Smt. Pramila Jain

1

IN THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT RAMANNAPET

(Dated, this is the 22nd day of September, 2021)

Present :- Dr, Smt, Pramila Jain,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Ramannapet

O.S. No. 77 of 2010

Between:-

Vanam Yadagiri S/o Late Satyanarayana, Age: 48 years, Occupation: Weaver , N/o

Ramannapet village and mandal, Presently R/o Madapur village, Lingampally mandal, Rangareddy District.

….Plaintiff

AND

1, Shaik John S/o Rasool Saheb, Age: 59 years, Occupation: Retired Teacher R/o

Chinna Masjid, Gandhi Road, Ramannapet town and mandal, Nalgonda district.

2, Vanam Venkatesham S/o Late Satyanarayana, Age: 45 years, Occupation:

Weaver, R/o Mammaya colony, Pochampally village and Mandal, Nalgonda district.

….Defendants 1&2

The suit coming before me for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri.

B.Ashok kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.Y. Krishna Reddy and

K.Ramdas learned Counsel for the defendant No.1&2, having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following.

2

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for declaration of title and Recovery of possession of plaint schedule property.

2. Averments of the plaint in brief later.

i.That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house bearing No.3-63 for an extent of 97sq.yards which was purchased by him from one

Shaik Asserudin S/o Bangi Saheb vide Registered Sale Deed bearing

No. 1774/80 dated 24-20-1980 of Sub Registrar Office Ramannapet.

The house was dilapidated condition at the time of purchase and later the plaintiff renovated the same and Grampanchayat officials given a new door no.2-167 which is exclusively belongs to this plaintiff (here in after called as suit schedule property)

Later the plaintiff shifted with family to Hyderabad in the month of ii.

January, 2009 for better life by doing work in a hand loom society at

Ameerpet at that time, he requested his own brother i.e., defendant

No.2 by giving the keys of it to take care of his house by giving it on rent to any good family and used to visit the suit property frequently.

In the course of said visits the plaintiff observed that the 1st defendant tried to interfere into the possession of plaintiff and hatched the plan to occupy the same illegal by doing unlawful acts. In the circumstances , the plaintiff got issue a notice to the 1st defendant on 08-03-2020 calling upon him to stop his illegal activities to occupy the suit property. The 1st defendant got issue a reply notice dated 15- 03-2010 through Sri.M.A.Majeed, Advocate, Ramannapet stating that he purchase the house bearing No.2-168/1 by certain boundaries and further alleged that the suit property and said H.No.2-168/1 are 3 different after receiving the said notice, the plaintiff visited the suit property on 21-03-2010, surprisingly the 1st defendant is in possession of his house i.e., suit property and on questioning by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences stating that he purchased the suit property from his brother under Register

Sale Deed and denied the title of the plaintiff and refused to vacate and to hand over the possession of the same. Immediately the plaintiff approached the second defendant and asked about his illegal acts for which he did not responded and denied the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that later the plaintiff obtained encumbrance certificate from the Sub Registrar, Ramannapet on 21-06-2010 and came to know that the father of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant namely Late.Vanam Satyanarayana had a house towards western side to the suit property of the plaintiff having present

Grampanchayat No.2-168. Taking advantage of it, the 2nd defendant by adding a bit No. 2-168/1 with wrong boundaries executed the

Registered Sale Deed in favor of 1st defendant vide document

No.388/2009, dated 18-03-2009 for illegal gain and inducted him in possession of suit property with the keys which was already given to 2nd defendant by the plaintiff. Immediately the plaintiff approached the defendant on 23-06-2010 and demanded for restoration of the possession of the suit property, for which they refused to do so by denying his title also. In the circumstances the plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.

3. On receipts of summons, the defendant No.1 and 2 filed their written statements.

4

The brief contention of the written statements filed by the D1 is that the suit filed the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff was neither owner not possessor of the plan schedule property bearing No. 2-167 (Old

No.3-63) for an extent of 975sq.yards built up area 840sq.fts. The boundaries shown in the plaint schedule property are false and fictitious for the purpose of the case. The D1 further contended that the defendant No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of the residential house bearing

Grampanchayat No.2-168/1 in block no. II having total plot area 55sq.yards constructed area 333sq.fts situated at Ramannapet village and bounded by:

North:- House of Akavarapu Srinivas Chary.

South:- Kurmawada Road.

East:- Open place of B.Anasuya.

West:- House of Kongari Laxmi W/o Ramachandram.

Defendant was being the absolute owner and possessor of the said house, sold away the same to the defendant No.1, by way of Registered Sale deed No.338/2009, dated 17-03-2009, on the file of Sub Registrar,

Ramannapet. On the same day the defendant No.2 delivered the possession of the same to the defendant No.1 and ever since, the defendant no.1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same till date by paying the property tax to the Grampanchayat, Ramannapet and electricity consumption charges to the A.P. Transco transaction, having service connection No.3021. Thus, the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the said house and he has bonafied purchaser for value.

Further, the defendant No.1 got his name mutated in the Grampanchayat 5 records basing of his above said sale deed. At the time of purchase, the said house was on name of the defendant No.2 in the Grampanchayat records and he was in possession of the same. It is also submitted that at the time of sale transaction, the defendant No.2 informed to the defendant no.1 that the said house had fell his share in partition with the plaintiff and their family members namely mother and sisters. The D1 further contended that original, the house purchased by this defendant and other portions was constructed by the father of the defendant No.2 and plaintiff and his name was recorded in the Grampanchayat records. After the death of father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 namely Vanam Satyanarayana, plaintiff and defendant No.2 and their family members have partitioned and divided the same in the month of September, 2004. At the time of partition of their properties

Vanam Gopala Kistaiah, Vanam Narsaiah, Sangishetti Krishnaiah, Baratha

Shekar, Vanam Narsimha, Gurram Muthyalu, Kongari Ramachandram were the elders. At the time of partition, the settled elders reduced the statement in to writing about the details of the partition and signed by the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and their family members i.e., mother and sisters. The original document is given to the plaintiff and a xerox copy was given to the defendant No.2 . If the plaintiff files the original document of partition , the real facts would come into light.

The brief contention of the written statement filed by the D2 is that there is no dispute about the relationship between plaintiff and defendant

No.2 and their description. But the claim of the plaintiff is false and incorrect, hence denied in to-to. The plaintiff was and is neither owner nor possessor of the suit schedule property. The boundaries shown in the plaint schedule are also false and incorrect , created for the purpose of case. The 6 defendant No.2 does not know about the issuance of the notice to the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff and that the D2 did not receive any notice from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has created and make believe story for the purpose of the case and tried to extract money by all this kind of blackmailing.

The D2 further contended that original, the suit schedule property was the part of the joint family consisting of plaintiff, defendant No.2 their father and their sister laxmi. Actually, the suit schedule property and other properties were purchased by the father of the defendant No.2, though it was registered in the name of the plaintiff. Vanam Satyanarayana (father of plaintiff and defendant No.2) had constructed the H.No.2-168 (Suit

Property) during his life time with joint family funds. After the death of

Vanam Sathyanarayana, his two sons, daughter and wife have divided and partitioned their joint family property, inclusively of the suit property, before the caste elders namely Y. Gopala Kistaiah , Kongari Ramachandram,

Surepalli Ramesh, Bharatha Shekar, Gurram Muthyalu, Vanam Narsaiah and

Vanam Narsimha S/o Goapala Kistaiah and others. The partition was reduced into writting on 26-09-2004 on a non judicial stamp paper Rs.10/-

The plaintiff and defendant No.2 have signed on the partition document along with other share holders and elders/witnesses. As per the said partition, the following property was fell to the share of this defendant No.2.

The partition was implemented in the Grampanchayat records. The house bearing Grampanchayat No.2-168/1, block no.II having total area of 55sq.yards constructed area 333sq.fts. Situated at Ramannapet village has been fell to the share of defendant no.2 and the same is bounded by :

7

North:- House of Akavarapu Srinivasa Chary.

South:- Kurmawada Road.

East:- Open place of B.Anasuya.

West:- House of Kongari Laxmi W/o Ramachandram.

The D2 further contended that in the partition, the defendant No.2 has been in possession and enjoyment of his property fell to his share in the capacity of absolute owner. The D2 was being the absolute owner and possessor, sold the same to the defendant No.1 for his family necessity and executed Registered Sale deed, in the month of March, 2009, by delivering the possession of same , in favor of the purchaser. Ever since, the defendant no.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till date, by paying the property tax. The Said purchaser got the house mutated on his name, in the Grampanchayat records. Defendant No.1 obtained electricity connection also and developed the same by spending huge amount .

That the house number extended and the boundaries of the suit property are false and incorrect and not tallying with property fell to the share of the defendant

No.2. The plaintiff by filing this suit wants to occupy the house sold the defendant

No.1 by defendant No.2.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clearly go to show area that the claim of the plaintiff is false and incorrect and he did not come to the

Honorable Court with clean hands. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree

that he prayed in suit. The plaintiff has no right, interest or claim over the property that fell to the share of this defendant and in turn he sold the same to the defendant

No.1.

4. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are framed:

8

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for delivering of possession of the same back to the plaintiff after exciting the 1st defendant there from?

2. To what relief?

5. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 examined and Exs.A1 to A8 marked. On behalf of the defendant DWS.1 and 2 examined and got marked

Ex.B1 to 5.

6. Here the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

7. Issue Nos.1 and 2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as absolute owner of I.

the suit schedule property and for delivering of possession of the same back to the plaintiff after exciting the 1st defendant their from.

8. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the bearing No.3-63 for an extent of 97sq.yards which was purchased by him from one Shaik Asseruddin S/o Bangi Saheb vide registered sale deed bearing No.1774/80, dated 24-20-1980 of Sub Registrar

Office, Ramannapet. The house was dilapidated condition at the time of purchase of plaintiff later, the plaintiff renovated the same and

Grampanchayat officials given a new door No.2-167 which is exclusively belongs to this plaintiff later the plaintiff shifted with family to Hyderabad in the month of January, 2009 for better life by doing work in Hand loom society at Ameerpet. At that time, he requested his own brother i.e., the defendant No.2 by giving keys of it to take care of his house by giving it on rent to any good family and use to visit the suit property frequently. Later the D2 sold away the suit schedule property to D1 with by creating a

Manipulating document as such the plaintiff filed the suit.

