19
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANGA
REDDY DIST., L.B.NAGAR.
Present:: Sri SHAIK MADAR., B.Sc., BL.,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, RR Dist.
Dated this the 4 th day of April, 2012
O.S. No. 860 of 2001
Between::
1. G. Bala Krishna (Died per L.Rs)
2. G. Sayanna, S/o late Chitharaiah aged 40 yrs, Occ: employee in ECIL R/o H.No. 4-114/8/1, Ramanthapur, Hyd
3. G. Bikshapathi, S/o late Bala Krishna aged 40 yrs, Occ: Business,
4. G. Ram Krishna, S/o late Bala Krishna aged 34 yrs, Occ: Business,
5. G. Upender, S/o late Bala Krishna aged 32 yrs, Occ: Business,
6. G. Chitharanjan, S/o late Bala Krishna aged 23 yrs, Occ: Private employee
Pltfs.no.3 to 6 are R/o H.No.4-114/15/2, Saichithra Nagar Lane No.7, Ramanthapur, Hyd (Pltfs. no.3 to 6 were impleaded as per the Orders
passed in IA No.2654/2008, dt.31-03-2011) ....Plaintiffs
and
The Commissioner, Uppal Municipality,
Ranga Reddy District. ....Defendant
The suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.A Rasheed, Advocate for the plaintiffs no.1 and 2, and Sri P. Achutham Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs no.3 to 6 and of Sri V. Vishwanatham, Advocate for the defendant, and having heard and stood over for consideration, in the open court delivered the following::
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.
19
2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:
ii).Originally, the father of the plaintiffs namely, Late G. Chitharaiah,
S/o Ramanna was the protected tenant of the land admg., Ac.28-17 gts in Sy.No.42 & 43 situated at Saichitra Nagar, Lane No.7, Ramanthapur,
Hyderabad, and being a tenant, he purchased the said land from one
Sivarajaiah, S/o Rajeswar Rao for a valid consideration. Subsequently, he approached the Assistant Collector, Eastern Division, the then
Hyderabad Dist for grant of certificate under Sec. 38(6) of the
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Accordingly, the said certificate was granted in his favour vide File
No.121/Tenancy/1953, dt.26-10-1953. So, he became the absolute owner and possessor of the said land and died long back leaving behind the plaintiffs herein as his legal heirs.
ii).After the death of their father, the plaintiffs wanted to sell away some of their lands and so, they converted the same into plots in the year, 1980 and sold away them to several purchasers. But, they kept the plot admeasuring 600 Sq. yards for their personal use i.e., for cattle shed for buffaloes and store room for keeping graze and feed. In the year, 1981, they also erected a cattle shed with A.C sheets and a room on the said site. The graves of ancestors of the plaintiffs including Late
Chitharaiah, are also situated on the said site. The plaintiffs have been in continuous and physical possession over the said property and it is the suit schedule property herein.
iii).The plot purchasers constructed their respective houses and have been residing in them. There is no dispute by any plot holder in respect of the suit schedule property, which is in possession and 19 enjoyment of the plaintiffs. After forming the defendant municipality in the year, 1988, the house numbers were also allotted to the houses constructed by the plot owners.
iv).After formation of the Municipality in the year, 1988, no objection was made in respect of the suit schedule property. But, all of sudden, the officials, subordinates and other agents of the municipality came to the suit schedule property on 20-07-2001 at 4 pm and threatened the plaintiffs for demolition of the cattle shed and room and also graves without verifying any title deeds and without following due process of law. But, due to timely intervention of the plaintiffs and their neighbours, they left the suit site by threatening them that they would come again for demolition of cattle shed and room along with the graves.
v).The acts of the authorities of defendant municipality are illegal, unlawful and arbitrary and void abinitio and are tainted with malafide intention for extraneous consideration. If they succeed in their illegal attempts of demolition without following due process of law, it is illegal.
So, the plaintiffs are left with no other alternative, except to approach this court by way of filing of a suit for perpetual injunction. Hence, the suit.
3. The averments made in the written statement, in brief, are as follows:
i).The father of the plaintiffs was the tenant of the land admg.,
Ac.28-17 gts in Sy.Nos.42 & 43 situated at Saichitra Nagar,
Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. He purchased the said land from landlord and after his death, the plaintiffs succeeded the same. In the year, 19 1981, the plaintiffs made a lay out of the above land and got approved of the then Gram Panchayat and it consists of 104 residential plots to an extent of 27,508 Sq. yards, roads area to an extent of 7,641.0 Sq.
yards and also they left 900 Sq. yards site to the park. The said park is divided into two parts, one part of the park is situated on the northern side of plot No.27 & 28 abutting to the road of Ramanthapur and
Habsiguda and the other part is situated in between the plot No.60 and existing 40’-0” road. The signatures of the plaintiffs and the then
Sarpanch were also there on the approved layout and there was a specific identification of parks in the said layout.
ii).There was a big abandoned well in the land and the plaintiffs left the said well as park area covered an area of 600 Sq. yards. After formation of the Municipality, the locality people and the defendant municipality filled up the said well with garbage and leveled it to make use of the said open land as park. But, now with a malafide intention to grab the said open land and establish their possession, the plaintiffs have constructed some temporary small graves creating an impression that they are belonged to their ancestors and also erected two small temporary rooms on one side and also let out the open space to a
Carpenter to run his work shop. The municipality might have allotted the house numbers to the houses constructed in Sy.No.42 and 43.
Even, if any door number is allotted by the municipality in respect of the suit schedule property, it does not give any title to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs have also not filed any documentary proof to establish their title over the suit schedule property.
19 iii). The councilor of the 4th Ward, Smt G. Anuradha submitted a representation, dt.12-02-2001 to the Commissioner of Municipality to clear the encroachments made by some unknown persons beside the house No.3-4-114/8 by constructing a cattle shed and establishing carpentry workshop. So, the said site was inspected by the officials of defendant and informed the encroachers, who are the plaintiffs herein, orally to vacate the encroached land and the plaintiffs also agreed to the same. Again, the said Councilor and Saichitra Colony Residents
Welfare Association submitted a representation, dt.01-06-2001 before the Nodal Officer in Janmabhoomi programme with a request to restore the open place, which was encroached by the plaintiffs herein. So, the officials of the defendant municipality again inspected the suit schedule property with the help of sanctioned layout and the plaintiffs were given ample time to vacate the said land. But, the plaintiffs neither submitted any documentary proof regarding their ownership nor vacated the schedule property. As per the rules, the defendant also issued a notice to the plaintiffs u/sec. 192, 360 & 361 of AP
Municipalities Act, 1965 vide No.TPS/Encr/2001, dt.30-06-2001. But, even after receipt of the said notice, the plaintiffs did not submit any documentary proof of their ownership nor removed the encroachments.
iv).After expiry of time given in the notice, the defendant removed the said encroachments with the help of police on 02-07-2001 and also erected a sign board stating that the land is belonged to the
Municipality and the photographs were also taken and news items were published in Daily News papers on 03-07-2001, and 4-07-2001. At the time of demolition, the plaintiffs also gave an undertaking that the encroachments were removed in the schedule property and they would 19 also remove the debris and waste material within three days and if they failed to do so, the municipality was at liberty to do the same and the same was signed by his sons. But, instead of removing the waste material from the site, the plaintiffs removed the board erected by the municipality and started the construction. So, on 31-7-2001, the municipality removed all the encroachments and erected two boards again. The Municipality also lodged a complaint against the plaintiffs
before the Station House Officer, Osmania Campus P.S vide TPS-
1/Encr/2001, dt.31-07-2001. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs have filed this suit against the municipality and obtained ad-interim injunction with a malafide intention to grab the schedule property.
v).Even after, receipt of the Provisional Order, the plaintiffs have not stopped the work and as such, the defendant confirmed the notice issued earlier u/sec.228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act and the confirmation notice issued bearing no.11/1/1999-2000, dt.07-04-2000 was also served on the plaintiffs. As such, the defendant has followed the due procedure as contemplated under the AP Municipalities Act, 1965 for removal of the unauthorized construction.
vi).All the allegations are false and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit and it is nothing, but a created one. The plaintiffs have approached this court with unclean hands. The suit of plaintiffs is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. Therefore, the defendant municipality has prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Issues framed for trial:
1). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
19 2). To what relief ?
5. After the plaintiffs Nos.3 to 6 were impleaded as legal
heirs due to the death of 1 st plaintiff, the defendant
Municipality filed the additional written statement contending,
in brief, as follows:
The father of the plaintiffs Nos.3 to 6 might have died on 08-12- 2005, but left with not only the plaintiffs No.3 to 6 herein, but also two daughters namely, Smt Nagamani and Padma. But, the plaintiffs have intentionally suppressed their names. Hence, the defendant municipality has prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6. After filing the additional written statement, the addl.
Issue was framed as follows:
3). Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the names of their sisters ?
7. Trial:
On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 & 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to
A6 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant municipality, DW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B9 were got marked.
8. Arguments:
The learned counsels for the plaintiffs have vehemently argued that the plaintiffs have successfully established their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, but the defendant has failed to prove its case, and hence, they have prayed this court to decree the suit for perpetual injunction, as prayed for.
19
On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel for the defendant municipality has vehemently argued at length that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their case, but the defendant has adduced substantial evidence in support of its contention and hence, he has prayed this court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. The defendant municipality has also filed the written arguments.
9. Admitted and undisputed facts:
i)There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have been in possession over the same, since long time. Prior to filing of the suit, the officials, servants, employees ...etc., of the defendant interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over suit schedule property and also damaged the shed and room and other structures as shown in the photographs under
Ex.B7. There are graves of ancestors of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property as shown in photographs under Ex.A4 and also
Ex.B7.
ii) The plaintiffs and their ancestors were the owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.42 and 43 and it was converted into plots and sold away to several purchasers. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat,
Ramanthapur was merged with the Uppal Municipality. The plot purchasers constructed the houses and the numbers were also allotted to them by the municipality. There is no dispute with regard to the
Pahani copies marked as Ex.A1 to A3, A5 and A6. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the photographs under Ex.A4 and Ex.B7.
19
10. Discussion:
Issue No.1:
i).As per the evidence of the PW.1 & 2, the land in Sy.Nos.42 & 43 of Ramanthapur village was converted into plots under a layout obtained from the then Gram Panchayath, Ramanthapur in the year, 1981 and sold away the plots to several purchasers , but they kept the suit schedule property for their personal use, as there are graves of their ancestors. They erected a cattle shed and a room in the schedule property and they have been in possession and enjoyment over the same as shown in the photographs under Ex.A4. But, on 20-07-2001, the officials, subordinates ..etc., of the defendant came to the schedule property and tried to demolish the structures without following due process of law and so, they were constrained to file this suit.
ii).On the other hand, the evidence of DW.1 goes to show that as per the layout under Ex.B1, the site amdg., 900 Sq. yards was allotted for park and it is situated at two places admg., 300 Sq., yards and 600
Sq. yards, but the plaintiffs encroached the site admeasuring 600 sq.
yards, and they erected a cattle shed and rooms, and so, the municipality, after following due process of law, demolished the same on 02-07-2001, but, the plaintiffs have field this suit with false allegations.
iii).As per the averments made in the written statement, the layout was made in the year, 1981 and the suit schedule plot was shown as park and the defendant also filed the layout under Ex.B1. But, as per the said layout and also the evidence of the DW1, it was made in the year, 1958 and defendant has not filed the layout made in the year, 19 1981. Thus, it is clear that there is a doubt as to whether the layout was made in the year, 1958 or in the year, 1981 or in the year, 1980.
But, the DW.1 who has not given any explanation to clarify the same and defendant has also not filed a resolution copy of the then
Grampanchayath as to approval of the layout. However, as per the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, they converted the land into plots in the year, 1980 and sold away. But, during the cross-examination of the
PW1 and PW2 also, nothing was elicited to show that the layout was made in the year, 1958 only under Ex.B1, but not in the year, 1981.
iv). In the written statement, the defendant has also taken a plea that there was a big abandoned well shown as park in the layout and it was filled up with garbage and leveled to make use of it as park. But, as per the layout under Ex.B1, there was no well and the DW1 also admitted the same. More over, during his cross-examination, the DW.1 deposed that he could not say as to when the said well was filled up with the garbage by the municipality and there is no record to show that the Tender was called for to fill up the well with the garbage.
Further, during the cross-examination of the PW1 and PW2, nothing was elicited to show that there was a big well in the site shown as park in the layout and it was filled up with the garbage by the defendant and even no such suggestion was put to them. Thus, it is crystal clear that except the oral evidence of the DW.1, there is nothing on record to show that there was a big well in the suit schedule property and it was filled up with garbage by the defendant to make use of it as park.
v).It is true as argued by the learned senior counsel for the defendant that under the provisions of the A.P Gramapanchayats Act and also A.P Municipalities Act, the Gram Panchayat and Municipality 19 are vested with the powers of maintenance and control over the roads and open places left for public purpose in the layout. But, the defendant has not filed any document executed by the plaintiff in favour of the then Gram Panchayath as to gifting and handing over the possession of the suit schedule property, shown as park in the layout.
During his cross-examination, the DW1 also deposed that he did not know whether the plaintiffs executed any gift deed in favour of the then
Grampanchayat in respect of the open spaces in the layout left for public purpose. Thus, it is obvious that absolutely, there is nothing on record to show that as per the layout, the Grampanchayat took over the possession of suit schedule property and subsequently, the defendant is in possession of the same.
vi). In the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that they demolished the structures in the schedule property by following due process of law. The defendant has also filed a notice under Ex.B3. But, it does not contain any acknowledgment or endorsement of the plaintiffs to show that it was served on the plaintiffs. More over, the defendant has also not filed any other document to show that the said notice was served on the plaintiffs. During the cross-examination of the PWs.1 & 2 also, except mere suggestions and denials, nothing was elicited to show that the plaintiffs are not in possession over the suit schedule property and it was left for park purpose in the layout and the said notice was duly served on the plaintiffs. The DW1 also admitted during his cross-examination that there is no endorsement /acknowledgment on the Ex.B3 to show that the said notice was served on the plaintiffs and they have also not filed any document to show that the said notice was affixed at the schedule property and they have not 19 filed any panchanama to that effect. Thus, it is crystal clear that the defendant has failed to prove that the Ex.B3 notice was duly served on the plaintiffs and they interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property by following due process of law. So, the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant tried to interfere with the possession of the property without following due process of law, is found to be correct.
vii). It is also true as submitted by the learned senior counsel for the defendant that as per the letter, dt. nil under Ex.B5, the PW1 and some of the plaintiffs stated that the employees of the defendant removed the structures on 02-07-2001 and they undertook to remove the remaining structures from the schedule property within three days. But the said undertaking letter also does not speak about any prior notice, served on the plaintiffs. As per the evidence of the DW1 and the photographs under Ex.B7, the employees and servants of the defendant municipality removed the cattle shed and also a room and another shed partly with the help of police force. So, it is necessary to mention here that no prudent man will execute an undertaking letter to remove the house or any structure voluntarily, except under threat and coercion.
During the cross-examination of the PW1 and PW2 also, nothing was elicited to show that they executed the said undertaking letter voluntarily and even, no such suggestion was to them. Therefore, basing on the said letter, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have voluntarily obliged to vacate the premises.
viii). As per the photographs filed by the plaintiffs under Ex.A4 and also the photographs filed by the defendant under Ex.B7, there are graves and as per one of the graves, the grand father of the plaintiff 19 died in the year, 1979. But, the DW.1 gave a contradictory statement during his cross-examination, as he deposed that the plaintiffs erected rooms and cattle shed and also the graves after filing of the suit. If that is the case, there was no necessity for the defendant to remove the structures as shown in the photographs under Ex.B7, prior to filing of the suit. So, it can be said that the said statement of the DW.1 is false.
