//1//
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAPETA MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAPETA
Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy, Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy,
J Junior unior C Civil ivil J Judge udge – C – Cum um – J – Judicial udicial M Magistrate ofagistrate of F First irst C Class,lass, R Razoleazole FAC/Junior FAC/Junior C Civil ivil J Judge udge – C – Cum um – J – Judicial udicial M Magistrate ofagistrate of F First irst C Class,lass, Kothapeta Kothapeta
Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2020
OS.No.115/2015
Between : Guthula Venkata Rao
...Plaintiff
and
1. Guthula Chandra Rao
2. Guthula Satyanarayana
3. Guthula Trimurthulu
4. Surampudi Suramma @ Sureedu
5. Surampudi Lakshmi
6. Kudipudi Naramma
7. Mamidisetti Nagamma
8. Chitturi Durgamma
9. Tekumudi Padma
...Defendants
OS.No.124/2015
Between :
1. Guthula Anjaneyulu
2. Guthula Mahalakshmi
3. Donga Suryavathi
4. Illa Lakshmi
5. Medisetti Bhoolakshmi
6. Veeraboina Durga
...Plaintiffs
and
1. Guthula Chandra Rao
2. Guthula Satyanarayana
3. Guthula Trimurthulu
4. Surampudi Suramma @ Sureedu
5. Surampudi Lakshmi
6. Kudipudi Naramma
7. Mamidisetti Nagamma
8. Chitturi Durgamma
9. Tekumudi Padma
...Defendants
These suits are coming before me on 12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.A.T.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff in both suits and Sri.P.Venu Gopal for the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 9 and the 3rd defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
//2//
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
1.The plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 filed this suit against the defendants seeking declaration over the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same and for costs of the suit.
2.The plaintiffs in OS.No.124/2015 filed suit against the defendants seeking declaration over the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same and for costs of the suit.
In both the suits except the plaintiffs the defendants are one and the same. The subject matter and the relief sought for in both the suits are one and the same. As such this court clubbed both the suits basing on the as per orders in IA.No.183/2019, dt.26.04.2019 and the evidence was recorded in OS.No.115/2015 which is a earlier suit in order to avoid the conflict of decision from this Hon'ble Court. In both the matters all the averments in the plaint and written statements are one and the same. As such this court inclined to mention the averments in the plaint and written statement in one suit only in order to avoid the reiteration.
The averments in plaint OS.No.115/2011 and OS.No.124/2015
nutshell as follows :
3.It is submitted that the plaintiffs in both the suits for declaration that they acquired title and possession over the plaint schedule properties by virtue of oral partition effected 20 years back in the year 1985 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 and the father of plaintiffs in
OS.No.124/2015 are the sons of Guthula Linganna and Mangamma,
who got three sons and two daughters. Out of which two daughters were died after their marriage without any children and their husbands were also died. The other two brothers in OS.No.115/2015 by name Ramana and Pothu Raju died leaving behind the plaintiffs in OS.No.124/2015 and the defendants in both the suits are their legal heirs respectively. During the lifetime the Government granted patta to the parents of //3//
Linganna and Mangamma by way of Dform pattas in RS.No.185/1 for an extent of Ac.0.75 cents of Tukalanka, H/o.Ubalanka. After the death of Linganna, Mangamma got property in RS.No.216/7A in an extent of Ac.0.24 cents and RS.No.216/8A in an extent of Ac.0.05 cents, total an extent of Ac.0.69 cents. After the death of Linganna his wife Mangamma enjoying the entire extent of Ac.1.44 cents till her death in the year 1985. The father of defendants by name Pothuraju died on 27.10.2013 leaving behind them as his legal heirs, whereas, his wife predeceased him in the year 2007. The another elder brother who is father of plaintiffs in
OS.No.124/2015 died on 10.09.2008 leaving behind them as his legal
heirs. At about 40 years back during his life time the father of defendants shifted his family to Gunduru of Karnataka State along with his family for his livelihood. The said Linganna and Mangamma died in the year 1977 and 1984 respectively. The plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 and the father of plaintiffs in OS.No.124/2015 obtained separate property in separate survey numbers in same locality along with their parents. After the death of their parents all the three brothers partitioned the properties of their parents orally in the month of second week of February, 1985 equally. In the said partition each got Ac.0.48 cents towards their share. Since then they have been enjoyed their respective shares independently. Later in the year 2005 all the three brothers executed a consent letter dt.02.03.2005 by acknowledging the same. One bore well is situated in the land of defendants which is stand in the name of plaintiff, for which the electrical connection stood in the name of plaintiff. The other ryots also drawing the water from the said bore well as per the directions of the concerned authorities. After the death of the father of plaintiffs in OS.No.124/2015 and father of defendants, the defendants are making false claims over the entire property of their grandparents. In the course of their attempts they got issued a registered notice on 07.02.2015 stating that they have been in possession and enjoyment of their grandparents which was given to their father by the revenue authorities. Then the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 by anticipating the legal proceedings from the defendants, he filed a caveat petition. Later he also filed a suit vide OS.No.62/2015 seeking partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares by virtue of the document dt.02.03.2005 and same withdrawn after obtaining permission this Hon'ble Court on some legal constrains. Subsequently the defendants are trying to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment //4// of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties by ignoring the shares divided under the document dt.02.03.2005, resulting the present suits.
4. The defendants in both the suits appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement of 2nd defendant and same was adopted by the other contesting defendants. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of defendant No.2 is as follows : The defendant No.2 denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim except the relationship between the parties. He further submitted that the Government issued Dform pattas in an extent of Ac.1.44 cents each in favour of his grandparents and two sons i.e., plaintiff and father of plaintiffs in both the suits. By that time the father of defendants was not residing with his parents, as he went to Karnataka along with his family for his livelihood. Subsequently he returned to his village. After the death of his parents the parents of defendants made a representation to the Mandal Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer. In turn after due enquiry the revenue authorities gave the patta land of deceased parents to the father of defendants. Since then the father of defendants had been in possession and enjoyment over the same and after his death the defendants came into possession of the same. The father of defendants also paid the land tax every year and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. The Government also sanctioned bore well to the lanka lands for each 10 society members and same was erected in the land of defendants. The plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 created partition deed by fabricating the signatures of his brothers. The plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 already filed a suit vide OS.No.62/2015 seeking the partition of the properties of his parents and same was withdrawn by him. Later the defendants got issued a legal notice on 17.02.2015 with true facts. After receipt of the said notice the document dt.02.03.2005 was brought into existence. The plaintiffs also obtained the documents from revenue department on 24.12.2006 by managing the same. The father of defendants had executed a unregistered gift deed dt.23.10.2003 in favour of 8th defendant in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in RS.No.217/7A, which was attested by the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015. Further he also executed a will on 02.07.2013 in favour of the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 bequeathing the remaining properties in an extent of Ac.1.24 cents. As such the plaintiffs in both the suits have no manner of right to seek declaration by virtue of the document dt.02.03.2005, which is a fabricated and concocted document. The defendants also gave a //5// report before SHO, Ravulapalem police by questioning the illegal activites of plaintiffs. The defendants also gave a representation before Sub Collector, Amalapuram for recognizing of lanka lands in their father. The revenue people also issued pattadar passbook in favour of the father of plaintiff in respect of the property of their parents. As such there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suits. Hence, the defendants requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suits.
5.Basing on the averments in both the plaints and written statements the following issues were settled for trial ::
1.Whether the plaintiffs in both the suits are entitled for declaration of title over the respective plaint schedule properties ?
2.Whether the plaintiffs in both the suits are entitled permanent injunction as prayed for ?
3.To what relief ?
6.During the course of trial the plaintiffs examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. Whereas the defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.
7.Heard both sides.
8.Both the counsels filed written arguments by supporting their respective contentions and requested the Hon'ble Court to pass the necessary orders.
Issue No.1 :
9.In both the suits the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 filed chief affidavit himself and on behalf of the plaintiffs in OS.No.124/2015 by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint in lieu of chief affidavit and same is treated as his chief examination and also filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. They are Ex.A1 is the family arrangement dt.02.03.2005, Ex.A2 is the death certificate of Guthula Pothuraju dt.27.10.2013, Ex.A3 is the copy of death certificate of Guthula Ramana dt.10.09.2008, Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice dt.07.02.2019, Ex.A5 is the office copy of caveat petition dt.20.04.2015 on the file of this court, Ex.A6 is the certified copy of order in IA.No.403/2015 in OS.No.62/2015, Ex.A7 is the certificate issued by VRO, Ubalanka dt.24.08.2006, Ex.A8 is the certificate issued by VRO, Ubalanka dt.24.08.2006, Ex.A9 is the electrical service receipt //6// dt.04.03.2015, Ex.A10 is the adangal copy dt.14.02.2020. He also examined PWs.2 to 6 to defend both the suits. But, PWs.2 and 3 did not turn up before this court to undergone crossexamination. As such the evidence was eschewed. PWs.4 and 5 who are the attesters on Ex.A1 deposed with regard to their attestation. PW.6 is the independent witness deposed with regard to the possession of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property in both the suits. While crossexamination DW.1 stated that “the Government did not gave any patta to his father along with his father and brothers. Even after the death of his grandparents no patta was granted either in the name of his father or his sons. The properties covered under the pattas granted in favour of his paternal grandparents is only subject matter in both the suits. They have no dispute with regard to granting of pattas in favor of their junior paternal uncles in same survey numbers. Till today the names of his paternal grandparents are reflected in revenue records. The said adangals are marked as Ex.A10. Ex.B1 was issued by the revenue people. He did not file any pattadar passbook relating to Ex.B1, but he was not known what was happened to the said document. He did not know the details of documents filed by both the plaintiffs. The attesters of Ex.A1 are his relatives. The scribe of Ex.A1 was elder in their village. His father gave an extent of Ac.0.20 cents to one of his sister towards pasupukumkuma out of his share derived under Ex.A1”. While crossexamination DW.2 stated that “the Government granted pattas to PW.1, his parents and father of plaintiffs in OS.No.124/2015. By that time no patta was granted in favour of father of defendants. He did not know when the family of defendants came down to Thokalanka village. He got personal knowledge about the dispute between the parties. But he did not know the survey numbers and boundaries of plaint schedule property. To his knowledge the defendants have been claiming the entire property of their grandparents. He did not know the scribe of Ex.A1. The father of defendants is a thumb impressionist. He got personal knowledge about the issuing of revenue records in favour of defendants. Himself and PW.1 jointly went to the revenue office and got issued revenue records in favour of defendants”.
10.In order to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement the 2nd defendant in both the suits filed his chief affidavit by reiterating all the allegations mentioned in the written statement in lieu of chief affidavit and the same is treated as chief examination. The //7// defendant also exhibited Ex.B1 to B3. They are Ex.B1 is the title deed passbook issued by revenue authorities in favour of father of DW.1, Ex.B2 is the served copy of plaint in OS.No.62/2015, Ex.B3 is the served copy of caveat. He also examined one third party as DW.2 who deposed on a par with the evidence of DW.1 in all respects. While cross examination of PW.1, PWs.4 to 6 nothing was elicited to establish that the defendants alone are in possession and enjoyment of the entire property of grandparents of defendants i.e., Ac.1.44 cents except some denials.
11.On scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents available on record the main case of the plaintiffs in both the suits is that, all the three brothers partitioned orally the properties of their parents after their demise equally in the year 1985. The said oral partition was reduced into writing under Ex.A1 in the year 2005. Soon after the execution of Ex.A1 all the three brothers are enjoying their respective shares without any interruption. After the death of father of defendants they got issued a registered notice in the year 2015 claiming the entire properties of their grandparents stating that the said property was allotted to their father by the revenue authorities. Later the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 filed caveat and partition suit vide OS.No.62/2015 seeking partition of properties of his parents by virtue of Ex.A1 partition list. Subsequently the said partition suit was withdrawn with the permission of court due to some technical and legal formalities and filed the present suits seeking declaration of the properties fell to the share of plaintiff in
OS.No.115/2015 and the father of plaintiffs OS.No.124/2015. Whereas,
the main case of defendants is that at the time of granting pattas in favour of his family members the father of defendant was not present in the village. As such no patta was issued in his name. Soon after the death of his father basing on the representation made by the father of defendants the revenue authorities issued patta in favour of father of defendants in respect of the properties of his parents after due enquiry. To that effect Ex.B1 pattadar passbook was issued by the revenue authorities. As such either the plaintiffs in both the suits are no way concerned with the properties of deceased parents. The father of defendants also executed a gift deed in favour of 8th defendant in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents at the time of her marriage under an unregistered document and same was attested by PW.1. He also executed a will in respect of the remaining property in favour of the remaining defendants.
//8//
As such the plaintiffs in both the suits have no manner of right to claim any declaration over the plaint schedule properties by virtue of Ex.A1 document which is a fabricated and created one. Hence, the defendants requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss both the suits.
12. As could be seen from the entire evidence and material available on record the factual and undisputed issues from the side of both sides is that, the subject matter in both the suits is one and the same. The subject matter in both the suits relating to the deceased Linganna and his wife Mangamma which was granted to them by way of Dform pattas in three different survey numbers in an extent of Ac.1.44 cents in the year 1977 and 1984 respectively. The plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 and the father of plaintiffs in OS.No.124/2015 and father of defendants in both the suits are own brothers and they are sons of late Linganna and Mangamma. The Government also issued Dform pattas in favour of the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 and the father of plaintiffs in
OS.No.124/2015 in an extent of Ac.1.44 cents each in different survey
numbers along with their parents. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the above said properties. But at the same time no patta was issued in favour of the father of defendants as he was not present in the village during the said period as he went to Karnataka along with his family members for his livelihood. After the death of the parents again the father of defendants returned to his native place Thokalanka, H/o.Ubalanka.
13. After return of father of defendants to his native place the disputes cropped up among the brothers in respect of the properties of their deceased parents. As per the avements in the plaint LInganna died in the year 1982, whereas his wife Mangamma died in the year 1985. After the death of Linganna the entire property was enjoyed by his wife Mangamma till her death. The above said aspect was also not disputed by the defendants. Further after the death of Mangamma in the year 1985 all the three brothers effected oral partition of the properties of their parents equally and each of them got Ac.0.48 cents. Since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares without any interruption. While so on 02.03.2005 all the three brothers had executed a partition list by recognizing the earlier oral partition held in the year 1985 and the said document was marked as Ex.A1. As per Ex.A1 each sharer enjoyed the respective properties. But after the death //9// of the father of defendants got issued a registered notice on 07.02.2015 by claiming the entire properties of their grandparents, resulting the present suit and the earlier caveat and partition suit by the plaintiff in
OS.No.115/2015. At the same time the defendants vehemently denied
the execution of Ex.A1 partition list stating that their father never participated in the execution of said document and it was brought into existence by the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 who is a litigant attitude person in the absence of other two brothers by forging their signatures.
14. Now, the clinching issue before the court is whether the partition list i.e., Ex.A1 which alleged to have executed among three brothers which is a genuine document and any reliance can be placed on the said document to grant the relief of declaration in favour of plaintiffs in both the suits. In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 partition list, plaintiffs in both the suits got examined PWs.1 to 6 and exhibited the documents under Exs.A1 to A10. But PWs.2 and 3 did not turn up before the court to undergone crossexamination. As such this court eschewed their evidence. PWs.4 and 5 are the attesters on Ex.A1 partition list. During the course of evidence both of them categorically deposed with regard to their presence at the time of execution of Ex.A1. The counsel for the defendants did not elicit anything during the course of crossexamination to disbelieve the execution of Ex.A1 among the three brothers except some denials. During crossexamination DW.1 categorically admitted that the attesters on Ex.A1 are his relatives and the scribe of it is one of the elder in their village. At the same time the defendants did not initiate any proceedings to send the said document to any expert to fish out the original truth before this Hon'ble Court. Except the bald allegation in the written statement there is no other positive evidence from the side of defendants to deny the execution of Ex.A1. As such I do not see any merits in the contention of defendants with regard to the execution of Ex.A1 among the brothers.
15. The other contention of defendants is that there is no reference with regard to the execution of Ex.A1 in the earlier proceedings initiated by the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 and as such the said document is a fabricated and created document. To find out the truth in the above said contention I have gone through the earlier proceedings initiated by the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 which were marked under Exs.A5 and A6, which are the caveat petition and the copy of plaint in OS.No.62/2015.
//10//
As seen from the averments in Exs.A5 and A6 there is a clear mention with regard to the oral partition effected among the three brothers in the year 1995 and thereafter about the execution of Ex.A1 partition list on 02.03.2005.As such the contention of defendants in this regard is baseless and same cannot be taken into consideration to disbelieve the contention of plaintiffs. In the absence of any positive evidence from the side of defendants this court can place reliance on Ex.A1 without any hesitation. The certificates issued by the revenue authorities under Exs.A7 and A8 in favour of plaintiffs in both the suits also supported the recitals in Ex.A1 document. All the referred circumstances clearly goes to show that a partition was effected among three brothers during their lifetime and enjoyed their respective shares till their death.
16. Now, coming to the case of defendants, after the death of parents the father of defendants returned to his native place. By that time he made a representation before the Tahsildar to issue patta in his name in respect of the properties of his parents as he is a landless poor person and no patta was granted to him along with his brothers. After due enquiry the revenue authorities issued patta in favour of the father of defendants in respect of the properties of his parents. To that effect the revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook marked under Ex.B1. But, the patta alleged to have issued in favour of the father of defendants was not filed into court. When there is a truth in the contention of defendants what prevented them to file the said patta into court. The non filing of patta clearly denotes that no patta was issued in favour of the father of defendants basing on his representation. Even the defendants did not move their little finger to summon any of the revenue authorities to speak about the alleged presentation of representation and the particulars of enquiry conducted by them and cause production of the said documents. Except the oral testimony of defendants there is no other positive evidence on record to believe the contention of defendants. At the same time they did not take any steps to examine the revenue official to establish the issuance of Ex.B1 pattadar passbook. At the same time the title deed passbook said to executed by the revenue authorities in favour of the father of defendants. During the course of crossexamination DW.1 categorically admitted that the title deed passbook was not filed into court. He did not furnish any reason for non filing of the said document into court. If the revenue authorities are summoned before the court, certainly it came into light on what basis //11//
Ex.B1 was issued in favour of the father of defendants in respect of the entire properties of his parents. The other important aspect to be considered in this case is till today the said properties were stood in the name of deceased Linganna and Mangamma, as seen from the adangals marked under Ex.A10. As such no mutation was effected in favour of the father of defendants in respect of the properties of his parents. Without any mutation how the revenue authorities issued Ex.B1 pattadar passbook. As such Ex.B1 document is a suspicious one. There is no proper explanation from the side of defendants to place reliance on the said document and to deny the reliefs to the plaintiffs. DW.2 who worked as President of Society in the village of both the parties for several years deposed with regard to the conducting of enquiry by the revenue officials and issuing of Ex.B1 pattadar passbook in favour of father of defendants. As per his evidence himself and PW.1 approached the revenue authorities and got issued Ex.B1 in favour of the father of defendants. But he pleaded ignorance with regard to the particulars of visit and the details of things reeled at the time of issuing Ex.B1. At the same time he pleaded ignorance with regard to the details of the scribe of Ex.A1 who is a elder in the village. It clearly shows that DW.2 gave evidence in favour of defendants without knowing the particulars of mutation in revenue records. As such no credence will be given to said evidence to disbelieve the case of plaintiffs. He might have deposed in such a manner to honour the request of defendants. As such this court disbelieved the evidence of DW.2.
17. It is an undisputed fact that, the deceased Linganna and Mangamma got three sons and two daughters. The two daughters died long back after their marriage and their husbands are also no more. It is an admitted fact that during the lifetime the deceased parents not executed any document in favour of anybody and they died intestate. In those circumstances in the absence of Ex.A1 document also, all the properties of deceased Linganna and Mangamma devolved upon his three sons and thereafter the legal heirs of three sons. As such the plaintiffs in both the suits are entitled for the share in the properties of deceased Linganna and Magnamma in the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of defendants. Further during the course of crossexamination DW.1 categorically admitted that his father gifted an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land fell to his share in the partition to the 8th defendant at the time of her marriage. He also further admitted that on the said unregistered gift //12// deed PW.1 also stood as one of the attester. The above said admission clearly goes to show that DW.1 also known about the earlier partition among his father and his brothers. As per the averments in the written statement the father of defendants also executed a will in favour of the other defendants by excluding Ac.0.20 cents of land gifted to 8th defendant. But the said will was not produced before this court. As such for the sake of defence only the said aspect was mentioned in the written statement and no credence will be given to the same. Moreover the plaintiff in OS.No.115/2015 with draw the partition suit filed by him due to technical and legal aspects and not for any other reasons as pointed out by the counsel for defendants. As such this court is not inclined to believe the contention of defendants as mentioned in the written statement. The plaintiffs in both the suits established their title over the plaint schedule properties, as such they are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the suits. There is no dispute from either side with regard to the possession of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties since from 1977. The plaintiffs also attain adverse possession over the said property to grant the declaration over the same in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of defendants. To support the above said contention the counsel for the plaintiffs also relied upon a decision reported in 2010 (6) ALD 141 between Bathina Chinnamma Vs. Bathina
Venkata Subbaiah, 2004 (5) ALD 605 between State of Andhra Pradesh
Vs. B.Venkanna . I have gone through the above two referred decisions.
Our lordships categorically discussed with regard to granting of declaration in respect of patta lands and basing on the adverse possession. In the presence case on hand the plaint schedule property was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs since 1977. There is no adverse remarks from the side of Government. At the same time there is no objection from the defendants with regard to the bar of granting declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. As such the above two referred decisions are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. As such the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration over the plaint schedule properties.
Issue No.2 :
18. So far as injunction over the plaint schedule properties are concerned PW.6 who is third party to the proceedings categorically deposed that the plaintiffs in both the suits are in possession and //13// enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties since 1985. The said evidence was not challenged by the defendants during the course of crossexamination. At the same time there is no contra evidence from the side of defendants by disclosing the possession of defendants over the entire properties claimed by them. The revenue authorities also issued Exs.A7 and A8 in favour of the plaintiffs in both the suits by affirming their possession over the plaint schedule properties. The evidence of PW.6 coupled with the documents Exs.A7 and A8 I strongly believe that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. As such they are entitled for the relief permanent injunction as prayed in the suit. Accordingly this issue is answered.
Issue No.3 :
In view of the answers to Issue Nos.1 and 2 the plaintiffs both the suits are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in their respective suits.
19. In the result, the suit in OS.No.115/2015 decreed by declaring the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and also granted permanent inunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In view of the relationship between the parties I direct both the parties do bear their own costs.
20. In the result, the suit in OS.No.124/2015 decreed by declaring the title of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and also granted permanent inunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In view of the relationship between the parties I direct both the parties do bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of March, 2020.
FAC/Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta.
//14//
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
LIST OF WITNESSES
For Plaintiffs : For Defendants : PW.1: G.Venkata RaoDW.1: G.Satyanarayana PW.2: G.Venkata RamanaDW.2: G.Krishna Murthy PW.3: T.Ramakrishna PW.4: I.Trimurthulu PW.5: K.Durga Prasad PW.6: D.Chandra Sekhar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
For Plaintiffs :
Ex.A1: Family arrangement dt.02.03.2005. Ex.A2: Death certificate of Guthula Pothuraju dt.27.10.2013. Ex.A3: Copy of death certificate of Guthula Ramana dt.10.09.2008. Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dt.07.02.2019. Ex.A5:Office copy of caveat petition dt.20.04.2015 on the file of this court Ex.A6: Certified copy of order in IA.No.403/2015 in OS.No.62/2015. Ex.A7: Certificate issued by VRO, Ubalanka dt.24.08.2006. Ex.A8: Certificate issued by VRO, Ubalanka dt.24.08.2006. Ex.A9: Electrical service receipt dt.04.03.2015. Ex.A10: Adangal copy dt.14.02.2020.
For Defendants :
Ex.B1: Title deed passbook issued by revenue authorities in favour of father of DW.1. Ex.B2: Served copy of plaint in OS.No.62/2015 Ex.B3: Served copy of caveat.
FAC/JCJ – Cum – JMFC, KPT.
…………….. ………...