9

In support of his contention, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is CC of Registered Sale deed

No.1774/1980 dated 24-10-1980, shows that the plaintiff purchased the dilapidated to an extent of 97sq.yards situated at Ramannapet village

H.no.3-63 now in the shape of open plot bounded by East:- Open plot of

Vanal Devandramma W/o Rangaiah, West: House of Vanam Satyanarayana,

North: House of Vallamdasu Vasudev, South: Road through valuable consideration from the Shaik Ameeruddin. Ex.A2 copy of legal notice from the office of the S.Ramesh, Advocate, Hyderabad dated 08-03-2010, Ex.A3 the original postal receipt No. 1213 dated 09-03-2010, Ex.A4 is replied notice of D1 from the office of the M.A.Majeed, Advocate, Ramannapet

dated 15-03-2010, Ex.A5 is certificate of encumbrance on property dated

21-06-2010. Ex.A6 is market value certificate issued by the SRO

Ramannapet, dated 21-06-2010, Ex.A7 is house ownership certificate number A1/GPR/10/2010, dated 21-06-2010 issued by Panchayat Secretary,

Grampanchayat Ramannapet. Ex.A8 is receipt No.4157 issued by

Panchayat Secretary Grampanchayat, Ramannapet dated 21-06-2010.

The above documents shows that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the house No.3-63 now in the shape of open plot bounded by: East:-

Open plot of Vanal Devandramma W/o Rangaiah, West: House of Vanam

Satyanarayana, North: House of Vallamdasu Vasudev, South: Road.

The Plaintiff examined as P.W1 and he disposed the same line of his plaint and disposed that the house was dilapidated condition at the time of purchase and later, the plaintiff renovated the same and Grampanchayat officials given new door no.2-167 and later he was shifted with family to

Hyderabad for better life by doing work in a hand loom society at Ameerpet and at that time, he requested the own brother i.e., the defendant No.2 by 10 giving the keys of it to take care of his house by giving it on rent to any good family and used to visit the suit property frequently. In the course of said visitings, the plaintiff observed that the 1st defendant tried to interfere into the possession of plaintiff and hatched a plan to occupy the same illegal by doing unlawful acts. In the circumstances, the plaintiff got issue a notice to the 1st defendant on 08-03-2010 calling upon him to stop his illegally activities to occupy the suit property. The 1st defendant got issued reply notice dated 15-03-2010 through Sri.M.A.Majeed, Advocate, Ramannapet stating that he purchase the house bearing No.2-168/1 by certain boundaries and further alleged that the suit property and said house no. 2-168/1 are different. After receiving the said notice, the plaintiff visited the suit property on 21-03-2010, Surprisingly the 1st defendant is in possession of his house i.e., suit property on questioning by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences stating that he purchased the suit property from his brother under register sale deed and denied the title of the plaintiff and refused to vacate and to handed over the possession of the same. Immediately the plaintiff approached the second defendant and asked about his illegal acts, for which he did not responded and denied the title of the plaintiff.

During cross examination by learned Counsel for the D1 the plaintiff admitted that he lost the original copy of Ex.A1 i.e., sale deed dated 24-10-1980.

His father namely Vanam Satyanarayana was expired in the year 2004 and he got married in the year 1983 and he has not get married at the time of registration of

Ex.A1 i.e., sale deed dated 24-10-1980 and that he was the weaver at the time of registration of Ex.A1. The PW1 further admitted during his cross examination by the learned counsel for the D1 that his father namely Vanam Satyanarayana was 11 use to weaver at the time of registration and at the time of registration of Ex.A-1 they are joint family consisting of his father, himself and his sister and his brother i.e., D-2 and having one house of his father bearing no.2-168 consisting of two portions and they got separated in the year 2001. There is no open place in the house of his father. P.W.1 further admitted during cross examination by the learned counsel for the D1 that he is not share in his father house as it is retain by his father only and they have not written any partition deed when they got separated and that the Ex.A-1 is not where related to the house of his father and he left the

Ramannapet village the year 2007 along with his family and use to visit occasionally i.e., once in 2 or 3 months.

The P.W1 further admitted during cross examination by the learned counsel for the D2 that he was not mentioned in his plaint, as well as chief affidavit that he lost the original document of Ex.A-1 and that he is not filed any document to show that the vendor in the Ex.A-1 is the owner of the property from the Shaik

Ameruddin and he has not filed a Permission from the Grampanchayat and layout plan of suit schedule property. The P.W1 further admitted during cross examination by the learned counsel for the D2 and that there is no specific boundaries to the Ex.A-7 i.e., ownership certificate as the ownership certificate does not contain boundaries. The Ex.A-7 does not contain old house no.3-63 and that he was not issue legal notice to the defendant No.2 further P.W1 admitted that there is no agreement between P.W1 and defendant No.2 with regard to that as handed over the house bearing No.2-167. P.W1 have not filed any criminal case against the defendant No.2. PW1 further admitted that he not filed any case against the defendant No.2 stating for cancellation of registration document executing is favor of defendant no.1 and he is not taken any action against

Grampanchayat for giving No.2-168/1. There is only one portion on his father 12 name. P.W1 further admitted that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit that how many rooms are there in his father house.

The plaintiff as P.W1 further examined PW2 who is his brother in law and he disposed the same version to P.W1 as per his chief and during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the D1 nothing to elicit to discredit his evidence and during cross examination by the D2 the P.W2 elicit that his original notice place is Kovatpally of Abdullapur Mettu, Rangareddy District and he have acquaintance with the family affairs of the PW-1 and defendant No.2 after got married to their sister in the year 1992 and he is not seen the Ex.A-1 after purchase of suit schedule property from one Shaik Amruddin and he do not know the name of the person house on eastern side Vanam Satyanarayana house is located on western side of suit schedule property who is no other than his father in law.

PW.2 further disposed that he did not know the other boundary holders name are the suit schedule property. Now and then he use to visit the suit schedule property the suit schedule property house bearing No.2-167 and he did not know the house bearing number of his father in law even though he used to visit his father in law. He do not know the house bearing number of PW-1 at present. He was not know present by that time to handed over the keys to the defendant No.2 on rent. PW.2 further disposed that he do not know which year defendant No.1 is reside in it. His elder brother in law is residing in the house of his father in law and his father in law house is consisting of one portion and he did not know where there is any vacating side after construction of house of his father in law. PW-1 and defendant No.2 were willing to partition of his father in law house which is consisting of one room but it has not came into force. The elder has not signed on the partition agreement and he do not know whether defendant No.1, name was mutated in the Grampanchayat register or not.

13

The defendant no.1 himself was examined as D.W1 and got marked

Ex.B1 to B6. Ex.B1 is original mutation proceedings No.GPR/08/09 issued by the

Grampanchayat Ramannapet to D2 dated 21-02-2009 clearly shows that the name of the D2 mutated in the Grampanchayat records and issue H.No as 2-168/1.

Ex.B2 is original sale deed bearing No.388/2009 executed by the D2 in favor of

D1 in respect of the house purchased by the D1 house door no.2-168/1 situated at

Ramannapet dated 17-03-2009. Ex.B3 is the original mutation proceedings no.

GPR/28/2010 issued by the Grampanchayat Ramannapet in favor of the D1 dated 08-07-2010. Ex.B4 is the original tax receipt issued by the Grampanchayat

Ramannapet in favor of D1 dated 25-09-2010. Ex.B5 is the office copy of replied notice issued by the D1 through his counsel to plaintiff dated 15-03-2010 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement. Ex.B6 is original house tax receipt issued by the Grampanchayat in the name of D2 dated 26-06-2009.

As per the above documents filed by the D1 that the house bearing no.2-168/2 D1 purchased the suit schedule property from D2 through registered sale deed vide Ex.B2 and as per Ex.B3 the name of the D2 was mutated it in

Grampanchayat records.

During cross examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff the DW1 admitted that he worked as a teacher and retired from the services and his original notice place Banda Ramaram village of Thungathurthy mandal and he stayed in

Ramannapet at about 30 years ago and he purchased the tiled house which is in good condition to live the tiled house is consisting of three rooms and he purchased the tiled house after due inquiry that D-2 is the original owner of the suit schedule property. The DW1 further admitted during the cross examination by the learned

Counsel for the plaintiff that he filed the Ex.B1 before this court that the D-2 was the owner of the property. DW.1 further admitted that there are no boundaries of 14 the tiled house under Ex.B-1. In support of said contention the DW1 further examined DW2 who is third party and he disposed the same lines on DW.1 and during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff he admitted that he was a journalist and also a farmer. The suit is running between the PW-1 and defendant No.1 far purchased of the house and his House Door No.,3-1/7/1 and his house is located opposite house of defendant No.1 and he cannot say in which direction his house is located to the suit schedule property.

In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court examined the material on record that the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. As per Ex.A1 the plaintiff prayed the court for claim of recovery of possession in H.No.2-167 bounded by : East:- Open plot of Vanal Devandramma W/o

Rangaiah, West: House of Vanam Satyanarayana, North: House of

Vallamdasu Vasudev, South: Road. In the same time the defendant argued that as per Ex.B1 document filed by D1 that the house bearing No. 1-168/1

D1 purchased the suit schedule property from D2 through Registered sale deed vide Ex.B2 and as per Ex.B3 the name of the D2 was mutated in

Grampanchayat reords bounded by North: House of A.Srinivas Chary,

South: Kurmawada Road, East: Open place of B.Anasuya, west: House of

Kongari Laxmi.

As per the version of the plaintiff is that he was shifted his family to Hyderabad for better life by doing work in hand loom society at Ameerpet at that time, he requested his own brother i.e., the defendant No.2 by giving the keys of it to take care of his house by giving it on rent to any good family and use to visit the suit property frequently. In the course of said visits , the plaintiff observed that the 1st 15 defendant tried to interfere into the possession of plaintiff and hatched a plan to occupy the same illegal by doing unlawful acts. In the circumstances, the plaintiff got issue a notice to the 1st defendant on 08-03-2010 calling upon him to stop his illegal activities to occupy the suit property. The 1st defendant got issue a reply notice dated 15-03-2010 through Sri.M.A.Majeed, Advocate Rammannapet stating that purchased the house bearing No.2-168/1 by certain boundaries and further alleged that suit property and said house No.2-168/1 are different. After receiving the said notice, the plaintiff visited the suit property on 21-03-2010, Surprisingly the 1st defendant is in possession of his house i.e., suit property and on questioning by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences stating that he purchased the suit property from his brother under register sale deed. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the D1 and D2 he admitted that the father of plaintiff as P.W.1 namely Vanam Satyaranayana was expired in the year 2004 and he got married in the year 1983 and he is not got married at that time of registration of Ex.A-1 i.e., sale deed dated 24-10-1980 and that he was a weaver at the time of registration of Ex.A-1. The PW1 further admitted during his cross examination by the learned counsel for D1 that his father namely Vanam Satyanarayana was used to weaver at the time of registration and at time of registration on Ex.A-1 they are joint family consisting of his father, and himself and his sister and his brother i.e., D-2 and having one house of his father bearing no.,2-168 consisting of two portion and they got separated in the year 2001. There is no open place in the house of his father. PW.1 further admitted during cross examination by the learned counsel for the D1 that he has no share in his father house as it is retained by his father only and they have not written any partition deed when they got separated and that the Ex.A-1 is no way related to the house of his father and he left the Ramannapet village in the year 2009 along with his family and use to visit occasionally i.e., once in two or three months. The P.W1 16 further admitted during the cross examination by the learned counsel of the D2 and he was not mentioned in his plaint, as well as chief affidavit that he lost the original document of Ex.A-1 and that he has not filed any document to show that the vendor in the Ex.A-1, is the owner of the property from the Shaik Ameeruddin and that he is not filed a permission from the Grampanchayat and layout plan of the suit schedule property. The P.W1 further admitted during the cross examination by the learned counsel for the D2 that there are not specific boundaries to the

Ex.A-7 i.e., ownership certificate as the ownership certificate does not contain boundaries. The Ex.A-7 does not contain old house No.,3-63 and that he was not issue legal notice to the defendant no.2. Further PW1 admitted that there is no agreement between P.W1 and defendant no.2 with regard to that is handed over the house bearing No.2-167. P.W1 have not filed any criminal case against the defendant no.,2. PW1 further admitted that he is not filed any case against the defendant no.2 stating cancellation of registration document executing in favor of defendant No.1 and he is not taken any action against the Grampanchayat for giving No.2-168/1. There is only one portion as his father name. P.W1 further admitted that he is not mentioned in his chief affidavit that how many rooms are there in his father house.

PW.2 further disposed that he do not know the other boundary holder name are the suit schedule property. Now and then he use to visit the suit schedule property the suit schedule property house bearing No.2-167 and he did not know the house bearing no of his father in law even though he use to visit his father in law house. He does not know the house bearing no of PW-1 at present. He was not present by what time to handed over the keys to the defendant No.2 on rent.

The defendant no.2 filed unregistered partition deed along with his written statement that originally, the suit schedule property was the part of the joint family 17 consisting of plaintiff, Defendant No.2, their father and their sister laxmi. Actually, the suit schedule property and other properties has purchased by the father of the defendant No.2, though it was registered in the name of the plaintiff. Vanam

Satyanarayana (father of plaintiff and defendant no.2) had constructed the house

No.2-168 (suit property) during his life time with joint family funds. After the death of Vanam Sathyanarayana, his two sons, daughter and wife have divided and partitioned their joint family property, inclusively of the suit property, before the caste elders namely Vanam Goapala Kistaiah, Kongari Ramachandram, Surepalli

Ramesh, Bharatha Shekar, Gurram Muthyalu, Vanam Narsaiah and Vanam

Narsimha S/o Gopala Kistaiah and others. The partition was reduced into writing on 26-09-2004 on a non judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- the plaintiff and defendant

No.2 have signed on the partition document along with other share holders and elders/witnesses. As per the said partition, the following property was fell to the share of this defendant no.2. The partition was implemented in the Grampanchayat records. The house bearing Grampanchayat No.2-168/1, block no.II having total area of 55sq.yards constructed area 333sq.fts situated at Ramannapet village has been fell to the share of defendant no.12.

As per the above document the D1 purchased As per Ex.B1 document filed by the D1 that the house bearing no.1-168/1 D1 purchased the suit schedule property from D2 through registered sale deed vide Ex.B2 and as per Ex.B3 the name of the D2 was mutated in Grampanchayat records bounded by North: House of A.Srinivas Chary, South: Kurmawada Road,

East: Open place of B.Anasuya, West: House of Kongari Laxmi.

During the cross examination by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff for the plaintiff the DW1 admitted that he has purchased the tiled house which is good 18 condition to live the tiled house is consisting of three rooms and he purchased the tiled house after due inquiry that D2 is the original owner of the suit schedule property and he filed the Ex.B1 before this court that D2 was the owner of the property and that there are no boundaries of the tiled house under Ex.B1. If really, the D2 sold out the property of plaintiff , the plaintiff was not issued any legal notice to the defendant No.2 further PW1 admitted that there is no agreement between P.W1 and defendant No.2 with regard to that is handed over the house bearing No.2-167. P.W1 have not filed any criminal case against the defendant

No.2 PW1 further admitted that he is not filed any case against the defendant No.2 stating for cancellation of registration document executing in favor of defendant

No.1 and he is not taken any action against the Grampanchayat for giving no 2- 168/1. There is only one portion on his father name. P.W1 further admitted that he is not mentioned in the chief affidavit that how many rooms are there in his father house.

Therefore in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court holds that the plaintiff did not prove his contention for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property but as per record there contradiction between the boundaries between the plaintiffs property and D2 property and plaintiff fail to prove the specific boundaries physical feature of his house bearing no.2-167 at least through appoint advocate commissioner and he did not seek cancellation of registered deed to prove his claim and the plaintiff fail to adduce cogent evidence in order to prove his claim. The plaintiff utterly failed to adduce any evidence to show that the house no.2- 168 is belongs to plaintiff. The H.No.2-168/1 was already purchased by the

D1 from D2 through Ex.B2 and his name was mutated in all Grampanchayat records and Grampanchayat was also issue to new house House number to

D2. In case, the D1 property is plaintiff, the plaintiff questioning the 19

Grampanchayat about how Grampanchayat alloted to new number to his property. The suit schedule property is ancestral property acquired from the father of D1 through simple partition and the partition deed filed by the D1 along with his written statement. The plaintiff kept silent with regard to the above document. Hence, there are so many contradictions are there as per the above evidence on record this court holds the plaintiff fail to adduce cogent evidence to show that suit schedule property i.e., H.No.2-167 and defendant claim property i.e., H.No. 2-168/1 are one and boundaries also different.

Therefore in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court to holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to be declared as absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property.

Point is answered accordingly.

To what relief ?

In the result, suit dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2021.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Ramannapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW-1:Vanam Yadagiri

PW-2:Surepally Ramesh

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

DW-1:Shaik John S/o Rasool Saheb 20

DW-2:Md. Ibrahim S/o Rajjab Ali

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1: CC of Registered Sale deed No. 1774/80, dated 24-10-1980.

Ex.A-2: Copy of legal notice from the Office of the S.Ramesh, Advocate,

Hyderabad, dated 08-03-2010.

Ex.A-3: Original Postal receipt No.1213, dated 09-03-2010.

Ex.A-4: Reply notice of D-1 from the Office of the M.A.Majeed, Advocate,

Ramannapet dated 15-03-2010.

Ex.A-5: Certificate of Encumbrance on property, dated 21-06-2010.

Ex.A-6: Market value Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Ramannapet, dated 21-06-2010.

Ex.A-7: House ownership certificate No.A1/GPR/10/2010, dated 21-06-2010 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Grampanchayath, Ramannapet.

Ex.A-8: Receipt No.4157 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Grampanchayath,

Ramannapet dated 21-06-2010.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:- NIL-

Ex.B-1: is the original mutation proceedings no., GPR/08/09 issued by the Gram

Panchayath, Ramannapet to defendant no.,2 dated 21.02.2009.

Ex.B-2: is the original sale deed bearing no., 388/2009 executed by the defendant no.,2 in favour of defendant no.,1 in respect of the house purchased by the defendant no.,1, house door no.,2-168/1 situated at Ramannapet dated 17.03.2009.

Ex.B-3: is the original mutation proceedings no., GPR/28/2010 issued by the Gram

Panchayath, Ramannapet in favour of defendant no.,1 dated 08.07.2010.

Ex.B-4: is the original tax receipt issued by the Gram Panchayath, Ramannapet in favour of defendant no.,1 dated 25.09.2010.

21

Ex.B-5: is the office copy of reply notice issued by the defendant no.,1 through his counsel to plaintiff dated 15.03.2010 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

Ex.B-6: is the original house tax receipt issued by the Grampanchayath in the name of defendant no.,2, dated 26.02.2009.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Ramannapet.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT RAMANNAPET

(Dated this the 28th day of September, 2021)

Present:- Dr., Smt., Pramila Jain, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

O.S. No. 02 of 2020

Between: Musham Manemma w/o Sathaiah, Age: 70 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Iskilla Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

... Plaintiff

And

1.Vallamalla Mysaiah S/o Narsaiah, Age: 50 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Iskilla Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

2.Vallamalla Shekar S/o Narsaiah, Age: 42 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Iskilla Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

… Defendants

This suit is coming before me for hearing on 27.09.2021 in the presence of

Sri., M.Sathi Reddy, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants is set ex-parte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Plaintiff filed the suit against the Defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their heirs, agents, servants, workmen and henchmen from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the plaint schedule property with costs.

2.The brief averments made in the plaint are that the Plaintiff here in purchased the land bearing the land bearing Sy. No. 177/U ( ) admeasuring

Ac. 0-19 gts, Sy. No. 177/U( ) admeasuring Ac. 1-12 gts, Sy. No. 178/AA2 ( ) admeasuring Ac.0-01 gts, respectively, total admeasuring Ac.1-32 gts, Dry in nature, situated at Iskilla Village of Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, 2 from its original pattadar and possessor namely Vallamalla Shekar S/o Narsaiah

R/o Iskilla village of Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. Boundaries in the Plaint Schedule Property for 177/UU( ), 177/AA ( ), 177/LU( ), 178/AA2 ( ) East:- Land of G. Purushotham Rao, West:- Cart Track, North:- Land of

Devaiah, South:- Land of Kokkuru Raju and boundaries for 181/EE( ), 181/A( ), 181/RU ( ), 181/AA ( ) are East:- Cart Track, West:- Cart Track, North:- Land of

Valamalla Ramesh, South:- Land of Valamala Pochaiah

The Plaintiff submitted that, Plaintiff herein purchased the land bearing the land bearing Sy. No. 177/U ( ) admeasuring of Ac. 0-19 gts, Sy. No.

177/U( ) admeasuring Ac. 1-12 gts, Sy. No. 178/AA2 ( ) admeasuring Ac.

0-01 gts, respectively, total admeasuring Ac.1-32 gts, Dry in nature, situated at

Iskilla Village of Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, from its original pattadar and possessor namely Vallamalla Shekar S/o Narsaiah R/o Iskilla village of Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda district now Yadadri-Bhongir District, by way of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2291/95, Dated 05-06-1995, on the file of Sub-Registrar, Ramannapet. Subsequently Plaintiff again purchased the land bearing Survey No. 177/LU( ) admeasuring Ac.0-20gts, Survey No.181/EE( ) admeasuring Ac.0-08 gts, Survey No.181/A ( ) admeasuring Ac.0-07 gts, Survey

No.181/RU( ) admeasuring Ac.0-21 gts, Survey No.182/AA( ) admeasuring

Ac.1-06 gts, respectively, total admeasuring Ac.2-22 gts, Dry in nature, situated at

Iskilla village, Ramannapet mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, from its original pattadars and possessors namely 1. Vallamalla Mysaiah S/o Narasaiah and

2. Vallamalla Shekar S/o Narsaiah both R/o Iskilla Village, Ramannapet Mandal,

Nalgonda district now Yadadri Bhongir district, by way of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 347/2001, Dated 07-06-2001 on the file of Sub-Registrar,

Ramannapet. Thus the plaintiff purchased the total admeasuring of Ac.4-14 gts 3 situated at Iskilla Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir district which is more clearly described in the below mentioned plaint schedule property herein after referred as ‘Suit land’. On the strength of aforesaid two registered Sale Deeds, the Revenue authorities mutated the name of the Plaintiff in all the revenue records as owner, pattadar and possessor and issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in her favour under the provisions of ROR Act. Recently, the Revenue authorities also issued Digital Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title Deed in favour of the Plaintiff. Ever since the date of purchasing the suit land, the Plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption and she invested huge amounts for leveling the suit land and raising crops in it in every agricultural season. The Defendants are not having any manner of rights of whatsoever are bent upon interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit land.

Further it is submitted that the Plaintiff herewith filing the Digital

Pattadar pass book-cum-Title Deed, Original Pattadar Pass book, C.C of 1-B

Namoona (ROR), Original Registered Sale Deed No.2291/1995, Dated 05-06- 1995. True copy of Amendment Register for the year 1995-96, Original Registered

Sale Deed No.347/2001, Dated 07-06-2001, True copy of Amendment Register for the year 2006-2007, C.C. of Pahanies for the year 2014 and 2019 issued by Tahsil

Office, Ramannapet mandal and Encumbrance Certificate etc., which clearly establishes the prima facie, absolute title and instant possession over the suit property for seeking injunction orders. The Defendants have got no manner of right, title and interest on the suit property and they are trying to interfere with the

Plaintiff’s peaceful possession.

3.The Plaintiff further submitted that on 18-12-2019 when the Plaintiff is removing the unwanted trees and bushes from the suit land with the help of 4 laborers the Defendants along with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to stop the work of the Plaintiff in order to occupy the same by force and by dispossessing the Plaintiff therefrom by threatening with dire consequences. However, the plaintiff has resisted their illegal interference with great difficulty with the help of well-wishers. But the Defendants left the suit schedule property cautioning the Plaintiff that in her absence they will occupy the suit schedule property within one or two days. Therefore, it is very difficult to the

Plaintiff to protect her property from the illegal interference of the Defendants.

Upon that the plaintiff approached the Police, Ramannapet Mandal, but they advised her to approach the Court of law as the matter is Civil in nature. In view of the facts and circumstances it is very difficult to protect her suit land from the illegal interference by the Defendants, because they are large in number and influential persons in the village. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has no other alternative except to approach the Hon’ble Court for grant of permanent injunction order decree restraining the Defendants, their heirs, agents, servants, henchmen and workmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Otherwise the Plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner. Hence this suit.

NOTE: In the above said Plaint Schedule property Telugu Alphabets mentioned in the Survey No. indicates UU = ( ), AA = ( ), LU = ( ), AA2 = ( ),

EE = ( ), A = ( ), RU = ( ), AA = ( ),

4.Defendant is set ex-parte.

5.In order to prove the suit claim, the Plaintiff filed the affidavit on her behalf and plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 who reiterated the plaint averments in support of Ex., A-1 to Ex., A-10 were marked. Ex., A-1 is the C.C. of 5

Original Digital Pattadar pass book-cum-Title Deed issued by the Tahsildar,

Ramannapet Mandal, dated 01.06.2018, Ex., A-2 is the C.C. of 1-B Namoona

ROR issued by the Tahsildar, Mothkur mandal through “Mee-Seva”, dated 03.07.2019, Ex., A-3 is the C.C. of Original Registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No.2291/95, on the file of SRO Ramannapet, dated: 05-06-1995,

Ex., A-4 is the C.C. of True copy of Amendment Register issued by the Nayab

Tahsildar, Ramannapet, for the year 1995-96 , Ex., A-5 is the C.C. of Original

Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.347/2001, on the file of SRO

Ramannapet dated 07-06-2001, Ex., A-6 is the C.C of True copy of Amendment

Register issued by the Nayab Tahasildar, Ramannapet for the year 2006-2007,

Ex., A-7 is the C.C. of True copy of Pahani issued by the Nayab Tahasildar,

Ramannapet mandal for the year 2014-2015, Ex., A-8 is the C.C. of True copy of

Pahani for the year 2017, issued by the Tahasildar, Ramannapet mandal through

Mee-Seva, dated 03.07.2019, Ex., A-9 is the C.C of True copy of Pahani for the year 2017, issued by the Tahasildar, Ramannapet mandal through Mee-Seva, dated 03-07-2019 and 23-12-2019, Ex., A-10 is the C.C. of Encumbrance Certificate, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Ramannapet. The evidence of PW-1 goes to show that originally PW-1 purchased the land in Sy. No. 177/UU ( ), 177/AA( ), 177/LU ( ), 178/AA2( ), 181/EE( ), 181/A( ), 181/RU( ), 182/AA( ) for a extent of Ac. 4-14 gts., situated at Iskilla Village of Ramannapet Mandal through

Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.2291/95, dated 05-6-1995 and 347/2001,

dated 07.06.2001 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Ramannapet, from its original

owner 1.Valamalla Mysaiah S/o Narsaiah, and 2.Valamalla Shekar, S/o Narsaiah both R/o Iskilla village. After purchasing the aforesaid land, the PW-1 Musham

Manemma has got mutated land in the revenue records. The revenue authorities have also recorded the name of the PW-1 in the relevant column of the pahanies as 6 pattadar, possessor and enjoyer of the suit schedule property. Further, the

Telangana Government has also issued latest Digital Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title

Deed in favor of the PW-1 in respect of the plaint schedule property. Ever since

PW-1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit schedule property. PW-1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of purchase of the suit schedule property.

6.PW-1 further stated that on 18-12-2019 when the Plaintiff is removing the unwanted trees and bushes from the suit land with the help of laborers the

Defendants along with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to stop the work of the Plaintiff in order to occupy the same by force and by dispossessing the Plaintiff therefrom by threatening with dire consequences.

However, the plaintiff has resisted their illegal interference with great difficulty with the help of well-wishers. But the Defendants left the suit schedule property cautioning the plaintiff that in her absence they will occupy the suit schedule property within one or two days. Therefore, it is very difficult to the Plaintiff to protect her property from the illegal interference of the Defendants. Upon that the plaintiff approached the Police, Ramannapet Mandal, but they advised her to approach the Court of law as the matter is Civil in nature. In view of the facts and circumstances it is very difficult to protect her suit land from the illegal interference by the Defendants, because they are large in number and influential persons in the village. In these circumstances, the PW-1 has no other alternative except to approach the Hon’ble Court for grant of perpetual injunction order restraining the Defendants, their heirs, agents, servants, workmen and henchmen from interfering with PW-1 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit

Schedule property. The evidence of PW-1 further goes to show that PW-1 has been 7 in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, Ex., A-1 to Ex., A-10 proves the same.

7.Since the evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged and unrebutted and the evidence of PW-1 is coupled with Ex., A-1 to Ex., A-10 clinchingly goes to show that PW-1 has been peaceful possession of suit schedule property since from the date of purchased the land from his vendor. Hence the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex., A-1 to Ex., A-10 proves that PW-1 is absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed for perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants, their heirs, agents, servants, workmen and henchmen from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of September, 2021)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW-1: Musham Manemma - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex., A-1 is the C.C. of Original Digital Pattadar pass book-cum-Title Deed issued by the Tahsildar, Ramannapet Mandal, dated 01.06.2018,

Ex., A-2 is the CC of 1-B Namoona ROR issued by the Tahsildar, Mothkur mandal through Mee-Seva, dated 03.07.2019, 8

Ex., A-3 is the C.C. of Original Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2291/95, on the file of SRO Ramannapet, dated: 05-06-1995,

Ex., A-4 is the C.C. of True copy of Amendment Register issued by the Nayab Tahsildar, Ramannapet, for the year 1995-96,

Ex., A-5 is the C.C. of Original Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.347/2001, on the file of SRO Ramannapet dated 07-6-2021,

Ex., A-6 is the C.C. of True copy of Amendment Register issued by the Nayab Tahasildar, Ramannapet for the year 2006-2007,

Ex., A-7 is the C.C. of True copy of Pahani issued by the Nayab Tahasildar, Ramannapet mandal for the year 2014-2015,

Ex., A-8 is the C.C. of True copy of Pahani for the year 2017, issued by the Tahasildar, Ramannapet mandal through Mee-Seva, dated 03.07.2019

Ex., A-9 is the C.C. of True copy of Pahani for the year 2017, issued by the Tahasildar, Ramannapet mandal through Mee-Seva, dated 03.07.2019 and 23.12.2019

Ex., A-10 is the C.C. of Encumbrance certificate, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Ramannapet.

For Defendants : Nil

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.