O.S.No.108 of 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
IBRAHIMPATNAM : RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.
Present:- SMT. P. PADMAVATHI,
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.
Dated this the 19 th day of MARCH, 2020
Original Suit No. 108 of 2016
BETWEEN:
1) Morri Narsimha, S/o.Late Narayana Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.H.No.5-8, Koheda village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501511.
2) Morri Mallesh S/o.late Narayana, Aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-7, Koheda village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501511.…Plaintiffs
AND
1) Sathari Pratap Reddy, S/o.Late Veera Reddy
2) Ravula Mallesh, S/o.Jangaiah Aged 45 years, Occ: Real Estate R/o.Manchal Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3) Jitta Sravanthi, W/o.Sriram Reddy Aged 33 years, occ: Housewife
4) Jitta Swapna, W/o.Sripathi Reddy, Aged 36 years, occ: House Wife
Both are R/o.H.No.7-79, Pragathinagar Colony, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.…Defendants
This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Mokilla Srinivas Reddy, counsel for plaintiffs and of Sri.G.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Counsel for defendant No.1 and of Sri.D.Jagan, counsel for defendant No.2 & 3 and the defendant No.4 is set exparte, upon hearing both the counsel, perusal of material on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This is a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and persons claiming through them from causing interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule A & B properties and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule A & B properties.
O.S.No.108 of 2016
2
2)The main contents of the plaint are as follows:
That the plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 are the own brothers and sons of late Morri Narayana. The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the lands bearing Sy.No.712/ee admeasuring Ac.02-20 gts., and Sy.No.722/a admeasuring Ac.0-16½ gts., total admeasuring Ac.02-36 ½ gts., situated at Manchal Revenue Village,
Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is hereinafter referred as suit schedule A property.
That the plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the lands bearing Sy.No.712/u admeasuring Ac.02-20 gts., and Sy.No.722/I admeasuring Ac.0-16 ½ gts., total admeasuring Ac.02-36 ½ gts., situated at
Manchal Revenue Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is hereinafter referred to as suit schedule-B property.
That originally Pudutha Ramulu was the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the lands in Sy.No.712 admeasuring Ac.02-20 gts., and
Sy.No.722 admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., situated at Manchal Revenue Village,
Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dsitrict. Similarly wife of Pudutha Ramulu namely Pudutha Laxmamma was the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the lands in Sy.No.712 admeasuring Ac.02-20 gts., and Sy.No.722 admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., situated at Manchal Revenue Village, Manchal
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
That the plaintiff No.1 herein namely Morri Narsimha has purchased the lands bearing Sy.No.712 admeasuring Ac.02-20 gts., Sy.No.722 admeasuring Ac.0-16 ½ gts., total measuring Ac.02-36 ½ gts., situated at
Manchal Revenue Village i.e. suit schedule A property for valid sale consideration from Pudutha Ramulu S/o.late Sailu, under registered sale
O.S.No.108 of 2016
3
deed bearing document No.4581/2001, dated 22.12.2001, thereafter the name of plaintiff No.1 mutated as a pattadar, as per the ROR proceedings bearing No.B/1625/2002, dated 15.01.2003 and also issued pattedar pass book and title deed book in favour of plaintiff No.1, in respect of the suit schedule A property and his name also recorded as pattadar and possessor in respect of the suit schedule A lands, in revenue records.
That similarly the plaintiff No.2 herein namely Morri Mallesha has purchased the lands bearing Sy.No.712 admeasuring Ac.02-20 gts.,
Sy.No.722 admeasuring Ac.0-16½ gts., total admeasuring Ac.02-36 ½ gts., situated at Manchal Revenue Village I.e. suit schedule B property, for valid sale consideration from Pudutha Laxmamma W/o.Ramulu, under registered sale deed bearing document No.4582/2001, dated 22.12.2001. Thereafter his name mutated as a pattadar, as per the ROR proceedings bearing
No.B/1624/2002, dated 15.01.2003, and also issued pattadar pass book and title deed book in favour of the plaintiff No.2 herein, in respect of the suit schedule B property and his name also recorded as pattadar and possessor in respect of the suit schedule B property, in the revenue records. The plaintiff No.1 & 2 have purchased the suit schedule A and B properties respectively on 22.12.2001 and from the date of purchase of the suit lands, the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over their respective lands, without any interruption from anybody and the plaintiffs have invested huge amounts and developed the suit lands. Thus as stated above, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 herein are the absolute owners, pattadars and possessors of the suit schedule A and B properties respectively.
