O.S. No. 77 of 2005 1 Dt: 23-12-2019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::: WARANGAL.
Monday, 23 rd day of December, 2019
Present:- Kum. Rita Lalchand II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
O.S.No. 77 OF 2019
Between:-
Smt.Sidduri Uma, W/o.Achyutha Rao, Age: 51 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Gopalpuram (V), Elakathurthy (M), Karimnagar and at present residing at 22, Washington Court, Livingston, NJ-07039-2119, USA being presented by her G.P.A. Holder Sri Poladi Ravinder Rao, S/o.Laxman Rao, Age: 38 years, Occ.:Agriculture, R/o.Pathipalli, Mulugu Mandal, Warangal District. … Plaintif
And
01)Smt.Emmadi Laxmi, W/o. Swamy, Age: 63 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-55, Kanthaiahnagar, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda.
02)Emmadi Suman, S/o. Swamy, Age: 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-55, Kanthaiahnagar, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda.
03)Emmadi Rajender Prasad, S/o. Late Veeraswamy, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-55, Kanthaiahnagar, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda.
04)Smt.Chityala Lavanya, W/o. Bhadraiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o. H.No.6-10-, Kanthaiah Colony, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda, Warangal. … Defendants
This suit coming up before me on 02-12-2019 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas Raju, Advocate for Plaintif and
Sri K.Pashupathi Eashwarnath, Advocate for Defendants and upon perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:
: : J U D G M E N T : :
This is a suit fled for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the 1.
defendants from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and to award cost of the suit.
The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintif 2.
stated to be owner and possessor of Open Plot admeasuring 680 square yards out of Sy. No's.76. 63 & 77 of Gopalpur Village, Hanamkonda,
Warangal. Hereinafter referred as suit schedule property. It was stated
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 2 Dt: 23-12-2019
that plaintif purchased 780 square yards in Sy. No's.66, 76 & 77 under registered sale deed vide document No's.932/1994 & 934/1994, dated 03.08.1994 and sold 100 square yards of land to B.Roja Rani under registered sale deeds vide document No's.1402/2002 and 1403/2002. For the suit schedule property, the plaintif obtained Grampanchayath permission from G.P.Gopalpur vide permission No.GP/2004, dated 18.12.2004. Having obtained permission, plaintif dug bore-well and collected construction material. But defendant having no right over the property caused interference in the frst week of December, 2004 and tried to assault on the watchman and destroyed bore-well and hut. As such the brother-in-law of plaintif lodged complaint on P.S.KUC vide
Crime No.242/2004. However defendant still caused interference on 25.01.2005 at 10.00 a.m., which was resisted by plaintif. As such to restrain the acts of defendants, the present suit is fled.
The averments of the Written statement of defendant No.2 in
3.
brief are as follows: This defendant denied the case of the plaintif, it is right over the property under registered sale deeds, obtaining permission from G.P., appointment and assault of watchmen and alleged interference of the defendant. Having denied the entire case of the plaintif, the defendant stated that his sister fled Partition suit against this defendant and third parties vide O.S.No.93/2005 on the fle of I-Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Warangal and that the property of the defendants are not
partitioned and show alienating of the property by an individual will not create any right by the plaintif. This defendant denied the possession of the plaintif and prayed to dismiss the suit.
Defendant No's.1 & 4 adopted the written statement of defendant No.2 4.
by way of adoption memo the defendant No.3 failed to appear before
Court and hence was set exparte.
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 3 Dt: 23-12-2019
Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues were 5.
framed by this court on 18.09.2006.
i) Whether the plaintif is in eeclusive possession of
petition schedule property, if so whether plaintif
is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction,
as prayed for in respect of the suit land ?
ii) To what relief ?
In order to prove the case of the GPA Holder of plaintif, the GPA Holder 6.
of plaintif got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex's.A-1 to A-20.
The plaintif also got examined S.Bheem Rao as PW-2 and got marked
Ex's.A-21 to A-29 on her behalf. On the other hand, Defendant No.2 got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Ex's.B-1 to B-11. The defendant also got examined K.Ramachandram, Y.RAvi Kumar, S.Pramod and G.Shiva Prasad as DW's.2 to 5. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the annexure.
Heard both sides. Perused the record. 7.
ISSUE NO.1: It is the case of the plaintif that the plaintif claims to be 8.
owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and since the defendant is causing interference, the present suit is fled. As it is the plaintif who has approached the Court, the burden lies on the plaintif to prove its case.
PW-1 deposed reiterating the contents of the plaint in his chief- 9.
afdavit. PW-1 deposed that he is representing the plaintif who authorized under GPA Holder, dated 03.01.2005 under Ex.A-1. It was stated that having purchased the suit schedule property into two bits of 390 square yards each under registered sale deeds vide document
No's.932/1994 and 934/1994 under Ex's.A-2 & A-3. To show the right of his vendor, PW-1 relied upon Ex.A-3 to an extent of 390.00 square yards.
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 4 Dt: 23-12-2019
Subsequent to purchase, PW-1 deposed that the plaintif obtained construction permission under Ex.A-5 and paid tax under Ex.A-4. To show that the property of the suit survey number, encumbrance certifcates under Ex's.A-21 to A-23 are fled. PW-1 further deposed that, previously there was a suit by O.S.No.17/1995 in respect of the suit schedule property and the same may be decreed in favour of plaintif, for which judgment and decree in O.S.No.17/1995 is fled under Ex's.A-24 & A-25.
Copy of documents is fled under Ex's.28 & 29. As such the plaintif prays to decree the suit.
On the other hand, DW-1 reiterated the contents of the written 10.
statement in his chief-afdavit and also deposed in addition to the facts pleaded in the written statement. DW-1 deposed that his grand-father/
E.Peeraiah had two sons by name Gattaiah and Laxmaiah who had total property of Ac.0-26 guntas. Laxmaiah had two sons by name
Veeraswamy and Swamy. After death of father of PW-1, partition was afected by virtue of which Ac.0-060 guntas of land equally to 786.6 square yards fell to the share of defendant No.1. To show his right, the
DW-1 fled under Ex's.B-4 to B-9 are fled and the entire encumbrance certifcate in Sy. No.76 is fled under Ex's.B-2, B-3 & B-11. DW-1 contents that the defendant claims his right to an extent of Ac.0-060 guntas of land belonging to defendant No.1 as us for which the plaintif has no right. Hence the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
Based on the above documents and evidence, it has to be seen 11.
whether the plaintif could prove its case.
PW-1 deposed that the suit schedule property admeasuring 780 square 12.
yards is forming part of Sy.No's.66, 76 & 77, having purchased the same
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 5 Dt: 23-12-2019
under registered sale deeds under Ex's.A-2 & A-3. PW-1 further deposed that from out of 780 square yards of land under Ex's.A-2 & A-3, 100- square yards of land was sold to Smt.B.Roja Rani under registered sale deeds vide document No's1402/2002 and 1403/2002, hence the balance land of 680 square yards under suit schedule property herein. On perusal of Ex's.A-2 & A-3 it goes to show that the aid document was executed by
GPA Holder on his behalf of original vendors. Ex.A-2 goes to show that it was executed by E.Laxmaiah, Emmadi Veeraswamy being represented by its GPA Holder Odela Shankar Rao and Vaddiraju Radhakishan Rao, Bura
Sambaiah, Bura Venkateshwarlu and Bura Ramesh represented by their
G.P.A.Holder S.Anil Kumar. Ex.A-3 goes to show that it was executed by
Emmaid Laxmaiah, Emmadi Veeraswamy, Emmadi Ellaswamy, Emmadi
Veeraswamy, represented by their G.P.A.Holder Odela Shankar Rao and
Vaddiraju Radha Kishan Rao, Bura Sambaiah, Bura Venkateshwarlu, Bura
Ramesh represented by their GPA Holder S.Anil Kumar. Ex's.A-2 & A-3 goes to show that Poladi Ravinder Rao was authorised under GPA vide document No.93/1990(Ex.A-30), 75/1991(A-31), 157/1992(A-32). The
G.P.A. document of S.Anil Kumar bearing No.149/1992. It was pertinent to mention that this GPA holder vide document No.149/1992 is not fled
before this Court.
As per the evidence on record as per the submissions made by both the 13.
learned counsel, it appears that the defendant being no objection and no right over the land in Sy. No's.77 & 63. However, they claims their right of Sy. No.76. The entire contentions of defendant in brief is that defendant No.1 holds the land to an extent of Ac.0-060 guntas in
Sy.No.76 and she did not sale any property to any GPA Holder authorizing them to sale the land to them to plaintif. As such, it is the defendant
No.1 who has right in Sy. No.76. Against the same, it appears that the
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 6 Dt: 23-12-2019
GPA Holder executed in favour of Oldela Shanker Rao is executed by none other than then the father-in-law of defendant No.1 by name Laxmaiah.
Now it has to be seen whether Laxmaiah had right to executing G.P.A.
Firstly to show that the defendant No.1 and is her family had right over the land in Sy. No.76, PW-1 relied upon Ex's.A-6 to A-20. Similarly, DW-1 relied upon Ex's.B-4 to B-9 in respect of Sy. No's.63 & 77, Ex's.A-6 to A-20 goes to show the name of Vaddiraju Radha Kishan Rao as pattedhar for the land to an extent of Ac.0-36 guntas and Ac.0-13 guntas respectively and the name of Bura Veeraswamy is showed as possessory column in
Ex's.A-6 to A-9 and from Ex's.A-10 to A-20 possessory column is showed as house plots. In respect of the Sy.No's.76, Ex's.A-6 & A-7 shows the name one Ahmed Hussain as pattedhar and in the possessory column the name of Emmadi Laxmaiah, Emmadi Yellaiah and Emmadi Veeraswamy is mentioned to an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas, Ac.0-09 guntas and Ac.0-09 guntas respectively. As per Ex's.A-9 to A-13 which are pahanies for the years 1990-1991 to 1994-1995, it refects the name of Emmadi
Veeraswamy as pattedhar and the possessary column reveals the names of Emmadi Veeraswamy, Emmadi Laxmi, Emmadi Veeraswamy and
Emmadi Ellaiah to an extent of Ac.0-06 ¼ guntas each. The nature of possession the said land Ex's.A-8 & A-9 is shown as purchased, whereas
Ex.A-10 is shown as share. Ex's.A-14 to A-20 reveals the possession of land in Sy. No.76 to be house plots.
Thus, from the above, it is clear that the land in Sy. No.76 originally 14.
belongs to Laxamaiah and his family members, as such they had every right to execute GPA and sale the same two others. As such, the GPA under Ex's.A-30 and A-31 it appears to be valid. In this regard, the defendant contended that the name of defendant No.1 is refected in
Ex.A-10 but however she is not made as a party in the GPA document
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 7 Dt: 23-12-2019
under Ex's.A-30 to A-32. Ex.A-30 pertaining to the year 1990. Ex.A-31 pertaining to the year 1991 and Ex.A-32 pertaining to the year 1992.
DW-1 claims right stating that the property of Laxmaiah was given to defendant No.1 towards her share. However, in the cross-examination it was elicited that no partition took place between the defendant and her family members. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that one of the sister of defendant No.1 had fled a partition suit vide O.S.No.93/2005 on the fle of the Hon'ble I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. As per the evidence of DW-1, he deposed that the said suit fled by her elder sister
Swapna as by aggrieved by her share in the suit schedule property therein which Ac.0-26 guntas in Sy. No.76. Further as per DW-1, the said suit was compromised and settled out side of the Court. However, he admitted that the said compromise was not reiterated before the Court.
In fact PW-1 had relied upon the decree in O.S.No.93/2005 under Ex.A-25 which reveals that the said suit was dismissed for default and in the said suit is plaintifs herein is arrayed as defendants. In case really the compromise is entered amongst parties vide O.S.No.93/2005 the same would have been recorded in the Court or settlement document ought to have been executed. However, DW-1 clearly admitted in the cross examination no document of compromise was ever executed between the parties in O.S.No.93/2005 which could reveals grant of Ac.0-060 guntas in Sy. No.76 to defendant No.1. Thus, the suit in O.S.No.93/2005 is of no help to the defendant. DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that as on the date of fling of O.S.No.93/2005 no partition took place amongst his family members. As such, it is still clear that when no partition was efected among the family members the nature of acquisition of property as mentioned in Ex.A-10 as share creates a doubt. In this regard, DW-1 was also cross-examined and was questioned as on what basis the name of defendant No.1 was mutated in revenue records. To this DW-1
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 8 Dt: 23-12-2019
deposed that after demise of his father in the year 1987, his grand father mutated the name of defendant No.1 i.e. mother directly as per R.O.R act.
However, he also admitted that he has not any such proceedings/more specifcally mutation proceedings given under ROR act. Thus, the north- south corner in which the name of defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records is consists under cloudy and no proper explanation is given by DW-1. Even if, the evidence is not considered and only entries in pahanies into considered and the same also do not reveals the picture equally as Ex's.A-8 and A-9 shows the nature of holding property to be purchased, whereas Ex's.A-10 to A-13 shows the minor helping the land as share. Hence, it is clear that entries in revenue records was also no proper and it is no help to the defendant. Since it is admitted that, it is the property of Laxmaiah, Laxmaiah had every right to sale property.
Further Laxmaiah executed GPA under Ex.A-30 which is document
No.93/1990 and the pahanie for the year 1990 reveals the name of
Laxmaiah continued to be possession of the suit schedule property. Since the GPA document are valid, they had every right to sale the same to the plaintifs.
PW's.1 & 2 deposed that it is not only the suit schedule property to sold 15.
to them, but certain other property is also sold to the neighbour. In this regard, PW-2 deposed that his wife having purchased 100 square yards of land from plaintif, also purchased 780 square yards of land from the same vendors of the plaintif under registered sale deed vide document
No's.1199/1994 and 1200/1994 dated 21.09.1994. As such wife of PW-2 had right over 880 square yards of land, but she sold 400 square yards of land to brother-in-law A.Venkateshwar Rao and A.Rajeshwar Rao under registered sale deeds vide document No's.659/1996 and 658/1996, dated 24.06.1996 and the wife of PW-1 retains to 480 square yards of land and
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 9 Dt: 23-12-2019
the said 480 square yards of land PW-2 deposed that the property of plaintif is on the eastern side. Admittedly, none of the registered document of his wife PW-2 is fled before this Court for its perusal, as such the said contentions are untenable. However, from the above, it is clear that PW-1 had purchased the property from rightful owner.
The other contentions and defendant to disprove the possession of the 16.
plaintif is the land in Sy.No's.63, 76 & 77 if taken together would not fle on the 100 square yards vide fling on the southern side. Infact DW-1 had relied on touch map under Ex.A-1 which shows that Sy.No's.63, 76 & 77 are the adjacent to each other and that road on the southern side is carved out from out of the land adjacent and dodging to Sy. No.77.
Showing the said map Ex.B-1 the learned counsel for the defendant contended that in case the property of the plaintif is to be considered from out of Sy.No's.63, 76 & 77, it was found at the joining part of three survey numbers and not adjacent to southern side road. In this regard,
DW-1 in his cross-examination he had admitted that Ex.B-1 is not accompanied by land proceedings. He further deposed that the said document was prepared by him and not by his grand-father, when the document is prepared by DW-1 or in his persons. DW-1 ought to have fled the proceedings without which Ex.B-1 would not have much sanctity.
Infact DW-1 deposed that the property was surveyed but hwoever he deposed the said survey was conducted by Laxmaiah, but no document is fled to the said efect, hence to consider Ex.B-1, the defendant ought to have fled the proceedings in the absence of which defendant No.1 do not holds any water. Further, the defendant also do not confer the said document to PW-1 or PW-2 to elicit any fact in respect of sanctity to Ex.B- 1 or location of the suit schedule property as contended by the defendant. Thus, the contention of the defendant that does not located
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 10 Dt: 23-12-2019
on the southern side of the road is also untenable and rejected. Infact, if
Ex's.A-2 & A-3 are considered along with Ex's.A-30 to A-32, the boundaries of the suit schedule property appears to be correct.
From the evidence on record, it appears that subsequent to fling of the 17.
suit also, plaintif obtained regularization proceedings, constructed compound wall at the suit schedule property and raised a room at north- south corner though the specifc pleadings is not made by the plaintif, this was questioned during the cross-examination of DW-1 and few photographs also shown to DW-1, who has referring the same under
Ex.A-34. Admittedly the property refected therein is the suit schedule property which consist a room. DW-1 however improved his version by saying that the room belongs to him and destruction of the room, which was constructed by him. Infact DW-1 went to the verge of examining the mason who alleged to have constructed the room and compound wall as
DW-4. DW-4 though deposed in the chief-afdavit of constructing the room at the instance of the defendant, in the cross-examination it could be elicited that he was not aware of the total extent of land n Sy. No.76 and he is not aware of the GPA document executed by Emmadi Laxmaiah.
He also admitted that the shed and the compound wall refected in
Ex.A-34 to be raised by him. However, he deposed that the said room was dismantled. In the cross-examination of DW-4 could not deposed when the cattle shed was dismantled. However, he improved his version by stating that the property was given on lease to G.Shivaprasad who is doing the business by sale of sand/construction material and the lease agreement in between G.Shivaprasad and defendant No.2. This
G.Shivaprasad is examined as DW-5.
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 11 Dt: 23-12-2019
DW-5 deposed in his chief-afdavit that he is working as Front Ofce 18.
Incharge in Dr.Mohan Diabetes at Hyderabad. And that he resigned his job and he commenced business in the premises of defendant No.1 having payment the same on lease. However, during the cross examination it was elicited that DW-5 has commenced business in the feld of sand, bricks and soil, but he has not obtained any permission from the government to commenced the business. Further, DW-5 could not depose about the GPA which he referred in the chief afdavit and he has no information Ex's.A-30 to A-32. It appears that DW-5 has not information about the suit schedule property or execution of any documents or fling in O.S.No.93/2005. As such, the evidence of DW-5 is no helpful to the defendant. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the plaintif who is in possession of the suit schedule property, he is entitled for the relief.
DW-1 who claimed to be in possession by virtue of the entries made in 19.
the pahanies could not prove its as to how she inherited the property and also admitted that the room and the compound wall on the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintif. DW-1 also got examined DW-1 who deposed in favour of the defendant and he further deposed that the shed at the suit schedule property was dismantled by PW-2. However, in the cross examination it was elicited that he has no knowledge about any suit vide O.S.No.93/2005. According to the DW-2 the defendant had received the property under inheritance and not partition. He is also unaware of the Ex's.A-30 to A-32 which the basic documents. To show that the contention of the DW-2, the details of the contentions of defendant No.1 to prove the goats and bufaloes owned by her were question to which
DW-2 did not answer. Further, DW-2 deposed that he was informed by defendant No.2 that the shed was dismantled by DW-2. As such the
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 12 Dt: 23-12-2019
evidence of DW-2 is only hear-say evidence which is not helpful to the defendant.
DW-3 also deposed in favour of defendant. DW-3 deposed in the chief- 20.
afdavit that in the year 1993 there a dispute between Emmadi
Veeraswamy and defendant No.1 to which he acted as village elder along with P.Srinivas, K.Venkataiah and E.Upender and dissolved the dispute stating that the property was never sold to the plaintif. However, during the cross examination it was elicited that their exists no document to show passing of any resolution for the dispute in the year 1993. Further, he clearly admitted that he came to depose the evidence at the instance of defendant No.2 and could not state the boundaries of Ac.0-060 guntas of land which he resolved in favour of the defendant. Hence, it is clear that the defendants failed to prove its case and its possession over the suit schedule property whereas the plaintif could prove its possession over the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintif is entitled as prayed for. Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered.
ISSUE NO.2: As Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif, the 21.
plaintif is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with cost by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintif restraining the defendants from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of December, 2019)
Sd/-
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
WARANGAL
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 13 Dt: 23-12-2019
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :
PW-1: Poladi Ravindar RaoDW-1: Emmadi Suman PW-2: Sidduri Bheem RaoDW-2: K.Ramachandram DW-3: Y.Ravikumar DW-4: Salluri Pramod DW-5: Gudam Shivaprasad
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF : Ee.A-1:G.P.A., dated 03.01.2005.
Ee.A-2:Certifed copy of sale deed vide document No.932/1994.
Ee.A-3:Certifed copy of sale deed vide document No.934/1994.
Ee.A-4:Tax paid receipt, dated 18.12.2005.
Ee.A-5:Construction permission along with approved plan.
Ee.A-6:Pahani for the year 1987-1988 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-7:Pahani for the year 1988-1989 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-8:Pahani for the year 1989-1990 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-9:Pahani for the year 1990-1991 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-10: Pahani for the year 1991-1992 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-11: Pahani for the year 1992-1993 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-12: Pahani for the year 1993-1994 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-13: Pahani for the year 1994-1995 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-14: Pahani for the year 1995-1996 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-15: Pahani for the year 1996-1997 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-16: Pahani for the year 1997-1998 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-17: Pahani for the year 1998-1999 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-18: Pahani for the year 1999-2000 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-19: Pahani for the year 2000-2001 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-20: Pahani for the year 2001-2002 issued by M.R.O., Hanamkonda.
Ee.A-21: Encumbrance Certifcate vide No.44880717, dt:23.11.2013.
Ee.A-22: Encumbrance Certifcate vide No.44880703, dt:23.11.2013.
Ee.A-23: Encumbrance Certifcate vide No.44880721, dt:23.11.2013.
Ee.A-24: Certifed copy of judgment & decre in O.S.No.17/1995 on the fle of II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Ee.A-25: Certifed copy of Decre in O.S.No.93/2005 on the fle of
Hon'ble I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Ee.A-26: Certifed copy of power of attorney, dated 01.12.2006.
Ee.A-27: Certifed copy of order & decree in I.A.No.41/95 in O.S.No.17/95 on the fle of II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Ee.A-28: Certifed copy of document No.1051/1998.
Ee.A-29: Certifed copy of document No.1048/1998.
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 14 Dt: 23-12-2019
FOR DEFENDANTS :
Ee.B-1:True copy of tonch map.
Ee.B-2:Encumbrance certifcate, dated 21.03.2017.
Ee.B-3:Encumbrance certifcate, dated 21.03.2017.
Ee.B-4:True copy of pahani for the year 1990-1991.
Ee.B-5:True copy of pahani for the year 1991-1992.
Ee.B-6:True copy of pahani for the year 1992-1993.
Ee.B-7:True copy of pahani for the year 1994-1995.
Ee.B-8:True copy of pahani for the year 1970-1971.
Ee.B-9:True copy of pahani for the year 1965-1966.
Ee.B-10:Receipt, dated 21.03.2005.
Ee.B-11:Encumbrance certifcate, dated 20.02.2013.
Sd/-
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
WARANGAL
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 15 Dt: 23-12-2019
DECREE
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::: WARANGAL.
Monday, 23 rd day of December, 2019
Present:- Kum. Rita Lalchand II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
O.S.No. 77 OF 2005
Between:- Smt.Sidduri Uma, W/o.Achyutha Rao, Age: 51 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Gopalpuram (V), Elakathurthy (M), Karimnagar and at present residing at 22, Washington Court, Livingston, NJ-07039-2119, USA being presented by her G.P.A. Holder Sri Poladi Ravinder Rao, S/o.Laxman Rao, Age: 38 years, Occ.:Agriculture, R/o.Pathipalli, Mulugu Mandal, Warangal District.… Plaintif
And
01)Smt.Emmadi Laxmi, W/o. Swamy, Age: 63 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-55, Kanthaiahnagar, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda.
02)Emmadi Suman, S/o. Swamy, Age: 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-55, Kanthaiahnagar, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda.
03)Emmadi Rajender Prasad, S/o. Late Veeraswamy, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-55, Kanthaiahnagar, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda.
04)Smt.Chityala Lavanya, W/o. Bhadraiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o. H.No.6-10-, Kanthaiah Colony, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda, Warangal. … Defendants
CLAIM FOR :- Suit is fled for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and to award cost of the suit.
Plaint presented on: 31-01-2005.
Cause of action : On 25.01.2005 at Gopalpur Village, Hanamkonda Revenue Mandal of Warangal District.
Valuation of the Suit : The suit is for grant of permanent injunction, as such the suit is valued notionally at Rs.5,000/- and a court fee of Rs.411/- is paid U/s. 26 (c) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.
DECREE :- This suit coming up before me on 02-12-2019 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas Raju, Advocate for Plaintif and Sri K.Pashupathi Eashwarnath, Advocate for Defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE THAT :
01)The suit of the plaintif be and is hereby decreed with cost by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintif restraining the defendants from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.
02)The defendants do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs. towards costs of the suit.
(Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2019)
Sd/-
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
for Khushboo Upadhyay WARANGAL.
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
WARANGAL.
O.S. No. 77 of 2005 16 Dt: 23-12-2019
: : SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY : :
House plot admeasuring 680 square yards in Sy.No's.63, 76 & 77 situated at Gopalapuram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, is within the following boundaries:
South:100” feet wide existing road
North:30” feet wide existing road
East :House of G.Ram Rao
West:Open land and house of Smt.B.Roja Rani ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sd/-
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
WARANGAL.
for Khushboo Upadhyay
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
WARANGAL.
PARTICULARS OF THE COSTS OF THE SUIT
For Plaintif For Defendants
1. Stamps on plaintRs. Rs.
2. Stamps on powerRs. Rs.
3. Stamps on exhibits Rs. Rs.
4. Pleaders Fee Rs. Rs.
5. Commissioners Fee Rs. Rs.
6. Service of process feeRs. Rs.
7. Subsistence allowance Rs. Rs.
8. Miscellaneous court feeRs. Rs. ----------------------------------------------------- Total :Rs. Rs. ----------------------------------------------------
Sd/-
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
WARANGAL.
for Khushboo Upadhyay
II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
WARANGAL.
Note: Both parties are directed to apply for return of documents which they want to preserve, as the documents are liable for destruction after three years from this day.