Further, as per the cross-examination of DW.1, the defendant did not develop the park site as shown in the layout, since there are encroachments and if that is the case, the defendant has to initiate the proceedings against the plaintiffs, but they did not take any such proceedings and kept quiet till the year, 2001. The DW.1 also admitted that they did not file any suit that the plaintiffs grabbed the suit schedule property illegally.
ix). The defendant filed the certified copy of sale deeds under Ex.B8 & B9, which go to show that they were executed by the 2nd plaintiff herein and also the wife of late Chittaraiah by name, Smt. G. Balamma in the year, 1984 and the schedules of said sale deeds go to show that the park is situated on the north side of the plots No.28 & 27, but the plaintiffs have denied the execution of said sale deeds. Even if, the said sale deeds are admitted to have been executed by the plaintiff
No.2 and the wife of late Chittaraiah for a while, they are not adequate to prove that the park was developed by the then Grampanchayat and it was in possession of the same. Because, the defendant and the
Grampanchayat were never in possession of the park site and even, there was no park developed as on the dates of execution of the said sale deeds.
19
x). Further, the defendant has taken a plea in the written statement that the councilor of the 4th Ward, Smt G. Anuradha made a representation, dt.12-02-2001 to the Commissioner to clear the encroachments made by some unknown persons, who constructed the cattle shed and established carpentry workshop, but it was not produced before this court. However, the defendant filed another representation, dt.01-06-2001 submitted by M/s Chithra Colony
Residents Welfare Association under Ex.B2, but the defendant did not evince any interest to examine any of the members and also the
Councilor, who signed it, to prove the same.
xi).As per the contention of the defendant, as the plaintiffs removed the notice board erected in the schedule property and reoccupied the same and started construction illegally, they lodged a complaint before the SHO of concerned P.S vide No.TPS-1/Encr/2001, dt.31-07-2001.
But, the defendant has not filed a copy of the complaint and there is nothing on record to show that the police a registered a criminal case against the plaintiffs. During the cross-examination of the PW1 and
PW2, nothing was elicited to prove the same.
xii). Further, the defendant has pleaded that even after receipt of the
Provisional Order, the plaintiffs have not stopped the work and as such, the defendant confirmed the notice issued earlier u/s 228 of the A.P.
Municipalities Act, and the confirmation notice bearing no.11/1/1999- 2000, dt.07-04-2000 was also served on the plaintiffs and as such, the defendant followed the due procedure. But, the defendant has not filed a copy of the said confirmation notice and also any document to show that it was duly served on the plaintiffs. The earlier provisional notice 19 under Ex.B3 was issued on 30-06-2001 as per the case of the defendant and so, if any confirmation notice has to be issued, it should be issued after 30-06-2001 only. But, as per the written statement, it was issued on 07-04-2000 and thus, it is obvious there is some ambiguity. So, it is for the defendant to clarify the same, as the plaintiffs are alleging that the defendant tried to demolish the structures illegally without following due process of law. But, there is no evidence adduced by the defendant to clarify and establish the same.
xiii). The learned counsel for the defendant has submitted a decision reported in 2006 (3) ALD, page 242 (Sri Ramakrishna Educational
Society, Nandyal Vs Chairman, Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool
Dist and another), wherein our Hon’ble High Court has observed at para no.16 that “ Therefore, it is a settled law of the land, nay, it is axiomatic that when once a layout is approved showing an open space meant for a park or for a recreational purpose or playground, under no circumstance, a public authority, be it the Government, the District
Collector or the Municipal body, can utilize the land for any other purpose. This is especially so, when the land is earmarked as a green space/park meant for the use of the people of the locality. I may hasten to add that even if the Municipality has permitted such constructions, all such permissions are contrary to law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Rule of Law requires that they should be
ignored, as they are void.” The facts of the cited case are that in the sanctioned layout, an open space was meant for playground, but subsequently, a Rythu Bazar was established in that space.
19
But, as per the facts of the case on hand, the then
Grampanchayat and also the defendant municipality never acted upon the layout to take possession over the site meant for park and it is also established that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the same, since long time. The Grampanchayat and the defendant have also failed to protect the property, though there is a duty cast upon them, being public authorities. So, I hold with great respect to the above decision, that it is not applicable to the facts of this case.
xiv). The learned senior counsel for the defendant has also argued that the PW1 admitted during his cross-examination that they left the land for public purpose i.e., for laying a park in the layout in Sy.No.42 and 43. But, the PW1 further deposed that they kept the land admeasuring 800 sq. yards with them as there are small temples and graves of their parents and grand parents and they erected a cattle shed and room therein. However, it is true as deposed by the PW1 that they did not file any document to show that they left the above land for their personal use and they did not obtain any permission from the defendant for construction of the same and they have also not filed the electricity bills and property tax receipts. But, admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule property as shown in the photographs under Ex.A4 and Ex.B7 and the DW1 also admitted the same.
xv).Considering the above facts, it can be said that the plaintiffs are in only possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but the subordinates, employees .etc., of the defendant tried to interfere and dispossess them without following due process of law.So, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, as prayed for.
19
b). Additional Issue:
The defendant has also taken a plea in the additional written statement that the plaintiffs have intentionally suppressed the names of their sisters and so, this issue was framed. During their cross- examination, the PWs.1 & 2 also deposed that they have two sisters.
But, the PW.2 clarified that their sisters have got no interest in this matter.
The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to perpetual injunction, as they suppressed the names of their sisters. He has also submitted a decision reported in
2011(5) ALD page 770 (Attada Gangu Naidu and another Vs
Deepala Chandra Mouli and others), wherein, our Hon’ble High
Court held that “ the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief of injunction on account of purposeful suppression of a material fact.” At para no.25, it was observed that “ …It is very well established from the evidence adduced on either side that the suit land belongs to the Deity Sri
Ramalingeswara Swamy enshrined in Gumada village. It is therefore seems to me that the plaintiffs purposefully suppressed the material fact viz., that the suit land belongs to the Deity. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I would hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for equitable relief of injunction on account of the suppression of the material fact….”.
Admittedly, the plaintiffs no.3 to 6 were brought on record as the legal heirs of the plaintiff no.1, as per the Orders passed in
I.A.No.2654/2008 on merits. In the said petition, the defendant filed counter opposing it on the ground that the plaintiffs suppressed the 19 names of their sisters. This court observed in the said Orders that the subject matter of the suit is only an injunction and the rights and title of the parties is not going to be decided in the suit and it is for their sisters to come on record, if they have got any right over the schedule property, as their marriages were already performed long back. The said Orders became final, as the defendant did not prefer any revision against the same.
Thus, it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs have intentionally and purposefully suppressed the names of their sisters and it is a material suppression. So, I hold with great respect to the above decision that it is not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the Issue is answered.
c). Issue No.2:
Since, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs, I hold that they are entitled to perpetual injunction, as prayed for.
11. Result:
In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its subordinates, employees, authorities and henchmen ...etc., from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property in any manner. No costs.
(Dictated to the Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of April, 2012.)
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST.
19
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1::Mr G. Bixapathi PW.2::MrG. Upender
FOR DEFENDANT:
DW.1::MrSuresh Chandra Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1::True copy of Pahani for the year, 1997-98 Ex.A2::True copy of Pahani for the year, 1998-99 Ex.A3::True copy of Pahani for the year, 1999-00 Ex.A4::Photographs with negatives Ex.A5::Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 1981-82 Ex.A6::Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 1975-76
FOR DEFENDANT:
Ex.B1::Layout Ex.B2::Letter to Commissioner, dt.01-06-2001 Ex.B3::Notice issued by Municipality, dt.30-06-2001 Ex.B4::Letter No.TP/UC/2001, dt.30-06-2001 Ex.B5::Representation to Uppal Municipality Ex.B6::Letter No.TPS-I/Encr/2001, dt.31-07-2001 Ex.B7::Photographs with CD Ex.B8::CC of Sale deed, dt.18-03-1995 Ex.B9::CC of Sale deed, dt.18-03-1995
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST.