1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: LAKKIREDDIPALLI
PRESENT: PALLAGANI RAJASEKHAR,
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
LAKKEREDDIPALLI.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
O.S.No.14/2014
Between:
1Sivapuram Chinnapa Reddy @ Chinnapeddireddy S/o. Papireddy, (died) (name of the 1st plaintiff amended as per orders in I.A.No.119/2015, dated.11.12.2015).
2Sivapuram Gurunadhareddy S/o. Late S.Chinnapeddulreddy, aged about 46 years, 3Sivapuram Venkataramanareddy, S/o.late S.Chinnapeddulreddy, aged about 59 years, both are Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Sivapuramvandlapalli, H/o.Gopanapalli, Galiveedu Mandal, Y.S.R.District. (2nd and 3rd plaintiffs who are L.Rs of deceased 1st plaintiff are added as per orders in I.A.No.100/2017, dated.03.04.2017) :: Plaintiffs Versus.
1Chintamreddy Kotireddy, S/o.Venkatareddy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Sivapuramvandlapalli, H/o.Gopanapalli Village, Galiveedu Mandal, Y.S.R.District.
2The District Collector, Kadapa 3The Tahsildar, Galiveedu Mandal, Kadapa District.
(Defendants Nos.2 and 3 are added as per orders in I.A.No.120/2015, dated.11.12.2015) :: Defendants This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 15-06-2020 in the presence of Sri M.L.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs, Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, Advocate for defendant No.1 and of Sri G.Reddy Sekhar, AGP for defendants Nos.2 and 3, upon hearing both sides, upon the perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
Originally sole plaintiff namely Sivapuram Chinnapareddy @
Chinnapeddireddy filed the suit against the sole defendant Chintamreddy Kotireddy for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over CDEF plaint
2
schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2)Subsequently on the death of the sole plaintiff, his legal heirs i.e., plaintiffs 2 and 3 were brought on record as L.Rs of deceased 1st plaintiff as per orders in I.A.No.100/2017, dated.03.04.2017 in this suit. As 1st defendant taken plea in his written statement that name of the plaintiff is only Sivapuram
Chinnapeddireddy but not Sivapuram Chinnapareddy and suit is not maintainable without adding of Tahsildar, Galiveedu. Subsequently, on the applications filed by the plaintiff, the name of plaintiff is amended as Sivapuram Chinnapareddy @
Chinnapeddireddy and defendants 2 and 3 are brought on record as per orders in respective I.A.Nos.119/2015 & 120/2015, dated.11.12.2015 respectively.
3)The plaint schedule property is as follows:-
The property situated in Gopanapalli Village of Galiveedu Mandal of
Y.S.R.District. Sy.No.603/20 an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.0.96 cents, bounded by:-
East: The land of plaintiff
West : The land of Sivapuram Peddireddy
North: The land of Sivapuram Iragamma
South : Rastha
East to West 52 meters and North to South 5 meters.
4)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant are residents of Sivapuramvandlapalli of
Gopanapalli Village of Galiveedu Mandal. Both of them are having their respective houses in the village, in between their houses there is a street running North to
South connecting C.C. road of the village which runs from East to West which is shown as street in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs are having agricultural land which is shown as ABCD in the plaint plan to an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.603/20 of Gopanapalli Village. In the said land the 1st plaintiff also constructed a house on
North-East corner. While so, the 1st defendant requested the 1st plaintiff to sell a portion of his land on the west of his house for which the 1st plaintiff refused the same, since then the 1st defendant bore grudge against the 1st plaintiff and intended to cause wrongful loss to the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant threatened to occupy portion of plaintiffs land shown as CDEF highhandedly without any manner of right whatsoever. Few days back prior to the filing of the suit, the 1st defendant threatened to occupy a portion of land shown in red ink as CDEF in the plaint plan.
3
The 1st defendant managed the revenue officials to get wrongful gain. The 1st defendant is a powerful man in the village and plaintiffs are not match to the 1st defendant. The said ABCD land shown in the plaint schedule survey number is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs which they got from their fore fathers. The revenue authorities also entered the name of the 1st plaintiff as enjoyer of plaint schedule survey number land and even issued rythuvari pattadar passbook and revenue title deed as pattadar as well as enjoyer of the plaint schedule survey number land to an extent of Ac.0.96 cents. The 1st defendant threatened to occupy the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents which is shown as CDEF in the plaint plan. The disputed land is shown as CDEF in the plaint plan. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.
5)The 1st defendant filed his written statement by denying all the material allegations made in the plaint. The 1st defendant admitted that the plaintiffs and himself are residents of Sivapuramvandlapalli of Gopanapalli village of Galiveedu
Mandal. The 1st defendant admitted that the plaintiff and himself having their respective residential houses in their village. The plaintiffs have no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property which is Bandla Rasta and thus this suit for bare permanent injunction is not maintainable without declaration of title over the suit schedule property and also the suit is not maintainable without adding of
Tahsildar, Galiveedu. The houses and doorways shown in the plaint plan are not correct and the 1st defendant is filing his written statement along with Google plan for the suit property and village Bandla Rasta. The suit schedule property Bandla rasta running from cement road up to entrance of the village and subsequently rasta of Sivapuramvandlapalli and Nallabattinavandlapalli village and to reach the house of plaintiffs, 1st defendant and others. The plaint plan filed by the plaintiff is totally false and there is no street in front of “AB” line and it is misleading the court. The door way of Parvatha Reddy is situated on eastern side and northern side to his house but the plaintiff intentionally wrongly shown as western side. There is rasta running from west to east and its southern side Nallabattinavandlapalli village is situated and adjacent to the rasta there is black stone fencing and its north
Sivapuramvandlapalli is situated and the suit schedule Bandla rasta is only rastha to enter into the Sivapuramvandlapalli. The said Bandla rasta using for the past several years of all villagers of Sivapuramvandlapalli and all of sudden in the month of September, 2011 at midnight the plaintiff ploughed the Bandla rasta with
4
tractor and merged into his land and closed the Bandla rasta by stone fencing and all the villagers of Sivapuramvandlapalli made complaint to the Tahsildar,
Galiveedu about highhanded activity of closing of Bandla rasta by the plaintiff. On 11.09.2011 the then Tahsildar, Galiveedu and also Sub-Inspector of Police,
Galiveedu visited Sivapuramvandlapalli village and also the suit schedule property and recorded the statements of villagers and on 14.09.2011 Tahsildar, Galiveedu issued proceedings in Ref.No.B/163/2011 under Sec.133 of Cr.P.C., and directed the plaintiff to remove obstructions made to the Bandla rasta (suit schedule property) and restore Bandla rasta as usual in previously. The plaintiff willfully disobey the orders of Tahsildar, Galiveedu and continued to obstruct the Bandla rasta and thus the Tahsildar, Galiveedu on 01.01.2014 issued notice to the plaintiff to remove obstructions to Bandla rasta otherwise they remove the obstructions even then the plaintiff intentionally and highhandedly not obey the notice of Tahsildar,
Galiveedu and thus on 20.01.2014 he addressed letter to the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Galiveedu and requested him to provide police protection to remove obstructions caused by the plaintiff. After that due to Samaikya Andhra bandh and elections and due to busy with their duties the Tahsildar, Galiveedu unable to take action against the plaintiff and suppressing the above facts the plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction and obtained exparte interim injunction and stopped to take action by the Tahsildar, Galiveedu with the protection of police, Galiveedu.
Plaintiffs suppressing the real facts and filed this false and frivolous suit against the defendant alone even though it is very difficult to all the Sivapuramvandlapalli villagers to go to their houses without Bandla rasta which is suit schedule property.
The plaintiff with malafide intention filed this suit by suppressing real facts and closed the Bandla rasta and objecting the villagers to go Sivapuramvandlapalli village. Thus, Tahsildar, Galiveedu is necessary party to this suit and without impleading him the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has no prima-facie case and balance of convenience and if the Hon’ble
Court granted permanent injunction this defendant and other villagers of
Sivapuramvandlapalli would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Defendant and other villagers have no other rasta to enter into their village and the suit schedule property is Bandla rasta even in the Google map of India. Thus, the suit schedule property is bandla rastha and the plaintiff never cultivated the suit property. The total extent in Sy.No.603/20 is Ac.0.96 cents and out of it an extent of Ac.0.20 cents
5
situated with village houses, rasta and temple. The pattadar passbook and title deed stands in the name of the plaintiff are not related to the suit property. The plaintiff name is only Sivapuram Chinna Peddi Reddy but not Sivapuram Chinnapa Reddy.
Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6)Defendant No.1 filed additional written statement stating that the plaintiff obtained exparte interim injunction in I.A.No.67/2014 over the suit schedule property and with the assistance of his two sons highhandedly occupied the suit schedule property and highhandedly closed the existing rasta by fencing and planted mango trees. The plaintiff has no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and thus, this suit for mere permanent injunction is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7)In this case, in spite of several opportunities, Assistant Government
Pleader for defendants 2 and 3 did not file any written statement and hence, this
Court treated that there is no written statement on behalf of defendants 2 and 3.
8) Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:- 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?
2To what relief?
9)On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and one L.Peddappa Naidu was examined as D.W.2 and
Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendants 2 and 3.
10)Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs, learned counsel appearing for 1st defendant and learned AGP for defendants 2 and 3 through
Video Conferencing via., Wahtsapp. Perused the material on record.
11)ISSUE NO.1:
It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs that plaintiffs are absolute owners of the property to an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in
Sy.No.603/20 of Gopanapalli Village which is shown as ABCD in Ex.A.4 rough sketch and 1st plaintiff had also constructed a house on North – East corner of his land. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that 1st defendant requested the 1st plaintiff
6
to sell portion of his land i.e., on the West of his house for which the 1st plaintiff refused and as such 1st defendant threatened to occupy the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.603/20 of Gopanapalli Village which is shown as CDEF in Ex.A.4 rough sketch. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that to prove their possession as on the date of filing of the suit, they filed Exs.A.1 to A.3 and A.4 to A.6 revenue documents. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that there is no rastha through the plaint schedule property and as such the question of plaintiffs intentionally closed the old existing rastha situated within the suit property does not arise. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that there is another rastha existing in
Sy.No.602 to reach the tractors with agricultural material and other four wheeler vehicles to reach the Sivapuramvandlapalli village and Nayanivaripalli village. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that Ex.B.8 village map, there is no existing rastha within the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the contents of Ex.B.5 clearly shows that there is no plan marked rastha in the plaint schedule property.
12)It is the contention of the 1st defendant that suit schedule property is bandla rastha running from cement road up to entrance of the village. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A.4 rough sketch filed by the plaintiffs is totally false. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that the suit schedule bandla rastha is only rastha to enter into Sivapuramvandlapalli and the said bandla rastha using for the past several years of all the villagers of Sivapuramvandlapalli and all of sudden in the month of September, 2011 at midnight the plaintiffs ploughed the bandla rastha with tractor and merged into their land and closed the bandla rastha by stone fencing. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that it is very difficult to all the Sivapuramvandlapalli villagers to go to their houses without bandla rastha which is suit schedule property. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that the total extent in Sy.No.603/20 is Ac.0.96 cents and out of it an extent of Ac.0.20 cents situated with village houses, rastha and temple. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that he has filed Ex.B.8 village map in which there is existing rastha within the suit schedule property and the said rastha is plan marked rastha. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that except the suit schedule bandla rastha, there is no other alternative rastha to pass tractors with grass and agricultural material or any other vehicle to enter into Sivapuramvandlapalli village. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that the documentary evidence filed by him in the form of Exs.B.1
7
to B.8 proved that there is existing plan marked rastha through the plaint schedule property.
13)It is settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere and disturb such lawful possession.
14)The 2nd plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked through him. P.W.1 in his chief-examination reiterated all the material averments made in the plaint. P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st defendant. P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that around 20 to 25 houses are in existence in Sivapuramvandlapalli village. Around 12 houses are in existence in Nayanavaripalli village. Since 2011 there is a dispute between them and the defendant No.1 in respect of the plaint schedule property. He does not know whether there is a bandla rastha towards
South of the land of S.Iragamma. The distance between Nayanavaripalli and
Sivapuramvandlapalli is about 100 Mts. Pathapalli village is located on the East –
North direction of Sivapuramvandlapalli village. Towards South of
Avulavandlapalli village there is a stone fencing. There is no road towards East of his house. P.W.1 admitted that there is a road near the house of Parvatha Reddy which leads from East – West. The house of Parvatha Reddy is located opposite direction of his house. To the East of house of Parvatha Reddy, the house of
Venkata Narayana is located. On further East of the house of Venkata Narayana, the house of one Kotireddy is located. He admitted that on the further East of the house of said Kotireddy, the house of Sivapuram Iragamma and her vacant land are located. There is 12 feet road existing between the houses of Sivapuram Iragamma and Krishna Reddy. He admitted that on the further South of the house of Krishna
Reddy, the houses of Reddappa Reddy and Narayana Reddy are located. He admitted that there was stone fencing which leads from West to East i.e., from his land to the house of one Ramachandra by the date of filing of the suit and at present the said stone fencing is not in existence. The defendant erected the road between the houses of one Ramachandra and Krishna Reddy. P.W.1 admitted that in his total extent of Ac.0.96 cents, his house, Kottam, house of Venkataramana, temple and vacant land are in existence. He admitted that the contents in Ex.A.7 proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Galiveedu, dt.29.06.2013 are all true and correct.
8
He deposed that in the year 2011 itself the defendant tried to erect road through my land highhandedly. He along with his father did not receive any notice from the then Tahsildar, Galiveedu Mandal at any point of time. He is not aware the order passed by the then Tahsildar, Galiveedu on 14.09.2011 directing his father not to obstruct the villagers to pass through the Bandla rastha. He is not aware the notice, dt.2.01.2014 issued by the then Tahsildar, Galiveedu to his father. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that for the past several decades the villagers used the suit schedule property as Bandla rastha. P.W.1 denied the suggstion that that except the said
Bandla rastha there is no other rastha to reach the Sivapuramvandlapalli and
Nayanavaripalli village. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaint schedule property has not been in their possession and enjoyment and the same is used as rastha by the villagers and as such they are not entitled for the equitable relief of permanent injunction.
15)One Sivapuram Venkata Reddy was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of plaintiffs. P.W.2 in his chief-examination deposed in the similar lines of P.W.1.
P.W.2 further deposed that there is no rastha in the suit schedule property. P.W.2 deposed that there is existing rastha situated in Sy.No.602 of Gopanapalli village.
P.W.2 deposed that the 1st defendant has no right or authority over the suit schedule property. P.W.2 deposed that there were mango trees aged about 7 years in suit
Sy.No.603/20 to an extent of Ac.0.96 cents. P.W.2 was subjected to cross- examination by learned counsel appearing for 1st defendant. P.W.2 in his cross- examination deposed that the survey number of the suit schedule property is 603 and its extent is Ac.0.96 cents. There were two houses existing in said Ac.0.96 cents. Temple is also located in the said Ac.0.96 cents. The village
Sivapuramvandlapalli covered with stone fencing on Southern side which leads from West – East. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that towards Southern side of
Sivapuram Iragamma land there is bandla rastha. There is a rastha towards
Southern side of the house of Gurnadha Reddy. There is a cement road in between the houses of Dharma Reddy and Parvatha Reddy. Towards Northern side of the house of Kotireddy, there is a cement road. His house is also situated in Sy.No.603.
The land of Sivapuram Iragamma is also situated in Sy.No.603. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that there is a bandla rastha towards Northern and Eastern side of the land of plaintiffs. P.W.2 admitted that there is a dispute with regard to the rastha and the same was also placed before the MRO., Galiveedu and also the SI of
9
Police, Galiveedu P.S. The Tahsildar, Galiveedu may be issued orders directing them not to obstruct the use of rastha by the villagers. But, they did not agree for the same. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that there is a rastha existing in the suit schedule property and 1st defendant and the villagers have right over the said rastha in the suit schedule property. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that after filing of this case plaintiffs planted the mango plants. The mango trees are fruit bearing trees for the past three years.
16)The 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked through him. D.W.1 in his chief-examination reiterated all the material averments made in his written statement. D.W.1 was subjected to cross- examination by learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs. D.W.1 in his cross- examination deposed that the survey number of the suit schedule property is 603/20. He cannot say the suit schedule property extent. The suit schedule property belonged to plaintiff. He has no documentary proof to show that he has right over the suit schedule property. He did not file any documentary proof before this Court to show that he has right over the suit schedule property. He admitted that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. He admitted that there was cement road between the houses of one Ramachandra and Krishna Reddy. He admitted that there was cement road on the South of his village. The four wheelers came to their village through the patta lands of Kamasani Chinnapa Reddy,
Nallabathina Chinnapa Reddy and others as the said patta lands were vacant. D.W.1 denied the suggstion that there is no rastha over the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that he along with the villagers and his ancestors never passed through the alleged rastha over the plaint schedule property. He himself scribed Ex.B.1 complaint. He did not obtain the signatures of his villagers in
Ex.B.1 complaint. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that after plaintiffs filed the present suit before this Court, he created Ex.B.1 complaint. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that he managed not to serve the notices issued to the plaintiffs by the revenue authorities. He did not obtain any acknowledgment from the SI of police,
Galiveedu P.S., in respect of Ex.B.1. He admitted that there were corrections in
Ex.B.2 and there were no initials of the concerned officer underneath the corrections. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.B.2 attested copy of order passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C., dt.14.09.2011 was not served on the deceased/1st plaintiff.
D.W.1 denied the suggestion that he got managed the postal authorities and made
10
an endorsement that the deceased/1st plaintiff refused to take order under Ex.B.2.
D.W.1 admitted that the plaint schedule property is private patta land. He does not know whether government acquired the some portion of suit schedule property towards rastha and he does not know whether government paid compensation to the deceased/1st plaintiff. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that suit schedule property is a private patta land and as such MRO has no right to pass any order in respect of plaint schedule property against the deceased/1st plaintiff. D.W.1 admitted that
Ex.B.6/No.3 Adangal issued by VRO, Gopanapalli. The revenue accounts were not computerized in the year 2010. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that in the year 2010 itself all the revenue accounts were computerized. D.W.1 admitted that Ex.B.6 did not contain date of issue. Ex.B.6 was issued in the year 2011. The Adangals were computerized in the year 2014. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that by the date of issuance of Ex.B.6 all the revenue accounts were computerized and he obtained
Ex.B.6 by managing the revenue authorities. D.W.1 admitted that there is plan marked rastha in Sy.No.603/20. He filed the said plan marked rastha before this
Hon’ble Court. D.W.1 admitted that in Ex.B.5 the Tahsildar mentioned in the 1st
paragraph itself “ Even though, the rastha is in use for the past several decades, it is not plan marked”. D.W.1 admitted that he did not file any acknowledgment that
Ex.B.4 notice was served to the deceased 1st plaintiff or he did not file any application submitted to the Tahsildar, Galiveedu along with Ex.B.4. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that the deceased 1st plaintiff did not close the rastha in the year 2011 and there is no rastha in the plaint schedule property at any point of time.
There is no thaar road between his village and Nayanivaripalli village. There is a cement road between his village Sivapuramvandlapalli and the village
Nayanivaripalli. Nayanivaripalli village is located on the east of the cement road.
On the west of the cement road the fields are located and abutting to the said fields his village Sivapuramvandlapalli is located. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that there were no fields between West of cement road and his village. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that there is no rastha in plaint schedule property survey number i.e., 603/20 in Ex.B.8/Field map. D.W.1 admitted that Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.6 are issued in respect of plaint schedule property but there is no entry in Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.6 about the rastha. Towards Eastern side of the house of plaintiffs, the house of his brother is located. He has been living at Galiveedu since 20 years. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that there were mango trees aged about 10 years in the plaint
11
schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that he mango trees were planted by the plaintiffs after obtaining interim injunction orders from this Hon’ble Court. D.W.1 admitted that recognizing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, revenue authorities issued Exs.A.1 to A.3, A.5, A.6 in favour of the plaintiffs.
17)One Lakkim Peddappa Naidu was examined as D.W.2 on behalf of the 1st defendant. D.W.2 also in his chief-examination deposed in the similar lines of
D.W.1. D.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs. D.W.2 in his cross-examination deposed that the suit was filed for an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.603. The land in Sy.No.603/20 belongs to plaintiff.
He admitted that plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule survey number property. He deposed that Government did not acquire any land from the land of plaintiff for bandla rastha. There is no cement road on the South of the Sivapuramvandlapalli. The rastha dividing the villages Sivapuramvandlapalli and Nayanivaripalli. The rastha leads from West – North corner to East – South corner. He deposed that he filed complaint before the police that plaintiffs all of sudden in the month of September, 2011 midnight ploughed the bandla rastha with the help of tractor and merged into their land. He did not file the copy of complaint
before this Court. He deposed that he cannot say when the Tahsildar, Galiveedu
issued proceedings and also he cannot say the contents of the said proceedings. He admitted that government laid cement road on the Eastern side of Sy.No.602 to reach Sivapuramvandlapalli and Nayanivaripalli villages. He does not know whether Tahsildar, Galiveedu take any action against the plaintiffs. They reached the village Sivapuramvandlapalli in a short cut way.
18.The main controversy between the parties is usage of Bandla rasta through suit schedule property to reach Sivapuramvandlapalli village. According to the plaintiff the entire land in suit Sy.No.603/20 of Gopanapalli village polamu belongs to them and there is no rastha in the suit schedule property, the question of plaintiffs intentionally closed the old existing rasta situated within the suit property. According to the 1st defendant, the 1st plaintiff intentionally closed the old existing rasta situated within the suit property and there is no alternative rasta to reach the tractors with agricultural materials and other four wheeler vehicles to reach into the Sivapuramvandlapalli village and Nayunivaripalli village.
12
19.Now, it has to be seen whether there is old existing rastha situated within the suit schedule property to reach Sivapuramvandlapalli village or
Nayunivaripalli village. Now, this Court proceed to scrutinize the documentary evidence adduced on both sides. Ex.A.1 is the title deed passbook issued by
M.R.O., Galiveedu in favour of the father of the plaintiffs namely Sivapuram
Chinna Peddireddy. As can be seen from Ex.A.1, it shows that there is an entry in respect of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.603/20 stands in the name of the father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 i.e., the 1st plaintiff and he got the same by inheritance. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of pattadar passbook issued by M.R.O., Galiveedu in favour of the 1st plaintiff namely Sivapuram Chinna Peddireddy who is father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. As can be seen from Ex.A.2 also there is an entry in respect of an extent of
Ac.0.96 cents in suit Sy.No.603/20 and the pattadar is the deceased 1st plaintiff.
Ex.A.3 is the No.3 Adangal obtained from Mee-seva, Galiveedu certified by
M.R.O., Galiveedu stands in the name of the deceased 1st plaintiff. Ex.A.4 is the rough sketch. Ex.A.5 is the 1B Namoona obtained from Mee-seva stands in the name of the deceased 1st plaintiff namely Sivapuram Chinna Peddireddy. Ex.A.6 is the Adangal/pahani for fasli No.1426, dated.18.02.2017 obtained from Mee-seva,
Galiveedu certified by Thasildar, Galiveedu stands in the name of the deceased 1st plaintiff. As can be seen from Exs.A.3, A.5, A.6 the deceased 1st plaintiff who is father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 had been in possession and enjoyment during his life time and after his death the plaintiffs 2 and 3 have been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of Ac.0.96 cents in suit Sy.No.603/20.
20.D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that suit schedule property belonged to the plaintiffs. He has no documentary proof to show that he has right over the suit schedule property. D.W.1 admitted that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. D.W.1 admitted that the revenue authorities issued Exs.A.1 to A.3, A.5 to A.7 in favour of the plaintiffs. D.W.1 admitted that
Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.6 are issued in respect of plaint schedule property but there is no entry in Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.6 about the rastha. D.W.1 admitted that recognizing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, revenue authorities issued Exs.A.1 to A.3, A.5, A.6 in favour of the plaintiffs.
D.W.2 in his evidence admitted that the land in Sy.No.603/20 belongs to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule survey number property. The said evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 is clear that the
13
plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of Ac.0.96 cents in suit Sy.No.603/20 and D.W.1 also admitted that in Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.6 issued in respect of plaint schedule property but there is no entry about the rastha in
Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.6. A perusal of Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.6 admittedly there is no entry with regard to the existence of bandla rastha through the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.603/20. If really, there is bandla rastha existing in suit schedule property, certainly the same would have reflected in revenue documents but as can be seen from the revenue documents in the form of
Exs.A.1 to A.3, A.5 and A.6, they do not reflect the existence of rastha in suit schedule property.
21.Ex.B.1 is the true copy of the complaint of the 1st defendant, dated 20.01.2012 addressed to the SI of Police, Galiveedu PS. As can be seen from
Ex.B.1 the 1st defendant addressed a letter to the SI of Police, Galiveedu PS to implement the orders passed by the Mandal Executing Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar,
Galiveedu under Exs.B.2 & B.5 and to facilitate the rastha to the villagers of
Sivapuramvandlapalli. As can be seen from Ex.B.1 the 1st defendant gave complaint to SI of Police, Galiveedu PS., on his behalf and on behalf of the villagers of Sivapuramvandlapalli. D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he did not obtain any acknowledgement from SI of Police, Galiveedu PS., in respect of Ex.B.1. In the absence of any acknowledgement from the SI of Police,
Galiveedu PS., it cannot be said that D.W.1 submitted Ex.B.1 complaint, dated 20.01.2012 to the SI of Police, Galiveedu PS., for implementing the orders passed by the Mandal Executing Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Galiveedu to provide rastha to the villagers of Sivapuramvandlapalli village. Mere filing of Ex.B.1 document without any acknowledgement or without any endorsement of SI of Police,
Galiveedu PS., is not useful to the case of the 1st defendant.
22.Ex.B.2 is the attested copy of orders passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C., dated.14.09.2011. As can be seen from Ex.B.2 the Mandal Executing Magistrate- cum-Tahsildar, Galiveedu passed orders under Sec.133 Cr.P.C., directing the 1st plaintiff to remove the obstructions in public bandla rastha which leads from South to North and to restore the same as it is by removing the stone heap. In Ex.B.2 also the Mandal Executing Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Galiveedu stated that the entire land i.e., to an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in suit Sy.No.603/20 belonged to deceased 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that there were corrections in
14
Ex.B.2 and there were no initials of the concerned officer underneath the corrections. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.B.2 attested copy of order passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C., dated.14.09.2011 was not served on the deceased 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that he got managed the postal authorities and made an endorsement that the deceased 1st plaintiff refused to take order under
Ex.B.2. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is private patta land and as such the Mandal Revenue Officer has no right to pass any order in respect of the plaint schedule property against the deceased 1st plaintiff. Ex.B.3 is the attested copy of the letter, dated 23.09.2011 addressed to the SI of Police,
Galiveedu Police Station by the Mandal Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar,
Galiveedu. As can be seen from Ex.B.3, the then Mandal Executive Magistrate &
Tahasildar, Galiveedu Mandal requested the S.H.O., Galiveedu Police Station to visit Sivapuramvandlapalli along with the V.R.O., Gopanapalli village and Mandal
Revenue Inspector, Galiveedu and see that the blocked public rastha is evicted and regularize the public rastha with a severe instructions to S.Chinnapeddi Reddy, not to create any Law and Order problem and report compliance. Further, as can be seen from the Ex.B.3 also the Mandal Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Galiveedu stated that the land an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.603/20 is the patta land of
Chinnapa Reddy S/o.Papi Reddy. Ex.B.4 is the notice, dated 02.01.2014 issued by
Tahsildar, Galiveedu to the 1st plaintiff. As can be seen from the Ex.B.4, the
Tahsildar directed the 1st plaintiff to remove the obstructions in the rasta as per the orders under Ex.B.2.
23.No doubt Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Galiveedu issued order under Sec.133 of Cr.P.C., under Ex.B.2. But there is no evidence on record that the said order was served on the 1st plaintiff. In this case, basing on the plea taken by the 1st defendant in his written statement, the 1st plaintiff added the defendants 2 and 3 i.e., District Collector, Kadapa and the Tahsildar, Galiveedu
Mandal as defendants 2 and 3, but as already stated supra, AGP for defendants 2 and 3 did not file written statement and did not contest the suit. P.W.1 in his cross- examination deposed that he along with his father did not receive any notice from the then Tahsildar, Galiveedu Mandal at any point of time. P.W.1 deposed that he is not aware of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Galiveedu on 14.09.2011 directing his father not to obstruct the villagers to pass through the Bandla Rastha. P.W.1 deposed that he is not aware the notice, dated.02.01.2014 under Ex.B.4 issued by
15
Tahsildar, Galiveedu to his father. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that for the past several decades the villagers used the suit schedule property as Bandla rastha.
Therefore, there is no evidence on record that Ex.B.2 order passed by the Mandal
Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Galuveedu under Sec.133 Cr.P.C., and Ex.B.3 notice were served on the 1st plaintiff. The documents filed by the 1st defendant in the form of Exs.B.1 to B.4 is not at all useful to the case of the 1st defendant to prove his case.
24.Ex.B.6 is the No.3 Adangal issued by V.R.O., Gopanapalli Village.
V.R.O., is not competent to give No.3 Adangals. Further, as can be seen from the
Ex.B.6 the same is not countersigned by the M.R.O., Galiveedu. As can be seen from Ex.B.6, the V.R.O., noted the pattadar and enjoyer in respect of Ac.0.96 cents in suit schedule Sy.No.603/20 is the 1st plaintiff and he got the same by inheritance.
In Ex.B.6 No.3 Adangal at Col.No.4, it was mentioned that the houses, Bandla rastha, temple are in existence in respect of Ac.0.20 cents in suit schedule
Sy.No.603/20. If really, the houses, Bandla rastha and temple are situated in total extent of Ac.0.96 cents in suit schedule Sy.No.603/20, certainly the same would have reflected in Exs.A.1 to A.3, A.5 to A.7. Even there is no seal or dates in
Ex.B.6 No.3 Adangal. D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that Ex.B.6 did not contain the date of issue. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that by the issuance of
Ex.B.6 all the revenue accounts were computerized and he obtained Ex.B.6 by managing the revenue authorities. Though D.W.1 denied the suggestion but the evidence on record and the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs clearly shows that the 1st defendant by managing the revenue authorities obtained Ex.B.6 No.3
Adangal and hence, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
25.Ex.B.7 is the rough sketch. Ex.B.8 is the attested copy of the
Gopanapalli village map issued by Assistant Director, District Survey and Land records, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. According to the 1st defendant himself and other villagers have no other rastha to enter into their village and the suit schedule property is Bandla rastha even in the Google map of the India. According to the 1st defendant the Bandla rastha in suit schedule property is plan marked rastha and
Ex.B.8, the village map is also clear that there is a plan marked rastha in plaint schedule property. Ex.B.5 is the letter dated.09.01.2014 addressed to the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Galiveedu by the Mandal Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar,
Galiveedu. In ExB.5 the Tahsildar, Galiveedu clearly stated that the rastha is not
16
plan marked and the rastha is in existing entirely in private patta lands. In view of recitals in Ex.B.5, the contention 1st defendant that the rasta is a plan marked cannot be accepted. Hence, Ex.B.8 village map is also not at all useful to the case of the 1st defendant.
26.In view of the above discussion, the 1st defendant filed to prove that there is old existing rastha situated within the suit schedule property to reach
Sivapuramvandlapalli village or Nayunivaripalli village.
27.Now, it has to be seen that whether there is an alternative rasta to rach the tractors with agricultural material and other four wheeler vehicles to reach the
Sivapuramvandlapalli village or Nayunivaripallli village. In this case, Ex.A.7 is the crucial document. Ex.A.7 is the letter addressed by Tahsildar, Galiveedu to one
L.Reddeppa Naidu and others of Nayanivaripalli village, dt.29.06.2013. In Ex.A.7
Tahsildar, Galiveedu stated that Sy.No.603 is a private patta land, one Sri
S.Gurunadha Reddy one of the pattadar of Sy.No.603 through whose land the road connection was connecting to Sivapuramvandlapalli – Nayanivaripalli, laid a fence and obstructed the movement of the people on the pretext that the land is private patta land and there is no plan marked road. In Ex.A.7/Letter, the then Tahsildar,
Galiveedu permitted the villagers of Nayanivaripalli to lay a road with a width of 25 feet (in the place of already existing Donka) in Sy.No.602 of Gopanapalli village from Nayanivaripalli to the CC Road in Nallabathinavandlapalli. The recitals in
Ex.A.7 are clear that the land in Sy.No.603 is a private patta land and already there is existing Donka in Sy.No.602 of Gopanapalli village to reach the
Sivapuramvandlapalli and Nayanivaripalli. Further the recitals in Ex.A.7 are clear that the then Tahsildar, Galiveedu permitted the villagers of Nayanivaripalli to lay a road with a width of 25 feet (in the place of already existing Donka) in Sy.No.602 of Gopanapalli village from Nayanivaripalli to the CC Road in
Nallabathinavandlapalli. In view of the recitals in Ex.A.7 the contention of the 1st defendant that the suit schedule Bandla rastha is only rastha to enter into
Sivapuramvandlapalli cannot be accepted as there is existing Donka in Sy.No.602 of Gopanapalli village from Nayanivaripalli to the CC Road in
Nallabathinavandlapalli.
28.If really, the suit schedule property is only rastha to reach
Sivapuramvandlapalli village and Nayanivaripalli village and if really, the plaintiffs closed the alleged old existing rastha situated within the suit schedule
17
property all the villagers of Sivapuramvandlapalli and Nayanivaripalli village approached the Court for agitating their rights. But no villager approached the court except the 1st defendant. It shows that there is another rastha existing in Sy.No.602 to reach Sivapuramvandlapalli village and Nayanivaripalli village.
29.In view of the above discussion, the plaintiffs by filing Exs.A.1 to A.3 and A.5 to A.7 proved that they are in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of Ac.0.96 cents in suit schedule survey number as on the date of the filing of the suit and hence, they are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.
Hence, this issue is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
30.ISSUE NO.2:
In the result, suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants, their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property shown as CDEF in the plaint plan.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of June, 2020.
Sd/- P. Rajasekhar
Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For PlaintiffsFor Defendants
P.W.1 S. Gurunatha Reddy D.W.1 Ch.Koti Reddy P.W.2 S. Venkata Reddy D.W.2 L. Reddappa Naidu
Documents marked on behalf of plaintiffs:
Ex.A.1Title deed pass book issued by M.R.O., Galiveedu in favour of 1st plaintiff namely Sivapuram Chinna Peddireddy.
Ex.A.2Certified copy of Pattadar pass book issued by M.R.O., Galiveedu in favour of 1st plaintiff namely Sivapuram Chinna Peddireddy
Ex.A.3No.3 Adangal obtained by the 1st plaintiff from Mee-seva, Galiveedu certified by M.R.O., Galiveedu.
Ex.A.4Rough sketch
Ex.A.5 1B Namoona obtained from Mee-seva stands in the name of 1st plaintiff namely Sivapuram Chinna Peddireddy
18
Ex.A.6Adangal/Pahani for fasli No.1426, dated.18.02.2017 obtained from Mee- seva, Galiveedu certified by Tahsildar, Galiveedu.
Ex.A.7 Proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Galiveedu, dated.29.06.2013 to L.Reddeppa Naidu.
Documents marked on behalf of defendants :
Ex.B.1Original complaint, dated.20.01.2012 addressed to the SI of Police, Galiveedu PS.
Ex.B.2Attested copy of orders passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C., dated 14.09.2011.
Ex.B.3Attested copy of letter, dated.23.11.2009 addressed to SI of Police, Galiveedu PS., by Tahsildar, Galiveedu.
Ex.B.4Original Notice, dated 02.01.2014 issued by Tahsildar, Galiveedu.
Ex.B.5Original Letter, dated 09.01.2014 addressed to the SI of Police, Galiveedu issued by the Tahsildar.
Ex.B.6No.3 Adangal issued by V.R.O., Gopanapalli.
Ex.B.7Rough sketch
Ex.B.8Attested copy of Gopanapalli village map issued by the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land records, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
Sd/- P. Rajasekhar
Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli.