1
IN T H E C O U R T O F T H E V A D DITIO N A L JU NI O R CI VIL JU D G E::
TIR UPATI
PRESENT: Smt V.BHAVANA M M A, B.Com., LL.B., I Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC/V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
Thursday, the 23rd day of February, 2012.
O.S.1106/2004
Between :
Thim mapura m Thyagarajulu. … Plaintiff. And :
1.The State of A.P., represented by the District Collector, Chittoor. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. 3.The M andal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural M andal. … Defendants.
This suit coming on 322012 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Matta Purushotham Reddy, and Smt Matta Radhika Rani, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri B.Narahari Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader for the defendants 1 to 3, and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their subordinates and agents etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also for suit costs and further reliefs.
2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Y.Kuppa Reddy son of Y.Gangi
Reddy and he has sold the same in favour of the plaintiff under a registered 2 sale deed dt:12121970 for valid consideration and delivered possession to him. Since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by raising crops and he has also obtained electricity service connection for the motor installed to the well situated in the plaint schedule property. Further submits that for the purpose of cultivation and doing oil business he has obtained fertilizer supply card, diesel oil supply card and the plaintiff has also availed subsidy from the Government towards the natural calamity relief and the Government has also recognized the plaintiff's possession and issued adangal copies in his favour. Further submits that though the entire property purchased by him is more than Ac.200 out of it, he has given an extent of Ac.100 for the purpose of construction of 'Sai Baba Temple” and 'Anjaneyaswamy
Temple.' The said temples were constructed long back to the well knowledge of the defendants and the same is situated to the South of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has also leased out an extent of
Ac.010 cents to Smt T.Prasanna Lakshmi for the purpose of running
Cement Brick works. The lessee T.Prasanna Lakshmi has also obtained registration from the Government of A.P., of industries and also paid necessary license fee to the Panchayat Secretary, Tiruchanoor Grama
Panchayat. Further submits that the defendants have got well knowledge of the plaintiff's exclusive right, possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he is exercising all his acts to their knowledge. The defendants absolutely have no right to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.
3.The third defendant filed his written statement and the defendants 1 and 2 have adopted the written statement of third defendant.
They contended that the land measuring an extent of Ac.436.38 cents comprising in Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts is classified as
Swarnamukhi River Poramboke. The suit schedule land is the part and parcel of the Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts and it is a water 3 course poramboke vested with the Government and free from all encumbrances and it is purely a communal poramboke and the plaintiff has no right over the suit land. Further submits that during the course of enquiry, the encroacher i.e., plaintiff has voluntarily stated that he will remove the encroachments in the suit schedule land and accordingly he has given a statement on 1552004. But the plaintiff deliberately filed this suit against the defendants without any manner of right with an intention to grab the valuable communal poramboke, which is a water course poramboke. The plaintiff has recently raised on small shed in the suit land illegally with an intention to show his possession over the land. But the said possession is illegal and against to the law. Further submits that the plaintiff never in exclusive possession of the suit property. The
Government is the paramount owner of the land and the subject matter of the land is a water course poramboke. The survey settlement of
Tiruchanur Village was conducted enquiry in the year 1967 and as per survey report the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of Swarnmukhi river poramboke in Sy.No.479, thus the plaintiff has no right or title over the property and hence they prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or not?
2. To what relief?
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, himself was examined as P.W1 and through him Exs.A1 to A23 were marked and the plaintiff got examined one V.K.Kuppaiah Pillai who is first attestor of
Ex.A1 as P.W2. On behalf of the defendants, the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural
Mandal was examined as D.W1 and through him Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.
