Ms.S.Vani
Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Junior Civil Judge's Court, Podili (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh
Based on 3 recent ordersMs.S.Vani, Junior Civil Judge, Podili, is posted at Junior Civil Judge's Court, Podili (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3 court orders on record since 2020. 3 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS cases.
Featured Judgments
1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI
Present : SRI.S.C.RAGHAVENDRA Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Wednesday this the 15 th day of July, 2020
Original Suit No. 33 of 2012
1. Yallamraju Venkata Subba Rajendra Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 46 Years,
2. Yallamraju Varalakshamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 68 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District
... Plaintiffs
Vs.,
1. Badam Ramana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 58 Years
2. Badam Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 35 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District … Defendants
This suit is coming on 04.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri M.V.Ramana Kishore, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri U.Lakshmi
Reddy, learned Advocate for defendants; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-
// J U D G M E N T //
01.This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants restraining the defendants, their men and representatives from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
02. The averments of the plaint in terse :
The suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 of Thummagunta village. Originally the suit schedule property was included in erstwhile estate of Raja Venkatagiri estate. The suit schedule property was the patta land of Chimalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah. He sold the suit schedule property to Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah under registered sale deed dated: 29-12-1901. Since 2 then the suit schedule property was in the possession of Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah and he also obtained patta No.130. After the purchase S.No.27 was allotted to the suit schedule property and the same is also noted in the pattas granted by Raja Venkatagiri in the name of Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah. The said Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah had no issues, hence he adopted Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao, who was the father of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of 2nd plaintiff, and he succeeded the suit schedule property after the demise of his adopted father. Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao enjoyed the possession during his lifetime and after his demise the plaintiffs herein succeeded the suit schedule property along with the daughters of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao.
As the daughters of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao stated no objection the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the name of the 2nd plaintiff was entered in the adangal register and she also paid cist to the suit schedule property. After survey and settlement the suit schedule property was covered under Survey Number 27 and the plaintiffs came to know that the total extent of AC.5.79 cents was classified as vagu poramboku by including the suit schedule property.
Whereas the vagu is existing towards the southern side of the suit schedule property and it is extended over Ac.4.79 cents only.
03While so the defendants who are the brothers having no right and concern over the suit schedule property are trying to disposes the plaintiff unlawfully. The 2nd defendant purchased Ac.2.10 cents of land in S.No.22/1 and 22/3 of Thummagunta village under registered sale deed 15-09-2000. In the said sale deed the western side boundary is shown as the garden land of 2nd plaintiff which is nothing but the suit schedule property herein, hence the defendants cannot dispute the right and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and their unlawful interference shall be restrained by way of permanent injunction. Hence the suit.
04. Per contra, first defendant filed a written statement by denying the claim and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and the same was adopted by defendant No. 2 also.
3
05.They contended that S.No.27 of Thummagunta village is having Ac.5.79 cents as Vagu poramboku land belonging to Government. At the time of abolition of estates the land was re-surveyed and S.No.27 was entered into revenue records as
Dondleru vagu poramboku and it is being used by the defendants and villagers for grazing their cattle. Chimalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah, Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah and
Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao worked as Village Karanams and they created the registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901 and the said registration was not implemented in the revenue records. Even the documents filed by the plaintiffs are created for the purpose of this suit and the very documents filed by the plaintiffs shows that the suit schedule property belongs to Government as Vagu Poramboku hence they cannot file mere suit for Permanent Injunction and without adding the Government as a party. Further it is contended that in the registered sale deed in the name of the 2nd defendant while purchasing Ac.2.10 cents in S.No.22/1 and 22/3 the western side boundary shown as land of Yallamraju Varalakshmamma is not the suit schedule property and it is the land in S.No.21. Further it is also contended that the suit schedule property is not cultivable and it is filled with bushes and meant for grazing the cattle of Thummagunta and
Sudanagunta villages.
06.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this Court framed the following issues for the purpose of trial :-
1. Whether the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief against the defendants as prayed for ?
4. To what relief ?
07.PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A31 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. DW1 & DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.
4
08. Heard arguments.
09.Issue No.1 :
The plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property as the successors of
Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao. As per the plaintiffs case originally the suit schedule property belongs to Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah and he sold it to
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah under registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901. The said
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah had no issues and he adopted Yallamraju Venkateswara
Rao. As such after the demise of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah, Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao succeeded the suit schedule property as adopted son. Being the son the 1st plaintiff and being the wife 2nd plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property and they are lawfully enjoying the same. Hence unlawful interference of the defendants shall be restrained by way of permanent injunction.
10.To prove their case the 1st plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and deposed by reiterating in toto and also deposed that during the survey and settlement the suit schedule property was allotted S.No.27 and its total extent of Ac.5.79 cents was classified as vagu poramboku by mistake. In fact the said vagu is existing only towards the southern side of the suit schedule property and in view of such wrong classification the suit schedule property was also shown as vagu poramboku. On that Yallaramraju
Venkateswara Rao filed a petition before Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore and after due enquiry orders were passed in A.P/13/57,dt.18-12-1957 by holding
Ac.1.50 cents of land purchased under Ex.A1 is patta land and that Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao was in the possession and enjoyment and a direction was given to
Tahsildar, Podili to enter the name of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao in the concerned land records. Ex.A1 to A31 were marked on his behalf.
11.To corroborate his evidence PWs3 to 5 were examined and they all deposed similarly that plaintiffs were in the possession of the suit schedule property and 5 that the defendants have no manner of right and possession in the suit schedule property. The Chief examination of PW2 was eschewed.
12.In the cross examination of PW1 he admitted that with the advent of abolition of estates in the year 1954 those who applied by paying the cist obtained pattas and the lands in the possession of those who ignored to pay cist was shown as assessed waste land. He denied the suggestion that the adangals filed by him is pertaining to his another property but not the suit schedule property.. He admitted that settlement patta issued under Ex.A6 was not implemented subsequently. He denied the suggestion that the entire extent of AC.5.79cents in S.No.27 is filled with bushes and trees and meant for grazing cattle.
13.To disprove the case of the plaintiff the 1st defendant himself examined as
DW1 and deposed by reiterating the pleadings of his written statement in toto. Ex.B1 is marked through him.
14.In the cross examination of DW1 he admitted that the 2nd defendant purchased Ac.2.10cents under EX.A31 and it’s western side boundary is shown as the garden of the 2nd plaintiff.
15.To corroborate his evidence he also examined DW2 and he deposed that entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents is vagu poramboku and it belongs to Government and he also denied the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
16.In the cross examination of DW2 he stated that he is having Ac.1.50 cents towards the northern side of vagu and the suit schedule property is situated towards the southern side of vagu.
6
17.Basing on the above evidence the learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that they proved the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the time of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah, Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and by the plaintiffs after it was devolved on them. The documents filed by the plaintiffs clearly shows the flow of title since 1901, basing on registered document and the settlement patta issued in the name of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and by virtue of cist receipts and adangals in the 2nd plaintiff as a legal heir of the deceased Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao. Further he argued that the contention of the defendants are false with regard to their contentions
a) the western side boundary in Ex.A31 which is alleged to be the land of 2nd plaintiff in S.No.21, but not the suit schedule property in S.No.27,
b) the contention that Ex.A1 is nominal sale deed and,
c) the contention that the patta No.130 is not pertaining to suit schedule property and it is given to K.Pulla Reddy with regard to his Ac.1.69 cents in S.No.251/1 by relying upon Ex.A1 to A31.
18.Whereas the learned counsel for the defendant contended that there is no evidence to show that the father of the 1st plaintiff was the adopted son of
Cheemalamarri Thirupathiah and all the revenue documents filed by the plaintiffs are created by them, by using their official position. It is contended that the father of the 1st plaintiff and the senior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff served as Village Karanams and the 1st plaintiff is also working as V.R.O. and therefore the creation of such revenue records is not a hard task to them as such the adangals and cist receipts are brought into existence. Further it is contended that the land in S.No.27 is Government land as per Ex.B1, therefore the claim of the plaintiff against the suit schedule property is not maintainable and the suit is also bad for non joinder of the Government which is a necessary party.
19.Having considered the pleadings, evidence oral and documentary, and the arguments of the learned counsels it is observed that the plaintiffs who are claiming the 7 suit schedule property of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.05.79 cents is situated in S.No.27 of
Thummagunta village. It is the .prime contention of the defendants that the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 belongs to Government which is classified as Dondleru vagu Poramboku during the survey and settlement. In order to show the lawful possession over the suit schedule property the plaintiffs have relied upon some old documents and explained that how the suit schedule property devolved from
Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah to the 2nd plaintiff. To show that the suit schedule property which was included in Ac.1.50cents was sold by Cheemalamarri Lakshmi
Narasaiah to Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah they relied upon Ex.A1 which is registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901. Being a age old document Ex.A1 assumes the benefit of presumptions conferred u/s.90 of Indian Evidence Act as to the veracity of signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the hand writing of any particular person is the handwriting of such person and in case such document was attested and executed that it was duly executed and attested if such document is produced from proper custody. In the given case the custody of such document by the plaintiffs who were claiming the suit schedule property from the lineal ascendants (Y.Venkateswara Rao and Ch.Thirupathaiah ) is found to be proper in the given circumstances of this case. Such a presumption confers certain sanctity to Ex.A1 and such document being a registered one need not be disputed at all. Hence the alienation of Ac.1.50cents in S.No.27 which includes the suit schedule property from
Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah to Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah is proved.
20.The contention of the defendants disputing the adoption of Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao by Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah is also settled by the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. Here it is pertinent to know that the adoption need not be proved necessarily by a deed of adoption. Even the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act 1956 recognizes that an adoption shall be proved by any manner as contemplated u/s.6 of the Act 1956 and the prime requisite is that there shall be a giving and taking a person capable of being adopted by the natural parents to the adopted parents. Sec.16 of the Act 1956 merely contemplates about the presumption as to 8 registered documents pertaining adoptions, but it does not take away the sanctity of adoptions which is one of the recognized custom in the age old Hindu law. In the given case the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao seems to have done much prior to the law of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act came into force. However Ex.A6 which is the orders passed by Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore,dt.18-12-1957 in which Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao shown himself as the adopted son of
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah and accordingly such orders were passed in his favour.
Here Sec.21 of Indian Evidence Act comes into play to consider the statement of
Yallaramraju Thirupathaiah as the adopted son of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah as an admission which can be proved in favour of the plaintiffs.
21.Here it is pertinent to refer Sec.21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as follows:- “Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
—Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases:— (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.”
Such a statement of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao as on 1957 shows the existence of his state of mind in the year 1957 which is relevant now with regard to the proof of adoption by Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah. Though the admissions are not relevant to be proved by on behalf of the person who makes them or by his 9 representatives, but the statement of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao who was the father of 1st plaintiff, from whom the plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property, is a relevant statement to consider it as an admission for the proof of adoption in the exceptional circumstances as contemplated under Sec.21(2) of Indian Evidence Act.
Accordingly the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao by Cheemalamarri
Thirupathaiah was proved by circumstantial evidence.
22.As the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao is proved the devolution of the suit schedule property on his son and wife who are the plaintiffs herein need not be proved with any evidence. Now we shall evaluate whether the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is enough to consider their lawful possession of the suit schedule property.
23.In this suit for permanent injunction the plaintiffs shall prove their lawful possession as on the date of filing the suit. In this regard the plaintiffs relied upon the cist receipts and adangals which are marked as Ex.A10 to A30 to show their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. In this regard the defendants contended that the father and the senior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff worked as Karanams and 1st plaintiff himself is a VRO and therefore they manipulated the revenue records and created Ex.A10 to A30. Here it is pertinent to note whether the contention of the defendant had any substance to suspect the documents filed by the plaintiffs. The mere official position of the 1st plaintiff and his father and paternal senior uncle cannot be taken into consideration to suspect Exs.A10 to A30 unless the defendants were able to contradict those documents with reference to relevant revenue registers. The adangals
Exs.A23 to A27 issued by Tahsildar, Podili and A.28 to A30 issued by VRO,
Sudanagunta were nothing but the extract of adangal registers maintained as per
AP(Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass book Act 1971). The adangals submitted by the plaintiffs can be contradicted with relevant revenue registers. Unless the same is contradicted, the entries in the adangal register shall have significance u/s.35 of Indian
Evidence Act by holding that those entries are made in due discharge of the duties by 10 the concerned public servant. With regard to failure to produce adangals for faslis subsequent to 1420/2010 the plaintiffs explained that Jamabandi was not conducted subsequently. In this context the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per
Sec.114(d) of Indian Evidence Act there is a presumption that possession of the suit land can be drawn for subsequent years also when there is a documentary of evidence of the plaintiffs for the previous years and he relied upon the ratio held in GANAPURAM
BRAMARAMBA and others vs. Anneparthy Anantha Ramaiah and others reported in 2004(5) ALP 597 where in it was held:
“The suit was filed for permanent injunction. It is settled principle of law that basis for granting relief in such suits is possession over the suit schedule property as on the relevant date. A rider is always added to the ef- fect that the possession shall not be transitory or illegal in nature. Such pos- session shall not be unlawful and be spread over a fairly long period. In the present case, the plaintiffs have placed before the Trial Court, the Pattedar pass book, title deeds and entries in pahanis consistently at least for 1 1/2 decades prior to filing of the suit So far as defendants are concerned, they have placed revenue records in their favour up to the year 1972 or so.
Thereafter, they did not place any documents to show that they enjoyed pos- session of the suit land. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was left with no alternative except to decree the suit. Even if, there did not exist any valid conveyance or transfer in favour of the plaintiffs, that fact by itself could not have disabled the Trial Court from granting the relief of permanent injunction. If the defendants are of the view that the title to the property continued to remain with them, it was and continues to be open to them, to seek necessary declaration and to obtain a decree for recovery of posses- sion.”
The presumption provided for under Section 114 of the Indian Evi- dence Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, is not absolute. It depends on the nature of evidence that is adduced
before the Court and the nature of relief that is prayed for. The Supreme
Court observed that presumption can operate forward as well as backward.
While the presumption on the basis of entries in the records or similar as- pects can operate forward, such presumption based on the actual state of affairs obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit can operate backward.
These presumptions in turn are subject to rebuttal by the parties opposing it.” 11
24.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff it is observed that he insists to draw the presumption of possession subsequent to the years of 2010/fasli 1420 as jamabandi was not conducted subsequently and it is also argued that as per Ex.A31 by virtue of which the 2nd defendant purchased the land in
S.No.22/1 and 22/3 which is the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property also reveals that it’s western side boundary is the land belonging to the 2nd plaintiff. But the defendants produced Ex.B1 which is shown to be the adangal for fasli 1422 in which it is shown that the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 belongs to Government and also contended that the western side boundary shown in Ex.A31 is the land of the 2nd plaintiff situated in S.No.21, but not the land in S.No.27. In this regard the plaintiffs relied upon Exs.A7 and A8 which are the FMBs of S.No.22 and S.No.27. On a deep scrutiny of Ex.A7 and A8 it is very clear that as per Ex.A7 the eastern side boundary of the land extended in S.No.27 is 22 which is marked in between the points “S” and “C” and vice versa as per Ex.A8 the western side boundary as legible in between “S” and “C” points is the land extended in S.No.27 (with regard to the directions mentioned
in Ex.A8 Para 10 of the written arguments is found in consonance and
explanatory).
25.Therefore Exs.A7 and A8 rules out the contention of the learned counsel for defendants that the western side boundary of Ex.A31 is the land belonging to the 2nd plaintiff which is situated in S.No.27 but not S.No.21. Even DW2 who was examined on behalf of the defendants categorically admitted that the suit schedule property is situated towards the southern side of vagu. His categorical admission is very crucial in demarcating the suit schedule property as a distinct peace of land though it is situated within the extent of S.No.27. Here it is also observed that the 2nd defendant who purchased under Ex.A31 by identifying it’s boundary owner as the 2nd plaintiff which is now proved to be the land in S.No.27 but not 21 is estopped from denying the very physical existence of such land in S.No.27 in support of his contention.
12
26.Further it is the contention of the defendants that the patta Ex.A6 was not implemented in the revenue records and the same is also admitted by PW1. In this regard it is observed that there is no need to hesitate about the orders passed by
Assistant Additional Settlement Officer, Nellore that an extent of AC.1.50 cents in
S.No.27/1 belongs to Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and in the same orders that the
Tahsildar of Podili is directed to entered his name in the concerned records and to recognize it as a patta land. Here it is observed that the mere failure of the revenue authorities who implement the orders in Ex.A6 in the revenue records does not rule out the lawful possession of plaintiffs which was proved till the year 2010/fasli 1420. The adangals Ex.A23 to A30 are fair enough to consider the lawful possession of the plaintiffs till the year 2010. With regard to subsequent period as jamabandi was not held no adangals can be expected from the plaintiff side to show the continuity of their possession in the records. Though the defendants filed Ex.A31 showing the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents as Government land, but the same cannot take into consideration with regard to the Ac.1.00 cents land which is the suit schedule property here in and regarding which Ex.A6 clarifies that an extent of Ac.1.50 cents which includes the suit schedule property shall be patta land. Non implementation of such orders for any reason cannot be a bar to discard the possession of the plaintiffs reflecting from Exs.A23 to A30. Here it is found that the main reason of the dispute is due to such non implementation of orders in the revenue records. However the possession of the plaintiffs was recognized by the revenue authorities under Ex.A23 to
A30 makes out the possession of the plaintiffs as lawful and the ratio held in
GANAPURAM BRAMARAMBA and others vs. Anneparthy Anantha Ramaiah and
others shall be taken into consideration to presume the subsequent possession of the plaintiffs in the absence of any documentary evidence placed by the defendants to rebut such lawful possession of the plaintiffs. The fact that no jamabandi was held subsequent to 2010 is a considerable point for the failure of the plaintiffs to secure subsequent record to show their possession.
13
27.Having considered the above discussions I am of considered view that the plaintiffs explained the flow of title since 1901 till the suit schedule property was devolved on the plaintiffs by virtue of Ex.A1 to A6 and also clarified that the suit schedule property belonging to 2nd plaintiff is the western side boundary of A31 and followed by the proof of possession by adangals from A23 to A30. As the possession of the plaintiff was so proved the cist receipts Ex.A9 to A22 shall be taken as corroborative piece of evidence. Further the categorical admission of DW2 also clarifies that the suit schedule property is distinct from Dondleru vagu poramboku land in S.No.27. All the about proved facts and circumstances along with the beneficial presumption as held in
GANAPURAM BRAMARAMBA’s case favours the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs by successful improving their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Finally it is also pertinent to clarify that in a suit for permanent injunction the issue of non- joinder of necessary parties does not arise unless the facts and circumstances demands the intervention of such party for a complete adjudication in settling the dispute. In the given case I did not find any such necessity to implead the Government as necessary party because Ex.A6 is very clear about the nature of the suit schedule land as patta land and therefore the Government has no role to claim the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2 AND 3:
In view of the above discussions and the contention of the defendants it is very clear that the defendants who were claiming the extire extent of S.No.27 as
Government land for the purpose of using it as grazing fields is enough to consider the intention of the defendants to interfere with the lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the apprehension of the plaintiffs is found to be proved and the plaintiffs are entitled to get redressed accordingly.
14
28.Issue No.4
In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by restraining the defendants perpetually from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Each party has to bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court, this the 15 th day of July, 2020.
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge, Podili // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs For Defendants
PW1 : Y.V.S.Rajendra Prasad DW1 : B.Ramana Reddy
PW2 : Ch.China Narasa ReddyDW2 : D.Narasa Reddy
PW3 : Sk.Mastan Saheb
PW4: Thumu Venkateswarlu
PW5: Thumu Prabhakara Reddy
Documents Marked
For Plaintiffs
Ex.A1 : Registered sale deed dated: 29.12.1901 executed by Cheemalamarri Lakshmi
Narasaiah in favour of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah
Ex.A2 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1312
Ex.A3 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1313
Ex.A4 : Patta dated: 06.07.1907 granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1316
Ex.A5 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1319
Ex.A6 : Order of Additional A.S.O., Nellore dated: 18.12.1957 in AP 13/57 duly attested by Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A7 : F.M.B. Plan of S.No.27 of Thummagunta Village
Ex.A8 : F.M.B. Plan of S.No.22 of Thummagunta Village
Ex.A9 : Cist receipt dated: 22.05.1970 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A10: Cist receipt dated: 06.03.1973 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A11: Cist receipt dated: 07.03.1974 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A12: Cist receipt dated: 21.04.1975 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A13: Cist receipt dated: 05.02.1976 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao 15 Ex.A14: Cist receipt dated: 17.06.1984 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A15: Cist receipt dated: 01.03.1991 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A16: Cist receipt dated: 06.04.1992 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A17: Cist receipt dated: 20.03.1994 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A18: Cist receipt dated: 19.04.1995 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A19: Cist receipt dated: 23.04.1997 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A20: Cist receipt dated: 14.05.1998 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A21: Cist receipt dated: 08.03.1999 paid by the 2nd Plaintiffs
Ex.A22: Cist receipt dated: 12.02.2002 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A23: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1407 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A24: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1408 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A25: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1409 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A26: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1411 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A27: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1413 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A28: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1418 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A29: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1419 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A30: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1420 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A31: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated: 15.09.2000 executed by
Cheemalamarri Rama Murthy in favour of the 2nd defendant
For Defendant
Ex.B1 : No.3 Adangal for fasli 1422 issued by the Tahsildar dated: 22.08.2012
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PODILI
Present: SRI.S.C.RAGHAVENDRA Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Wednesday this the 15 th day of July, 2020
Original Suit No. 33 of 2012
1. Yallamraju Venkata Subba Rajendra Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 46 Years,
2. Yallamraju Varalakshamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 68 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District
... Plaintiffs
Vs.,
1. Badam Ramana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 58 Years
2. Badam Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 35 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District … Defendants
This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants restraining the defendants, their men and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land in any manner what so ever and for costs of the suit.
Date of Presentation : 27.04.2012 Date of Filing : 01.05.2012
Valuation and Court Fee: The Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and
Jurisdiction is valued at Rs.5,000/- and a court fee of Rs.411/- to each Plaintiff, total
Court fee is Rs.822/- is paid U/s.26 (c) of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
This suit is coming on 04.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri M.V.Ramana Kishore, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri U.Lakshmi Reddy, learned Advocate for defendants ; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree ;
1. that the the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by restraining the defendants perpetually from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; and
2. that the plaintiffs do bear their own costs of Rs.3594/- and that the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.2/- (schedule attached to decree )
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 15th day of July, 2020.
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
// Table of Costs //
For Plaintiff For Defendants
For Vakalath 2-00
For Court Fee 411-00 (As claimed) –
Process Fee 81-00 C.M. & F.C .not filed
Advocate Fee 3000-00
Type charges 50-00 --
Writing charges 50-00 --
--------------------------
TOTAL 3594-00 Nil
--------------- -------------
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non-exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI
Present : SRI.S.C.RAGHAVENDRA Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Wednesday this the 15 th day of July, 2020
Original Suit No. 33 of 2012
1. Yallamraju Venkata Subba Rajendra Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 46 Years,
2. Yallamraju Varalakshamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 68 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District
... Plaintiffs
Vs.,
1. Badam Ramana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 58 Years
2. Badam Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 35 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District … Defendants
This suit is coming on 04.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri M.V.Ramana Kishore, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri U.Lakshmi
Reddy, learned Advocate for defendants; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-
// J U D G M E N T //
01.This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants restraining the defendants, their men and representatives from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
02. The averments of the plaint in terse :
The suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 of Thummagunta village. Originally the suit schedule property was included in erstwhile estate of Raja Venkatagiri estate. The suit schedule property was the patta land of Chimalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah. He sold the suit schedule property to Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah under registered sale deed dated: 29-12-1901. Since 2 then the suit schedule property was in the possession of Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah and he also obtained patta No.130. After the purchase S.No.27 was allotted to the suit schedule property and the same is also noted in the pattas granted by Raja Venkatagiri in the name of Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah. The said Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah had no issues, hence he adopted Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao, who was the father of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of 2nd plaintiff, and he succeeded the suit schedule property after the demise of his adopted father. Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao enjoyed the possession during his lifetime and after his demise the plaintiffs herein succeeded the suit schedule property along with the daughters of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao.
As the daughters of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao stated no objection the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the name of the 2nd plaintiff was entered in the adangal register and she also paid cist to the suit schedule property. After survey and settlement the suit schedule property was covered under Survey Number 27 and the plaintiffs came to know that the total extent of AC.5.79 cents was classified as vagu poramboku by including the suit schedule property.
Whereas the vagu is existing towards the southern side of the suit schedule property and it is extended over Ac.4.79 cents only.
03While so the defendants who are the brothers having no right and concern over the suit schedule property are trying to disposes the plaintiff unlawfully. The 2nd defendant purchased Ac.2.10 cents of land in S.No.22/1 and 22/3 of Thummagunta village under registered sale deed 15-09-2000. In the said sale deed the western side boundary is shown as the garden land of 2nd plaintiff which is nothing but the suit schedule property herein, hence the defendants cannot dispute the right and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and their unlawful interference shall be restrained by way of permanent injunction. Hence the suit.
04. Per contra, first defendant filed a written statement by denying the claim and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and the same was adopted by defendant No. 2 also.
3
05.They contended that S.No.27 of Thummagunta village is having Ac.5.79 cents as Vagu poramboku land belonging to Government. At the time of abolition of estates the land was re-surveyed and S.No.27 was entered into revenue records as
Dondleru vagu poramboku and it is being used by the defendants and villagers for grazing their cattle. Chimalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah, Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah and
Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao worked as Village Karanams and they created the registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901 and the said registration was not implemented in the revenue records. Even the documents filed by the plaintiffs are created for the purpose of this suit and the very documents filed by the plaintiffs shows that the suit schedule property belongs to Government as Vagu Poramboku hence they cannot file mere suit for Permanent Injunction and without adding the Government as a party. Further it is contended that in the registered sale deed in the name of the 2nd defendant while purchasing Ac.2.10 cents in S.No.22/1 and 22/3 the western side boundary shown as land of Yallamraju Varalakshmamma is not the suit schedule property and it is the land in S.No.21. Further it is also contended that the suit schedule property is not cultivable and it is filled with bushes and meant for grazing the cattle of Thummagunta and
Sudanagunta villages.
06.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this Court framed the following issues for the purpose of trial :-
1. Whether the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief against the defendants as prayed for ?
4. To what relief ?
07.PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A31 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. DW1 & DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.
4
08. Heard arguments.
09.Issue No.1 :
The plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property as the successors of
Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao. As per the plaintiffs case originally the suit schedule property belongs to Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah and he sold it to
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah under registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901. The said
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah had no issues and he adopted Yallamraju Venkateswara
Rao. As such after the demise of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah, Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao succeeded the suit schedule property as adopted son. Being the son the 1st plaintiff and being the wife 2nd plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property and they are lawfully enjoying the same. Hence unlawful interference of the defendants shall be restrained by way of permanent injunction.
10.To prove their case the 1st plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and deposed by reiterating in toto and also deposed that during the survey and settlement the suit schedule property was allotted S.No.27 and its total extent of Ac.5.79 cents was classified as vagu poramboku by mistake. In fact the said vagu is existing only towards the southern side of the suit schedule property and in view of such wrong classification the suit schedule property was also shown as vagu poramboku. On that Yallaramraju
Venkateswara Rao filed a petition before Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore and after due enquiry orders were passed in A.P/13/57,dt.18-12-1957 by holding
Ac.1.50 cents of land purchased under Ex.A1 is patta land and that Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao was in the possession and enjoyment and a direction was given to
Tahsildar, Podili to enter the name of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao in the concerned land records. Ex.A1 to A31 were marked on his behalf.
11.To corroborate his evidence PWs3 to 5 were examined and they all deposed similarly that plaintiffs were in the possession of the suit schedule property and 5 that the defendants have no manner of right and possession in the suit schedule property. The Chief examination of PW2 was eschewed.
12.In the cross examination of PW1 he admitted that with the advent of abolition of estates in the year 1954 those who applied by paying the cist obtained pattas and the lands in the possession of those who ignored to pay cist was shown as assessed waste land. He denied the suggestion that the adangals filed by him is pertaining to his another property but not the suit schedule property.. He admitted that settlement patta issued under Ex.A6 was not implemented subsequently. He denied the suggestion that the entire extent of AC.5.79cents in S.No.27 is filled with bushes and trees and meant for grazing cattle.
13.To disprove the case of the plaintiff the 1st defendant himself examined as
DW1 and deposed by reiterating the pleadings of his written statement in toto. Ex.B1 is marked through him.
14.In the cross examination of DW1 he admitted that the 2nd defendant purchased Ac.2.10cents under EX.A31 and it’s western side boundary is shown as the garden of the 2nd plaintiff.
15.To corroborate his evidence he also examined DW2 and he deposed that entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents is vagu poramboku and it belongs to Government and he also denied the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
16.In the cross examination of DW2 he stated that he is having Ac.1.50 cents towards the northern side of vagu and the suit schedule property is situated towards the southern side of vagu.
6
17.Basing on the above evidence the learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that they proved the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the time of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah, Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and by the plaintiffs after it was devolved on them. The documents filed by the plaintiffs clearly shows the flow of title since 1901, basing on registered document and the settlement patta issued in the name of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and by virtue of cist receipts and adangals in the 2nd plaintiff as a legal heir of the deceased Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao. Further he argued that the contention of the defendants are false with regard to their contentions
a) the western side boundary in Ex.A31 which is alleged to be the land of 2nd plaintiff in S.No.21, but not the suit schedule property in S.No.27,
b) the contention that Ex.A1 is nominal sale deed and,
c) the contention that the patta No.130 is not pertaining to suit schedule property and it is given to K.Pulla Reddy with regard to his Ac.1.69 cents in S.No.251/1 by relying upon Ex.A1 to A31.
18.Whereas the learned counsel for the defendant contended that there is no evidence to show that the father of the 1st plaintiff was the adopted son of
Cheemalamarri Thirupathiah and all the revenue documents filed by the plaintiffs are created by them, by using their official position. It is contended that the father of the 1st plaintiff and the senior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff served as Village Karanams and the 1st plaintiff is also working as V.R.O. and therefore the creation of such revenue records is not a hard task to them as such the adangals and cist receipts are brought into existence. Further it is contended that the land in S.No.27 is Government land as per Ex.B1, therefore the claim of the plaintiff against the suit schedule property is not maintainable and the suit is also bad for non joinder of the Government which is a necessary party.
19.Having considered the pleadings, evidence oral and documentary, and the arguments of the learned counsels it is observed that the plaintiffs who are claiming the 7 suit schedule property of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.05.79 cents is situated in S.No.27 of
Thummagunta village. It is the .prime contention of the defendants that the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 belongs to Government which is classified as Dondleru vagu Poramboku during the survey and settlement. In order to show the lawful possession over the suit schedule property the plaintiffs have relied upon some old documents and explained that how the suit schedule property devolved from
Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah to the 2nd plaintiff. To show that the suit schedule property which was included in Ac.1.50cents was sold by Cheemalamarri Lakshmi
Narasaiah to Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah they relied upon Ex.A1 which is registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901. Being a age old document Ex.A1 assumes the benefit of presumptions conferred u/s.90 of Indian Evidence Act as to the veracity of signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the hand writing of any particular person is the handwriting of such person and in case such document was attested and executed that it was duly executed and attested if such document is produced from proper custody. In the given case the custody of such document by the plaintiffs who were claiming the suit schedule property from the lineal ascendants (Y.Venkateswara Rao and Ch.Thirupathaiah ) is found to be proper in the given circumstances of this case. Such a presumption confers certain sanctity to Ex.A1 and such document being a registered one need not be disputed at all. Hence the alienation of Ac.1.50cents in S.No.27 which includes the suit schedule property from
Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah to Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah is proved.
20.The contention of the defendants disputing the adoption of Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao by Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah is also settled by the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. Here it is pertinent to know that the adoption need not be proved necessarily by a deed of adoption. Even the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act 1956 recognizes that an adoption shall be proved by any manner as contemplated u/s.6 of the Act 1956 and the prime requisite is that there shall be a giving and taking a person capable of being adopted by the natural parents to the adopted parents. Sec.16 of the Act 1956 merely contemplates about the presumption as to 8 registered documents pertaining adoptions, but it does not take away the sanctity of adoptions which is one of the recognized custom in the age old Hindu law. In the given case the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao seems to have done much prior to the law of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act came into force. However Ex.A6 which is the orders passed by Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore,dt.18-12-1957 in which Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao shown himself as the adopted son of
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah and accordingly such orders were passed in his favour.
Here Sec.21 of Indian Evidence Act comes into play to consider the statement of
Yallaramraju Thirupathaiah as the adopted son of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah as an admission which can be proved in favour of the plaintiffs.
21.Here it is pertinent to refer Sec.21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as follows:- “Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
—Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases:— (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.”
Such a statement of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao as on 1957 shows the existence of his state of mind in the year 1957 which is relevant now with regard to the proof of adoption by Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah. Though the admissions are not relevant to be proved by on behalf of the person who makes them or by his 9 representatives, but the statement of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao who was the father of 1st plaintiff, from whom the plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property, is a relevant statement to consider it as an admission for the proof of adoption in the exceptional circumstances as contemplated under Sec.21(2) of Indian Evidence Act.
Accordingly the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao by Cheemalamarri
Thirupathaiah was proved by circumstantial evidence.
22.As the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao is proved the devolution of the suit schedule property on his son and wife who are the plaintiffs herein need not be proved with any evidence. Now we shall evaluate whether the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is enough to consider their lawful possession of the suit schedule property.
23.In this suit for permanent injunction the plaintiffs shall prove their lawful possession as on the date of filing the suit. In this regard the plaintiffs relied upon the cist receipts and adangals which are marked as Ex.A10 to A30 to show their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. In this regard the defendants contended that the father and the senior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff worked as Karanams and 1st plaintiff himself is a VRO and therefore they manipulated the revenue records and created Ex.A10 to A30. Here it is pertinent to note whether the contention of the defendant had any substance to suspect the documents filed by the plaintiffs. The mere official position of the 1st plaintiff and his father and paternal senior uncle cannot be taken into consideration to suspect Exs.A10 to A30 unless the defendants were able to contradict those documents with reference to relevant revenue registers. The adangals
Exs.A23 to A27 issued by Tahsildar, Podili and A.28 to A30 issued by VRO,
Sudanagunta were nothing but the extract of adangal registers maintained as per
AP(Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass book Act 1971). The adangals submitted by the plaintiffs can be contradicted with relevant revenue registers. Unless the same is contradicted, the entries in the adangal register shall have significance u/s.35 of Indian
Evidence Act by holding that those entries are made in due discharge of the duties by 10 the concerned public servant. With regard to failure to produce adangals for faslis subsequent to 1420/2010 the plaintiffs explained that Jamabandi was not conducted subsequently. In this context the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per
Sec.114(d) of Indian Evidence Act there is a presumption that possession of the suit land can be drawn for subsequent years also when there is a documentary of evidence of the plaintiffs for the previous years and he relied upon the ratio held in GANAPURAM
BRAMARAMBA and others vs. Anneparthy Anantha Ramaiah and others reported in 2004(5) ALP 597 where in it was held:
“The suit was filed for permanent injunction. It is settled principle of law that basis for granting relief in such suits is possession over the suit schedule property as on the relevant date. A rider is always added to the ef- fect that the possession shall not be transitory or illegal in nature. Such pos- session shall not be unlawful and be spread over a fairly long period. In the present case, the plaintiffs have placed before the Trial Court, the Pattedar pass book, title deeds and entries in pahanis consistently at least for 1 1/2 decades prior to filing of the suit So far as defendants are concerned, they have placed revenue records in their favour up to the year 1972 or so.
Thereafter, they did not place any documents to show that they enjoyed pos- session of the suit land. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was left with no alternative except to decree the suit. Even if, there did not exist any valid conveyance or transfer in favour of the plaintiffs, that fact by itself could not have disabled the Trial Court from granting the relief of permanent injunction. If the defendants are of the view that the title to the property continued to remain with them, it was and continues to be open to them, to seek necessary declaration and to obtain a decree for recovery of posses- sion.”
The presumption provided for under Section 114 of the Indian Evi- dence Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, is not absolute. It depends on the nature of evidence that is adduced
before the Court and the nature of relief that is prayed for. The Supreme
Court observed that presumption can operate forward as well as backward.
While the presumption on the basis of entries in the records or similar as- pects can operate forward, such presumption based on the actual state of affairs obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit can operate backward.
These presumptions in turn are subject to rebuttal by the parties opposing it.” 11
24.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff it is observed that he insists to draw the presumption of possession subsequent to the years of 2010/fasli 1420 as jamabandi was not conducted subsequently and it is also argued that as per Ex.A31 by virtue of which the 2nd defendant purchased the land in
S.No.22/1 and 22/3 which is the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property also reveals that it’s western side boundary is the land belonging to the 2nd plaintiff. But the defendants produced Ex.B1 which is shown to be the adangal for fasli 1422 in which it is shown that the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 belongs to Government and also contended that the western side boundary shown in Ex.A31 is the land of the 2nd plaintiff situated in S.No.21, but not the land in S.No.27. In this regard the plaintiffs relied upon Exs.A7 and A8 which are the FMBs of S.No.22 and S.No.27. On a deep scrutiny of Ex.A7 and A8 it is very clear that as per Ex.A7 the eastern side boundary of the land extended in S.No.27 is 22 which is marked in between the points “S” and “C” and vice versa as per Ex.A8 the western side boundary as legible in between “S” and “C” points is the land extended in S.No.27 (with regard to the directions mentioned
in Ex.A8 Para 10 of the written arguments is found in consonance and
explanatory).
25.Therefore Exs.A7 and A8 rules out the contention of the learned counsel for defendants that the western side boundary of Ex.A31 is the land belonging to the 2nd plaintiff which is situated in S.No.27 but not S.No.21. Even DW2 who was examined on behalf of the defendants categorically admitted that the suit schedule property is situated towards the southern side of vagu. His categorical admission is very crucial in demarcating the suit schedule property as a distinct peace of land though it is situated within the extent of S.No.27. Here it is also observed that the 2nd defendant who purchased under Ex.A31 by identifying it’s boundary owner as the 2nd plaintiff which is now proved to be the land in S.No.27 but not 21 is estopped from denying the very physical existence of such land in S.No.27 in support of his contention.
12
26.Further it is the contention of the defendants that the patta Ex.A6 was not implemented in the revenue records and the same is also admitted by PW1. In this regard it is observed that there is no need to hesitate about the orders passed by
Assistant Additional Settlement Officer, Nellore that an extent of AC.1.50 cents in
S.No.27/1 belongs to Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and in the same orders that the
Tahsildar of Podili is directed to entered his name in the concerned records and to recognize it as a patta land. Here it is observed that the mere failure of the revenue authorities who implement the orders in Ex.A6 in the revenue records does not rule out the lawful possession of plaintiffs which was proved till the year 2010/fasli 1420. The adangals Ex.A23 to A30 are fair enough to consider the lawful possession of the plaintiffs till the year 2010. With regard to subsequent period as jamabandi was not held no adangals can be expected from the plaintiff side to show the continuity of their possession in the records. Though the defendants filed Ex.A31 showing the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents as Government land, but the same cannot take into consideration with regard to the Ac.1.00 cents land which is the suit schedule property here in and regarding which Ex.A6 clarifies that an extent of Ac.1.50 cents which includes the suit schedule property shall be patta land. Non implementation of such orders for any reason cannot be a bar to discard the possession of the plaintiffs reflecting from Exs.A23 to A30. Here it is found that the main reason of the dispute is due to such non implementation of orders in the revenue records. However the possession of the plaintiffs was recognized by the revenue authorities under Ex.A23 to
A30 makes out the possession of the plaintiffs as lawful and the ratio held in
GANAPURAM BRAMARAMBA and others vs. Anneparthy Anantha Ramaiah and
others shall be taken into consideration to presume the subsequent possession of the plaintiffs in the absence of any documentary evidence placed by the defendants to rebut such lawful possession of the plaintiffs. The fact that no jamabandi was held subsequent to 2010 is a considerable point for the failure of the plaintiffs to secure subsequent record to show their possession.
13
27.Having considered the above discussions I am of considered view that the plaintiffs explained the flow of title since 1901 till the suit schedule property was devolved on the plaintiffs by virtue of Ex.A1 to A6 and also clarified that the suit schedule property belonging to 2nd plaintiff is the western side boundary of A31 and followed by the proof of possession by adangals from A23 to A30. As the possession of the plaintiff was so proved the cist receipts Ex.A9 to A22 shall be taken as corroborative piece of evidence. Further the categorical admission of DW2 also clarifies that the suit schedule property is distinct from Dondleru vagu poramboku land in S.No.27. All the about proved facts and circumstances along with the beneficial presumption as held in
GANAPURAM BRAMARAMBA’s case favours the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs by successful improving their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Finally it is also pertinent to clarify that in a suit for permanent injunction the issue of non- joinder of necessary parties does not arise unless the facts and circumstances demands the intervention of such party for a complete adjudication in settling the dispute. In the given case I did not find any such necessity to implead the Government as necessary party because Ex.A6 is very clear about the nature of the suit schedule land as patta land and therefore the Government has no role to claim the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2 AND 3:
In view of the above discussions and the contention of the defendants it is very clear that the defendants who were claiming the extire extent of S.No.27 as
Government land for the purpose of using it as grazing fields is enough to consider the intention of the defendants to interfere with the lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the apprehension of the plaintiffs is found to be proved and the plaintiffs are entitled to get redressed accordingly.
14
28.Issue No.4
In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by restraining the defendants perpetually from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Each party has to bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court, this the 15 th day of July, 2020.
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge, Podili // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs For Defendants
PW1 : Y.V.S.Rajendra Prasad DW1 : B.Ramana Reddy
PW2 : Ch.China Narasa ReddyDW2 : D.Narasa Reddy
PW3 : Sk.Mastan Saheb
PW4: Thumu Venkateswarlu
PW5: Thumu Prabhakara Reddy
Documents Marked
For Plaintiffs
Ex.A1 : Registered sale deed dated: 29.12.1901 executed by Cheemalamarri Lakshmi
Narasaiah in favour of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah
Ex.A2 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1312
Ex.A3 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1313
Ex.A4 : Patta dated: 06.07.1907 granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1316
Ex.A5 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1319
Ex.A6 : Order of Additional A.S.O., Nellore dated: 18.12.1957 in AP 13/57 duly attested by Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A7 : F.M.B. Plan of S.No.27 of Thummagunta Village
Ex.A8 : F.M.B. Plan of S.No.22 of Thummagunta Village
Ex.A9 : Cist receipt dated: 22.05.1970 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A10: Cist receipt dated: 06.03.1973 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A11: Cist receipt dated: 07.03.1974 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A12: Cist receipt dated: 21.04.1975 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A13: Cist receipt dated: 05.02.1976 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao 15 Ex.A14: Cist receipt dated: 17.06.1984 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A15: Cist receipt dated: 01.03.1991 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A16: Cist receipt dated: 06.04.1992 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A17: Cist receipt dated: 20.03.1994 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A18: Cist receipt dated: 19.04.1995 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A19: Cist receipt dated: 23.04.1997 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A20: Cist receipt dated: 14.05.1998 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A21: Cist receipt dated: 08.03.1999 paid by the 2nd Plaintiffs
Ex.A22: Cist receipt dated: 12.02.2002 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A23: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1407 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A24: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1408 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A25: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1409 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A26: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1411 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A27: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1413 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A28: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1418 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A29: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1419 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A30: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1420 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A31: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated: 15.09.2000 executed by
Cheemalamarri Rama Murthy in favour of the 2nd defendant
For Defendant
Ex.B1 : No.3 Adangal for fasli 1422 issued by the Tahsildar dated: 22.08.2012
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PODILI
Present: SRI.S.C.RAGHAVENDRA Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Wednesday this the 15 th day of July, 2020
Original Suit No. 33 of 2012
1. Yallamraju Venkata Subba Rajendra Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 46 Years,
2. Yallamraju Varalakshamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 68 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District
... Plaintiffs
Vs.,
1. Badam Ramana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 58 Years
2. Badam Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 35 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District … Defendants
This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants restraining the defendants, their men and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land in any manner what so ever and for costs of the suit.
Date of Presentation : 27.04.2012 Date of Filing : 01.05.2012
Valuation and Court Fee: The Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and
Jurisdiction is valued at Rs.5,000/- and a court fee of Rs.411/- to each Plaintiff, total
Court fee is Rs.822/- is paid U/s.26 (c) of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
This suit is coming on 04.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri M.V.Ramana Kishore, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri U.Lakshmi Reddy, learned Advocate for defendants ; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree ;
1. that the the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by restraining the defendants perpetually from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; and
2. that the plaintiffs do bear their own costs of Rs.3594/- and that the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.2/- (schedule attached to decree )
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 15th day of July, 2020.
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
// Table of Costs //
For Plaintiff For Defendants
For Vakalath 2-00
For Court Fee 411-00 (As claimed) –
Process Fee 81-00 C.M. & F.C .not filed
Advocate Fee 3000-00
Type charges 50-00 --
Writing charges 50-00 --
--------------------------
TOTAL 3594-00 Nil
--------------- -------------
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non-exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI
Present : SRI.S.C.RAGHAVENDRA Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Wednesday this the 15 th day of July, 2020
Original Suit No. 33 of 2012
1. Yallamraju Venkata Subba Rajendra Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 46 Years,
2. Yallamraju Varalakshamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 68 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District
... Plaintiffs
Vs.,
1. Badam Ramana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 58 Years
2. Badam Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 35 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District … Defendants
This suit is coming on 04.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri M.V.Ramana Kishore, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri U.Lakshmi
Reddy, learned Advocate for defendants; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-
// J U D G M E N T //
01.This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants restraining the defendants, their men and representatives from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
02. The averments of the plaint in terse :
The suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 of Thummagunta village. Originally the suit schedule property was included in erstwhile estate of Raja Venkatagiri estate. The suit schedule property was the patta land of Chimalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah. He sold the suit schedule property to Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah under registered sale deed dated: 29-12-1901. Since 2 then the suit schedule property was in the possession of Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah and he also obtained patta No.130. After the purchase S.No.27 was allotted to the suit schedule property and the same is also noted in the pattas granted by Raja Venkatagiri in the name of Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah. The said Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah had no issues, hence he adopted Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao, who was the father of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of 2nd plaintiff, and he succeeded the suit schedule property after the demise of his adopted father. Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao enjoyed the possession during his lifetime and after his demise the plaintiffs herein succeeded the suit schedule property along with the daughters of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao.
As the daughters of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao stated no objection the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the name of the 2nd plaintiff was entered in the adangal register and she also paid cist to the suit schedule property. After survey and settlement the suit schedule property was covered under Survey Number 27 and the plaintiffs came to know that the total extent of AC.5.79 cents was classified as vagu poramboku by including the suit schedule property.
Whereas the vagu is existing towards the southern side of the suit schedule property and it is extended over Ac.4.79 cents only.
03While so the defendants who are the brothers having no right and concern over the suit schedule property are trying to disposes the plaintiff unlawfully. The 2nd defendant purchased Ac.2.10 cents of land in S.No.22/1 and 22/3 of Thummagunta village under registered sale deed 15-09-2000. In the said sale deed the western side boundary is shown as the garden land of 2nd plaintiff which is nothing but the suit schedule property herein, hence the defendants cannot dispute the right and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and their unlawful interference shall be restrained by way of permanent injunction. Hence the suit.
04. Per contra, first defendant filed a written statement by denying the claim and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and the same was adopted by defendant No. 2 also.
3
05.They contended that S.No.27 of Thummagunta village is having Ac.5.79 cents as Vagu poramboku land belonging to Government. At the time of abolition of estates the land was re-surveyed and S.No.27 was entered into revenue records as
Dondleru vagu poramboku and it is being used by the defendants and villagers for grazing their cattle. Chimalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah, Chimalamarri Thirupathaiah and
Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao worked as Village Karanams and they created the registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901 and the said registration was not implemented in the revenue records. Even the documents filed by the plaintiffs are created for the purpose of this suit and the very documents filed by the plaintiffs shows that the suit schedule property belongs to Government as Vagu Poramboku hence they cannot file mere suit for Permanent Injunction and without adding the Government as a party. Further it is contended that in the registered sale deed in the name of the 2nd defendant while purchasing Ac.2.10 cents in S.No.22/1 and 22/3 the western side boundary shown as land of Yallamraju Varalakshmamma is not the suit schedule property and it is the land in S.No.21. Further it is also contended that the suit schedule property is not cultivable and it is filled with bushes and meant for grazing the cattle of Thummagunta and
Sudanagunta villages.
06.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this Court framed the following issues for the purpose of trial :-
1. Whether the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief against the defendants as prayed for ?
4. To what relief ?
07.PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A31 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. DW1 & DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.
4
08. Heard arguments.
09.Issue No.1 :
The plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property as the successors of
Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao. As per the plaintiffs case originally the suit schedule property belongs to Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah and he sold it to
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah under registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901. The said
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah had no issues and he adopted Yallamraju Venkateswara
Rao. As such after the demise of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah, Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao succeeded the suit schedule property as adopted son. Being the son the 1st plaintiff and being the wife 2nd plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property and they are lawfully enjoying the same. Hence unlawful interference of the defendants shall be restrained by way of permanent injunction.
10.To prove their case the 1st plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and deposed by reiterating in toto and also deposed that during the survey and settlement the suit schedule property was allotted S.No.27 and its total extent of Ac.5.79 cents was classified as vagu poramboku by mistake. In fact the said vagu is existing only towards the southern side of the suit schedule property and in view of such wrong classification the suit schedule property was also shown as vagu poramboku. On that Yallaramraju
Venkateswara Rao filed a petition before Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore and after due enquiry orders were passed in A.P/13/57,dt.18-12-1957 by holding
Ac.1.50 cents of land purchased under Ex.A1 is patta land and that Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao was in the possession and enjoyment and a direction was given to
Tahsildar, Podili to enter the name of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao in the concerned land records. Ex.A1 to A31 were marked on his behalf.
11.To corroborate his evidence PWs3 to 5 were examined and they all deposed similarly that plaintiffs were in the possession of the suit schedule property and 5 that the defendants have no manner of right and possession in the suit schedule property. The Chief examination of PW2 was eschewed.
12.In the cross examination of PW1 he admitted that with the advent of abolition of estates in the year 1954 those who applied by paying the cist obtained pattas and the lands in the possession of those who ignored to pay cist was shown as assessed waste land. He denied the suggestion that the adangals filed by him is pertaining to his another property but not the suit schedule property.. He admitted that settlement patta issued under Ex.A6 was not implemented subsequently. He denied the suggestion that the entire extent of AC.5.79cents in S.No.27 is filled with bushes and trees and meant for grazing cattle.
13.To disprove the case of the plaintiff the 1st defendant himself examined as
DW1 and deposed by reiterating the pleadings of his written statement in toto. Ex.B1 is marked through him.
14.In the cross examination of DW1 he admitted that the 2nd defendant purchased Ac.2.10cents under EX.A31 and it’s western side boundary is shown as the garden of the 2nd plaintiff.
15.To corroborate his evidence he also examined DW2 and he deposed that entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents is vagu poramboku and it belongs to Government and he also denied the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
16.In the cross examination of DW2 he stated that he is having Ac.1.50 cents towards the northern side of vagu and the suit schedule property is situated towards the southern side of vagu.
6
17.Basing on the above evidence the learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that they proved the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the time of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah, Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and by the plaintiffs after it was devolved on them. The documents filed by the plaintiffs clearly shows the flow of title since 1901, basing on registered document and the settlement patta issued in the name of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and by virtue of cist receipts and adangals in the 2nd plaintiff as a legal heir of the deceased Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao. Further he argued that the contention of the defendants are false with regard to their contentions
a) the western side boundary in Ex.A31 which is alleged to be the land of 2nd plaintiff in S.No.21, but not the suit schedule property in S.No.27,
b) the contention that Ex.A1 is nominal sale deed and,
c) the contention that the patta No.130 is not pertaining to suit schedule property and it is given to K.Pulla Reddy with regard to his Ac.1.69 cents in S.No.251/1 by relying upon Ex.A1 to A31.
18.Whereas the learned counsel for the defendant contended that there is no evidence to show that the father of the 1st plaintiff was the adopted son of
Cheemalamarri Thirupathiah and all the revenue documents filed by the plaintiffs are created by them, by using their official position. It is contended that the father of the 1st plaintiff and the senior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff served as Village Karanams and the 1st plaintiff is also working as V.R.O. and therefore the creation of such revenue records is not a hard task to them as such the adangals and cist receipts are brought into existence. Further it is contended that the land in S.No.27 is Government land as per Ex.B1, therefore the claim of the plaintiff against the suit schedule property is not maintainable and the suit is also bad for non joinder of the Government which is a necessary party.
19.Having considered the pleadings, evidence oral and documentary, and the arguments of the learned counsels it is observed that the plaintiffs who are claiming the 7 suit schedule property of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.05.79 cents is situated in S.No.27 of
Thummagunta village. It is the .prime contention of the defendants that the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 belongs to Government which is classified as Dondleru vagu Poramboku during the survey and settlement. In order to show the lawful possession over the suit schedule property the plaintiffs have relied upon some old documents and explained that how the suit schedule property devolved from
Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah to the 2nd plaintiff. To show that the suit schedule property which was included in Ac.1.50cents was sold by Cheemalamarri Lakshmi
Narasaiah to Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah they relied upon Ex.A1 which is registered sale deed dt.29-12-1901. Being a age old document Ex.A1 assumes the benefit of presumptions conferred u/s.90 of Indian Evidence Act as to the veracity of signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the hand writing of any particular person is the handwriting of such person and in case such document was attested and executed that it was duly executed and attested if such document is produced from proper custody. In the given case the custody of such document by the plaintiffs who were claiming the suit schedule property from the lineal ascendants (Y.Venkateswara Rao and Ch.Thirupathaiah ) is found to be proper in the given circumstances of this case. Such a presumption confers certain sanctity to Ex.A1 and such document being a registered one need not be disputed at all. Hence the alienation of Ac.1.50cents in S.No.27 which includes the suit schedule property from
Cheemalamarri Lakshmi Narasaiah to Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah is proved.
20.The contention of the defendants disputing the adoption of Yallamraju
Venkateswara Rao by Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah is also settled by the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. Here it is pertinent to know that the adoption need not be proved necessarily by a deed of adoption. Even the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act 1956 recognizes that an adoption shall be proved by any manner as contemplated u/s.6 of the Act 1956 and the prime requisite is that there shall be a giving and taking a person capable of being adopted by the natural parents to the adopted parents. Sec.16 of the Act 1956 merely contemplates about the presumption as to 8 registered documents pertaining adoptions, but it does not take away the sanctity of adoptions which is one of the recognized custom in the age old Hindu law. In the given case the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao seems to have done much prior to the law of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act came into force. However Ex.A6 which is the orders passed by Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore,dt.18-12-1957 in which Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao shown himself as the adopted son of
Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah and accordingly such orders were passed in his favour.
Here Sec.21 of Indian Evidence Act comes into play to consider the statement of
Yallaramraju Thirupathaiah as the adopted son of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah as an admission which can be proved in favour of the plaintiffs.
21.Here it is pertinent to refer Sec.21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as follows:- “Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
—Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases:— (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.”
Such a statement of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao as on 1957 shows the existence of his state of mind in the year 1957 which is relevant now with regard to the proof of adoption by Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah. Though the admissions are not relevant to be proved by on behalf of the person who makes them or by his 9 representatives, but the statement of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao who was the father of 1st plaintiff, from whom the plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property, is a relevant statement to consider it as an admission for the proof of adoption in the exceptional circumstances as contemplated under Sec.21(2) of Indian Evidence Act.
Accordingly the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao by Cheemalamarri
Thirupathaiah was proved by circumstantial evidence.
22.As the adoption of Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao is proved the devolution of the suit schedule property on his son and wife who are the plaintiffs herein need not be proved with any evidence. Now we shall evaluate whether the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is enough to consider their lawful possession of the suit schedule property.
23.In this suit for permanent injunction the plaintiffs shall prove their lawful possession as on the date of filing the suit. In this regard the plaintiffs relied upon the cist receipts and adangals which are marked as Ex.A10 to A30 to show their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. In this regard the defendants contended that the father and the senior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff worked as Karanams and 1st plaintiff himself is a VRO and therefore they manipulated the revenue records and created Ex.A10 to A30. Here it is pertinent to note whether the contention of the defendant had any substance to suspect the documents filed by the plaintiffs. The mere official position of the 1st plaintiff and his father and paternal senior uncle cannot be taken into consideration to suspect Exs.A10 to A30 unless the defendants were able to contradict those documents with reference to relevant revenue registers. The adangals
Exs.A23 to A27 issued by Tahsildar, Podili and A.28 to A30 issued by VRO,
Sudanagunta were nothing but the extract of adangal registers maintained as per
AP(Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass book Act 1971). The adangals submitted by the plaintiffs can be contradicted with relevant revenue registers. Unless the same is contradicted, the entries in the adangal register shall have significance u/s.35 of Indian
Evidence Act by holding that those entries are made in due discharge of the duties by 10 the concerned public servant. With regard to failure to produce adangals for faslis subsequent to 1420/2010 the plaintiffs explained that Jamabandi was not conducted subsequently. In this context the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per
Sec.114(d) of Indian Evidence Act there is a presumption that possession of the suit land can be drawn for subsequent years also when there is a documentary of evidence of the plaintiffs for the previous years and he relied upon the ratio held in GANAPURAM
BRAMARAMBA and others vs. Anneparthy Anantha Ramaiah and others reported in 2004(5) ALP 597 where in it was held:
“The suit was filed for permanent injunction. It is settled principle of law that basis for granting relief in such suits is possession over the suit schedule property as on the relevant date. A rider is always added to the ef- fect that the possession shall not be transitory or illegal in nature. Such pos- session shall not be unlawful and be spread over a fairly long period. In the present case, the plaintiffs have placed before the Trial Court, the Pattedar pass book, title deeds and entries in pahanis consistently at least for 1 1/2 decades prior to filing of the suit So far as defendants are concerned, they have placed revenue records in their favour up to the year 1972 or so.
Thereafter, they did not place any documents to show that they enjoyed pos- session of the suit land. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was left with no alternative except to decree the suit. Even if, there did not exist any valid conveyance or transfer in favour of the plaintiffs, that fact by itself could not have disabled the Trial Court from granting the relief of permanent injunction. If the defendants are of the view that the title to the property continued to remain with them, it was and continues to be open to them, to seek necessary declaration and to obtain a decree for recovery of posses- sion.”
The presumption provided for under Section 114 of the Indian Evi- dence Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, is not absolute. It depends on the nature of evidence that is adduced
before the Court and the nature of relief that is prayed for. The Supreme
Court observed that presumption can operate forward as well as backward.
While the presumption on the basis of entries in the records or similar as- pects can operate forward, such presumption based on the actual state of affairs obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit can operate backward.
These presumptions in turn are subject to rebuttal by the parties opposing it.” 11
24.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff it is observed that he insists to draw the presumption of possession subsequent to the years of 2010/fasli 1420 as jamabandi was not conducted subsequently and it is also argued that as per Ex.A31 by virtue of which the 2nd defendant purchased the land in
S.No.22/1 and 22/3 which is the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property also reveals that it’s western side boundary is the land belonging to the 2nd plaintiff. But the defendants produced Ex.B1 which is shown to be the adangal for fasli 1422 in which it is shown that the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents in S.No.27 belongs to Government and also contended that the western side boundary shown in Ex.A31 is the land of the 2nd plaintiff situated in S.No.21, but not the land in S.No.27. In this regard the plaintiffs relied upon Exs.A7 and A8 which are the FMBs of S.No.22 and S.No.27. On a deep scrutiny of Ex.A7 and A8 it is very clear that as per Ex.A7 the eastern side boundary of the land extended in S.No.27 is 22 which is marked in between the points “S” and “C” and vice versa as per Ex.A8 the western side boundary as legible in between “S” and “C” points is the land extended in S.No.27 (with regard to the directions mentioned
in Ex.A8 Para 10 of the written arguments is found in consonance and
explanatory).
25.Therefore Exs.A7 and A8 rules out the contention of the learned counsel for defendants that the western side boundary of Ex.A31 is the land belonging to the 2nd plaintiff which is situated in S.No.27 but not S.No.21. Even DW2 who was examined on behalf of the defendants categorically admitted that the suit schedule property is situated towards the southern side of vagu. His categorical admission is very crucial in demarcating the suit schedule property as a distinct peace of land though it is situated within the extent of S.No.27. Here it is also observed that the 2nd defendant who purchased under Ex.A31 by identifying it’s boundary owner as the 2nd plaintiff which is now proved to be the land in S.No.27 but not 21 is estopped from denying the very physical existence of such land in S.No.27 in support of his contention.
12
26.Further it is the contention of the defendants that the patta Ex.A6 was not implemented in the revenue records and the same is also admitted by PW1. In this regard it is observed that there is no need to hesitate about the orders passed by
Assistant Additional Settlement Officer, Nellore that an extent of AC.1.50 cents in
S.No.27/1 belongs to Yallamraju Venkateswara Rao and in the same orders that the
Tahsildar of Podili is directed to entered his name in the concerned records and to recognize it as a patta land. Here it is observed that the mere failure of the revenue authorities who implement the orders in Ex.A6 in the revenue records does not rule out the lawful possession of plaintiffs which was proved till the year 2010/fasli 1420. The adangals Ex.A23 to A30 are fair enough to consider the lawful possession of the plaintiffs till the year 2010. With regard to subsequent period as jamabandi was not held no adangals can be expected from the plaintiff side to show the continuity of their possession in the records. Though the defendants filed Ex.A31 showing the entire extent of Ac.5.79 cents as Government land, but the same cannot take into consideration with regard to the Ac.1.00 cents land which is the suit schedule property here in and regarding which Ex.A6 clarifies that an extent of Ac.1.50 cents which includes the suit schedule property shall be patta land. Non implementation of such orders for any reason cannot be a bar to discard the possession of the plaintiffs reflecting from Exs.A23 to A30. Here it is found that the main reason of the dispute is due to such non implementation of orders in the revenue records. However the possession of the plaintiffs was recognized by the revenue authorities under Ex.A23 to
A30 makes out the possession of the plaintiffs as lawful and the ratio held in
GANAPURAM BRAMARAMBA and others vs. Anneparthy Anantha Ramaiah and
others shall be taken into consideration to presume the subsequent possession of the plaintiffs in the absence of any documentary evidence placed by the defendants to rebut such lawful possession of the plaintiffs. The fact that no jamabandi was held subsequent to 2010 is a considerable point for the failure of the plaintiffs to secure subsequent record to show their possession.
13
27.Having considered the above discussions I am of considered view that the plaintiffs explained the flow of title since 1901 till the suit schedule property was devolved on the plaintiffs by virtue of Ex.A1 to A6 and also clarified that the suit schedule property belonging to 2nd plaintiff is the western side boundary of A31 and followed by the proof of possession by adangals from A23 to A30. As the possession of the plaintiff was so proved the cist receipts Ex.A9 to A22 shall be taken as corroborative piece of evidence. Further the categorical admission of DW2 also clarifies that the suit schedule property is distinct from Dondleru vagu poramboku land in S.No.27. All the about proved facts and circumstances along with the beneficial presumption as held in
GANAPURAM BRAMARAMBA’s case favours the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs by successful improving their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Finally it is also pertinent to clarify that in a suit for permanent injunction the issue of non- joinder of necessary parties does not arise unless the facts and circumstances demands the intervention of such party for a complete adjudication in settling the dispute. In the given case I did not find any such necessity to implead the Government as necessary party because Ex.A6 is very clear about the nature of the suit schedule land as patta land and therefore the Government has no role to claim the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2 AND 3:
In view of the above discussions and the contention of the defendants it is very clear that the defendants who were claiming the extire extent of S.No.27 as
Government land for the purpose of using it as grazing fields is enough to consider the intention of the defendants to interfere with the lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the apprehension of the plaintiffs is found to be proved and the plaintiffs are entitled to get redressed accordingly.
14
28.Issue No.4
In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by restraining the defendants perpetually from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Each party has to bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court, this the 15 th day of July, 2020.
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge, Podili // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs For Defendants
PW1 : Y.V.S.Rajendra Prasad DW1 : B.Ramana Reddy
PW2 : Ch.China Narasa ReddyDW2 : D.Narasa Reddy
PW3 : Sk.Mastan Saheb
PW4: Thumu Venkateswarlu
PW5: Thumu Prabhakara Reddy
Documents Marked
For Plaintiffs
Ex.A1 : Registered sale deed dated: 29.12.1901 executed by Cheemalamarri Lakshmi
Narasaiah in favour of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah
Ex.A2 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1312
Ex.A3 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1313
Ex.A4 : Patta dated: 06.07.1907 granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1316
Ex.A5 : Patta granted in the name of Cheemalamarri Thirupathaiah for fasli 1319
Ex.A6 : Order of Additional A.S.O., Nellore dated: 18.12.1957 in AP 13/57 duly attested by Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A7 : F.M.B. Plan of S.No.27 of Thummagunta Village
Ex.A8 : F.M.B. Plan of S.No.22 of Thummagunta Village
Ex.A9 : Cist receipt dated: 22.05.1970 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A10: Cist receipt dated: 06.03.1973 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A11: Cist receipt dated: 07.03.1974 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A12: Cist receipt dated: 21.04.1975 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A13: Cist receipt dated: 05.02.1976 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao 15 Ex.A14: Cist receipt dated: 17.06.1984 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A15: Cist receipt dated: 01.03.1991 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A16: Cist receipt dated: 06.04.1992 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A17: Cist receipt dated: 20.03.1994 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A18: Cist receipt dated: 19.04.1995 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A19: Cist receipt dated: 23.04.1997 paid by the 2nd Plaintiff
Ex.A20: Cist receipt dated: 14.05.1998 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A21: Cist receipt dated: 08.03.1999 paid by the 2nd Plaintiffs
Ex.A22: Cist receipt dated: 12.02.2002 paid by Y.Venkateswara Rao
Ex.A23: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1407 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A24: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1408 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A25: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1409 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A26: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1411 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A27: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1413 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A28: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1418 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A29: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1419 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A30: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1420 issued by the Tahsildar, Podili
Ex.A31: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated: 15.09.2000 executed by
Cheemalamarri Rama Murthy in favour of the 2nd defendant
For Defendant
Ex.B1 : No.3 Adangal for fasli 1422 issued by the Tahsildar dated: 22.08.2012
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PODILI
Present: SRI.S.C.RAGHAVENDRA Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Wednesday this the 15 th day of July, 2020
Original Suit No. 33 of 2012
1. Yallamraju Venkata Subba Rajendra Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 46 Years,
2. Yallamraju Varalakshamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 68 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District
... Plaintiffs
Vs.,
1. Badam Ramana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 58 Years
2. Badam Venkata Narayana Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 35 Years
Both are Hindus, Landholders, R/o Sudanagunta Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District … Defendants
This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants restraining the defendants, their men and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land in any manner what so ever and for costs of the suit.
Date of Presentation : 27.04.2012 Date of Filing : 01.05.2012
Valuation and Court Fee: The Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and
Jurisdiction is valued at Rs.5,000/- and a court fee of Rs.411/- to each Plaintiff, total
Court fee is Rs.822/- is paid U/s.26 (c) of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
This suit is coming on 04.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri M.V.Ramana Kishore, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri U.Lakshmi Reddy, learned Advocate for defendants ; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree ;
1. that the the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by restraining the defendants perpetually from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; and
2. that the plaintiffs do bear their own costs of Rs.3594/- and that the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.2/- (schedule attached to decree )
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 15th day of July, 2020.
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
// Table of Costs //
For Plaintiff For Defendants
For Vakalath 2-00
For Court Fee 411-00 (As claimed) –
Process Fee 81-00 C.M. & F.C .not filed
Advocate Fee 3000-00
Type charges 50-00 --
Writing charges 50-00 --
--------------------------
TOTAL 3594-00 Nil
--------------- -------------
Sd/- S.C.Raghavendra,
Junior Civil Judge Podili
NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non-exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.
Order Record 1 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS/33/2012 | Yallamraju Venkata subba Rajendra Prasad vs Badam Ramana Reddy | 15 Jul 2020 | Judgment | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Ms.S.Vani handled?
Ms.S.Vani has handled 3 court orders since 2020 at Junior Civil Judge's Court, Podili (Taluka).
What types of cases does Ms.S.Vani hear?
Based on available records, Ms.S.Vani primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) at Junior Civil Judge's Court, Podili (Taluka).
Where is Ms.S.Vani currently posted?
Ms.S.Vani is posted as Junior Civil Judge, Podili at Junior Civil Judge's Court, Podili (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by Ms.S.Vani available online?
Yes. 3 judgments by Ms.S.Vani are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
Since when is Ms.S.Vani serving?
Ms.S.Vani has been serving at Junior Civil Judge's Court, Podili (Taluka) since 2020.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Jul 2020 — Jul 2020Junior Civil Judge, Podili · 3 orders
-
Mar 2020 — Mar 2020Junior Civil Judge, Podili
-
Jan 2020 — Feb 2020Junior Civil Judge, Podili
Other Judges at this Court