Radhika Jaiswal

1

O.S. No. 51 / 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBABAD

(Wednesday, the 11th day of August, 2021)

PRESENT: RADHIKA JAISWAL

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

MAHBUBABAD

O.S.No. 51 of 2020

BETWEEN:

1. Nandigama Hymavathy, W/o Bixam Reddy, age: 50 years, occ: Housewife

2. Nandigama Anjith Reddy, S/o Bixam Reddy, age: 32 years, occ: Software

Both R/o H.No.1-16, North Street, Burugupadu village, Mandal : Dornakal, District Mahabubabad …Plaintiffs

A n d

Nandigama Srinivas Reddy, S/o Janardhan Reddy, age: 48 years, occ: Agrl., R/o Burugupadu village, Mandal : Dornakal, District : Mahabubabad.

…Defendant

This suit having come before me for final hearing on dt.

10-08-2021 in the presence of Sri M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff, and defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side, and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs praying the court to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, heirs and / or anybody else claiming through them from interfering with and / or 2

O.S. No. 51 / 2020

interrupting the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in and over the suit schedule land in any manner what so ever and / or from dispossessing them and to award costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff No.1 herein is mother of plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.1 is absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land out of Sy.No.105/B/3/1 to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts., and out of Sy.No.106/A/1 to an extent of

Ac.2-39 gts., total land Ac.3-19 gts. Plaintiff No.2 is also absolute ower and possessor of agricultural land out of Sy.No.105/A to an extent of

Ac.3-00 gts.. Land of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are situated at one contagious place within common boundaries in Perumandla Sankeesa village,

Dornakal mandal, Mahabubabad district. Thus the total land is Ac.6-19 gts., and they are cultivating the said total extent jointly.

b.It is further submitted that husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 by name Nandigama Bixam Reddy purchased said land about 35 years back under simple sale deed from its erstwhile owner and mutated his name and fresh pattedhar pass books were given. Since last 35 years family of plaintiffs are in continuous and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land till today. It is further submitted that plaintiff No.2 obtained crop loan of Rs.95,000/- from Andhra bank,

Dornakal over part of suit schedule land. For the hard work of the plaintiffs’ family, the suit land became more fertile and its value hiked abnormally. The defendant who is in the north side to the suit land became jealous of increase in value of suit land and thereby casted evil eye over it and time and again unnecessarily interfering into the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit land. The defendant with an intention to grab the suit land causing disturbance to the plaintiff by damaging the boundary between them. In the month of

March, 2020 and on 04-05-2020 when the plaintiff No.1 and her family members were working on the suit land, defendant trespassed into the 3

O.S. No. 51 / 2020

suit land and tried to dispossess the plaintiff No.1 from the suit land but fortunately some villagers rescued the plaintiff No.1, again defendant along with some local goondas came to suit land and attacked on plaintiff

No.1 and threatened her to vacate the suit land, the family members of plaintiffs made hues and cries and several villagers gathered, on that defendant fled away. The defendant is politically and financially influenced person in the village, hatched a plan to grab the suit land and their agents are restrained from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land. In order to protect their legitimate right over their property filed the suit. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant absent. There was no representation on behalf of defendant. 90 days period was lapsed for filing Written statement, hence the defendant set exparte.

4. To substantiate the suit claim on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the plaintiff

No.1 herself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited A.1 and A27 are marked.

5.This Court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff.

6.NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS :

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS IS ENTITLED FOR PERMANENT

INJUNCTION AS PRAYED FOR?

It is the brief case of the plaintiffs 1 is absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land out of Sy.No.105/B/3/1 to an extent of

Ac.0-20 gts., and out of Sy.No.106/A/1 to an extent of Ac.2-39 gts., total land Ac.3-19 gts. Plaintiff No.2 is also absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land out of Sy.No.105/A to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts.. Land of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are situated at one contagious place within common boundaries in Perumandla Sankeesa village, Dornakal mandal,

Mahabubabad district. Defendant who have no right, trying to interfere over the suit schedule property, to resist the illegal interference of defendant over suit schedule property, plaintiff approached the court for grant of permanent injunction.

4

O.S. No. 51 / 2020

In order to prove the suit claim, on behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff

No.1 herself got examined as PW.1 almost reiterated all the plaint averments in her affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked the documents Ex.A1 to A27 i.e., Ex.A1 : Original pattedhar pass book (plaintiff No.1),Ex.A2 : Original pattedhar pass book ( plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A3 : ROR old pattedhar pass book ( Plaintiff No.1), Ex.A4 : ROR old pattedhar pass book (plaintiff No.2), Ex.A5 : 13-B certificate ( plaintiff No.1), Ex.A6: 13-C certificate ( plaintiff No.1) ,Ex.A7: 13-B certificate ( plaintiff No.2), Ex.A8: 13-C certificate ( plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A9 : 1-B(ROR) for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.1), Ex.A10 : 1-

B(ROR) for the year 2018 (plaintiff No.1), Ex.A11: 1-B(ROR) for the year 2016 (plaintiff No.1), Ex.A12: 1-B(ROR) for the year 2014 (plaintiff

No.1), Ex.A13 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff

No.1),Ex.A14 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff

No.1),Ex.A15 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2018 (plaintiff

No.1),Ex.A16: Meeseva pahani for the year 2018 (plaintiff

No.1),Ex.A17: Meeseva pahani for the year 2014 (plaintiff No.1),Ex.A18 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2014 (plaintiff No.1), Ex.A19 :1-B (ROR) for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.2), Ex.A20 : 1-B (ROR) for the year 2018 ( plaintiff No.2) ,Ex.A21: Mee seva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff

No.2),Ex.A22 : Mee seva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff

No.2),Ex.A23 : Attested copy of pahani for the year 2004-05,Ex.A24 :

Attested copy of pahani for the year 2005-06, Ex.A25: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2008-09, Ex.A26 : Attested copy of pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.A27 : Attested copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 .

Exs.A1 to A27 are primary evidence and there is no suspicious circumstances appearing in the documents to disbelieve it, and that defendant is threatening him to vacate his possession.

Thus, in view of oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to

A27, the plaintiffs had proved that they are lawful owners of the suit schedule property and defendant is nothing to do with. In order to rebut 5

O.S. No. 51 / 2020

the case of plaintiffs, the defendant did not approach the court and set exparte. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule land. Hence, the point in question is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendant.

7.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents, heirs and / or anybody else claiming through them from interfering with and / or interrupting the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in and over the suit schedule land. No costs.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of August, 2021.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:- (On behalf of Plaintiff) (On behalf of defendant)

P.W.1 : N. HymavathyNone

EXHIBITS MARKED:-

(On behalf of Plaintiff) Ex.A1 : Original pattedhar pass book (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A2 : Original pattedhar pass book ( plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A3 : ROR old pattedhar pass book ( Plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A4 : ROR old pattedhar pass book (plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A5 : 13-B certificate ( plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A6: 13-C certificate ( plaintiff No.1) ,

Ex.A7: 13-B certificate ( plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A8: 13-C certificate ( plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A9 : 1-B(ROR) for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A10 : 1-B(ROR) for the year 2018 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A11: 1-B(ROR) for the year 2016 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A12: 1-B(ROR) for the year 2014 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A13 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.1), 6

O.S. No. 51 / 2020

Ex.A14 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A15 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2018 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A16: Meeseva pahani for the year 2018 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A17: Meeseva pahani for the year 2014 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A18 : Meeseva pahani for the year 2014 (plaintiff No.1),

Ex.A19 :1-B (ROR) for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A20 : 1-B (ROR) for the year 2018 ( plaintiff No.2) ,

Ex.A21: Mee seva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A22 : Mee seva pahani for the year 2019 (plaintiff No.2),

Ex.A23 : Attested copy of pahani for the year 2004-05,

Ex.A24 : Attested copy of pahani for the year 2005-06,

Ex.A25: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2008-09,

Ex.A26 : Attested copy of pahani for the year 2009-10,

Ex.A27 : Attested copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 (On behalf of defendant)

Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

1

O.S. No. 64 / 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBABAD

(Wednesday, the 18th day of August, 2021)

PRESENT: RADHIKA JAISWAL

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

MAHBUBABAD

O.S.No. 64 of 2017

BETWEEN:

1. Nagelli Janamma W/o Ramulu, age: 80 years, occ: Agrl. R/o Gundrathi Madugu village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad district. (died) per Lrs.

2. Nagelli Srinivas, S/o Ramulu, age: 47 years, occ: Govt. Employee R/o H.No.16-8-448/1, Abbanikunta, Warangal city.

(Plaintiff No.2 added as per the order in I.A.No.12/2017 dt: 25-09-

2019) …Plaintiffs

A n d

1. Suraboina Srinivas, S/o Narayana, age: 30 years, occ: Auto Driver, R/o Gundrathi Madugu village, Kuravi mandal, Mahabubabad district.

2. Bhukya Ravi, S/o Chakru, age: 35 years, occ: Agrl., R/o Narayanapuram Rekula thanda village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad district.

…Defendants

This suit having come before me for final hearing on dt. 17-08-2021 in the presence of Sri K. Ashok, Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff, and of Sri M. Suresh Reddy, advocate for defendant No.1, later in due course, defendant No.1 counsel reported no instructions, again summons were ordered to defendant No.1 and he called absent and was set exparte and defendant No.2 remained exparte, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side, and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff praying the court to grant perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants 2

O.S. No. 64 / 2017

restraining the defendants, their henchmen, workers agents, and etc., and all those persons acting for and on behalf of the defendants from any way interfering/disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the absolute owner, pattedhar in possession and having enjoyment over the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts., out of Sy.No.779/17, situated at Rajolu village shivar, Kuravi mandal,

Mahabubabad district. Plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land four decades ago from its erstwhile owner and subsequently she got regularized her title and possession by entering her name in all ROR records and revenue authorities entered her name in records as pattedhar.

The defendants are strangers and they do not have any sort of right or interest over the suit land in any manner. The defendants and their family are influenced persons in the village. On 26-08-2017 and on 01-09-2017 the defendants with their hench men encroached into the suit schedule property by taking advantage of plaintiff’s innocence. However the plaintiff prevented the defendants and their henchmen illegal interference over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is not in a position to face the repeated interference activities of the defendants and their henchmen, as there is no other alternative except approaching the court to seek equitable relief to protect his possession over suit property. Hence the suit.

3.The brief averments of the written statement filed by defendant

No.1 as follows :

It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that some of the averments of plaint are admitted and rest of the contents of plaint are deemed to have been denied by this defendant No.1. It is submitted that name of the plaintiff is appearing in possession column in revenue records for agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts., out of Sy.No. 779/2017 situated at Rajolu village, Kuravi mandal, Mahabubabad, prior to the year 3

O.S. No. 64 / 2017

2010, but infact the plaintiff sold the above land in the year 2005 to one

Gaddam Bhushaiah for valid consideration @ Rs.45,000/- per acre and executed agreement of sale on stamp paper on 22-04-2005 and after receiving the entire sale consideration on 06-05-2006 in his favour.

Unfortunately said Gaddam Bushaiah name was not mutated in to the revenue records, within three months period, he sold the same @

Rs.56,000/- per acre to this defendant on 12-08-2006 and executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant. Since the date of his purchase the defendant is in possession of suit land and enjoying as its rightful owner without any interference from any one muchless from the plaintiff.

It is further submitted that when the defendant approached the revenue officials for mutation of his name for the suit schedule land under ROR act, it is revealed that suit land is government land as such the name of the defendant in the possessor column only, as he landless poor person.

The documents filed by the plaintiff also showing the name of defendant in possessor column. It is submitted that the plaintiff cheated the vendor of the defendant by selling the government land and deceitfully received an amount of Rs.67,500/- and again claiming the same suppressing the above facts to get wrongful gain. It is denied that on 26-08-2017 and on 01-09-2017 the defendant encroached into the suit land, but in fact the defendant No.1 is in possession of suit land. The suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant is a false suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

3.Mr. M. Suresh Reddy, advocate filed vakalath and written statement on behalf of defendant No.1, but in due course of suit proceedings, given no instructions Again this court ordered summons to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 remained exparte. Defendant No.2 called absent. Hence defendant No.2 set exparte.

4.Heard.

5.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are framed on 18.01.2021 before defendant No.1 was setting exparte:

4

O.S. No. 64 / 2017

Issue Nos.1 to 3

(i)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

6.The plaintiff died, as per Lrs, the son of plaintiff is added as plaintiff No.2, as per the orders in I.A.No.12 / 2017 dt: 25-09-2019. On 01-02-2021 P.W.1 chief examination affidavit was filed, Exs.A1 to A10 marked. Defendant No.1 was called absent, his counsel reported no instructions. This court issued fresh summons to defendant No.1 through court and RP on process. As per the office note dt: 19-04-2021 put up by the clerk on docket proceedings shows that R.P. served on defendant

No.1, but refused. On 19-04-2021 defendant No.1 called absent and there was no representation, due to covid -19 circumstances and SOP – II, no adverse orders was passed by this court. On 02-08-2021 plaintiff counsel represented urgency stating that defendant No.1 was trespassing into the land of plaintiff and causing disturbance in the cultivation. Again notice was ordered on defendant No.1, but mother of defendant No.1 refused to take summons. Defendant No.1 called absent, no representation, hence defendant No.1 set exparte and the cross examination of P.W.1 by the counsel of defendant No.1 is treated as nil.

Exhibits marked on behalf of P.W.1 are Ex.A1 title deed in favour of Nagelli Janamma/ plaintiff, Ex.A2 is pahani for the year fasli 1426 dt:

20-09-2017, Ex.A3 is pahani for the year 02-09-2017 fasli 1427, Ex.A4 is pahani for the year fasli 1426 dt: 02-09-2017, Ex.A5 is pahani for the year fasli 1425 dt: 02-09-2017, Ex.A6 is pahani for the year fasli 1424 dt:

02-09-2017, Ex.A7 is pahani for the year fasli 1423 dt: 02-09-2017,

Ex.A8 is pahani for the year fasli 1421 dt: 02-09-2017, Ex.A9 is pahani for the year fasli 1420 dt: 02-09-2017, Ex.A10 is death certificate of 5

O.S. No. 64 / 2017

Nagelli Janama dt: 04-10-2017. Exs.A1 to A10 are primary evidence and there is no suspicious circumstances appearing in the documents to disbelieve it.

On perusal of written statement filed by defendant No.1, appears that defendant No.1 is in possession of suit schedule property, in order to prove the said fact, the defendant No.1 did not appear before the court to adduce his evidence or to cross examine P.W.1 on his behalf or to show that he is in lawful possession of suit schedule land. Moreover it is the case of P.W.1 that defendant interfering in his suit schedule land and the defendant did not come forward. Hence, this Court holds that non- appearance and non-filing of documents by defendant No.1 before the court, shows the inability of defendant No.1 in proving his case. As such plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. Hence, the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants.

IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants, their henchmen, workers agents etc., from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No costs.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 18 th day of August, 2021.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:- (On behalf of Plaintiff) (On behalf of defendant)

P.W.1 : N. srinivasNone 6

O.S. No. 64 / 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED:-

(On behalf of Plaintiff)

Ex.A1 title deed in favour of Nagelli Janamma/ plaintiff,

Ex.A2 is pahani for the year fasli 1426 dt: 20-09-2017,

Ex.A3 is pahani for the year 02-09-2017 fasli 1427,

Ex.A4 is pahani for the year fasli 1426 dt: 02-09-2017,

Ex.A5 is pahani for the year fasli 1425 dt: 02-09-2017,

Ex.A6 is pahani for the year fasli 1424 dt: 02-09-2017,

Ex.A7 is pahani for the year fasli 1423 dt: 02-09-2017,

Ex.A8 is pahani for the year fasli 1421 dt: 02-09-2017,

Ex.A9 is pahani for the year fasli 1420 dt: 02-09-2017,

Ex.A10 is death certificate of Nagelli Janama dt: 04-10-2017.

(On behalf of defendant)

Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

1

O.S. No. 127 / 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBABAD

(Wednesday, the 18th day of August, 2021)

PRESENT: RADHIKA JAISWAL

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

MAHBUBABAD

O.S.No. 127 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Lavudya Hari, S/o Chandru, Age: 40 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Kuravi village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad district.

…Plaintiff

A n d

Lavudya Hacha, S/o Valiya, age: 60 years, occ: Agrl., R/o Lingya thanda, H/o Kuravi mandal, Mahabubabad district.

…Defendant

This suit having come before me for final hearing on dt. 17-08-2021 in the presence of Sri D. Mahendar, Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff, and defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side, and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs praying the court to pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, heirs, henchmen and all other persons claiming through them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land and to award costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

It is submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-07 gts., out of Sy.No.269/C/1 along with some other lands situated at Kuravi village and mandal,

Mahabubabad district. The said land was acquired by the plaintiff as 2

O.S. No. 127 / 2020

succession from his father and his grandfather which is ancestral property. Evidencing the same, government of Andhra Pradesh issued pattedhar pass book and title deed. In the recent “Bhu Prakshalana”, government of Telangana issued new pass books and issued 1-B and pahani copy for the year 2020 in favour of plaintiff and that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without anybody interruption. The defendant is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and he is nothing to do with the same.

Defendant cast evil eye over the suit schedule property and claiming falsely over suit land and interfering in one or the other way to occupy the same. On 23-07-2020 when the plaintiff is pursing the ongoing agricultural works, the defendant along with his yesmen in the village tried to interfere and occupy the suit land and tried to damage the existing crop with the support of his yesmen in the village. The plaintiff and adjacent cultivators resisted the illegal acts of the defendant and his yesmen. On 30-07-2020 again the defendant tried to enter into the suit schedule property. The plaintiff apprehends danger that the defendant with the assistance of unsocial elements may try to interfere and occupy the suit land at any time in future and the plaintiff is not in a position to resist the brutal force without aid and assistance of the court. Hence the suit.

3.Summons served on defendant, but defendant called absent. 90 days period to file vakalath and written statement was completed, but defendant remained absent. Therefore, defendant set exparte.

4. To substantiate the suit claim on behalf of the Plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited A.1 to A.7 are got marked.

5.This Court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff.

6.NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS :

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS CAN IS ENTITLED FOR

PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS PRAYED FOR?

3

O.S. No. 127 / 2020

It is the brief case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-07 gts., out of Sy.No.

269/C/1 along with some other lands situated at Kuravi mandal,

Mahabubabad district. The defendant who is no way concerned with the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the possession of plaintiff. Hence plaintiff got filed this suit.

In order to prove the suit claim on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1, almost reiterated all the plaint averments in his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked the documents

Ex.A1 to A7 i.e., Ex.A1 is Notarized pattedhar pass book cum title deed issued by government of telangana vide khata No.966 and pass book No.

T25100060502 (original with bank) dt: 11-04-2018, Ex.A2 is letter issued by Manager, Indian Overseas bank, Mahabubabad branch, stating the custody of original pattadar pass book in the bank dt: 22-07-2020,

Ex.A3 is original title deed book issued by government of Andhra

Pradesh vide patta No. 966 and book No.163358, Ex.A4 is Mee seva 1-B namuna in favour of the plaintiff for the year 2020 dt: 11-07-2020, Ex.A5 is Mee seva pahani copy for the year 2020 for Sy.No.269/C/1 dt:

11-07-2020, Ex.A6 is pattedhar pahani for the year 2009-2010 in favour of plaintiff issued by Naib tahasildhar, Kuravi dt: 11-07-2020, Ex.A7 is pattedhar pahani copy for the year 2017 in favour of plaintiff issued by

Naib Tahasildhar, Kuravi dt: 11-07-2020. Exs.A1 to A7 are primary evidence and there is no suspicious circumstances appearing in the documents to disbelieve it.

Thus, in view of oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to

A7, the plaintiff had proved that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land, in order to rebut the case of plaintiff, the defendant did not approach the court and set exparte. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff has proved his case by filing the documents Exs.A1 to A7.

Hence, the point in question is answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.

4

O.S. No. 127 / 2020

7.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant, his agents, heirs, henchmen and all other persons claiming through them from interfering into his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

No costs.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 18 th day of August, 2021.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:- (On behalf of Plaintiff) (On behalf of defendant)

P.W.1 : L. HariNone

EXHIBITS MARKED:-

(On behalf of Plaintiff) Ex.A1 is Notarized pattedhar pass book cum title deed issued by government of telangana vide khata No.966 and pass book No. T25100060502 (original with bank) dt: 11-04-2018. Ex.A2 is letter issued by Manager, Indian Overseas bank, Mahabubabad branch, stating the custody of original pattadar pass book in the bank dt: 22-07-2020. Ex.A3 is original title deed book issued by government of Andhra Pradesh vide patta No. 966 and book No.163358. Ex.A4 is Mee seva 1-B namuna in favour of the plaintiff for the year 2020 dt: 11-07-2020. Ex.A5 is Mee seva pahani copy for the year 2020 for Sy.No.269/C/1 dt: 11-07-2020. Ex.A6 is pattedhar pahani for the year 2009-2010 in favour of plaintiff issued by Naib tahasildhar, Kuravi dt: 11-07-2020. Ex.A7 is pattedhar pahani copy for the year 2017 in favour of plaintiff issued by Naib Tahasildhar, Kuravi dt: 11-07-2020.

(On behalf of defendant)

Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

1

O.S. No. 05 / 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBABAD

(Wednesday, the 18th day of August, 2021)

PRESENT: RADHIKA JAISWAL

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

MAHBUBABAD

O.S.No. 05 of 2019

BETWEEN:

Medarametla Sathyam S/o Venkaiah, Age: 57 years, occ: Agrl., R/o Uyyalawada village, Dornakal mandal, Mahabubabad district.

…Plaintiffs

A n d

Islavath Ramchand, S/o Bhavsingh, age: 47 years, occ: Agrl., R/o Tekula thanda, Uyyalawada village, Dornakal mandal, Mahabuabad district.

…Defendant

This suit having come before me for final hearing on dt. 17-08-2021 in the presence of Sri G. Y. Giri, Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff, and of Sri M. Suresh Reddy, advocate for defendant, in the due course defendant counsel reported no instructions and again summons were ordered to defendant, which were served as per docket order dt: 10-08-2021, but defendant remained absent, therefore he was set exparte, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side, and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff praying the court to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant in person and property, for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,05,869/- from the defendant and to grant subsequent interest at the agreed rate of interest 24% p.a., on the

principal amount of Rs.1,27,400/- from the date of filing of the suit till

the realization of entire amount and to award costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2

O.S. No. 05 / 2019

The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of said acquaintance the defendant approached plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,27,400/- for his agricultural necessities on 14-07-2016, after received the said amount, defendant executed demand promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff as collateral security before the attestors and also agreed to repay the said borrowed amount as and when demanded by plaintiff along with interest. Plaintiff demanded several times for repayment of said amount, but defendant avoided the same on one pretext or the other with a malafide intention to avoid repayment of borrowed amount. Vexed with the attitude of defendant, plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant on 22-12-2018, but of no use. There is no hope to the plaintiff for recovery of loan amount from defendant, without aid and assistance of court. Hence the suit.

3.The averments of written statement filed by defendant in brief are as follows :

It is submitted that there is acquaintance between plaintiff an defendant, but out of such acquaintance, defendant did not approach the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,27,400/- for agricultural necessities on 14-07-2016 and did not execute a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff as collateral security in presence of attestors and agreed to repay the said amount. The plaintiff never demanded several times for repayment of borrowed amount, and never issued any legal notice to defendant, the alleged suit promissory note is fabricated by forging the signature of defendant and alleged attestors are relatives of plaintiff. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount much less the suit amount to plaintiff. The defendant is reserving his right to send the alleged suit promissory note to expert for comparison of admitted signatures of defendant. There is no cause of action for filing this suit, with an intention to harass the defendant on political ground the plaintiff 3

O.S. No. 05 / 2019

invented an imaginary dates of cause of action. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Heard.

5.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are framed on 20-08-2019, before defendant was set exparty.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

(i)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of money as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

6.The plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and also got examined P.Ws.2 to 4 on his behalf.

Exhibits marked on behalf of P.W.1 are Ex.A1 is original promissory note, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice, Ex.A3 is postal receipts, Ex.A4 is returned postal envelop, Ex.A5 is signature of P.W.2 on

Ex.A1, Ex.A6 is signature of P.W.3 on Ex.A1, Ex.A7 is signature of

P.W.4 on Ex.A1. Exs.A1 to A4 are primary evidence and there is no suspicious circumstances appearing in the documents to disbelieve it.

On perusal of written statement filed by defendant, appears that defendant has not approached the plaintiff for loan amount out of acquaintance, in order to prove the said fact, the defendant did not appear before the court to adduce his evidence or to cross examine P.W.1 on his behalf. Moreover the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 supported the case of plaintiff and Ex.A1/ Promissory note bears their signatures. The contents of the written statement shows defendant defence is that

Ex.A1/promissory note is fabricated but the defendant did not approach the court to send the document to expert. As such plaintiff is entitled for recovery of loan amount. Hence, the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.

4

O.S. No. 05 / 2019

IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,05,869/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,27,400/- from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., until the date of realization.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 18 th day of August, 2021.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:- (On behalf of Plaintiff) (On behalf of defendant)

P.W.1 : M. SatyamNone P.W.2 V. Upendra P.W.3 V. Nageshwar Rao P.W.4 A. Venkateshwar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED:-

(On behalf of Plaintiff)

Ex.A1 is original promissory note,

Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice,

Ex.A3 is postal receipts,

Ex.A4 is returned postal envelop,

Ex.A5 is signature of P.W.2 on Ex.A1,

Ex.A6 is signature of P.W.3 on Ex.A1,

Ex.A7 is signature of P.W.4 on Ex.A1.

(On behalf of defendant)

Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

1

O.S. No. 90 / 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBABAD

(Wednesday, the 11th day of August, 2021)

PRESENT: RADHIKA JAISWAL

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

MAHBUBABAD

O.S.No. 90 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Gangula Sridevi, W/o Ramanarsaiah, age: 45 years, occ: Housewife and Agriculture, R/o Singaram village, Mahabubabad mandal and district. …Plaintiff A n d

1. Jilakara Buchamma, W/o Venkataiah, age: 55 years, occ: housewife and agriculture, R/o Singaram village, Mahabubabad mandal and district.

2. Thummidi Venkatamma, W/o Sailu, age: 50 years, occ: Housewife and agricultoure, R/op Singaram village, Mahabubabad mandal and district.

3. Jilakara Bathukamma, W/o Mallaiah, age: 45 years, occ: Housewife and agriculture, R/o Singaram village, Mahabubabad Mandal and district. …Defendants

This suit having come before me for final hearing on dt. 10-08-2021 in the presence of Sri T. Nagesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff, and defendants set exparte, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side, and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff praying the court to issue perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents and all others persons claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

It is submitted that the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts., in and out of Sy.No.251/A/1 situated at Singaram Revenue village, Mahabubabad Mandal and district, which is herein after called as suit schedule property. Tahasildhar 2

O.S. No. 90 / 2020

Mahabubabad distict, issued pattedhar pass book and title deed vide book No.

T 25110010270, Katha No.498, dt: 13-11-2019 in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property several years without interruption of anybody.

b.It is further submitted that defendants are no way concerned to the suit schedule property and have no right or interest or title over the suit schedule property are trying to interfere over the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. On 10-07-2020 when the plaintiff was at suit schedule property, the defendants along with their henchmen came to suit land and tried to interfere with the possession of plaintiff and tried to dispossess her without having any right or title or interest over the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff could resisted the same with the support of neighbours, at that time defendants openly threatened the plaintiff that they will continue their acts, the plaintiff having no other option except knocking the doors of the court for natural justice. Hence the suit.

3. Mr. D. Nageshwar Rao, advocate filed vakalath on behalf of defendants. Written statement not filed and there was no representation on behalf of defendants. Hence defendants 1 to 3 set exparte.

4. To substantiate the suit claim on behalf of the Plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and got exhibited A.1 to A3 on his behalf.

5.This Court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff.

6.NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS :

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR PERMANENT

INJUNCTION AS PRAYED FOR?

It is the brief case of the plaintiff that He is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts., in and out of

Sy.No.251/A/1 situated at Singaram Revenue village, Mahabubabad.

Defendants who have no right over the suit property tried to interfere over the same on 10-07-2020, but the plaintiff with the help of his nighbours resisted the defendants and their men, but defendants openly threatened plaintiff that 3

O.S. No. 90 / 2020

they will dispossess the plaintiff from suit property. Hence, the plaintiff approached the court and filed the suit.

In order to prove the suit claim, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 almost reiterated all the plaint averments in his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked the documents Ex.A1 to A3 i.e.,

Ex.A1 is notarized copy pattedhar pass book and title deed vide pass book No.

T25110010270 and Khata No.498 issued by Tahasildhar dt: 19-04-2018, Ex.A2 is mee seva 1-B namuna (ROR) pertaining to the suit schedule property dt: 15- 07-2020, Ex.A3 is meeseva pahani for the fasli years 2020 pertaining to the suit schedule proeprty dt: 15-07-2020. Exs.A1 to A3 are primary evidence and there is no suspicious circumstances appearing in the documents to disbelieve it.

Thus, in view of oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.3, the plaintiff has clinchingly proved his case by filing Exs.A1 to A3, which are the primary documents to show that he is the owner of the suit schedule property.

In order to rebut the case of plaintiff, the defendants did not approach the court and set exparte. Hence, the point in question is answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants.

7.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No costs.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of August, 2021.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:- (On behalf of Plaintiff) (On behalf of defendant)

P.W.1 : G. SrideviNone 4

O.S. No. 90 / 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED:-

(On behalf of Plaintiff) Ex.A1 is notarized copy pattedhar pass book and title deed vide pass book

No. T25110010270 and Khata No.498 issued by Tahasildhar

dt: 19-04-2018,

Ex.A2 is mee seva 1-B namuna (ROR) pertaining to the suit schedule property

dt: 15-07-2020,

Ex.A3 is meeseva pahani for the fasli years 2020 pertaining to the suit schedule property dt: 15-07-2020 (On behalf of defendant)

Nil.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD