1
APEG020002122022
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
PRESENT: SRI SK.JANI BASHA
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
Monday, the 13th day of April, 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.65/2022
Between:
Jamaith-E-Quresh, Muslim Beef Butchers Association Society rep. by its Secretary Md.Roug Qureshi, S/o.Md.Khaleem, A society registered with registrar of societies Registered. No.12/1956, Muslim, 42 years, Business, D.No.28-12-21, Azad Chowk, Qureshi Road, Jampeta, Rajamahendravaram.
... Plaintiff.
AND
Syed Phiyajuddin, S/o.Amanullah, Muslim, 59 years, D.No.5-100, R/o.Palivela Village, Kothapeta Mandal, E.G.District – 533 229.
... Defendant.
This suit came on 07.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following;
J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his men, agents and successors from interfering with the 2 possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and the costs of the suit.
2. The brief averments of the Plaint are that;
The plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.
Originally the plaintiff society was established in the year 1860 and it was established with a view to organize the trade and business of beef butchers in the Districts of East and West Godavari. The plaintiff society consisting of beef butchers of about 250 families and approximately 4,000 members situated in
Jampeta, Rajamahendravaram and the members have been eking out livelihood in the business of beef butchering. The present society is concerned with the beef butchers of Rajahmundry alone. Though the society was established in the year 1860, it was registered in the year 1956. The plaintiff society is sent the list of Governing body for the year 2020-2021 and 2021- 2022 to the District Register, Kakinada. The plaintiff society acquired several immovable properties for the business of its members. Since the society was not registered till the year 1956 the immovable properties were acquired in the name of thee then office bearers in their individual capacity. The society is the actual owner of the property. In the year 1956 the plaintiff society was registered with the Registrar of Societies and assigned the registration number 12/1956. At the time of registration of plaintiff society, it has furnished the list of properties owned by the society by the year 1956. The plaint schedule property was acquired by the plaintiff society under Registered Sale deed, dated 03.04.1924 in the name of its the then office bearers Chowdary
Mohammad Abdul Kareem Saheb, Mohiddin Saheb, Shaik Abdullah Saheb,
Khayaduyya Saheb, Abdullah Saheb, Abdul Waheeb Saheb, Md.Ibrahim
Saheb and Shaik Mohammad Saheb from the vendor Koyyalamudi Atchanna @ Tatabhai and his son Veeranna @ Bulli Abbayi. The society used to raise green grass and also conducting business of sale of beef by raising thatched beef stalls. The original sale deed, dated 03.04.1924 was lost in the floods and the certified copy of the same was obtained. The plaintiff society has been 3 in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The Government has issued pattadar passbook in favour of the plaintiff society in the year 1983. One Eedala Venkata Rao was the tenant of the plaint schedule property.
In the year 1969, the members of the plaintiff society filed a suit in
O.S.109/1969 on the file of the District Muncif, Rajahmundry against the
society and the office bearers and in the said suit Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property is the plaint schedule property in this suit. Subsequently in the year 2005, the children of the office bearers whose names the plaint schedule property was purchased filed O.S.560/2005 on the file of I Additional
Senior Civil Judge's Court, Rajahmundry, claiming declaration and injunction
in respect of half of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff society contested the said suit and the suit was dismissed on 07.12.2009 holding that the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The revenue authorities issued pattadhar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff society. The plaintiff erected barbed wire fencing for the entire plaint schedule property and displayed boards. All the original documents were filed in O.S.560/2005. The plaintiffs therein preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble High
Court of A.P. The original documents are in the said appeal and the plaintiffs obtained the certified copies of documents from the Hon'ble High Court. The defendant in order to knock away the part of the plaint schedule property managed the revenue authorities and obtained a pattadar passbook in respect of Ac.0.90 cents and started making a claim in respect of the same. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the District Collector, East Godavari and other revenue authorities by narrating the true facts and requested them to cancel the pattadar passbook issued in the name of the defendant. However, no reply was received from the revenue authorities. Emboldened by the fact that the revenue authorities did not cancel the pattadar passbook issued in the name of the defendant obtained by him by fraud and misrepresentation without an iota of proof since the first week of May, 2022 he started 4 threatening to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The members of the plaintiff are law-abiding citizens and they are apprehending that the defendant will forcibly dispossess them from the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.
3. The brief averments of the written statement are that;
The defendant filed written statement by denying the allegations made in the plaint para-wise specifically. He stated that the individual persons who purchased the property most of them are Noor-Bashas and a Telugu Muslim who did not doing the beef butchers business and the individual persons who purchased the property in the year 1924 are no way concerned with the plaintiff society. His paternal uncle by name Shaik Abdul Saheb @ Abdul
Rahaman executed Hiba-bil-Iwaz on 22.06.1983 under Muslim Shariyath in favour of him, which was accepted by him to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents agriculture land situated in R.S.No.1095/3 of Hukumpeta Village, out of total extent of Ac.2.40 cents, which was purchased by him along with his other friends on 12.04.1924. The name of Abdul Rahaman was incorporated in the revenue records in the year 1932 in A register Adangal records in Survey
No.1095/3. Subsequently, he introduced him to the then leaseholder namely
Eedala Venkata Rao and also his son Eedala Satyanarayana, since then he is the owner of the said extent. Subsequently his uncle Abdul Rahaman died on 27.09.1995. In the year 2020 the plaintiff with dishonest intention to occupy the land belongs to him made some false and frivolous suits before I
Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Rajahmundry and I Additional Senior
Civil Judge's Court, Rajahmundry through their henchmen to establish that the
individual persons who purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1924 to tag them to the plaintiff society which was said to be established in the year 1956. After the death of his uncle his name was incorporated in the revenue records and the Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Rural gave possession certificate to him to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents. The land in Survey
No.1095/3 an extent of Ac.0.91 cents is no way concerned with the plaintiff 5 society. The plaintiff wantonly to reap unlawful gain falsely filed suit to grab the land belongs to him and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial.
1. Whether plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction against defendant?
3. To what relief?
5. During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff society, one Md.Rouf
Qureshi is examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A16. One Abdul
Jabeer, Revadi Ratnam and Mohammed Faizullah are examined as P.Ws.2 to
4. Through P.W.3, Ex.A17 was marked. On behalf of the defendant, himself is examined as D.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.B1 to B7. One P.Srinivasa Rao,
Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Rural is examined as D.W.2. Through him got exhibited Exs.X1 to X7.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff society was established in the year 1860 and it was registered in the year 1956 and at the time of registration of the plaintiff society the plaint schedule property was shown in the list of properties submitted to the District Registrar. He further argued that the defendant who is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property, got created Hiba said to have been executed by Abdul Rahaman who is said to be one of the purchaser of the property and the defendant created the same with an intention to knock away the property belongs to the plaintiff society. He also argued that the defendant has not filed any piece of document to show that Shaik Abdul Rahaman @ Abdullah Saheb is his uncle and he is one of the purchaser of the plaint schedule property and the Hiba 6 pleaded by the defendant is a created document. He finally argued that the name of the plaintiff is entered in the revenue records and the revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass book in the name of the plaintiff society and the defendant taking advantage of alleged Hiba managed the revenue officials and got entered his name and the members of the plaintiff society gave representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer to make enquiry and cancel the pattadar pass book and the revenue authorities enquired the matter and entered the name of the plaintiff society in respect of plaint schedule property and prayed to decree the suit.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaint schedule property was purchased in the individual names and the plaintiff society is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff society has not filed any proof to show that the persons who purchased the property are members of the plaintiff society. He further argued that one of the purchaser Abdul Rahaman @ Abdul Saheb is the Paternal uncle of the defendant and he executed Hiba-bil-iwaz in favour of the defendant in respect of Ac.0.91 cents of land and the defendant accepted the same and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said extent. He also argued that the name of the defendant was mutated in the revenue records and the plaintiff society has not filed any piece of document to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to it. He finally argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff society without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable and the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the plaint schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff society and the documents filed by the plaintiff do not convey any right over the property and prayed to dismiss the suit.
ISSUES 1 AND 2 :
1. Whether plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule on the date of filing of the suit?
7
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction against defendant?
9. These issues are taken up together to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion. Perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides.
10. The plaintiff approached the court seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his men and agents from anyway interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In the nature of suit filed by the plaintiff, the initial burden lies upon it to prove that it has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. To prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff got exhibited Exs.A1 to
A16. Ex.A1 is Certificate of registration of the plaintiff society issued by the
Registrar of societies. The certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies makes it clear that the plaintiff society was registered under Societies
Registration Act in the year 1956. Ex.A2 is certified copy of memorandum of
Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Society. In Ex.A2, the objects of the plaintiff association were mentioned. In Ex.A2, enclosed Annexure-I with regard to properties belongs to the plaintiff society. In Annexure-I, the plaint schedule property is shown as one of the property belongs to the plaintiff association. Ex.A3 is certified copy of articles of association of the plaintiff society. Ex.A4 is the office copy of list of governing body of plaintiff society.
Ex.A5 is the acknowledgment given by the District Register, East Godavari,
Kakinada. Exs.A1 to A5 are exhibited to show that the plaintiff society is a registered association. The defendant has not seriously disputed the above documents filed by the plaintiff society.
11. Ex.A6 is certified copy of the sale deed for the plaint schedule property.
The plaint schedule property was purchased by one Chowdary Mohammad
Abdul Kareem Saheb, Mohiddin Saheb, Shaik Abdullah Saheb, Khayaduyya
Saheb, Abdullah Saheb, Abdul Waheeb Saheb, Md.Ibrahim Saheb and Shaik 8
Mohammad Saheb under the original of Ex.A6 on 03.04.1924. The contention of the plaintiff is that by the date of purchase of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff society was not registered and the property was purchased in the name of the then members of the society. It is true that the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of individual persons. After 30 years of purchase of the property, the plaintiff society was registered and the plaint schedule property was shown as one of the property belongs to it. Admittedly, the purchasers under Ex.A6 have not disputed the same. The purchasers in whose name the plaint schedule property was purchased have not disputed the registration of plaintiff society and incorporation of the plaint schedule property as the property belongs to the society. If really the plaint schedule property belongs to the individual persons in whose name it was purchased, they should not have kept quiet without challenging the inclusion of plaint schedule property in Ex.A2.
12. Ex.A7 is certified copy of plaint in O.S.109/1969 on the file of District
Municif, Rajahmundry. Ex.A8 is the certified of judgment in O.S.109/1969 on the file of District Municif, Rajahmundry. Some of the members of the plaintiff society filed the said suit against it for mandatory injunction and other reliefs.
