Smt.r.harika

Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur

Junior Civil Judge Court, Mydukur · Kadapa · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.R.HARIKA, Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur, is posted at Junior Civil Judge Court, Mydukur, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India. 9,825 court orders on record since 2022. 51 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

9,825

Total Orders

Judgments

280

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/269/2019

Bolleni Kondaiah vs Bolleni Lakshumaiah

26 Mar 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MYDUKUR

Present: Smt. R.Harika,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddtur

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2025

IA No.1378 of 2019

in

OS No.269 of 2019

Between:

Bolleni Kondaiah, S/o Kondaiah, Hindu, aged about 56 years, occ: Cultivation, Resident of Kanaguduru village, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District.

...Petitioner/Plaintif

Vs.

1. Bolleni Lakshumaiah, S/o Kondaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, occ: Cultivation, Resident of Kanaguduru village, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District.

2. Majjari Srinivasulu, S/o Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged about 42 years, occ: Business, Resident of Sri Srinivasa Enterprises Room No.8, Vasthu complex, Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

...Respondents/Defendants.

This petition coming on 24.03.2025 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Advocate Sri Kamanuru Sreenivasulu, for the petitioner/plaintif and Sri R.Sreenivasulu, Learned Advocate for the respondents/defendants and upon hearing both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition filed by the petitioner/plaintif under Order 39 Rule 1 r/w

Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code praying the Court to grant temporary injunction in favour of petitioner/ plaintif dispensing the notices to the respondents in view of urgency restraining the respondents/ defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner/ plaintif in the petition/ plaint schedule properties during pendency of the suit in the interest of justice.

2.The contents of the petition in support of the affidavit, in brief, is as follows:-

The petitioner filed above suit against the respondents/ defendants for Declaration and Permanent injunction. The respondent No.1 is younger brother of him. Respondent No.2 is close friend of Respondent No.1. The petition schedule properties were joint family properties of petitioner and plaintif father namely Bolleni Kondaiah. Those were purchased with joint eforts and income of him and his father. But due to sentiment those were registered on the name of his father on diferent dates. The original sale deeds of Plaint schedule properties are kept with his father. But Petition schedule properties were enjoyed jointly by him and his father treating them as joint family properties. In the year 1992 the petitioner’s father and respondent No.1 obtained signatures of petitioner in some registered documents misrepresenting facts on the pretext of obtaining loan. The said documents are not valid and acted up on. Since then, the petitioner got some doubt on the behaviour of his father and respondent No.1 and got divided with his father and respondent No.1 in the year 1994 in a mediation by elders namely A.Subba Rayudu, E.Mabu Valli, in such partition petition schedule properties and some other properties fell to the share of him.

Some other properties fell to the share of his father and respondent No.1 since then, he has in possession and enjoyment of Petition schedule properties and some other properties having right and title raising crops there in paying cist to the Government to the knowledge of every body including the respondents. The revenue authorities after due enquiry issued revenue title deed and revenue passbook in favour of him. But the petitioner misplaced them and not traced even now after due search.

Later in the year 1996 the respondent No.1 got divided with his father in the presence of elders namely A.Subba Rayudu, E.Mabu Valli. In such

Partition respondent No.1 got some other properties. Since then his father and respondent No.1 are living separately. The wife of respondent 3

No.1 was Sarpanch of Kanaguduru village and she belongs to Telugu

Desam Political party, so that the respondents are also belongs to Telugu

Desam Political party and supported the candidature on behalf of Telugu

Desam Political Party for the M.L.A Elections in the month of April, 2009.

Further the petitioner submitted that even though brother of respondent

No.1 supported Praja Rajyam Political Party in the village in the last M.L.A

Elections conducted in the month of April, 2009. Since then the respondents bore grudge against him and trying to cause loss to him. So due to ill feelings the respondents colluded at the instigation of persons who are having inimical views towards him and joined with the rowdy elements in the village to occupy Petition schedule properties to defeat

Proposed decree against them and ignoring the rights of him. Since yesterday the respondents are openly proclaimed in the village that they will interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of him in the petition schedule properties and damage Jasmine Flower garden raised by him in the item No.1 of petition schedule property and trying to harvest/ damage paddy crop raised by him in item No.2 of petition schedule property and thereby evict him from Petition schedule properties even with force ignoring his legal remedies. To that efect the respondents are gathering men and material to execute their evil design. The respondents are not having such right to do so. If the same is done he will put to serious loss and damage. Hence the petition.

03. The Respondents filed counter by denying all the allegations of the petitioner and submitted that at the outset these respondents submit that interim injunction is purely discretionary in nature and Party who seeks interim injunction must come to the court with clean hands. In fact petitioner suppressed material facts with regard to the earlier suits filed by the petitioner and his son against these respondents and father of the petitioner pertaining to the petition schedule properties. The 4 conduct of the petitioner is highly blameworthy. As such the question seeking interim injunction against the respondents does not arise at all.

Prior to filing of this suit by the petitioner, petitioner instigated his son and got filed O.S.No.172/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur against father of the petitioner, petitioner and these respondents basing upon the forged agreement said to have been executed on 15-02-2002 by the Bolleni Kondaiah, S/o Pedda Lakshumaiah, father of the petitioner pertaining to the petition schedule properties. In the said suit, the son of the petitioner categorically averred that the petition schedule properties are the absolute properties of his grand father viz., Bolleni Kondaiah, S/o

Lakshummaiah. In the said suit, these said suit 2nd respondent and grandfather viz., Bolleni Kondaiah filed written statement. For the reasons best known the said suit was dismissed for default. Prior to filing of the suit i.e., O.S.No.172/2008, Bolleni Kondaiah, S/o Pedda Lakshumaiah got divided from his two sons viz., petitioner herein and 1st respondent herein by way of registered partition deed dated 10-08-1992. The said partition deed was acted upon in letter and spirit. Bollineni Kondaiah, S/o Pedda Lakshumaiah executed a registered sale deed on 11-08-2008 in favour of 2nd respondent pertaining to an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of 4: land situated in Kanaguduru

Village Survey No.11/A, 13/A, 13/A-18 which corresponds to part of the 2nd

Item of the petition schedule properties. The property sold by the father of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent under the registered sale deed dated 11-08-2008 was the absolute property of the father of the petitioner. As such the same was not figured in the registered sale deed dated. As per the registered partition deed dated 10-08-1992, "A" schedule property fell to the share of father of the petitioner, "B" schedule property fell to the share of the petitioner where as "C" schedule property fell to the share of the 1st respondent herein. Further submitted that as father of the petitioner, sold away his self acquired property to the 2nd respondent under registered sale deed dated 11-08-2008, in order to cause troubles to his father and 2nd 5 respondent herein. Petition got filed O.S.No. 172/2008 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Proddatur through his son. After the dismissal of the said suit,

petitioner herein created second round of litigation pertaining to the petition schedule properties and got filed O.S.No.56/2009 on the file of this court. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.329/2009 seeking interim injunction against his father and these respondents. The said I.A.

was dismissed on merits by this court. Against the decree and judgment in

I.A.No.329/2009, C.M.A filed on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. The C.M.A. was dismissed on merits. After disposal of the

C.M.A. instead of proceedings with the trial of the suit in O.S.No.56/2009 petitioner kept quiet, allowed the suit for dismissal. After a gap of 10 years, third round of litigation was created by the petitioner by changing Counsels to suit his case. By the date of filing of O.S.No.56/2009, pass book was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner by the Revenue authorities taking the undue advantage of the mistake in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner, Revenue records 1.e., No.3 Village Adangal and 1B

Register standing in the name of the father of the petitioner, approached this court against these respondents and his father and played fraud and mischief. In the said I.A. No.329/2009 in O.S.No.56/2009 Ration card and

Identity card issued by the Election commission of India were filed to substantiate the name of the father name of the father of the petitioner as

Pedda Lakshumaiah along with the pass book issued by the Rayalaseema

Grameena Bank, Kanaguduru. Petitioner, sold away part of the property fell to the share under the registered partition deed on 05-10-1993 in favour of

Perugu Lakshmi Narayana to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. Likewise also the 1st respondent sold away an extent of Ac.0.50 cents fell to his share under the registered partition deed dated 10-08-1992 to one Marthala Raghava

Reddy. Further the father of the petitioner and 1st respondent viz., Bolleni

Kondaiah, S/o Pedda Lakshumaiah out of natural love and afection executed git deed in favour of 1 respondent on 22-05-2009 to an extent of 6

Ac.0.60 cents which corresponds to 1st Item of the petition schedule property. The said gift deed was acted upon in letter and spirit by the donor and donee viz., Bolleni Kondaiah, S/o Pedda Lakshumaiah and the 1st respondent. Possession was also delivered by father in favour of the 1st respondent herein. In turn 1st respondent executed registered sale deed

dated 08-02-2012 in favour of his daughter viz., Bolleni Venkata Lakshmi

and her husband and delivered possession to them. As these respondents after the disposal of the suit, i.e., O.S.No.172/2008 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Proddatur and O.S.No.56/2009 on the file of this court, did not

incorporate the mutation taking the undue advantage of the same of the entries in the pass book of Bolleni Kondaiah, third round of litigation was created by the petitioner. The petitioner was not at all given any pass book.

The entries in 1B register filed by the petitioner belongs only to the father of the petitioner viz., Bolleni Kondaiah, S/o Pedda Lakshumaiah. Father of the petitioner died on 27-10-2013 at Kanaguduru in the house of 1st respondent leaving behind petitioner, respondent No.1 and a daughter.

It is further submitted that for the reasons best known to the petitioner created diferent versions in the earlier suits, having failed in his futile attempts, the present suit was filed taking the undue advantage of the mistake of the his grandfather name as Kondaiah in the pass book of his father. Voters Identity card issued by Election commission of India, ration card and Bank Pass book with were already marked in I.A.

No.329/2009 in O.S.No.56/2009 on the file of this court goes to the crux of the point. With regard to the property purchased by the 2nd respondent under the sale deed dated 11-08-2008 executed by the father of the petitioner, part of the land was acquired by the government for road and paid compensation to the 2nd respondent. In the rest of the property, 2nd respondent alone got valid title and possession and raised paddy crop and harvested the same. Further knowing fully well, the petitioner intentionally suppressed the earlier litigations and got exparte interim order basing upon 7 the entries standing in the name of the father of the petitioner in which his father name was mentioned as Kondaiah and there is no prima facie case balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner in filing this petition.

Petition is liable for causing mental agony and harassment to these respondents and are liable for compensation for obtaining attachment on false grounds under the civil procedure code. Hence prayed the Hon’ble court to dismiss the petition in the interest of justice.

04.Besides submitting oral arguments both counsels submitted written arguments. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

05.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether the petitioner is entitled for temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Petitioner in the petition schedule properties ?”

06.No oral evidence is adduced on either side of parties. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.29 documents are marked for petitioner and Ex.R1 to Ex.R17 are marked for respondents.

07.Point: On perusal of the record, the petitioner/plaintif filed above petition for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintif in the petition schedule properties.

Admittedly the petitioner and respondent No.1 are sons of one Bolleni

Kondaiah son of Pedda Lakshumaiah, the respondent No.2 is the third party and friend of respondent No.1. The petition schedule properties are joint family properties of the petitioner and respondent No.1 and the same were purchased jointly under registered sale deed.

08. The contention of the respondent is that there was partition took place in the year 1992 and B-schedule property fell to the share of the petitioner. The contention of the respondent that the petition schedule 8 properties fell to the share of father of the petitioner and respondent No.1 by name Bolleni Kondaiah son of Lakshumaiah. As per Ex.R5 i.e., certified copy of registered partition deed, dt.10.08.1992 it shows that the Item No.1 of the petition schedule property fell to the share of the father of the petitioner and respondent No.1. But whereas the petitioner claiming that the petition schedule property and some other properties fell to his share.

Per contra the case of the respondent No.1 is that the father of the respondent No.1 had executed a registered sale deed, dt.11.08.2008 i.e.,

Ex.R10 in his favour pertaining to an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of land situated in Kanaguduru village survey No.11/A, 13/A, 13/A-1B which corresponds to part of the item No.2 of the petition schedule properties.

Hence, as per the registered partition deed, dt. 10.08.1992, A– schedule property fell to the share of father of the petitioner, B-schedule property fell to the share of petitioner and where as C – schedule property fell to the share of the 1st respondent. Later the father of the respondent No.1 sold away his self acquired property to respondent No.2 under registered sale deed dt.11.08.2008. In the mean time the petitioner filed OS No.56/2009 on the file of this court but the same was dismissed by this court on merits and appeal filed by the petitioner in OS No.56/2009 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Appellant court. Later, the petitioner sold away part of the property fell to his share i.e., to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents under Ex.R6 registered sale deed dt. 05.10.1993 in favour of Perugu Lakshmi Narayana.

The father of the petitioner and respondent No.1 out of love and afection executed Ex.R12 gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 on 22.05.2009 to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents which corresponds to Item no.1 of the petition schedule property and the same was accepted by the respondent No.1. In turn the respondent No.1 executed Ex.R13 registered sale deed, dt.08.02.2012 in favour of his daughter Bolleni Venkata Lakshmi and Koteri

Bala Vinod Kumar and delivered possession to them. On perusal of Ex.R11 i.e., certified copy of sale deed, dt.11.07.1988 stands in the name of the 9 father of the petitioner, it shows that Item No.2 of the petition schedule property was purchased by father of the petitioner by name B. Kondaiah son of Lakshumaiah in the year 1988 for valid consideraton, hence it is the self acquired property of the father of the petitioner. On perusal of Ex.R10,

Item No.2 of the petition schedule property was purchased by respondent

No.2 from the father of the petitioner and took possession of Item No.2 of the petition schedule property. It is also noticed by this court that the petitioner name is Kondaiah and the father of the petitioner and respondent

No.1 name is also Kondaiah. The counsel for the respondent argued that by taking advantage of name of the father of the petitioner as Kondaiah, the petitioner obtained Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 documents to show that he is in possession of the petition schedule properties, even though he is not in possession of the petition schedule properties.

09. On perusal of the rival contentions of the both parties it is pertinent to know that as per Ex.R5 registered partition deed, dt.10.08.1992 there was partition of joint family properties in which

A-schedule property fell to the share of father of the petitioner in Sy.No.36/1 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, B-schedule property fell to the share of petitioner in Sy No.2 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents and C-schedule property fell to the share of respondent No.1 in Sy.No. 36/1 to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents and the ABC schedule properties are situated in Kanaguduru village fields. But on perusal of Ex.R6 i.e., certified copy of sale deed, dt.05.10.1993 the petitioner has sold away the property which fell to the share of the petitioner in Ex.R5 family partition deed, dt.10.08.1992 to one

Perugu Lakshmi Narayana. But to disprove the said contention there is no proof of evidence put forth by the petitioner. The documents which relied by the petitioner i.e., Ex.P2 to Ex.P29 shows possession over the petition schedule property. But the respondents in their counter categorically took a plea that the entries standing in the name of the petitioner in which his father name was mentioned as Kondaiah. Hence, it clearly shows that the 10 name of petitioner is Kondaiah and his father name is also Kondaiah.

Therefore, basing on the material available on record the petitioner has no prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and with regard to prove that the name Kondaiah mentioned in the documents filed by him is his name and not his father, this fact will be decided after full-fledged trial and not at this stage. It also can be decided whether the transaction took place under Ex.R6 is valid transaction or not. It is also not the case of the respondent No.1 because he also executed a registered sale deed under Ex.R7 certified copy of sale deed, dt.30.08.1994 in favour of Marthala

Raghava Reddy and so also the father of the petitioner also executed

Ex.R10 certified copy of sale deed, dt.11.08.2008 in favour of respondent

No.2 and to know who is in lawful possession of the petition schedule properties will be decided at full fledged trial but not at this stage. Hence, there is no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. In the above said circumstances if injunction is not granted there is no loss will be occurred to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to establish the three material ingredients as envisaged under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to show that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit and there is interference by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10. In the result, this petition is dismissed without costs.

The Ad-interim injunction granted on 31.12.2019 shall stands

vacated.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 26th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Smt R.Harika,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Proddatur FAC Junior civil Judge, Mydukur 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

NIL

Petitioner/Plaintiff : NIL Respondents/defendants: Nil

Documents marked for petitioner/plaintiff :

Ex.P.1 is the market valuation certificate. Ex.P.2 is the Mee seva Form 1B Namuna. Ex.P.3 is the Mee seva Adangal for Fasili 1426. Ex.P.4 is the Mee seva Adangal for Fasili 1427. Ex.P.5 is the Mee seva Adangal for Fasili 1428. Ex.P.6 is the Adangal for Fasili 1429. Ex.P.7 is the Adangal for fasili 1426. Ex.P.8 is the Adangal for Fasili 1427. Ex.P.9 is the Adangal for Fasili 1428. Ex.P.10 is the Adangal for Fasili 1429. Ex.P.11 is the Adangal for fasili 1426. Ex.P.12 is the Adangal for Fasili 1427. Ex.P.13 is the Adangal for Fasili 1428. Ex.P.14 is the Adangal for Fasili 1429. Ex.P.15 is the Revenue E pass book in favour of plaintif. Ex.P.16 is the certified copy of original of 1B in revenue records in favour of plaintif. Ex.P.17 is the Attested copy of 1B of Namuna in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.18 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1425 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.19 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1426 in favour of Plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.20 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1427 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.21 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1427 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.22 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1428 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.23 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1428 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.24 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1429 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.25 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1429 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.26 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1430 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.27 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1430 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.28 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1431 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act. Ex.P.29 is the attested copy of Adangal for Fasili 1431 in favour of plaintif under RTI Act.

Documents marked for Respondents/Defendants:

Ex.R1 is the suit register in O.S.No.172/2008 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Proddatur.

Ex.R.2 is the certified copy of order and decreetal order in

I.A.No.329/2009 in O.S.No.56/2009 on the file of this court.

Ex.R.3 is the suit register of C.M.A.No.10/2010 on the file of II Addl.

District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Ex.R.4 is the certified of suit register in OS.No. 56/2009 on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur.

Ex.R.5 certified copy of registered Partition deed, dated 10.08.1992.

Ex.R.6 certified copy of sale deed, dated 05.10.1993 executed by the petitioner in favour of Perugu Lakshmi Narayana.

Ex.R.7 is the certified copy of sale deed, dated 30.08.1994 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of Marthala Raghava Reddy.

Ex.R.8 is the certified copy of sale deed, dated 06.09.1995 executed by P.

Lakshmi Narayana in favour of M. Raghava Reddy.

Ex.R.9 is the Adhar card of B.Kondaiah, S/o Pedda Lakshumma.

Ex.R.10 is the certified copy of sale deed, dated 11.08.2008 executed by the father of petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2.

Ex.R.11 is the certified copy of sale deed, dated 11.07.1988 stands in the name of the father of the petitioner.

Ex.R.12 is the certified copy of gift, deed, dated 22.05.2009 executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2.

Ex.R.13 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of B.Venkata Lakshmi, dated 08.02.2012.

Ex.R.14 is the certified copy of Judgment in C.M.A. No.10/2010.

Ex.R.15 is the Bank Statement of Account issued by Andhra Pragathi

Grameena Bank, Modempalli.

Ex.R.16 is the voter identity card of Bolleni Kondaiah.

Ex.R.17 is the voter identity card of Bolleni Rama Krishnaiah.

Id/- Smt R.Harika,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PRODDATUR

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MYDUKUR