...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MANCHERIAL
Present:
Smt. R.Sree Lekha,
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Mancherial.
Thursday, this the 28th day of February, 2019
O.S.No.93/2016
Between:- Narineni Shashank, S/o.Sudhakar Rao, Age: 22 years, Occ: Student/Agriculture, R/o.Near Geetha Mandir, Mancherial. …Plaintiff /and/
1. Sister Rosamma, AK President, Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial, R/o.ACC Mancherial, Mancherial district.
2. Carmel Educational Society, represented by its President Sister Rosamma, Christu Jyothi Provisional house, R/o.ACC Mancherial.
…Defendants
This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri G.Kotamallaiah, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for the defendants, and having heard both sides and stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed for grant of perpetual injunction praying the Court to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., the land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts. in
Sy.No.394/1-1 situated at Gudipeta shivar of Mancherial mandal and district.
2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land, that originally the mother of the plaintiff by name Narineni Laxmi purchased the suit schedule ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................2 land from the original pattadar by name Nadipelli Kamala Manohar Rao through registered sale deed vide document No.421/1998, dated 4-3-1998 for a valid consideration and got delivery of possession of the same, that the mutation of patta of suit land is also made in her favour vide proceedings No.ROR/198/GP/98 in the month of March, 1998, that the entry of patta in the name of Narineni Laxmi was also recorded in the revenue records, that the mother of the plaintiff Narineni Laxmi died on 21-7-2001 leaving behind her the plaintiff as her only existing son, as per
Class-I legal heir to succeed all her properties including the suit land, that in pursuance of the same, the mutation of patta was also effected in the name of the plaintiff vide proceedings No.ROR/Gudipeta/11/05, dated 4- 11-2005, that the entry of patta of the suit land is made in the revenue records in proof of title and ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land, that the revenue authorities also got issued title deed, that the plaintiff has been in possession by raising cotton crop from the last 10 years in the suit land, as such the plaintiff has got absolute rights of ownership and possession over the suit land. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants are no way concerned with the suit land, but they are bent upon to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land, that they are often visiting the suit land and trying to occupy the same, as such the plaintiff to secure his property, started fencing around the suit schedule property, but all of a sudden the defendants and their men and staff tried to interfere while fencing around the suit land, however with the support of grandfather of the plaintiff, he resisted them and sent them out of the suit land, but on 25-4-2016 while fencing around the suit land, the defendants criminally trespassed into the suit land and objected ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................3 the plaintiff for fencing around the suit land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land at any time. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.
3.On the other hand, the defendants filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the father of the plaintiff sold Ac.6-36 gts. Which includes the suit land to the defendant
No.2 society through registered sale deed vide document No.2629/2004,
dated 12-4-2004 and delivered possession to the defendant No.2 society,
since then the defendant No.2 society is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, that at the time of sale the plaintiff was a minor, that subsequently the defendant No.2 constructed a school in the said land, that mutation was also passed in favour of the defendant No.2 society in the revenue records for the total extent of Ac.6-36 gts. and pattadar and title deed books were issued in favour of defendant No.2 society. The defendants further submit that the plaintiff and his father in collusion with each other, got mutation of the land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts. vide ROR
No.11/2005, dated 4-11-2005 which was standing in the name of wife of vendor by managing the revenue officials, that the defendant No.2 society preferred appeal vide file No.G/54310/2014 against the said mutation order, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial after conducting enquiry, cancelled the mutation passed in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 26- 11-2015, that in the said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial clearly observed that the defendant No.2 society is in physical possession ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................4 of the suit land from the date of purchase i.e., on 12-4-2014, that consequently the said Ac.2-00 gts. of land was also recorded in the name of the defendant No.2. The defendants further submit that out of Ac.6-36 gts. of land in Sy.No.394/1, the Government acquired Ac.0-08 gts. of land for excavation of canal under Rallyvagu Project, for which the compensation amount of Rs.24,000/- was paid to the defendant No.2 society vide Joint Collector, Adilabad Lr.No.B6/703/2007, dated 29-3-2007.
The defendants further submit that the father of the plaintiff being Kartha of the family while the plaintiff was minor, sold the land of Ac.2-00 gts.
standing in the name of his wife in the revenue records, to the defendant
No.2 society along with the land of Ac.4-36 gts. which was standing in his name for the necessity of the family. Hence, the said sale is genuine and by virtue of sale deed, the defendant No.2 society is in peaceful possession of the suit land from the date of purchase. Hence, the plaintiff's possession over the suit land is false and does not arise. The defendants deny that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since 12-4-2004 and that he acquired the suit land from his mother. The defendants further submit that the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff without having possession over the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit, is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the suit.
4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the court settled the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property within the described boundaries as on the date of filing of the suit?
...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................5
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the equitable relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant over the suit schedule property?
3. If so, as to what relief?
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A30. Ex.A31 is marked during cross examination of DW1. The grandfather of the plaintiff by name
Yadagiri Muralidhar Rao is examined as PW2. One Chella Ramesh is examined as PW3. On behalf of the defendants, the President of Carmel
Educational Society by name Sister Rosamma is examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. Though the chief evidence affidavit of DW2 is filed
before the court, later, on the representation of counsel for the defendants,
the evidence of DW2 is eschewed.
6.Heard both sides and perused the record.
7.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2 : In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A30.
Ex.A1 is the sale deed. Ex.A2 to A4 are the ROR proceedings. Ex.A5 is the original title deed. Ex.A6 is the 1B register obtained through mee seva.
Ex.A7 to A17 are the certified copies of pahanies for various years. Ex.A18 to A22 are the computerized pahanies for the fasli from 1422 to 1425 obtained through mee seva. Ex.A23 is the pahani for the year 2015-16.
Ex.A24 is the order of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.7761/2016, dated 16- 3-2017. Ex.A25 is the certified copy of plaint filed in OS No.130/2016 on the file of Hon'ble Vacation Judge at Karimnagar. Ex.A26 is the certified ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................6 copy of written statement in OS No.82/2016 filed by the defendant in
Hon'ble V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Ex.A27 is the
certified copy of counter in I.A.No.155/2016 in OS No.82/2016 filed by the defendant. Ex.A28 is the certified copy of affidavit filed in I.A.No.155/2016 in OS No.130/2016 on the file of Hon'ble Vacation Judge, Karimnagar.
Ex.A29 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05. Ex.A30 is the order dated 28-5-2015 in I.A.No.155/2016 in OS No.130/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Vacation Judge, Karimnagar. In his chief examination affidavit
PW1 deposed that after filing of the suit, the defendants filed their written statement by denying all the facts, subsequently he has filed partition suit against his father Narineni Sudhakar Rao and the defendant Nos.1 and 2
before the Hon'ble V Additional District Judge's Court, Karimnagar vide
O.S.No.82/2016 on 27-5-2016 and also filed separate petition
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction not to alienate the suit schedule "C" property till the disposal of the suit vide
I.A.No.155/2016 in OS No.130/2016 on the file of Hon'ble District Judge (Civil Vacation Court), for which the Hon'ble Civil Vacation Court was pleased to pass an order directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein not to alienate the schedule "C" property to third parties till 15-7-2016, the same is continuing therein. In his cross examination, he deposed that at the time of mutation of revenue record in respect of the suit lands, he was a minor, that on his behalf his maternal grandfather has represented the proceedings taken place under ROR Act. He further deposed that the total extent of land in Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla (Gudipeta shivar) is about Ac.6-36 gts., out of which Ac.2-00 gts. of land was standing on the name of his mother and the remaining land was standing in the name of his father. He ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................7 further deposed that his maternal grandfather has purchased Ac.6-36 gts.
of land in Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla, thereafter Ac.2-00 gts. of land was registered in the name of his mother and the remaining land was registered in the name of his father. He admits that he omitted to plead that the entire land in Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla was purchased by his maternal grandfather. He also admits that he has filed a suit for partition against his father and others vide O.S.No.82/2016 on the file of Hon'ble District Court,
Karimnagar and the same is pending, that he is the plaintiff in OS
No.82/2016. He further admits that in OS No.82/2016, he pleaded that out of the funds generated from joint family property, his father has acquired the land in Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla, later he registered Ac.2-00 gts. of land in favour of his mother and the remaining land was standing in his name, as such the entire land in Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla is liable to be partitioned. He further deposed that his date of birth is 1-8-1994, that his paternal grandfather Ramarao has breathed his last even before his birth. He denied that basing on the objections filed by the defendants, the Tahsildar,
Mancherial has cancelled mutation proceedings on 26-11-2015 whereunder
Ac.2-00 gts. of land in Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla was implemented in his favour. He further denied that his father was absolute owner for the entire land in Sy.No.394 to an extent of Ac.6-36 gts. of land situated at Mulkalla (Gudipet shivar). He further deposed that his father was absolute owner in respect of the land in Sy.No.394/1 to an extent of Ac.4-36 gts. He denied that though his mother is shown as pattadar in respect of Ac.2-00 gts. in
Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla (Gudipeta shivar), she is not concerned with Ac.2-00 gts. of land. He further denied that the entire land in Sy.No.394 is under possession of defendants i.e., Carmel Educational Society of Mancherial. He ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................8 deposed that the Carmel Educational Society is the owner and possessor of
Ac.4-36 gts. of land in Sy.No.394/1 of Mulkalla village (Gudipet shivar). He denied that ever since the purchase i.e., since 12-4-2004 the defendants i.e., Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial is possessing entire land in
Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla to an extent of Ac.6-36 gts. and he was never in possession of Ac.2-00 gts. He further denied that he has no right or title in respect of the suit land. He admits that from the land in Sy.No.394 a water canal was formed over Ac.0-08 gts. of land and the compensation was not given to him. He denied that since he is not the owner of the suit land and the defendants are only owners of entire land in Sy.No.394 of Mulkalla, thus the compensation was paid to the defendants. He denied that Ex.A23 is created by him for filing of present suit and it is not an admissible document. He further denied that in the year 2004 itself his father has alienated the entire land in Sy.No.394 and delivered the possession to the defendants herein, as such it was never in his possession nor in the possession of his maternal grandfather.
8.The maternal grandfather of PW1 by name Yadagiri Muralidhar Rao is examined as PW2 who deposed in his chief examination affidavit that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land, that originally the plaintiff's mother by name Narineni Laxmi is the original owner of the suit land, that the mother of plaintiff is his daughter who died on 21-7- 2001 leaving behind her the plaintiff as her only existing son, as such the plaintiff has got absolute rights of ownership and possession over the suit land, since then he is in possession of the same, that the plaintiff is raising cotton crop under his supervision for the last 10 years in the suit land by ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................9 arranging coolies and cultivators. He further deposed that the defendants have no right over the suit land and they were never in possession of the same, but they have been threatening the plaintiff to stop fencing around the suit schedule property. In his cross examination, he deposed that during minority of PW1, his father/Sudhakar Rao was signing on necessary documents as a guardian of PW1. He further deposed that the school building is existing in the suit land purchased by the defendants, that the lands to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts. and Ac.4-20 gts. adjacent to the suit land in Sy.No.394 in a compact bit. He further deposed that he does not know whether apart from the present suit, PW1 has filed any other suit in any other court, but he heard that a suit is filed for share in ancestral property, that he does not know his son-in-law/Sudhakar Rao has sold his agricultural land located in Gudipet village to the defendants i.e., Carmel
Educational Society, Mancherial. He denied that to help his grandson/PW1, he is deposing false. He further denied that the suit lands including another Ac.4-20 gts. of land in Sy.No.394 of Gudipet is absolute property of his son-in-law, who long back sold away the entire property in Sy.No.394 of Gudipet to the defendants, since then the defendants have been in possession of the property including the suit land. He deposed that to his knowledge, PW1 has filed the present suit seeking his share in the suit lands which belongs to his mother.
9.One Chella Ramesh is examined as PW3 who deposed in his chief examination affidavit that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land, that originally the plaintiff's mother by name Narineni
Laxmi is the original owner of the suit land, who died in the year 2001 ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................10 leaving behind her the plaintiff as her only existing son, as such the plaintiff has got absolute rights of ownership and possession over the suit land, since then he is in possession of the same. He further deposed that he is cultivating the suit land since last 5 years with the help of the other coolies under the supervision of grandfather of the plaintiff. He further deposed that the defendants have no right over the suit land and they were never in possession of the same, but they have been threatening the plaintiff to stop fencing around the suit schedule property. In his cross examination, he deposed that he does not know Sudhakar Rao, that he knows PW1 for the last 6 years. He further deposed that at the instance of PW1, he came to the court. He further deposed that he does not whether the father of PW1 has sold away the suit land to the defendants. He further deposed that during childhood of PW1, his mother expired, as such PW1 was brought up his maternal grandfather i.e., PW2 to Mancherial, as such the suit schedule property was left out to him by PW2. He further deposed that the Carmel
Convent School has purchased the land, that he does not know through whom they have purchased the land, that he does not know how much land was purchased by Carmel School, Mancherial, that he has not mentioned the fact that through Muralidhar Rao he has got lease of the suit lands and failed to mention in affidavit on 29-4-2016. He further deposed that he has no land nearby Gudipet area, that his land was taken in construction of
Ellampalli Project, thereby he has taken lease of the land in Mancherial. He denied that the suit land is never cultivated by him and the plaintiff is not possessing the suit land through his cultivation, that the entire suit lands are already sold to Carmel School, Mancherial, further the school has erected fencing over the suit lands and the suit lands are in exclusive ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................11 possession of defendant school.
10.To rebut the case of the plaintiff and in support of his case, the defendants got examined the President of Carmel Educational Society,
Mancherial by name Sister Rosamma as DW1 and she reiterated the contents of written statement in her chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B5. Ex.B1 is the photocopy of registered sale deed issued in favour of Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial. Ex.B2 is the original title deed. Ex.B3 is the original pass book issued in favour of Carmel
Educational Society, Mancherial. Ex.B4 is 1B ROR obtained through mee seva. Ex.B5 is the copy of order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mancherial. In her cross examination, she admits that the suit schedule property is a vacant site. She deposed that she does not know whether originally the suit land was purchased by one Laxmi from one N.Kamala
Manohar Rao vide registered sale deed vide document No.421/1998, dated 4-3-1998. She admits that the revenue records were mutated in the name of Laxmi in respect of suit schedule property, that after mutating the revenue records, the name of Laxmi was appearing in revenue records as owner and possessor of suit schedule property. She admits that Laxmi is no more, that she does not know on the death of Laxmi, the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of her son vide Ex.A3 and A5, that she does not know on the death of Laxmi, the suit lands became absolute property of plaintiff. She denied that for the last 10 years, the plaintiff is raising cotton crops. She deposed that the defendants Educational Society has purchased Ac.6-36 gts. of land in Sy.No.394/1 for Rs.16,00,000/-, that she was not an attestor to the sale deed, that she was not present in the ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................12
Registrar office, that she is unable to give the names of attestors. She further deposed that at the time of sale deed Sister Rosula was the
President of Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial, that presently the said
Rosula is working in Hyderabad, perhaps Sister Rosula verified the record prior to its purchase, that she cannot say on whose name the patta was mutated after the death of Laxmi. She admits that at the time of sale transaction between Sudhakar Rao and defendants Educational Society the land to an extent of Ac.4-36 gts. was standing in the name of Sudhakar
Rao, that the remaining extent of land was standing in the name of
N.Laxmi, W/o.Sudhakar Rao. She further deposed that the school building and residential houses of teaching staff of defendants educational society is existing over Ac.3-00 gts. out of Ac.4-36 gts. of land, that the remaining extent of Ac.1-00 gts. of land is used by the defendants educational society for cultivation, that the defendants educational society has constructed compound wall around its land of Ac.4-36 gts., that the suit land was surrounded by fencing. She admits that the plaintiff has filed a partition suit
before the Hon'ble District Court, Karimnagar including the land in
Sy.No.394 of Gudipet. She deposed that she knows that the land an extent of Ac.4-36 gts. in Sy.No.394 of Gudipet is ancestral property. She further deposed that she does not agree that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants educational society is liable to be cancelled, that she knows that in the partition suit, the plaintiff sought cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of defendants educational society. She denied that the Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial is neither possessor nor owners of Ac.2-00 gts. of land in Sy.No.394/1 of Gudipet, as such mutation is not effected in their favour. She deposed that by virtue of single document, the ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................13 defendants educational society has purchased Ac.6-36 gts. of land in
Sy.No.394/1 of Gudipet. She further deposed that she does not know for what reasons the revenue authorities have not mutated Ac.2-00 gts. of land in Sy.No.394/1 of Gudipet and implemented only Ac.4-36 gts. of land though they have purchased Ac.6-36 gts. in single registered sale deed.
She admits that after death of Laxmi under Ex.A3, mutation was effected in favour of Narineni Sheshank represented by his guardian Sudhakar Rao, that basing on Ex.A3, pass book was issued to the plaintiff vide Ex.A5. She further admits that basing on Ex.A5, the revenue records more particularly pahanies were recorded in favour of plaintiff vide Ex.A18 to A23. She denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of suit schedule property, as such he is entitled for the relief of injunction. She further denied that though the defendants have no manner of right or interest over Ac.2-00 gts. of land in Sy.No.394/1 of Gudipet, but it is illegally resisting the legitimate claim of the plaintiff. She admits that on 8- 10-2005 sister Rosula, the then President of Carmal educational society, in her official capacity has written a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mancherial for implementation of Ac.4-36 gts. of land in Sy.No.394/1 of
Gudipet in favour of Carmel Educational society, wherein it is referred that
Ac.2-00 gts. of land is under dispute, further she requested to transfer
Ac.4-36 gts. of land in favour of Carmel Educational Society, represented by Sister Rosulla. She denied that for the last 10 years or so, the plaintiff has been raising cotton and other crops over the suit schedule property.
She further denied that on 25-4-2016 the plaintiff tried to fence the suit schedule property, at the time the defendants and its henchmen tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, accordingly he has ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................14 filed the suit. She further denied that the authorized person the then
President of Carmel Educational Society has written a letter to Sudhakar
Rao for amicable settlement, on 15-6-2005.
11.Thus, according to the plaintiff, his mother purchased the suit schedule property from one Nadipelli Kamala Manohar Rao through registered sale deed vide document No.421/1998, dated 4-2-1998 and possession was also delivered to her, that the mother of the plaintiff died on 21-7-2001 leaving behind the plaintiff as her only son and Class-I legal heir to succeed all her properties including the suit land, that in pursuance of the same, mutation of patta was effected in the name of the plaintiff vide proceedings No.ROR/Gudipeta/11/05, dated 4-11-2005 and the revenue authorities have issued title deeds and the plaintiff is raising cotton crop for the last 10 years and as such, the plaintiff has got absolute rights of ownership and possession over the suit schedule property.
12.On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the father of the plaintiff sold Ac.6-36 gts. of land which includes suit land of Ac.2-00 gts. to the defendant No.2 society through registered sale deed vide document No.2629/2004, dated 12-4-2004 and possession was also delivered to the defendant No.2 society, since the date of purchase the defendant No.2 society is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, that at the time of sale, the plaintiff was a minor. It is the further case of the defendants that subsequently the defendant No.2 society constructed a school in the suit land and mutation was also passed in favour of the defendant No.2 society in the revenue records for total extent of Ac.6-36 ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................15 gts. in Sy.No.394/1 and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued to the defendant No.2 society. It is the further case of the defendants that the father of the plaintiff sold the land to an extent of
Ac.2-00 gts., which is standing in the name of his wife to the defendant
No.2 society along with Ac.4-36 gts. of land which was standing in his name for the necessity of the family and as such the sale in favour of the defendant is genuine and by virtue of the sale deed, the defendant No.2 society is in peaceful possession of the suit land from the date of purchase.
13.To prove his case, the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 which is the sale deed executed in favour of mother of the plaintiff for the land in Sy.No.394/1 to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts. Ex.A2 is mutation proceedings in favour of mother of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the ROR proceedings in favour of the plaintiff.
Ex.A4 is the ROR proceedings dated 30-12-1997. Ex.A5 is the title deed.
Ex.A6 is the 1-B certificate in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A7 to A10 are the pahanies for various years wherein the name of the mother of the plaintiff is recorded. Ex.A11 to A17 are the pahanies for various years wherein the name of the plaintiff is recorded. Ex.A18 to A22 are the pahanies obtained through mee seva wherein the name of the plaintiff is recorded. Ex.A23 is the pahani for the year 2015-16 wherein the name of the plaintiff is recorded to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts. and the name of defendants is recorded to an extent of Ac.4-34 gts. Ex.A24 is the orders of the Hon'ble
High Court in W.P.No.7761/2016. Ex.A25 is the certified copy of plaint in
OS No.82/2016 on the file of Hon'ble V Additional District Judge,
Karimnagar. A perusal of Ex.A25 shows that it is filed by the plaintiff against his father and the defendants herein for partition and separate ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................16 possession of 1/2 share to the plaintiff and to declare the registered sale deed vide document No.2629/2004, dated 12-4-2004 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
14.A perusal of the averments in Ex.A25 shows that the plaintiff has averred that after filing of the present suit, the plaintiff for the first time came to know about the registered sale deed vide document
No.2629/2004, dated 12-4-2004 which was executed by the defendant
No.1 therein (father of the plaintiff) in favour of defendant No.3 (defendant
No.2 herein) in respect of suit schedule "C" property (i.e., the suit land) without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and also when the plaintiff is minor, the defendant No.1 therein falsely created the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3. Ex.A26 is the certified copy of written statement filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in OS No.82/2016 on the file of Hon'ble V
Additional District Judge at Karimnagar. Ex.A27 is the certified copy of
counter of respondents/defendant Nos.2 and 3 in I.A.No.155/2016 in OS
No.82/2016 on the file of Hon'ble V Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.
Ex.A28 is the certified copy of petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
CPC wherein the plaintiff herein has prayed to grant exparte temporary injunction from alienating the suit schedule "C" property by the respondents/defendant Nos.2 and 3 therein. Ex.A30 is the certified copy of order dated 28-5-2015 in I.A.No.155/2016 in OS No.82/2016. Ex.A31 is the letter addressed by the President of Carmel Educational Society (defendant No.2) to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial dated 8-10- 2005.
15.In a suit for injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................17 is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength without depending upon the weaknesses, if any, in the case of the defendants. In the present case, it is the specific plea of the plaintiff that after the death of his mother on 21-7-2001, he succeeded the suit schedule property being
Class-I legal heir and that mutation is also passed in his favour. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants that the father of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was a minor sold the suit schedule property which was standing in the name of his wife along with other properties through registered sale deed bearing document No.2629/2004, dated 12-4-2004.
16.The defendants filed Ex.B5 which is the orders of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Mancherial in file No.G/4310/2014, dated 26-11-2015 wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial passed the following order:
"In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the succession proceedings orders issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial vide No.ROR/6A/Gudipet/11/2005, dated 4-11-2005 is hereby set aside. The Tahsildar, Mancherial is directed to take necessary entries in the revenue records and also take necessary action as per rules and norms in force."
Against the said orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, dated 26-11-2015, the plaintiff preferred Writ Petition No.7761/2016 before the
Hon'ble High Court, wherein the the Hon'ble High Court has passed the
followed order vide Ex.A24:- ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................18 "Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing both the parties and also the authorities concerned to maintain status quo as on today with regard to possession and the entries in the revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts. in
Sy.No.394/1, which is subject matter of dispute, till appropriate orders are passed by the civil Court. After passing of appropriate orders by the civil Court, necessary changes shall be effected in the revenue records. It is needless to mention that the civil Court shall decide the issue un-influenced by the observations, if any, made in this order, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of three to five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order."
17.Admittedly the plaintiff filed the suit vide Ex.A25 for partition and separate possession and to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No.2629/2004, dated 12-4-2004 executed by the defendant No.1 (father of plaintiff herein) in favour of defendant No.3 (defendant No.2 herein) as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff before the Hon'ble
V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar vide OS No.82/2016. As per
Ex.A30, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in I.A.No.155/2016 are directed not to alienate the schedule "C" property to third parties till 15-7-2016. Thus, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed bearing
No.2629/2004, dated 12-4-2004 executed by his father in favour of defendants as null and void and not binding on the defendants vide
O.S.No.2/2016 It is not the plea of the plaintiff that the suit schedule
property was not delivered to the defendants in pursuance of registered sale deed vide document No.2629/2004, dated 12-4-2004. Therefore, if the plaintiff has got any right over the suit schedule property, he is at liberty to agitate the same in the suit filed by him for partition and for ...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................19 declaration that the registered sale deed bearing document No.2629/2004,
dated 12-4-2014 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore,
in view of the above discussion coupled with oral and documentary evidence, this Court holds that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and as such he is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. The issues are answered accordingly.
ISSUE No.3:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, and after correction pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of February, 2019.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MANCHERIAL.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For plaintiff:For defendants: PW-1: Narineni Sheshank DW-1: Sister Rosamma PW-2: Yadagiri Muralidhar RaoDW-2: Sister Josemi (eschewed) PW-3: Chella Ramesh
Exhibits marked
For plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original sale deed vide document No.421/1998, dated 4-3-1998. Ex.A2 : ROR proceedings issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial vide No.ROR/198/GP/98, dated 4-3-1998. Ex.A3 : ROR proceedings issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial vide No.ROR/Gudipet/11/05, dated 4-11-2005. Ex.A4 : ROR proceedings issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial vide No.ROR/6A/Gudipet/182/97, dated 30-12-1997. Ex.A5 : Original title deed of plaintiff. Ex.A6 : Computerized 1B register in respect of land in Sy.No.394/1-1 of Gudipet. Ex.A7 : Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01. Ex.A8 : Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02. Ex.A9 : Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03. Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04.
...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................20
Ex.A11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06. Ex.A12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07. Ex.A13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08. Ex.A14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09. Ex.A15: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10. Ex.A16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11. Ex.A17: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12. Ex.A18: Computerized pahani for the fasli 1422. Ex.A19: Computerized pahani for the fasli 1424. Ex.A20: Computerized pahani for the fasli 1425. Ex.A21: Computerized pahani for the fasli 1425. Ex.A22: Computerized pahani for the fasli 1423. Ex.A23: Current pahani for the year 2015-16. Ex.A24: Certified copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in WP No.7761/2016,
dated 16-3-2017.
Ex.A25: Certified copy of plain in OS No.130/2016 on the file of Hon'ble Vacation Judge at Karimnagar. Ex.A26: Certified copy of written statement in OS No.82/2016 on the file of Hon'ble V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Ex.A27: Certified copy of counter filed by the defendants in I.A.No.155/16, in OS No.82/2016 on the file of Hon'ble V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. Ex.A28: Certified copy of affidavit in I.A.No.155/2016 in OS No.130/2016 on the file of Hon'ble Vacation Judge, Karimnagar. Ex.A29: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05. Ex.A30: Certified copy of order dated 28-5-2015 in I.A.No.155/2016 in
OS No.130/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Vacation Judge,
Karimnagar. Ex.A31: Copy of letter addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer by the President, Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial,
dated 8-10-2005.
For defendants: Ex.B1 : Photocopy of registered sale deed document No.2629/2009,
dated 12-4-2004.
Ex.B2 : Original title deed issued in favour of Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial. Ex.B3 : Original pass book issued in favour of Carmel Educational Society, Mancherial. Ex.B4 : Computerized 1B in respect of land in Sy.No.394/1, 394/B of Gudipet village. Ex.B5 : Copy of order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial vide No.G/4310/2014, dated 26-11-2016.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MANCHERIAL.
...........................................................O.S.No.93/2016.................................................21