in­law married to Padmamma who blessed with five sons namely Manik

Reddy, Anji Reddy, Kistareddy(Defendant No.4), Narsimha Reddy and

Bhoopal Reddy, during the life time of Satyamma, she gave statement before

ROR authorities 1989­90 when enquiry is being conducted by the recording authority and she stated that she gave the property in favour of her grand son namely Kistareddy, S/o: Narayan Reddy(Defendant No.4), basing on the said statement, the recording authority has recorded the name of

Kistareddy, S/o: Narayan Reddy in respect of land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village, the revenue authorities also issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in the name of the Defendant No.4, during the life time of Satyamma, the land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas transferred in the name of the Defendant No.4, the name of Defendant No.4 is being continued as owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.38 gts., and he was cultivating the land whenever as per the rainy season as there is no water source to cultivate the land, the

Defendant No.4 Kista Reddy was in need of money for his family and legal necessities, accordingly the Defendant No.4 sold the property in favour of

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 17 of 20

A. Ajay Kumar S/o: Seshagiri Rao, as per his desire, the Defendant No.4 executed Agreement of Sale cum GPA on 18­03­2008 vide Doct.No. 4038 of 2008 and delivered vacant physical possession of land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, with specific boundaries in favour of A. Ajay Kumar and the said Ajay Kumar was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property by virtue of the above said purchase, subsequently, the said A. Ajay Kumar as a Agreement of Sale cum

GPA holder sold the property in favour this Defendant No.1 through

Registered Sale Deed dated 27­12­2010 vide Doct. No. 730 of 2011, basing on the said Registered Sale Deed this Defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute right, thereafter this

Defendant filed an application before recording authority and mutation is effected in her name in respect of purchased property land bearing

Sy.No.490/AA, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at

Isnapur Village, thereafter the revenue authorities issued pattedar pass book and title deed, thus this Defendant is the owner and possessor of the purchased property land bearing Sy.No. 490, admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.01­38 guntas, situated at Isnapur Village, the Plaintiff went to an extent of manipulating the documents i.e., revenue records, as per the claim of the

Plaintiff, the land in Sy.No. 490 was divided into plots and sold to various persons when the land was divided into residential plots the question of effecting any mutation in the revenue records will not arise, that itself shows that how the things have been manipulated by the Plaintiff, the plaintiff is not definite where his so called plots are situated, the Plaintiff without disclosing the location of the said purchased plots filed this suit against this defendant and seeking a discretionary relief of perpetual injunction which is not permissible under law and there is no cause of action of the suit, the said cause of action is fictitious one and invented for the purpose of filing of this suit.

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 18 of 20

19.As seen from Ex.A1/registered sale deed vide document bearing

No.4185/1989, dated: 28.09.1989 categorically speaks that one B. Ranga

Reddy and B. Mani Reddy sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff with specific boundaries. Exs.A2 to A5 and A7 supports the claim of the Plaintiff that basing on Ex.A1, his name is mutated in the revenue records and pattedar pass book also issued on his name and he is in possession of the same. The defendant no.1 except contending in his written statement that the land bearing Sy.No.490, admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.01­38 guntas situated at Isnapur Village is an agricluture land and the said land is not divided into plots at any point of time and the registered sale deed vide document bearing no.4185/1989, dated:28.09.1989 is brought into existence in collusion with the unconcerned persons and the plaintiff is not definite where his so called plots are situated and by supressing the material facts the plaintiff filed this suit for ulterior motives, failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove his contention. Hence, the contention of the defendant no.1 is not believable.

20.As discussed supra, the plaintiff by producing oral and documentary evidence proved that he is possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the defendants are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, more particularly on 22.05.2016. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for prohibitory perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the

Issues No.I to III are answered in favour of plaintiff.

21.ISSUE NO.IV:­As discussed supra in Issues No.I to III, the Plaintiff is sufficiently established that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the the suit schedule property and the Defendants who are no way

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 19 of 20

concerned with the the suit schedule property are trying to interfere into his peaceful possession and enjoyment. Hence, he is entitled for grant of prohibitory perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants. Accordingly, the

Issue No.IV is also answered in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting prohibitory perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants no.1 to 3, by restraining the Defendants No.1 to 3, their men, agents and servants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated the Stenographer, transcribed by him, after correction, pronounced by me in 

the open court on this the 17 th day of October, 2024.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class 

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:: DEFENDANTS::  None

PW1: B.Sasnjay Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A1Ex.A1 is Registered sale deed vide document No.4185/1989,

dated:28.09.1989.

Ex.A2Old Pattadar Pass Book. Ex.A3Mutation Proceeding dated:17.03.1999.

Ex.A4Mee­Seva pahani for the fasli year 1423. 

O.S.No. 161 of 2016 Page No. 20 of 20

Ex.A5Mee­Seva pahani for the fasli year 1425. 

Ex.A6Market value certificate. 

Ex.A7Encumbrance Certificate. 

Ex.A8Ex.A8 Layout copy issued by Panchayath Secretary Grampanchayath Isnapur obtained under RTI.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:: Nil

Prl. Junior Civil Judge­cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sangareddy

TSSN030038202021

Presented on : 17-11-2021 Registered on : 17-11-2021 Decided on : 17-10-2024 Duration : 2 years, 11 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

Sangareddy AT ,MEDAK Presided Over by Sri P Laxmana Chary

OS/1277/2021

Exhibit No.:

: V Chandraiah Age: 63 Occupation : Address: P,lot No 45 and 46 Vamshi Towers Mahesh Nagar Colony Opp ETDC Kamala Nagar Hyderabad 2: V.Lingaiah Age: Occupation

VERSUS : Syed Khaleel Age: 51 Occupation : Address: H NO A/16 Mayuri Apartments 1st FloorMayuri Nagar Marg Opp Hyderabad Public School Begumpet Hyderabad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M/s Rapolu Bhaskar Advocate for : appearing for Syed Khaleel: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 17-10-2024 )

ORDER

Plaintiffs called absent,no representation. The suit is coming for depositing process of sole defendant conditionally on costs of Rs.200/- to DLSA Sangareddy, waited upto 3.45 PM. Even then there is no representation on behalf of plaintiffs to depositing process of sole defendant, costs also not paid. From that it appears the plaintiffs have no interest to peruse the matter, that may be the reason for non appearance of plaintiffs before the court for depositing process of sole defendant, costs also not paid. Hence, the court constrained to proceed further. Accordingly the suit is dismissed for default for non payment of process. The miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stands closed.

Date : 17-10-2024 (Sri P Laxmana Chary)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy

,MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri P Laxmana Chary) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} ,MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN030026942022

Presented on : 25-06-2022 Registered on : 25-06-2022 Decided on : 15-10-2024 Duration : 2 years, 3 months, 20 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

Sangareddy AT ,MEDAK Presided Over by Sri P Laxmana Chary

EP/44/2022

Exhibit No.:

: M/s Sri Balaji Sai Ram Chit Fund Pvt Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Sangareddy

VERSUS : JDR1 M Krishna Murthy Age: 42 Occupation : Address: H No 6-40 Near Markandeya Temple Shankarampet Village and Mandal Sangareddy District 2:JDR2 L.Dakya Age: 38 Occupation :

3:JDR3 D.Chadrashekar Goud Age: 51 Occupation :

4:D4 J.Ramchander Rao Age: 40 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : K N Bhasker Advocate for : appearing for JDR1 M Krishna Murthy: Advocate , , appearing for 2, 3, 4 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 15-10-2024 )

ORDER

The DHR represented by authorized signatory along with his counsel present and reported that JDRs paid the EP amount by filing full satisfaction memo, the same is recorded. Accordingly the EP is terminated.

Date : 15-10-2024 (Sri P Laxmana Chary)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy

,MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri P Laxmana Chary) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} ,MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN030021712020

Presented on : 06-10-2020 Registered on : 06-10-2020 Decided on : 17-10-2024 Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 11 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

Sangareddy AT ,MEDAK Presided Over by Sri P Laxmana Chary

EP/128/2020

Exhibit No.:

: Gowri Renuka Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, Sangareddy Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Sangareddy

VERSUS : JDR1 B.Prabhu Goud Age: 0 Occupation : Address: H NO 1-17 Vendikol Village Pulkal Mandal Sangareddy District 2:JDR2 M Raj Kumar Age: 35 Occupation :

3:JDR3 J Sangameshwar @ Madapathi Sangameshwar

Age: 37 Occupation :

4:JDR4 M Shiva Sai Age: 44 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M.Prabhakar Gupta Advocate for : appearing for JDR1 B.Prabhu Goud: Advocate , , appearing for 2, 3, 4 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 17-10-2024 )

ORDER

Salary attachment warrant against JDR No.2 executed. Hence EP against JDR No.2 closed. Accordingly the EP is closed.

Date : 17-10-2024 (Sri P Laxmana Chary)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy

,MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri P Laxmana Chary) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} ,MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN030021682020

Presented on : 17-09-2020 Registered on : 17-09-2020 Decided on : 17-10-2024 Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

Sangareddy AT ,MEDAK Presided Over by

EP/125/2020

Exhibit No.:

: Gowri Renuka Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, Sangareddy Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Sangareddy

VERSUS : Mamilla Gopal Age: 0 Occupation : Address: HNO.

2:Munigonda Pranay Age: 0 Occupation :

3:Dammugari Srinivas Goud Age: 0 Occupation :

4:Ausali Karthik

Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M.Prabhakar Gupta Advocate for : appearing for Mamilla Gopal: Advocate , , appearing for 2, 3, 4 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 17-10-2024 )

ORDER

The DHR represented by authorized signatory along with his counsel present and reported that JDR No.1 paid the EP amount by filing full satisfaction memo, the same is recorded. Accordingly the EP is terminated.

Date : 17-10-2024 (Sri P Laxmana Chary)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy

,MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri P Laxmana Chary) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} ,MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS