IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TIRUPATI:
Present: Sri S.KAMALAKARA REDDY.
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
Saturday, Thirtieth (30th) day of May, 2015
O.S.1505/ 2000
S.S.Mani, S/o S.Subbaraya Modaliar, 72 years, Business, Having his place of business at
D.No.411, Kasturibai lane, Tirupati.... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. V.Veerappa, S/o Kotanna, 70 years, Business, (died)
2. V.Dhanasekhar, S/o V.Veerappa, 31 years, Business, Both are residing at D.No.165406, Kasturibai Lane, Tirupati.
3. Sarojamma, W/o Krishnaiah, 40 years,
4. T.Muniraja, W/o T.Nagaraju, 35 years,
5. C.Padmavathi, W/o Ravi Kumar, 29 years
6. C.Mohanamma, W/o Suresh, 26 years. (D3 is residing at D.No.165408, Kasthuribai Lane, Tirupati. D4 is residing at D.No.165106, Kasthuribai Lane, Tirupati. D5 and D6 are residing at Teachers colony, Pitchatur village and Mandal. (D3 to D6 are added the L.Rs.,of deceased 1st defendant as per orders in I.A.No.1645/2002, dated 17/06/2003)
... Defendants
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Raviprakasam, Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri K.Gowri Shankar, Advocate for defendants and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Initially the suit was decreed exparte. However the suit is restored to its original stage vide I.A.1126/2012 and I.A.577/2013 dated 17/10/2014.
2.The suit is filed by the tenant with prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men etc., from dispossessing him from the petition schedule property. In the schedule the property is shown as house measuring house to west 25 feet and north to south 28.5 feet bearing D.No.411 situated at Kasturi bai lane.
In fact it is a shop wherein lath machine is being operated for engineering works.
3.The averments of the plaint are as follows:
The plaint schedule premises originally belongs to
J.S.Sreenivasulu Naidu. The plaintiff S.S.Mani has taken the premises on lease from him in the year 1992 on monthly rent. The plaintiffs started Engineering works in the name and style of Sreenivasa Auto and
General Engineering works. 3 lathe machines, one drilling machine embedded to earth, Two welding machines, one cutting machine, one valve grinding machine, and other machines are installed in the premises. The plaintiff obtained 3 face electric service connection for the work to the shop in his name. He also obtained telephone connection in his name to the premises. He obtained licence to run the shop under
Factories Act, under Shops and Establishment Act and has been paying taxes to the authorities concerned. The initial rent of Rs.30/ was enhanced to Rs.100/ per month in the month of July 1965.
4.In the year 1979 the plaintiff learnt that on one
Bhakthavastalam and Kodanddaram sons of J.S.Sreenivasulu Naidu sold away the plaint schedule premises to one Venkatesu under a registered sale deed dated 04/07/1979. The said Venkatesu enhanced rent from Rs.100/ to Rs.225/ per month. The said Venkatesu informed the plaintiff that the first defendant V.Veerappa would collect rent for the plaint schedule premises on his behalf. Accordingly the plaintiff has been paying rents to the first defendant. From time to time the rent was enhanced and it was Rs.500/ by the year 1993.
5.The defendants have no right, interest, title whatsoever over the plaint schedule premises, but they illegally demanded to vacate the premises. They tried to disposses the plaintiff from the petition schedule premises with their henchmen. They sent a caveat dated 09/12/2000 to the plaintiff and his sons claiming that they are the absolute owners of the property. Since the defendants determined to disposses the plaintiff from the premises, the present suit is filed to restrain them.
6.The plaintiff further contended that the premises is a charitable endowed by J.V.Sreenivasulu Naidu and his brothers for religious purpose i.e., to provide free lodging to the pilgrims who visit
Tirumala temple. It was reflected in the registered partition deed dated 31/10/1927. One Narrayanaswamy Naidu was appointed to look after and maintain the premises. Once it is endowed for the purpose of religion it cannot be invoke for use of any other purpose. J.Sreenivasulu
Naidu and his brothers were divested of their title in the suit premises in favour of religious charitable institution. Therefore their legal representatives have no right to alienate the suit premises in favour of any person much less in favour of Venkatesh. The plaintiff ultimately prayed the court to decree the suit by grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants.
7.On the other hand the second defendant filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died and his L.Rs., D3 to D6 have been added. However the D3 to D6 remained exparte. Only the defendant No.2 continued to contest the suit.
However after decreed the suit, exparte, the defendant No.2 and other defendants 3 to 6 filed application to set aside the exparte decree.
Accordingly the I.A. allowed on 17/10/2014. No further written statement is reported by D2 to D6 and they continued to adopt the written statement defendant No.2
8.The averments of the written statement of Defendant No.2 are as follows:
He submitted that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts. The building in question (plaint schedule property) bears
D.Nos.i.e., 410, 411. The D.No.411 is part of big house which consists of 8 portions, consists of two door numbers i.e., 410, 411. By virtue of registered sale deed dated 04/07/1979 mother of the second defendant
Ramakka purchased part of the house which bearing D.No.410 from
J.S.Bhakthavatsalam and J.S. Kodanda Ram. Ramakka’s brother
T.Venkatesu purchased remaining portion of the building which bears
D.No.411 from the said two persons and took possession. But
T.Venkatesu out of love and affections gifted the premises bearing
D.No.411 under a registered settlement deed dated 24/06/1982.
Ramakka accepted the gift thereby she became absolute owner of the house bearing D.No.410 in her own capacity and 411 under the registered gift deed. It is in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Necessary mutations have been effected in the Municipal records. Ramakka died intestate on 19/08/1988 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and other properties in favour of second defendant under a WILL dated 10/09/1996. On the death of Ramakka WILL came into force and second defendant became absolute owner of the plaint schedule premises. The plaintiff was paying rents as a tenant prior to filing the present suit O.S.1505/2000. Venkatesu is a resident of Kuntrapakam village and he died on 21/03/1985 leaving behind his wife and two daughters. No where it is pleaded that wife and children of Venkatesu enhanced the rent up to Rs.500/ and that they directed the first defendant to receive the rents. It shows the special interest of the plaintiff and his false version. Since the second defendant became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, the first defendant started collecting rents. The plaintiff removed several machines from the plaint schedule premises but kept only big machines. He requested the defendant to give some time to find out a suitable shop to take machines. At the instance of the enemies of the defendant the plaintiff filed the present suit. He brought and kept all the machines which were taken away from the premises just before the visit of the advocate commissioner. The plaintiff is in possession of the premises but he is estopped from denying the title the plaintiff has to be directed to deliver the possession as he committed trespass into the petitions schedule premises i.e., just prior to the visit of commissioner. Suit premises is aged more than 100 years and it is going to fall down at any time because huge crocks developed in the roof as well as in the walls. The second defendant intended to demolish the entire premises, wants to construct a new one. The second defendant got vacated all the tenants except two persons in the house bearing D.No.410. The plaintiff admitted that the plaint schedule premises belonged to J.S.Sreenivasulu
Naidu and that he took the premises on lease in the year 1962 that
Venkatesu purchased the premises under a registered sale deed dated 04/07/1979 that the lease was enhanced from time to time that the first defendant was receiving the rents. It is absolute property of Venkatesu.
The tenancy is admitted therefore the plaintiff is totally estopped from denying the title of land lord. Even in the commissioner of Endowment
Hyderabad by order dated 02/12/1988 vide Dis.No.44/46709/88 stated that there was no existence of choultry that there need not be any further action. In view of the execution of the Will by Ramakka mother of the second defendant, other defendants are not necessary. He ultimately prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
9.On the basis of pleadings this court has formulated the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for or not ?
2. To what relief ?
10.On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1, examined one S.Murali as PW2. He got marked Exs.A1 to A8 documents.
11.After closure of the plaintiff side evidence, the second defendant himself examined as DW1 and examined two witnesses namely T.Munirajamma and A.Anuradha as D.W.2 and D.W.3. He got marked Exs.B1 to B9 documents.
12.After closure of evidence, I heard arguments on both sides.
The counsel for the defendants filed several judgments to support his contentions.
13.Now we see the substance of the evidence of each witness.
14.PW1 is the plaintiff Mani himself. He filed Exs.A1 to A5 documents at the first instance and on recall he got marked Ex.A6 registered partition deed dated 31/10/1927, Ex.A7 plaint copy of
O.S.625/2014 and Ex.A8 served copy of petition in RCC 2/2014.
15.When it comes to cross examination he denied that under
Ex.B1 T.Venkatesu purchased the suit premises and his name is mutated in all the revenue records. He did not know the gift deed dated 24/06/1982 vide Ex.B3. He denied that the first defendant use to collect rents that Ramakka executed Will vide Ex.B5. He denied the entire case of the defendants. In further cross examination with regard to Ex.A6 partition deed he stated that he did not know its contents. He denied that the plaint schedule premises never treated as choultry that it is being used as a residential and commercial purpose. He denied that second defendant Dhana sekhar succeeded the suit schedule premises.
6.PW2 is one S.Murali. He is the son of the plaintiff/PW1. He did not know whether J.S.SReenivasulu and his two sons
Bakthavasalam and Kodanada Ram sold away the suit premises to
Venkatesu that Venkatesu executed registered gift deed in favour of his sister Ramakka. He admitted that rents were being paid to the first defendant (husband of Ramakka) and obtained receipts. He admitted that the suit premises is in “L” shape. He denied that it is in dilapidated condition require renovation. Since 1961 his father occupied the shop in
D.No.411. He denied that his father and he denied the title of the defendants.
7.Dw1 is the second defendant V.Dhanasekhar. He filed his chief affidavit which is in the lines of the written statement. He got marked Exs.B1 to B9 documents.
8.In the cross he stated that his father is Veerappa and his mother is Ramakka. The houses bearing D.No.410 and 411 are abutting to each other. He admitted that the plaintiff is doing Engineering works in the plaint schedule premises and it is the only source of lively hood for the plaintiff. His father Veerapa used to collect rents from the plaintiff. The suit schedule premises was originally in the name of
Venkatgesu. The plaintiff filed RCC 5/2001 with a prayer to decide as to who was the Land Lord of the shop and he did not know whether the plaintiff deposited rents in RCC 5/2001 or not. He denied that in the year 1927 J.S.Sreenivasulu and his brothers dedicated the suit schedule premises and other premises to the pilgrims. He admitted that the plaintiff got the suit schedule property on lease in the year 1962. He admitted that O.S.625/2014 was filed on the file of P.S.C.J., court,
Tirupati for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Further RCC 2/2014 was also filed to get the plaintiff vacated from the suit schedule premises. He denied that he is not owner of the suit premises.
9.DW2 is one Munirajamma. She filed her chief affidavit supporting the contention of the second defendant.
10.In the cross she admitted that the second defendant/DW1 is her younger brother she admitted RCC 5/2001 was filed by the plaintiff.
She did not know the contents of the partition deed of the year 1927 (Ex.A6) O.S.625/2014 was filed on the file of P.S.C.J., Court, Tirupati for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
11.DW3 is one Anuradha. She filed her chief affidavit supporting the contention of the defendants.
12.In the cross she stated that she was residing in the shop bearing D.Noi.411 i.e., adjacent to plaint schedule premises she was paying rents to the second defendant. She runs tiffen center. Sons of the plaintiff look after the shop. She did not know to who the plaintiff was paying rents. Initially the suit shop belonged to J.S.Sreenivasulu
Naidu thereafter Venkatesu got it. Ramakka sister of Venkatesu got the shop under the gift. Ramakka executed will in favour of the second defendant. She denied that the suit schedule premises was being used as choultry.
ISSUE No.1: Whether the plaintiff entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for or not ?
13.The suit is filed for grant of injunction. The basic ingredient that are required to be proved by the plaintiff are that he is in possession and enjoyment of the premises as on the date of filing of the suit that there was threat of dispossession from the defendants. I stated above, initially the suit was decreed exparte and subsequently the exparte decree was set aside.
14.It is established principle of law that the moment it is proved a person is in possession and enjoyment of the premises he is entitled for injunction. In the present case as per the contents of the plaint the plaintiff Mani entered into the suit schedule premises as a tenant in the year 1965. Rents have been enhanced from time to time and the rent was Rs.500/ by the year 1993. He claims himself that he is a tenant.
He further narrated that the suit schedule premises was purchased by
Venaktesu under a registered sale deed dated 04/07/1979. Ex.B1 is the sale deed filed by the defendants to prove this sale transactions. So it is pretty clear that the plaintiff's status over the premises is only as a tenant. The first defendant Veerappa is father and second defendant
Dhianasekhar is his son. As admitted by the plaintiff Venkatesu who purchased the plaint schedule premises D.No.411 under Ex.B1 sale deed gifted the same premises in favour of his sister under Ex.B3 settlement deed. So Ramakka got the suit schedule premises under the gift settlement deed. On perusal of Ex.B3 registered gift settlement deed it is clear that the premises was given to Ramakka. As admitted by the
P.Ws1 and 2, Verrappa (defendant No.1) use the collect rents. So viewed from any angle it is pretty clear that the plaintiff is only a tenant.
Venkatesu is the land lord, on account of attornment. He admitted that he was paying rents to Venkatesu, being collected by the first defendant for Venkatesu. So the possession of the plaintiff over the petition schedule premises is only as a tenant but not more than that.
15.He filed the suit restraining the defendants 1 and 2 who are father and son from dispossessing him from the premises. As stated above the first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and D2 to
D6 have been added. D2 to D6 are none other than family members of second defendant. It is the contention of the defendants that since the plaintiff denied the title of the second defendant he is not entitled for any injunction that he shall be forthwith be vacated from the plaint schedule premises. But the scope of the present suit is very limited. The occupation of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property is not denied. The cross examination of P.Ws1 and 2 amply establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule premises as on the date of filing of the suit. The denial of the title of the defendants cannot be decided in the present suit for the reason that the issue before this court is whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction to protect his possession from high handed activities of the defendants or not.
16.Admittedly the plaintiff found to be in possession. To support his contention he filed Exs.A1 to A5 document which amply proof he is in possession of the plaint schedule premises as on the date of filing of the suit.
17.The plaintiff subsequently took a stand that J.Sreenivasulu
Naidu and his brother dedicated the plaint schedule premises and adjacent houses to provide amenities to the pilgrims under a registered partition deed dated 31/10/1927. But the Ex.B7 proceedings of the
Commissioner would clearly indicate that the premises did not have any choultry therefore it cannot be treated as a choultry. So the contention of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule premises was dedicated towards
Endowment of the pilgrims and religion purpose cannot be accepted.
The stand of the plaintiff itself negative his contention that the premises was dedicated towards religion purpose. The plaintiff stated that he occupied the premises and has been running Engineering works. This itself shows that the petition schedule premises was no longer choultry and was not fit to provide amenities to the pilgrims. Except Ex.A6 1927 document there is no other document to support the contention of the plaintiff. More over when he took the petition schedule premises on lease basis and accepted that Venkatesu purchased the premises under registered sale deed vide Ex.B1, he has no right to say that the petition schedule premises was dedicated towards religious purpose. If at all the plaintiff wish to question the nature of the premises, first he has vacated it as contemplated U/S.116 of T.P. Act and then question it. His entry into the premises is only as a tenant and he cannot now take a contra stand.
18.It is the contention of the plaintiff that he filed RCC.5/2001 to decide as to who was the Land Lord that he remitted rents into the court but the admitted fact is that the RCC was returned. The evidence adduced before the court vide Exs.A7 and A8 shows that the second defendant herein filed O.S.625/2014 on the file of P.S.C.J., Tirupati declaring his right and title over the suit premises. Further the defendant No.2 filed RCC2/2014 to get the plaintiff vacated from the suit schedule premises. So the defendant has already initiated legal action against the plaintiff to get him vacated. As of now the plaintiff found to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he cannot be thrown out highhandedly. Since the defendant No.2 has also already initiated legal proceedings vide R.C.No.2/2014 he shall be restrained using any high handed force.
The defendants relied upon the following decisions: 19. (1) S.Thangappan Vs. P.Padmavathi reported in AIR 1999 S.C. PAGE 3584 (2) Kamaljit Singh Vs. Sarbjit Singh reported in 2014 ALT (Rev) page 216 S.C. (3) Ch.Manikya Sarma Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhatia reported in 2009(2) ALT 424 (4) D.Suresh Kumar Vs. Mohd. Dastagiri (died) per L.Rs., reported in 2013(6) ALT 802 (5) K.Chengalraya Chetty (died) per L.Rs., Vs. Gomatheeswari reported in 2015(1) ALT 42 (6) Shankaramma and others Vs. Mohammed Abdul Hameed and another reported in 2006(1) ALT 103 (D.B.)
20.The sum and substance of the above all the decisions is if the tenant is inducted into the premises by Land Lord and tenant continued to pay rents and when it is found a paramount title holder appear the tenant is not justified to deny the title of the Land Lord.
21.Sec.116 of T.P. Act prevents the tenant in occupation of the premises from denying title. He is estopped from making such denial.
Once taken premises on lease from Land Lord the tenant is estopped from denying the title.
22.There is no second opinion about the ratio laid down in above decisions but the issue before this court is as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property and whether he is entitled for injunction or not. Since the plaintiff denied the title of the defendants they initiated legal proceedings by filing O.S.625/2014 on the file of P.S.C.J., court, Tirupati and RCC 2/2014 on the file of this court.
So the decisions relied upon by the defendants have no relevancy to the present facts and circumstances in this case.
23.The defendant further relied upon the following decisions held between
R.G.Jantakal
Vs.
M/S.Bharaat Parikh & Co and another
reported in
1981 Karnataka 208.
Their Lordships at para 9 held that “An injunction can be granted only on proof of actual interference or threat of interference and not in the absence of it”.
When it comes to present case the plaintiff felt threat from the defendants, therefore he filed the present suit.
24.In another decision held between
S. Mahaboob Basha and another
Vs.
B.R.Mohan Rao (died) by L.Rs., and others
reported in
2006(4) ALD (NOC 82).
their Lordships held that “Admissions in the pleadings is the based form of administration has to be taken as a binding admission and same cannot be discarded”.
25.In another decision held between
Devarapalli Mall reddy (died) and others
Vs.Gadiyam Hanumayamma and others
reported in
2012(2) ALT 149.
their Lordships at para 13 held that “There cannot be a better proof than the admission of a fact in issue by the defendant in a suit”.
26.In another decision held between
Mohd. Ibrahim and others
Vs.
Smt. Munni @ Zainabee
reported in
2007(1) ALT page 511.
their Lordships held that when a fact stated in chief examination is not disputed in cross examination, it should be deemed to be admitted.
27.In another decision held between
Regu Maheshwara Rao
Vs.
Vyricherla Kishore Chandra Suryanarayana Deo and others
reported in
2011(2) ALD page 536
their Lordships held that “Once a fact is testified by a witness and the same is not challenged in the cross examination of such witness it can be safely be said that such a fact is admitted”.
28.There is no dispute about the ratio laid down in the decisions. The plaintiff having taken a stand that he is a tenant under
Venkatesu, he cannot now dispute the title of Venkatesu. Ex.B1 clinchingly establish that the said Venaktesu purchased portion of house bearing D.No.411. Ex.B3 registered settlement deed executed by
T.Venkatesu in favour of his sister Ramakka shows that he gifted the property purchased under Ex.B1. The first defendant is husband of
Ramakka and the second defendant is son of Ramakka. By operation of succession second defendant would get the suit schedule premises.
Even otherwise the Ex.B5 unregistered will shows that Ramakka bequeathed the petition schedule premises in favour of the second defendant.
29.So all these circumstances and documents show the second defendant by an act of attornment became the Land Lord. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to deny the status of the second defendant.
However since the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule premises he cannot be dispossessed highhandedly from the petition schedule premises. As stated above the second defendant has already initiated legal proceedings. Till such time the plaintiff is entitled to remaining in the petition schedule premises.
30.The following decisions are apt to know the law of the land in respect of possession and injunctions.
Kaneez Fathima and another
vs.
Samuru Sulthana and others
reported in...
2008(3) ALT 538
their lordship held as follows....
Basically the finding as to be possession must be recorded in a suit of this nature (Permanent injunction). The verification of the title on the limited sense must be undertaken if necessary.
In another decision held between
Alla Seshukumar and another
vs.
Alla Radhakrishna reported in 2008(1) ALT 430 their lordship held that
The courts below went on deciding the question of title without prayer for the same and gave findings in respect of title .Therefore I am inclined to hold that the finding regarding the title are not binding on the plaintiffs as the suit was only for permanent injunction.
Ramavath Hasala Naik
vs.
Sabahavath Gomli Bai reported in.. 2011(2) ALT 690 in this decision the Hon'ble High court court held that when a person is in peaceful possession, he is entitled to permanent injunction and protect in possession” in the above decision it was further held that “ it is settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner”.
Ananthula Sudhakar
Vs
P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors
reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court cases page 594 , their lordship held as follows:..
14. But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a fullfledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.
28.Going by the spirit of above decisions, it is pretty clear that the plaintiff is entitled for injunction, however till he is vacated by the defendants by following due process of law.
29.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendants are restraining from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule premises and the defendants are at liberty to get the plaintiff vacated from the premises by following due process of law.
Dictated to Personal Assistant taken down by her, after her transcription corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of May, 2015.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TIRUPATI
Appendix of evidence
Pw-1 : S.S.ManiDW-1 : V.Dhanasekhar Pw-2 : S.MuraliDW2: T.Munirajamma DW-3 : A.Anuradha
Exhibits marked for Plaintiff side
Ex.A-1 Certified copy of electricity demand notice for the month of September, 2000 to November 2000 Ex.A-2 Certified of electricity payment receipts dated 12/10/2000 Ex.A-3Certified copy of electricity payment receipts dated 27/11/2000 Ex.A-4 CC of telephone charges demand notice for the months 1-5-2000 to 31/10/2000 Ex.A-5CC of photographs 9 in number Ex.A-6CC of registered partitioned deed dated 31/10/1927
Ex.A-7Served copy of plaint in O.S.625/2014 of PSCJ, Tirupati Ex.A-8Served copy of petition in RCC 2/2014 of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
Exhibits marked for Defendants side
Ex.B-1 Is the sale deed in favour of T.Venkatesu in respect of the portion of the house bearing D.No.411 dated 04/07/1979 Ex.B-2 Is the sale deed in favour of Ramakka executed by J.S.Bhaktavastasalam and J.S.Kodandaram dated 04/07/1979 Ex.B-3 Settlement deed executed by T.VEknatesu in favour of Ramakka
dated 24/06/1982
Ex.B-4 Property tax receipts in the name of Ramakka in respect of house bearing D.No.410 and 411 Ex.B-5 Unregistered Will deed dated 10/09/1996 executed by Ramakka in favour of 2nd defendant Ex.B-6 Death certificate of Ramakka Ex.B-7 Proceedings of commissioner, endowment, Hyderabad in favour of Ramakka Ex.B-8 Property tax receipts Ex.B-9 Electricity demand notices and receipts
P.J.C.J.
// TRUE COPY //
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati // TRUE COPY //
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TIRUPATI:
Present: Sri S.KAMALAKARA REDDY.
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
Saturday, Thirtieth (30th) day of May, 2015
O.S.1505/ 2000
S.S.Mani, S/o S.Subbaraya Modaliar, 72 years, Business, Having his place of business at
D.No.411, Kasturibai lane, Tirupati.... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. V.Veerappa, S/o Kotanna, 70 years, Business,
2. V.Dhanasekhar, S/o V.Veerappa, 31 years, Business, Both are residing at D.No.165406, Kasturibai Lane, Tirupati.
3. Sarojamma, W/o Krishnaiah, 40 years,
4. T.Muniraja, W/o T.Nagaraju, 35 years,
5. C.Padmavathi, W/o Ravi Kumar, 29 years
6. C.Mohanamma, W/o Suresh, 26 years. (D3 is residing at D.No.165408, Kasthuribai Lane, Tirupati. D4 is residing at D.No.165106, Kasthuribai Lane, Tirupati. D5 and D6 are residing at Teachers colony,
Pitchatur village and Mandal. ... Defendants
Plaint presented on : 11/12/2000
Plaint filed on: : 11/12/2000
Particulars of valuation:
Notional value of the suit premises fro the relief of RS.1,000/ permanent injunction
C.F. Paid thereon U/S.26(c) of A.P.C.F. ActRs.111/
Cause of action arose on 08/12/2000 at Tirupati within the jurisdiction of the court.
The suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and relatives etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises; and directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Raviprakasam, Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri K.Gowri Shankar, Advocate for defendants and this Court doth order and decree as follows:
1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed
2.That the defendants are restraining from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule premises
3.That the defendants are at liberty to get the plaintiff vacated from the premises by following due process of law.
4.That the defendant do pay plaintiff an amount of Rs.2213/ towards costs of the suit.
Given under my hand the seal of the court, this the 30th day of May, 2015
For (S.KAMALAKAR REDDY)
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
T I R U P A T H I
S C H E D U L E
Chittoor District – Tirupati Sub District – Balaji Registration District – Tirupati town in Kasturibai Lane – D.No.411 – Madras terraced house – measuring East to west : 25 feet and North to South : 28.9 feet within the following boundaries. East: Municipal lane; West: House of Rosamma; North: Lane leading to the house of Rosamma; South: Rest of the building bearing D.No.411.
STATEMENT OF COSTS.
S.No.Plaintiffs Defendants 1Stamp for plaintRs.111 2Stamp for powerRs.22 3Service of process Rs.150 4Advocate feeRs.10001000 5Junior Advocate feeRs.500 6Publication chargesRs.350 7Typing chargesRs.100100
TOTAL Rs. 22131102
For S.K.R.
P J C J