4
6.Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7.Issue N o. 1:
It is the case of the plaintiff that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Y.Kuppa Reddy son of Y.Gangi Reddy and he has sold the same in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dt:12 121970 for valid consideration and delivered possession to him. It is further case of the plaintiff that for the purpose of cultivation and doing oil business he has obtained fertilizer supply card, diesel oil supply card and the plaintiff has also availed subsidy from the Government towards the natural calamity relief and the Government has also recognized the plaintiff's possession and issued adangal copies in his favour. It is further case of the plaintiff that though the entire property purchased by him is more than Ac.200, out of it, he has given an extent of Ac.100 for the purpose of construction of 'Sai Baba Temple” and 'Anjaneyaswamy
Temple.' The said temples were constructed long back to the well knowledge of the defendants and the same is situated to the South of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has also leased out an extent of
Ac.010 cents to Smt T.Prasanna Lakshmi for the purpose of running
Cement Brick works. The lessee T.Prasanna Lakshmi has also obtained registration from the Government of A.P., of industries and also paid necessary license fee to the Panchayat Secretary, Tiruchanoor Grama
Panchayat. The defendants absolutely have no right to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
8.On perusing the documents which were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs as Exs.A1 to A23, it is observed that Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dt:12121970, according to it, the plaintiff has purchased the property to an extent of Ac.200 in Paimash No.464 from one Y.Kuppa 5
Reddy son of Y.Gangi Reddy and since then the plaintiff has been in continues possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property Ex.A2 is the electricity pass book, according to it, the Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity Board has issued a pass book for Electricity Charges in Service connection No.228 category 5HP in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the photos and negatives, according to it, there is a temple and one manufacturing unit of cement bricks under the name and style of “Sri
Rama Cement Bricks, Pudi Road Tiruchanur.” So Ex.A3 supported and corroborated with the para No.5 of the plaint pleadings, and hence it is taken into consideration for this case on hand. Ex.A4 is the diesel oil identity card, according to it, the then Mandal Revenue Officer,
Chandragiri has issued an identity card in favour of the plaintiff mentioning the survey number is 479 as now disputed. Ex.A5 is the cist receipts stands in the name of the plaintiff, according to it, the plaintiff has paid cist to the paimash No.464 in patta No.60 which is correlated to suit schedule Sy.No.479. Ex.A6 is the Form C Levy Demand Notice, according to it, the Revenue Inspector had issued levy demand notice against the plaintiff to an extent of Ac.150 cents mentioning the Paimash
No.464 stating that the paddy will be paid for at the rate fixed and notified by the Government, failure to deliver the paddy as per this notice would render the plaintiff liable for prosecution under Essential Commidites Act.
Ex.A7 is the certificate issued by Assistant Director of Agriculture dt:176 1998, according to it, the Assistant Director of Agriculture has certified that the plaintiff is a small former having 1.6 hectors in Sy.No.479 and it was damaged and the Assistant Director of Agriculture has distributed an amount of Rs.1,000/ for natural calamities in Chittoor District cyclone having heavy rain during November 1991. Ex.A8 is the Certificate dt:4 101988 issued by the Additional Assistant Engineer, Construction – Cum
Operation, Tiruchanoor, according to it, the plaintiff has obtained an electrical supply of service connection No.228 of Padipeta Village in
Sy.No.479 with connected load of 5 HP motor on 1351972. Ex.A9 is the 6 letter issued by Block Development Officer, Chandragiri dt:1921981, according to it, the Block Development Officer, Chandragiri had addressed a letter to the Branch Manager Deena Bank by recommending that loan will be sanctioned to the plaintiff herein for deepening of his irrigation well. Ex.A10 is the fertilizer supply identity card issued in the name of plaintiff with mentioning the survey No.479 which is the suit schedule survey number. Ex.A11 is the 10(1) adangal, according to it, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the property covered under
Paimash No.464 which was correlated to Sy.No.479. Ex.A12 is the endorsement issued by the District Collector, Chittoor, according to it, the
District Collector Chittoor has endorsed that in pursuance of requisition of plaintiff, the requisition has to be forwarded to Project Director, DRDA,
Chittoor through Mandal Development Officer for consideration and whenever it has taken by the concerned authorities, the action may be taken immediately. Ex.A13 is the letter addressed by the A.P.State Co operative Rural irrigation corporation limited dt:10101986 to the Block
Development Officer Chandragiri, according to it, geophysical survey was conducted in the wells belonging to the beneficiaries viz., plaintiff and another and survey results with estimated costs are furnished. Ex.A14 is the fertilizer purchase receipt. Ex.A15 is the no due certificate issued by
Tiruchanur CoOperation Credit Society dt:2991976. Ex.A16 is the letter issued by Village Administration Officer of Tiruchanur dt:4101986, according to it, the Village Administration Officer of Tiruchanur addressed a letter to the Mandal Officer, Chandragiri by recommending the requisition of the plaintiff that the extent of Ac.400 in Sy.No.479 is fit for sapling the trees as mentioned under Ex.A16 and to supply the same.
Ex.A17 is the receipt issued by Tiruchanuru COperative Society dt:17 1971 dt:2141973. Ex.A18 is the certificate issued by Secretary
Kuntrapakam PACS, accordig to it, the plaintiff is a member in the
Tirucnahnur LSCS which is merged with Kuntrapakam Primary
Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited from 171971. Since 7 now, having the share capital of Rs.540/ and he is dues in the
Kuntrapakam PACS of Rs.4,993/ on his lands at Tiruchanur Sy.No.479.
Ex.A19 is the letter addressed to Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank by District Collector, Chittoor dt:1451982 in respect of the repayment of the loan which was availed by the plaintiff from the Indian Overseas Bank and directed the bank authorities that not to seize the plaintiff's vehicle as he will pay the loan in installments at Rs.500/ pm., Ex.A20 is the receipt issued by the Mandal Karshkaparishad Office, Tirupati. Ex.A21 is also the receipt. Ex.A22 is the licence fee receipts issued by Panchayath Secretary,
Tiruchanur Grampanchayat, according to it, one T.Prasanna Lakshmi has obtained registration from the Government of A.P., of Industries and also paid necessary license fee to the Panchayat Secretary, Tiruchanoor Grama
Panchayat. Ex.A23 is the provisional registration certificate dt:1292003, according to it, the Industrial Promotion Officer, Industries Department,
Tirupati had issued a licence on the application of one T.Prasanna Lakshmi for Provisional Registration as a SSI/SSSBE unit for the manufacture of items viz., Cement Bricks under the name and style of M/s Sri Rama
Cement Brick Works, Proprietor T.Prasanna Lakshmi, Factory location is in Paimash No.464 at Pudi Road Tiruchanur,
9.In order to substantiate his case, himself was examined as
P.W1 by filing his affidavit as chief examination and it contains all allegations as found in the plaint. In crossexamination, he clearly deposed that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.479. He doesn't know the total extent in Sy.No.479 and so also the classification of the land asl per revenue records. Swarnamukhi river is situated about a furlong from the suit schedule property towards its northern side. P.W1 purchased
Ac.2.00 and he has gifted Ac.1.00 land to Saibaba Temple. P.W1 is claiming rights over land in Sy.No.479. Ex.A4 was issued in the year,1977 by the then Tahsildar. Ex.A10 was issued by the then Tahsildar and at that time the name was wrongly mentioned and hence it was corrected by 8 making erasions thereon. He has two acres of land in Sy.No.479. Under
Ex.A16, four acres of land is mentioned, but he has only two acres of land.
Out of his two acres of land he has gifted one acre of land to temple 30 years ago and so also Ac.0.10 cents of his land there is brick kiln maintained by one lady by name Prasannalakshmi. The remaining land is in his possession and he is cultivating the same by raising paddy crop. His field is irrigated from the water of well dug in his land.
10.In support of his contention, P.W2 who is the first attestor of
Ex.A1 examined by filing his affidavit as chief examination and it contains all allegations as found in the plaint as well as chief examination of P.W1.
In crossexamination, he clearly deposed that since the plaintiff purchased two acres of land at Tiruchanur, hence he knows the plaintiff. The Paimash number is 464 and patta number is 60. One Ramanujam signed as another attestor along with P.W2 under Ex.A1. The suit schedule property is situated at a distance of 200 feet from his property. So in the above said evidence of P.W2 is clearly supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W1 in all aspects and hence the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has been taken into consideration in the present case on hand.
11.It is the case of the defendants that the land measuring an extent of Ac.436.38 cents comprising in Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts is classified as Swarnamukhi River Poramboke. The suit schedule land is the part and parcel of the Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts and it is a water course poramboke vested with the Government and free from all encumbrances and it is purely a communal poramboke and the plaintiff has no right over the suit land.
12.To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendants got marked Exs.B1 to B5. It is observed that Ex.B1 is the statement given by the plaintiff to the Revenue Authorities (subject to objection) on 155 9 2004, according to it, the plaintiff has gave a statement that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property an extent of Ac.350 cents in
Sy.No.479 which is a river poramboke by cultivating the paddy crops and there is a cement bricks manufacturing unit as per direction of the Revenue
Authorities, the plaintiff has agreed to remove the existing cement bricks manufacturing unit tomorrow (1652004), but there is no any seal and the signatures of any witnesses. Mere filing of Ex.B1 (subject to objection) without proving the same, not sufficient to believe the version of the defendants and hence, Ex.B1 is not taken into consideration and it is kept quite on the contents which are in it. Ex.B2 is the attested copy of adangal for the suit schedule survey number, according to it, the land measuring an extent of Ac.436.38 cents comprising in Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts is classified as Swarnamukhi River Poramboke. Ex.B3 is the
Village map, according to it, the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of the said Survey No.479 of Tiruchanoor Village accounts. Ex.B4 is the No.3 Adangal, according to it, the land measuring an extent of
Ac.436.38 cents comprising in Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts is classified as Swarnamukhi River Poramboke, but some of the appeals were pending before the RDO/TPT 3187/92, RDO/TPT 1659/91 and
RDO/TPT/5773/86 in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.B5 is the
Extract of Fair Adangal, according to it, the land measuring an extent of
Ac.436.38 cents comprising in Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts is classified as Swarnamukhi River Poramboke. But Ex.B3 to B5 doesn't contain any dates and hence, Exs.B3 to B5 are not supported to the version of the defendants.
13.On this aspect, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that occupants of even Government land who have perfected title by adverse possession, cannot be treated as land grabbers, though the schedule land originally vested in Government, but any person and his predecessors having possession and enjoyment of the land by cultivating the same 10 raising several crops for over statuory period of 12 years to the knowledge of Government, not disputed and he is entitled for permanent injunction.
14.In this connection, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following decision reported in 2000(4) A L T 107 (OB) Wherein his lordship held that “A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act 1982) Secs.8 and 2 (d) and (e), Principal of taking, Eviction, Sought by Government as land grabbers, Plea of adverse possession raised by occupants of land, occupants of even Government land whose have perfected title by adverse possession, cannot be treated as land grabbers, schedule land originally vested in Government, Petitioners and their predecessors having possession and enjoyment of the land by cultivating the same raising several crops for over statutory period of 12 years to the knowledge of
Government, not disputed, petitioners who are landless poor persons and who made improvements to the land entitled to assignment of land by virtue of their long possession, Land revenue collected from petitioners and their predecessors for the schedule land, Petitioners who are entitled to assignment of Government land cannot be evicted as land grabbers plea of adverse possession can be raised under the Act. Petitioners entitled to invoke the principal of taking, Petitioners perfected their title over schedule land by adverse possession, finding of special tribunal and special
Court that petitioners are land grabbers, incorrect and illegal, High Court
Under Section 226 can interfere if there is error. Apparent on the face of the order, Application by state for eviction of petitioners under the Act, liable to be dismissed as illegal and misconceived.
15.In the present case, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by raising crops since 12121970 when he has purchased the suit property from one
Y.Kuppa Reddy son of Y.Gangi Reddy and prior to his purchase the suit property, the said Y.Kuppa Reddy was in possession and enjoyment the 11 same. As such the plaintiff and his predecessors having possession and enjoyment of the land by cultivating the same raising several crops for over statutory period of 12 years to the knowledge of Government and at this stage the question of possession doesn't arise. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the above referred decision are tallied with the facts and circumstances of this case on hand and hence both of them are one and the same.
16.In order to substantiate their case, the then Mandal Revenue
Officer was examined as D.W1 by filing his affidavit as chief examination and it contains all allegations as found in the written statement. In the crossexamination, he clearly and categorically admitted that he doesn't know the boundaries of plaint schedule property. T he survey nu m ber of plaint schedule property is 479. Ex.B2 is the A dangal pertains to the year of 2006 w hich is subsequent to the suit. H e has not produced any
docu ment to prove that the suit property is classified as S warna
M u k hi River Pora m boke land. In the plaint schedule property there is an asbestos sheet roofed shed in existence. He visited the suit schedule property in the year 2009, but he has no idea that on eastern side of the suit property, there is Sai Baba and Anjaneya Swamy Temples. He has not seen
Ex.A5. Witness adds that Ex.A5 are created one because cist receipts will not be given for poramboke lands and he has not crosschecked all these documents in his Department till today. He is aware of the fact that the agricultural soil conservation authorities periodically examining the soil and giving the report that it is fit for agriculture and providing the fertilizers to the plaintiff for more than 30 years. He has no knowledge about Ex.B1 and he doesn't know the signatures in Ex.B1. He doesn't know whether their authorities issued notice to plaintiff with regard to plaint schedule property and he has not given any notice to plaintiff since the suit is pending before this court. He further admitted that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoy ment of the suit property. He further admitted 12 that their authorities tried to vacate the plaintiff fro m the suit schedule property prior to filing of this suit. They have not taken any plea about
Exs.B3 to B5 in their written statement. Ex.B3 was prepared in the year 1959 and the survey was conducted in the said year only. Further admitted that the present existing structures are not m entioned in Ex.B3 in the
Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts. Ex.B3 to B5 doesn't contain any dates. He doesn't know nature of the appeal pending before
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati as mentioned in Ex.B4. He doesn't remember the boundaries of the plaint schedule property.
17.Even though, Exs.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the defendants, but the evidence of D.W1 is not supported to the documents under Exs.B1 to B5 and D.W1 is clearly and categorically admitted in his crossexamination that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoy ment of the suit property and further admitted that Ex.B3 w as prepared in the year 1959 and the survey w as conducted in the said year only and
Ex.B3 to B5 doesn't contain any dates. So that the clear admissions need not be proved u/sec.58 of Indian Evidence Act. Apart from it, all these documents which were marked on behalf of the defendants as Exs.B1 to
B5 are created for the purpose of suit. Because, D.W1 admitted in his crossexamination that the present existing structures are not m entioned in Ex.B3 in the Sy.No.479 of Tiruchanur Village accounts.
18.As per the commissioner's report, he identified the zinc sheet shed in petition schedule property is facing towards east, the said shed is having two rooms and the said shed is having electricity service connection in SC No.3820, adjacent to shed some water motor machine is there and he found on southern side of the shed there is cement mixture machine and water tub is there. He found that on western side of the petition schedule property there is cultivation land. He also found that on southern side besides of the shed some leave curry and paddy crop is there and he found 13 on southern side there are two electric pols is erected and there is a well on
South west corner of the petition schedule property is having S.C.No.228 which is in the name of the plaintiff, there is a water pipe line connection and on the southern side there is mango tree, Bopayee and coconut trees are there. He also found that on the southern side there is a temple and on the northern side of the petition schedule property there is a river bed of
Swarnamukhi, the same is away from the petition schedule property. As such the report of the commissioner is supported and corroborated with the pleadings of the plaint and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and it is helpful to the case of the plaintiff. Since 12121970, the plaintiff has been in continues possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by raising paddy crop without interruption, but now the defendants are seriously trying to vacate the plaintiff without issuing any notice to evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and the same is admitted by D.W1 in his cross examination that their authorities tried to vacate the plaintiff fro m the suit schedule property prior to filing of this suit.
19.If any claim by the defendants in the event of the suit schedule land is a water course poramboke vested with the Government and free from all encumbrances and it is purely a communal poramboke and it is also part and parcel of Swarnamukhi River, the defendants can evict the plaintiff only in due process of law. Even though, the Government is the paramount owner of the land, it has to be proceeded according to provision of AP Land Encroachment Act 1905.
20.It is an admitted fact in their written statement that the plaintiff has recently raised on small shed in the suit land, as well in cross examination of D.W1 that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoy ment of the suit property.
21.In this connection, the learned counsel for the plaintiff had 14 relied upon the following decision reported in AI R 2004 Supre me C ourt
4609 w herein his lordship held in between R a me G o w da (D) by L.Rs.,
Vs., M. Varadappa N aidu (D) L.Rs. A nd another that “Specific Relief
Act (47 of 1963), S.38, Injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of plaintiff, failure by either party to prove title, plaintiff in settled possession, it entitles him to protect his possession, grant of injunction proper.” 22. According to the proviso u/sec.37 and 38 of the Specific Relief
Act. “ When the plaintiff is proved his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and he is entitled for permanent injunction to protect his right, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, it is principle of law and well known m axim that a person who has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property u/sec.5 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act.” for which this court has relied upon the following decision reported in 1999 (4) S C C Page N o.403.
“U/Sec.5 and 38 of Specific Relief Act, it is principle of law that a person who has been in continues possession of immoveable property he can protect his right over his land on the basis of his settled possession and enjoyment.”
In the present case, the plaintiff is clearly proved his settled possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without any ambiguity by way of documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A23 and by way of adducing the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2.
In the above said circumstances and in the light of the 23.
evidence, this court held that the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession as on the date of the filing of the suit and hence they are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. In the result, this issue is 15 settled in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.Issue N o.3: In the result, the suit is decreed and permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their subordinates and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. If any claim by defendants can evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property in due process of law contemplated under the provision of A.P.Land
Encroachment Act 1905. No costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the O pen Court, this the 23 rd day of February, 2012.
S/d : S mt.V.Bhavana m m a I A dditional Junior Civil Judge, F A C/V A dditional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
A P P E N DI X O F E VI D E N C E
W I T N E SS ES E X A M I N E D F O R
PL AI N TIFF :D E F E N D A N Ts:
PW1 : Thim mapura m Thyagarajulu.D.W1:C.V.Sivarami Reddy. PW2 : V.K.Kuppaiah Pillai.
E X HIBTS O N B E H A LF O F
PL AI N TIFF :
Ex.A1 :The registered sale deed dt:12121970 executed in favour of the plaintiff has purchased the property by one Y.Kuppa Reddy Ex.A2 :The electricity pass book in Service connection N o.228 category 5 HP in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 :The photos and negatives. Ex.A4 :The diesel oil identity card issued by the then M andal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A5 :The cist receipts stands in the na me of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in paimash N o.464 in patta N o.60 Ex.A6 :The Form C Levy De mand N otice.
16
Ex.A7 :The certificate issued by Assistant Director of A griculture dt:176 1998 Ex.A8 :The Certificate dt:4101988 issued by the A dditional Assistant Engineer, Construction – Cu m O peration, Tiruchanoor, Ex.A9 :The letter issued by Block Develop ment Officer, Chandragiri
dt:1921981 to the Branch M anager Deena Bank
Ex.A10 :The fertilizer supply identity card issued in the na me of plaintiff Ex.A11 :The 10(1) adangal. Ex.A12 :The endorsement issued by the District Collector, Chittoor, Ex.A13 :The letter addressed by the A.P.State Cooperative Rural irrigation corporation limited dt:10101986 to the Block Develop ment Officer Chandragiri Ex.A14 :The fertilizer purchase receipt. Ex.A15 :N o due certificate issued by Tiruchanur CoO peration Credit Society dt:2991976. Ex.A16 :The letter issued by Village A d ministration Officer of Tiruchanur
dt:4101986 to the M andal Officer, Chandragiri.
Ex.A17 :The receipt issued by Tiruchanuru CO perative Society dt:17 1971 dt:2141973. Ex.A18 :The certificate issued by Secretary K yuntrapaka m PA CS, Ex.A19 :The letter addressed to Regional M anager, Indian O verseas Bank by District Collector, Chittoor dt:1451982. Ex.A20 :The receipt issued by the M andal Karshkaparishad Office, Tirupati. Ex.A21 :The receipt. Ex.A22 :The licence fee receipts issued by Panchayath Secretary, Tiruchanur Gra mpanchayat. Ex.A23 :The provisional registration certificate dt:1292003.
D E F E N D A N Ts:
Ex.B1 :The statement given by the plaintiff to the Revenue A uthorities (subject to objection) 1552004. Ex.B2 :The attested copy of adangal for the suit schedule survey nu mber Ex.B3 :The Village m ap, according to it, the suit schedule property is a part of the land out of the said Survey N o.479 of Tiruchanoor Village accounts. Ex.B4 :The N o.3 A dangal. Ex.B5 :The Extract of Fair A dangal.
I/d : S mt.V.Bhavana m m a
I A J CJ,
F A C/V AJ CJ T.P.T.,
Draft/Fair Judg ment in O.S.1106/2004
Dt:23022012 (Title suit)