That the plaintiffs are resident of Koheda village, Hayathnagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District. The defendants 1 and 2 are residents of Manchal
Village and defendant No.3 and 4 are residents of Ibrahimpatan village and
O.S.No.108 of 2016
4
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the defendant No.2 is the real estate business man. The defendant No.1 is having land on western side to the suit schedule properties, the defendant No.1 through mediation of defendant
No.2 agreed to sell his land to defendant No.3 and 4 and at the same time the defendants 1 to 4 insisted to sell the suit schedule A and B lands to defendants 3 & 4 but the plaintiffs have not agreed to sell and stated that the plaintiffs are having the suit lands only, as such there is no intention to sell the suit lands, due to the said reason the defendants have developed ill motive against the plaintiffs pertains to suit schedule properties, due to the development made by the plaintiffs herein. Accordingly the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendants 2 to 4 herein started their illegal interference into the suit schedule A and B properties, the defendants are having the support, aid and help of the anti social elements of the village, though the defendants are no way concern with the suit lands, with a malafide intention to grab the suit lands belongs to the plaintiffs, one way or other way creating problems to the plaintiffs and causing illegal interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule lands. Accordingly on 08.04.2016, the defendant No.1 & 2 with the support of defendants 3 & 4 have tried to disturb the boundary stone of the suit lands, and tried to erect the new fencing boundary stone kaddies, as such the plaintiffs have lodged complaint against the defendants herein, but they failed to take action against them, because the police Manchal was influenced by the defendants, and on the other hand the police Manchal on the false complaint lodged by the defendant No.2 herein, registered a false case in crime No.73 of 2016 (C.C.No.92 of 2016) on the file of Hon’ble XXII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibirahimpatan, Ranga Reddy District, against the plaintiffs herein for the offence under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and the same is pending. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have made an
O.S.No.108 of 2016
5
application before the Tahasildar, Manchal Tahasil, to conduct spot (moka) panchanama and to fix boundary stones to suit lands by the Mandal surveyor, as such, basing on the said application, the revenue authorities has conducted panchanama on 19.04.2016 over the suit survey numbers by issuing necessary notice to all concern persons and fixed the boundaries to the suit schedule lands in the presence of panchas, vide its file
No.MS/883/2016.
That in pursuance of the common intention the defendants 1 and 2 with the support of Defendant 3 and 4 again on 11.09.2016 along with their supporters came to the suit schedule properties and tried to disturb the boundary stones and tried to fix new stones to the suit schedule A and B properties, and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties, but the plaintiffs herein with the timely help of their well wishers resisted the illegal acts of the defendants herein and retained the physical possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule A and B properties. The defendants herein taking the advantage of absence of plaintiffs from the village, threatening that, they will create documents in favour of third parties and further they will dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties by hook or crook. If the defendants are succeeded in their evil attempts, the plaintiffs will be put to a great and irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated by any means, as such the defendants have to be restrained from their illegal interference into the suit schedule properties.
The plaintiffs specifically submits that, the plaintiffs made complaint before the police Manchal, about interference of the defendants over the suit schedule properties, but the police failed to take action against the defendants herein. Further on the other hand the police indirectly supporting to the illegal acts of the defendants herein, as such to avoid future loss and inconvenience, the plaintiffs have no other alternative except
O.S.No.108 of 2016
6
to approach the Hon’ble Court for filing the present suit for the relief of perpetual injunction, in the matter.
That the defendants are one and the same, and the cause of action is one and the same and common, and the suit schedule A and B properties are abutting to each other, in the same survey numbers, as such the plaintiffs have jointly filed the single suit by paying separate court fee for each schedule of property, accordingly the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the plaintiffs to file the single suit by receiving the separate court fee for each schedule of property.
That the plaintiffs are real brothers, and both the plaintiffs purchased the suit lands on the same day from Pudutha Ramulu and his wife Pudutha laxmamma through two registered separate sale deeds, for equal extents, in the said sale deeds common boundaries mentioned pertains to total extent, but at the spot the plaintiffs cultivating their respective lands as mentioned in the suit schedule lands. Further on the southern side to their lands there is a approach way with a width of 20’ feet is existing, but the defendants 1 to 4 with a malafide intention to grab the said approach road and with a malafide intention to grab some extent from the suit schedule lands the defendants 1 to 4 herein with the support of anti social elements of village trying to create the said approach way upto 50’ feet width by encroaching into the plaintiffs lands, as such the plaintiffs objected for the same, then the defendant No.2 who is real estate business man with the support of defendants 1, 3 and 4 forcibly tried to fix the fencing stones in the plaintiffs lands and tried to encroach into suit schedule lands, as such the defendant
No.2 failed to get his real estate commission amount from defendant No.1, 3 and 4 as such the defendant No.2 who is no way concerned with said lands filed a false complaint with all false allegations, and on the influence of
O.S.No.108 of 2016
7
defendant No.1, 3 and 4, the police Manchal registered a false case against the plaintiffs with an intention to blackmail the plaintiffs, as such the plaintiffs have no other alternative except to approach this Hon’ble Court.
Hence, this suit.
3)On the other hand, defendant No.1 filed written statement contenting that the plaintiffs have not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and by suppressing all the real facts, they have filed the present false and fictitious suit, even though they are nothing to do with the suit schedule property and as such the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the same is deserves to be dismissed.
Further the defendant No.1 submitted that the defendant No.1 had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.01-00 gts., out of land bearing
Sy.No.712 of Manchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its original owner M.Rama Rao, through registered sale deed document dated 24.06.1966 for lawful and valid sale consideration. That the defendant No.1 is in continuous possession and enjoyment over the said land, as a bonafide purchaser having purchased the same for lawful and valid sale consideration.
That one Kummari Jangaiah and Erukala Ramulu high handedly caused interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.1 herein over the above said land and as such the defendant No.1 was forced to file a suit vide O.S.No.6 of 1988 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to decree the said suit vide its judgment and
decree dated 04.05.1988. Inspite of decree passed by this Hon’ble Court, the defendant therein tried to disobey the order of the Hon’ble Court and as such the defendant No.1 herein had filed a EP No.5/1989, on the file of this
Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to order police aid for the
proper implementation of decree passed in the said suit, vide EA No.1/1989
O.S.No.108 of 2016
8
dated 12.04.1989. That entire revenue record also categorically shows the
ownership and possession of the defendant No.1 herein in and over the above said land.
That the defendant No.1 had alienated an area of Ac.0-16½ gts., out of above said land admeasuring Ac.01-00 gts., in favour of defendant No.3 & 4, through registered sale deed document bearing No.11800/2016 dated 11.05.2016 and he is in possession and enjoyment over remaining land admeasuring Ac.0-23½ gts., in Survey No.712 of Manchal Village. That the plaintiffs herein with a malafide intention to grab the above said land belong to the defendant No.1 herein got filed the present suit with all sorts of false allegations, by fabricating some documents and also with wrong description of the property. That the plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties, more particularly within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule and as such the question of interference of the defendant herein in the alleged possession of the plaintiffs does not arise. The plaintiffs with a malafide intention brought into existence of the alleged panchanama and no point of time the Mandal surveyor conducted the alleged spot inspection and as such the question of fixing the boundaries to the suit schedule properties does not arise. That the plaintiffs filed the present suit with all sorts of fable allegations and as such suit of the plaintiffs is neither maintainable in-law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Further the defendant No.1 submitted that without prejudice to the pleas taken by the defendant No.1 herein, the present bare suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration in respect of the suit schedule property. That without any cause
O.S.No.108 of 2016
9
of action, the plaintiffs filed the present false and fictitious suit and as such the defendant No.1 herein is entitled for compensatory cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
In view of the facts enumerated in the foregoing paragraphs of the written statement, the defendant No.1 herein humbly submits that the plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties more particularly within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. Further the plaintiffs to grab the land belongs to the defendant
No.1 herein got filed the present suit with all sorts of false allegations and as such the plaintiffs are not entitle for any relief, much less the reliefs as sought by them in the above suit. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed by awarding compensatory costs to the defendant No.1 herein. Therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.
4)The defendant No.2 filed written statement and the same is adopted by defendant No.3 and denied all the contents of the plaint and submitted that the defendant No.3 and 4 are the joint owners, joint possessors and pattadars in respect of land bearing Sy.No.713/ admeasuring Ac.03-05 gts., Sy.No.714 admeasuring Ac.02-26 gts., and Sy.No.712 , admeasuring
Ac.0-16.5 gts., situated at Manchal village, Manchal Mandal, R.R.District.
the defendant No.3 & 4 have purchased the said land, through registered sale deed vide document No.11800/2016 dated 11.05.2016 for a valid sale consideration from the defendant No.1 herein and his son namely S.Jaya
Barath Reddy. After purchase of the said land, their names have been mutated in the revenue records, in respect of said land through file
No.B/1568/2016, dated 29.09.2016, since the date of purchase onwards the defendants 3 and 4 herein and their family members are continuous in
O.S.No.108 of 2016
10
possession in respect of said land and also fixed the boundary stones around their land in the presence of the plaintiffs herein.
That as a matter of fact that, the defendants 3 and 4 herein have purchased above said land including passage to approach the above said land and very categorically stated in their sale deed by showing passage with specific measurement. Since the date of purchase, these defendants herein are using as the said passage ingress and agrees. In fact the plaintiffs have no concern either with possession or title in respect of above said land including above said passage.
That the plaintiffs have filed false suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant No.4 herein, alleged that on 08.04.2016 and also on 11.09.2016, the defendant No.4 along with other defendants herein have come to the suit schedule properties and tried to disturbed the boundary stones. In fact the defendant No.4 herein is residing at Jargia Atlanta, US since from year 2014 onwards to till date. Accordingly the defendant No.4 herein interference into the land of plaintiffs does not arise. It is clearly goes to show that, the cause of action is a fabricated and created and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed and also it is clearly established that, the defendants were never interfered into the land of plaintiffs herein, only with an intention to knock away the land i.e. passage of the defendants herein, the plaintiffs have filed false suit with the false allegations against the defendants.
That the plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 herein have purchased land is one and the same land and moreover, the pleadings of plaintiffs and their alleged sale deeds are contradicting and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is specifically submits that, the alleged boundary of suit lands
O.S.No.108 of 2016
11
are fabricated and created, only for the purpose of this suit and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The defendants further submitted that, the plaintiffs have alleged that, “on the southern side to their lands there is an approach way with a width of 20’ feet is existing, but the defendant No.1 to 4 with a malafide intention to grab some extent from the suit schedule land, the defendants 1 to 4 herein with the support of anti-social elements of village trying to create the said approach way upto 50’ feet width by encroaching into the plaintiffs land” and hence the defendant denied the same. The plaintiffs have cleverly stated
before this Hon’ble Court to anticipate the defense taken by the defendants
herein. The defendants specifically submit that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to appoint an advocate commissioner sue-moto, to measure the said passage and to fix the stones as per admission made by the plaintiffs herein for fair disposal of the suit. In fact the plaintiffs have filed false suit with false allegations, only with an intention to knock away passage of defendants herein and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
As stated above the plaintiffs were also present at the time of fixing the boundary stone of the defendants herein, the question of to create the said approach way from 20 feets to upto 50 feet width does not arise at all.
Further, it is submitted that, as a matter of fact, the defendants 3 and 4 are having 20 feets width passage to approach their land and there are no other passage to reach their land, except the said passage only. The plaintiffs are concocted the said allegations, only with intention to occupy the said passage. In fact the plaintiffs have no concern either with possession or title in respect of said passage. That the plaintiff No.2 is not having title or possession in respect of suit schedule land and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
O.S.No.108 of 2016
12
That in view of the circumstances, the plaintiffs are not entitle to any relief much less the relief as sought by the plaintiffs herein. If the said relief is granted the defendants will be put to irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated by any means. Therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs and compensatory costs.
4)Basing on the plaint and written statement and after hearing the both parties the following issues are framed for trial.
1) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the land as on the date of filing of the suit?
2) Whether the defendants are tried to disturb the boundary stone and tried to fix up boundaries?
3) Whether the defendants got any easementary rights over the suit schedule land?
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants?
5) To what relief?
5)During the trial on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and also got marked Exs.A1 to A20. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants DWs 1 to 4 examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B10.
6)Heard both sides. The counsel for the plaintiffs and the counsel for defendant No.2 and 3 filed written arguments.
7)ISSUE NO.1:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the land as on the date of filing of the suit?
i)The plaintiff No.1 contended that he purchased Ac.02-20 gts., in
Sy.No.712 and Ac.0-16½ gts., in Sy.No.722 from the owner Pudutha Ramulu vide document No.4581/2001 dated 22.11.2001. To prove that PW1/Morri
Mallesha filed Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of sale deed bearing
O.S.No.108 of 2016
13
doc.No.4581 of 2001, dated 22.12.2001 which is showing that plaintiff No.1 purchased Ac.02-20 gts., of land in Sy.No.712/aa1 and Ac.0-16 ½ gts., in
Sy.No.722/ee from Pudutha Ramulu with the following boundaries:
North:Bounded Labour Lands; South:20 feet wide way to S.Prathap Reddy S/o.Veera Reddy and Kummari Jangaiah; East:Donka; West:Land of S.Prathap Reddy and Kummari Jangaiah.
Further the plaintiff No.1 contended that his name is mutated in the revenue records vide ROR proceedings No.B/1625/2002, dt.15.01.2003. But the plaintiff No.1 failed to file mutation proceedings.
The plaintiff No.2 contended that he purchased Ac.02-20 gts., in
Sy.No.712 and Ac.0-16½ gts., in Sy.No.722 from the owner Pudutha
Laxmamma w/o.Pudutha Ramulu vide document No.4582/2001 dated 22.11.2001. To prove that PW1/Morri Mallesha filed Ex.A2. Ex.A2 is the
Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.No.4582 of 2001, dated 22.12.2001 which is showing that plaintiff No.2 purchased Ac.02-20 gts., of land in
Sy.No.712/aa and Ac.0-16 ½ gts., in Sy.No.722/ee from Pudutha Laxmamma with the following boundaries:
North:Bounded Labour Lands; South:20 feet wide way to S.Prathap Reddy S/o.Veera Reddy and Kummari Jangaiah; East:Donka; West:Land of S.Prathap Reddy and Kummari Jangaiah.
Further the plaintiff No.2 contended that his name is mutated in the revenue records vide ROR proceedings No.B/1624/2002, dt.15.01.2003. But the plaintiff No.2 failed to file mutation proceedings. On seeing Exs.A1 & A2, this court opined that the boundaries mentioned in both the sale deeds are one and the same and the sale deeds executed on the same day.
O.S.No.108 of 2016
14
On the other hand, the defendant No.1 contended that he purchased
Ac.01-00 gts., of land in Sy.No.712 from its original owner M.Rama Rao through registered document dated 24.06.1966 and since then he is in possession of that land. To prove that defendant No.1 examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of 1-B Extract which is showing that defendant No.1 is having Ac.01-00 gts., of land in
Sy.No.712/aa1. But the defendant failed to file any document to show the boundaries of his Ac.01-00 gts., of land in Sy.No.712.
Further the defendant No.1 contended that he sold out Ac.0-16 ½ gts., out of Ac.01-00 gts., of land in favour of D3 and D4 through registered sale deed bearing doc.No.11800/2016 dt.11.05.2016 and he is in possession of
Ac.0-23 ½ gts, ,in Sy.No.712. The said document was marked by defendant
No.3/DW2. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.11800/2016, dt.11.05.2016 which is showing that defendant No.1 sold out Ac.0-16.5 gts., of land to D3 ad D4 in Sy.No.712 alongwith the lands in Sy.No.713 and 714. The land purchased by defendant No.3 and 4 in
Sy.No.712 are with the following boundaries:
North:Vendor land part of Sy.No.712; South:Land belongs to Kummari Mallaiah S/o.Jangaiah; East:Government Donka; West:Sy.No.713 and 714.
The defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs filed the present suit to grab his remaining land of Ac.0-23½ gts., in Sy.No.712. Further defendant No.3 & 4 contended that they got mutated their lands through
ROR proceedings No.B/1568/2016, dt.29.09.2016. Ex.B7 is the Certified copy of proceedings No.B/1568/2016 dt.29.09.2016.
O.S.No.108 of 2016
15
ii)To prove their possession plaintiffs filed Exs.A3 to A19. Ex.A3 is the
Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1990-91 (2 pages) which is showing that one Pudutha Ramulu S/o.Sailu is in possession of Ac.05-00 gts., of land in Sy.No.712/aa1 and Ac.01-00 gts., in Sy.No.722/ee. Ex.A4 & A5 are the
Certified Copy of pahanies for the years 2004-05 (4 pages) and 2008-09, which are showing that Pudutha Ramulu is in possession Ac.02.20 gts., in
Sy.No.712/aa2 and Ac.0-20 gts., in Sy.No.722/ee2 whereas Pudutha
Laxmamma is in possession of Ac.02-20 gts., in Sy.No.712/aa3 and Ac.0-20 gts., in Sy.No.722/ee3. Ex.A6 is the certified Copy of pahani for the year 2013-14(3 pages) which is showing that Morri Narsimha is in possession of
Ac.02-20 gts., in Sy.No.712/ee and Ac.0-16½ in Sy.No.722/aa whereas Morri
Mallesha is in possession of Ac.02-20 gts., in Sy.No.712/u and Ac.0-16½ gts., in Sy.No.722. Ex.A7 is the Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1421 (2 pages), Ex.A8 pahani for the fasli year 1422, Ex.A9 pahani for the falsi year 1423, Ex.A10 pahani for the fasli year 1424, Ex.P11 pahani for the fasli year 1425, Ex.P12 pahani for the fasli year 1426 which are showing that Morri Narsimha is in possession of Ac.02-20 gts., of land in
Sy.No.712/ee and Ac.0.1650 in Sy.No.722/e.
Likewise Ex.A13 pahani for the fasli year 1420, Ex.A14 pahani for the fasli year 1421, Ex.A15 pahani for the fasli year 1422, Ex.A16 pahani for the fasli year 1423, Ex.A17 pahani for the fasli year 1424, Ex.A18 pahani for the fasli year 1425, Ex.A19 pahani for the fasli year 1426 which are showing that Morri Mallesh is in possession of Ac.02-20 gts., of land in
Sy.No.712/u and Ac.0.1650 in Sy.No.722/e.
On the other hand, DW1 filed pahanies to show the possession of defendant No.1. Ex.B2 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87 is showing that defendant No.1 is in possession of Ac.01-00 gts., in
O.S.No.108 of 2016
16
Sy.No.712/aa. Ex.B3 is the Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1425,
Ex.B4 pahani for the fasli year 1426 which are showing that defendant No.1 is in the possession of Ac.01-00 gts., in Sy.No.712/aa1. Ex.B5 is the
Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1427 which is showing that defendant No.1 is having Ac.0.235 gts., in Sy.No.712/aa/1/1.
DW2 filed pahanies to show that defendants 3 & 4 are in possession of
Ac.0.1650 gts., in Sy.No.712/aa/1/2. Ex.B8 is the pahani for the fasli year 1426 which are showing that Jitta Shravanthi is in possession of Ac.0.1650 in Sy.No.712/aa/1/2. Ex.B9 is the pahani for the fasli year 1427 (9 sheets) which are showing that defendant No.3 is in possession of Ac.0.1650 in
Sy.No.712/aa/1/2.
On perusal of the pahanies it is noted that the total extent of
Sy.No.712 is Ac.10-09 gts., and out of which the vendor of the plaintiffs i.e.
Pudutha Ramulu and Pudutha Laxmamma are in possession of Ac.05-00 gts., and Defendant No.1 is in possession of Ac.01-00 gts., and thereafter, the defendant No.1 sold out Ac.0-16 ½ gts., of land to defendant No.3 and 4 and defendant No.1 is in possession of Ac.0-23 ½ gts.,
Hence, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 & defendant No.3 are having lands in Sy.No.712. Pahanies filed by the plaintiffs and defendants also showing that they are in possession of their respective lands.
iii)This court opined that, the real dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is that the defendant no.1 is trying to create the approach way upto 50 feet width by encroaching the land of plaintiffs and whenever the plaintiffs asked the defendants removed the stone kaddies forcibly and illegally fixed in the land of plaintiffs.
O.S.No.108 of 2016
17
PW1 in his chief examination itself stated that there is a 20 feet road towards southern side of the A & B Schedules property which leads to the land of defendant No.1 which is located on the west side.
Even though the defendants filed Ex.B6 i.e. registered sale deed vide doc.No.11800 of 2016, dt.11.05.2016, in which the boundaries of defendant
No.3 & 4 mentioned, no document filed by the defendant No.1 to show the boundaries of remaining Ac.0-23½ gts., of land pertaining to defendant
No.1. Further in Ex.B6 there is a map attached to Ex.B6. The counsel for the plaintiff objected that there is no link document filed by the defendants to show that map and it is created for the convenience of the defendants only. This court also opined that except ROR proceedings defendant No.1 did not filed any document to show the boundaries of his land, as such Ex.B6 cannot be taken into consideration. Even though the defendant No.1 contended that he filed an injunction suit against the vendor of the plaintiffs, no such documents filed by the defendant No.1.
iv)Further, the plaintiff/PW1 filed Ex.A20 i.e. certified copy of panchanama in file No.MS/883/2015, dt.19.04.2016 which is showing that on 19.04.2016 the surveyor got measured the land in Sy.No.712 and 722 on the application of the plaintiffs. But the defendants denied the same and stated that it is created one. Further, this court noticed that the signatures of defendants are not obtained in Ex.A20. Hence, this court opined that in the absence of the defendants that land was measured by the surveyor.
On the other hand, defendants filed Ex.B10 original document dt.24.03.2015 which is showing that on 24.03.2015 one Balaraju
S/o.Narsimha and Morri Mallesham executed a document in which it is mentioned that there is no dispute with 20 feet road.
O.S.No.108 of 2016
18
While this court perusing the pleadings, nowhere in the written statement the existence of Ex.B10 was mentioned. Further, DW2 stated that she do not know how she obtained Ex.B10. Hence, this court opined that it is a created one for the purpose of the suit.
v)From the pahanies filed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs proved that they are in possession of suit schedule lands. Further from the pleadings and pahanies filed by the defendants, the defendants 1, 3 & 4 are not having any land in Sy.No.722.
8)ISSUE NO.2:
2) Whether the defendants are tried to disturb the boundary stone and tried to fix up boundaries?
PW1 in his chief examination stated that on 11.09.2016 defendant no.1 and 2 alongwith defendant No.3 and 4 came to the suit schedule property and tried to disturb the boundary stone and tried to fix new boundary stones in the A and B schedule properties.
But in the cross examination, PW1/Morri Mallesha stated that defendant No.1 and 2 erected stone pillars in his land by widening donka which is a path way. But according to Exs.A1 & A2 is clearly showing that there is a 20 feet road towards southern side of the suit lands. Hence, evidence of PW1 is not believable.
Further PW1 filed Ex.P20 which is showing that on 19.04.2016 Mandal
Surveyor fixed the boundaries of Sy.No.712 and 722.
According to plaintiffs, they purchased the land in Sy.No.712 in the year 2001 and fixed boundaries on 19.04.2016. Further, the boundaries mentioned in Exs.A1 & A2 and boundaries mentioned in the plaint are one
O.S.No.108 of 2016
19
and the same that towards southern side there is a 20 feet road. But in the cross examination PW1 stated the boundaries of Sy.No.712 as
East :Their land in Sy.No.23; West:Land of defendant No.1; North:Government land South:Kummari Mallaiah land.
PW1 completely changed the southern boundary which is in dispute.
From the above discussion, there should be a 20 feet road towards southern side of the land of the plaintiff to reach the land of the defendant
No.1. But surprisingly PW1 denied the same and stated that there is no 20 feet road and it is a path way. Hence, the evidence of PW1 not tallying with the documentary evidence.
PW2/K.Mallesha even though in his chief examination stated that defendants causing interference with the possession of the plaintiffs. In the cross examination PW2 stated that defendant No.1 never interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. Further, PW2 admitted that he do not know anything with regard to the suit schedule land. Further, PW2 in the cross examination of counsel for D2 & D3 admitted that D3 and D4 has to pass through the land of the plaintiffs to reach their land, as there is no other way to reach their land. Pw2 nowhere stated that the defendants damaged the stone pillars and kaddies which are fixed by the plaintiffs.
Pw3/Ravula Lingaiah who is the relative of plaintiffs in his chief examination stated that the defendants are causing interference. PW3 in his cross examination stated that he do not know against whom the plaintiff filed the present suit and he cannot identify defendant No.3 and 4. PW3 denied that there is a path way to reach the land of defendant No.3 & 4 beside the land of the plaintiff. Further, he stated that on the southern side
O.S.No.108 of 2016
20
there is a land belongs to Kummari People. Nowhere PW3 stated that there is a way to reach the lands of defendant No.3 & 4 through the plaintiffs.
Hence, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 not corroborating with each other.
Nowhere Pw3 specifically stated that the defendants damaged the stone pillars.
Hence, this court opined that the defendants never damaged any boundary stones which are laid by the plaintiffs. Hence, issue No.2 answered against the plaintiffs.
9)ISSUE NO.3:
3) Whether the defendants got any easementary rights over the suit schedule land?
As the Exs.A1 and A2 which are filed by the plaintiffs itself clearly showing that there is a 20 feet road towards southern side of the land of the plaintiffs to reach the land of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 is having easementary right over the 20 feet road. PW2 also stated that there is no other way except through the land of the plaintiffs to reach the lands of defendants 3 & 4.
Hence, this court opined that the defendants are having easementary right over the 20 feet road which is located on the southern side of the land of the plaintiffs only but not the entire suit schedule property.
10)ISSUE NO.4:
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants?
Even though the plaintiffs proved their title and possession over the suit schedule property, as the interference of the defendants is not proved and there is a 20 feet road towards southern side of the suit schedule
O.S.No.108 of 2016
21
property on which the defendants are having easementary right, injunction can be granted to the extent of Ac.02-20 gts., in Sy.No.712/e and
Sy.No.02.20 gts., in Sy.No.712/u and as the defendants are not having any land in Sy.No.722 the defendants are hereby directed not to enter into the land of Sy.No.722.
11)ISSUE NO.5:To what relief?
As answered in issue No.1 to 4, the defendants are hereby restrained to cause interference with the suit schedule lands while they are permitted to use the 20 feet road towards southern side of the suit schedule lands as per Exs.A1 & A2.
12)In the result, the suit is decreed partly restraining defendants, their agents, servants and persons claiming through them from causing interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule A & B properties and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule A & B properties, except to use the 20 feet road towards southern side of the suit schedule lands as per Exs.A1 & A2.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of March, 2020.
Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ibrahimpatnam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:- FOR DEFENDANTS:-
PW1 : Morri Mallesha DW1 : Sathari Pratap Reddy PW2 : Kasramoni MalleshDW2 : Jitta Sravanthi PW3 : Ravula LingaiahDW3 : Yenugonda Mallaiah DW4 : Kasramoni Lingamaiah
O.S.No.108 of 2016
22
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:-
Ex.A1:Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.No.4581 of 2001, dated 22.12.2001 Ex.A2:Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.No.4582 of 2001, dated 22.12.2001 Ex.A3:Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1990-91 (2 pages) Ex.A4:Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2004-05 (4 pages) Ex.A5:Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2008-09 (4 pages) Ex.A6:Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2013-14(3 pages) Ex.A7:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1421 (2 pages) belongs to plaintiff No.1 Ex.A8:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1422 (2 pages) Ex.A9:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1423 (2 pages) Ex.A10:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1424 (2 pages) Ex.A11:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1425 (2 pages) Ex.A12:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1426 (2 pages) dated 17.06.2016 Ex.A13:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1420 (2 pages) belongs to plaintiff No.2 Ex.A14:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1421 (2 pages) Ex.A15:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1422 (2 pages) Ex.A16:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1423 (2 pages) Ex.A17:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1424 (2 pages) Ex.A18:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1425 (2 pages) Ex.A19:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1426 (2 pages) Ex.A20:Certified Copy of panchanama in file No.MS/883/2015, dated 19.04.2016
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1:Certified Copy of 1-B extract (ROR) Ex.B2:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87 Ex.B3:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1425 Ex.B4:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1426 Ex.B5:Certified Copy of pahani for the fasli year 1427 Ex.B6:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.11800/2016
dated 11.05.2016
Ex.B7:Certified copy of proceedings No.B/1568/2016 dt.29.09.2016 Ex.B8:Certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 1426 (9 sheets) Ex.B9:Certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 1427 (9 sheets) Ex.B10:Original document dt.24.03.2015 (marked as per the orders dt.08.05.2019)
Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ibrahimpatnam