1 O.S.50/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIDHOUT.
Present : Sri S. Srinivasa Kalyan, Junior Civil Judge, Sidhout.
Saturday, this the 27th day of April, 2024.
Original Suit No.50 of 2014
1) Madhu Erikal Reddy, S/o. Late M. Rami Reddy, Hindu,
Aged 65 years, Cultivation
2) Madhu Suseelamma, W/o. Madhu Erikal Reddy, Hindu,
Aged 60 years, Housewife
Both are R/at Bapanapalle Village, Mohideen Sab Palle Post,
Sidhout Mandal, Y.S.R. District.
… Plaintiffs
Vs.
1) Chinthala Siddaiah, S/o. Late Chinthala Guraiah,
Aged 70 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Gangaperuru
Village and Post, Vontimitta Mandal, YSR District having died his L.R. i.e., defendant No.2
2) Chinthala Sankaramma, W/o. Late Chinthala Siddaiah,
Aged 60 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/at Gangaperuru
Village and Post, Vontimitta Mandal, YSR District.
(added asper orders in IA.No.453/2022, dt.06.12.2022).
… Defendants
This suit is coming before me on 16-4-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and of Smt. A. Sudhamani, learned counsel for the defendants, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing on both sides 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 plaintiffs for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with the peaceful 2 O.S.50/2014 possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :
The plaintiff No.1 and one Madhu Venkata Subba Reddy is no other than the brother of plaintiff No.1 are absolute owners of the landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7.07 cents in Survey No.13 of Gangaperuru
Village fields of Vontimitta Mandal, by virtue of Registered sale deed dated 21.05.1963 that got executed by 1) Kalakata Pitchaiah, 2) Kalakata Subbanna, who are the sons of Kalakata Subbarayudu, of Shakarajupalle Majara,
Mohideen sab palle Village, in favor of plaintiff No.1 and Madhu Venkata Subba
Reddy, for a valid sale consideration. Thence, the said land is bounded by stone wall fencing i.e., thetagoda since from 200 years, admeasuring 3 feet width and 3 feet height existed even from british reign times immemorial, which is shown as ‘ABFDEC’ in plaint plan. Since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers namely Madu Venkata Subba Reddy and
Madhu Kanaka Reddy were in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising orange trees and also seasonal crops without any interruption from anybody in any manner whatsoever. Further, during the year 1983, the plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers namely Madhu Venkata Subba Reddy and
Madhu Kanaka reddy, divided the said Survey No.13, in that context plaintiff
No.1 acquired his share of Ac. 2.35 cents, Madhu Venkata Subba reddy acquired his share to an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents, so also Madhu Kanaka reddy to an extent of Ac.2.36 cents. Since then, the plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without out obstruction in any manner whatsoever vividly by raising crops, etc., therein. The plaintiff No.1 obtained pattadhar pass book in the name of his son namely Madhu Mallikharjuna Reddy, the two brothers obtained pattadhar 3 O.S.50/2014 pass books in their names for their respective shares proportionately. Further, on 19.10.2000, the plaintiff No.1 purchased the share of Madhu Kanaka reddy who is eldest brother of the plaintiff No.1 under the cover of registered sale deed in favor of plaintiff No.2, as such the plaintiffs owned landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.71 cents in Survey No.13 been absolute owners of the same, which is shown as ‘ABCDF’ herein suit schedule property.
The plaintiff No.2 obtained pattadhar passbook in her name and her name was mutated into relevant revenue records i.e, adangal pahani. Besides that,
Madhu Venkata Subba reddy comprises his share of Ac.2.36 cents shown as ‘CDE’ in plaint plan, on the demise of the Madhu Venkata Subba reddy, his wife Jayamma is under possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops on obtaining pattadhar passbook in her name. subsequent to their purchase during the year, 1963, the plaintiff No.1 and his brothers raised orange trees that existed since about 40 years in the entire Survey No. 13 that is shown as ‘ABFDEC’ thereinafter raised banana, pasupu, now dosa crop is for yielding stage ripen for harvesting. Further, the suit schedule property is bounded by
Survey No. 12 of Malli Santaiah land and Mamidi Roja Reddy on the northern side, Survey No.14 owned by defendant to an extent of Ac. 1.02 cents on the eastern side, Survey No. 13 of Land of Jayamma in an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents, within compound wall i.e., thettagoda, Vanka is situated on the western side.