The said suit was dismissed by the court. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S.560/2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Rajamahendravaram. One Mohammed Zahirudhin and three others filed the said suit claiming declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff society that the plaint schedule property belongs to them. After full trial, the said suit was dismissed. In the said suit, it was clearly observed that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff society. The decree and judgment passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge in O.S.560/2005 is sufficient to say that the plaintiff society is the owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs in O.S.560/2005 filed the suit claiming that the plaint schedule property belongs to their fathers, grandfather and their family members and the plaintiff society is no way concerned with it. As discussed about the 9 persons in whose name the plaint schedule property was purchased have not challenged the registration of plaintiff society and inclusion of plaint schedule property as one of its properties.
13. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of plaintiff society for the plaint schedule property. Ex.A11 is the certified copy of title deed issued in the name of the plaintiff society. Ex.A12 is the tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff society for the structure in the plaint schedule property. Ex.A13 is the certified copy of Adangal. Exs.A10 to A13 are exhibited to show that the name of the plaintiff society mutated in the revenue records. The revenue authorities issued the pattadar passbook and title deed it in the name of Secretary of the plaintiff society that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff society. The defendant has not challenged the same. Exs.A10 to A13 show that the plaint schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff Society. Ex.A14 is bunch of photographs of the plaint schedule property. The positive photographs were marked to show the existing features of the plaint schedule property. The defendant has not disputed the existing features depicts in photographs filed by the plaintiff. Ex.A15 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 27.09.2021 addressed by the plaintiff society to the District Collector, Kakinada and others. The plaintiff society got issued a legal notice to the District Collector stating that some unscrupulous elements created the revenue record to grab the plaint schedule property and to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer and
Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Rural to make an enquiry about the same.
The legal notice issued by the plaintiff society to the District Collector and other officials shows that after coming to know the manipulation of records it got issued a legal notice to the revenue authorities to make an enquiry.
Ex.A16 is the acknowledgment. The documents produced by the plaintiff show that the plaint schedule property belongs to it and it has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
10
14. P.W.1 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief reiterated the contents of plaint. In his cross-examination admits that he is the Secretary of the Plaintiff Association since 15 years. He further admits that the plaintiff's association was registered in 1956. P.W.1 in his chief examination itself stated that he is the Secretary of the plaintiff society. He further admits that the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.2.40 cents situated at Hukumpetta Grama
Panchayath. He further admits that Ex.A6 sale deed stands in the name of individual persons. He further admits that they gave the documents to show that the purchasers under Ex.A6 are the members in the plaintiff society.
There is no dispute between the parties with regard to admissions made by
P.W.1. It is true that the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the purchasers under Ex.A6 are the members of the plaintiff society. Though it has not filed the document it cannot be said that the purchasers under Ex.A6 are not the members of the plaintiff society. Admittedly the purchasers under
Ex.A6 have not disputed the claim of the plaintiff society. He further admits that the defendant is not a party in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff society. He further admits that O.S.109/1969 was filed for rendition of accounts. He further admits that the plaintiffs in O.S.560/2005 are members in the plaintiff's society who belongs to West Godavari District. He further admits that after re-survey the plaint schedule property comes in Survey No.1095/3.
He denied the suggestion that after conducting re-survey the total extent of
Survey No.1095/3 is Ac.0.91 cents only. He further denied the suggestion that the name of Abdul Rahaman entered in the revenue records in respect of aforesaid extent. He further denied the suggestion that Abdul Rahaman is in possession and enjoyment of the above said extent after re-survey. He further denied the suggestion that Exs.A10 and A11 are cancelled by the revenue authorities. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing was elicited to say that he is not the Secretary of the plaintiff Association and he is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. The admissions made by P.W.1 with regard to previous suits filed by them, there is no dispute. It is true that the defendant 11 is not a party in the previous suits filed against the plaintiff society. But itself is not sufficient to say that the plaintiff society is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He denied the suggestion that the plaint schedule property not available on the ground as per the schedule shown by them.
15. P.W.2 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief deposes that he is member of plaintiff association from the time of his great grandfather
Chowdhary Abdul Kareem. The plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiff, though it was purchased in the individual names of eight members of the plaintiff association. His great grandfather Chowdhary
Abdul Kareem was one of the purchasers as the plaintiff association was not registered by then and the members in whose name the plaint schedule property was purchased were the office bearers of the plaintiff association, as such it was purchased in their names. The same was told by his grandfather and father. He is aware of that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff association. The defendant or his ancestors have no right or title over the plaint schedule property. One Zahiruddin and others filed O.S.560/2005 against the plaintiff on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge claiming title over the plaint schedule property and the said suit was dismissed. The plaint schedule property is enclosed with barbed wire fencing on three sides and the shops at the front. In his cross-examination admits that he has not filed any record to show that he is the member of the plaintiff society. He further admits that one Chowdhary Abdul Kareem is his great grandfather. He further admits that originally the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of eight individual members. He further admits that in the sale deed the name of the plaintiff association did not appear. The contention of the plaintiff is that at the time of purchase of the property, the society was not registered, on that reason the sale deed was obtained in the name of members of the society. He further admits that he has not verified whether the said eight persons were members in the plaintiff society or not. He further admits that he does not 12 know whether there is any document to show that the plaintiff association paid the amount to the eight persons to purchase the plaint schedule property. He further admits that at the time of giving evidence in O.S.560/2005, he was residing at Vizag. He deposes that he came to Rajamahendravaram about 10 years back. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff association is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and it never in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is true that the plaintiff society has not filed any document to show that the eight individual members in whose name the property was purchased were members at the time of purchase of the property. Admittedly, the sale deed was obtained more than a century back.
