1O.S.145/2016
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
ONGOLE
Present: Smt S.Hemalatha
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole
Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026
Original Suit No. 145 of 2016
Between :
1. Rama Anantha Krishnaiah, s/o Obaiah, aged about 49 years, Hindu, private employee, resident of Konijedu village, now temporarily residing at revenue colony, Mangamuru donka, Ongole.
2.Rama Annapurnamma, w/o Obaiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, lands, resident of Konijedu village, Tangutur mandal.
... Plaintiffs
And
1. Cherukumalli Prasad, s/o Subba Rao, aged 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Konijedu village, Tangutur mandal.
2.Cherukumalli Narayana, s/o Subbarao, aged 63 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Konijedu village, Tangutur mandal.
3.Cherukumalli Venkateswarlu (died)
4.Karlapudi Sreenivasa Rao, s/o Subbaiah, aged about 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Konijedu village, Tangutur mandal.
5.Cherukumalli Vimalamma (died)
6.Cherukumalli Bala Subrahmanyam, s/o late Venkateswarlu, aged about 49 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Mangamuru village, Ongole mandal, Prakasam District.
7.Cherukumalli Venkanna, s/o late Venkateswarlu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Mangamuru village, Ongole mandal, Prakasam District.
(defendants 4 to 7 are impleaded as legal representatives of deceased 3rd defendant, as per orders on I.A.No.411 of 2025, dt.19.8.2025) (defendants 6 and 7 are recognised as legal representatives of deceased 5th defendant, as per orders on I.A.No.652 of 2025, dt.12.12.2025) … Defendants 2O.S.145/2016
This suit has come on 20.3.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiffs; and of Sri
P.L.Govindaiah, Advocate for Defendants 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7; defendants 3 and 5 died pendente lite; and having heard and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following :
// J U D G M E N T //
This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property.
2. The suit was initially filed against defendants 1 to 4. 3rd defendant died pendente lite. As per orders on I.A.No.411 of 2025, dt.19.8.2025, defendants 4 to 7 are impleaded as legal representatives of deceased 3rd defendant. 5th defendant also died, pendente lite. Defendants 6 and 7 are recognized as legal representatives of deceased 5th defendant, as per orders on I.A.No.652 of 2025, dt.12.12.2025.
3. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows. The suit schedule mentioned property originally belonged to Rama Kotaiah. 2nd plaintiff’s husband is one Obaiah. Rama Kotaiah is the great grandfather of
Obaiah. Rama Kotaiah has only son by name Obaiah, who had only son, by name Viswanadham. Rama Obaiah is the father of 1st plaintiff and husband of 2nd plaintiff. Rama Obaiah is only son of Viswanadham and Peda Lakshmi
Kanthamma. 1st plaintiff, Madala Madhuri and Chennareddy Visalakshmi are the children of Rama Obaiah. Rama obaiah died about 32 yeas prior to filing the suit. The suit schedule mentioned properties and other ancestral properties devolved upon plaintiffs, Madala Madhuri and Chennareddy
Visalakshmi. The plaintiffs, Madhuri and Visalakshmi partitioned the family properties, under registered partition deed, dated 15.3.2014, vide document 3O.S.145/2016
No.2301/2014. Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and some other properties fell to the share of 2nd plaintiff. Items 2 to 5 of the suit schedule and some other properties fell to the share of 1st plaintiff. ‘C’ schedule property in partition deed fell to the share of other daughters of Obaiah and 2nd plaintiff.
By the time of death of Obaiah, 1st plaintiff was about 3 years. Therefore, 2nd plaintiff managed the family properties. After partition also, plaintiffs are living together. On attaining majority, 1st plaintiff used to cultivate the suit schedule properties jointly.
(a) As the 1st plaintiff is a private employee, he shifted his family to
Ongole, for education of his children. 2nd plaintiff is living at suit schedule village. The defendants are permanent resident of Konijedu village. They have lands near by the suit schedule mentioned properties. 3rd defendant is the northern boundary owner of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The defendants have men and muscle power and also have political support and financially sound. They are interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property, since 10 days prior to filing of the suit and canvassed in the suit schedule village that they will disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are law abiding citizens. They could not resist the acts of the defendants. Moreover, 1st plaintiff is male member and he is residing in Ongole. The plaintiffs have right, title and possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. They were issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property and other properties. The government also granted debt relief to the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs availed loan to raise crops for the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs raised fodder crops in the suit schedule mentioned property. Unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the suit, seeking permanent injunction.
4O.S.145/2016
4. Defendants 1 to 4 filed written statement. After amendment of the plaint, 2nd defendant filed additional written statement and defendants 1, 3 and 4 adopted it. After impleadment, defendants 5 to 7 adopted the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 4.
(a) The contentions in the written statement of defendants 1 to 4, in brief, are as follows. The plaintiffs filed the suit by entering into a registered partition deed collusively, to grab their lands. The plaintiffs and the father of the 1st plaintiff sold away their properties but they suppressed those sales and filed this suit. The survey numbers and the boundaries described in the suit schedule are totally wrong and the plaintiffs have no land in Sy.No.749/1B abutting north to Inagaleru or abutting south or west of Inagaleru, as claimed by them in the suit. There are no lands to the plaintiffs within the boundaries described in items No.1 to 5 of suit schedule. The very intention of the plaintiffs in filing the suit is to grab their lands. The land of 4th defendant is on the west of item No.1 of the suit schedule, but the plaintiffs have fraudulently described the western boundary for item No.1 as item No.2 of the suit schedule. The southern boundary of item No.1 is the land of 3rd defendant by name Cherukumalli Venkateswarlu and Haribabu. Therefore, the southern, western, northern boundary for item No.1 of the suit schedule is wrongly shown to grab the lands of defendants.
(b) Item No.2 of the suit schedule belongs to Cherukumalli Haribabu and 3rd defendant - Cherukumalli Venkateswarlu. There is bengal-gram crop in the said land. Item No.3 of the suit schedule was sold away by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Mupparaju Veeraiah, under registered sale deed, bearing document
No.2333/2004, dated 17.5.2004 in favour of defendants 1 and 2. But the survey number of item No.3 was wrongly described in the registered sale deed, dated 17.5.2004, executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendants 1 and 2 as S.No.731. Now, the plaintiffs have been claiming the said land by giving the survey number as 742. The extent of item No.3 of suit schedule is
Ac.0.62 cents. There is Vagu Poramboku on the two sides of the above said 5O.S.145/2016
Ac.0.62 cents. The plaintiffs have claimed Ac.1.12 cents by including the Vagu poramboku also in item No.3 of the suit schedule. Item No.4 was also sold away by the plaintiffs under the above registered sale deed in favour of defendants 1 and 2, described as item No.2 in the said document. The plaintiffs have sold away Ac.1.50 cents by showing S.No.731. Now, the plaintiffs have claimed Ac.1.70 cents illegally, by including some Vagu
Poramboku land also in item No.4 of the suit schedule by giving wrong boundaries. The plaintiffs have not been in possession and enjoyment of the lands situated on south and west of the Inagaleru as claimed by them in item
No.3 to 5 of the suit schedule.
(c) Item No.3 to 5 of the suit schedule belong to defendants 1 and 2.
They have land on the south of item No.2 and item No.3 shown in sale deed,
dated 17.5.2004. Now the plaintiffs have also included the lands of defendants
1 and 2 in item Nos.4 and 5 of the suit schedule, and illegally claimed item
Nos.4 and 5 of the suit schedule. The plaintiffs have no piece of land in item
No.3 to 5 of the suit schedule. They have tampered the revenue records and got mutated their names fraudulently and filed this suit. The plaintiffs have been blackmailing defendants by filing this suit. Their intention is to grab the land of the defendants. The plaintiffs are powerful persons in the village. They suppressed the sale of item No.3 to 5 of the suit schedule and filed this suit mischievously.
(d) The plaintiffs encroached into the donka and the government poramboku land situated adjacent to their lands. The plaintiffs have not filed the suit for their lands. The plaintiffs filed this suit leaving their lands and filed the suit in respect of the suit property. Thus, they have not approached the court with clean hands. They have no prima facie case and balance of convenience. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Subsequently, the plaintiffs got amended survey number for item No.4 of the suit schedule, as per orders on I.A.No.448 of 2022, dated 3.11.2022.
6O.S.145/2016
6. The contentions in the additional written statement on behalf of the 2nd defendant, in brief, are as follows. The land in S.No.741 is vaagu poramboku. The land in S.No.734 is patta land. The plaintiffs have sold item
No.4 of the suit schedule to defendants 1 and 2 by fraudulently giving wrong survey numbers. The said fact is reiterated in the written statement of defendants 1 to 4. There are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues and additional issues were settled for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of items 1 to 5 of the
suit schedule properties as on the date of filing the suit, as
pleaded in the suit ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction in
respect of items 1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties, as prayed
for ?
3. If so, to what relief ?
The following additional issues were framed on 7.12.2022 :
1. Whether the plaintiffs sold away item No.4 of the suit schedule
property to defendants 1 and 2 in the year 2004 by mentioning wrong
survey numbers ?
2. Whether the land in Sy.No.741 is Vaagu Poramboku ?
The following additional issue was framed on 9.10.2025 :
1. Whether the partition deed dated 15.3.2014 is valid, when plaintiffs
included the plaint schedule properties by cancelling the earlier
partition deed, dated 4.4.2013 ?
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, Pw.1 & Pw.2 are examined and Ex.A.1 to
A.9 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, Dw.1 to 5 are examined, and
Ex.B.1 to B.15 are marked.
7O.S.145/2016
9. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the defendants and other material on record.
10. Issue No.1, additional issue Nos.1 and 2 framed on 7.12.2022 and additional issue framed on 9.10.2025 : These issues are interconnected. Therefore, they are answered together.
11. This suit is filed for bear permanent injunction. In a suit of this nature, the plaintiffs have to establish their lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of filing of the suit and unjust interference by the defendants with their possession. Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiffs are able to discharge their burden.
12. The 1st plaintiff is examined as P.W.1. His affidavit filed under Order
XVIII Rule 4 CPC is reiteration of the plaint pleadings. P.W.2 is a third party.
He is the son of Mupparaju Veeraiah, the brother of 2nd plaintiff and one of the executants of Ex.B1. He too reiterates about partition among the family of plaintiffs under Ex.A1, the 3rd defendant possessing land on the northern side of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and defendants possessing lands near by the suit property. He further asserts about their family also possessing lands nearby the suit property and his father selling the lands to Bolineni
Seshaiah about 10 to 15 years ago and his owning lands on the south of
Inagaleru in Sy.No.753 and raising tobacco and bengal gram crop in it.
13. Through Pw.1, Exs.A1 to A9 are marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the partition deed, dated 15.3.2014. Under this document, there was partition among the plaintiffs and their family members. Plaintiffs claimed that item No.1 of the suit schedule was allotted to the share of 2nd plaintiff and items 2 to 5 of the suit schedule were allotted to the share of 2nd plaintiff and ‘C’ schedule in Ex.A1 was allotted to the share of the daughters. Item No.1 of the suit schedule is described as item No.3 in ‘A’ schedule in Ex.A1, items 2 to 8O.S.145/2016 5 of the suit schedule are referred as item No.15, and 11 to 13, respectively in ‘B’ schedule in Ex.A1. Copy of I-B extract issued to 1st plaintiff on 2.2.2014 is enclosed to Ex.A1. Serial numbers 10 and 13 to 15 are corresponding to item
Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule, respectively. In column Nos.13 and 14, the name of the 1st plaintiff is recorded as possessor and enjoyer of those items.
14. Ex.A3 is the I-B extract, dated 24.12.2024, issued in the name of the 1st plaintiff. Sl.No.10 is item No.2, Sl.No.12 is item No.3, Sl.No.13 is item No.4 and Sl.Nos.14 and 15 is Sy.No.733 to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents, Sy.No.732 to an extent of Ac.1.55 cents, i.e., part of item No.5 of the suit schedule. Ex.A8 is the I-B extract dated 2.2.2014 issued in favour of the 2nd plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.749/1B to an extent of Ac.2.00, referred as item No.1 of the suit schedule.
15. Ex.A2 is certified copy of No.3 adangal issued in favour of the 2nd plaintiff on 31.1.2014, corresponding to fasli 1423. It refers the 2nd plaintiff possessing an extent of Ac.2.00 and 1st plaintiff possessing an extent of
Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.749/1B.
16.Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the No.3 adangal issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 13.3.2015, corresponding to fasli 1424. The 1st plaintiff is shown to be possessor and enjoyer of item No.3 of the suit schedule. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the No.3 adangal issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 13.3.2015, corresponding to fasli 1424. It is in respect of Sy.No.732, part of item No.5 of the suit schedule. Out of the total extent of Ac.6.48 cents, the 1st plaintiff is recorded to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.1.55 cents. Similarly, in Ex.A6, the certified copy of the No.3 adangal issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 13.3.2015, corresponding to fasli 1424, in respect of Sy.No.733, i.e., part of item No.5 of the suit schedule, the 1st plaintiff is shown to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents out of the total extent of Ac.5.61 cents.
9O.S.145/2016
17. Coming to Ex.A7, which is the certified copy of the No.3 adangal issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 13.3.2015 corresponding to fasli 1424, in respect of land in Sy.No.734, in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule, the 1st plaintiff is recorded to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.70 cents in
Sy.No.734 out of the total extent of Ac.15.80 cents.
18. Ex.A9 is the copy of re-survey and settlement register supplied to the 1st plaintiff in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.97, 201, 741, 749, 731 to 734, 739, 740 and 742 of Konijedu village of Tangutur Mandal. Among these survey numbers, Sy.Nos.749, and 731 to 734, 739, 740 and 742 are pertaining to the lands covered by Exs.A1 and B1 sale deed of defendants 1 and 2. In Column
No.13, the name of Rama Kotayyagari Pedda Yellamanda (ancestor of plaintiffs) is recorded as pattadar in respect of these items.
19. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the revenue records reveal that the lands in Sy.No.741, 749, 731 to 734, 739, 740 and 742 belong to the ancestors of the plaintiffs. However, as seen from the written statement of defendants, they disputed the identity of the property claimed by the plaintiffs physically. According to them, the plaintiffs have no land within the boundaries described in the suit schedule and plaintiffs have no land on the south, north and west of Inagaluru in Konijedu village and that the plaintiffs have been claiming the lands of defendants 1 and 2 illegally. Their defence with reference to each item of the suit schedule reflected in the written statement and also evidence, is as under :
i) The land bearing Sy.No.749 is Vagu poramboke as per Ex.B8 certified copy of adangal issued for survey number 749 of Konijedu village on 5.8.2019 for the fasli 1429; and even the boundaries for item No.1 of the suit schedule are mis-described. The western boundary is the land of the 4th defendant, but not item No.2 of the suit schedule, the southern boundary is the land of 3rd defendant and Cherukumilli Haribabu, but not Inagaluru village; 10O.S.145/2016 ii) within the boundaries covered by item No.2 of the suit schedule, their land is located,wherein bengal gram crop existed, and thus, the boundaries for item No.2 are wrong; iii) item No.1 of the land sold under Ex.B1 is located within the boundaries described in item No.3 of the suit schedule, but plaintiffs have wrongly given the survey number in Ex.B1; and even the land available in item
No.3 of the suit schedule is only Ac.0.62 cents, but by including vagu poramboke, plaintiffs claimed Ac.1.12 cents in item No.3 of the sut schedule; iv) item No.4 of the suit schedule is also sold by plaintiffs to defendants 1 and 2, referred as item No.2 of Ex.B1, but by giving wrong survey numbers and extent; and
v) Description of item No.5 of the suit schedule is also not correct and item No.5 of the suit schedule also belongs to the defendants.
20. In order to substantiate their defence, defendants relied on the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 4, who are defendants 2 and 1, respectively. The affidavits of D.Ws.1 and 4 filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC is reiteration of the contentions in the written statement. D.Ws.2 and 3 are claimed to be eastern and western boundary owners of item No.4 of the suit schedule, respectively. Their affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination is also supporting the defence of defendants. They further alleged that the total extent of land in
Sy.No.749 is vagu poramboke, but the persons who are in possession of the land abutting Sy.No.749 are cultivating their lands, by including the land in
Sy.No.749, andplaintiffs have no land in Sy.Nos.731,732, 734 and 740.
21. Coming to D.W.5, who is another third party, his affidavit filed under
Order XVIII Rule 4 speaks that plaintiffs and Mupparaju Veeraiah sold Ac.3.15 cents under Ex.B1 to defendants 1 and 2, but they have mentioned wrong 11O.S.145/2016 survey numbers in Ex.B1 sale deed and have been claiming the land of defendants.
22. Apart from Ex.B.2 and B.15 reports of the surveyor, the defendants have exhibited Exs.B.3 to B.12 to substantiate their case. Ex.B3 is the I-B extract of 1st defendant, issued on 21.7.2024, relevant entry is Sl.No.3 and
Survey number is 734. 1st defendant is in possession of 1.75 cents in
Sy.No.734 and source of title is referred as ancestral. Ex.B4 is the I-B extract of the 2nd defendant, issued on 21.7.2024, relevant entry is Sl.No.5 and survey number is 731. 2nd defendant is in possession of 1.79 cents in Sy.No.731, acquired through his ancestors. Ex.B5 is the adangal for the fasli 1434, corresponding to 2024-2025. It is relating to Sy.No.734. The total extent is 13.30 cents. Serial Number 1 refers the name of 1st plaintiff. The extent in his possession is recorded as Ac.1.70 cents and the origin of title as ancestral.
Serial Number 7 refers in the name of 1st defendant and the extent in his possession is recorded as Ac.1.75 cents, acquired through his ancestors.
Ex.B6 is the adangal for fasli 1434, corresponding to 2024-2025. It is pertaining to Sy.No.731. Serial No.4, refers to the 2nd defendant. He is recorded to be in possession of Ac.1.79 cents. Except the 2nd defendant, the names of any other parties are not mutated as per Ex.B6
23. Ex.B7 is the adangal issued on 5.8.2019. It is in respect of land in
Sy.No.741 to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents. It is referred as government land covered by river. It is the original survey number of item No.4 of the suit schedule. It is later amended as Sy.No.734. Ex.B8 is the adangal issued on 5.8.2019 for Sy.No.749 to an extent of Ac.6.75 cents. Total extent is referred as ‘vaagu’. Ex.B9 is in respect of survey number 742 to an extent of Ac.1.12 cents. It refers the name of 1st plaintiff as possessor and enjoyer of Ac.1.12 cents. It is in respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule. Ex.B10 is the adangal issued on 5.8.2019. It is in respect of Sy. No.732 (1st item in item No.5 of the sut schedule). An extent of Ac.1.55 cents is shown to be in possession and 12O.S.145/2016 enjoyment of the 1st plaintiff. Ex.B.11 is the adangal issued on 5.8.2019 . It is in respect of Sy.No.733 (2nd item in item No.5 of the suit schedule). An extent of Ac.1.50 centsis found to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.
Origin refers as ancestral. Ex.B12 is the adangal, dated 5.8.2019. It is in respect of Sy.No.734 to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents (item No.4 of the suit schedule).
24. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the above revenue records discloses mutation of the names of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule survey numbers. However, this alone is not sufficient to prove the physical possession of the plaintiffs of the suit schedule mentioned property. In view the defence of the defendants, plaintiffs have to establish that the description of the suit schedule is correct and the property claimed by them under Exs.A1 to A9, within the boundaries described in the suit schedule and also physically is one and the same. Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiffs are able to prove the identity of the property claimed by them. Let us discuss the evidence of both sides with reference to each item of the suit schedule.
25. With regard to item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule, Exs.A2, A3, A8 and B8 are significant. Emphasis is laid on Ex.B8 to substantiate that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.749 is a vagu poramboke. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, the classification of land in Sy.No.749 as per Ex.B8 is vagu poramboke. Admittedly, the survey number of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule is 749/1B. As referred to supra, land to an extent of
Ac.2.00 and 1.50 cents in Sy.No749/1B, does not reflect to be vagu poramboke in Exs.A2, A3 and A8. If the total extent of land in Sy.No.749 and its sub-divisions is vagu poramboke, how revenue authorities recorded the said land as private land. Therefore, based on Ex.B8, it cannot be concluded that sub-division No.1B in Sy.No.749 is also vagu poramboke.
13O.S.145/2016
26. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, though defendants specifically pleaded in the written statement that the boundaries and extent in the suit schedule are wrongly described and the plaintiffs have no land within boundaries described in the suit schedule, except relying on Ex.A1, self-serving document, and revenue records, which do not and in fact, will not contain boundaries, the plaintiffs have not made any effort to get commissioner appointed, with the assistance of competent surveyor, for identification of the suit property within the boundaries described in the suit schedule for substantiating that the description of the suit schedule is correct and that the land shown in the suit schedule, referred in their documents and claimed physically is one and the same.
27. As regards the boundaries of item No.1 of the suit schedule, the evidence of P.W.1 itself proves that it is misdescribed. He says that on the western side of item No.1 of the suit schedule, land of 4th defendant is situated. The western boundary for item No.1 of the suit schedule is described as item No.2 of the suit schedule. This discrepancy is in accordance with the defence of the defendants. The southern boundary according to defendants is the land of 3rd defendant and Hari Babu. According to P.W.1 and suit schedule it is Inagaluru village. No effort is made to prove that the southern boundary is correctly described.
28. Regarding item No.2 of the suit schedule, as referred to supra, the claim of defendants is that within the boundaries described in item No.2 of the suit schedule, land of 3rd defendant and Haribabu is situated and there existed bengal gram crop. Defendants have filed Ex.B13, certified copy of the partition deed dated 4.4.2013 executed among the plaintiffs and their family members and Ex.B14, certified copy of cancellation deed cancelling Ex.B13. P.W.1 admits in the cross-examination about execution of Exs.B13 and B14 and that the boundaries of item No.2 of the suit schedule described in Exs.A1 and B13 14O.S.145/2016 are different. This variation is not explained. Plaintiffs have also not proved that boundaries for item No.2 of the suit schedule are correctly described.
29. With regard to item No.3 of the suit schedule, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, though P.W.1 admitted that item No.3 of the suit schedule is sold under Ex.B1 to defendants 1 and 2, he referred the survey numbers as Sy.Nos.731, 739 and 740. In his further cross-examination he denied selling item No.3 of the suit schedule to defendants 1 and 2 under
Ex.B1. In the later part of his cross-examination, he asserted that they had an extent of Ac.3.00 of land in Sy.Nos.731, 739 and 740 and it was sold to defendants 1 and 2.
30. As evident from Ex.B1 and also admitted by D.Ws.1 and 4, item
No.1 of Ex.B1 is the land to an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.731, whereas survey number of item No.3 of the suit schedule is 742 to an extent of Ac.1.12 cents out of Ac.2.08 cents. When the boundaries in Ex.B1 and item No.3 of the suit schedule are looked into, both boundaries are one and the same. The boundaries are on the east –Inagaleru; west – land of Nalluri Subbarao; north - Inagaleru village and south south - land of Katragadda Vijayalakshmi (as per
Ex.B1 it is Katragadda Viswanatham). All the boundaries for item No.1 in
Ex.B1 and item No.3 of the suit schedule tallied. As per Ex.B1, Ac.0.62 cents is sold. Item No.3 of the suit schedule is Ac.1.12 cents out of Ac.2.08 cents. It is needless to say that it is settled legal proposition that boundaries prevail over survey number and extent. Therefore,irrespective of variation in the extent and survey number, when the boundaries are looked into, item No.3 of the suit schedule and item No.1 in Ex.B1 appear to be one and the same property.
31. Coming to item No.4 of the suit schedule, admittedly, its initial survey number was 741 and amended as 734 to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents. In view of initial survey number for item No.4 of the suit schedule Ex.B7 certified copy of the adangal dated 5.8.2019 is filed, which refers that the land bearing 15O.S.145/2016
Sy.No.741 is government land covered by river. Ex.B7 has no significance in view of amending survey number for item No.4 of the suit schedule into 734.
Even additional issue No.2 framed on 7.12.2022 to the effect whether the land in Sy.No.741 is vagu poramboke, has also become redundant.
32. Further, item No.4 of the suit schedule is claimed to be item No.2 in
Ex.B1, bearing survey number 731, to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents. The further allegation is that by including vagu poramboke, the extent in item No.4 of the suit schedule is shown as Ac.1.70 cents. Similarly, item No.5 of the suit schedule is in respect of land in Sy.Nos.732, 733 and 734. This item is also claimed to be part of the land sold under Ex.B1. Defendants further claimed that though different survey numbers are referred in Ex.B1, actually they are in possession and enjoyment of items 3 to 5 of the suit schedule. They also placed reliance on Exs.B2 and B15, reports of the surveyor.
33. Ex.B2 is the report of the Mandal Surveyor, Tangutur, dated 21.5.2022. It is issued during the pendency of the suit. Ex.B2 refers that on the representation of defendants 1 and 2 that they have land in Konijedu village, and at their request to measure the land and note down the extent available with reference to the survey number, the Mandal Surveyor conducted survey with reference to FMB and village map. He noted that defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.04 cents, out of
Ac.2.08 cents in Sy.No.742,(Item No.3 of the suit schedule is in Sy.No.742 out of Ac.2.08 cents. It is Ac.1.12 cents out of Ac.2.08 cents); Ac.0.93 cents, out of 2.46 cents, in Sy.No.740, (not covered by suit schedule); Ac.0.28 cents out of Ac.5.61 cents in Sy.No.733 (part of survey number shown in item No.5); and out of 15.82 cents, Ac.1.12 cents, in Sy No.734, totalling an extent of
Ac.2.37 cents.
34. As per Ex.B2, defendants 1 and 2 are found to be in possession of 1.12 cents out of 15.82 cents in Sy.No.734, corresponding to item No.4 of the suit schedule. The boundaries described in item No.4 of the suit schedule 16O.S.145/2016 are, east: Inagaluru to some extent and 2nd plaintiff’s property to some extent (As per Ex.B1 it is katragadda Viswanatham land); West : Nalluri Subbarao land (similar boundary in Ex.B1); North: land of Katragadda Vijayalakshmi (as per Ex.B1 it is katragadda viswanatham); and South : 1st plaintiff’s property (as per Ex.B1 it is the land of defendants 1 and 2).
35. Again during the pendency of the suit, defendants 1 and 2 got surveyed lands with reference to Ex.B1 sale deed. Ex.B15 is the report dated 25.11.2025, issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Tangutur, and Village Surveyor of
Konijedu of Tangutur Mandal. The report of the survey with reference to
Ex.B1, revenue records and physical possession and enjoyment of defendants 1 and 2 is recorded as under:
As per document Physically
Sy.No.731 : 2.12 Nil
Sy.No.739 and 740 : 1.03739 : Nil 740 1.07
Sy.No.734 : Nil 734 : 1.00 (item No.4 and part of 5)
Sy.No.733 : Nil733 : 0.35 cents (part of item No.5)
36. As per Ex.B15, defendants 1 and 2 are found to be in possession of 1.07 cents in Sy.No.739, whereas, the extent sold is 1.03 cents, in Sy.no.734, an extent of 1.00, but no extent is sold in this survey number and in
Sy.No.733, an extent of 0.35 cents, whereas no land is sold in this survey number. In Sy.No.731, an extent of Ac.2.12 cents is also sold under Ex.B1, but the defendants found to be not in possession of any extent in this survey number.
37. Now it is pertinent to refer to the revenue records. Sl.Nos.1 and 7 in
Ex.A8 and Sl.Nos.1 and 7 in Ex.B5, record the names of 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant, as possessors and enjoyers of an extent of Ac.1.70 cents and
Ac.1.75 cents, respectively, and the origin of title referred in column No.14 is 17O.S.145/2016 ancestral for both the parties. Ex.A6, the certified copy of the adangal for
Sy.No.733, records the name of the 1st plaintiff to be possessor and enjoyer of
Ac.1.50 cents.
38. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the extent in the suit schedule survey numbers found to be in possession of defendants 1 and 2 under Exs.B2 and B15 is not reflected in the revenue records. However, it is the specific claim of defendants 1 and 2 that survey numbers referred in Ex.B1 differ with the land physically delivered to them under Ex.B1. Undoubtedly, for mutation in the revenue records, there must be document of title to the party. As such, revenue records alone cannot be based, in view of the ambiguity pointed out.
39. Be that as it. Plaintiffs even disputed survey under Exs.B2 and B.15.
It is contended that no survey is conducted and that Exs.B2 and B15 are created to suit the claim of defendants 1 and 2. D.W.1 admits that as per his instructions, the surveyors measured the land. He denies the suggestion that the surveyors found that the boundaries described in his document tallied with the boundaries physically. It is also suggested thatby influencing the mandal surveyor, Tangutur and Village Surveyor, Konijedu, he obtained Ex.B15 and no survey is conducted. The above referred suggestions are contradictory.
One suggestion is during survey, surveyor finding that the land sold under
Ex.B1 tallied with the land in physical possession, the other is no survey is conducted, but Exs.B2 and B15 are obtained by influencing the authorities concerned.
40. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, even the entire extent claimed in the suit schedule is not found to be in possession of defendants 1 and 2. However, it is the plaintiffs, who claimed to have been in physical possession and enjoyments of the properties claimed in the suit schedule. When the defendants disputed the description of the suit schedule and identity of the suit schedule, initial burden is on the plaintiffs to prove the 18O.S.145/2016 identity of the property claimed by them. No effort is made to get appointment of commissioner to locate, measure and fix the boundaries of the suit property with the assistance of competent surveyor to prove that the property claimed in the suit schedule is the same property in their possession, with reference to
Exs.A1 to A9.
41. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants,
P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that in Ex.B13, earlier partition deed,
dated 4.4.2013, only 16 items are partitioned, coming to Ex.A1, 23 items are
partitioned, that except item No.2 of the suit schedule, remaining items are not referred in Ex.B13. A perusal of Ex.B13 evidences that except item No.2 and part of item No.5 of the suit schedule, remaining items of the suit schedule are not partitioned under Ex.B13. The reason for cancellation of Ex.B13 referred in Ex.B14 is due to some mistake and it does not refer to missing of some of the properties and on the other hand, there is a declaration that except the items shown in Exs.B13, no other properties are available for partition. It is the specific claim of defendants that in the initial partition, their properties are not partitioned, but they are included in Ex.A1. P.W.1 admits that Ex.A1 is the basis for filing this suit and he has not filed any revenue records prior to 2014, he has not filed any documents standing in the name of his father or grandfather in respect of the suit property, that he has also not filed any documents in the name of his grandmother and also the documents from 2000 to 2014 pertaining to the suit schedule mentioned property. In view of the specific defence of the defendants about inclusion of Vagu Poramboke,
Inagaluru and lands of defendants in the suit schedule, burden heavily rests on the plaintiffs to clear the ambiguity and to establish the identity of the property claimed by them and also that the survey numbers and boundaries of the properties described in Ex.B1 are distinct and no way concerned with the suit schedule property.
19O.S.145/2016
42. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, in the cross-examination, D.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the property purchased under Ex.B1 is in Sy.Nos.731,739 and 740 and these survey numbers are not shown in the suit schedule,D.W.3 also admitted in the cross-examination that survey numbers referred in Ex.B1 are not included in the suit schedule.
Coming to D.W.5, he says that defendants purchased the lands in
Sy.Nos.732, 733 and 734 pertaining to the suit schedule. As pointed out by the learned counsel for plaintiffs, Ex.B1 does not contain these survey numbers. Further, as pointed out, D.W.4 also admitted that as per Exs.B10 to
B12, the name of the 1st plaintiff is mutated in respect of item Nos.4 and 5 of the suit schedule. Further, D.W.1 also admitted that he has not obtained rectification deed, rectifying the wrong boundaries described in Ex.B1, but he added that he approached the plaintiffs but they did not come forward and he admits non-issuance of notice to the plaintiffs demanding to execute rectification deed, He denies the suggestion that all the items of the suit schedule belong to the plaintiffs and when the defendants interfered with the plaintiffs’ possession, they filed this suit. The above referred admissions of
D.Ws.1 and 4 makes it clear that though they alleged wrong description of survey numbers in their sale deed, they did not get it rectified by filing any suit.
However, that will not ensure to the benefit of plaintiffs. Latches on the part of the defendants in getting rectification deed would not amount to accepting the case of the plaintiffs, in view of the ambiguity and identity dispute regarding the suit schedule mentioned properties. As such, the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A1 to A9 will not establish the identity of the suit property and physical possession and enjoyment of those properties within the boundaries described in the suit schedule.
43. Further, when the identity of the property is not established, and the plaintiffs failed to prove their physical possession of the property within the boundaries described in the suit schedule, there is no question of dealing with 20O.S.145/2016 the aspect whether there is any interference by the defendants with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Accordingly, these issues are answered.
44. Issue No.2: In view of the findings on issue No.1 and additional issues, the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
45. Issue No.4: In view of the findings on issues 1 and 2 and additional issues, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
46. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenogrpher, corrected and pronounced byTyped to my dictation by the Stenogrpher, corrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the Judgment in open Court, on this the 27me, the operative portion of the Judgment in open Court, on this the 27thth day day of April, 2026of April, 2026
Sd/- xxx
Principal Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Ongole
// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //
Witnesses Examined/
For Plaintiffs:
Name of witness Description
Pw.1 : Rama Anantha Krishnaiah1st plaintiff
Pw.2 : Mupparaju AnjaneyuluThird party
For Defendants :
Name of witness Description
Dw.1 : Cherukumalli Narayana 2nd defendant
Dw.2 : Katragadda PrasadThird party
Dw.3 : Gumma VenkateswarluThird party 21O.S.145/2016
Dw.4 : Cherukumalli Prasad 1st defendant
Dw.5 : Anumala BrahmaiahThird party
Documents marked
For Plaintiffs:
Exhibit Description of document Proved
number by/attested
Ex.A.1Certified copy of partition deed dt.15.3.2014Pw.1
Ex.A.2Certified copy of No.3 adangal for the fasli 1423Pw.1
Ex.A.3Extract of 1-BPw.1
Ex.A.4Extract of No.3 adangal for the fasli 1424 forPw.1 Sy.No.742
Ex.A.5Extract of No.3 adangal for the fasli 1424 forPw.1 Sy.No.732
Ex.A.6Extract of No.3 adangal for the fasli 1424 forPw.1 Sy.No.733
Ex.A.7Extract of No.3 adangal for the fasli 1424 forPw.1 Sy.No.734
Ex.A.81-B extract dt.2.2.2014Pw.1
Ex.A.9Extract of re-survey and re-settlement registerPw.1 obtained by RTI
For defendants:
Exhibit Description of document Proved
number by/attested
Ex.B.1 : Certified copy of sale deed vide documentDw.1 No.2333/2004 of Joint Sub Registrar, Ongole, dt.17.5.2004, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants.
22O.S.145/2016
Ex.B.2 : Original survey report in S.No.742, 740, 733, 734Dw.1 of Konijedu village, issued by Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Tangutur mandal, dt.21.5.2022 in favour of defendants.
Ex.B.3 : Certified copy of 1-B namoona of the 1stDw.1 defendant vide katha No.1394 dt.21.7.2024 issued by mee seva
Ex.B.4 : Certified copy of 1-B namoona of the 2ndDw.1 defendant vide katha No.1395, dt.21.7.2024 issued by mee seva
Ex.B.5 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.734 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.21.7.2024, fasli year 1434 (2024-25) issued by mee seva
Ex.B.6 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.731 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.21.7.2024, fasli year 1434 (2024-25) issued by mee seva
Ex.B.7 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.741 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.5.8.2019, fasli year 1429 issued by mee seva
Ex.B.8 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.749 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.5.8.2019, fasli year 1429 issued by mee seva
Ex.B.9 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.742 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.5.8.2019, fasli year 1429 issued by mee seva
Ex.B.10 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.732 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.5.8.2019, fasli year 1429 issued by mee seva
Ex.B.11 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.733 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.5.8.2019, fasli year 1429 issued by mee seva
Ex.B.12 : Certified copy of adangal/pahani in Sy.No.734 ofDw.1 Konijedu village, dt.5.8.2019, fasli year 1429 issued by mee seva 23O.S.145/2016
Ex.B.13 : Certified copy of registered partition deedDw.1 dt.4.4.2013, vide document No.3365/2013 obtained on 29.7.2024 from Joint Sub Registrar Office, Ongole.
Ex.B.14 :Certified copy of the registered cancellation deedDw.1 dt.14.3.2014 vide document No.2214/2014 obtained on 29.7.2024 from Joint Sub Registrar Office, Ongole.
Ex.B.15 :The endorsement dt.25.11.2025 given by theDw.1 mandal and village surveyors of Tangutur and Konijedu respectively.
Sd/- xxx
PCJ (SD),
Ongole.