Further, on 12.12.2014, the defendant and his henchmen who were on the eastern side of the suit schedule property i.e, beyond ‘BF’ compound wall, as politically affluent inimically trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property on encroachment of the compound wall, which is nothing but imaginary in the absence of basis of any record without having right or title trying to remove the age old stone compound wall which is in existence from times immemorial even from British reign, in that context as the plaintiffs 4 O.S.50/2014 resisted their highhanded acts asked them to show any basis for their claim, in turn they went away. Further, there is no scope to the plaintiffs to encroach into Survey No.14 as there is such a heavy stone compound wall that cannot be disturbed by plaintiff more so, in accordance to that, on the side of ‘BF’ compound wall defendant land comprises age old three neem trees, three mango and three munaga trees since from thirty years been border the defendant those trees towards boundaries. Further, the claim of defendant that he owned land beyond ‘BF’ compound wall in Survey No.13 is imaginary, unthinkable and false claim. Further, the defendant and his henchmen were highly politically affluent and powerful are openly proclaiming in the village that they are going to demolish the ‘BF’ compound wall and would encroach into the suit schedule property in the absence of plaintiffs by hook or crook in any manner whatsoever, having neither possession nor title of the suit schedule property in favor of defendant, in-lieu of the same the plaintiffs are under reasonable apprehension of injury in the hands of the defendant, in case if he allowed to do so his dire acts against the plaintiffs then there is every possibility for infringement of the right of plaintiffs in connection with the suit schedule property, as the defendant resorted to such dire acts of the plaintiffs is arbitrary and against charts, having no other go, on the basis of cause of action that arose on account of the defendant, who is responsible for all the costs and consequences either on facts or of law, the plaintiffs are constrained to file this permanent injunction suit for grant of relief as prayed for, otherwise, the plaintiff would put to serious injuries and irreparable damages. Further, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant hereinafter defendant No.1 as died leaving behind his Legal representative, thence, as per orders in I.A.No.453/2022, dated 06.12.2022, the defendant No.2 is added as legal representative of deceased defendant No.1.
5 O.S.50/2014
3.The brief averments of the written statement are as follows :
The suit filed by the plaintiff is tenable neither on facts nor of law and all the contents therein claimed as false and concocted except those are specifically admitted as true and correct, as such they are put into strict proof of the same. Further, contended that, the plaintiffs approached the court with unclean hands on suppression of material facts for their wrongful gain.
Further, contended that, the defendant purchased his land situated in Survey
No.14/1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents during the year 1978 obtained pattadhar passbook and title deed in vide patta No.307 in his name that got issued by concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, Vontimitta dated 15.08.1994 and also obtained Rajamudra on 11.05.2010, obtaining subsidy for several times from concerned Mandal Agricultural Officer, Vontimitta, by raising groundnut, paddy, kandi, present ulavalu. Further, contended that the ‘BF’ compound wall in between Survey No.13 and 14 shown in plaint plan was indeed encroached by the plaintiffs into the defendant land for wrongful gain.
Further contended that the defendant never encroached into the land of the plaintiffs at any point of time. Further, contended that the defendant is under possession and enjoyment of their landed property covered under registered sale deed belongs to survey No.14 and the plaintiffs land is situated on the western side of the defendant land, by taking advantage of the same, the plaintiffs encroached the land of the defendant, the plaintiffs keeping entire fault upon them foisted this suit against the defendant for wrongful gain.
Further, contended that, in case Surveyor is appointed and on survey of the suit schedule land and land of the defendant, actual fact would come into light. Further, prayed for appointment of advocate commissioner for measurement of the property with the help of Mandal Surveyor with reference to revenue records. Further contended that, the defendant obtained loan of 6 O.S.50/2014
Rs.50,000/- dated 23.12.2014 from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. Further, contended that the defendant never encroached into land of the plaintiffs, as plaintiffs are politically affluent and powerful persons whereas defendant is an old aged person who belongs to lower caste. Further, prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trail :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?
2. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs as per contention of defendants ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for along with award of costs thereof ?
4. If so, to what extent of relief, the plaintiffs entitled for ?
5.During the course of trial, PW.1 was examined, Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendant side examined as Dws.1 and 2 but no documents were marked.
6.Heard. Perused the record.
7.Issue Nos.1 to 4 :
The plaintiff in order to substantiate his contention cited himself as PW.1 and got examined in chief towards ocular evidence and Exs.A1 to A9 i.e., plaint plan, registered sale deed, dated 21.05.1963 in vide document
No.299/1963 that got executed by plaintiff No.1 jointly with co-owners in favor of one Pitchaiah and Subbanna pertaining to the suit schedule property, registered sale deed, dated 19.10.2000 in vide document No.6968/2000 that got executed by one M. Kanaka Reddy in favor of M. Suseelamma 7 O.S.50/2014 herein plaintiff No.2 pertaining to the suit schedule property, Pattadar pass book in the name of Madhu Mallikarjuna Reddy, who is the son of the 1st plaintiff, issued by the then MRO, Vontimitta, Pattadar pass book in the name of 2nd plaintiff, issued by the then MRO, Vontimitta, copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) in the name of 2nd plaintiff, issued by the then
Tahasildar, Vontimitta, copy of Adangal in the name of the 2nd plaintiff, issued by the then Tahasildar, Vontimitta, copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) in the name of Madhu Mallikarjuna Reddy, son of Madhu Erikal Reddy.
copy of Adangal in the name of the Madhu Mallikarjuna Reddy, son of
Madhu Erikal Reddy, issued by the then Tahasildar, Vontimitta, in that context, it connotes that, The plaintiff No.1 and one Madhu Venkata Subba
Reddy is no other than the brother of plaintiff No.1 are absolute owners of the landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7.07 cents in Survey No.13 of
Gangaperuru Village fields of Vontimitta Mandal, by virtue of Registered sale deed dated 21.05.1963 that got executed by 1) Kalakata Pitchaiah,
2) Kalakata Subbanna, who are the sons of Kalakata Subbarayudu, of
Shakarajupalle Majara, Mohideen sab palle Village, in favor of plaintiff No.1 and Madhu Venkata Subba reddy, for a valid sale consideration. Thence, the said land is bounded by stone wall fencing i.e., thettagoda since from 200 years, admeasuring 3 feet width and 3 feet height existed even from british reign times immemorial, which is shown as ‘ABFDEC’ in plaint plan. Since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers namely Madu
Venkata Subba Reddy and Madhu Kanaka Reddy were in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising orange trees and also seasonal crops without any interruption from anybody in any manner whatsoever. Further, during the year 1983, the plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers namely Madhu 8 O.S.50/2014
Venkata Subba reddy and Madhu Kanaka Reddy, divided the said Survey No.
13, in that context plaintiff No.1 acquired his share of Ac. 2.35 cents, Madhu
Venkata Subba Reddy acquired his share to an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents, so also Madhu Kanaka Reddy to an extent of Ac 2.36 cents. Since then, the plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without out obstruction in any manner whatsoever vividly by raising crops, etc., therein. The plaintiff No.1 obtained pattadhar pass book in the name of his son namely Madhu Mallikharjuna reddy, the two brothers obtained pattadhar pass books in their names for their respective shares proportionately. Further, on 19.10.2000, the plaintiff No.1 purchased the share of Madhu Kanaka Reddy who is eldest brother of the plaintiff No.1 under the cover of registered sale deed in favor of plaintiff No.2, as such the plaintiffs owned landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.71 cents in
Survey No.13 been absolute owners of the same, which is shown as ‘ABCDF’ herein suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.2 obtained pattadhar passbook in her name and her name was mutated into relevant revenue records i.e, adangal pahani. Besides that, Madhu Venkata Subba reddy comprises his share of Ac. 2.36 cents shown as ‘CDE’ in plaint plan, on the demise of the
Madhu Venkata Subba reddy, his wife Jayamma is under possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops on obtaining pattadhar passbook in her name. subsequent to their purchase during the year, 1963, the plaintiff
No.1 and his brothers raised orange trees that existed since about 40 years in the entire Survey No.13 that is shown as ‘ABFDEC’ thereinafter raised banana, pasupu, now dosa crop is for yielding stage ripen for harvesting. Further, the suit schedule property is bounded by Survey No. 12 of Malli Santaiah land and
Mamidi Roja Reddy on the northern side, Survey No.14 owned by defendant to an extent of Ac. 1.02 cents on the eastern side, Survey No. 13 of Land of 9 O.S.50/2014
Jayamma in an extent of Ac.2.36 cents, within compound wall i.e., thetagoda,
Vanka is situated on the western side. Further, on 12.12.2014, the defendant and his henchmen who were on the eastern side of the suit schedule property i.e, beyond ‘BF’ compound wall, as politically affluent inimically trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property on encroachment of the compound wall, which is nothing but imaginary in the absence of basis of any record without having right or title trying to remove the age old stone compound wall which is in existence from times immemorial even from British reign, in that context as the plaintiffs resisted their highhanded acts asked them to show any basis for their claim, in turn they went away. Further, there is no scope to the plaintiffs to encroach into Survey No.14 as there is such a heavy stone compound wall that cannot be disturbed by plaintiff more so, in accordance to that, on the side of ‘BF’ compound wall defendant land comprises age old three neem trees, three mango and three munaga trees since from thirty years been border the defendant those trees towards boundaries. Further, the claim of defendant that he owned land beyond ‘BF’ compound wall in Survey No.13 is imaginary, unthinkable and false claim.
Further, the defendant and his henchmen were highly politically affluent and powerful are openly proclaiming in the village that they are going to demolish the ‘BF’ compound wall and would encroach into the suit schedule property in the absence of plaintiffs by hook or crook in any manner whatsoever, having neither possession nor title of the suit schedule property in favor of defendant, in-lieu of the same the plaintiffs are under reasonable apprehension of injury in the hands of the defendant, in case if he allowed to do so his dire acts against the plaintiffs then there is every possibility for infringement of the right of plaintiffs in connection with the suit schedule property, as the defendant resorted to such dire acts of the plaintiffs is arbitrary and against 10 O.S.50/2014 charts, having no other go, on the basis of cause of action that arose on account of the defendant, who is responsible for all the costs and consequences either on facts or of law, the plaintiffs are constrained to file this permanent injunction suit for grant of relief as prayed for, otherwise, the plaintiff would put to serious injuries and irreparable damages. Further, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant hereinafter defendant No.1 as died leaving behind his Legal representative, thence, as per orders in
I.A.No.453/2022, dated 06.12.2022, the defendant No.2 is added as legal representative of deceased defendant No.1, in accordance to that, the plaintiffs has established their case against the defendant as per their contention.
8.Further during the course of cross examination, the learned counsel for defendant made sincere efforts in order to rebut or disprove the case of plaintiffs, despite of that nothing elicited contra to that of contention of plaintiffs, in that context, the defendant side formally suggested that, the plaintiffs indeed trying to encroach their landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents situated in Sy.No.14 of Gangaperuru Village fields abutting ‘BF’ compound wall of Sy.No.13 of suit schedule property of plaintiffs.
9.Further during the course of chief examination of Dws.1 and 2/
C. Sankaramma and M. Srinivasulu who adduced their ocular evidence on behalf of defendant contended that, they never tried to encroach the suit schedule property at any point of time covered under Sy.No.13, adjoining the compound wall i.e., age old stone wall (thettagoda), covered under Sy.No.14, in fact the plaintiffs tried to encroach the landed property of defendants.
Further contended that, on appointment of advocate commissioner, in case, if noted down the physical features of disputed suit schedule property of 11 O.S.50/2014 plaintiffs and landed property of defendants inclusively measurements thereof abutting ‘BF’ compound wall of Survey No. 13 and Survey No. 14, actual fact would be ascertained. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice. Hence, the defendant side corroborated their contention through their ocular evidence of Dws.1 and 2 to that extent.
10.Further during the course of cross examination of Dws.1 and 2, the learned counsel for plaintiffs made sincere efforts in order to rebut or disprove the contention of defendant side and to elicit material facts in favour of plaintiffs case, in that context, the plaintiffs counsel succeeded to elicit certain material facts through DW.1 about existence of age old stone compound wall i.e., ‘BF’ shown in Ex.A1/plaint plan, in accordance to that, it was elicited about existence of age old neem and mango treesover landed property of defendant in Survey No. 14 adjoining ‘BF’ compound wall, corroborates
ExA1/original plaint plan of plaintiff side, categorically through DW.2 it was elicited that, the plaintiffs never tried to encroach the landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents situated in Sy.No.14 abutting ‘BF’ compound wall at any point of time.
11.In the light of the above on concretion of contention of both parties to the suit proceedings in conspectus view, either to defy the case of plaintiff on par with defendants contention or to accord the contention of the plaintiff, to ascertain the facts in issue, as a matter of fact, the suit is contested, this court is pleased to take note of contention of the pleadings on either side, in that context, for the sake of convenience of appreciation of evidence, only relevant facts in issue were taken into consideration leaving behind irrelevant material on record, thence, it clearly connotes that, the 12 O.S.50/2014 defendant side disputed, denied and put into strict proof of the contention of the plaintiff side i.e., ocular evidence of PW.1/Madhu Erikal Reddy coupled with
Exs.A1 to A9 documentary evidence in connection with possession and enjoyment, right and title of plaintiffs in respect of ‘ABFDEC’ suit schedule property in the absence of relevant revenue records that were failed to be filed by plaintiff side in support of plaintiffs case irrevocably. Further, categorically, DW.1 indeed during the course of cross examination admitted that the suit schedule property in survey No.13 is under defacto possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs family and is under their cultivation and no such documentary proof was filed on behalf of defendant side in support of defendant contention to defy the case of plaintiff side. Thence, during the course of trial proceedings, the suit schedule property i.e., ‘ABFDEC’ belongs to plaintiffs family is an indisputably admitted fact that borne on record culled out through defendant, in accordance to that, the defendant side mainly relied upon their ocular evidence in the absence of documentary evidence contended that, their landed property adjoining ‘BF’ compound wall of Ex.A1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents, that located in Sy.No.14 is on the western side of their land, the plaintiffs been under possession and enjoyment of the landed property herein suit schedule property situated in Survey No. 13 covered under ‘ABFDEC’, tried to encroach by plaintiffs who are politically affluent and powerful persons whereas defendant who belongs to lower caste and senior citizen, unable to resist the highhanded acts of the plaintiffs against them, chosen no redressal of his dispute with plaintiffs before any forum including court of law, categorically contended that, in case of appointment of advocate commissioner, on measurement of suit schedule property i.e., ‘ABFDEC’ of Ex.A1 and landed property of defendant adjoining ‘BF’ compound wall of Ex.A1, actual fact of encroachment claim of defendant 13 O.S.50/2014 would come into light. Accordingly, the defendant side neither adduced documentary evidence nor such material piece of evidence to substantiate their contention during the course of trial proceedings for the reasons best known to them as rightly contended by the plaintiffs counsel. Apropos, the plaintiffs mainly relied upon PW.1 ocular evidence coupled with Exs.A1 to A9 to substantiate their contention, besides that ocular evidence of Dws.1 and 2 is nothing to do with plaintiffs case, because during cross examination of
DW.2, it was elicited that, the plaintiffs never tried to encroach the landed property of defendant, with that, as rightly contended by the learned plaintiffs counsel that, it is clearly evident that, the defendant side contention is vague, baseless, false concocted and invented for the purpose of the suit, as they neither preferred appointment of advocate commissioner petition for localization of the property and nor produced such material piece of evidence to defy the case set up by plaintiff, indeed during the cross examination of
Dws.1 and 2 admitted that, the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs corroborated the contention of the plaintiff side and uncorroborated to that of defendant contention, is of contradictory, doubtful, unreasonable, incredible, untrustworthy, unreliable, improbable, implausible, exorbitant, repudiates thereby stood fatal upon their case, accordingly their evidence is disregarded and discarded in the pursuit of surmise witness. Thus, probably it construes that, the plaintiff is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ‘ABFDEC’ of Ex.A1/original Plaint plan suit schedule property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.71 cents out of total extent Ac.7.07 cents situated in Survey No.13, with adjoining age old ‘BF’ compound wall (thettagoda) abutting to the land of the defendant admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.02 cents situated in Survey No.14, wherein the suit schedule property is under cultivation Dosa crop which ready and ripen state to harvest as on 14 O.S.50/2014 the date of filing of the suit. While the matter stood thus, the defendant side having no right or connection with the suit schedule property, prior to the filing of the suit causing obstruction to the continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs being politically affluent in the local area along with his henchmen came into land of the plaintiffs, actively and highhandedly trying to dispossess the plaintiffs in order to encroach the eastern portion of the landed property covered under ExA1/original plaint plan, ‘ABFDEC’ suit schedule property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.71 cents situated in
Survey No.13 of Gangaperuru village fields of Vontimitta Mandal, adjoining ‘BF’ age old stone compound wall abutting the land of the defendant admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents situated in Survey No.14 of
Gangaperuru Village fields of Vontimitta Mandal, at that juncture, the plaintiffs resisted the highhanded acts of the defendant side and asked to show the basis to their claim, in turn the defendant went away. Thereinafter, the defendant side openly proclaiming in the village that, they are going to dispossess and encroach Ex.A1/original plaint plan ‘ABFDEC’ suit schedule property of the plaintiffs by hook or crook in any manner whatsoever, since then, as the defendant resorted to such continuous dire acts against the plaintiffs, which is arbitrary and against charts which requires legal recourse against the defendant, in case, if the defendant side would allowed to do so their continuous dire acts against the plaintiffs, there is reasonable apprehension of injury in the hands of the defendant who is politically affluent, as such the plaintiffs unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendant suffering hardship, having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this permanent injunction suit for grant of relief in their favour.
15 O.S.50/2014
12.Further, the injunction order is defined under section 38 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, that, an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing possession may not be granted in favour of the plaintiff unless he proves that he was in actual possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. Apropos, injunction is an equitable and preventive relief, is a remedy to aggrieved to be granted in the form of relief of injunction which is right in personam at the discretion of the court to pass such order by taking into purview of legal encumbrances of both parties to be adjudged as mixed question of fact and law, in that context, this court inclined that, on granting of the relief sought for, there would be no prejudice that would be caused to either parties to the suit proceedings, as there is no point for refusal of the relief sought for, in case of refusal of the relief sought for, plaintiffs would suffer serious injuries and irreparable damages, as there is no alternative relief that would be compensated in terms of money except the relief sought for, as there is no material suppression of facts on behalf of the plaintiff side, ipsofacto, as all the essential requisites ie., primafacie case, comparable mischief and irreparable loss that stands in favor of the plaintiff. Thence, as rightly contended by the plaintiff counsel that, it is clearly evident that, the plaintiff established his case under Sec.50, 74, 76 to 80 and proved on par with Sec.102, 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 indisputably with no doubt, besides that, it manifests that, there is no such iota of evidence that putforth by defendant side either to rebut or disprove the case set up by plaintiff
U/Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 either on facts or of law screens irrebutable vis-a-vis. Thus, even a prudent man can easily be said with no doubt that, the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction order in their favour as prayed. Thence, as rightly contended by learned counsel for plaintiffs that, the cause of action arose on account of defendant, as such she 16 O.S.50/2014 would be held liable for all legal consequences including the costs thereof, accordingly prayed for such other relief or reliefs that this court deems fit and proper in the said facts and circumstances in the interest of justice. Therefore, this court is of considered view to go with the plea of the plaintiff rather than defendant either on facts or of law. Hence, it can be said with reasonable belief that the plaintiffs has established their case with ocular evidence of
PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A9 and on cross examination of Dws.1 and 2 successfully proved their case as reasonable, tenable, credible, trustworthy, reasonable and sufficient to the satisfaction of the court for grant of relief sought for beyond all reasonable preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly Issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in favour of plaintiffs on merits.
13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Permanent injunction is granted against the defendant, hereby restraining the defendant and her men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of ‘ABFDEC’ suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2024.
Sd/- S. Srinivasa Kalyan
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SIDHOUT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Plaintiffs’ side Defendant’s side P.W.1. : Madhu Erikal Reddy D.W.1. : C. Sankaramma D.W.2. : M. Srinivasulu 17 O.S.50/2014
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiffs:
Ex.A. 1. : Original plaint plan. Ex.A. 2. : Original registered sale deed, dated 21.05.1963 in vide document
No.299/1963 that got executed by plaintiff No.1 jointly with co-owners in favor of one Pitchaiah and Subbanna pertaining to the suit schedule property. Ex.A. 3. : Original registered sale deed, dated 19.10.2000 in vide document
No.6968/2000 that got executed by one M. Kanaka Reddy in favor of M. Suseelamma herein plaintiff No.2 pertaining to the suit schedule property. Ex.A. 4. : Original pattadar pass book in the name of Madhu Mallikarjuna
Reddy, who is the son of the 1st plaintiff, issued by the then MRO,
Vontimitta. Ex.A. 5. : Original pattadar pass book in the name of 2nd plaintiff, issued by the then MRO, Vontimitta. Ex.A. 6. : Certified copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) in the name of 2nd plaintiff, issued by the then Tahasildar, Vontimitta. Ex.A. 7. : Certified copy of Adangal in the name of the 2nd plaintiff, issued by the then Tahasildar, Vontimitta. Ex.A. 8. : Certified copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) in the name of Madhu
Mallikarjuna Reddy, son of Madhu Erikal Reddy. Ex.A. 9. : Certified copy of Adangal in the name of the Madhu Mallikarjuna
Reddy, son of Madhu Erikal Reddy, issued by the then Tahasildar,
Vontimitta.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendant :- NIL -
Sd/- S. Srinivasa Kalyan
J.C.J., Sdt.