When the plaint schedule property was purchased more than a century back, the admissions made by P.Ws.1 and 2 are no way helpful to the defendant to say that the plaintiff society is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. He further admits that he does not know one Abdullah Saheb is maternal uncle of the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the said
Abdullah Saheb orally gifted Ac.0.91 cents to the defendant and the name of the defendant mutated in the records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The admissions made by P.W.2 are no way helpful to the defendant to say that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
16. P.W.3 in the affidavit filed in lieu of her examination in chief deposes that she owns a house in Balijapeta. The plaint schedule property is situated towards East of her house and the plaint schedule property belongs to plaintiff association. The plaintiff association is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since several decades. She personally knows that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property. In the gift deed executed by her sister in her favour, the Eastern boundary shown as the property belongs to Muslims which is the plaint schedule property. Through her Ex.A17 is marked. Ex.A17 is the registration extract of settlement deed dated 06.07.2017 executed by Appala Narasamma and two others in favour of 13
P.W.3. The plaintiff got exhibited Ex.A17 to show that in it the Eastern boundary shown as property belongs to the plaintiff. In her cross-examination admits that she has not seen the document stands in the name of plaintiff society. She deposes that her parents informed to her that plaint schedule property belongs to plaintiff society. She further admits that she has not filed any proof to show that she was residing adjacent to the plaint schedule property except Ex.A17. She further admits that she knows one Eedala
Venkata Rao and he cultivated the plaint schedule property as tenant. The question posed to P.W.3 makes it clear that she got knowledge that the plaint schedule property cultivated by one Eedala Venkata Rao as tenant. If really the P.W.3 has not been residing adjacent to the plaint schedule property, she should not have knowledge of the same. She further admits that at present the said Eedala Venkata Rao is not cultivating the plaint schedule property. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff society is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 also nothing was elicited to discard her evidence with regard to possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff society.
17. P.W.4 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief reiterated the contents of plaint. In his cross-examination admits that he does not remember from which year to which year he worked as Secretary of the plaintiff society. He further admits that he has not filed any document to show that he worked as Secretary of the plaintiff society. He further admits that he has not filed any document to show that at present he is executive member of the plaintiff society. He deposes that he can say the names of the purchasers of the plaint schedule property they are Chowdary Mohammad Abdul Kareem
Saheb, Mohiddin Saheb, Shaik Abdullah Saheb, Khayaduyya Saheb,
Abdullah Saheb, Abdul Waheeb Saheb, Md.Ibrahim Saheb and Shaik
Mohammad Saheb. It is true that P.W.4 has not filed any document to show that previously he worked as Secretary of the plaintiff society and at present he is the executive member of the society. Admittedly P.W.4 is aged about 74 14 years. In his cross-examination categorically deposed the names of the persons in whose name the plaint schedule property was purchased. If really
P.W.4 is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property, he may not be able to depose the names of the persons in whose name the property was purchased. He further admits that the sale deed stands in the name of individual persons but not in the name of plaintiff society. He further admits that the plaintiff society was not formed as on the date of sale deed obtained by the above said persons. The question posed to P.W.4 makes it clear that the plaintiff society was not formed by the date of sale deed obtained by the individuals. The question posed to P.Ws.3 and 4 supports the contention of the plaintiff.
18. He further admits that no document filed to show that the above-said eight persons were members of the plaintiff society after its registration. It is true that the plaintiff society has not filed any document to show that eight members were also members in the society after its registration. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property was included in the Annexure-I of Memorandum of Association and the plaint schedule property shown as property belongs to the plaintiff society. The purchasers under Ex.A6 have not disputed the same during their lifetime. When the purchasers have not disputed the same during their lifetime, it can safely be concluded that the plaint schedule property was purchased with the amount contributed by the members of the society, as the said association was not formed by the date of purchase, it was obtained in the name of individual members. P.W.4 further admits that the relatives of the purchaser filed O.S.560/2005 against the plaintiff society. He further admits that the appeal is pending against the decree and judgment passed in
O.S.560/2005. The questions posed to P.W.4 and answers given by him make
it clear that he got knowledge of the affairs of the plaintiff society. He further admits that he came to know that the revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deed in the name of the defendant in respect of Ac.0.91 cents. He further admits that he does not know whether the name of the 15 defendant mutated in the records prior to filing the present suit. He further admits that he does not know whether the pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in the name of the defendant by cancelling the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in the name of the plaintiff society. The defendant has not filed any piece of document to show that the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the name of the plaintiff society were cancelled. The question posed to P.W.4 makes it clear that the pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in the name of the plaintiff society prior to the alleged pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the name of the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Ac.0.91 cents of land. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff society never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In the cross-examination of P.W.4 also nothing was listed to prove that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
19. The defendant filed written statement that an extent of Ac.0.91 cents belongs to Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman and he gifted the same to him and his name was mutated in the revenue records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said extent. To prove the contention of the defendant he got exhibited Exs.B1 to B7. Ex.B1 is Field measurement map.
