1 O.S.No.1 of 2007
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KAVALI.
Present :- Sri P.Panduranga Reddy, M.A., LL.M.,
Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.
Monday, this the 11th day of April, 2022
O.S.No.1 of 2007
BETWEEN
1) Chittamuru Satyanarayana Reddy.
2) Sudidala Narendra Reddy.
3) Sudidala Surendra Reddy.
4) Chittamuru Samrajyam.
5) Sudidala Leelavathi.
6) Sudidala Meenamma.
7) Alla Rajani.
8) Chittamuru Sudhakara Reddy.
9) Kondraju Anjaneyulu. . . . Plaintiffs.
AND
1) Marella Venkata Sesha Reddy.
2) Marella Dasaradharami Reddy.
3) Kunipogu Nageswara Rao.
4) Kunipogu Devasahayam.
5) Kunipogu Ramanaiah.
6) State of Andhra Pradesh represented by District collector, Nellore.
7) Joint Collector, Collectorate, Nellore.
8) Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali.
9) Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaligiri. . . . Defendants.
Counsel for the plaintiffs : Sri N.S.Kiran Kumar Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 5 : Sri A.Prasad Reddy Counsel for the defendants No.6 to 9 : Assistant Government Pleader
Date of arguments : 23-02-2022
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed :
a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property; 2 O.S.No.1 of 2007
b) for declaration that the order of defendants No.6 to 9 in Rc.E5.5956/06
Dt.27-01-2007 as illegal and unenforceable; and
c) for suit costs.
2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:-
The plaint schedule land and other land to the total extent of Ac.193.24 cents is originally belonged to a firm Quest Agrotech Ltd., Hyderabad who purchased the same in the year 1992 from its original owners under various sale deeds and enjoyed the same. Later, they sold away the total extent of Ac.193.94 cents which includes the plaint schedule land to M/s Simhapuri Sheep Pharma (P)
Ltd., Vijayawada for a sum of Rs.9,66,200/- under a registered sale deed Dt.08-06- 1995. One A.D.N.S.Prasad is the Managing Director of M/s Simhapuri Sheep
Pharma (P) Ltd., Vijayawada and he obtained Ryotwari Pass book for the said land.
Thus, M/s Simhapuri Sheep Pharma (P) Ltd., Vijayawada became the exclusive owner of the suit schedule land. One T. Nageswara Rao, who is the power of attorney agent of M/s Simhapuri Sheep Pharma (P) Ltd sold away item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property to the 1st plaintiff on 19-01-2006 under a registered sale deed and delivered possession also. On the same day he sold away item No.3 to the 2nd plaintiff, item No.4 to the 3rd plaintiff, item No.5 to the 4th plaintiff, item No.6 to the 5th plaintiff, item No.7 to the 6th plaintiff, item No.8 to the 7th plaintiff, item Nos.9 and 10 to the 8th plaintiff and item No.11 to the 9th plaintiff under separate registered sale deeds. Though the above sale deeds were executed on 19-01-2006, they were registered on 25-01-2006. The plaintiffs No.1 to 8 are close relatives and 9th plaintiff is their well wisher. Thus, the plaintiffs No.1 to 9 have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to
11. After their purchase, all the plaintiffs were came into one understanding to cultivate the plaint schedule land jointly for the effective cultivation and to avoid needless expenditure. They improved the land and fenced it by installing 10 bore points. They cultivated the land by raising black gram nearly in Ac.30-00 land and prepared to make it into a Mango and Orange garden. They have applied for
Ryotwari Pass books and the same is in process. All the defendants are residents 3 O.S.No.1 of 2007 of suit village and taking advantage of their local strength, the defendants have been devising ways and means to dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also complained the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaligiri and filed this suit initially for permanent injunction. During the pendencey of suit, on the representation given by the defendants, the 6th defendant without issuing any notice to the plaintiffs and without any enquiry issued proceedings unilaterally in
Rc.No.K3.5956/06 Dt.27-01-2007 directing the 9th defendant to take possession of the plaint schedule property. The order of 6th defendant is arbitrary and opposed to the Principles of natural justice. On the strength of the above order, the defendants No.7 to 9 are illegally trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3120/07 on the file of the Hon’ble
High Court of A.P wherein, the plaintiffs were directed to approach this Court to seek relief by impleading the defendants No.6 to 9. Hence, the plaintiffs impleaded the defendants No.6 to 9 in suit seeking the relief to declare the orders in Rc.E5.5956/2006 Dt.27-01-2007 as illegal and unenforceable.
3. Written statement filed by the 2nd defendant and got it adopted by the defendants No.1,3,4 and 5 denying most of the plaint averments and contended that the plaint schedule property and some other property is exclusively belongs to the Government. They do not aware of the purchase of land either by the Quest
Agro Tech Limited, Hyderabad or by M/s Simhapuri Sheep Pharma (P) Ltd.,
Vijayawada. Since the property is belongs to Government, neither the plaintiffs nor their vendors have got any right over the property even though they got registered sale deeds. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants No.1 to 5 and other 40 villagers nearly have occupied the lands including plaint schedule property and they have been cultivating the same. Being landless poor, they applied several times for assignment pattas and the District Collector also gave assurance to issue Pattas after verification. They are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The Patta granted to one Kancharla Venkata Subbamma for an extent of Hec.4.96.0 land in
Sy.No.239 and Patta granted to one Viswanadhuni Mahalakshamma wife of 4 O.S.No.1 of 2007
Narasaiah to an extent of Hec.4.96.0 in Sy.No.240 were cancelled on 13-12-1997 as per the orders in Rc.E.1204/79. The plaintiffs would not get any right or title over the plaint schedule property by virtue of the invalid registered documents.
The suit filed for bare injunction without asking declaration of right and title is not maintainable. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The defendant No.9 filed written statement and got the same adopted by the defendants No.6 to 8 denying most of the plaint averments and contended that the total extent of plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 11 is Ac.107.93 cents but not
Ac.104.98 cents and the same is classified as “ Gayyalu” (A.W. lands) in fair adangal. So, the above land is exclusively belongs to Government. The Quest
Agrotech Private Limited, Hyderabad has no right either to acquire or sell the above Government land to M/s Simhapuri Sheep Pharma Private Limited,
Vijayawada under registered sale deed. Hence, the sale deed Dt.08-06-1995 is not binding on the Government. The sale transactions narrated in plaint are not binding on the Government and they are not legally valid. The possession of item
Nos.1 to 9 is not valid possession. The plaintiffs have no right at all to raise Mango and sweet Orange gardens. But there are 10 bore wells in the schedule land.
Thellapadu village is taken over village. On the representations given by the defendants and some other villagers of Thellapadu about their cultivation in
Sy.Nos.243 and 246 etc., of Thellapadu and about the encroachment of lands by
Sri.Anji Reddy and Sudhakar Reddy of Rajupalem, Kodavaluru mandal, the District
Collector forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali to take immediate action and evict the encroachers. On 19-10-2006, the Revenue
Divisional Officer visited Thellapadu village and enquired the matter. After enquiry by following all the formalities of notices, the District Collector issued Telegraphic instructions on 23-09-2006 with a direction to protect the lands covered by
Sy.Nos.239 to 245 and all other Government lands. On 18-09-2006, it was proclaimed in the village asking the Public not to enter into Government lands without prior permission of the Government. Basing on the report, it is noticed that the following lands are settlement patta lands.
5 O.S.No.1 of 2007
Those are Survey No.240 Ac.12-26 cents, Survey No.241 Ac.10-06 cents,
Survey No.242 Ac.10-28 cents and Survey No.243 Ac.11-86 cents.
The said pattadars are not residents of Thellapadu village and they leased out the lands to one Marella Rami Reddy son of Venkata Reddy of Thellapadu village. While cultivating the lands, the said Rami Reddy encroached the
Government land to an extent of Ac.6.77 cents in Sy.No.244 and Ac.4-00 in
Sy.No.245. After issuing notice, the said lessee undertook that he will not enter into the Government lands. As per the report of Revenue Divisional Officer under
Rc.B.No.390/2006 Dt.26-10-2006, the following lands are settlement patta lands and the particulars of their transactions under registrations are mentioned as follows:
Sl.SurveyFullExtentName of theOrder No. Of No.Extenunderperson whosettlement officer No. tEnjoymentobtained S.O’s orders 12047.187.18Viswanadhuni S.R.No.89/7011A Venkata Dt.06.06.70 Sathyanarayana S/o Narasaiah 22269.949.94Surapaneni S.R.No.25/7011A Venkata Dt.12.06.70 Krishnaiah S/o Sreeramulu 322910.0010.00Alahari Gopala S.R.No.73/7011A Krishnaiah S/o Dt.05.06.70 Kotaiah 423912.2612.26Kancharla S.R.No.71/7011A Venkata Dt.05.06.70 Subbamma W/o Narayana 524012.2612.26Viswanadhuni S.R.No.89/7011A Mahalakshamma Dt.06.06.70 W/o Narasaiah 624110.0610.06Pola RaghavaiahS.R.No.97/7011A Dt.06.06.70 S/o Pitchaiah 724210.0610.06Nuvvisetty S.R.No.95/7011A Venkata SubbaiahDt.06.06.70 S/o Raghavaiah 824311.8611.86Nuvvisetty S.R.No.89/7011A Venkata SubbaiahDt.06.06.70 S/o Raghavaiah 925014.2314.23Bathala S.R.No.190/7011A Audiseshaiah S/o Dt.04.06.70 Jalaiah 6 O.S.No.1 of 2007
The above orders of settlement officer are not correct and they are bogus.
They are not enforceable under law and they are liable to be cancelled. The
District Collector, Nellore perused the records and found that as per fair adangals of the village, the plaint schedule lands are declared as “Gayyalu” (A.W lands).
Then, he passed orders in Rc.E5.5956/2006 Dt.27-01-2007 directing the defendant No.9 to take possession of the following lands.
Sl.No.Sy.No.Full Extent Extent under Classifications as Enjoyment per fair Adangal of the Ac. cents Ac. cents Collectorate 125014.2314.23Gayyalu 22047.184.04Gayyalu 323912.269.00Gayyalu 424012.266.26Gayyalu 524110.063.20Gayyalu 624310.869.86Gayyalu 7241,24210.009.86Gayyalu 822810.0010.00Gayyalu 924210.067.25Gayyalu 1022910.0810.08Gayyalu 112269.949.94Gayyalu
The plaintiffs are not the owners of suit schedule lands and they would not get any right over the lands which belong to Government. The plaintiffs are in illegally and unlawfully possession of the schedule lands and they are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have no right to ask the relief of declaration that the order of defendants No.6 to 9 in Rc.E5.5956/2006 dt.27-01- 2007 is illegal and unenforceable. This Court has no jurisdiction to declare the orders of defendants No.6 to 9 as illegal and unenforceable. The plaintiffs should have prefer an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administrator of
Hyderabad against the orders of District Collector or they would have approached to the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7 O.S.No.1 of 2007
4. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-
ISSUES:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration of the proceedings of
D-6 dt.27-01-2007 in R.C.E5.5956/06 as illegal and not binding on them ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
3. Whether the suit schedule property belongs to the Government as contended by the defendants 6 to 9 in written statement ?
4. To what relief ?
5. During trial, the plaintiffs examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.A1 to
A36. On behalf of the defendants, they examined DW1 to DW8 and got marked
Exs.B1, B2, C1 and C2.
6. Heard both sides and inspected the record.
7. Final order: Suit is decreed as per operative part of the judgment.
8. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDING:
Issue No.1:-Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration of the proceedings of D-6 dt.27-01-2007 in R.C.E5.5956/06 as illegal and not binding on them ?
It is the case of defendants No.6 to 9 in pleadings as well as in evidence that the plaint schedule lands are belong to Government as per fair adangal, hence the 6th defendant issued proceedings in Rc.E5.5956/2006 Dt.27-01-2007 directing the defendant No.9 to take possession of the suit schedule lands from plaintiffs as their possession is illegal and unlawful.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently submitted that that as per Sec.14 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 this Court has no jurisdiction to declare the proceedings of the District Collector dt.27-01-2007 in
Rc.E5.5956/2006 as illegal and unenforceable. On this aspect, learned counsel apparing for the defendants No.1 to 5 Sri.A.Prasad Reddy relied upon:
8 O.S.No.1 of 2007
2004(2) ALD 139
Karaka China Ramayamma Vs State Government of A.P and another
Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held in para No.6 that:
“ Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for granting an injunction except in cases where declaration of title in respect of the land in resepct of which notice was issued is sought. It is not in dispute that the suit is filed immediately after the appellant is served with Exs.A.1 and A.2 notices by the
Government. Since the appellant is not seeking a declaration of her title to the suit land, and since there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has been in long standing possession of the suit land prior to issuance of Exs.A.1 and A.2 notices by the respondents, in view of Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act, the suit for mere injunction filed by the appellant is not maintainable, and so I find no grounds to interfere with the decision of the lower Appellate court that the suit is not maintainable.”
Though the learned counsel also relied upon 2003(3) ALD349 State of
Andhra Pradesh V Guntur Dignumate Neti Kotala Dharam Chalivendra
Sangam and others, the facts involved in that case are entirely different from the facts of present suit.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs have purchased suit schedule lands from its rightful owners in the month of January,2006 under registered sale deeds/Exs.A9 to A17 and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the plaintiffs are bonofide purchasers of the suit schedule lands and the defendant
No.6 has no right to issue the above proceedings in question unilaterally and without any enquiry. He further submitted that this Civil Court has jurisdiction under Sec.14 of A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to declare the decision or order of the Government as illegal if it affects the title of a person. On this aspect he relied upon:
2007 SCJ Online (A.P) 1517
Addanki Adilakshmamma and others V District Collector, Ongole,
Prakasam District and others
9 O.S.No.1 of 2007
Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad elaborately discussed the scope of Sec.14 of A.P Encroachment Act, 1905 and held in para No.15 that:
“What Section 14 of the said Act bars is calling in question before a civil Court any decision made or order passed or proceeding taken by any officer or authority or the State Government under that Act. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court in respect of a decision, order or proceeding under that Act affecting the title to the land of a
person was not barred even under that provision and a suit for declaring such
a decision or order or proceeding affecting the title to the land of a person as illegal or void is obviously maintainable. The prohibition against grant of any injunction under the said provision was only in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by any officer or authority or State Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under that Act and not otherwise. When the subject matter of the present suit has nothing to do with anything done or purported to be done or proposed to be done under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act,1905, the bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts under Section 14 thereof has no relevance to the maintainability of the suit.”
11. A plain reading of Sec.14 of A.P Land Encroachment Act would reveals that the decision made or order passed or proceedings taken by any Officer or authority of the State Government under this Act affecting the title of the land of a person shall be called in question before a civil court in any suit, application or other proceedings, and in such a case an injunction shall also be granted by the
Court in respect of such proceedings taken by the Government.
12. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs1 to 6 coupled with the certified copies of sale deeds Exs.A9 to A17 would clearly speak that the plaintiffs No.1 to 9 have purchased the suit schedule lands from its rightful owner by name M/s
Simhapuri Sheep Pharma (P) Limited, Vijayawada for valuable consideration and since then they have been enjoying the same. Their vendor M/s Simhapuri Sheep
Pharma (P) Limited had purchased the suit schedule lands under a registered sale deed/Ex.A7 for Rs.9,66,200/- from its rightful owner Quest Agrotech Limited,
Hyderabad who purchased the same from different persons under registered sale deeds/Exs.A1 to A6. Moreover, the Government/D6 to D9 clearly admitted in pleadings as well as in evidence that the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule lands. Therefore, a conjoint perusal of all the facts goes to reveal that 10 O.S.No.1 of 2007 the plaintiffs have been enjoying the suit schedule lands since the date of their purchase under Exs.A9 to A17.
13.Though it is contended by the defendants No.6 to 9 that the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property is illegal, it is not established by them.
On this aspect learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs vehemently submitted that the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it and on this point he relied upon:
1997(4) ALD 649 (DB)
District Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad and others Vs
K. Narasing rao and others.
Wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P referred A.I.R 1982 SC 1081
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs T. Krishna Rao in which the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that “If there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the
Government to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Sec.6 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bonofide claim or title. Therefore, if the
Government is so interested, it can move the civil court and establish its right and title over the disputed land and then proceed with eviction proceedings.
14. In the instant case, knowing fully well about the purchase of suit schedule lands by the plaintiffs in the year 2006 under registered sale deeds Exs.A9 to A17 and also having knowledge of their possession and enjoyment over the schedule lands, the 6th defendant had passed the above orders in question without taking any recourse in the court of Law. Though it is contended by the defendants No.6 to 9 that the suit schedule property is exclusively belongs to Government, they did not initiate any legal proceedings for having its title declared and possession restored. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.I.R 1982 SC 1081
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs T. Krishna Rao, if at all the Government has interest in suit schedule property, it can move the Civil Court and establish its right and title over the property and then proceed with eviction proceedings.
Moreover, in order to establish the exclusive title of Government over the suit 11 O.S.No.1 of 2007 schedule land no supporting material is placed by the defendants No.6 to 9 except
Ex.B2. Therefore, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants and the above decisions relied upon by them are no way helpful to them.
15. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in forgoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the 6th defendant has no right to pass orders in Rc.E5.5956/2006 Dt.27-01-2007 unilaterally. Hence, the said orders passed by 6th defendant are not valid under Law and they are not binding on plaintiffs. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
16. Issue No.2:-Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
This being a suit filed for permanent injunction, onus of proof of the actual and settled possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing suit is upon them. According to the plaintiffs, originally the suit schedule lands are belonged to Quest Agrotech Ltd, Hyderabad who purchased the same in the year 1992 from its rightful owners under registered sale deeds/
Exs.A1 to A6. Later, they sold away the schedule property to M/s Simhapuri Sheep
Pharma (P) Ltd, Vijayawada on 06-06-1995 under a registered sale deed Ex.A7 from whom the plaintiffs have purchased the same under registered sale deeds
Exs.A9 to A17. The plaintiffs have been enjoying the suit schedule lands absolutely since the date of their purchase by cultivating the same.
17. Whilre reiterating the plaint averments in his affidavit of chief examination, the 8th plaintiff/PW1 deposed that himself and his father/1st plaintiff have been looking after the plaint schedule properties on behalf of the other plaintiffs also as they are relatives and 9th plaintiff is their well wisher. According to PW1, he was authorized by the other plaintiffs to give evidence on their behalf also. He deposed in cross-examination that he enquired about the title of their vendor and negotiated with them on behalf of the other plaintiffs also and purchased the schedule property. There are no ridges separating the lands of each plaintiff. He 12 O.S.No.1 of 2007 denied the suggestion that their vendor has no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of their purchase and further denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is belongs to Government. He denied the suggestion that they fabricated all the documents to grob the property and that they have no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property.
Though PW1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing is elicited to discredit their evidence.
18. PW2 to 4 have also testified that the 1st plaintiff and PW1 have been looking after the plaint schedule properties on their behalf also as they are close relatives.
Therefore, it is very clear from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 that the 8th plaintiff/PW1 has been looking after the plaint schedule property and he deposed on behalf of the other plaintiffs also. Under these circumstances, though there are some minor discrepancies on unimportant aspects in the evidence of PW2 to PW4, they cannot be viewed seriously. The 3rd party/PW5 clearly deposed in chief examination that the plaintiffs have purchased the schedule lands with his assistance. PW6 deposed that the plaint schedule lands are belonged to the plaintiffs and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Though PWs5 and 6 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing is elicited to discredit their evidence.
19. It is clear from the certified copies of registered sale deeds Exs.A9 to A17 that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule lands from its rightful owner
M/s Shimhapuri Sheep Pharma (P) Ltd, Vijayawada in the month of January, 2006 and on the same day possession was also delivered to them. In support of their case, the plaintiffs have got marked No.3 adangals under Exs.A19 to A27 which clearly reveal the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule lands as on the date of filing suit. It also reflects in Exs.A19 to A27 that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule lands. DW8/Tahsildar of Kaligiri clearly admitted in cross-examination that Exs.A19 to A27 were issued by the office of
M.R.O, Kaligiri and contents therein are correct. According to the plaintiffs, they came into an understanding to cultivate the plaint schedule lands jointly and they raised black gram nearly in Ac.30-00 land and prepared to raise Mango and 13 O.S.No.1 of 2007
Orange garden in other extent. The report filed by the Advocate commissioner under Exs.C1 and C2 is also speaking the same. Therefore, all these facts clearly reveal that after purchasing the plaint schedule property the plaintiffs have developed it by spending huge amount and cultivating the same jointly.
20. It is the case of defendants 1 to 5/DW1,DW2 and DW5 to DW7 in pleadings as well as in evidence that these defendants and other villagers have occupied the plaint schedule lands and other lands of Government and cultivating the same. DWs.3 and 4 have also deposed the same in evidence. However, no supporting documents are filed by the defendants to establish their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands at any point of time and the same was also admitted by DWs1 to 7 in cross-examination. Therefore, mere contention of the defendants not supported by evidence cannot be believed. Moreover, the
Government clearly admitted in pleadings as well in evidence that the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule lands. Though it is contended by the
Government/D6 to D9 that the plaintiffs are in illegal possession of suit schedule lands, they failed to prove it. Moreover, the Government cannot take unilateral decision to dispossess the plaintiffs without taking any recourse in the Court of law. Therefore, a conjoint perusal of all these facts goes to reveal that the plaintiffs have been enjoying the suit schedule lands since the date of their purchase.
21.Learned counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule lands under separate sale deeds, hence, a single suit is not maintainable on different cause of actions.
22. At this juncture it is pertinent to have glance of Or.1 Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure which runs as follows:
Order-1 Rule-1: Who may be joined as plaintiffs:-
All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where-
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and.
14 O.S.No.1 of 2007
(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
23.In the instant case, the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule lands from the same vendor and on the same day. According to the plaintiffs, they are cultivating suit schedule lands jointly for the effective cultivation and to avoid needless expenditure. It is clear from the evidence of PWs1 to 6 that the 1st plaintiff and 8th plaintiff/PW1 have been looking after the suit schedule lands on their behalf and on behalf of the other plaintiffs also. Moreover, it is clear case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have been interfering with their joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Therefore, all these facts clearly reveal that the right to relief of all the plaintiffs arose out of the same act and transaction. If the plaintiffs brought separate suits, no doubt the common question of law or fact would arise. Therefore, nothing is wrong in filing single suit by all the plaintiffs. Hence, there is no forces in the arguments submitted by the learned counsel appearing for defendants.
24. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants No.1 to 5 further submitted that since there is a dispute over the plaintiffs title, the suit for bare injunction without asking the relief of declaration is not maintainable. But in the present case on hand, admittedly there is no title dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. However, merely because the defendants have raised title dispute over the schedule property without any basis, it cannot be said that the suit for bare injunction without asking the relief of declaration is not maintainable.
As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.I.R 1982 SC 1081 Government of
Andhra Pradesh Vs T. Krishna Rao, if at all the Government has interest in suit schedule property, it can move the Civil Court and establish its right and title over the property and then proceed with eviction proceedings. Therefore, there is no force in the contention raised by the defendants counsel.
25. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in foregoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiffs have clearly established their settled possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the 15 O.S.No.1 of 2007 date of filing suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs are certainly entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
26. Issue No.3:-Whether the suit schedule property belongs to the
Government as contended by the defendants 6 to 9 in their written statement ?
So far as this issue is concerned, it is the case of defendants that the
Government is absolute owner of the suit schedule property. But no supporting material is placed by them to prove it except the sole testimony of DW8 and
Ex.B2. However, this being a suit filed for bare injunction the title dispute cannot be directly decided. As I discussed supra, if at all the Government has interest in suit schedule property, it can move the Civil Court and establish its right and title over the property. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
27. Issue No.4:-To what result?
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring the order proceedings of 6th defendant dt.27-01-2007 in Rc.E5.5956/2006 as illegal and not binding on plaintiffs, and permanent injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule lands.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of April, 2022.
Sd/- Sri P.Panduranga Reddy
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KAVALI
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiffs P.W.1: Chittamuru Sudhakara Reddy. P.W.2: Chittamuri Samrajyam. P.W.3: Sudidala Surendra Reddy. P.W.4: Sudidala Leelavathi. P.W.5: Anam Anji Reddy. P.W.6: Dornala Venkaiah. P.W.7: I. Sai Prasad, Advocate.
16 O.S.No.1 of 2007
For Defendants D.W.1: M. Dasaradharami Reddy. D.W.2: M. Venkata Sesha Reddy. D.W.3: P. Pullaiah. D.W.4: P. Ananda Rao. D.W.5: K. Nageswara Rao. D.W.6: K. Ramanaiah. D.W.7: K. Devasahayam. D.W8: D. Prameela. Exhibits marked
For Plaintiffs Ex.A1: C.C of sale deed dt.13-09-1992. Ex.A2: C.C of sale deed dt.28-09-1992. Ex.A3: C.C of sale deed dt.24-09-1992. Ex.A4: C.C of sale deed dt.23-09-1992. Ex.A5: C.C of sale deed dt.15-10-1992. Ex.A6: C.C of sale deed dt.24-09-1992. Ex.A7: C.C of sale deed dt.06-06-1995. Ex.A8: Attested copy 1-B. Ex.A9: C.C of Regd.Sale deed 19-01-2006. Exs.A10 to A17: C.C of Sale deeds dt.19-01-2006. Ex.A18: Certificate issued by M.R.O regarding the cist. Ex.A19: No.3 Adangal. Exs.A20 to A27: Adangal extracts. Ex.A28: Office copy of Private Notice. Ex.A29: C.C. of fair adangal Ex.A30: Possession Certificate issued by VRO Ex.A31: Attested copy of General Power of attorney dt.26-12-2005. Ex.A32: Report dated 5.3.2007 submitted by MRO to the Collector. Ex.A33: Letter dt.27-10-2006 addressed to R.D.O by M.R.O, Kaligiri. Ex.A34: Private notice issued by the Plaintiffs to the Assistant Government Pleader dt.16-12-2019. Ex.A35: RTI endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Kaligiri dt.26-12-2019. Ex.A36: Photo copy of proceedings issued by the District Collector, Nellore, Dt.27-01-2007. For Defendants Ex.B1: Attested Order copy of Tahsildar, Kaligiri. Ex.B2: Attested Adangal copy of Tahsildar, Kaligiri
Ex.C1: Commissioner Report. Ex.C2: Plan.
Sd/- Sri P.Panduranga Reddy
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KAVALI