FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali :IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
JUNIOR DIVISION TEKKALI
(DATED, THIS THE 10 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2025)
Present: SRI S.H.R. TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI MALLA,
CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION,
TEKKALI.
O.S.No.56 of 2016
Between:
1.Tankala Venkata NarasimhaRao Gupta, S/o late Krishnamurthy, Age 71 yrs, Retired Employee, Sarvamangala Street, Tekkali Town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
2. Tankala Ramamohana Rao @ Rambabu, S/o late Krishnamurthy, Age 65 yrs, Business, Sarvamangala Street, Tekkali Town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
…..Plaintiff No.1 and 2
And:
1. Piniminti Durga Rao, S/o Prakash Rao, Age 28 yrs, Adiandraveedi, Tekkali Town and Mandal, Srikakulam.
2. Namballa Jagannaikulu, S/o late Janardhana Rao, Age 50 yrs, D.No.10- 197, Ramadasu peta Tekkali Town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
3. Vakulabaranam Eswararao, S/o Prasad Rao, Age 36 yrs, D.No.6-254, Eswaranagar, NTR Colony, Tekkali Town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
4. Mudidana Narasimhamurthy, S/o late Appalaswamy, Age 54 yrs, D.No.20-5-69, Anjaneyapuram @ Anjalapuram, Tekkali Manal, Srikakulam District.
…..Defendants Nos.1 to 4.
This suit is coming on 07.01.2025 for fi nal hearing before me in the presence of Sri P Babu Rao advocate for the plaintiff s and Sri K Seshagiri Rao advocate for defendants No.1, 3 and 4. Upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following: -
J U D G M E N T
1.a) This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants No.1 to
Page 1 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants, kith and kin, agents and associates from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, costs of the suit and for such other reliefs this court deems fit and proper.
b) The details of the plaint schedule property i.e.,
The vacant site ad-measuring 719.56 sq.yards in Sy.No.525/1/B situated at first ward, eastern side of old NH-5, Tekkali @ Raghunadhapuram village,
Tekkali Panchayat and SRO, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District with the following measurements and bounded by:- 86.10 ft (26.243 mts) East-West towards northern side and 90.6 ft (27.614 mts) towards southern side in length 72.8 ft (22.189 mts) North-South towards eastern side and 73.8 ft (22.494 mts) towards western side in width
East : Vacant land of Ponnada Thota Rao and others South :Vacant land of Jamy Kumaraswamy (B-Schedule by virtue of registered Partition deed) West : Old NH-5 Road North : Railway Line (Railway boundary)
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: -
(a)The plaintiffs submit that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. They are own brothers who got the plaint schedule property through registered partition deed document No.1141/2014 dt.04- 06-2014. The said partition deed was executed by the plaintiffs and other
Page 2 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali co-sharers.
(b) The plaintiffs submitted a plan before the Gram Panchayat Tekkali for construction of commercial buildings in plaint schedule property. On 24- 09-2015 the Executive Officer Gram Panchayat Tekkali issued Plan vide
Dis.No.111/15-16 in favour of the plaintiffs for construction of commercial buildings. But the plaintiffs could not start constructions. On 20-09-2016 the plaintiffs presented the approval plan for renewal and the same was renewed by the Gram Panchayat Tekkali. The plaintiffs constructed up to slab level. Basing upon the application of the plaintiffs, the Tahsildar
Tekkali on 04-11-2016 issued FMB in favour of the plaintiffs.
(c)The father of the plaintiffs is Tankala Krishnamurthy. The names of his brothers are Tankala Srinivasa Rao and Tankala Vaikunta Rao. All the three persons on 14-06-1948 purchased the plaint schedule property and other properties total to an extent of Ac.0-42 cents from Yegulada
Jangamayya and others for valid consideration under sale deed in the name of Tankala Krishnamurthy (being the elder brother among the three brothers).
(d)Tankala Krishnamurthy and other co-sharers jointly constructed Sri
Rama Krishna Rice and Oil Mill in the said place. Tankala Krishnmurthy died on 11-12-1958. Later his brother Tankala Srinivasa Rao managed the
Sri Ramakrishna Rice and Oil Mill. During his lifetime he got an approved
Rice Mill plan from the Factory Inspector Waltair on 18-03-1950. The
Page 3 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali
Revenue Department also mutated the name of Srinivasa Rao in Survey
Settlement Land Records.
(e)The plaintiffs joined with Tankala Srinivasa Rao and Tankala
Vaikunata Rao, entered into partnership vide registered partnership deed document No.1945/74 dt.04-04-1974 for smooth running of business in the name of Tankala Srinivasa Rao.
(f)On 19-06-2006 the land acquisition officer and revenue divisional officer Tekkali issued Form-6 bearing R.C.No.156/2004 dt.19-06-2006 in the name of plaintiff No.2, Tankala Somanageswararao and Jami
Kumaraswamy acquiring land of 0.015 hectors (Ac.0.375 cents) covered under Sy.No.525/1A for the purpose of Broad Guage Railway Line. The compensation was paid to the plaintiffs and other co-sharers. In this connection the Revenue Divisional Officer Tekkali issued Form-1 notice bearing R.C.No.3094/03 dt.20-01-2007 to the plaintiff directing to appear
before the negotiation committee on 31-01-2007 vide powers conferred
under the Andhra Pradesh Gazette notification dt.27-04-2004.
(g) The plaintiffs filed tax receipts relating to the Rice Mill in the name of
Managing Partner, Tankala Srinivasa Rao, Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill. The
Gram Panchayat Tekkali also issued Tax Receipts for the Commercial
Shops situated in the premises of Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill.
(h)The plaintiffs submitted that their paternal uncle Tankala Srinivasa
Rao had no issues. Tankala Srinivasa Rao executed a registered will in
Page 4 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali favour of Jami Kumaraswamy on 01-10-1979 vide document No.40/79 bequeathing his 1/3 legitimate share to Jami Kumaraswamy. Later Sri
Tankala Srinivasa Rao died on 15-07-1983. As such Kumaraswamy became
Co-sharer along with the plaintiffs and Tankala Vaikunta Rao. The Rice Mill and Commercial shops were in dilapidated condition. The plaintiffs,
Tankala Vaikunta Rao, Jami Kumaraswamy are not interested to continue further and decided to partition the Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill along with shops. Accordingly on 04-06-2014 registered partition deed document
No.1141/2014 dt.04-06-2014 executed. The plaintiffs inducted into their share and constructed buildings as per the partition deed.
(i) The defendants being political and powerful persons in the village trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property. The defendants have neither title nor possession over the plaint schedule property at any point of time and proclaiming in the village on first week of November 2016 that they would dispossess the plaintiffs from the schedule. The plaintiffs cannot resist the illegal action of the defendants. Hence the suit.
3. The Brief Averments of the written statement filed by the
defendant No.1, dt.21-03-2017 and the same was adopted by the
defendants No.3 and 4. (The defendant No.2 was set ex-parte on
05-01-2017
(a) The defendants No.1 filed written statement on 21-03-2017 denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs made in the plaint. The defendants submit
Page 5 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali that defendants No.1 and 2 along with Kanithi Tirumala Kumar Chowdary and Ippili Dhanunjaya Rao jointly purchased vacant site to an extent of 436.34 sq.yards situated on the eastern side of old NH-5 Road, Ward No.1 in Sy.No.525/1 by way of registered sale deed No.2742/2016 dt.06-12- 2016 from their vendor, Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao which is the plaint schedule property. The total extent of land in Sy.No.525/1 is Ac.0-45 cents.
(b) The defendant No.1 in his written statement submitted that
Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao got the said property from his paternal grand father Vallabhaneni Mallikharjunudu, by way of Will deed dt.25-09- 1964. Mallikharjunudu purchased land to an extent of Ac.2-25 cents from
Borige Krishnamurthy and others, Tangudu Kanakayya, Tankala Krishna
Murthy and others and Abbarla Chandrayamma by way of different sale deeds, of which 436.34 sq.yards was part of it. There is Sri Rama Rice Mill in the said Ac.2.25 cents of land. Originally the possession is in the hands of Vallabhaneni Mallikharjunudu, later to his grand son and subsequently to the defendants No.1 and 2 along with two others.
(c)The defendants No.1 submitted that during the temporary absence of Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao, the plaintiffs and some others raised illegal constructions in about 700 sq.yards of the property situated on the northern boundary to the defendants property. Therefore the vendor of the defendants filed a suit against this plaintiffs and six others vide
OS.No.50/2016 seeking for the demolition of illegal constructions and
Page 6 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali consequential injunction. The defendants after purchasing 436.34 sq.yards of vacant site from their vendor, they developed their site for the purpose of construction. In the meanwhile, this plaintiffs and some others with the active support of the Revenue Officials created certain records in their favour and filed the present suit against the defendants for injunction.
(d)The 1st defendant and Kanithi Tirumala Kumar Chowdary obtained orders dt.14-12-2016 against the proceedings RC.No.1158/JA dt.09-12- 2016 issued by the Tahsildar Tekkali to the Inspector of Police Tekkali in relation to the property covered in Sy.No.525/1 and 525/2 of Tekkali
Raghunadhapuram Village in Writ Petition No.43276/2016 due to the unwanted interference of the Revenue Police Officials with the plaintiffs.
The said orders were confirmed in writ appeal No.1427/2016 dt.26-12- 2016 with little bit of modification saying that “official respondents” instead of “respondents”.
(e)The defendant No.1 submitted that there is no existence of Survey
No.525/1/B in the Revenue Records of Raghunadhapuram Tekkali. Under the guise of temporary Ex-parte injunction orders passed in
IA.No.428/2016, the plaintiffs are making hectic efforts to dispossess the
defendants over the plaint schedule property (defendants property) covered under Sy.No.525/1. The FMB filed by the plaintiffs shows that the plaint schedule property is exclusively covered under Sy.No.525/1 but not under Sy.No.525/1/B as mentioned in the plaint schedule.
Page 7 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali
(f)The plaintiffs filed the present suit with incorrect schedule and wrong measurements including the Survey No.525/1/B. The documents filed by the plaintiffs are false, fabricated and not binding on the defendants. There is no alleged cause of action for filing the present suit against the defendants when there is no such Survey Number that is 525/1/B in the Revenue Records of Raghunadapuram village of Tekkali even till today. The defendants pray to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.
4.Basing on the pleadings of the plaintiff and written statement of the defendants, the following issues are settled for trial on 30-01-2023.
1)Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or not?
2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
5. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 examined as
PW.1 by filing his chief-affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exs.A1 to A33 were marked on behalf of PW1. In support of his contention two persons by name Tangudu Sudhakara Rao and Badijana Srinivasa Rao were examined as PWs.2 and 3 on behalf of the plaintiffs.
6. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1.
In support of his contention Rama Rao Padi was examined as DW.2. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.
Page 8 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali
7.Heard arguments on both sides.
ISSUE No.1 and 2: Since the issues No.1 and 2 are interrelated
with each other this court shall give findings in common for
better appreciation
1) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or not?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
8.The plaintiff No.2 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the substratum of his pleadings. Exs.A1 to A33 were marked on his behalf. In this case the plaintiff filed nearly 33 documents. This court shall appreciate each document serial wise. In this case both the plaintiffs and the defendants
No.1, 3 and 4 claiming upon the property in Sy.No.525/1. The plaintiffs are contending that the plaint schedule property is in Sy.No.525/1/B. On the other hand the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 (for convenience they are called as defendants from hereafter) contested the suit that there is no such
Survey number with sub division “B” in existence. In the written statement of defendants, they specifically pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 along with two others purchased 436.34 sq.yards vacant site in Sy.No.525/1.
Thus the documents relied by the plaintiff are very crucial to decide the present case.
9.Ex.A1 is the registered partition deed executed by the plaintiffs and their family members. It discloses that the plaintiffs got the plaint schedule property as first party, reflecting Survey number 525/1/B. Since
Page 9 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali the plaintiffs draft the plaint by mentioning the schedule property in
Ex.A1, the Survey number 525/1/B mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint and Ex.A1 were not helpful to prove the case of the plaintiff. Both the plaint and Ex.A1 were prepared by the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is document prepared among the family members. The source of title to Ex.A1 was the registered partnership deed No.1945/74 executed in the year 1974 and another document i.e., will deed executed by the paternal uncle of the plaintiff in favour of Jami Kumara Swamy vide document No.40/79.
10.Ex.A4 is the registered partnership deed executed among the plaintiff and his paternal uncles. Sy.No.525/1/B was not reflected in Ex.A4.
Ex.A4 document was executed in the year 1974. As on that day, it seems to this court that Sy.No.525/1 was not sub-divided. This court has to identify when Sy.No.525/1 was sub-divided as Sy.No.525/1/B and allotted to the plaintiffs. Thus Ex.A4 also not giving any clarity to decide the present case. The defendants are not disputing the partitions in the family of the plaintiffs. Hence this court need not go in detail about the same.
11.The plaintiffs also relied upon Ex.A6 sale deed which discloses that the father of the plaintiff purchased Ac.0-45 cents of land in Tekkali
Raghunadhapuram village on 14-06-1948. There is no other link document to Ex.A6 filed by the plaintiffs. No doubt Ex.A6 is one of the oldest documents but from which what this court shall decide? The plaintiff has to prove that Ac.0-45 cents of land purchased by the father of the
Page 10 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali plaintiffs is in Sy.No.525 and it was not alienated to the 3rd parties as on the date of the institution of this suit. But the defendants are strongly contending that they purchased 436.34 sq.yards in Ac.0-45 cents of land.
In such a case, the plaintiffs have to prove that they are in the possession over the plaint schedule property exclusively. Since this is a suit for simple injunction, the only thing to be decided in this case is whether the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of institution of this suit.
12.Ex.A2 is the original proceedings of the Executive Officer Gram
Panchayat Tekkali dt.24-09-2015 in the name of 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the
Original Plan issued by the Executive Officer Gram Panchayat Tekkali in
Sy.No.525/1/B (By mistake it was typed in the deposition as 520 instead of 525). Ex.A2 does not reflect the Survey Number for identification of property. Ex.A2 is in the name of plaintiffs. Ex.A3 reflects the
Sy.No.525/1/B dt.29-09-2015. In this case it is not the dispute that the plaintiffs have no property in Tekkali. The dispute is with the identification of the property. Both parties claiming their respective properties in
Sy.No.525/1. In such circumstances it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove how Sy.No.525/1/B was mentioned in Ex.A3 by the Gram Panchayat
Tekkali. Mere issuing Ex.A2 and A3 does not decide the case in favour of the plaintiff.
13.In this case the defendants No.1,3 and 4 are denying the title of the
Page 11 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali plaintiffs. It is not a casual denial of title by the defendants in their written statement. The defendants specifically pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 along with two others purchased 436.34 sq.yards of vacant site, out of
Ac.0-45 cents of land in Sy.No.525/1 from Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao.
The defendants also stated that the plaint schedule property is part of it.
The defendants also pleaded that the vendor of the defendants got the same from his father by way of will deed. The father of the defendants vendor purchased Ac.2-25 cents from several persons of which father of the plaintiffs is one of the vendor to Vallabhaneni Mallikharjunudu. Thus it seems that the dispute is in the web of threads running in Sy.No.525.
14.There is another semblance in this case is that, the ancestors of the plaintiff had a rice mill in the name of Sri Rama Krishna Rice and Oil Mill.
On the other hand the vendors of the defendant had a rice mill in the name of Sri Rama Rice Mill. Ironically both are in the Survey numbers 525.
To trace the boundaries to the rice mills, there are significant identifications like Gunupur railway track and APSRTC Complex. Further it was argued by both the counsels that the ancestors of the plaintiffs had a share in the Sri Rama Rice Mill which was owned by the father of the defendants vendor. In these circumstances the possession of the plaintiffs became crucial.
15.Ex.A5 is FMB for Sy.No.525 of Tekkali Raghunadapuram Village.
Ex.A5 reflects that the properties of the plaintiff are beside the property of
Page 12 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali
Jami Kumara Swamy. The property of Jami Kumara Swamy is beside the
Mill of Tankala Soma Nageswara Rao which was in turn immediately abutting the Railway Track. From the Ex.A5 the properties of the plaintiffs cannot be fixed with the description of the plaint schedule property. Thus
Ex.A5 is not helpful to the case of the plaintiff.
16.Ex.A7 is the site plan of Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill which does not contain anything to the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A8 is the Original Form-6 notice issued to the 2nd plaintiff for the land in Sy.No.525/1A. Ex.A8 is not related to the plaint schedule property as it is in the Sy.No.525/1/B. It is issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer Tekkali under section 9 and 10 of
Land Acquisition Act.
17.Ex.A9 is the Judgment in OS.No.40/1988 on the file of the District
Munsif Court Tekkali dt.22-03-1993. The suit was filed by Ponnada
Seetaratnam and Behara Prabhavathi against Tankala Vykunta Rao, Jami
Kumara Swamy, Tankala Rambabu and the Executive Officer Gram
Panchayat Tekkali Claiming the pathway on the eastern side of the Sri
Rama Krishna Rice Mill. The plaintiffs in this case are not parties to the suit in OS.No.40/1988. Their paternal uncle is the 1st defendant. In
OS.No.40/1988 Tankala Vykunta Rao claimed his property in Sy.No.525/1
and Ponnada Seetaratnam, Behara Prabhavathi claimed the property in
Sy.No.525/2. Basing on that and for other reasons in the said judgment the suit is dismissed. Upon perusal of Ex.A9 this court cannot come to a
Page 13 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali conclusion that plaint schedule property is in Sy.No.525/1/B. Ex.A17 is the
Schedule to the judgment in OS.No.40/1988 which discloses that the
Tankala Srinivasa Rao Rice Mill is on the western side to the plaint schedule property in OS.No.40/1988. As already discussed the existence of Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill by Tankala Srinivasa Rao is not the dispute.
18.Ex.A10 are the Original Tax receipts in the name of Sri Ramakrishna
Rice Mill and Tankala Srinivasa Rao. Ex.A12 is the demand notice in the name of Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill for the year 1994-95. Ex.A13 is the licence for purchase, sale and storage of schedule commodities in the name of Jami Kumara Swamy pertaining to Sri Ramakrishna Rice Mill. It is not the dispute about the existence of Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill. The dispute is that the defendants No.1 and 2 along with two others purchased 436.34 sq.yards out of Ac.0-45 cents of land in Sy.No.525/1. The plaintiffs have to prove that the plaint schedule property is in the remaining portion of land or they have to prove that 436.34 sq.yards was also part of plaint schedule property. Hence Ex.A10 is also not helpful to the case of the plaintiffs.
19.In this case Defendant No.1 was not examined as witness. The defendant No.2 was set ex-parte. Thus an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants No.1 and 2 but is it sufficient to grant the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs? When there is a specific denial of title by the defendants in the written statement, this court has to carefully look
Page 14 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali into the documents relied by the plaintiff to grant any relief. This court cannot straight away grant relief as the defendant No.1 did not come into the witness box or the 2nd defendant was set ex-parte. In case if any decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs it has to be executable. For the said reason this court is trying to link the description of the plaint schedule property with Exhibits relied by the plaintiff.
20.Ex.A11 is in the name of 2nd plaintiff pertaining to Sy.No.525/1A but not related to the Survey number as described in the plaint schedule property. Ex.A14 is the consent award dt.20-02-2008 issued by the Sub-
Collector Tekkali pertaining to the land acquired in Sy.No.525/1A of the plaintiffs. Ex.A14 is not related to the Sy.No.525/1/B of the plaint schedule property.
21.Ex.A15 is the attested copy of letter addressed by the Tahsildar
Tekkali to the District Collector Srikakulam which discloses that Ac.0-45 cents of land is the total extent is in Sy.No.525/1 of Raghunadhapuram village. It was further mentioned that the boundaries in the document submitted by Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao are not tallying with the existing boundaries of the land in Sy.No.525/1 of Raghunadhapuram village. From this it can be safely inferred that there is a serious cloud of title and dispute over the identification of the property. No doubt from
Exhibits discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs, the plaintiffs are in the possession of Sy.No.525/1 but this court is identifying the possession of
Page 15 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali the plaintiffs with Sy.No.525/1/B. By going through Ex.A15, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiffs have to file a suit for declaration instead of perpetual injunction.
22.Ex.A16 is the report submitted by the Tahsildar Tekkali to the
Inspector of Police. Upon perusal of Ex.A16, it was disclosed that after acquiring the land, incorporation of changes were made duly denoting
Sy.No.525/1A as railway and the remaining Zeroyati land as 525/1B in the name of Tankala Ramamohana Rao, Sri Tankala Soma Nageswara Rao and
Sri Jami Kumara swamy. The land in Sy.No.525/1A is in the possession of
Indian Railways. This can be treated as Star document for the plaintiffs which discloses the reason for mentioning Sy.No.525/1/B instead of 525/1A as on 26-12-2016.
23.Ex.A18 is the Caveat petition filed by Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao against the plaintiffs and others vide COP.No.20/2016 disclosing that the petition schedule property as 525/1 or 525/1/B. Ex.A19 is the Caveat
Petition filed by Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao against third persons in
Sy.No.525/5 to 525/9. Ex.A18 is the document contemporaneous to the present dispute in the year 2016. Thus this court cannot rely on Ex.A18 as already the issue was kept before the Revenue Authorities on Sy.No.525/1 or 525/1/B.
24.Ex.A20 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS.17/2014 which discloses that the plaintiffs property is to the eastern side of the property
Page 16 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali claimed by one Bendi Narasinga Rao. Survey number was not mentioned in the property claimed by Bendi Narasinga Rao in OS.No.17/2014. Thus
Ex.A20 is not helpful to the case of the plaintiff.
25.Ex.A21 is the original encumbrance certificate in the name of
Vallabhaneni Mallikharjuna Rao. From the said document nothing was elicited in the favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A22 is the certified copy of the sale deed which was not related to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs want to prove that the father of the defendants vendor has property in Sy.No.525/6. Same is the case with Ex.A23 to prove that the father of the defendants has properties in Sy.Nos.525/7, 525/9 and 525/11. As per the defendants version, the father of the defendants vendor has Ac.2-25 cents in Tekkali Raghunadhapuram village. But the plaintiffs cannot say that the said Ac.2-25 cents is in other survey numbers excluding Sy.No.525/1. In fact the plaintiffs are admitting that the father of the defendants vendor has property in Tekkali Raghunadhapuram village. Thus Exs.A22 and A23 are only helpful partly to the case of the plaintiff.
26.Exs.A24 and A25 are the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. This court cannot decide the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property basing on Exhibits A24 and A25. Exs.A26 to 28 are the adangals not related to the plaint schedule property. As already discussed mere having land in other survey numbers by the father of the
Page 17 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali defendants vendor does not mean that he has no property in
Sy.No.525/1/B. But they can raise a reasonable preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plaintiffs.
27.Ex.A29 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS.No.21/2014 on the file of this court relating to the property in Sy.No.520/3. Hence not helpful to the case of the plaintiffs.
28.Ex.A30 are the House Tax Receipts dt.04-01-2024 in the name of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A31 are two electricity bills for the month of April 2024 in the name of 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A32 are the photographs with pen drive. Ex.A30 to
A32 are the documents subsequent to the filing of the suit. Hence they alone are not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A33 is the certified copy of third party sale deed which is not relevant to the plaint schedule property. Since the document is not proved by the respective parties to Ex.A33 this court cannot rely that the plaintiffs are the boundary owners to Vijayalaxmi and another.
29.Thus from the above said documents, the only document i.e.,
Ex.A16 which discloses the reason for mentioning Sy.No.525/1/B instead of 525/1A as on 26-12-2016. But this court cannot rely exclusively on Ex.A16 to grant the relief of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Ex.A16 is the document issued in the year 2016. It was issued basing upon the dispute between the parties to the present suit. Ex.A16 is issued subsequent to the filing of this suit dt.15-12-2016. In this case the
Page 18 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali defendants strongly contended that the plaintiffs fabricated the documents by influencing the Revenue Authorities. Criminal cases was also pending on this court in connection with the present civil dispute.
There is no un flinching document relied by the plaintiffs to prove their case. Thus Exs.A1 to A33 are not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff are in exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property.
30.Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1. He was cross examined on 14- 05-2024, 24-06-2024, 28-06-2024, 08-07-2024, 15-07-2024 running into 12 pages. The defendants specifically denying the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. No doubt from the Cross-examination of
PW1 there is serious cloud of title between the parties in this suit. On 24- 06-2024 cross-examination of PW.1, he was cross examined on the transactions relating to Sri Rama Rice Mill wherein, PW1 admitted that his father and brothers sold their 6 annas share in Sri Rama Rice Mill vide document No.64/1956 dt.12-01-1956. Similarly PW1 also admitted that the star document i.e., Ex.A16 relied by the plaintiffs are all done in one day. It was also admitted by PW.1 that Ex.A16 was prepared in a hurry manner due to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directions.
31.There was an elaborate cross examination by the defendants counsel in which the plaintiff can easily identify that the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The counsel for the defendants cross examined PW1 with relation to each and
Page 19 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali every document touching the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. In such case certainly the plaintiffs have to file a suit for declaration instead of perpetual injunction.
32.Pws.2 and 3 were examined in support of PW.1. They filed their chief affidavits in support of the plaintiffs version. In the cross-examination of
PW2, he deposed that he did not know how the plaintiffs got the plaint schedule property from the ancestors. Simply he deposed that he did cool drink business in the part of plaint schedule property from 1995-2013. He did not file any rental receipt to prove the same. PW2 also admitted that the suit schedule property was dis mantled and plaintiff raised structures.
PW2 is running book shop in the plaint schedule property. From the evidence of PW2, this court cannot decide the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of institution of the suit. The same is case with PW3. Hence the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are also not helpful to the case of the plaintiff.
33.Defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1. He admitted that he was no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. DW.2 is third person who tried to support the version of the defendants but from the cross examination of DW2 it can be safely inferred that he did not know anything about the facts of the case. DW1 also admitted that he did not know the contents of the written statement or the version of the defendants. He also admitted that he did not have any right, title and
Page 20 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali possession over the plaint schedule property. He deposed that the property of Vallabhaneni Janardhan i.e., Ac.2-25 cents is present in
Sy.No.525/5 but from the documents relied by the plaintiff, Vallabhaneni
Janardhan has properties in other survey numbers also. Further nothing substantial was disclosed from the cross-examination of DW1, in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus the evidence of DW1 and 2 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiffs.
34.Still this court has to look into the merits on the side of the plaintiffs.
Mere non-examination of defendant No.1 and 2 as witnesses does not tilt the case in favour of the plaintiffs. It is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove their case. When the defendants strongly denied the title of the plaintiff in the written statement and the cross examination of PW1 then certainly it is the duty of the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration instead of perpetual injunction. PW1 simply denied the suggestion that he did not submit any revenue record to show that the plaint schedule property is in
Sy.No.525/1/B.
35.This court repeatedly gone through the cross-examination of PW.1 but nothing substantial was disclosed regarding the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in Sy.No.525/1/B. No doubt from the documents relied by the plaintiff, this court can safely conclude that the plaintiffs are in possession of land in Sy.No.525/1A. It is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove that after land acquisition proceedings, Sy.No.525/1A is
Page 21 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali allotted to Railways and New Survey Number 525/1/B is exclusively allotted to the plaintiffs. This court cannot grant relief to the plaintiffs with the plaint schedule property containing Sy.No.525/1/B.
36.This court cannot assume that Sy.No.525/1B is exclusively allotted to the plaintiffs. This court also look into the aspect of execution in case if any decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs. No doubt passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs without proof of Sy.No.525/1/B would be a non executable one.
37.The plaintiffs relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1725 of 2010 in Iqbal Basith and others Vs
N.Subblaxmi and others, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Ravi Venkateswara rao S/o R Anjaneyulu Vs Ellanti Nirmala 2024 (A) AMLJ 321 relying that simply denying the title of the plaintiff does not necessitate the plaintiff to amend the suit for declaration. In the present case with the denial of title in the written statement and cross examination of PW1, this court can safely conclude that there is serious cloud of title. The plaintiffs, even after the cross-examination of PW1 did not move their little fingers to amend the plaint for relief of declaration.
For these reasons this court is of the firm opinion that plaintiffs failed to prove their case. Accordingly Issues No.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiffs.
38. Issue No.3 : To what relief?
Page 22 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali
In view of findings on Issues No.1 and 2 this Court holds that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, this Issue is answered.
39.In the result, the Suit is dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected and
Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of January,
2025).
MALLA S H R TEJADigitally signed by MALLA S H R
TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI
CHAKRAVARTHI
Date: 2025.01.10 20:37:59 +0000
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
TEKKALI.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: PW.1 : Tanakala Ramamohana Rao PW.2 : Tangudu Sudhakara Rao PW.3 : Badijana Srinivasa Rao ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:: DW.1: Mudidana Narasimhamurthy DW.2: Rama Rao Padi
:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
S.NO EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF PLAINTIFFS DOCUMENT
1Ex.A-1Original Registered partition deed executed among T.Venkata Narasimha Rao Gupta, plaintiff (first part), Jami Kumaraswamy as 2nd part, Tankala Soma Nageswara Rao, Manmadha Rao and Venkateswara Rao as 3rd part, dt. 04-06-2014 registered vide Document No. 1141/2014 on the file of SRO, Tekkali( in 5 papers).
2.Ex.A-2OriginalProceedingsofExecutiveOfficer, Gramapanchayat, Tekkali dt. 24-09-2015 in the name of Tankala Rammohana Rao.
3.Ex.A-3Original plan issued by the Executive Officer, Garmapanchayat, Tekkali in Sy.No. 520/1B, dt.29-09- 2015.
4.Ex.A-4Original Registered partner ship deed executed among
Page 23 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali the plaintiff, Tankala Srinivasa Rao and Tankala Vykunta Rao (in three papers).
5.Ex.A-5Colour photo copy i.e., FMB issued by the Tahsildar, Tekkali with his signature regarding the suit schedule property
6.Ex.A-6Notarized sale deed in the name of the father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 by name Tankala Krishna Murthy who purchased nearly Ac.0.45 cents land of Raghunadhapuram village.
7.Ex.A-7original site plan of Sri Rama Krishna Rice mill at Tekkali with the seal of Factory Inspector Office but no signature of the authority.
8.Ex.A-8original form VI notice issued under land acquisition act with the name of the plaintiff at Survey Number 525-1A, dt. 19-06-2006.
9.Ex.A-9photo copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.40/1988,dt.22- 03-1993 to prove that plaintiffs are shown as neighbours to the suit schedule property in
O.S.No.40/1988.
10Ex.A-10Original Tax receipts eight in number(8) in the name of Tankala Srinivasa Rao, Rama Krishna Rice mill(Tankala Srinivasa Rao) for the year 2010-2011(7 in number), for the year 2013-2014(1 receipt). Tankala Srinivasa Rao is the Junior paternal uncle of both the plaintiffs.
11.EX.A-11Original Form-I notice issued by the convenor negotiation committee and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, dt. 20-01-2007.
12.Ex.A-12Original Tax demand notice issued to Tankala Srinivasa Rao, Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill with number 436.
13.Ex.A-13Form B –License for purchase, sale/storage for sale of schedule commodities with license number 169/82-83 in the name of Sri Jami Kumaraswamy in three papers with letters “duplicate license” at the top right corner of the first page.
14.Ex.A-14consent award No.13A/2007-08 dated 20-02-2008(18 papers) issued by the Sub Collector, Tekkali with form CC(6 papers) and covering letter, dt.09-01-2017.
15.Ex.A-15attested copy is a letter by the Tahsildar, Tekkali addressed to the District Collector, Srikakulam along with settlement Fair adangal (one paper), FMB copy (one Paper) and Mandal Surveyor report(three papers)
16.Ex.A-16report submitted by the Tahsildar, Tekkali to the Inspector of Police, Tekkali along with Mandal Surveyor report and rough sketch(four papers).
Page 24 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali
17.Ex.A-17certified copy of Original suit No.40/1998 on the file of Munsif Magistrate Court, Tekkali filed by Pornada Seetharatnam and Behara Prabhavathi against Tankala Vykunta Rao and 4 others by showing on Western side the boundary of Tankala Srinivasa Rao Rice and Oil Mill and on Southern side RTC Complex and etc. (Two papers).
18.Ex.A-18office copy of the caveat petition served to the plaintiffs while filing COP 20/2016 by Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao(vendor of the Defendants) through Sri K.S.G.R.(pertaining to the property extent of Ac.02.25 cents in Survey Number 525/1 or 525/1/B of Raghunadhapuram village).
19.Ex.A-19office copy of the caveat petition served to the plaintiffs while filing COP 84/2013 by Vallabhaneni Janardhana Rao(vendor of the Defendants) through Sri K.S.G.R. (pertaining to the property extent of Ac.01.83 cents in Survey Number 525/6,525/5,525/7,525/9 of Raghunadhapuram village).
20.Ex.A-20certified copy of plaint in O.S.17/2014 on the file of this court filed by Sri Bendi Narasinga Rao showing the plaintiffs as the neighbours on the Eastern side of the suit schedule property in O.S.17/2014.
21.Ex.A-21Original Encumbrance certificate issued by the Joint Sub Registrar, Tekkali in the name of Vallabhaneni Mallikarjuna Rao and others(four papers).
22.Ex.A-22certified copy of sale deed document No.4132/1980 regarding extent of Ac.01.22 cents in Survey Number 525/6 with Patta Number 1103 sold by Vallabhaneni Rajya Lakshmi wife late Mallikarjuna Rao and their children in favour of Andavarapu Parvathi and Kottapalli Radha Krishnam Raju.(six papers).
23.Ex.A-23certified copy of sale deed document No.1458/1989 regarding extent of Ac.01.44 cents in Survey Number 525/7,525/9 and 525/11 sold by Vallabhaneni Janardhan and four others in favour of Tumati Vanajakshamma. (six papers).
24.Ex.A-24Orders,dt.14-12-2016 passed in writ petition No.43276 of 2016 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh filed by Vallabhaneni Janardhan, Kanithi Tirumala Kumar Chowdary and Piniminti Durga Rao against 8 officials and the plaintiff No.1 and one Tankala Soma Nageswara Rao.(two papers).
Page 25 of 26
FAIR O.S. 56/2016
Civil Judge (JD) Court,
Tekkali
25.Ex.A-25Orders,dt.26-12-2016 passed in writ appeal No.1427 of 2016 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh filed by the plaintiff No.1 and one Tankala Soma Nageswara Rao against Vallabhaneni Janardhan, Kanithi Tirumala Kumar Chowdary and Piniminti Durga Rao.(three papers).
26.Ex.A-26Adangal dt.04-12-2017 in the name of Vallabhaneni Mallikarjuna Rao for the fasli year 1426 issued through Mee Seva for the survey Number 525/6.
27.Ex.A-27Adangal dt.04-12-2017 in the name of Vallabhaneni Mallikarjuna Rao for the fasli year 1426 issued through Mee Seva for the survey Number 525/7.
28.Ex.A-28two computer generated Adangal in the name of Vallabhaneni Raghavendra Rao(for the survey Number 525/9 and 525/11 in two papers).
29.Ex.A-29certified copy of plaint in O.S.21/2014 filed by Vallabhaneni Janardhan against Ponnada Vykunta Rao, Tammineni Tirupathi Rao, Tirlangi Indrajamudu.
30.Ex.A-30Three house tax receipts with Assessment No.7325,8220 and 8219 in the name of Tankala Venkata Narasimha gupta,dt.04-01-2024.
31.Ex.A-31The two Current bill in the name of Tankala Rammohan Rao for the month of April, 2024.
32.Ex.A-32The photographs with pen drive.
33.Ex.A-33The certified copy of sale deed document Number 1828/2022 executed between my neighbour by name Kottapalli Vijayalakshmi and Mandala Vanamali.
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS::
- None -
MALLA S H R TEJADigitally signed by MALLA S H R
TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI
CHAKRAVARTHI
Date: 2025.01.10 20:38:22 +0000
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
TEKKALI
Page 26 of 26