The defendant got exhibited Ex.B1 to show the location of the plaint schedule property. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to location of the plaint schedule property. Ex.B2 is the certificate issued by the Panchayath
Secretary, Hukumpeta dated 07.04.2025. The Secretary Grama Panchayat
Hukumpeta issued certificate that there is no Door No.2-401 relating to
Hukumpeta Panchayat. The defendant got exhibited Ex.B2 to say that the door number furnished by the plaintiff is no way concerned with Hukumpeta
Panchayath. Ex.B3 is attested copy of Adangal for the fasli 1407 issued by the
Tahsildar, Dowleshwaram. Ex.B4 is the attested copy of Adangal for the fasli 1426 issued by the Tahsildar, Dowleswaram. Ex.B5 is the attested copy of 16
Adangal for the fasli 1397 issued by the Tahsildar, Dowleswaram. Ex.B6 is the attested copy of 1-B Namuna issued by the Tahsildar, Dowleswaram. In
Ex.B3, the name of one Abdul Rahaman Saheb mentioned as pattadar of an extent of 40,075 square feet in Survey No.1095/3. In Ex.B4, the name of the defendant mentioned as Pattadar and enjoyadar of an extent of Ac.0.91 cents in Survey No.1095/3. Ex.B4 relating to the year 2017-2018. In Ex.B6 1-B
Namuna the name of owner of the property mentioned as Abdul Rahaman, son of Khasim Saheb, an extent of Ac.0.92 cents in survey No.1095/3. The defendant has not filed any document to show as to how Abdul Rahaman acquired the property. The defendant has further failed to prove that the Abdul
Rahaman is Abdullah Saheb who executed the Hiba in his favour. On the basis of Exs.B1 to B6, the defendant has no right to say that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Except Ex.B4, the other documents are not stands in the name of defendant. In Exs.B3, B5 and
B6, the extent mentioned in the square feet and in Ex.B4 the extent mentioned in the cents, the defendant has failed to explain the said discrepancy.
Admittedly, Ex.B3 and B5 are Adangal issued prior to Ex.B4. When in Exs.B3 and B5, the extent mentioned in the square feet as to how the extent of property mentioned in the cents coming to Ex.B4, there is no explanation from the defendant. After gone through the same, it appears that the defendant has managed the authorities and obtained the said documents.
20. Ex.B7 is Hiba-bil-Iwaz. The entire claim of the defendant is based on
Ex.B7. Shaik Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman, S/o.Khasim Saheb,
R/o.Palivela Village, Kottapeta Mandal executed the said Hiba-bil-Iwaz. In
Ex.B7 it was mentioned that the donor and his friends purchased an extent of
Ac.2.40 cents and he got Ac.0.91 cents as his share. Admittedly, Ex.A6 stands in the name of eight persons. The eight persons jointly purchased the total extent of Ac.2.40 cents. When eight purchasers jointly purchased the total extent of Ac.2.40 cents, as to how the donor under Ex.B7 got Ac.0.91 cents, there is no explanation in Ex.B7 with regard to the same. The recitals of 17
Ex.B7 further disclose that the said Abdul Rahaman the donor had two sons and two daughters. The recitals of Ex.B7 disclose that the children of the donor are not attending his needs as such he decided to transfer the land to the defendant who is his nephew.
21. Here it is better to refer the gifts under Mohammedan law.
There are Five forms of gifts in Mahomedan Law. They are:
i) HIBA: Hiba or gift is a transfer of property made immediately without any exchange by one person to another person and accepted by or on behalf of the later.
ii) AREEAT: Areeat is giving use, enjoyment and usufruct of some property or right by one person to another without consideration for some time.
iii) SADAQAH: Sadaqah is immediate transfer of some property or right by one person to another with the object of acquiring some religious or spiritual benefit without consideration.
iv) HIBA-BIL-IWAZ: Hiba-bil-iwaz is transfer of some property or right by one person to another for consideration or in return of something.
v) HIBA-BA-SHART-UL-IWAZ: Hiba-ba-shart-ul-Iwaz means transfer of some property or right by one person to another with a condition or stipulation for consideration.
The gift under Ex.B7 is in the form of Hiba-bil-Iwaz. Hiba-bil-Iwaz is for consideration or in return of something. In Ex.B7, it was not mentioned what was the consideration paid by the defendant to the donor for obtaining Ex.B7.
When Ex.B7 is Hiba-bil-Iwaz it should be supported by some consideration.
Admittedly there is no recital in Ex.B7 the nature of consideration paid by the 18 defendant to the donor. In Ex.B7 there is no recital whether the donor has delivered the possession of the property to the defendant or not. The gift under Mohammedan law should be completed by delivery of possession only.
When there is no delivery of possession, the gift is void. The form of gift pleaded by the defendant is lacking of possession so also consideration.
When the gift pleaded by the defendant is lacking of delivery of possession and consideration, Ex.B7 is not at all a valid document and on the basis of it the defendant has no right to claim right over the property. The document relied upon by the defendant is not a legally valid document. When Ex.B7 is not a legally valid document, it does not convey any right to the defendant.
22. D.W.1 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief reiterated the contents of written statement. In his cross-examination admits that he has no document stands in the name of Shaik Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul
Rahaman and he has no document to show the identity of said Abdullah
Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman. The defendant has not filed any document to show that Shaik Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman is his maternal uncle. He further admits that he does not know about purchase of plaint schedule property by Shaik Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman. He further admits that the sale deed recites that an extent of Ac.0.91 cents belonged to Shaik
Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman. Admittedly there is no recital in the sale deed that the purchasers have got specific extent. He further admits that there is no document to show that Shaik Abdullah Saheb also called as Abdul
Rahaman. He further admits that he was present at the time of execution of
Ex.B7, but it did not contain his signature. He further admits that the Shaik
Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman had no issues and his wife is no more.
The admission made by D.W.1 is contra to the recitals of Ex.B7. The recitals of Ex.B7 show that Abdullah Saheb had two sons and two daughters. The admission made by D.W.1 is sufficient to say that the defendant is no way concerned with the family of Abdullah Saheb. If really the defendant is family member of Abdullah Saheb, at least he should have stated the names of the 19 children of Abdullah Saheb. The admission made by D.W.1 falsify his contention that he is the nephew of Abdullah Saheb. The admission made by
D.W.1 further makes it clear that Ex.B7 was prepared without his knowledge.
When the defendant has no knowledge about Ex.B7, he cannot say that he took the delivery of the property through it.
23. He further admits that Ex.B7 was executed in Palivela Village. He further admits that he does not know on whose instructions Ex.B7 was prepared. He further admits that Shaik Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman is permanent resident of Rajamahendravaram and he never resided at Palivela
Village. The admission made by D.W.1 further makes it clear that the donor under Ex.B7 never resided at Palivela Village. The recitals of Ex.B7 show that the same was executed at Palivela Village. When the donor under Ex.B7 was not resided at Palivela Village, as to how Ex.B7 was executed at Palivela
Village, there is no explanation from the defendant to that extent. It is also one of the circumstances to doubt the genuiness of Ex.B7.
24. D.W.1 further admits that he has no document to show that Shaik
Abdullah Saheb died in the year 1996. He further admits that he does not know in Ex.B7 it was recited or mentioned that possession of property was delivered to him. He deposes that the remaining extent of Ac.1.49 cents was taken by the remaining purchasers on the Eastern side. He further admits that in Ex.B7 any of the boundaries shown as remaining extent in the same survey number or the names of the remaining purchasers. He denied the suggestion that he fabricated Ex.B7 with wrong boundaries. He further denied the suggestion that he fabricated Exs.B1 to B7 to knock away the property belongs to the plaintiff society. He further admits that he does not know whether the plaintiff society obtained the pattadar passbook and title deed for a entire extent of Ac.2.40 cents. He further admits that he has not raised any objection before the revenue authorities for issuing of pattadar passbook and title deed to the entire extent. He further admits that in the revenue records 20 filed by him did not disclose that he got the property through Ex.B7. The admissions made by D.W.1 further make it clear that he has no knowledge about the plaint schedule property. There is no explanation from the defendant as to why he has not raised any objection before the revenue authorities with regard to pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the name of the plaintiff society in respect of Ac.2.40 cents.
25. D.W.1 further admits that he does not know on 24.12.2022 the Town
Surveyor conducted survey of plaint schedule property and gave report that an extent of Ac.2.18 cents is in the possession of the plaintiff society. He further admits that there is no document to show that patta No.5 and 6 were assigned to Ac.0.91 cents of Shaik Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman. He further admits that the aforesaid Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahaman lived at
Rajamahendravaram till his death. The admission made by D.W.1 falsifies the recital in Ex.B7 that Abdullah Saheb resided Palivela Village. He further admits that the attestors on Ex.P7 does not know English. He further admits that Ex.B7 was in Telugu language. Admittedly Ex.B7 is in English language.
The admission made by D.W.1 further makes it clear that he has no knowledge about Ex.B7. He further admits that he does not know whether the members of the plaintiff society produced a certificate issued by the Palivela
Grama Panchayat that no death was recorded in their records in respect of
Shaik Abdullah Saheb. The defendant has not filed any document to show that Abdullah Saheb died at Palivela Village. He admits that due to lack of knowledge he has not mutated his name in the revenue records till the year 1996. The defendant has not filed any document to show that his name was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1996. He further admits that his name was not mutated in the revenue records till the year 2017-2018. The admission made by D.W.1 falsify his contention that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property after the death of his maternal uncle. He admits that he can say the boundaries of his extent West - Road,
East he does not know the name of the boundary holder. But the survey 21 number of the land on the East is 1095, his survey number is 1094. He cannot say the names of Northern and Southern boundary owners. If really the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.91 cents of land as stated by him, at least he should have stated the boundaries of the property.
After gone through the cross-examination of D.W.1, it is clear that he has no knowledge about the plaint schedule property and taking advantage of the documents, he is claiming that he is the owner of the property. The admissions made by D.W.1 falsify his case that he got the property through
Ex.B7.
26. D.W.1 further admits that he gave his land on lease to one Eedala
Venkata Rao for cutting grass. The said Eedala Venkata Rao is alive as on date. He further admits that this year also he gave his land on lease to him.
He further admits that he will examine Eedala Venkata Rao. The defendant has not filed any proof to show that he leased out the property to Eedala
Venkata Rao. The evidence of D.W.1 is contra to the defence set up by him.
The admissions made by D.W.1 falsify the case setup by him.
27. On the application filed by the defendant, the Tahsildar,
Rajamahendravaram Rural summoned and examined as D.W.2. D.W.2 deposes that as per the summons received by him, he has brought the documents. He has not brought the Pattadar Passbook bearing No.760100 relating to Patta No.406, but he has produced the register containing the entry in respect of Patta number. Through him Exs.X1 to X7 are marked. Ex.X1 is the attested copy of A register containing the old survey number and the corresponding new survey number. Ex.X2 is the attested copy of Adangal for the fasli 1407. Ex.X3 is the attested copy of Adangal for the fasli 1411. Ex.X4 is the attested copy of webland register. Ex.X5 is the 1-B namuna stands in the name of Abdul Rahaman. Ex.X6 is the 1-B Namuna stands in the name of the plaintiff society. Ex.X7 is the attested copy of proceedings of the Joint
Collector in reference number Coord-3/467855/20269, dated 21.12.2023. In 22
Ex.X1, old survey numbers mentioned as 125 and 126 and the patta holder name as Abdul Rahaman. On the basis of Ex.X1, the defendant has no right to say that the Abdul Rahaman mentioned in Ex.X1 is the person who executed Ex.B7. Moreover, the extent of the land mentioned in Ex.B7 is contrary to the extent mentioned in Ex.X1. Admittedly, eight persons were purchased the property under the original of Ex.A6. In Ex.X1, only one person name was mentioned. The defendant has failed to explain as to how the name of Abdul Rahaman only entered in Ex.X1 in respect of entire extent in Survey
Nos.125 and 126.
28. Ex.X2 and Ex.B3 are one and the same documents. This court has discussed about Ex.B3 in the earlier paragraph. Once again there is no need to repeat the same here again. Ex.X3 is the attested copy of Adangal for the fasli 1411. In Ex.X3 also the name of Abdul Rahaman shown as pattadar of an extent of 40,075 square feet in Survey No.1095/3. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property is a land. D.W.2 has failed to explain as to how the extent mentioned in square feet. Ex.X4 is the webland register in which the name of the defendant mentioned, but the mode of acquisition of property mentioned as inheritance. Admittedly, the defendant has not inherited the property through the alleged owner Abdul Rahaman Saheb. The defendant has failed to explain as to how in Ex.X4 the source of acquisition of property mentioned as inheritance when he got the property under Ex.B7. Ex.X5 is 1-B Namuna issued in the name of Abdul Rahaman. Ex.X5 and Ex.B6 are one and the same documents. In the foregoing paragraph, this court had discussed about
Ex.B6. Once again, there is no need to discuss about the same. Ex.X6 stands in the name of the plaintiff society. In Ex.X6, an extent of Ac.2.40 cents shown in the name of the plaintiff society. The document produced by D.W.2 proves that the plaintiff society has been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of
Ac.2.40 cents.
23
29. The Joint Collector issued proceedings under Ex.X7 that for keeping the land in dispute register in webland till further orders. D.W.2 in his cross- examination admits that he cannot say how in Exs.X2 and X3 the name of
Abdul Veera Hassan was mentioned when the name of Abdul Rahaman reflects in Ex.X1. The defendant has failed to explain as to how the name of
Veera Hassan mentioned in Exs.X2 and X3 when the property belongs to
Abdul Rahaman. He further admits that in Ex.X5 the extent was mentioned in square feet. He admits that as per Ex.X6, Pattadar Passbook was issued in the name of plaintiff society for an extent of Ac.2.40 cents. He admits that there is no record to show that an enquiry was conducted by the then
Tahsildar with regard to dispute between the parties to the suit. He denied the suggestion that the then Tahsildar got issued pattadar passbook in the name of the defendant as influenced by him without any basis. The evidence of
D.W.2 is no way helpful to the defendant to prove that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, his evidence shows that Pattadar passbook was issued in the name of the plaintiff society.
30. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff society for a mere injunction is maintainable as its right was already decided in O.S.560/2005 and there is no need to file the suit for declaration.
To support his contention, he relied upon the following decision:
Anantula Sudhakar v. P. Buchireddy (died) by L.Rs. (2008) 4 SCC 594.
In the above decision, our Hon'ble Apex Court formulated the points which are necessary to decide the suits relating to perpetual injunctions. As per the points formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said suit, a suit for simple injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute with regard to title of the property.
24
In the case on hand, though the defendant had disputed the title of the plaintiff, he has not produced any evidence to show that there is a cloud in respect of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. When the defendant has failed to prove the same, he has no right to say that the suit is not maintainable without seeking the declaration. When the plaintiff society is in possession of the plaint schedule property, it has right to maintain the suit for Injunction.
31. He relied upon another decision between Mohammed Khasim and
others Vs. Selection Grade City, Municipal Corporation, Warangal
2012 (2) ALD 94.
In the above decision, our Hon'ble High Court held that a person who is in settled position has right to seek perpetual injunction. The facts of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is entirely different to the facts of the case. It is well settled that a person who is in settled possession has right to seek perpetual injunction.
32. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the earlier judgment passed in O.S.560/2005 is binding on the defendant even though he is not a party to the said suit. To support his contention, he relied upon a case in between A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Syed Jalaluddin Sha (died) by L.Rs., and others AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 54
In the above decision, our Hon'ble Apex Court held that " a previous judgment not interparties was admissible in evidence under section 13 to show who the parties were, what the lands in disputes were and who was declared entitled to retain them."
33. In O.S.560/2005, the I Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court categorically held that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff 25 society. When the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff society, the defendant has no right to say that property not belongs to the plaintiff society.
