Smt S.p.sulthana Begum

O.S.1565/2009

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. WEDNESDAY, THE 31stDAY OF JULY,2013.

O.S.1565/2009

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Ram Rvi Chander S/o. S.J.Prasad,Hindu, aged 36 years, residing at flat No.G.R.5, Meridian Seashells Apartments, Seashells enclave, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sri. Maddala Babu Rao, sice died S/o M.Sanyasi Hindu, aged 57 years, resident of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem,Visakhapatnam.

3. Sri.Maddala Appala Raju, S/o. M. Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, resient of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. *(Amended as per orders in I.A 549/10 dt 2­8­2010.) *(Amended as per orders inIA 395/2012 dt 9­8­2012)

4. Sri. Maddala Appa Rao, S/o. M.Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 32 years, resident of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

5. Sri. Maddala Govinda Raju, S/o.late M.Sanyasi, Hindu,a ged 47 years, resident of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

6. Sri. Maddala Bhanu S/o. M.Govinda Raju, Hindu, aged 25 years, residing at 504, Sand Broad CT, Wester Ville, Ohio­43081.

7. Sri.Maddala Padmakar S/o. M.Govinda Raju, Hindu, aged 22 years, residing t 504, Sand Broad CT, Wester Ville, Ohio­43081

8. Sri, Maddla Narasinga rao S/o. Late M.Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, resident of D .No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

9. Smt Vegi Sujatha D/o. M.Narasinga Rao, Hindu aged 28 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

10. Sri. Maddala Bhaskara Rao S/o. M.Narasinga Rao, Hindu aged 23 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

11. Sri. Maddala Sanyasi Rao S/o. M.Narasinga Rao, Hindu aged 21 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New 

O.S.1565/2009

2

Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

12. Sri. Maddala Sivanandam S/o. Late . M.Appa rao, Hindu aged 28 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

13. Kum. Maddala Pavani D/o. M. Sivanandam, Hindu, aged 10 years, resident to D.No. 1­6­7, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. (Petitioners 2 to 13 are being represented by their agent and GPA Holder Sri.Sriram Ravichander, the first plaintiff herein and also as friend for 13th planitiff who is a minor) …PLAINTIFFS AND Lava Kusha VUDA HIG Apartment Allottees Welfare Association a registered society, represented by its president Sri. K. Satyanarayana, fathers name not known to the plaintiffs , Hindu, aged about 60 years, HIG­4, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam­5300017.

... DEFENDANT. 

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 11­7­2013 in the presence of Sri.Rao & Rajan, Advocate for the Plaintiffs 1 to 13 and of Sri Ch.R.Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff’s against the defendant for Permanent 

Injunction in­respect of plaint schedule site. 

2 . The averments of the plaint are that one late Madala sanyasi and late 

M.Appa Rao are brothers . They inherited the plaint schedule property along with other properties from their ancestors. They constructed A.C sheet house bearing D.No. 1­1­91/1. to 1­1­91/3 . They were in possession and enjoyment of the entire property as absolute owners till their death. Plaintiffs 2 and 5 are the sons of late Sanyasi plaintiff’s 8 & 12 are the sons of late M.Apparao. They died interstate leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 5, 8,10 as legal hairs. They succeeded the property and partitioned the above said properties. As per the said partition the site measuring an extent of 234.44 s.q yards along with A.C Sheet house bearing D.No.1­1­91/1 to 1­1­91/3 fell to the share of 5th and 12th plaintiffs. In the said partition deed the survey Number , southern and Northern boundaries 

O.S.1565/2009

3 were wrongly mentioned and rectified by way of registered rectification deeds dt 19­9­2003 and 8­8­2008.

3. It is further averred in the plaint that in the month of September, 2008 the 1st plaintiff intended to purchase the schedule property from the plaintiffs 5 and 12 after going through the documents. The plaintiffs 3,4,6,7,9 to 11 and 13 are the children of plaintiffs 2,5,8 ,12 . They executed registered agreement to sell dt 27­9­2008 infavour of 1st plaintiff. The plaint schedule property was assessed for property tax in the name of plaintiff 4,5,and 12. The electricity service connection No.11466 was provided in the name of 12th plaintiff. The plaint schedule property was in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs 2 to 13 till agreement to sell cum­GPA dt 27­9­2008. Thereafter the 1st plaintiff he has been possession and enjoyment . The defendant is a registered society formed by allottes /owners of Lavakusa Department for the welfare the said apartment . 

The defendant society is not having any right what so ever over the plaint schedule property. In the month of January, 2009 the boundary wall between the schedule property and the Lavakusa Apartment collapsed due to heavy rains. The Eastern Side boundary wall of the plaint schedule property was also damaged. The 1st plaintiff removed the Eastern site compound wall. When the plaintiff intents to construct compound walls on the Southern and Eastern sides of the schedule property , the president of defendant Association and its members objected . The plaintiffs caveat petition . On 8­12­2009 when the 1st plaintiff visited the plaint schedule property along with men, for construction of 

Southern and Eastern sides walls , the president and members came near to the schedule property and proclaimed that they will not allow the first plaintiff to construct the compound walls. The plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of the schedule property since long time. It is submitted that taking advantage of the fact that the Southern compound wall of the schedule property fell down , the defendant developed the evil idea to grab a portion of the plaint schedule property . The 2nd plaintiff died during pendency of the suit. If the defendant succeeds in encroaching a portion of plaint schedule property, it 

O.S.1565/2009

4 would cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiffs. Hence this suit.

4. The avermbent of written statement are that all the allegations are made in the plaint are not true and correct. It is submitted that the Lava Kusha 

VUDA HIG Apartment allottees Welfare Association was registered under registration No.371/97 as an association and the name of the defendant is not as mentioned in the cost title of the plaint. The documents filed by the plaintiffs are all created only for the purpose of the suit. The 1st plaintiff or other plaintiffs have no right or title over the plaint schedule property . There is absolute no link or relation in between the alleged documents. The plaintiffs have no local standy to file the present suit . The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority made publication in the news papers offering applications. The members of the association applied for the same. The said plots were by delivered by VUDA in the year 1996. After adopting due procedure and complying the requisite formalities, this defendant acquired the land from the erstwhile land owners and developed the flats VUDA also constructed a compound wall around the said apartment, complex and all the transactions were born out by records over the period of time. The members pf the defendant association are in possession and enjoyment of the property from the year from 1996 onwards and prior to that the property vested with the vendors of the defendant which is Visakhapatnam 

Urban Development Authority . There are no traces of alleged southern side or eastern site walls. Infact the plaintiffs who have encroached the defendant's property and squat over the same, without having any legal right or title. The plaintiffs having stated some extent of road encouraged by them, not filed any peace of evidence showing any subsequent award in their favour . The plaintiff filed caveat petition. They removed the compound wall with a view to reconstruct new compound wall, but he has taken a different stand, stating that the said wall was fell down due to heavy rains. The defendant submits that the alleged tax pass books are created only for the purpose of the suit with a view to encroach the property of the defendant plaint schedule property is not the house property as alleged by the plaintiffs . There are 3 shops with 3 shutters 

O.S.1565/2009

5 are existing on the plaint schedule property as seen in the photographs annexed to the Agreement to Sell Cum GPA. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 

5. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined Pw1 to 4 , and go marked 

Ex.A1 to A 28. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced by defendant. 

7. Issue No.1:

Plaintiff claiming Permanent injunction in respect of the plaint Schedule property to an extent of 234.44 sq.yards with a A.C.C sheets roofed house bearing D.No. 1­1­91/1 and 1­1­91/2 ,and 91/3 bearing assessment No.s 3650/187,36500/188,and 1359/189 in old survey No.2 (New survey No. 3/1 ) of 

Kotha Venkojipalem village ,.Visakhapatnam Dist. As per the contention of the plaintiffs originally the plaint schedule property along with some other properties was succeeded by two brothers M. Sanyasi and Maddla Appa Rao. Ancestors of plaintiffs constructed an A.C roofed house and they were in possession and enjoyment till their death. The plaintiffs further contended that after the death of 

Madala Sanyasi and Madala Appa Rao, their entire property was partition among their legal hairs plaintiffs 2 ,5, and 8 ,12 under a registered partition deed 

dt. 2­5­2002. The defendant not specifically denied the ownership over plaint 

schedule property. It is originally belongs to Madala Sanyasi and Maddala 

Apparao . The defendant also not denied the relationship between Maddala 

Sanyasi and Maddla Appa Rao with plaintiffs 2,5,8,and 12 . The partition deed dt 2­5­2002 is showing that the properties of Maddala Sanyasi and Maddla Appa 

Rao were partitioned among plaintiffs 2,5,8 and 12. Pw1 to 4 categorically deposed that the properties succeeded by Maddala Sanyasi and Maddla Appa 

Rao were partitioned among their legal hairs plaintiffs 2,5,8 and 12. The evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 supported with a document registered partition deed dt 2­ 5­2002. It is establishing that the site to an extent of 126.66 sq.,yards with house 

O.S.1565/2009

6 bearing D.No.s 1­1­91/1 and 1­1­91/3 shown as 'A' schedule therein, fell to the share of plaintiff No.12 and another 126.66 sq.yards of site along with house bearing NO. 1­1­91/2 shown as 'C' schedule there in, fell to the share of plaintiffs No.5. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the properties shown as 'A' and 'C' schedules covered in the registered partition deed dt 2­5­2002 Ex.A1. In the plaint schedule all the three D.No. 1­1­91/1,1­1­91/2, and 1­1­91/3 are shown with total extent measuring 234.44 sq,.yrds .

8. The plaintiffs contended that P2 and P5 are children and P.14 is the wife of 

Madala Sanyasi and P8 and P12 are the children of Madala Apaparao . It is further contended that Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the children of P2 , P6, P7 are children of P5, P9 to P11 are children of P8 and P13 is the daughter of P12. 

Plaintiff No.2 died during the pendency of the suit . On his death , his wife P.14 is impleaded in this suit as per the order AI395/12 dt 9­8­2012 . The defendant not denied the relationship of plaintiffs 1 to 14 with Madala Sanyasi and Madla 

Appara. Since there are so many persons of different generation involved this court feel necessary to give the pedigree for better understanding of relations . 

Madala SanyasiMadala Apparao

P2 (S) P5 (S) P8(s) P12(s)

P14 (w)P3(s) P4(s)P6(s) P7 (s)P9(d),P10(s),P11(s)P13(d)

9. The defendants not specifically denied the relationship of plaintiffs 2 to 14 with Madala Sanyasi and M.Apparao. During cross examination of witnesses only the learned counsel for the defendant questioned about the relations stated by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got marked death certificates of two persons as exhibits A18 and 19. Out of which ExA18 is the death certificate of 2nd plaintiff herein stating that he died during pendency of the suit on 17.2.2012 and ExA19 is showing that M.Appa Rao who is father of plaintiffs A10, 12 herein, died on 4.7.2001. The learned counsel for the defendants suggested the witnesses regarding the other legal heirs of Madala Sanyasi and M.Appa Rao. But it is simple suit for injunction, but not for any declaration of title or partition. In this 

O.S.1565/2009

7 suit, there is no dispute between the legal heirs of M.Sanyasi and M.Appa rao with regard to their shares in their ancestral property. Therefore, it is not mandatory to implead all the legal heirs of M.Sanyasi and M.Appa Rao in a suit for bare injunction. On the other hand, the defendants not placed any evidence 

before the court to disprove the relationship between the plaintiffs 2 to 14 with 

M.Sanyasi and M.Appa rao. Pws1to 4 categorically deposed about the relationship between plaintiffs 2 to 14 with M.Sanyasi and M.Appa Rao. Therefore the court has believed that the relationship between plaintiffs 2 to 14 with 

M.Sanyasi and M.Appa Rao as stated by them and as shown in the above family pedigree is true and correct.

10. After comparing the extents and Door Number in Ex.A1 with the present Plaint schedule it is observed that the extent is merely the total of 'A' and 'C' schedules in Ex.A1 and all the Door Numbers referred in 'A' and 'C' schedules of Ex.A1 are tallied if all the three Door Numbers described in the plaint schedule. 

11. The plaintiffs got marked one Rectification Deed as Ex.A2 dt . 19­9­2003 stating that in­portion deed Ex.A1 the boundary to the property was wrongly shown as 2 instead of 3/1 and it was rectified., Ex.A2 is proving that the survey 

No.2 was wrongly shown in Ex.A1 and the same was rectified as 3/1 for the 'A' and 'C' schedules covered in Ex.A1 . As already stated that the total extent and 

Door Numbers of 'A' and 'C' schedule covered in Ex.A1 are tallied with the schedules shown in the plaint. Therefore it is believed that as on the date of filing the suit, the survey numbers of the plaint schedule is 3/1 as rectified under 

Ex.A2 rectification deed dt 19­9­2003.

12. When coming to the boundaries the southern and Northern boundaries of the 'A' and 'C' schedules in Ex.A1 are not tallied with the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule. But the plaintiffs in the plaint itself disclosed about the boundaries in Ex.A1 stating that the Southern and Northern boundaries are wrongly shown in Ex.A1 and subsequently they were rectified by way of registered Rectification Deed . Ex.A3 is the registered rectification deed dt 8­8­

O.S.1565/2009

8 2008 is showing that the Southern and Northern boundaries to 'A' and 'C' schedules in Ex.A1 were wrongly mentioned and they were rectified. In Ex.A3 they are clear recitals to believe that instead of showing Northern boundary, they shown it as Southern boundary and instead of showing Southern boundary they shown it as Northern boundary in Ex.A1. Accordingly the southern and northern boundaries were corrected under Ex.A3. In Ex.A3 after correction rectification of southern and northern boundaries they are North NH­5 road and 

South, boundary wall VUDA and there after the apartment of VUDA. As per the boundaries corrected under rectification deed Ex.A3, the wall on the Southern side of the schedule property is belongs to VUDA and thereafter the apartment belongs to VUDA are existing. But in the plaint schedule , the southern boundary shown as the apartment constructed by only VUDA. The boundaries shown n the plaint schedule, are not completely tailed with the Southern boundary even with the southern boundary shown after correction in rectification deed Ex.A3. 

Therefore it is believed that the Southern boundary shown in the plaint schedule, is not totally correct and instead of showing the boundary wall and apartment of 

VUDA the plaintiff shown only on apartment of VUDA as southern boundary in the plaint schedule . In the suit though the plaintiff pleaded so many aspects regarding source of title and acquisition of plaint schedule property from one generation to another the main dispute is with regard to the wall on the southern side of the plaint schedule .

13. In page No.4 at para f it is mentioned by the plaintiffs that the boundary wall on southern side of the plaint schedule was fell down due to rains and eastern side boundary wall was badly damaged. It is further award by the plaintiffs in the same para that they removed the eastern side compound wall and when they intends to construct compound wall s on southern side and eastern sides of plaint schedule the president and members of the defendant associative raised objection. No where the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint the southern side wall to the plaint schedule property belongs to VUDA on the other hand they intends to erect compound wall on southern side and eastern sides to plaint 

O.S.1565/2009

9 schedule property. As per their own document Ex.A3 the compound wall on the southern side plaint schedule property is constructed by VUDA and it is the compound wall on the northern side of the apartment of VUDA. In these circumstances the plaintiffs have no right or title over the site where the compound wall of VUDA was in existence . Even as per the report of Advocate commissioner there were traces of removed compound wall on southern side and eastern side of the plaint schedule property. As the traced of southerns side compound wall are clearly visible on southern side the plaintiffs not entitled to raise any compound wall on the said traces and they can raise the compound wall only within their site which is only up to the said traces of compound wall on southern side. As per the plaint pleadings and plaint schedule the property of the plaintiff is up to the apartment constructed by VUDA on southern side. Where as the boundaries to the property of plaintiffs in Ex.A1 and A3 the southern side boundary is the compound wall of VUDA and then only apartment of VUDA is referred. Therefore it is believed that the southern side boundary shown in the plaint schedule is not totally correct and simply sown the apartment of VUDA . 

However the extent for which the plaintiffs claiming injunction is not more than the total extent of 'A ' and 'C ' schedules covered in Ex.A1. There is no clear pleading that the plaintiffs intend to construct compound wall at the southern end of their site which is beyond the traces of removed compound wall of VUDA. 

However if the injunction is granted, the plaintiffs can raise compound wall on their southern side only beyond the traces of northern side compound wall of 

VUDA.

14. The following boundaries shown in the plaint schedule to the plaint schedule property 

East : Property belongs to others door no. 1­1­91.

South : VUDA constructed apartments.

West : House of Sri Pentakota Appa Rao. 

North : NH­5 road facing to 100 ft wide road.

15.The defendants pleaded that the boundaries shown in the plaint 

O.S.1565/2009

10 schedule are incorrect and they are wrongly shown by plaintiffs with intend to grab the property of the defendants. The basic document on which the plaintiffs is relying is partition deed dated 02.05.2002 marked as Ex.A1. It is establishing that there was a partition among plaintiffs 2,5, 8 & 12 in which 'A' schedule with door bearing No.1­1­91/1 to an extent of 126.66 sq.yards and 'C 'schedule of the same extent 126.66 sq.yards with door bearing No.1­1­91/2, 1­1­ 91/3 were fell to the share of plaintiffs 5 & 12. As per the contention of the plaintiffs the plaint schedule property is nothing but the 'A' and 'C' schedules covered in the partition deed Ex.A1 dated 2.5.2002. If it is so, the boundaries to the ' A' & 'C' schedules in Ex.A1 should be the same which are shown in the plaint schedule. Therefore, it is necessary to know the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 for 'A' & 'C' schedules therein. After keen observation of the said boundaries , it is found that the same boundaries are shown for 'A' & 'C' schedules inExA1 which are as follows.

East : House bearing Door no. 1­1­91 of others 

South : NH­ 5 road. 

West : The share of 5th plaintiff under same partition. 

North : The boundary wall and Apartment belongs to VUDA.

16. After comparing the above said boundaries shown in Ex.A1 partition deed dt. 2.5.2002 with the plaint schedule boundaries it is found that 

Southern and Northern boundaries are different . But, to satisfy the same the plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint itself, that the southern and northern boundaries are wrongly mentioned in the partition deed Ex.A1 and the same were rectified. 

To support the said contention, the rectification deed dated 8.8.2008 is marked 

ExA3. It is establishing that the southern and northern side boundaries of A & C schedules are wrongly noted in the partition deed ExA1 dated 2.5.2002 i.e. 

southern boundary is noted as northern boundary and northern boundary is noted as southern boundary. Accordingly the boundaries mentioned below are the corrected boundaries to the A& C schedules covered in partition deed ExA1 

dt. 2.5.2002. 

O.S.1565/2009

11

South : The boundary wall belongs to VUDA and thereafter their apartment.

North :NH 5 road.

17. Finally, the contention of the plaintiffs is that the boundaries rectified in rectification deed ExA3 are the correct boundaries to the property fell to the share of the plaintiffs 5 & 12 under partition deed Ex.A1 dt. 2.5.2002. But this court after tallying the corrected boundaries in ExA3 with the plaint schedule boundaries found that the southern boundary is not totally correct. After correction of boundaries under ExA3, the southern boundary to the property is “wall belongs to VUDA and thereafter their construction”. Where as in the plaint schedule the plaintiffs shown only the apartment constructed by VUDA on southern side. No doubt, the plaintiffs pleaded that the wall on the southern side of the plaint schedule was fell down due to heavy rains. If the wall is collapsed there should be a vacant site on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and thereafter the apartment of VUDA. As per ExA3 the wall of the VUDA is on southern side of the property succeeded by the plaintiffs. If it is so, the apartment of the VUDA is not on the edge of the plaintiffs property on southern side. After falling of said wall it became a vacant site between the plaintiffs property and apartment of the VUDA. But the plaintiffs shown the 

Southern boundary as apartment of VUDA directly as if, there is no vacant site belongs to VUDA existing in between their property and apartment belongs to 

VUDA. 

18. In the plaint para 'f' it is simply mentioned that the southern side wall of the plaint schedule was collapsed due to heavy rains, as if the said wall belongs to plaintiffs and it is part and parcel of the property succeeded by the plaintiffs. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are having separate compound wall on their southern side and a separate compound wall belongs to 

VUDA is existing adjacent to their compound wall. The plaint pleadings are silent with regard to whom the collapsed compound wall belongs to. But plain reading of plaint pleadings revealing that there is only one compound wall on the Southern side of plaint schedule belongs to plaintiffs and it was collapsed due 

O.S.1565/2009

12 to heavy rains. On the other hand, the plaintiffs clearly pleaded that he intends to raise compound wall on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and the defendant is objecting for the same. There is no clear pleading as to what happened to the compound wall of the VUDA referred in ExA3. It is also not the case of the plaintiffs that the Southern side of compound wall belongs to VUDA referred in ExA3 was collapsed and they intends to construct a separate compound wall on their side beyond the traces of the collapsed compound wall belongs to VUDA. The pleadings with regard to the Southern side compound wall are inconsistent and incomplete.

19. As per the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under Agreement to Sale cum irrevocable GPA dated 27.09.2008 from plaintiffs 2 to 14. ExA4 is the said document showing that the first plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from the plaintiffs 2 to 13. But in ExA4 also the Southern boundary is shown as the apartments belongs to VUDA without referring about the compound wall belongs to VUDA. The link documents ExA1 to ExA3 are referring the southern boundary as compound wall belongs to VUDA and thereafter the apartment of VUDA. But in Ex.A4 agreement of sale cum irrevocable GPA dt. 27.09.2008, directly the apartment belongs to VUDA is shown as southern side boundary. The first plaintiff pleaded that he obtained the signatures of all the legal heirs of M.Sanyasi and M.Appa 

Rao on ExA4. But PW2 admitted in his cross examination that both M.Sanyasi and M.Appa rao having girl children. He further deposed that their daughters did not sign on partition deed ExA1. PW3 deposed that GPA was executed by 6th and 7th plaintiffs in his favour and it was registered in ESA. He again stated that it was not registered in Sub ­registrar's office in India. There is no proof filed by the plaintiffs before the court to believe that 6th and 7th plaintiffs gave power of attorney to the PW3 to execute ExA4 on their behalf. PW3 further admitted that the three daughters of M.Sanyasi, and four daughters of M.Appa Rao did not execute power of attorney in his favour or in favour of 1st plaintiff. He also deposed that the daughters of Sanyasi and Appa rao did not sign on ExA4. The 

O.S.1565/2009

13 plaintiffs failed to establish the actual extent of property with specific boundaries on four sides in their possession.

20. The photographs filed along with report of commissioner are simply showing the physical features and basing on those photographs, the court cannot decide the rights of the parties and the actual extents available on ground. 

ExA1 to ExA4, ExA13, ExA18 & ExA19 are already discussed above. When coming to the other documents, ExA5 to ExA7 are the property tax books for the house bearing door no 1­1­91/1, 1­1­91/2, 1­1­91/3 respectively. But those documents are not showing any extent or boundaries to the property for which they were issued. ExA8 to ExA10 are the property tax receipts for the same door numbers which are also silent with regard to the extent and boundaries in dispute. ExA11 and 12 are the electrical bills and receipts, in which only S.C.no. 

is referred without any extent and boundaries to the property. Similarly ExA11 and ExA12 are the electricity bills basing on which the court cannot decide the extent and boundaries which are in dispute and also the possession of the plaintiffs over a particular extent of property.

21. ExA14 is the letter dt.13.05.2005 said to have been addressed by 

VUDA to the plaintiffs informing that the land to an extent of 10 cents covered in 

S.No.3/1A of Venkojipalem village not acquired by VUDA and the same was eliminated from the acquisition award No.13/80 dated 30.10.1980. But no copy of such award number 13/80 dated 30.10.1980 is filed by the plaintiff before the court to connect the same with the letter ExA14. The plaintiffs filed only award 

No. 7/92 dt.30.4.1992 as ExA13. The plaintiff failed to explain in what way 

ExA14 is supporting their case to establish the extent and boundaries to the property for which they are claiming relief in this suit.

22. Ex.A15 is the served copy of caveat petition filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs. In the said petition it is alleged by the defendants that the plaintiffs entered into the property of their association and tried to make altercations to their compound wall on their Northern side. The said mentioning at page No. 2 para 'C' of ExA15 by defendant is establishing that the property of 

O.S.1565/2009

14 the defendant is covered with a compound wall and plaintiffs themselves tried to make altercations within the compound wall of the defendants and the same was submitted to the court by way of caveat petition. All other remaining documents 

ExA16, ExA17, ExA20 to 28 are only regarding identity of the plaintiffs, dues towards property tax and corresponding letters from APDCL are not relevant to be discuss further, since the plaintiffs failed to describe the plaint schedule properly with specific extent and boundaries. Mainly, the southern side and eastern side boundaries on which the plaintiffs intents to construct compound wall are wrongly shown by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the elaborate discussion on the remaining documents, ExA16, 17, 20 to 28 have no much importance. 

23.Though, the plaintiff shown the entire property in plaint schedule , the dispute is only with regard to the southern boundary and eastern boundary. 

The plaintiffs intends to raise a compound wall on the southern side of the plaint schedule. But the pleadings as well as the evidence placed by the plaintiffs is inconsistent and ambiguous to arrive at a correct decision with regard to rights of the plaintiffs to raise a compound wall on southern side of plaint schedule. In order to claim injunction the property should be described with specific extent and boundaries. Even as per the evidence of witnesses the total extent of their ancestral property of plaintiffs 2 to 4 was 253.32 sq.yards and the extent shown in the plaint schedule is only 234.44 sq.yards, 1st plaintiff ( PW1) admitted that the total extent of property belongs to his vendors was 253.32sq.yards and he purchased only 234.44sq.yards. PW1 deposed that 3 cents of site was acquired under land acquisition from his vendors. Though the proceedings awarding compensation is marked as ExA13 dt.30.4.1992, there is no specification with regard to the extent of land acquired from the vendors of the PW1. PW1 simply deposed that at the time of purchase he got measured the site and found it is only 234.44sq.yards,but no document filed before the court to prove the same. 

There is no specific mention regarding extent of site acquired out of the entire property of ancestors of plaintiffs 2 to 14. PW2 also admitted that they did not 

O.S.1565/2009

15 file any documentary proof showing the actual extent owned by their fore fathers and a portion of land acquired under land acquisition. Plaintiff No. 12 (Pw3) admitted in his cross examination that there is no document showing total extent of land belongs to M.Sanyasi and M.Appa Rao, in survey No. 3/1 and in old survey No.3. He further admitted that there is no mention of actual land, acquired under land acquisition and the rest of the land left for the ancestors of the plaintiffs 2 to 14 in the award copy ExA13.

24. In this case an Advocate Commissioner is appointed as per orders in I.A. 551/10 and he filed the report on 28.10.2011. An advocate commissioner filed photos and CD along with his report. He mentioned the southern boundary to plaint schedule as VUDA constructed apartments. It is clear that the compound wall belongs to VUDA which was on the southern side of plaint schedule was not in existence at the time of visit of the commissioner. If it is so, the compound wall belongs to VUDA which was referred in the link documents 

ExA1 to ExA3 was collapsed and the plaintiffs intends to raise a compound wall on his southern side. As per the own pleadings of the plaintiffs the traces of collapsed compound wall on southern side are existing. The Advocate 

Commissioner is also mentioned in his report that he found the traces of removed compound wall on southern side and eastern sides. If it is so the plaintiffs are not entitled to raise compound wall on the site where the earlier existing compound wall was existing.

25. When coming to the survey numbers the plaintiff shown sy.No.2 as old survey and survey No. 3/1 as new Survey Number in the plaint schedule. 

In the basic document partition deed dated 2.5.2002, the Survey Number to the 'A' & 'C' schedules is referred as Survey No.2. They themselves pleaded that the survey No referred in ExA1 was wrongly shown and the same was rectified by way of Rectification Deed dated 19.9.2003, No doubt, the rectification deed 

ExA2 dated 19.9.2003 is showing that the survey No.2 was referred wrongly in 

ExA1 and the same was rectified as 3/1. If it is so, the said corrected survey No. 

3/1 should be referred in subsequent documents. ExA3 is the subsequent 

O.S.1565/2009

16

Rectification deed dated 8.8.2008 filed by the plaintiffs, stating that the 

Northern and Southern boundaries were rectified, but the same survey No.2 which was referred in ExA1, is mentioned in ExA3 also. PW3 admitted in his cross examination that the new survey number is not mentioned in Rectification deed ExA3 dt.8.8.2008. There is inconsistency with regard to the survey actual number of the plaint schedule property, as per their own documents ExA1 to 

ExA3. 

26. As already noted above the plaintiffs claiming injunction to restrain the defendant from raising objection to construct compound walls on Southern and 

Eastern sides of plaint schedule property. The aforesaid discussion is with regard to the Southern side boundary and found that the plaintiff not shown the 

Southern side boundary correctly and failed to establish that on his own site he is going to raise construction of southern side compound wall. Therefore on the vague pleas without evidence the plaintiffs cannot claim injunction to restrain the defendants from raising objection to construct compound wall on southern side of the plaint schedule property. 

27. When coming to the other dispute i.e. the Eastern side boundary, 

The point for consideration is 'whether the plaintiff shown the correct Eastern boundary of the plaint schedule. In all the documents ExA1 to ExA3 the Eastern side boundary to the plaint schedule is shown as the house bearing No. 1­1­91 belongs to others. In the plaint schedule the same boundary i.e. house bearing door no. 1­1­91 of others is referred. Whether it is correct boundary physically existing on ground is in controversy. As per the contention of the defendant , the Eastern boundary to the plaint schedule property is the property of the defendant. PW1(plaintiff no.1) himself admitted in his cross examination that the property bearing No. 1­1­91 is not in existence on ground. He further admitted that towards East of their property, the site of the defendant is situated. 

PW2 deposed that there is a road on Eastern side of their property leads to defendants property. It is pertinent to note that an Advocate Commissioner also filed his report stating that the Eastern boundary to the plaint schedule property 

O.S.1565/2009

17 on ground , is vacant site and thereafter a gate opening into Lavakusa 

Apartment. The clear admissions made by PW 1, 2 and the report of the 

Advocate Commissioner clearly establishing that there is no such property bearing door No. 1­1­91 shown in the plaint schedule, is physically existing on ground on the Eastern side. Therefore, it can be said that the Eastern side boundary to the plaint schedule shown by the plaintiffs is incorrect.

28. Though PWs 1 to 4 examined , the first three witnesses PWs 1 to 3 admitted about the incorrect boundaries shown in the plait schedule towards 

South and Eastern side. PW4 during cross examination admitted that he do not know who filed this suit , against whom and he do not know the total extent of property , the possession and enjoyment of 1st plaintiff. No doubt, the defendants in this suit not adduced evidence either oral or documentary in support of the pleas in his written statement. But it is settled principle of law that the parties who wishes the court to believe their case , has to establish their own case with cogent and sufficient evidence and should not depend on the weakness of the case. In the present case, though the plaintiffs got examined 4 witnesses and marked ample documents, they are not establishing their specific case with regard to southern, eastern boundaries, extent and the possession over the plaint schedule property. Therefore,simply on the ground that the defendant failed to adduce any evidence plaintiffs cannot claim the relief of injunction. 

29. In view of the above stated reasons, it is believed the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the plaint schedule property. Therefore,they are not entitled to an equitable relief of injunction. Accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiffs.

In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs. 

 Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly in system, typed by her, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the open court, on the 31st day of July, 2013.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

O.S.1565/2009

18

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witness examined Plaintiffs: Pw1: Sriram Ravi Chandar. Pw2: M.Narasinga Rao. Pw3: M. Govinda Raju. Pw4: S.Dhanamjai Defendant: NIL.

 No of documents marked

Plaintiffs:  Ex.A1: Registered extract partition deed dt 2­5­2002. Ex.A2: Registered extract rectification deed dt 19­9­2003. Ex.A3: Registered extract rectification deed dt 8­8­2008. EX.A4: Registered agreement sale with irrevocable General power of attorney. dt 27­9­2008. Ex.A5: Photograph of property tax pass book for D.No. 1­1­91/1. Ex.A6: Photograph of property tax pass book for D.No. 1­1­91/2. Ex.A7: Photograph of property tax pass book for D.No. 1­1­91/3. Ex.A8: original property tax receipt issued by E.Seva for D.no. 1­1­91/1, dt 9­12­2009. Ex.A9: original property tax receipt issued by E.Seva for D.no. 1­1­91/2, dt 9­12­2009. 

Ex.A10: original property tax receipt issued by E.Seva for D.no. 1­1­91/3, dt 9­12­2009. Ex. A11: Original electricity bill together with receipt dt 26­10­2009. Ex.A12: original electricity bill together with receipt dt 25­11­2009. Ex.A13: CC of award No. 7/92, dt 30­4­92, passed by land acquisition officer and Spl.Dy. Collector national High ways,. Visakhapatnam. Ex.A14: letter bearing R.C.No. 21423/OS/15.dt 13­5­2005 address by VUDA to 8th plaintiff.. Ex.A15: Served copy of caveat petition filed by present defendant against plaintiff . Ex.A16: original service certificate issued by the customs house, Visakhapatnam dt 16­10­ 2012. Ex.A17: Original service certificate issued by the customs house Visakhapatnam. Ex.A18: Death certificates issued by GVMC VSP dt 26­9­2012 Ex.A19: Death certificates issued by GVMC VSP dt14­8­2012. Ex.A20: Photo copy of international driving license issued by the Govt of A.P to the Fifth plaintiff dt 20­7­2012. Ex.A.21: Photo copy of pass port issued to the fifth plaintiff. Ex.A22: letter from EPPCL & AP Ltd, dt 19­10­2012. Ex.A23: No due certificate issued by GVMC along with endorsed dt 5­10­2012. EX.A24: No due certificate issued by GVMC along with endorsed dt 5­10­2012. Ex.A25: No due certificate issued by GVMC along with endorsed dt 5­10­2012. Ex.A26: Photo copy of certificate of competency . EX.A27: Identity card issued by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Ex.A28: Identify card issued by the Visakha container Terminal Pvt.Ltd., Defendant: NIL

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. WEDNESDAY, THE 31stDAY OF JULY,2013.

O.S.1565/2009

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Ram Rvi Chander S/o. S.J.Prasad,Hindu, aged 36 years, residing at flat No.G.R.5, Meridian Seashells Apartments, Seashells enclave, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sri. Maddala Babu Rao, sice died S/o M.Sanyasi Hindu, aged 57 years, resident of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem,Visakhapatnam.

3. Sri.Maddala Appala Raju, S/o. M. Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, resient of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. *(Amended as per orders in I.A 549/10 dt 2­8­2010.) *(Amended as per orders inIA 395/2012 dt 9­8­2012)

4. Sri. Maddala Appa Rao, S/o. M.Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 32 years, resident of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

5. Sri. Maddala Govinda Raju, S/o.late M.Sanyasi, Hindu,a ged 47 years, resident of D.No. 54­8­1, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

6. Sri. Maddala Bhanu S/o. M.Govinda Raju, Hindu, aged 25 years, residing at 504, Sand Broad CT, Wester Ville, Ohio­43081.

7. Sri.Maddala Padmakar S/o. M.Govinda Raju, Hindu, aged 22 years, residing t 504, Sand Broad CT, Wester Ville, Ohio­43081

8. Sri, Maddla Narasinga rao S/o. Late M.Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, resident of D .No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

9. Smt Vegi Sujatha D/o. M.Narasinga Rao, Hindu aged 28 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

10. Sri. Maddala Bhaskara Rao S/o. M.Narasinga Rao, Hindu aged 23 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

11. Sri. Maddala Sanyasi Rao S/o. M.Narasinga Rao, Hindu aged 21 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New 

Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

12. Sri. Maddala Sivanandam S/o. Late . M.Appa rao, Hindu aged 28 years, resident of D.No. 1­6­9, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

13. Kum. Maddala Pavani D/o. M. Sivanandam, Hindu, aged 10 years, resident to D.No. 1­6­7, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. (Petitioners 2 to 13 are being represented by their agent and GPA Holder Sri.Sriram Ravichander, the first plaintiff herein and also as friend for 13th planitiff who is a minor) …PLAINTIFFS AND Lava Kusha VUDA HIG Apartment Allottees Welfare Association a registered society, represented by its president Sri. K. Satyanarayana, fathers name not known to the plaintiffs , Hindu, aged about 60 years, HIG­4, New Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam­5300017.

... DEFENDANT. 

This suit is filed by the plaintiff’s against the defendant for Permanent Injunction in­respect of plaint schedule site. Value of he suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is of Rs. 10,000/­ is paid and court fee 786/­ u/s. 26(c) Art.I(b) and © of Sch.I of APCF and SV Act. This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 11­7­2013 in the presence of Sri.Rao & Rajan, Advocate for the Plaintiffs 1 to 13 and of Sri Ch.R.Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and 

DECREE

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. that there be no costs. ( copy of schedule is hereby attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on the 31st day of July, 2013.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENANT

No costs memo filed on either side.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. FRIDAY, THE 30TH ­DAY OF AUGUST,2013

O.S. 577/2010

BETWEEN:

1. Mohammed Shafi, S/o. Late Peer Ahmed, Muslim, aged 44 years, R/o. D.No. 38­4­96, Maharani Street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mohammed Shabbir, S/o. Late Peer Ahmed, Muslim, aged 38 years, R/o D.No. 38­4­96, Maharani Street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. … PLAINTIFFS AND

1. Dadi Anu Radha, W/o. D.Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, R/o. D.No. 38­31­17, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. D.Eswara Rao, S/o. Late Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 543 years. R/o D.No.38­31­17, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

... DEFENDANTS 

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 24­7­2013 in the presence of Sri.P.V.Reddy Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri J.V.Prema Sai, Advocate for the defendants, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, officials and agents from interfering with the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment over plaint schedule property . 

The brief averments of plaint are that originally P.Ahmed was the absolute owner of 

Ac 1.28 cents in survey No.99/1B and 32 ½ cents in 99/1B. The ancestors of 

P.Ahmed acquired the property by way of registered sale deed document 

No.892/1930. The said properties were partitioned among his family members . In the said partition said P.Ahmed was allotted the property to an 2 extent of AC 1.22 cent sand 32 cents in survey No.99/1B. During his life time said 

P.Ahmed executed a registered will dt.26­5­1986 infavour of his wife , two sons and 4 daughters .The plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein are the sons of said 

P.Ahmed. The said P.Ahmed died on leaving behind his wife and children . 

The mother of the plaintiffs died interstate on 20­1­2008 leaving behind the plaintiff's herein and 4 daughters. As per the will dt 26­5­1986 'A' schedule property to an extent of Ac 1.28 cents fell to the share of the plaintiff's and their mother .The old survey No.99/1B of the said AC 1.28 cents is 99/1E and new survey is No.99/1 E. The plaintiff's and their mother sold the entire extent of 28 cents . Finally they sold the plot No.3 to an extent of 255 sq.yards in new survey No.91/1 B, infavour of D1 by executing possessory agreement of sale – cum GPA.dt. 25­3­2000. Again the survey No.99/1D was re surveyed as 99/1E. The boundaries & extents to the property covered in the said possessory agreement of sale ­cum GPA, are specifically mentioned in the petition. They are 

East : The land belongs to Sheik Ansari

South : 20 feet road 

West : Remaining vacate land of the plaintiffs in Plot No. 3A

North : 20 feet road.

 The measurements are :

From East to west 30 feet or 9.14 meters.

From North to South 76.6 feet or 23.31 meters.

Total Measurements:

30x 76.6 = 255. 33.sq.yards. 9 Subsequently D1 executed a registered gift deed on 13­8­2009 infavour of her husband I.e D2 herein. But in the sad gift deed the boundaries are changed particularly the western boundary is plot No. 3 A of the plaintiffs to an extent of 133 sq.yards. But D1 shown plot No.s 4 & 5. Instated of plot No.3 with a malafied intention to grab the remaining land in plot No.3A of plaintiffs. 

3

The 1st defendant also shown the incorrect extents in the said gift deed. The boundaries and measurements referred in the gift deed are entirely different from the original document of the D1. He is trying to grab 9 feet width from 

East to West of the plaint schedule property. D1 also trying to grab the southern side road up to 2 ½ feet length un­authorizedly . The plaintiffs intents to sell the remaining site in plot No.3 A shown as plaint schedule property to one A. Sambasiva rao . On 10­7­2009 the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale . After executing the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff's along with the said Sambasiva rao went to the plaint schedule property and came to know that the defendants are trying to grab the eastern side portion of the plaint schedule property . Then plaintiff's filed a caveat petition 19­9­2009 before the Hon'ble 

Principal Junior Civil Judge. The plaintiff's also lodged a complaint before the 

police on 19­10­2009 against the defendants. The 1st defendant has no right to execute the Gift Deed by changing the actual measurements extent and boundaries shown in the original document. The defendant created false documents and trying to grab the eastern side portion of the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

The averments of the written statement filed by the 2 nd defendant

3.

are that all the main and material made in plaint are that not true and correct. It is submitted that the infacto there is no such plot No.3 A to an extent of 133 sq,yards to existing on ground. The plaintiff have no right and locus standi to seek equatable relief of permanent injunction . The plaint is self scribed document invented only for the purpose of filing the suit. At the time of execution of agreement of sale­cum GPA, the 1st plaintiff and her mother stated that they are having some site on westerns side of schedule covered in the document dt 22­3­2000 . Accordingly they mentioned western side boundary as flat No.3 A as on the date of execution of said agree –sum—GPA dt 22­3­2000. There is no dispute with regard to the entire land to an extent of Ac 1.64 cents in T.S No.s 99/1,90/2,90/2 of Maripallam village. The father of the 1st plaintiff P.Ahmed filed writ petition of 19324 of 97 under land ceiling and other cases on the file of 

Hon'ble High court of AP. The same was disclosed at the time of executing the 

4 document infavour of D1. Like wise the remaining extent also alienated to various individuals by suppressing the court litigations. Subsequently all the purchars impleded in the said writ petition. On merits the said writ petition was allowed on 15­3­2007 and quashing the proceedings of ULC Authority in CC 

No.3 (4) /6/(1) 2863/76 dt 23­3­1996 and as confirmed by orders in C C.No. VSP 44/96 dt.28­1­97 of the Commissioner Land Reforms and ULC, Hyderabad. 

During the pendency of said writ petition all the purchasers including D1 filed applications before VUDA for their regulations basing on the GOMS NO. 455 dt.29­7­2002. The same was forward to the special officer,Visakhapatnam. D1 paid Rs.1,17,000/­ to the ULC, Visakhaptnam and the same was acknowledged by ULC. Thereafter the Government issued a fresh G.O.No. 845 dt 9­7­2008 directing the concerned authorities to incorporate the names of the allot tees(10) in Revenue Registration and survey record. Subsequently a special surveyor of 

Urban Land Ceilings, Visakhapatnam made survey of the property covered by 

S.No.s 99/1A.991B. 99./1.C and 99/1E. The boundaries also fixed for the respective plots. As per the said survey the boundaries to the plot No.3 are 

East: House bearing D. No. 38­38­87/8.

South: 20 feet road

West : Plot No.s 4 &5.

North: 20 feet Road. 

The measurements of the property of the defendants are from 

East to West : 59 feet

North to South : 39 feet.

The total extent is 255. sq.yard. There are total 11 plots . As per the said survey, there is no plot No. 3A existing on ground. D1 executed registered 

Gift Settlement dt 13­8­2009 infavour of D2 by mentioning the existing boundaries . There is no change of boundaries while executing the said Gift 

Settlement deed. The defendants never tried to encroach any site from East to 

West or Northern site of their property. The suit is filed only to grab the property of the defendants The plaintiff's never entered in to in any agreement with 5 alleged Smbasiva rao for alleged sale of the plaint schedule property therefore the suit may be dismissed.

4. Basing upon the strength of pleadings of respective parties, the following issues are settled for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent injunction as prayed for ? ii) To what relief?

5 .  The plaintiff Pw1 to 3 are examined and got marked Ex. A1 to A10, and respondent are examined as Dw1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B6 and Ex.X1 to 3 on their behalf. 

6. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

7. Issue No.1: The plaintiff claiming permanent Injunction in­respect of plaint schedule property describing it as the vacant land to an extent of 133 sq.yards in survey NO. 99.D (Old) and survey No.991E(New) in plot No. 3 A of Marripalem village, Visakhaptnam. The plaintiff's contending that their father P.Ahmed was the absolute owner of the land to an extent of AC 1.28 cents in Survey No.99/1B in 32 of cents in survey No.99/ 1B which was acquired in a partition among his brothers. The plaintiff's further contended that their father P. Ahmed executed a registered will dt 26­5­1986. bequeathing his properties to his wife , two sons(plaintiffs herein )and four daughters. Though it is suit for bear injunction, for better understanding of the case regrading source of title, this court feel necessary to discuss about the contention of the plaintiffs with regard to their source of title over the plaint schedule property as per their pleadings in the plaint. They pleaded that their father P.Ahmed died in interstate on 1­1­1999 and after on his death the plaintiffs and their mother became absolute owners of the 'A' schedule referred in the will dt 26­5­86 i.e the land to an extent of AC 1.28 cents in survey No.99 1/B (old) and survey No. 99 1/B (New). The death certificate Ex.A2 marked by the plaintiff's is showing that their father P.Ahmed died on 1­1­1999. The plaintiff's got marked the copy of the will dt.26­5­1986 as 

Ex.A1. As per the contention of the plaintiff Ex.A1 is the will executed by their father P. Ahmed bequeathing AC 1.28 cents to them and their mother and the present plaint schedule is part and parcel of the ' A' schedule shown in the will 6

Ex.A1 dt 26­5­86. But the court cannot rely on Ex.A1 will dt 26­5­1986 , unless the mandatory requirement under section 68 of Indian Evidence Act is satisfied. 

As per sec 68 of the said Act the pro­pounder of the will has to examine at least one attestor of the will . Sec 68 of the Indian evidence Act reads as follows.

 If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving execution , if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908,(16 of 1908) , unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. 

Sec 63 of the succession Act 1925 provided that when the parties relied on will, the burden lies on the pro­pounder of the will to establish that the attestor had executed the will. Sec 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act 1925 says “ the will shall be attested by the two or more witnesses, each of whom has been seen the attestors sign or affix is mark to the will or has been some other person sign the will in the presence and by the direction of the testator,m or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature off such other person. And each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary”

It is clear that the will shall be attested by atleast two witness and one attesting witnesses at least shall be examined for the purpose of proving the execution. In this suit, the plaintiffs simply filed the will Ex.A1 dt. 26­ 5­1986 but failed to examine atleast one attestor witness which is a mandatory requirement to prove it's execution. No doubt the respondents not denying the source of title of the plaintiffs of their properties . The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that since the execution of will Ex.A1 dt 26­5­1986 and source of 7 title of the plaintiff's is admitted by the other side, there is no need for the plaintiffs to prove it's execution. But the will is a document which cannot be simply relied on it's filing like other documents and the proof of the will is a crucial point to be determined the court before relied on it. Simply on the ground that the other side not denied the execution of the will, the court cannot rely unless it is proved . Admittedly the plaintiff's failed to examine at least one attesting witness to prove its execution. Therefore the court cannot relied on Ex.A.1. 

8. The plaintiffs further contended that they and their mother jointly sold their property to different purchasers including the site to an extent of 255 sq.yards in plot No. 3 to D1. The defendants are not denying the ownership of plaintiffs and their mother over 255 sq,yards in plot No. 3 sold to D1 by way of possessory agreement of sale cum GPA document No.518 of 2000 dt 25­3­2000. 

As per the averments at para 'h' of the plaint , still the plaintiff's are having 133 sq yards shown as plaint schedule, on westerns side of the 255 sq.yards in plot 

NO. 3 sold to D1. But there are inconsistent pleas in the plaint itself . When we read para 'g' in page No. 3 of the plaint it is found that there is a specific mention stating that the plaintiffs and their mother already sold the entire extent and finally sold away the site to an extent of 255 sq.yard in plot NO.3 in survey no. 

991D re surveyed as 99/1E infavour of D1 by way of Possessory sale­ agreement of GPA. After plain reading para of 'g in page No3 of the plaint , one can understand that the plaintiffs and their mother sold the entire property to difference purchasers and lostly they sold the 255 sq.yards in plot No.3 to D1.

But in the subsequent para' h'' f' the plaint it is mentioned that the defendants are trying to grab their remaining land i.e plaint schedule property. Therefore it can be said that the pleadings at para 'g' and 'h' are inconsistent .

9. Irrespective of the inconsistent pleadings, the over all contention of the plaintiff is that still they are having the plaint, schedule property to an extent of 133 sq.yards in plot NO.3 A on western side of the property sold to D1. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff's and their mother jointly sold 255 sq.yards in plot 

NO. 3 in survey No. 99/1D under possessory agreement of sale ­cum GPA document No. 518 /2000 dt 25­3­2000. The plaintiff not filed any copy of the said 8 document No. 518 dt 25­3­2000. But the defendant marked the original possessory agreement of sale ­cum GPA dt 25­3­2000 as Ex.B3. Ex.B3 is establishing the undisputed sale of 255 sq yards in plot No.3 of Survey No. 99/1D by plaintiff's and their mother jointly infavour of D1. It is also an admitted fact that 

D1 gifted the property covered under Ex.B3 to her husband D2, by way of registered Gift Settlement deed dt 13­8­2009 under Ex.B4. The defendants denying the Existence of the plaint schedule property, on the western side of the property covered under Ex.B3 and B4. When the existence of property is in dispute the primary burden lies on the plaintiff's to establish the existence of the plaint schedule property and then to prove their possession over the same. The plaintiff's contended that the document Ex.B3 of the defendants itself revealing the existence of their remaining property on westerns side and the defendants while executing he Gift Settlement deed Ex.B4, changed the western side boundary intentionally to grab the plaint schedule property . Therefore it is necessary to compare the plaint schedule boundaries with the boundaries referred in Ex.B3 and B4.

A.: The boundaries to the plaint schedule referred in plaint, are 

East :the land sold by the plaintiffs to D1 south 20 feet road 

West : land belongs to Ammthalli land and Mamata Pradhan. 

North : 10 feet road.

B) he boundaries shown in Ex.B3 possessory agreement ­cum GPA dt 25­3­ 2000 are 

East: site of Skake Ansri.

South: 20 feet road.

West : plot No. 3 lo Matha luka megatha Bhoomi.

North : 20 feet road. 

C) The boundaries shown in the registered Gift Settlement deed dt B4 dt 13­8­ 2009 executed by D1 infavour of D2 in respect of 255 sq.yards in plot No.3 are 

East : House bearing No. 38­38­87/8.

South : 20­ feet road.

West: plot no. 4 and 5.

9

North : 20 feet road. 

After comparing the boundaries referred above, it is observed that the plaintiffs while selling the 255 sq,yards in plot No. 3 to D1, referred the western side boundary in Ex.,B3 as Maa Taluka Migatha Bhoomi

But no where the entire extent of site in plot No. 3 is mentioned in Ex.B3. At the same time, the extent of remaining site on western site is also not mentioned while describing the boundaries to subject matter covered in Ex.B3. On the other hand the plaintiffs taken specific plea that the 133 sq.yards in plot No. 3 renumbered as plot No.3 A. But no piece of evidence placed before the court to prove that a portion of plot No.3 is sub divided as plot No. 3 A. Pw1. during his cross examination admitted that there are no documents showing the existence of Plot 3 A. Basing on the boundaries referred in Ex.B3, the plaintiff contending that still he is having 133 sq.yards in plot No. 3 and on the other hand he described the plaint schedule as 133 sq.yards in plot No. 3 A. As per the recitals in Ex.B.3 the site in plot no.3 was in survey No. 99 /1B. Therefore the rest of he land if any in the said plot No.3 should be in the same survey No. 99/1D. But in the plaint schedule it is mentioned that the site to an extent of 133 sq,yards is in servery No.99/1D ( old) and 99 /1 E (new) . The plaintiff failed to prove that the survey No. 99/1D was re numbered as survey No. 99 /1E.

12.No doubt in the gift deed Ex.B4 the western boundary is shown as plot No. 4 and 5 which is not referred in Ex.B3. But the defendants got marked other documents executed by the plaintiff and their mother showing plot No. 4 and 5 on western side of the plot No. 3 , in support of their pleas. 

Admittedly the possessory agreement ­cum GPA executed by plaintiffs and their mother infavour of Ammathalli Naidu in respect of 89 sq.yards in plot No. 4. As per the contention of the defendants plot No.s 4 and 5 are existing on western side of plot No. 3 and there is no plot No. 3 A in between plot No. 3 and plot No. 

4 & 5. In Ex.B1 the eastern side boundary to the plot NO. 4 is shown as plot No. 

3 . In these circumstances the plaintiff have to establish that in between the site in plot No.3 sold to D1 and plot No.4 sold to Ammathalli naidu, the present plaint schedule in plot No. 3A is existing. But the plaintiff not placed any piece of 10 evidence to prove the same and at least never chosen to take steps to appoint an advocate commissioner to bring the ground realities to the light of the court. 

The other document possessory agreement of sale­ cum ­GPA dt 2­12­1999 

Ex.B5 got marked by the defendants in their support. Ex.B5 is admittedly the document executed by plaintiffs and their mother infavour of Mamtha Pradhan in respect of 89 sq,yards in plot No.5. After verifying the boundaries referred 

Ex.B5 , it is observed that the plaintiffs shown the eastern side boundary to plot 

No.5 as plot No. 3. The comparative reading of boundaries shown in Ex.B1 and 

B5, the court can say that the eastern boundary to the both plot No. 4 and 5 , is plot No.3 only, but not plot No. 3A as alleged by the plaintiffs. If any western side portion of plot No.3, is renumbered as plot No. 3­A it should be established by the plaintiffs with cogent evidence. But no such evidence is adduced by the plaintiff . Pw1 himself admitted that there is no document showing allotment of 

Plot No. 3 A any portion of site in plot No.3. Pw2 also admitted that they did not file any document showing existence of plot No. 3A. 

13.In the plaint at para No. ' I ' it is pleaded by the plaintiff's that they intended to sell the plaint schedule property to one A .Sambasiva Rao and executed an agreement of sale on 10­7­2009 . It is further averred in the same para that after executing the said agreement of sale, they along with Sambasiva 

Rao went to plaint schedule property and came to know that the defendants trying to grab the plaint schedule property . As per the plaint averments the plaintiff already entered in to an agreement of sale by executing agreement on 10­7­2009 with Sambvashiva Rao. The plaintiff got examined said Sambasiva 

Rao as Pw3. His chief examination affidavit is totally silent with regard to the agreement of sale dt 10­7­2009 referred in the plaint, It is also not mentioned that Pw3 accompanied plaintiffs to the plaint schedule property and came to know about the alleged attempts by defendants to grab the plaint schedule property . The contents in chief affidavit of Pw.3 are not supporting the relevant portion of the plaint pertaining to alleged agreement of sale between plaintiffs and Pw.3 on 10­7­2009. On the other hand Pw.3 himself admitted in his cross examination that he did not file any document before the court relating to plaint 11 schedule property . He further deposed that he did not file any document relating to sale of remaining plot No. 3A in his favour as stated at para No. ' i' of the plaint. Pw.3 deposed that there is an agreement executed in the name of his wife and one Tharakeswara rao by the plaintiff's. But the extent of the said property as per own version of Pw.3 is 2000 and Odd sq.,yards approximately. 

Therefore the alleged agreement in the name of wife of Pw.3 and Tharakeswara rao is not in­respect of the plaint schedule 133 sq.yards in plot No. 3A. 

14.The defendants taken a specific plea that Pw3 is behind the plaintiff's for filing this suit. The learned counsel of defendants suggested Pw1 about Pw3 and the alleged agreement in­respect of plaint schedule property. 

During cross examination Pw3 voluntary deposed that Pw1 have no knowledge about the sale and he never came to the site . He further deposed that he sold out the property by flatting the same after they purchased about 2000 sq,yards in lumsum from 1st plaintiff. The plaintiff's or Pw3 not filed the any document showing purchase of about 2000 sq,yards in lumsum.

15.As per the contention of the plaintiffs the western side boundary referred in the Gift Settlement deed Ex.B4 dt 13­8­2009 is incorrect. 

But they never taken any steps challenging the Ex.B4. The documents 

Ex.B1,B5 and X1 executed by the plaintiffs themselves disclosing that on western side of plot No.3, the plot Nos 4 & 5 are located. There is no document filed by the plaints to establish that the total extent of plot NO.3 is 388 sq.yards and out of 388 sq. yards the western side 133 sq,yards in plot No.3 was renumbered as plot No.3A.

16.The plaintiff further pleaded that a sketch was prepared for the land in survey No.99/1E and submitted in a case CC No. 2863/76. On admission by Dw1, the said sketch is marked as Ex.A9. Dw1 admitted that the plain under Ex.A9 was submitted by him along with application for regularization 

before ULC authority. Dw1 further admitted they got served their site through 

ULC surveyor. The said survivor has shown 40 feet road on northern side in plan but not shown 20 feet road on southern side of his property. The plain Ex.A9 in confronted to Dw1. No doubt 40 feet road is shown on northern side of plot No. 

12 3 and remaining northern side is shown as 20 feet road but the dispute is with regard to the western site portion of the property of the defendants. Pw1 admitted that there is clause in the documents Ex.B1 and B3 executed by them regarding necessity to obtain ULC permission and at the GPA executed by appointing an agent to obtain permission from ULC.

17.The plaintiff further contended that the measurements of the property sold to the defendant N0.1 under Ex.B3 are North to South 79 feet and east to west 30 feet . In Ex.B3 also the measurements of the site sold to D1 are shown as 30 feet from east to west and 76 feet from north to south. The sketch 

Ex.A9 admittedly filed by the defendants before ULC authorities is showing wrong measurements. The defendants also shown the measurements 59 feet from east to west and 39 feet from north to south in their written statement for their site to an extent of 255 sq.yards. But as per the Ex.B3 only 20 feet road is existing on northern side of the property sold to D1 and where as in the plan 

Ex.A9, 40 feet road is shown on northern side. If we add the 20 feet to 59 feet will come to 79 feet from north to south which is nearer to the measurements shown in Ex.B3. When coming to the measurement of site of the defendant from east to west, as 39 feet . Even if we believe that only 30 feet measurement is there from east to west we cannot image in that the remaining 9 feet is equal to 130 sq.yards as contending by the plaintiff's. However the court cannot draw the inference from out the documents prepared and filed by the defendants to satisfy the case of the plaintiff. Dw1 also admitted in his cross examination that the measurement 30 x 76 feet comes to 255 sq.yards . No doubt the measurements which are shown in Ex.B4 Gift Deed and the sketch A9 are not same to that of the measurement shown in Ex.B3. But the total extent is one and same I.e only 255 sq.yards. The defendants are contending that they purchased only 255 sq.yards from D1 and they are in possession of only 255 sq.yards but not more. 

The pleadings in written statement as well as the evidence of Dw1 are clear with regard to the extent of the site purchased by D1 from plaintiffs., as well as the extent of site in their possession. The plaintiffs are not denying the sale of 255 sq.yards by them to D1 under Ex.B.3. Irrespective of dimensions and 13 measurements referred in Ex.B4 and A9, there is no dispute with regard to the total extent of site sold by the plaintiff's to D1 under Ex.B3. If really any site remains beyound said 255 sq.yards on western side of plot No. 3, it should be established by the plaintiffs alone with cogent and sufficient evidence. But the plaintiffs in this suit failed to place any evidence before the court to believe that after the sale of 255 sq.yards in plot No 3 there remains 133 sq.yards on western side in plot No.3 and it was separately renumbered as Plot NO.3 A. 

18. It is settled principal of law that plaintiffs who wishes the court to believe their version has to establish their own case and should not depend on the weakness of the defendants. Therefore simply basing on the wrong measurements shown in Ex.B3 and A9 of the defendants, the court cannot believe the the plaint schedule property is existing on the western side of he defendants property. The plaintiff who wishes the court to believe his case has to establish prima facie the existence of the plaint schedule property on ground within the specific boundaries referred in the plaint. In the absence of such evidence the court cannot give findings simply basing on the Ex.A9. The court cannot come to conclusion that the plaint schedule property is existing on ground in between plot No. 3 and Plot No.4 ,5

19. The defendants pleaded that the father of the plaintiff's P.Ahmed filed a writ petition No. 19324 of 97 against the special officer,ULC ,Visakhapatnam 

before the Hon'ble High court and without disclosing the same, they sold the 

remaining extent to different persons. The defendants further pleaded that after came to know about the of said writ petition all the purchasers added as the parties and the same was allowed on 15­3­2007 quashing the proceedings of the 

ULC authorities in CC 3 (4) /6 /(1)/2863/76,dt23­3­1996 confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Land Reforms and ULC, Hyderabad in case No.VSP 44/96dt.28­1­97. The said pleadings are not denied by the plaintiff's by way of filing any rejoinder or reply to the written statement of defendants. Therefore the said contention of the defendants is deemed to be admitted by plaintiff's.

20.The defendants further contended that during he pendency of said writ petition D1 and other purchasers filed application before VUDA, 14

Visakhapatnam for regularization of their respective sites basing on GOMS NO. 

455 dt.29­7­2002. The defendants also pleaded that they obtained regularization of their respective sites and their names were incorporated in revenue records as per the G.O.M.S No. 845 dt 9­7­2008. Ex.B6 is the copy of the GO MS No.845 dt 9­7­2008 is marked by the defendants . It is supporting the pleas taken by defendants regarding regularization and incorporation of the name of D1 other and the purchasers in revenue records. Ex.B6 also showing that the D1 and others paid regularization charges for their properties.

20.Ex.X1 is possessory agreement of cum ­sale­ cum GPA dt 10­4­2000 marked as Ex.X1 through Pw2. It is establishing that the plaintiff's and their mother sold 180 sq.yards in plot No. 9 in survey No. 99/1B to Geddam 

Rose Marry wife of Pw2. Plot NO.3 or the plaint schedule property in plot No.3A is not a boundary to the property covered in Ex.X1 . At the same time there is reference regarding the total extent of site of the plaintiff in plot No.3 or regarding the transaction between the said Geddem Rose Marry purchased under Ex.X1 to her husband Pw2. No doubt survey No. 991/B which was referred Ex.X1 is referred as survey No. 99 1/E in Ex.X2. But simply on that ground the court cannot believe that there is a vacant site of 133 sq.yards remain for plaintiff's in survey No 99/1B and it was resurveyed as 99/1E . The plaintiff's not filed any document before to prove about the resurvey and allotment of survey NO.99/1E to the survey No. 99/1E. 

The plaintiff's got marked one copy of complaint said to be been 21.

filed before the ULC authorities as Ex.A6. But during cross examination Pw1 deposed that he has no idea about the application Ex.A6 filed before VUDA authorities and whether they have taken any action basing on the said application. The plaintiff also not filed any document before the court in support of Ex.A6 to believe that the said complaint was taken into consideration and the authorities initiated action on the said complaint. 

22. The plaintiffs got marked some photographs under Ex.A8. But they are marked directly without any pleadings regarding the said photographs . 

Pw1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not mention either in plaint or 15 chief affidavit regarding photographs under Ex.A8. Pw1 further admitted that the entire plot No.3 not covered in the photographs in Ex.A8. He also deposed the he did not disclose the date when the photographs under Ex.A8 were developed . The plaintiff got marked one receipt dt 18­10­2010 said to be been issued by the police Kancharapalem as Ex.A5. But it is not supported with any copy of complaint. The plaintiff's simply filed the receipts and failed to file any copy of complaint along with receipt Ex.A5. Pw1 himself admitted in his cross examination that they did not file any copy of complaint along with Ex.A5. Pw1 further deposed that the police did not take any action on the alleged complaint.

23. The plaintiff got marked the office copy of caveat petition COP 

No433/2009 as Ex.A4 and served copy of another Caveat petition as Ex.A7. 

Ex.A4 & A7are simply showing the filing of caveat petition by the plaintiff and defendant each other which are not helping the court to determine main questions in controversy regarding existence of plaint schedule property and the possession of the plaintiffs. No doubt in Ex.X2 survey No.99/1E is referred, but the reference of survey No. 99/1E in Ex.X2 is with regard to the 180 sq.yards in plot No.9 covered in Ex.X1. Therefore we cannot connect the said survey No. 

99/1E refereed in Ex.X2 to the plaint schedule plot No. 3­A. Ex.X3 is a special notice issued by GVMC dt 10­5­2010 to Geddem Janaki Ram Pw2 herein. It is only in­respect of the property purchased by wife of Pw.2 from the plaintiffs under 

Ex.X1. The property covered under Ex.X1 is in plot No.9 which is entirely different from the plaint schedule plot No. 3A. At the same time Ex.X1 is purely issued to the 3rd parties to the suit . Therefore, Ex.X3 is not relevant to this case. 

24. The plaintiff not filed any document before the court at least to show the total extent of site in plot No.3 . The plaintiff also not filed any document to prove that the plaint schedule property to an extent of 133 s.yards is existing on western side of defendant's property and it was allotted plot No.3 A. As per the pleadings in the plaint itself, the plaintiffs sold their entire property to difference purchasers and lastly sold the site to the defendants. Pw1 himself admitted in his cross examination that he did not file any document relating to the total extent of plot No.3. Though the reference regarding plot No.3 in Ex. B1 16 ,B3,and B5 they are not reveling or disclosing the total extent of site in plot No.3 . 

The documents filed by the plaintiff not at all disclosing the alleged extent of site retained by the plaintiffs after the sale of their entire properties. It is pertinent note that the plaintiffs not filed any single document to prove that they are in possession of plaint schedule property at any point of time. The plaintiffs failed to take any steps to note down the physical existence of property on ground though the defendants taken a specific plea that the plaint schedule property is not physically existing . The plaintiff failed to establish the very existence of plaint schedule property . Keeping in view the above discussion on difference aspects relating to this case it is believed that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the plaint schedule. Therefore the question of loss or injury to the plaintiffs does not arise, if injunction not granted. In these circumstances the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim injunction.

In the result suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and transcribed by her, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court, on the 30th day of August, 2013.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Plaintiff : PW1: Mohammed Sabbir. Pw2: G.Jankai rao. Pw3: A.Sambasiva Rao. Documents Marked on behalf off the plaintiff:  Ex.A1: Register extract of will executed by plaintiff father n 26­5­1986.. Ex.A2: Death certificate of plaintiff's father dt 1­1­1999. Ex.A3: Death certificate of plaintiff's mother dt 20­1­2008. Ex.A4: O.C of Caveat OP 433/2009 filed by plaintiff against the defendant on 19­ 10­2009. Ex.A5: Receipt issued by Kancharapalam police station on 18­10­2010. Ex.A6: O/C of complaint lodged by plaintiff before ULC authority. Ex.A7: Served copy of Caveat OP filed by corresponding negatives. Ex.A8: New Sketch. Ex.A9: Survey report Defendants:  Dw1: D.ESwara Rao. Documents marked on behalf of defendant: Ex.B1: Registered extract of processory sale agreement.

17

Ex.B2: original approval plan. Ex.B3: Registered extract of possessory sale agreement cum GPA executed by plaintiff's and their mother infavour of defendants wife D1. Ex.B4: Registered extract of Gift deed executed by the `1st defendant . Ex.B5: Registered extract of possessory sale agreement cum GPA executed by plaintiff's and their mother infavour of Smt. Mamatha pradhan in respect of plot NO.5. Ex.B6: A/c GOMS NO. 85 dt 9­7­2008. Ex.X1: photo copy of GPA cum sale agreement dt 10­4­2000. Ex.X2: Photocopy compared with original of gift deed dt 10­10­2008. Ex.X3: special notice dt 25­5­2010.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

18

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. FRIDAY, THE 30TH ­DAY OF AUGUST,2013

O.S. 577/2010

BETWEEN:

1. Mohammed Shafi, S/o. Late Peer Ahmed, Muslim, aged 44 years, R/o. D.No. 38­4­96, Maharani Street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mohammed Shabbir, S/o. Late Peer Ahmed, Muslim, aged 38 years, R/o D.No. 38­4­96, Maharani Street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. … PLAINTIFFS AND

1. Dadi Anu Radha, W/o. D.Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, R/o. D.No. 38­31­17, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. D.Eswara Rao, S/o. Late Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 543 years. R/o D.No.38­31­17, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

... DEFENDANTS 

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, officials and agents from interfering with the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment over plaint schedule property . Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 10,000/- and CF of Rs.786/- and paid U/sec.26© of APCF & SV Act. This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 24­7­2013 in the presence of Sri.P.V.Reddy Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri J.V.Prema Sai, Advocate for the defendants, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered doth order:

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed

2. that there be no costs. ( copy of schedule is hereby attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on the 30th day of August, 2013.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENANT

No costs memo filed on either side.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

19

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam. Friday, the 8th Day of MAY, 2015

O.S.563/2011

Between:

1. Gonthina Lakshmi @ Rajani, W/o.Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 32 years, residing at D.No.36-45-11/1, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Gonthina Sindhu Sai @ Nookaraju, S/o.Venkata Raman, Hindu, aged 6 years, being minor represented by next friend and natural guardian mother Gonthina Lakshmi @ Rajani rest do.

3. Andela Sanyasamma, W/o.late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 62 years, residing at D.No.36-45-11/1, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiffs

Vs

Andela Madhavi, D/o.Late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 30 years, D.No.36-45- 11/1, aged 30 years, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 06.05.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Ravi & Sri Harish Varma, Advocates for plaintiffs and of Sri Veera Srinu, Advocate for defendant and the same having stood consideration over this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property and recovery of possession against the sole defendant.

2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the second plaintiff is the minor son of the 1st plaintiff. The defendant is the younger sister of the 1st plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the mother of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant. Originally the third plaintiff purchased the property to an extent of 44 sq.yards through a registered sale deed dt.02.07.1990 and another extent of 2769sq.yrds in S.No.31/4 of Kancharapalem Village with her own earnings. She did Vegetable business and run a Kirana shop. Subsequently she pledged her gold ornaments and also raised loans. She got constructed two floored building bearing Dr.No.36-45- 11/1 in the said property. It was assessed tax in the name of the 3rd 2 plaintiff. After construction the 1st plaintiff and the defendant used to stay. Thereafter the defendant had eloped with another person and vacated the company of the 3rd plaintiff. After sometime she returned and requested 3rd plaintiff to accommodate her. The 3rd plaintiff being mother permitted the defendant to stay in one room in the 2nd floor which is suit schedule property without any rent. The husband of the 3rd plaintiff during his service as Lab Assistant in KGH, Visakhapatnam expired on 22.02.1998. On his death the defendant was given employment on compensate grounds in the same hospital. After securing employment the defendant neglected the 3rd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff looked after the welfare of the 3rd plaintiff. They have satisfied with the services and affection of the 1st plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property by way of executing registered gift settlement deed dt.02.12.2009 creating life interest in favour of the 1st plaintiff and vested interest in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Accordingly plaintiffs 1 & 2 became absolute owners of the suit schedule property.

But the defendant started harassment. The premises in which they are residing is not sufficient for the plaintiffs permanently. As such the plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property.

Initially she promised to vacate and subsequently she refused to vacate the suit schedule property. Upon which the plaintiff got issued a legal notice demanding the defendant to vacate the premises. The same was received by the defendant and she got issued a legal notice. During life time, the husband of the 3rd plaintiff addicted to bad vices and spent his entire salary for his own. The 3rd plaintiff by doing business brought up her two daughters and got them educated. The husband of the 3rd plaintiff fell into financial crises and several suits were also filed against him by 3rd parties. Those debts were cleared by the 3rd defendant by pledging her gold ornaments and by taking loans. The defendant 3 developed illicit relation with one Narasinga Rao who is already married.

The 1st wife of said Narasinga Rao filed a complaint and the defendant was called to the police station. The entire construction was raised by the 3rd plaintiff out of her own earnings and by availing loans. The defendant did not spend any amount for construction. Therefore, the plaintiffs are to be declared as owners of the suit schedule property and defendant is liable to be vacated. Hence the suit.

3.The Averments of the Written Statement of Defendant are that all the main and material allegations made in plaint are not correct.

Infact the defendant is the absolute owner of 1/3rd share of the three storied building bearing Dr.No.36-45-11/1 situated in Kancharapalem,

Visakhapatnam. The father of this defendant during his life time purchased the said property by selling his agricultural property to his elder brother Nagaraju. With the said sale proceeds, the entire property was purchased in the name of 3rd plaintiff out of love and affection through registered sale deed dt.02.07.1980. This defendant worked as

Lab Technician in KGH Visakhapatnam. At the time of purchase, there were two thatched huts on the entire property. He himself performed the marriages of both the daughters ie., 1st plaintiff and this defendant.

He died due to TB on 22.02.1998 while he was in service. On 04.06.1998 the defendant was given job on compensate grounds. From that day onwards, this defendant is maintaining the entire family by spending her salary. She is providing food and clothing to all the plaintiffs. The death benefits of the deceased father were also received by the 3rd plaintiff to an extent of Rs.1,30,000/- Taking advantage of the death of the father, 1st plaintiff demanded an amount of Rs.40,000/- for issuance of “no

Objection Letter”. The plaintiffs are compelling this defendant to give undertaking to provide maintenance to the entire family. This defendant taken responsibility of the welfare of all the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs 4 not satisfied with the services of this defendant and demanded to borrow huge amount to satisfy their luxurious desires. This defendant smoothly refused to comply their unauthorized demand. As such, they started damaging the reputation and character of this defendant. The marraige of this defendant was performed in the year 1994 and deserted her husband in 1996. The plaintiffs are harassing this defendant both physically and mentally. Initially there were two thatched houses on the property and this defendant removed those structures and raised three storied building each floor consists of two portions. There was an understanding that the first floor will be allotted to her with absolute rights, second floor to 1st plaintiff and ground floor to the 3rd plaintiff. She spent her monthly salary for continuous period of two years to clear the loans availed by her for the purpose of construction. The 3rd plaintiff collected the rents and enjoyed the same.

The defendant expecting change in the attitude of the plaintiffs, has tolerated the harassment in the hands of plaintiffs. All the death benefits including APGLI to an extent of Rs.20,000/- taken away by the 3rd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff with the help of her husband intends to grab the property and harassing the defendant. The plaintiffs No.1 & her husband compelled the 3rd plaintiff to execute registered Will without her consent and on 28.08.2006 got registered in the Sub-

Registrar’s Office, Visakhapatnam. After execution of said Will, they started harassing this defendant alleging the illicit intimacy with one

Narsinga Rao who is a tenant of 3rd plaintiff. Due to that torture and harassment by the plaintiffs, the defendant lodged a complaint before the SHO V Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam on 01.06.2009 against the 1st plaintiff and her husband. The police have taken bind over letter from the plaintiff No.1 and her husband cautioned them not to repeat the illegal acts but they did not stop their harassment. Lastly the 5 plaintiff No.1 and her husband prepared a registered gift deed dt.02.12.2009 for the suit schedule property. The said gift deed dt.02.12.2009 will come into existence only after the demise of 3rd plaintiff. The said document is executed by playing fraud and under undue influence with evil intention to deprive the legal right of this defendant. The plaintiff No.3 has no legal right to execute a gift deed in any one’s favour, since the property was acquired by the father of this defendant with his own earnings. This defendant is entitled to get 1/3 share in the entire property. Plaintiffs cannot forcibly or illegally evict the defendant. While the matter stood thus, plaintiffs got issued legal notice to this defendant with false and frivolous allegations referring registered Gift Deed dt.02.12.2009 for which this defendant got issued legal notice denying all the contents therein. This defendant filed OS 1512/2010 on the file of V Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for

Permanent Injunction against the plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein and the same is pending. This defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff No.1 has no legal right and she cannot claim any relief basing on the registered Gift Deed dt.02.12.2009. Accordingly the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

i.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for?

ii.To what relief?

5.Additional issues are framed on 22.06.2015:

i.Whether the plaintiff established that initially the 3rd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and subsequently plaintiffs 1 to 2 became absolute owners by virtue of registered gift deed dt.02.12.2009?

ii.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of suit schedule property as prayed for?

6

6.During the course of trial, plaintiff examined as PW1 and documents Exhibits A1 to 12 marked. DW1 examined and documents

Ex.B1 to B10 marked on behalf of the defendant.

7.Heard both sides & perused the material available on record.

8.Addl.Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff established that initially the 3rd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and subsequently plaintiffs 1 to 2 became absolute owners by virtue of registered gift deed dt.02.12.2009?

AND

Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for?

The plaintiffs are claiming two reliefs in this suit. They are : (1)

Declaration to declare that initially the 1st plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property (one room situated on the western side of the 2nd floor of the building bearing Dr.No.36-45-11/1) and subsequently plaintiffs 1 & 2 became absolute owners by virtue of the gift settlement deed dt.02.12.2009. (2) For recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property directing the defendant to vacate the same. The plaintiffs claiming that originally the 1st plaintiff purchased the entire property and gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs 1 & 2 through gift settlement deed dt.02.12.2009. Whereas the defendant taken a specific plea that the entire property was purchased by her father in the name of the 3rd plaintiff and the 3rd plaintiff has no right to execute the gift settlement deed dt.02.12.2009 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 & 2. The issue with regard to the recovery of possession will be decided by way of discussion while determining the additional Issue

No.2.

9.When coming to the relief of declaration, this court after going through the entire evidence placed by the parties in confirmation with 7 their pleadings, observed so many admissions mainly with regard to the relationship between the parties and with regard to the execution of some documents. Therefore, I feel proper and necessary to know the admitted facts first, for clear and proper understanding of the rival contentions.

10.ADMITTED FACTS :

i.Admittedly the 1st plaintiff is the elder daughter of the 3rd plaintiff and elder sister of defendant.

ii.2nd plaintiff is the son of 1st plaintiff.

iii.3rd plaintiff is the mother of both 1st plaintiff and the defendant.

iv.There is a registered sale deed dt.02.07.1980 in respect of entire property in the name of the 3rd plaintiff.

v.Admittedly there is a registered gift settlement deed dt.02.12.2009 executed by the 3rd plaintiff creating life interest in favour of the 1st plaintiff and vested interest in favour of the 2nd plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.

vi.The suit schedule property is only one room on the eastern side of the 2nd floor of the entire building bearing Dr.No.36-45-11/1 of

Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

vii.The defendant has been residing in the possession of the suit schedule room.

viii.The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice Ex.A3 to the defendant demanding her to vacate suit schedule room.

ix.The defendant got issued a reply notice Ex.A4 dt.26.03.2010 denying the contents in the legal notice Ex.A3.

x.Admittedly the defendant herein filed OS 1512/2010 seeking permanent injunction in respect of same suit schedule property prior to filing of this suit.

8 xi.The proceedings in present suit and in connected suit OS 1512/2010 were conducted simultaneously.

xii.The permission for construction of the house on the entire property covered under Ex.A1 sale deed dt.02.07.1980, sanctioned in the name of 3rd plaintiff.

xiii.The father of the 1st plaintiff and defendant expired on 22.02.2009 when coming to rival contentions plaintiffs pleaded that the entire property was purchased by 3rd plaintiff with her own earnings and subsequently the suit schedule property was gifted to plaintiffs 1 & 2.

Whereas the defendant pleaded that the entire property was purchased by her father in the name of the plaintiff and defendant is entitled to get 1/3 share out of the entire property. In these circumstances initially the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their contention. The 3rd plaintiff was examined through Advocate Commissioner as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A12. PW1 deposed that she purchased the entire property through a Registered sale deed Ex.A1 dt.02.07.1980 out of her own earnings by running kirana shop. Ex.A1 is the registered document and the same is prevail over the oral evidence as per the settled principal of

Law. There is no single recital in Ex.A1 regarding payment of consideration or arrangement by the husband of the 3rd plaintiff. The recitals of Ex.A1 are crystal clear that the entire consideration was paid by the 3rd plaintiff only. The learned counsel for the defendant arguing that the plaintiffs failed to place any evidence to prove that the consideration was paid out of her own earnings of the 3rd plaintiff. But one cannot anticipate the things would be faced in future and by anticipating the same one cannot preserve the evidence with regard to the money transactions or arrangements for payment of consideration or regarding expenses incurred for construction. Admittedly the defendant is no other than the daughter of the 3rd plaintiff and sister of 9 the 1st plaintiff. The defendant himself admitted the registered document Ex.A1. At the same time the defendant has not taken any steps for cancellation of Ex.A1. Unless and until the registered document is cancelled, the court cannot throw it into air, simply basing on the contention of the defendant without any proof. The defendant pleaded that she incurred all the expenses for construction of G + 2 on the entire property and she spent her monthly salary for two years on the construction work. But she has not filed any piece of evidence

before the court to prove the same. The plaintiff got marked one copy

of the loan pass book as Ex.A9. As per entries therein, the same stood in the name of 3rd plaintiff. The proceedings issued by GVMC on 15.12.2000 along with plan. It is revealing that could be in force during 05.12.2000 to 14.12.2001. In these circumstances the court cannot connect the loan transaction reflecting in Ex.A9 with the construction work on the entire property. But for that reason the entire evidence of plaintiffs cannot be ignored. The plaintiff got marked one receipt dt.07.08.2000 establishing that she paid the charges for obtaining permission to construct building on the entire property basing on Ex.A1 sale deed. The officials of GVMC also issued proceedings dt.15.12.2000 in the name of the 3rd plaintiff for construction of the building on the entire property. The evidence of PW1 supported with Ex.A1, A7, A9 &

A10 are strengthening the contention of the plaintiffs with regard to the ownership of the 3rd plaintiff over entire property and construction of the building G + 2 on the said site by the 3rd plaintiff herself. In these circumstances, the burden shifts upon the defendant to disprove the same.

11.The defendant pleaded that her father purchased the entire property in the name of 3rd plaintiff and she incurred all the expenses for construction of the building therein. But she had not filed any single 10 document proving that she incurred the expenses personally for the construction of the building over the entire property. The documents filed by the defendant are only the certified copies of the material available in connected record in OS 1512/2010 and some documents showing her possession over the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs are not denying the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. Though the chief examination affidavit of DW2 was filed due to non-attendance before the court, it was eschewed. Similarly DW3 is examined. His evidence is not supported by any documentary proof. DW3 simply deposed that he constructed the building on the entire property and the expenditure was incurred by the defendant for the said construction. But No single piece of paper filed in support of evidence of DW3. Atleast no identity proof is filed to believe that DW3 is contractor undertaken the construction work.

Therefore, the evidence of DW3 cannot be considered in support of pleas taken by the defendant.

12.When coming to the other documents Ex.A8 registered gift settlement dt.02.12.2009 establishing that the plaintiff No.3 gifted the suit schedule property creating life interest in favour of the 1st plaintiff and vested interest in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. As per Ex.A1 the 3rd plaintiff acquired the entire property and Ex.A8 establishing that 3rd plaintiff being absolute owner gifted the suit schedule property to plaintiffs 1 & 2. The defendant simply pleaded that Ex.A8 was obtained by the 1st plaintiff and her husband by using force and undue influence on the 3rd plaintiff. But the 3rd plaintiff herself examined in the suit as

PW1 and deposed that Ex.A8 is executed by her. The defendant failed to prove that Ex.A8 was obtained by playing fraud or un-due influence by the 1st plaintiff and her husband. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has not taken any steps for cancellation of Ex.A8.

11

13.DW1 admitted in her cross examination that she has not filed any document to show that her father purchased the suit schedule property out of the amount derived from agricultural sale to the third parties.

She further deposed that she was separated from her husband during his life time. DW1 for the first time during cross examination deposed that she obtained Rs.2,00,000/- loan and gave to her mother for construction of the suit schedule building, but she had not filed any proof before the court in support of her contention and lastly admitted that she had not filed any document to show that she availed a loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- and gave the same to her mother. The said evidence of

DW1 is beyond the pleadings and it cannot be relied upon.

14.The defendant got marked the pleadings and depositions of witnesses examined in connected suit OS 1512/2010 as Exs.B1 to B7.

But they are revealing about the pendency of connected suit

OS1512/2010 filed by the defendant herein seeking Permanent

Injunction in respect of suit schedule shop. The evidence of witnesses examined for no special evidentiary value, since the same witnesses are examined in this suit also. Moreover the evidence of witnesses examined in OS 1512/2010 are not at all disproving the ownership of plaintiffs acquired under Exs.A1 & A8.

15.Exs.B8 to B10 are showing only possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property which is not in dispute. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1, A7 & A10 are establishing that initially the plaintiff

No.3 is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed Ex.A1 dt.02.07.1980 and subsequently plaintiffs 1 & 2 absolute owners by virtue of registered gift settlement deed Ex.A8 dt.02.12.2009. The defendant failed to establish that her father purchased the entire property in the name of plaintiff NO.3 and she constructed the building over the same. The defendant failed to 12 negative Exs.A1 & A8. Therefore, it is believed that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Accordingly Additional

Issue No.1 & Issue No.1 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

16.Additional Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of suit schedule property as prayed for?

The plaintiffs also claiming recovery of possession of suit schedule property from the defendant. In order to claim recovery of possession, the plaintiffs have to establish their title over the suit schedule property and un-authorised occupation of the defendant. This court made elaborate discussion on the title over the suit schedule property while deciding issue No.1 and observed that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 & Ex.A8. Admittedly the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant is no other than the own sister of 1st plaintiff and daughter of 3rd plaintiff. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendant was permitted by them to reside in the plaint schedule property on free of rent and taking advantage of the same she is claiming 1/3 share over the entire property. In order to claim 1/3 share the defendant has to establish that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property. But in this case the defendant failed to establish that the suit schedule property is purchased by her father. As per Ex.A1 the 3rd plaintiff became absolute owner and subsequently plaintiffs 1 & 2 acquired title through Ex.A8. The defendant has not taken any legal steps questioning Exs.A1 & A8. Moreover the defendant has not filed any suit for partition of the property so far. The defendant failed to place any evidence before the court to prove that she is entitled to get 1/3 share out of entire property. DW1 during cross examination admitted that she has not filed any document to show that her father purchased the property. She further deposed that she has not filed any 13 declaration suit claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in any court. During cross examination DW1 admitted that the 3rd plaintiff executed gift settlement deed Ex.A8 in respect of suit schedule property in favour of 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff.

Both the exhibits A1 & A8 are the registered documents. Therefore, unless and until they are cancelled or declared as invalid, the defendant cannot say that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the suit schedule property. DW1 herself admitted that she is not paying any rent for the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that after the death of her father, the defendant was given job on compensatory ground. Ex.A11 is a certificate issued by K G H Visakhapatnam declaring that the father of the 1st plaintiff expired on 22.02.1998. Ex.A2 is the proceedings issued by the Superintendent K G H, Visakhapatnam 24.04.1998 requesting defendant to furnish no objection certificate, income certificate etc., for providing job to the defendant on compensatory grounds. It is pertinent to note that DW1 herself admitted in her cross examination that she was given job on compensatory grounds on the death of her father. In these circumstances the defendant is not entitled to claim 1/3 share in the property which is already gifted by the 3rd plaintiff to plaintiffs 1 & 2 under Ex.A8. At the same time continuing in the possession of the suit schedule property without the premission of the plaintiff is not permissible. Moreover the plaintiffs already got issued a legal notice admittedly under Ex.A3 demanding the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property. Admittedly the same was received by the defendant and gave reply notice under Ex.A4. In view of the above stated reasons, it is believed that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. Accordingly this issue also answered in favour of the plaintiff.

14

17.IN THE RESULT,the suit is decreed declaring that initially the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed Ex.A1 dt.02.07.1980 and subsequently plaintiffs 1 & 2 became absolute owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed Ex.A8 dt.02.12.2009. It is further decreed for recovery of possession of suit schedule property directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of suit schedule property within 3 months from the date of decree. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 8 th May, 2015.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO.OF WITNESS EXAMINIED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Andela SanyasammaDW1 Andela Madhavi DW2: Malla Sambasiva Rao DW3 Pedada Venkata Ramana

NO. OF DOCUMENTS M ARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1 : Registered sale deed dt.02.07.1980 Ex.A2 : agreement of sale dt.02.07.1980 Ex.A3 : registered lawyers notice Ex.A4 : registered reply notice dt.26.03.2010 Ex.A5: decree in SC 231/90 dt.16.10.1995 Ex.A6: decree in OS 427/96 dt.17.04.1996 Ex.A7: building construction receipt dt.07.08.2000 Ex.A8: registered gift settlement deed dt.02.12.2009

Ex.A9: bunch of receipt loan pass book

Ex.A10:building plan

Ex.A11:IP slip bearing No.3995 of KGH

Ex.A12:Proceedings in RC 1923/E1/1998 (All exhibits A1 to A12 are certified copies) 15

DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 : plaint dt.28.12.2010 in OS 1512/2010 along with schedule on the file of Hon'ble Prl.Jr.Civil Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam. Ex.B2 : written statement along with adoption memo in OS 1512/2010 dt.06.06.2011 Ex.B3 : Deposition and evidence affidavit of PW1 in OS 1512/2010 dt.09.12.2011 Ex.B4 : deposition and evidence affidavit of PW2 in OS 1512/10 dt.13.02.2013 Ex.B5 :deposition and evidence affidavit of PW3 in OS 1512/2010 dt.08.02.2013 Ex.B6: deposition and evidence affidavit of DW1 in OS 1512/2010 dt.08.11.2014 Ex.B7: Advocate Commissioner report along with deposition of DW1 in OS 1512/10 Ex.B8: Aadhar Card of the defendant marked subject to production of original aadhar card. Ex.B9: HP gas connection bond paper marked subject to production of original.

Ex.B10:original HP gas agency slip

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

16

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. THURSDAY, THE 1stDAY OF AUGUST,2013

O.S. 900/2011

BETWEEN: Sri. Thati Ravindra Babu, S/o.late Anjayya, Hindu, aged 50 years, doing business in the name and style as “ Tokyo Digital Fashion Studio” at D.no. 48­9­1, Sree Mukha complex, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. … PLAINTIFF AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Tenneti Bhavan Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam.

... DEFENDANT 

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 14­6­2013 in the presence of Sri V.S. Pavan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.Krishna Mohan, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, officials and agents from ever interfering with the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of plaint “B' schedule property in any manner whatsoever , including its demolition except by due process of law for costs. 

2.The brief averments of plaint are that one Sri R.Satyanaryana 

Varaprasad Rao, R.Lakshmi Kumari and late R. Panchakshari Devi purchased an extent of 893.33 sq.yards or 746.83 sq.mts covered in T.S.NO. 680 of 

Allipuram ward, being plot No. 223/B under three registered sale deeds of the same date 30­3­1992. Subsequently they filed an application before the corporation, for construction of shopping complex in the above said site. The defendant corporation issued approved the plan, by way of proceedings B.A 2

No. 563/93 dt 13­8­93 in pursuance of G.O. M.S No. 76 MA dt 6­2­1992.Three persons got constituted partnership form by partnership deed dt 1­4­1992 having 1/3rd share each under and name and style of Royala Shopping complex. The partnership form constructed shopping complex under the name and style “Sreemukhya Shopping complex” containing cellar, plus third floor . 

It is Popularly known as “Sreemukhya Shopping complex” . Out of the 3 owners Smt. R. Panchakshari Devi died on 10­7­2005 bequeathing her share in the business to her grand daughters R. Sri Laleetha and R. Srilatha. 

Subsequently they became partners of the firm Rayala construction. As per the approved plan they have less 4.69.82 metrs of site for parking space in the cellar, the floor area ration (FAR) is exempted to an extent of 1:1: 71 . They are entitled to make construction and utilize the remaining FAR 0.324 exempted under the aforesaid G.O. They approached the corporation for utilization of the said FAR by way of approved plan. Accordingly on 20­5­1996 

Sri R.V.S Prasada Rao and others filed and application expressed their proposal seeking permission by paying required fee. The defendant corporation sent an endorsement dt 24­6­1996 to Sri. R.S.V Prasada rao informing him to re­submit the firm in prescribed proforma. He complied the said order and resubmitedhe application under registered No. BA 1145/96 ACP­

III. But the corporation neither approved nor disapproved the plan as per the 

Sec 447 of HMC Act. The applicants are entitled to proceed with construction as per plan. They issued notice to the corporation on 20­7­1996 under Sec 440 of HMC Act, intimating about the commencement of the work. They commenced the construction of shops in cellar floor in­accordance with the plan submittedbythembeforethecorporation.Sri.R

S.V.Prasad and others filed a suit OS 1226/96 on the file of this court, against the corporation seeking permanent injunction restraining them from demolishing the construction made by plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed on merits, on 18­04­2000. It is further averred in the plaint that while decreeing the above stated suit , it was held that there is enough parking place as 3 required under law in the said shopping complex. Against the said judgment and decree, the corporation preferred an Appeal AS 24/01 on the file of IX 

Addl. District Judge, Visakhaptnam and it was dismissed on 11­11­2004. 

During pendency of said suit, the plaintiff purchased one shop constructed in the stilt area which is part and parcel of property cover in OS.1226/96 which is undivided and unspecified site measuring 10 sq. yards having plinth area of 285 sq. ft under the registered sale deed dt. 24­9­98. The same is shown as plaint 'B' . schedule. The plaintiff paying tax to the 'B' schedule from 1­4­1999 to its assessment NO. 49999/729. The tax was enhanced from Rs.1580/­ to 

Rs.2,232/­ by issuing a special notice dt 28­7­2010 to that effect. The plaintiff also obtained electrical service connection bearing No. 11 0000 117042. The plaintiff has been in peaceful and enjoying by running the studio . But on 5­9­ 011 some persons staying themselves as officials of defendant corporation, came to 'B' schedule and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the premises stating that they would like to demolish the structure. No notice issued to the plaintiff for the proposal of demolition or removal. In the year 2005, the defendant corporation issued notices under sec 452 and 636 of HMC Act to the neighbouring shop owners. They filed OS 2594/05 on the file of this court and it was decreed with a finding that the notices issued by the corporation are void under law. Another adjacent shop owner by name Sri S.Nagamani also filed a suit OS 759/09 on the file of Hon'ble Vth Addl. Junior civil Judge, 

Visakhapantm for granting injunction against corporation when the defendant corporation tried to interfere with his the business. The said suit was also decreed observing that the corporation cannot demolish the suit schedule shop therein. The officials of corporation are threatening the plaintiff without following due process of law to demolish the shop existing in 'B' schedule. Hence the suit.

3. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are that all the contents made in plaint are that not true and correct. It is submitted that the defendant corporation accorded permission in favour RSV Prasad Rao and 4 others for construction of commercial complex consist of cellar for parking, ground +3 floors vide proceedings B.A No. 563/93/ACP II ­dt., 13­8­1993. 

Sri.R.S.V Prasada Rao and others submitted a plan for construction in cellar floor in order to avail the FAR of 0.324 which was exempted under G.O.M.S.NO.76 

MA dt 6­2­1992. The structures in cellar/stilt floor are not allowed are since they exclusively meant for parking. As such the defendant corporation returned the said application with an endorsement in B.A. NO. 1146/96/ACP II. It is denied that when the corporation advised Sri RSV Prasad Rao to submit the plans. Knowing fully well about the said fact , the plaintiff purchased the shop room in stilt floor which is exclusively meant for parking . Assessment of property for collection of tax , will not create any right infavour of plaintiff over 'B' schedule for unauthorized construction. It is true that the plaintiff is running photo studio in name and style of Tokyo Digital Fashion Studio in plaint 'B' schedule. But due to inadequate parking place in commercial complex, it becameverydifficultto

Regulate the traffic. As per the inspection report given by the subordinates. It was noticed that the owners of the commercial complex Un­authorizedly constructed shop rooms in cellar floor which is exclusively meant for parking . 

The Number of unauthorized constructions , were already removed by the corporation and same was published in news papers. Apprehending danger the plaintiff filed the suit with false and untenable allegations. It is further averred in the Written statement that the officials of defendant corporation never visited the plaint schedule property on 5­9­2011 as alleged by the plaintiff. Infact the defendant corporation issued notice to Dakshin Food Parcels under section 452 and 636 of HMC Act and the same was challenged by the owners by way of suit. 

The plaintiff did not issue prior notice under 685 HMC Act 1955. Hence, The suit is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing upon the strength of pleadings of respective parties, the following issues are settled for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of

permanent injunction as prayed prayed for?

5 ii) To what relief?

5 . On behalf of the plaintiff, Pws.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A.1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the defendants,D.Ws 1 is examined and No documents are marked on their behalf . 

6. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

7. Issue No.1:  As per the contention of the plaintiff is that the plaint A schedule was purchased by the three persons RSV Prasad Rao , R.Lakshmi 

Kumari and late R.Panchakshari Devi by way of three separate sale deeds of the same day and they constructed a shopping complex consist of cellar , ground +three floors as per the approved plan obtained by them vide proceedings No. 

BA 563/93/ACP2 dt 13­8­1993. It is further contended by the plaintiff that subsequently they filed a separate application seeking permission for construction of shops in the cellar / still area and it was either approved or disapproved by the defendant corporation. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the owners constructed shops after issuing notice dt 20­7­1996 under sec 440 of the HMC Act and he purchased the plaint 'B' schedule under registered sale deed dt 24­9­1998. The main allegation against corporation is that the officials are interfering with his possession and enjoyment over “B' schedule without issuing prior notice especially for demolition. The defendant admitted the ownership of the 3 persons RSV Prasad Rao, R.Lakshmi Kumari and late 

R.Panchakshari Devi over the entire 'A' schedule . The defendant corporation admitted the most of the contentions of the plaintiff. Therefore it is better to know the admissions made by the defendant corporation, before going into the facts in dispute .

Admissions: 

1. The defendant corporation admitting the ownership of the entire 'A' schedule of Sri. RSV Prasada rao, R.Lakshmi Kumari and R.Panchakshari Devi. 

2. It is also an admitted fact that plaint A schedule consist of cellar ground + 3 floors.

6

3. Plaint 'B' schedule is in the cellar, portion in which the plaintiff is doing is running photo studio under the name and style of Tokyo Digital Fashion 

Studio.

4. The defendant corporation admitted the approved sanction plan vide proceedings VA No. 563/93/ACP II dt 12­8­1993.

5. It is also admitted by the defendant that the owners of the schedule filed a separate application seeking permission to avail FAR 0.324 exempted under GOMS No.MA dt 6­2­1992. It is also admitted fact that the complex in the plaint 'A' schedule is popularly known as Sri.Muka shopping complex 

6. The defendant corporation also not denied the purchase of the 'B' schedule existing in cellars, by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed 

dt. 24­9­1993 from it's owners.

8. In view of the above noticed admissions , it is believed that there is no controversy with regard to the ownership of Sri.RSV Prasada rao, R.Lakshmi 

Kumari and R.Panchakshari Devi. over the plaint 'A' schedule. It is also clear that originally the owners obtained approved plan dt 13­8­1993 and accordingly constructedtheshoppingcomplexconsistof cellar, ground + three floors . Therefore there is no controversy regarding purchase of B schedule by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dt 24­9­1998. 

when coming to the disputed facts the defendant corporation is denying the contention of the plaintiff that the structures in 'B' schedule are authorized constructions made as per the procedure. The defendant corporation taken a specific plea that an application to avail some site in the stilt floor to construct the shops was not approved by the corporation. The defendant pleaded that on the said application, they made an endorsement bearing No. BA II 46 /96/ACP 2 and returned the same to the owners . The defendant officials not advised the owners to submit the plans in the prescribed proforma with in 7 days.

9. As already noted above there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the entire property and purchase of only plaint schedule shops by 7 the plaintiff from the said owners under sale deed Ex.A1 dt 24­9­1998. There is no dispute with regard to the plan approved for the original owners to raise structures of ground + 3 floors of the entire property. The only dispute is with regard to the structures in the stilt floor / cellar. As per the contention of the plaintiff the original owners already submitted an application before the defendant authorities seeking to permission to raise structures in the cellar and the authorities failed to answer either by way of approval or disapproval. They started constructions. The defendant simply admitting the filing of the application by the original owners and pleaded that they returned the same with an objection that they are not entitled to raise construction in the cellar which is exclusive by meant for parking basing on GOMS No 76 AA dt 6­2­1998. 

Therefore the plaintiff has to establish that the application filed by the original owners to the corporation, was neither approved nor disapproved by the defendant authorities. The application filed by the original owners was returned by way of endorsement dt 24­4­20096 informing them to resubmit the plain in prescribed proforma and the same was resubmitted under registered NO. BA 1144 /96 ACP III. The defendant is admitting their endorsement dt. 24­6­1996 to the original owners returning the application. But denying the resubmission of said application by original owner under registration No. BA 1144 /96/ACP III. 

The original owners already approached the court OS 1226/96 for injunction against the corporation and obtained decree in their favour. To support the said plea Ex.A1 and A2 are marked. Out of which Ex.A1 is C.C copy of decree and judgment in OS 1226/96 dt.1­4­2000 . It is establishing that the original owners of the entire property i.e. plaint 'A' schedule including plaint 'B' schedule, filed a suit against the defendant corporation seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit the original owners pleaded that they left more space than required for parking and subsequently filed an application seeking permission to raise structures on the excess site left in the cellar. The original owners also pleaded in OS. 1226/96 that their application was returned with an endorsement dt 24­6­ 1996 and subsequently they submitted the plan under registered NO. BA 8 1145/96 ACP­2. The endorsement of the defendant corporation dt 24­6­1996 was marked Ex.A6 in OS 1226/96 . It is pertinent to note that in page No.5 of the said judgment in OS 1226/96 under EX.A1 the defendant corporation admitted about the submission of plans by original owners in prescribed proforma. In the earlier suit OS 1226/96 also the original owners pleaded that they complied the endorsement made by the defendant corporation and they failed to scrutinize with the statutory period and as such they started construction. The original owners filed two plans in OS 1226/96 marked as 

Ex.A1 and A3 there in . The 2 plans were already considered by the court in it's judgment under Ex.A1. There is a clear finding under Ex.A1 that the said plans showing that they were submitted for construction of shop rooms in the cellar area and as per the proceedings of corporation Ex.A2 therein the parking space required is only 120 sq.yards and owners left 469.12 sq.yards which is 3 times more than what required for the entire building. The clear findings of the court in 

OS 1226.96 under Ex.A1 are establishing that the vendors of the plaintiff 

submitted the plan for construction of shop rooms in the cellar on the excess site but not on the site required for parking as per the norms. The decree in OS 1226/96 was passed on 18­4­2000 and the purchase of the plaintiff schedule shop, by the plaintiff was admittedly on 24­9­1998. Therefore it is clear that the vendors of the plaintiff obtained injunction against the defendant corporation after purchase of the plaint schedule shop by the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant corporation preferred appeal against judgment and decree in OS 1226/96 and it was dismissed. Ex.A2 is the judgment in decree in AS24/2001dt 11­11­2004 showing that appeal preferred by the defendant corporation was dismissed conforming the lower court's decree in OS 1226/96 . It is happened in the year 2004. DW1 also admitted in his cross examination that in view of Ex.A1 and A2 they are not entitled to remove the structures on plaint 'B' schedule. The present suit is filed in the year 2011, by the plaintiff with a specific contention that the vendors constructed the plaint schedule shop as per the procedure contemplated under 9 the HMC Act and even after the injunction grated against the corporation, the officials are intentionally harassing the plaintiff by issuing notice of demolishing structures . Sri.K.Venkateswara Rao employee of the defendant corporation examined as Dw1 and he admitted that the defendant corporation issued approved plan to raise ground + 3 floors and stilt floor on 'A' schedule and he has seen the said plan. He further admitted that as per the said plan, 469.12 sq,mts left by the vendors of the plaintiff for parking area and they also made application to raise constructions in the cellar area. He simply deposed that he do not know initially the said plan was returned. He admitted that the resubmission of the plan under register No.1146/96/ACP /III. The clear admission of DW1 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff with regard to resubmission of approval plan by the vendors of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got marked the tax passbook as Ex.A7 contending that the plaint schedule shops assessed for tax and defendant corporation accordingly collecting tax. Ex.A7 is supporting the said contention of the plaintiff. It is pertinent note that Dw1 admitted in his cross examination as the property tax will be assessed after physical verification and after taking measurements of the plinth area.

11. As per the contention of plaintiff the officials of the defendant corporation came to the plaint 'B' schedule on 5­9­2011 and demanded to vacate the same to demolish the structures existing on the plaint 'B' schedule. It is significant to note that DW1 in his cross examination admitted that they visited the plaint 'B' schedule in the month of September 2011 and asked the plaintiff to remove the structures on 'B' schedule and the plaintiff informed them about the judgment and decree under Ex.A1 . The clear admission by DW1, is supporting the contention of the plaintiff regarding cause of action and interference by the defendant corporation . The plaintiff got marked the copy of judgment and decree in OS 759/2009 dt 28­3­2011 and another judgment and decree in OS 2594/05 dt 15­9­2009 as Ex.A6 and A9 . Those are the judgments passed infavour of the neighbouring shop owners in the cellar of the plaint A schedule against the defendant corporation. The findings in Ex.A6 and A9 are also 10 supporting the contention of the plaintiff regarding the demand made by corporation to the neighbours also to vacate and demolish the structures. DW1 admitted that he know the filing of OS 759/2012 by the neighbouring shop holder of 'B' schedule . DW1 deposed that the said suit was filed when they tried to demolish the neighbour's shop . DW1 himself admitted in his cross examination that GVMC got issued notices under Sec 452 and 636 of HMC Act to the neighbouring shop owners of the plaintiff in the year 2005 and they obtained decrees declaring that those shops are part and parcel of constructions raised as per the plan with registered No. BA 1145/96 ACP III . DW1 further admitted that there is parking place behind those shops and they did not receive any complaints from any body against the structures raised in 'A' schedule.

12.As admitted by DW1, they visited the plaint 'B' schedule and demanded to plaintiff to vacate and demolish the same . DW1 admitted in his cross examination that they did not issue any show cause notice to the plaintiff after their visit in the month of September 2011. The plaintiff filed the photographs showing the physical futures of plaint 'B' schedule in stilt floor of the 'A' schedule. There is no dispute with regard to the existence of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. As per the own evidence of Dw1, the corporation o'fficials without giving any notice and contrary to the decree and judgments under Ex.A1 and A2, visited the plaint 'B' schedule and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the plaint 'B' schedule to demolish. In the light of above stated reasons it is believed that the plaintiff established the interference caused by the defendants in his possession and enjoyment over plaint 'B' schedule without following the due procedure contemplated under HMC Act. 

14. The defendant taken plea that the plaintiff filed the suit without issuing the statutory mandatory notice under sec 685 of HMC Act and on that ground the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff did not ;issue the notice under sec 685 of HMC Act to the defendant corporation prior to filing of the suit. Now doubt the notice under Sec 685 of HMC Act, is mandatory for filing the suit against the corporation . But the plaintiff taken a plea that notice 11 under 685 of HMC is not required in this case, since the acts of defendant corporation are malafide in nature and as they straight away without issuing prior notice, tried to demolish the structure on 'B' schedule . While contenting so the learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reported decision 2009(2) ALT 652 equal to 2010(3) ALT 4

 Between Viquarunnassa ­Begam (died)

Vs.

Municipal corporation , Hyderabad In which their lord ships observed that in a suit to restrain corporation from doing future act, there is no necessity of issuing any notice to Municipal corporation under sec 695 prior to filing of suit .

15. In the present suit the plaintiff established that the original owners of the plaint schedule property already obtained a decree for injunction in 

os1226/96 against the defendant corporation. The plaintiff also established that 

there is an excess site in the cellar portion and the shop rooms are constructed not on the site required for parking as per the norms. Therefore the plaintiff filed this suit questioning the repeated acts of the corporation with a proposal to demolish the shop rooms in the cellar. It is pertinent note that the same issue on difference cause of action was once questioned before by the plaintiff against the defendant corporation. Even as per the evidence of Dw1, in the earlier proceedings before the court are within the knowledge of the defendant corporation, as it was went up to appeal in As 24/2010 disposal of on 11­11­ 2004. In these circumstances this court basing on the above reported decision submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, I feel that non issuance of notice under 685 of HMC Act is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff. Therefore the plea taken by the defendant is not sustainable hence the plaintiff is entitled to seek injunction against the defendant corporation. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff .

12

16.In the result suit is decreed against the defendant corporation , its men, officials and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in plaint B schedule except under due process of law. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and transcribed by her, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court, on the 1st day of August, 2013.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Plaintiff : 

PW1: T. Ravindra Babu, Pw2: B. Sunil Babu Documents Marked on behalf off the plaintiff: Ex.A1: C/C of decree and judgment passed is OS 1226/96, dt 1­4­2000. Ex.A2: CC of decree and judgment passed in As 24/2001. dt 11­11­2004. Ex.A3: Registered extract of sale deed dt 24­9­1998. Ex.A4: Special notice dt 28­7­2010 issued by defendant corporation. Ex.A5: Original electricity bill and payment receipt dt 5­9­2011. Ex.A6: C.C of decree and judgment passed in OS 759/2009 dt 28­3­2011. Ex.A7: Tax pass book . Ex.A8: two photos along with CD. Ex.A9: C.C of decree & judgment is OS 2594/05 dt 15­9­2008 of VI Addl. Junior 

Civil Judge. 

Defendants:  Dw1: K. Venkateswara rao.

Documents marked on behalf of defendant: NIL.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

13

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. THURSDAY, THE 1stDAY OF AUGUST,2013

O.S. 900/2011

BETWEEN: Sri. Thati Ravindra Babu, S/o.late Anjayya, Hindu, aged 50 years, doing business in the name and style as “ Tokyo Digital Fashion Studio” at D.no. 48­9­1, Sree Mukha complex, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. … PLAINTIFF AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Tenneti Bhavan Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam.

... DEFENDANT 

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, officials and agents from ever interfering with the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of plaint “B' schedule property in any manner whatsoever , including its demolition except by due process of law for costs. 

Value of he suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is of Rs. 10,000/­ is paid and court fee 786/­ u/s. 26(c) Art.I(b) and © of Sch.I of APCF and SV Act. This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 14­6­2013 in the presence of Sri V.S. Pavan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.Krishna Mohan, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and 

DECREE

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed against the defendant corporation , its men, officials and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in plaint 'B' schedule except under due process of law.

 2. that both parties shall bear their own costs.

(Copy of the plaint schedule and rough sketch attached hereto)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 1st day of August, 2012.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

14

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

No cost memo is filed on either side.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1OS892/10

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

WEDNESDAY, THE 7thDAY OF AUGUST, 2013

O.S. 892/2010

BETWEEN: Shaike Shabhi Begum, W/o. Meera Saheb, aged 45 years, R/o. D.No. 17­127, Arundhathinagar, Contonment, Vizianagaram. … PLAINTIFF AND Anala Srinivas, S/o. Satyanarayana aged 35 years, R/o D.No. 44­28­ 10/1, Railway New colony,Visakhapatnam ­530016. 

... DEFENDANT 

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 12­6­2013 in the presence of Sri J.P.Ranga, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V.J.K, Patnaik, Advocate for the defendant , and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking i) 

Mandatory injunction directing him to close the pits and to remove the bore well drilled in item No.2. or (ii) to permit the plaintiff to close the pits and bore well in item No.2 with her own expenses and recover the same from the defendant. iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule item No. 1 & 2 and from raising further constructions over item No.2 and (iv) for costs.

2. The averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff purchased RCC building with in plinth area of 480 sft bearing D.No. 44­28­10 along with vacant site the total extent of property purchased by the plaintiff is 160 sq.yards Consist 2OS892/10 of 2 bits i.e 139.75 sq.yards shown as item no. 1 and 20.2 sq. yards shown as item no.2. The plaintiff purchased the same under registered sale deed 30­6­ 2005 from Mahammad Moosa s/o M.A.Manjcor. She also obtained loan from 

Union Bank of India for the purchase of plaint schedule property and created equatable mortgage by deposing the original sale deed. Item No.2 is situated on the southern site of Item No.1 . The length of item No. 2 from the north to south is 60.6” and width from east to west is 3 fee. On the Southern side, 30 feet 

Municipal road running from east to west. The northmen end of the item No. 2 is touching the southern end of item No.1 . The plaintiff and her family members are using the item No.2 for their egress and agrees to item No.2 . Recently the plaintiff demolished a portion of structure on item No.1 for effecting repairs. But on 12­7­2010 the defendants highhandedly entered into item No.2 and got dug 3 pits for the purpose laying foundation columns. On 13­7­2010 when the plaintiff went to plaint schedule property, she found the defendant along with 10 others giving instructions to the mason and coolies for raising columns in said pits. The same was questioned by the plaintiff upon which the defendant abused in the plaintiff filthy language and proclaimed that he will construct foundation on item 

No.2 and grab both the items by dispossessing the plaintiff. She being a lady cannot obstruct the defendant from gabbing her property as she is residing in 

Vizianagaram. Hence the suit.

3. The averments of the written station field by the defendant are that all the allegations are Plaint are not true and correct. Ir is submitted that this 3OS892/10 defendant filed one suit OS No. 836/10 for Permanent injunction against the husband of the plaintiff and his men in respect of suit schedule property. This defendant also obtained Temporary injunction in IA 277/10 on the file of 1st Addl. 

Junior Civil Judge,Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff got filed this suit to counter blast the said suit and to cause wrongful loss to defendant. In fact this defendant purchased the property from his vendor by name Mr. Mohammad Abdulla under the document No. 290/2003 dt 17­2­2003 who in turn obtained the same by way of gift settlement vide document No. 1136/02, dt 14­6­2002 executed by one 

Mohamad Anwar . He intern acquired the same from his vendor Bheemarasetty 

Kalavathi under document No. 136/91 dt 9­4­1991. In all the above referred documents the same boundaries are shown much less southern boundary i.e 30 feet Municipal road and eastern boundaries as common path way. The plaintiff purchased the property which is existing on the northern side of the defendant's property . The common way in the Municipal road from north to south leading to main road. This defendant did not go beyond his property and he constructed house with in his extent of 892.66 sq covered under the sale deed dt 17­2­ 2003. The common path way shown in the said sale deed on eastern side is existing several decades. This defendant has no need to occupy or construct on the property of others. The plaintiff mischievously created the litigation with the assistance of her husband who is working as Sub­Register in the registration department. The plaintiff has prove his right, title and possession over item 

No.2 with specific measurements. How the plaintiff purchased the said common 4OS892/10 path way shown as item No.2 is to be explained by the plaintiff since item No.2 is shown as common path way in all the link documents. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked documentary evidence of Exs. A.1 to A9. Where as the defendant got examined as DW1 and got marked documentary evidence of Ex.B1 to B.7 on his behalf

6. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

7. ISSUE NO.1: 

The plaintiff claiming mainly 2 reliefs (1) for mandatory injunction and (2) for Permanent injunction . The claim of the plaintiff is that she purchased Items 1 and 2 shown in the plaint schedule from Mohammad Moosa 

S/o.M.A. Manjcor under registered sale deed dt 30­6­2005 and since date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of both the items 1 and 2. 

She further contended that item No.1 is an extent of 139­75 sq.yards consist of 

RCC building bearing document No. 1769/2005 dt 30­6­2005 and item No. 2 is only a vacant site to an extent of 20.2.sq.yards. The plaintiff further contented that item No.2 of is existing on the southern side of the item No.1 and the 

Municipal road is existing on southern side of item No.2. The plaintiff gave the 5OS892/10 measurements of item No. 2 as 60 feet 6 inchs from north to south and 3 feet width from east to west. The measurements and existence of plaintiff schedule 1 and 2 are not specifically denied by the defendants. Ex.A1 sale deed dt. 30­6­ 2005 is showing the purchase of property by plaintiff.

8. Though the plaintiff shown two items, in the plaint schedule, she is seeking the relief only in respect of item No.2 which is admittedly on the southern side of item No.1. The defendant is not disputing about the ownership and possession of plaintiff over item No.1. The controversy is with regard to the item 

No.2 only . As per the contention of the plaintiff she purchased item No.2 along with item No. 1 and she has been enjoying the item No. 2 for her ingress and agrees to item No.1 where as the defendant taken a specific plea that the plaintiff has no right , title or possession over the item No.2 and it is a common path way which cannot be purchased by the plaintiff. In these circumstances the burden preliminary lies on the plaintiff to establish her right, possession and enjoyment over item No.2.

9. The main dispute is with regard to the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule. It is admitted fact that the item No.2 in dispute, is on the south east of item No.1 an it is the eastern boundary to the property of one B.Kalavathi. Item No.2 is passage for ingress and agrees of the plaintiff to her house existing in item No.1. 

As per the contention of the plaintiff the defendants raised pits for erecting columns constructing the plaintiff's right of ingress and agrees. Where as the defendant pleaded that his construction is only with in site and he did not dig any 6OS892/10 pits or not made any efforts to erect the Columns in item No.2 . The plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 to A9 to substantiate her claim. The plaintiff herself examined as 

Pw1 and husband of the plaintiff examined as Pw2. Pw1 deposed that presently her property is vacant site and it is leveled . She further deposed that there is no dispute in respect of her house site. She further deposed that to reach her property they have to pass through the property of the defendant's 3 feet raastha. Pw2 also admitted that they have to reach their property through the passage situated in front of the house of the defendant. He further deposed that they demolished their old RCC house and proceedings with the new construction. The disputed passage is leveled and plastered with cement. The evidence of Pws1 and 2 is proving that the passage in dispute is plastered after leveling the same. It is clear that no pits are existing on the disputed plaint schedule item No.2 for removal of which the present suit is filed. When coming to the documents Ex.A1 registered sale deed dt 30­6­2005 is admittedly a sale deed under which the plaintiff purchased item 1 from her vendor M.D Moosa. In 

Ex.A1 item no.2 shown as RAHADARI. The sale deed Ex.A1 filed by the plaintiff itself revealing that item No.2 is a common passage (Rahadari) Pw1 and 2 themselves admitted that they have to reach their property through the property of the defendant. On the other hand the sale deed Ex.B1 dt 17­2­2003 filed by the defendant is also showing that there is a common path way on the eastern site of the property covered in Ex.B1. The sale deed of the neighbour 

B.Kalavathi marked as Ex.B6. In Ex.B6 also the common line is shown on 7OS892/10 eastern side of her property. The plaintiff in the plaint schedule referred the property of B.Kalavathi on south of item No.1. Therefore there is controversy with regard to the axistence of passage i.e item No.2 on the east of the property of 

B.Kalavathi and it is covering only a part of the item No.1 on south east corner.

10. Ex.A3 is a tax passbook stood in the name of the plaintiff bearing 

D.No. 44­28­10 in which in item No.1 of the present plaint schedule is referred . 

But as per the own admission of Pw1 and 2, the house existing in item No.1 was demolished and it is the vacant site now. None of the deposed based evidence with regard to the date of demolition of the house of the plaintiff on item 

No.1 . Since there is no dispute with regard to the possession and owner ship of plaintiff over plaint schedule item No.1, the elaborate discussion for item No.1 is not required. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to Ex.A.3. The plaintiff herself got marked the photographs along with pen drive showing the existence of item No.2 and the property of the defendant. The same were confronted to 

Dw1. On his admission only the photographs are marked as Ex.A7 to 9. During cross examination Dw1 deposed that the house with an iron gate appearing in the photographs Ex.A7 is his house. The building with a complete structure having a big iron gate at the entrance is admittedly the property of the defendant. 

By way of cross­examination, the plaintiff's counsel himself brought to the notice of the court that the defendant completed his entire construction in the month of 

June, 2011 . Dw1 also admitted in his cross examination that he has no title over the eastern side common line as referred in his sale deed. But he is not 8OS892/10 admitting the exclusive right of plaintiff over the said line I.e item No.1 and the alleged interference by him. Dw1 also admitted that the small iron gate fixed at the end of the line appearing in the photographs Ex, A7 and A8. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW1 nothing elicited to believe that the defendant dug pits in the passage shown as item no.2 and still the said pits are existing on the item No.2. Pw1 and 2 themselves admitted that the site shown as item No.2 is leveled and plastered. Therefore the question of removal or filing of the said pits does not arise. The plaintiff seeking Mandatory injunction mainly for removal of the alleged pits and columns in the plaint schedule item 

No.2. But the plaintiff failed to establish that the still the said pits or bore are existing well in item No.2. No doubt the plaintiff got marked one photograph with negative in Ex.A5 showing the construction work . As per the plaint pleadings, the defendant started construction on his site and dug pits in item No.2. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he started construction on his site ie,. Item No.1. 

Therefore the photographs Ex.A5 and A6 taken before filing the suit, showing the construction work on the site of the defendant. No doubt some pits and the bore well tube are appearing in Ex.A5 and A3 photographs. But those are not touching the property of any neighbours. Since there is very little space between the property of the defendant and his neighbours there is a possibility of spreading soil and other material when ever any pits dug or bore well drilled. 

Therefore basing on Ex.A5 and A6, the court cannot believe that the said pits and bore well were erected by the defendant on the common passage. It 9OS892/10 significant note that the photographs Ex.A7 and A9 are subsequent to the photographs Ex.A5 and A6. Ex.A7 & 9 are showing the construction of defendant is totally completed, by filling those pits and appearing in EX.A6. The situation which is appearing in Ex.A5 and A6 is not at all existing now since the entire construction is completed as appearing A7 to A9. Therefore the relief of 

Mandatory Injunction for removal of pits and the bore well become infractuous, as they were already filled and covered.

11. The defendant taken a specific plea that he filed a suit OS 836/2010 against the husband of the plaintiff when he interfered in his property. In support of the said plea, he got marked the judgment and decree in OS 836/10 dt.21­3­ 2012 as Ex.B2. It is supporting the evidence of Dw1 and establishing that the defendant approached the court with a contention that the husband of the plaintiff interfering in his possession and enjoyment over his property to an extent of 82.62 sq.yards. Ex.B2 is establishing that the said suit was decreed infavour of the defendant against the husband of the plaintiff . The defendant further pleaded that plaintiff filed this suit to counter blast the suit OS 836/10 filed by him. 

In the said, suit the court found that the plea taken by the husband of the plaintiff that the defendant tried to make construction in the common passage , is not true . It is also found in the decree and judgment Ex,Ex.B2 that the defendant herein did not deny the right of the way of the plaintiff here over the common passage ie.,item No.2. The defendant also got marked 4 photographs 10OS892/10 along with CD under EX.B3. The said photographs are also showing that there are some pipe lines and pillars embedded in the site. But those photograph under Ex.B3 were taken at the time of rising construction on the site of the defendant and now those pits are not appearing . The construction of the defendant is completed. Therefore they cannot be relieve upon by this court , to decide the issue now. The defendant got marked one letter issued by Bank of borada Ex.B4 and other link documents as Ex.B5 to B7. But there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the defendant over his property and construction there on. Therefore no new thinks can be proved or established through Ex.B3 to 

B7. Dw1 cross examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff, but it is not supporting in any way the contention of the plaintiff about a digging of pits and drilling of bore well on the common passage ie,.item No.2. More over as already reasoned above no pits and the bore well are now existing on item no.2. 

Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to claim an Mandatory injunction on the absently things. The relief of Mandatory injunction Sought by the plaintiff become infructuous. Accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

12. ISSUE NO.2:

The plaintiff also seeking Permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in his possession enjoyment over pliant schedule items 1 and 2 and from raising further constructions on item No.2 . It is elabratingly discussed in the above issue, with regard to the rights of the parties, existence of property and the structural changes made on plaint schedule items 1 and 2 and on the 11OS892/10 property of the defendant. Admittedly the plaintiff and the defendants are the owners and in the possession of their respective properties. Admittedly there are no structures existing now on the plaint schedule item No.1 which were shown as 

RCC building No.44­29­10 at the time of filing this suit. On the other hand the defendant also completed his entire construction on his own site. The disputed passage ie, plaint schedule item No.2 is also leveled & plastered with cement. 

The said passage closed by a gate of the defendant at the end. Pw1 and 2 themselves admitted that they have to reach their property through passage adjacent to the defendant's property. Once the construction of defendant is completed the question of restraining defendant from raising further construction doesn't arise. The defendant already approached the court by filing suit OS 836/10 for injunction against the husband of plaintiff in respect of his property and obtained decree on 21­2­2012 . On the other hand the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant interfered in her possession enjoyment over item No.1. In the light of above stated reasons it is found the defendants completed his on his site construction and the disputed passage item No.2, is already plastered with cement. Hence the suit became infractuous. Accordingly this issue also answered against the plaintiff.

In the result suit is dismissed no costs. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly in system, typed by her 

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on the 7th day of August, 2013.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

12OS892/10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO.OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF 

PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Sk. Shabhi Begum P.W.2 : Meera Saheb

DEFENDANT 

D.W.1 : Anala Srinivas

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF 

PLAINTIFF : Ex.A1 is the Register extract sale deed dt 30­6­2005. Ex.A2 is the property tax pass book. Ex.A3 is the register extract of the sale deed dt 26­4­2004 executed in favour of MD. Moosa. Ex.A4 is register extract of sale dt 13­2­1996 executed infavour of vendors by name Md. Shamsher, MD. Yacob MD, Seeraj MD. Akbar, MD Ayub. Ex.A5 To A 9 is the Photos along with pen drive. 

DEFENDANT :  Ex.B1: Register extract of Regd. Sale deed dt 17­2­2003. Ex.B.2: CC of decree & judgment in OS 836/10 on the file of IA.J.C.J.VSP dt 21­3­2012. Ex.B3: 4 photographs with C.D. Ex.B4: Original covering letter issued by the bank of Baroda dt 20­11­2012. Ex.B.5: CC of Gift settlement deed dt 14­6­2002. Ex.B6: CC of defendants vendors Donee's sale deed dt 13­5­1999. Ex.B7: Cc of defendant vendors link document dt 9­4­1991. 

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

13OS892/10

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.L., LL.M., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. WEDNESDAY, THE 7thDAY OF AUGUST, 2013

O.S. 892/2010

BETWEEN: Shaike Shabhi Begum, W/o. Meera Saheb, aged 45 years, R/o. D.No. 17­127, Arundhathinagar, Contonment, Vizianagaram. … PLAINTIFF AND Anala Srinivas, S/o. Satyanarayana aged 35 years, R/o D.No. 44­28­ 10/1, Railway New colony,Visakhapatnam ­530016. 

... DEFENDANT 

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking i) Mandatory injunction directing him to close the pits and to remove the bore well drilled in item No.2. or (ii) to permit the plaintiff to close the pits and bore well in item No.2 with her own expenses and recover the same from the defendant. iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule item No. 1 & 2 and from raising further constructions over item No.2 and (iv) for costs. Value of he suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is of Rs. 20,000/­ (10,000 + 10,000/­ is paid and court fee786/­+ 786/­ u/s. 26(c) Art.I(b) and © of Sch.I of APCF and SV Act. This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 12­6­2013 in the presence of Sri J.P.Ranga, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V.J.K, Patnaik, Advocate for the defendant , and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order 

and 

DECREE

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; 

2. that there be no order as to costs.

(Copy of the plaint schedule and rough sketch attached hereto)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 7th day of August, 2012.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

14OS892/10

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

No cost memo is filed on either side.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.