34. On the application of the plaintiff, this Court has appointed an Advocate
Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property. The learned Advocate Commissioner visited the property and filed his report. The learned Advocate Commissioner observed that the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule property is fenced with barbed wire. He further observed that there is a road on the Southern side and shops on the front side and behind the shops there is a compound wall and an iron fencing. He further observed that there are compound walls on the Eastern and Western side separating the plaint schedule property and others property. The learned
Advocate commissioner has filed bunch of photographs. The photographs filed by the learned advocate commissioner depicts that there is barbed wire fencing and compound walls to the plaint schedule property. The defendant has failed to explain who erected fence to the plaint schedule property and constructed compound walls. It is not his case that he erected fence to the plaint schedule property and constructed compound walls. The report filed by the learned Advocate commissioner shows that the plaint schedule property is a single bit. The defendant has failed to explain as to how he has been in possession of Ac.0.91 cents when the plaint schedule property is a single bit.
35. The plaintiff society filed suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his men and agents from anyway interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff society by exhibiting Exs.A10, A11,
A13 and X6 proved that it has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant has not filed any document as to how he acquired the property of an extent of Ac.0.91 cents.
Though the defendant relied on Ex.B7, it is not a legally valid document. As discussed above Hiba-bi-Iwaz is a gift for consideration. The defendant has not adduced any evidence to show the nature of the consideration paid by him 26 in return to Ex.B7. Moreover, Ex.B7 is not followed by delivery of possession.
A gift under Muslim law is valid when the possession was delivered to the donee. If there was no delivery of possession, the gift becomes void. There is no recital in Ex.B7 that the property was delivered to the defendant on the date of it. The gift pleaded by the defendant is not valid and on the basis of it he has no right to claim right over the property. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff proves that it has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The finding recorded in O.S.560/2005 is sufficient to say that the property belongs to the plaintiff society. When the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff society and it has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, it has right to protect the same from third parties. The defendant being a third party to the plaint schedule property has no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff property on the basis of the alleged documents filed by him. When the plaintiff society proved that it has been in possession and enjoyment of the property, it is entitled to seek the permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from anyway interfering with its possession and enjoyment. In view of above discussion, the issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3: To what relief?
36. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, and agents from any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- Sri Sk.Jani Basha
Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram.
27
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF :
P.W.1 : Md.Rouf Qureshi.
P.W.2 : Abdul Jabeer.
P.W.3 : Revadi Ratnam.
P.W.4 : Mohammad Faizullah.
FOR DEFENDANT :
D.W.1 : Syed Phiyajuddin.
D.W.2 : P.Srinivasa Rao.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF :
Ex.A1 : Certified copy of the certificate of registration of the plaintiff society issued by the Registrar of societies, dated 03.11.2021.
Ex.A2 : Certified copy of the memorandum of articles of association of the plaintiff society.
Ex.A3 : Certified copy of articles of Association of the plaintiff society.
Ex.A4 : Office copy of list of governing body of plaintiff society.
Ex.A5 : Acknowledgment given by the District Registrar, East Godavari, Kakinada.
Ex.A6 : Certified copy of the sale deed for the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A7 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.109/1969 on the file of District Munsif, Rajahmundry.
Ex.A8 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S.109/1969 on the file of District Munsif, Rajahmundry.
28
Ex.A9 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S.560/2005on the file of I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge’s court, Rajamahendravaram.
Ex.A10 : Certified copy of pattadar passbook in the name of the plaintiff society for the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A11 : Certified copy of title deed book in the name of the plaintiff society for the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A12 : Tax receipt in the name of plaintiff society for the structure in the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A13 : Certified copy of Adangal.
Ex.A14 : Bunch of photographs of the plaint schedule property along with C.D.
Ex.A15 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 27.09.2021 addressed by the plaintiff society to the District Collector, Kakinada and others.
Ex.A16 : Acknowledgement from the District Collector, Kakinada.
Ex.A17 : Registration extract of settlement deed, dated 06.04.2017 executed by Appalanarsamma and two others in favour of P.W.3.
FOR DEFENDANT:
Ex.B1 : Attested copy of Field Map.
Ex.B2 : Certificate issued by Panchayat secretary, Hukumpeta, dated 07.04.2025.
Ex.B3 : Attested copy of Adangal for the fasali 1407 issued by the Tahasildar, Dowleswaram.
Ex.B4 : Attested copy of Adangal for the fasali 1426 issued by the Tahasildar, Dowleswaram.
Ex.B5 : Attested copy of Adangal for the fasali 1397 issued by the Tahasildar, Dowleswaram.
Ex.B6 : Attested copy of 1B Namuna issued by Tahasildar, Dowleswaram.
Ex.B7 : Original Hiba-bil-Iwaz (Gift deed), dated 22.06.1983 executed by Shaik Abdullah Saheb @ Abdul Rahman.
29
X-SERIES:
Ex.X1 : Attested copy of “A” Register containing the old survey number and corresponding new survey number.
Ex.X2 : Attested copy of Adangal for the fasli 1407.
Ex.X3 : Attested copy of Adangal for the fasli 1411.
Ex.X4 : Attested copy of webland register.
Ex.X5 : 1B Namuna stands in the name of Abdul Rehaman.
Ex.X6 : 1B Namuna stands in the name of plaintiff’s society.
Ex.X7 : Attested copy of proceedings of the Joint Collector in Ref.No.Coord-3/467855/2026, dated 21.12.2023.
Sd/- Sri Sk.Jani Basha
Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram.