O.S No. 192 of 2020 1 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: PARKAL.
Thursday, this the 27th day of March, 2025. Present: Ms.Shalini Lingam, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Original Suit No. 192 of 2020
Between:
Gundekari Bharath, S/o. Sambaiah, Age: 28 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 6-42, Appaiahpally, Revenue Village of Neredupally, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal Rural District. ….Plaintiff.
And
Puppala Veerabhadram, S/o. Narayana, Age: 57 years, Occu: Rtd. Employee (DSP), R/o. Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban, District, ….Defendant.
Sub:- Suit for Permanent Injunction.
@@@ This case coming before me on this day for disposal in the presence of Sri. Ravulapati Venkatesshwar Rao & another Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri. M. Sravan Kumar, Advocate for Defendant upon perusing the material papers and documents and having understood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Suit schedule property:
The land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts out of Sy.No. 28/1/1 situated at
Neredupally Village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal Rural District within the following boundaries:-
East :Agricultural land of Dobila Rajitha, West : Canal, North :Canal, South :Mango Garden.
[1]. Plaint:
[1.1]. It is the case of Plaintiff that, he is the owner and possessor of Agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., in Sy.No. 28/1/1 situated at Neredupally Village,
Shayampet Mandal. The mother of Plaintiff by name Shankar Bai name was recorded as a pattedar and possessor in revenue records. There was a discrepancy in Sy.No. 28
O.S No. 192 of 2020 2 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
of Neredupally Village by other farmers. One Chilukala Sammaiah made an application before District collector on 09-09-2017 and on his application Mandal
Surveyor of Shayampet Mandal surveyed the land according to the possession of the party in Sy.No. 28 and submitted report on 25-11-2019. Tahsildar Shayampet considering the rights, title and possession of the parties on physical verification made an order in R.C No. B/1640/2019 dt: 09-01-2020 for correction of entries in
Revenue records and a copy of said order has been served on the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff is the only son of Shankara Bhai. In the said order R.C No. B/1640/2019 dt:
09-01-2020, suit schedule property is shown as Item No.7. The Plaintiff herein has sowed cotton seeds and due to heavy rains the crop is not yielded and there is no crop in the suit schedule property. Defendant herein is the retired police and alleged that he purchased nearby properties to the suit schedule property and making false claim over the suit schedule property without any right, title or possession. Due to the hike in land prices Defendant being a stranger is trying to grab the suit schedule property. On 31-10-2020, and on 02-11-2020, 30-11-2020, he threatened with the possession of plaintiff and tried to interfere, then Plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of
Defendant and when Plaintiff demanded Defendant to show any document of title or claim over the suit schedule property, without showing any document he threatened to occupy the suit schedule property. Then learned counsel for Plaintiff submitted that, apprehending the dispossession the plaintiff herein filed suit for permanent injunction restraining Defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence the suit.
[2]. Written Statement of Defendant:
The learned counsel for Defendant filed his written statement and denied all
O.S No. 192 of 2020 3 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
the averments of Plaint and submitted that, originally the total extent of land in
Sy.No. 28 is Ac.16-02 gts., and the said survey number is sub-divided into 28/A, 28/B, 28/C, 28/D situated at Neredupally Village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal District. As per revenue records from 1981-1982 onwards the land in subdivision survey number 28/A is on the name of Gujile Sambaiah, Gujile Sanjeev, Gujile Mallaiah and each of them is possessing Ac. 2-07 gts., and patta stands on the name of their father Gujile
Rajamouli. The land in sub-division survey number 28/B is on the name of Kurakula
Saraiah to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., and patta stands on the name of Dole Karre
Veeram. The land in sub-division survey number 28/C is on the name of Hindige
Agamma to an extent of Ac. 0-20 gts., as a pattedar and possessor. The land in sub- division survey number 28/D is on the name of Gundekari Shankara Bai (mother of
Plaintiff) to an extent of Ac. 4-00 gts., and Madathalapati Narsinga Rao (maternal uncle of Plaintiff) to an extent of Ac. 4-01 gts., and patta is on the name of their mother Madathalapati Agamma (maternal grand mother of Plaintiff). Originally
Madathalapati Agamma succeeded land to an extent of Ac. 8-01 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D from her husband Madathalapati Veeraiah. Later Narsinga Rao and Shankara Bai sold
Ac. 1-00 gts., of land to Regula Sarojana. Further Narsinga Rao and Shankara Bai sold
Ac. 2-31 gts., of land through simple sale deed, dt: 15-07-1992 to Gaju Iylaiah.
Shankara Bai being the sister of Narsinga Rao also signed on the sale deed. Similarly
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao and Gundekar Shankara Bai has sold land to an extent of
Ac. 1-26 gts., to Chilukala Rajaiah. The above purchasers got mutated their names in revenue records. Further from the land in Sy.No. 28/B around Ac. 0-10 gts., of land was acquired in SRSP canal. The land to an extent of Ac. 0-10 gts., is on the name of
Madathalapati Agamma and remaining land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., is in possession of Madathalapti Veeranna, who is the grandson of Madathalapati
O.S No. 192 of 2020 4 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Agamma. Therefore the entire land to an extent of Ac. 8-01 gts., in Sy.No. 28-D is in the possession of purchasers. The Plaintiff is taking advantage of old entries in revenue records on the name of Shankara Bai and filed present suit by creating pahanies for the year 1981-1982 of Sy.No. 28/1/1. There is no sub-division survey number as 28/1 or 28/1/1. The Plaintiff in collusion with revenue officials, got created pahani for the year 2017, for the survey number 28/1. The Defendant is in possession of land in survey number 28/D. The Defendant does not have knowledge with regard to the orders passed vide R.C No. D/640/2019, dt:09-01-2020 and without issuing any notices to the parties the said orders were passed. The Plaintiff damaged, the boundary, and fencing poles errected by the Defendant, then he lodged report, as such police registered FIR vide Cr.No.155/2020 of P.S Shayampet.
The Plaintiff in collusion with Tahsildar, Shayampet, without notice to original owners got passed the said orders, as such Gandra Priyanka Reddy made an application
before Tahsildar, Shayampet for conducting detailed enquiry as to the ownership and
possession in Sy.No. 28/D. After due enquiry revenue officials visited the spot and conducted enquiry on 29-02-2020 and the orders passed vide File No. B/1640/2019,
dt: 09-01-2020 is set aside. The Plaintiff is having knowledge, but he did not
challenge the said order. Further he filed present suit for injunction without seeking for declaration of title and possession. The purchaser from Narsinga Rao and
Shankara Bai has sold their lands to Tripuraneni Gopi Chand through a registered sale deed and delivered possession.
(i). Tripuraneni Gopi Chand has purchased land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in
Sy.No. 28/D (28/D ఆ) through a registered sale deed document no. 309/2007, dt: 21- 03-2007 from Chilukala Rajaiah.
(ii).Tripuraneni Gopi Chand has purchased land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in
O.S No. 192 of 2020 5 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Sy.No. 28/D through a registered sale deed document no. 326/2007, dt: 24-03-2007 from Gaju Rajaiah. Here Gaju Rajaiah being an elder son succeeded the said property from his father Late Gaju Iylaiah.
(ii). Tripuraneni Gopi Chand has purchased land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in
Sy.No. 28/D through a registered sale deed document no. 307/2007, dt: 21-03-2007 from Gaju Komuraiah. Here Gaju Komuraiah succeeded land from his father Gaju
Iylaiah.
(iv). Tripuraneni Gopi Chand has purchased land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D along with other property in Sy.No. 28/B through a registered sale deed document no. 327/2007, dt: 24-03-2007 from Kurakula Mallamma.
Later Tripuraneni Gopi Chand got mutated his name in revenue records and obtained pattedar passbook No. 64392. Later for his family requirements Tripuraneni
Gopi Chand has sold his lands to an extent of Ac. 12-13 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/D, 29 through Registered sale deed document No. 681/2014, dt: 26-04-2014 and delivered possession to Karru Aruna. Then Karru Aruna has obtained pattedar passbook-cum-title Deed by mutating her name in revenue records. Later Karru
Aruna sold same properties to Punati Hari through Registered sale deed document
No. 1739/2014, dt: 26-09-2014 and delivered possession. Then Punati Hari has obtained pattedar passbook-cum-title deed by mutating his name in revenue records.
Further Punati hari sold land to an extent of Ac. 12-13 gts., through registered sale deed document No. 3744/2019, dt: 02-12-2019 to Gandra Priyanka Reddy. Later
Gandra Priyanka Reddy obtained pattedar passbook and title deed with Khatha No.
60151. Further Gandra Priyanka Reddy sold land to an extent of Ac. 10-28 gts., in
Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/D, 29 to the Defendant through Registered Sale deed document No. 26/2020, dt: 05-11-2020 for valid sale consideration and delivered
O.S No. 192 of 2020 6 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
possession. The Defendant obtained pattedar passbook with Khata No. 60194.
Gandra Priyanka Reddy has sold remaining land in Sy.No. 29 to Itukala Kishan.
Therefore the version of Plaintiff as to the land in Sy.No. 28/1/1 is not in existence and the boundaries are incorrect. Neither Plaintiff nor his mother are never in possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time, taking advantage of revenue records and entries in pahanies, without possession and title Plaintiff is claiming suit schedule property. There is no documentary proof as to sub-division no.
28/1 or 28/1/1. The Plaintiff has suppressed material facts, as such prayed to dismiss present suit.
[3]. Witnesses examined and Exhibits marked on behalf of both parties:
Plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Sri.
Pendem Srinivas is examined as PW.2. Defendant No.1 is examiend as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B55.
[4].Heard perused material on record.
[5]. Basing on pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed :
[1]. Whether Plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property?
[2]. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek Perpetual Injunction over
suit schedule property against Defendants?
[3]. To what relief?
[6]. Documentary evidence on behalf of both parties:
[6.1]. Plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 i.e., Ex.A1 is the letter vide ROC No. B/1640/2019 dt: 09-01-2020 of the office of Tahsildar
O.S No. 192 of 2020 7 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Shayampet, Ex.A2 is the meeseva copy of Pahani for the year 1427 fasli dt: 11-08- 2017, Ex.A3 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1989-90, Ex.A4 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1998-99, Ex.A5 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 2009-10.
[6.2]. Defendant himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B55 i.e., Ex.B1 is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 307/2007, dt: 21-03-2007, (12 pages in number), (along with no due certificate dt: 09-04-2007), Ex.B2 is the Original
Registered Sale Deed document no. 309/2007, dt: 21-03-2007, (12 pages in number),
Ex.B3 is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta number 196 of Sri. Chilukala
Rajaiah, Ex.B4 is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 326/2007, dt: 24- 03-2007, (12 pages in number), (along with no due certificate dt: 19-04-2007), Bx.B5 is the receipt of primary agricultural co-operative society, dt: 26-03-2006, Ex.B6 is the receipt of primary agricultural co-operative society, dt:07-05-2007, Ex.B7 is the
Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 201 of Sri. Gaju Rajaiah, Ex.B8 is the
Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 327/2007, dt: 24-03-2007, (9 pages in number), Ex.B9 is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 195 of Smt.
Kurakula Mallamma, Ex.B10 is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no.
328/2007, dt: 24-03-2007, (12 pages in number), (along with no due certificate),
Ex.B11 is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 681/2014, dt: 26-04-2014, (7 pages in number), Ex.B12 is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no.
224 of Sri.Thripuraneni Gopichand, Ex.B13 is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 1739/2014, dt: 26-09-2014, (4 pages in number), Ex.B14 is the Original
Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 430 of Smt.Karru Aruna, Ex.B15 is the Original
Registered Sale Deed document no. 3744/2019, dt: 02-12-2019, (7 pages in number),
O.S No. 192 of 2020 8 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Ex.B16: is the Mee seva copy of 1-B ROR, dt: 02-12-2019, Ex.B17 is the Original
Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 432 of Sri. Punati Hari, Ex.B18 is the Original
Pattedar Passbook (new) vide Khata No.431 of Sri. Punati Hari, Ex.B19 is the Original
Registered Sale Deed document no. 26/2020, dt: 09-11-2020, (5 pages in number),
Ex.B20 is the Original Pattedar Passbook (new) vide Khata No.60194 of Sri. Puppala
Veerabadram, Ex.B21 is the Original Pattedar Passbook (new) vide Khata No.60151 of Gandra Priyanka Reddy, Ex.B22 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1981- 1982, Ex.B23: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1982-1983 (2 papers),
Ex.B24 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1985-1986, Ex.B25 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1986-1987 (2 papers), Ex.B26 is the Attested copy of
Pahani for the year 1987-1988 (2 papers), Ex.B27 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1989-1990 (2 papers), Ex.B28 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1992-1993, Ex.B29 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1993-1994, Ex.B30 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1994-1995, Ex.B31 is the Attested copy of
Pahani for the year 1996-1997, Ex.B32 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1997-1998, Ex.B33 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1998-1999 (2 papers),
Ex.B34 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2002-2003 (2 papers), Ex.B35 is the
Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2003-2004 (2 papers), Ex.B36 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2005-2006 (2 papers), Ex.B37 is the Attested copy of
Pahani for the year 2006-2007, Ex.B38 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007 (2 papers), Ex.B39 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008 (2 papers), Ex.B40 is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010 (2 papers),
Ex.B41 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28-D/అ, Ex.B42 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08- 2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28-d/ఆ, Ex.B43 is the
O.S No. 192 of 2020 9 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/D/ఇ, Ex.B44 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli,
dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/d/ఉ, Ex.B45 is the Mee seva copy
of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No.
28/A/ఆ, Ex.B46 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/A/ఇ, Ex.B47 is the Mee seva copy of 1-B ROR, dt:
20-08-2015, Ex.B48 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06- 2019, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28-D/అ, Ex.B49 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/d/ఆ,
Ex.B50 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/D/ఇ, Ex.B51 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/d/ఉ, Ex.B52 is the
Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/A/ఆ, Ex.B53 is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli,
dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/A/ఇ, Ex.B54 is the Mee seva copy
of 1-B ROR, Ex.B55 is the proceedings of Tahsildar, Shayampet vide R.C
No.B/1640/2019, dt: 29-02-2020, (2 papers in number).
[7].Issue No.1: Whether Plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property?
[7.1]. The contention of learned counsel for Plaintiff was that, Plaintiff is an owner and possessor of suit schedule property i.e., Agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., in Sy.No.28/1/1 situated at Neredupally Village, Shayampet Mandal. Plaintiff’s mother namely Shankar Bai name was recorded in revenue records. There was a discrepancy in Sy.No. 28 of Neredupally Village with other farmers. One Chilukala
Sammaiah made an application before District collector on 09-09-2017 and on his
O.S No. 192 of 2020 10 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
application Mandal Surveyor surveyed the land in Sy.No.28 and submitted report on 25-11-2019. Tahsildar Shayampet considering the rights, title and possession of the parties on physical verification made an order in R.C No. B/1640/2019 dt: 09-01-2020 for correction of entries in Revenue records and a copy of said order has been served on the Plaintiff in which Item No.7 is the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff is the only son of Shankara Bhai succeeded suit schedule property and sowed cotton seeds and due to heavy rains the crop is not yielded and there is no crop in the suit schedule property. Defendant herein is the retired police without any right, title or possession and due to hike in land prices trying to grab suit schedule property. On 31-10-2020, on 02-11-2020, 30-11-2020, he threatened with the possession of plaintiff and tried to interfere, then Plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of Defendant.
[7.2]. The contention of learned counsel for Defendant was that, originally the total extent of land in Sy.No. 28 is Ac.16-02 gts., and the said survey number is sub-divided into 28/A, 28/B, 28/C, 28/D situated at Neredupally Village, Shayampet Mandal,
Warangal District. The pattedars of land in Sy.No. 28 and 29 has sold their lands to
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand through various Registered sale deeds and delivered possession. Similarly Tripuraneni Gopi Chand sold entire lands to an extent of Ac. 12- 13 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/D, 29 through Registered sale deed document to
Karru Aruna and delivered possession. Then Karru Aruna sold same properties to
Punati Hari through Registered sale deed and delivered possession. Further Punati hari sold land to an extent of Ac. 12-13 gts., through registered sale deed document to Gandra Priyanka Reddy. Later Gandra Priyanka Reddy obtained pattedar passbook and title deed and she sold land to an extent of Ac. 10-28 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/D, 29 to the Defendant through Registered Sale deed document No. 26/2020, dt:
O.S No. 192 of 2020 11 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
05-11-2020 for valid sale consideration and delivered possession, then Defendant made an application and obtained pattedar passbook. Gandra Priyanka Reddy has sold remaining land in Sy.No. 29 to Itukala Kishan. Neither Plaintiff nor his mother are never in possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time, taking advantage of revenue records and entries in pahanies, without possession and title
Plaintiff is claiming suit schedule property by suppressing material facts.
[7.3]. On perusal of pleadings of both parties, Plaintiff herein claims that, he succeeded suit schedule property from his mother, Defendant herein claims that the entire properties has been sold by the original pattedars in Sy.No. 28 to the vendors of Defendant and he purchased properties in Sy.No. 28 after looking the link documents. PW.1 during his cross examination he stated that, his mother succeeded suit schedule property from his maternal grandmother Madathalapati Agamma and he filed documents showing how his mother succeeded property. PW.1 stated that, he do not know in which year property was mutated on the name of his mother and whether passbook was issued in favour of his mother or not. Plaintiff herein has filed
Ex.A2 to A5 which are the pahanies. On perusal of Ex.A2 it shows that,
Madathalapati Agamma (maternal grandmother of Plaintiff) is having Ac. 1-10
gts., of land in Sy.No. 28/1 and Gundekaru Shankara Bhai (mother of Plaintiff) is having Ac. 1-14 gts., of land in Sy.No. 28/1. Here Plaintiff has not disclosed how
much land his grandmother used to have and when the properties were mutated
on then name of her children.
[7.4]. Admittedly Plaintiff herein is the son of Gundekari Shankara Bai and grandson of Madathalapati Agamma (Maternal grandmother to the Plaintiff). The version of
Plaintiff is that, his mother is a pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property of
O.S No. 192 of 2020 12 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
land to an extent of 1-14 gts., in Sy.No. 28/1/1 situated at Neredupally Village,
Shayampet Mandal, Warangal and he succeeded the said property. PW.1 stated that, till today the property is on the name of his mother and his name is not yet mutated and documents were showing her possession and his mother died in the year 2009.
Plaintiff herein has not disclosed why he has not mutated his name in revenue
records after death of his mother and further Plaintiff herein has not disclosed whether his grandmother is alive or not.
[7.5]. DW.1 during his cross examination he stated that, there are 5 pattedars in
Sy.No. 28 as on today i.e., Himself, Madathalapati Veeranna, Madathalapati Agamma,
Chilukala Rajaiah, Chittireddy Prathyusha Reddy. As per the version of Defendant,
Plaintiff’s maternal grandmother Madathalapati Agamma and Madathalapati
Veeranna are also pattedars and having lands in Sy.No. 28. During cross examination DW.1 stated that, he has filed three police complaints as of now at
Shayampet Police station in respect of his property and he filed report against one
Madathalapati Veeranna and others and he cannot say the FIR numbers. DW.1 also stated that, he filed the said criminal cases with allegations of trespass and damage of property and he suffered damage worth of Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs. Further during his cross examination DW.1 stated that, in first complaint he reported that, they damaged fencing poles and wire. In second complaint he has reported that, they damaged his palm oil plants (2 years aged plants were damaged). He has planted palm oil when it is aged about 1 year 10 months plants which were allotted to him by the Government under subsidy. In third complaint DW.1 has reported that, they took away his palm oil plants by removing plants and damaged drip pipe. On perusal of
cross examination it shows that, Madathalapati Veeranna is one of the pattedar
O.S No. 192 of 2020 13 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
in Sy.No. 28 as deposed by DW.1 and he is having land dispute with Defendant
herein. Here Madathalapati Veeranna is the son of Madathalapati Narsinga Rao
(maternal uncle of plaintiff). Madathalapati Narsinga Rao is the brother of
Gundekari Shankara Bai (mother of plaintiff). Therefore, the alleged land
disputes with Defendant are not only with plaintiff, but also his brother-in-law
Madathalapati Veeranna.
[7.6]. DW.1 during his cross examination he stated that, he has not issued legal notice to the said persons for damaging and trespassing into his property. DW.1 stated that, when he enquired with the said persons, he came to know that, they are claiming right over his property by saying that they succeeded the said property from their fore fathers. DW.1 during his cross examination he admitted that, he has not filed any civil suit for Declaration of Title against Madathalapati Veeranna or his associates for claiming his property and damaging and he has not mentioned about the said criminal cases against Madathalapati Veeranna & others for trespass and damage by claiming right on his property in the present suit. The version of DW.1 was that, he is not a party to the suit, but Madathalapati Veeranna is a relative of Plaintiff herein. Even plaintiff has not disclosed anything in the plaint, since
he and Madathalapati Veeranna both are disputing with Defendant with regard
to their ancestral property.
[7.7]. DW.1 herein stated that, he purchased land to an extent of Ac. 9-09 gts, in
Sy.No. 28 through a Registered Sale Deed document from Gandra Priyanka Reddy in the year 2020. Further on same day he purchased 1 acre and odd guntas of land from
Gandra Priyanka Reddy in Sy.No. 29 under same Registered Sale Deed. On perusal of
Ex.B19, on 05-11-2020 Defendant/DW.1 herein purchased land to an extent of
O.S No. 192 of 2020 14 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Ac.10-28 gts., from Gandra Priyanka Reddy. Defendant herein filed link
documents to show how the title has been passed to his vendor along with their
pattadar passbooks. During cross examination PW.1 herein stated that, he do not know the original pattedars of land in sy.no. 28 and he do not know about any transaction took place. Further he stated that, he do not know how much property his grandparents are possessing. He admitted only that, he knows the total extent of land in Sy.No. 28 is Ac. 16-02 gts., [7.8]. Through the written statement Defendant herein submitted that, originally land in Sy.No. 28 is Ac.16-02 gts., and the said survey number is sub-divided into 28/A, 28/B, 28/C, 28/D situated at Neredupally Village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal
District. On perusal of Ex.B22 pahani for the year 1981-1982 as mentioned in the written statement it shows that the pattedars in Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/C, 28/D are:
(i)The land in sub-division survey number 28/A is on the name of Gujile Sambaiah,
Gujile Sanjeev, Gujile Mallaiah and each of them is possessing Ac. 2-07 gts., and patta stands on the name of their father Gujile Rajamouli.
(ii).The land in sub-division survey number 28/B is on the name of Kurakula
Saraiah to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., and patta stands on the name of Dole Karre
Veeram.
(iii).The land in sub-division survey number 28/C is on the name of Hindige
Agamma to an extent of Ac. 0-20 gts., as a pattedar and possessor.
(iv)The land in subdivision survey number 28/D is on the name of Gundekari
Shankara Bai to an extent of Ac. 4-00 gts., and Madathalapati Narsinga Rao to an extent of Ac. 4-01 gts., and patta is on the name of their mother Madathalapati
Agamma.
O.S No. 192 of 2020 15 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
[7.9].Defendant herein submitted that, originally Madathalapati Agamma succeeded land to an extent of Ac. 8-01 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D from her husband
Madathalapati Veeraiah. But on perusal of Ex.A1 in serial No. 2, Madathalapati
Agamma is shown as wife of Rajaiah and not Veeraiah. Here Plaintiff stated that,
his mother name is Gundekari Shankara Bai and maternal Grandmother name is
Madathalapati Agamma, but he has not disclosed his maternal grandfather
name. In the written statement Defendant mentioned that, Gundekari Shankara Bai (mother of plaintiff) succeeded land to an extent of Ac. 4-00 gts., and Madathalapati
Narsinga Rao succeeded land to an extent of Ac. 4-01 gts., from Madathalapati
Agamma. The Plaintiff herein has not stated the said facts in his pleadings. Here on perusal of pahanies filed by the Defendants it shows how the property has been transferred from the hands of Madathalapati Narsinga Rao and Gundekari Shankara
Bai.
(i). On perusal of Ex.B22 to B25 i.e., which are the attested copy of pahanies for the years 1981-1982, 1982-1983, 1985-1986, 1986-1987 it shows that, Madathalapati Narsinga Rao is having land to an extent of Ac. 4-01 gts., Sy.No. 28/D, Gundekari Shankara Bai is having land to an extent of Ac. 4-00 gts. in Sy.No. 28/D, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
(ii). On perusal of Ex.B26 & Ex.B27 which are the attested copy of pahanies for the year 1987-1988, 1989-1990, it shows that, Madathalapati Narsinga Rao is having land to an extent of Ac. 4-01 gts., Sy.No. 28/D, Gundekari Shankara Bai is having land to an extent of Ac. 3-00 gts, in Sy.No. 28/D, Regula Sarojana is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts. in Sy.No. 28/D, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
(iii). On perusal of Ex.B28 & B29 which are the attested copy of pahanies for the
O.S No. 192 of 2020 16 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
year 1992-1993, 1993-1994, it shows that,
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., Sy.No. 28/డి, Gundekari Shankara Bai is having land to an extent of Ac. 3-00 gts, in Sy.No. 28/డి, Regula Sarojana is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/డి, Gajula Iylaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-31 gts., in Sy.No. 28/డి. Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
(iv). On perusal of Ex.B30 which is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1994- 1995, it shows that,
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., Sy.No. 28/డి, Gundekari Shankara Bai is having land to an extent of Ac. 3-00 gts, in Sy.No. 28/డి, Gajula Iylaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-31 gts., in Sy.No. 28/డి, Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/డి. Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
(v). On perusal of Ex.B31 which is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1996- 1997, it shows land in Sy.No. 28/డి, Madathalapati Narsinga Rao is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., (ancestral) Gundekari Shankara Bai is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts, (ancestral) Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts. (purchased) Chilukala Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts. (purchased)
Gajula Iylaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-00 gts., his property is succeeded by his two sons i.e., (purchased) Gajula Komuraiah land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts. Gajula Rajaiah land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts. Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
(vi). On perusal of Ex.B32 which is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1997- 1998, it shows land in Sy.No. 28/డి, Madathalapati Narsinga Rao is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., (ancestral) Gundekari Shankara Bai is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts, (ancestral) Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts. (purchased)
O.S No. 192 of 2020 17 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Chilukala Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts. (purchased) Gajula Komuraiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts. Gajula Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts. Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
(vii). On perusal of Ex.B33 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1998-1999, here only the sub divisions in Sy.No.. 28/ డి has been divided and the pahani shows that,
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao - land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/అ, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma. Gundekari Shankara Bai - land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts, in sy.No. 28/డి/అ, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma. Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ ఆ, Pattedar is shown as Kurakula Mallamma. Chilukala Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఇ, Pattedar is shown as Chilukala Rajaiah. Gajula Komuraiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఈ, Pattedar is shown as Gajula Komuraiah . Gajula Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఉ, Pattedar is shown as Gajula Rajaiah.
(viii). On perusal of Ex.B34 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 2002- 2003, which shows that,
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao - land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., in sy.No. 28/సి, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma. Gundekari Shankara Bai - land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts, in sy.No. 28/సి, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma. Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/అ, Pattedar is shown as Kurakula Mallamma. Chilukala Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఆ Pattedar is shown as Chilukala Rajaiah. Gajula Komuraiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఈ, Pattedar is shown as Gajula Komuraiah. Gajula Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఉ, Pattedar is shown as Gajula Rajaiah.
O.S No. 192 of 2020 18 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
(ix). On perusal of Ex.B35 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004, which shows that,
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao - land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ , Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma. Gundekari Shankara Bai - land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts, in sy.No. 28/డి/ , Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma. Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/అ, Pattedar is shown as Kurakula Mallamma. Chilukala Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఆ, Pattedar is shown as Chilukala Rajaiah. Gajula Komuraiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఈ, Pattedar is shown as Gajula Komuraiah. Gajula Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఉ, Pattedar is shown as Gajula Rajaiah.
(x). On perusal of Ex.B36 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006, which shows that,
Madathalapati Agamma - land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., in sy.No. 28/సి, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma. Gundekari Shankara Bai - land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts, in sy.No. 28/సి, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/అ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఆ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఈ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/ఉ, Pattedar is shown as Tripuraneni Gopi Chand.
(xi). On perusal of Ex.B37 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007, which shows that, Madathalapati Agamma - land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., in sy.No. 28/1, Gundekari Shankara Bai - land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts, in sy.No. 28/1, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
O.S No. 192 of 2020 19 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/డి/అ, Pattedar is shown as Tripuraneni Gopi Chand. (remaining entries as to the pahani was not filed).
(xii). On perusal of Ex.B38 is the attested copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007, which shows that, Madathalapati Agamma - land to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., in sy.No. 28/1, Gundekar Shankara Bai - land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., in sy.No. 28/1, Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/అ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/ఆ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/ఇ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/ఈ, Pattedar is shown as Tripuraneni Gopi Chand.
Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఆ, Pattedar is shown as Kurakula Mallamma. Chilukala Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఇ, Pattedar is shown as Chilukala Rajaiah. Gaju Komuraiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఈ, Pattedar is shown as Gaju Komuraiah. Gaju Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఉ, Pattedar is shown as Gaju Rajaiah.
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-00 gts., in sy.No. 27/ఉ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-36 gts., in sy.No. 27/ఊ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 3-04 gts., in sy.No. 29/అ, Pattedar is shown as Tripuraneni Gopi Chand.
(xiii). On perusal of Ex.B39 & B40 are the attested copy of pahanies for the year 2007-2008, 2009-2010, which shows that, Madathalapati Agamma - land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/1, Madathalapati Shankara Bai - land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., in sy.No. 28/1,
O.S No. 192 of 2020 20 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Pattedar is shown as Madathalapati Agamma.
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/అ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/ఆ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/ఇ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/ఈ, Pattedar is shown as Tripuraneni Gopi Chand.
Kurakula Mallamma is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఆ, Pattedar is shown as Kurakula Mallamma. Chilukala Rajaiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఇ, Pattedar is shown as Chilukala Rajaiah. Gaju Komuraiah is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఈ, Pattedar is shown as Gaju Komuraiah. Thripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఉ, Pattedar is shown as Tripuraneni Gopi Chand.
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 9-17 gts., in sy.No. 27/అ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-15 gts., in sy.No. 27/ఆ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-00 gts., in sy.No. 27/ఇ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-00 gts., in sy.No. 27/ఈ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-00 gts., in sy.No. 27/ఉ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-36 gts., in sy.No. 27/ఊ, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having land to an extent of Ac. 3-04 gts., in sy.No. 29/అ, Pattedar is shown as Tripuraneni Gopi Chand.
(xiv). On perusal of Ex.B41 to B54 are the mee seva copy of pahani for the year 2015, 2017, 2019, which shows that, Punati Hari is having land to an extent of Ac. 3-04 gts., in sy.No. 29, Punati Hari is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/అ, Punati Hari is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-37 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఉ, Punati Hari is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., in sy.No. 28/D/ఇ, Punati Hari is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-26 gts., in sy.No. 28/d/ఆ, Punati Hari is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., in sy.No. 28/A/ఇ, Punati Hari is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-32 gts., in sy.No. 28/A/ఆ,
O.S No. 192 of 2020 21 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
[7.10].On perusal of above pahanies filed by the Defendant, some times
Madathalapati Agamma it shown as a possessor to an extent of Ac. 1-10 gts., instead of Madathalapati Narsinga Rao. Further on perusal of pahanies filed by the
Defendants, the name of Madathalapati Agamma is shown as a pattedar to an extent of Ac. 2-14 gts., and whereas Gundekar Shankar Bai is having possession to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., and Madathalapati Narsing Rao is having possession to an extent of
Ac. 1-00 gts. Moreover the survey numbers to their possession is shown differently in various pahanies i.e., Sy.No. 28/D, Sy.No. 28/డి, Sy.No. 28 డి, Sy.No. 28/డి/అ, Sy.No.
28/డి/సి, Sy.No. 28/1. Here why the sub division Survey numbers were changed was not explained. On perusal Tripuraneni Gopi Chand has purchased lands from the
Purchasers, who purchased land from Madathalapati Narsinga Rao and Gundekar
Shankara Bai and from other pattedars. Here no documents has been placed, but the pahanies shows that, the extent has been deducted from the land of Madathalapati
Narsinga Rao and Gundekar Shankara Bai and mutated on the names of the purchasers.
[7.11]. The learned counsel for Defendant submitted that, Narsinga Rao and
Shankara Bai sold Ac. 1-00 gts., of land to Regula Sarojana. Further they sold Ac. 2-31 gts., of land through simple sale deed, dt: 15-07-1992 to Gaju Iylaiah. Similarly
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao and Gundekar Shankara Bai has sold land to an extent of
Ac. 1-26 gts., to Chilukala Rajaiah. As per version of Defendant is that, Shankara Bai being the sister of Narsinga Rao also signed on the sale deed and purchasers got mutated their names in revenue records. Therefore, even as per the written statement, from the extent of Ac. 8-01 gts., the mother of plaintiff and maternal uncle Narsinga Rao sold land to an extent of Ac. 5-17 gts., and the remaining land
O.S No. 192 of 2020 22 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
which they should have is land to an extent of Ac. 2-24 gts., But the pahanies
herein shows that, Madathalapati Agamma is having Ac. 2-14 gts., out of which
Ac. 1-14 gts., is in possession of Plaintiff’s mother and Ac. 1-00 gts., is in
possession of Madathalapati Narsinga Rao. Here Plaintiff or Defendants has not filed any documents as to the said sale transactions, but pahanies shows the property transferred to the purchasers. Plaintiff herein is claiming that, land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., is on the name of his mother, but on perusal of pahanies
filed by the Defendant i.e., Ex.B22 shows that, Plaintiff’s mother was in
possession of land to an extent of Ac. 4-00 gts., and his maternal uncle
Madathalapati Narsinga Rao was in possession of land to an extent of Ac. 4-01
gts., whereas Plaintiff herein is claiming land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., he
ought to have explained about the remaining extent of land. Further Gundekari
Shankara Bai and Madathalapati Narsinga Rao has not mutated their property on
their names. Since pleadings of Defendants shows that, Plaintiff’s mother and maternal uncle has sold their properties. Defendant in his written statement he mentioned that, land to an extent of Ac. 0-10 gts., is on the name of Madathalapati
Agamma and remaining land to an extent of Ac. 1-34 gts., is in possession of
Madathalapti Veeranna, who is the grandson of Madathalapati Agamma. Plaintiff has not explained how his mother succeeded properties and how many properties has been sold and to whom.
[7.12]. Defendant herein has filed link documents from Ex.B1 to B21 which are the
Registered Sale deeds and pattedar passbooks on the name of the purchasers and how the property has been transferred. However Defendant herein filed Registered sale documents through which Tripuraneni Gopichand purchased lands from various
O.S No. 192 of 2020 23 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
pattedars through Ex.B1, B2, B4, B8, B10. Further Defendant herein submitted that, the purchasers of Madathalapati Narsinga Rao and Gundekar Shankara Bai has sold their lands to Tripuraneni Gopi Chand and delivered possession. Later Tripuraneni
Gopi Chand got mutated his name in revenue records and obtained pattedar passbook vide Ex.B12. The Defendant herein filed Ex.B1, B2, B4, B8, B10 and submitted in the written statement that, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand purchased properties from the persons in Sy.No.28/D from the purchasers. Further he filed
Ex.B10 to say that, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand also purchased land in Sy.No. 28/A.
Properties acquired by Tripuraneni Gopi Chand through Registered Sale deeds i.e.,
Ex.B1, B2, B4, B8, B10
Purchaser Extent and Through Registered sale deed Purchased From
Survey number Tripuraneni GopiAc. 1-34 gts., inRegistered sale deed document no.Gaju Komuraiah S/o. Late Gaju ChandSy.No. 28/D 307/2007, dt: 21-03-2007 (Ex.B1)Iylaiah. Tripuraneni GopiAc. 1-26 gts.,Registered sale deed document no.Gaju Komuraiah (Ex.B3 is Chand28/D (28/D ఆ)309/2007, dt: 21-03-2007 (Ex.B2)pattedar passbook showing the name of Gaju Komuraiah) Tripuraneni GopiAc. 0-37 gts., inRegistered sale deed document no.Gaju Rajaiah S/o. Late Gaju ChandSy.No. 28/D326/2007, dt: 24-03-2007 (Ex.B4)Iylaiah. (Ex.B5 to B7 is receipt of PACS and pattedar passbook showing the name of Gaju Rajaiah). Tripuraneni Gopi Ac. 1-00 gts., inRegistered sale deed document no.Kurakula Mallamma (Ex.B9 is ChandSy.No. 28/D327/2007, dt: 24-03-2007 (Ex.B8)pattedar passbook showing the name of Kurakula Mallamma) Tripuraneni Gopi Ac. 2-32 gts., inRegistered sale deed document no.Bygani Saraiah ChandSy.No. 28/A /ఆ328/2007, dt: 24-03-2007 (Ex.B10) [7.13]. Defendant in his written statement he mentioned that, Tripuraneni Gopi
Chand for his family requirements sold entire lands to an extent of Ac. 12-13 gts., in
Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/D, 29 through Registered sale deed document No. 681/2014,
dt: 26-04-2014 and delivered possession to Karru Aruna. On perusal of Ex.B12
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand is having lands to an extent of Ac. 25-37 gts., in Sy.No. 27 and
28. Defendant herein has not filed the registered sale deed document no. 213/2007 through which Tripuraneni Gopi Chand purchased lands in Sy.No. 27 as well. However
O.S No. 192 of 2020 24 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Ex.B12 i.e., pattedar passbook shows the lands which are on the name of Tripuraneni
Gopi Chand i.e.,
Entries in Pattedar Passbook of Tripuraneni Gopi Chand vide Ex.B12
Survey number Extent Through Registered sale deed 27/అAc. 9-17 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 213/2007, 27/ఆAc. 0-15 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 213/2007, 27/ఇAc. 2-00 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 213/2007, 27/ఈAc. 2-00 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 213/2007, 27/ఉAc. 2-00 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 213/2007, 27/ఊAc. 0-36 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 213/2007, 28/A ఆAc. 2-32 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 328/2007, 28/A ఇAc. 1-00 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 327/2007, 28/D అAc. 1-00 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 327/2007, 28/D ఆAc. 1-26 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 309/2007, 28/D ఇAc. 1-34 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 307/2007, 28/D ఉAc. 0-37 gts.,Registered sale deed document no. 326/2007, Ac. 25-37 gts., [7.14]. Here on perusal of written statement, the learned counsel for Defendant submitted that, after purchasing property Tripuraneni Gopi Chand got mutated his name in revenue records, and later he sold entire lands to an extent of Ac. 12-13 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/D, 29 through Registered sale deed document No. 681/2014,
dt: 26-04-2014 and delivered possession to Karru Aruna. On perusal of Ex.B12
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand does not have land in Sy.No. 29, 28/B. But on perusal of
Ex.B11 through which Tripuraneni Gopi Chand sold lands to an extents of Ac. 12-13 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A ఆ, 28/A ఇ, 28/D అ, 28/D ఆ, 28/D ఇ, 28/Dఉ to Karru Aruna it shows that, Tripuraneni Gopi Chand purchased the said properties through Registered sale deed document no. 328/2007 (Ex.B10), 327/2007 (Ex.B8), 309/2007 (Ex.B2), 307/2007 (Ex.B1), 326/2007 (Ex.B4), 329/2009. Here Defendant has not filed
Registered sale deed document No. 329/2009 to see whether he succeeded lands
in Sy.No. 29 and 28/B. Moreover phanaies filed by the Defendant shows that,
O.S No. 192 of 2020 25 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Thripuraneni Gopi Chand is also having land in Sy.No. 29, 27. On perusal of Ex.B11
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand sold lands to Karru Aruna i.e.,
Tripuraneni Gopi Chand executed Registered sale deed document No. 681/2014 in
favour of Karru Aruna vide Ex.B11
Survey number Extent Boundaries
28/A ఆAc. 2-32 gts.,North: Agricultural land of Tripuraneni Vimala Nagini, 28/A ఇAc. 1-00 gts., 28/D అAc. 1-00 gts.,South: Agricultural land of Madathalapati Narsinga Rao and lands 28/D ఆAc. 1-26 gts., of purchasers (Karru Aruna), 28/D ఇAc. 1-34 gts., East: Road, 28/D ఉAc. 0-37 gts., 29Ac. 3-04 gts.,West: Purchasers land (Karru Aruna). TOTAL Ac. 12-13 gts., [7.15]. Here on perusal the above said properties which Tripuraneni Gopi Chand has sold land to an extent of Ac. 12-13 gts., to Karru Aruna through Ex.B11 are the properties on the name of Tripuraneni Gopi Chand and entries were also made in his pattedar passbook vide Ex.B12. However later the same property has been transferred to various persons through Registered sale deeds from Karru Aruna to
Punati Hari, from Punati Hari to Gandra Priyanka Reddy, from Gandra Priyanka Reddy to Defendant as well as Itukala Kishan therefore the said chart is as follows:
Properties Transferred through Registered Sale deeds (Vendors of Defendant)
Tansaction Extent and Survey number Registered Sale Purchased by
between deed Sellor :Ac. 12-13 gts., i.e., Registered saleNorth: land of Thripuraneni Tripuraneni Gopideed document no. Vimala and others Chand Ac. 2-32 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A ఆ,681/2014, dt: 26-04-South: land of Madathalapati Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A ఇ,2014 (Ex.B11) Narsinga Rao and Karru Purchaser: Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D అ, Aruna Karru Aruna, W/o Ac. 1-26 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D ఆ,East: Road Om Prakash (Ex.B14 Ac. 1-34 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D ఇ,West: land of Karru Aruna is pattedar Ac. 0-37 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D ఉ, passbook showingAc. 3-04 gts., in Sy.No. 29, the name of Karru Aruna) Sellor:Ac. 12-13 gts., i.e., Registered saleNorth: land of Thripuraneni Karru Arunadeed document no. Vimala and others Ac. 2-32 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A ఆ,1739/2014, dt: 26-South: land of Madathalapati Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A ఇ,09-2014 (Ex.B13) Narsinga Rao and
O.S No. 192 of 2020 26 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Purchaser:Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/అ, Punati Hari Punati Hari, S/o.Ac. 1-26 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఆ,East: Road Late VenkataswamyAc. 1-34 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఇ,West: land of Punati Hari (Ex.B17 & B18 areAc. 0-37 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఉ, pattedar passbookAc. 3-04 gts., in Sy.No. 29, old and new showing the name of Punati Hari) Sellor:Ac. 12-13 gts., i.e., Registered saleNorth: land of Thripuraneni Punati Hari,deed document no. Vimala and others Ac. 2-32 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A/ఆ,3744/2019, dt: 02-South: land of Madathalapati Purchaser:Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A/ఇ,12-2019 (Ex.B15) Narsinga Rao Gandra Priyanka Ac. 1-26 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఆ,East: Road Reddy, D/o. Venkata Ac. 1-34 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఇ,West: land of Gandra Ramana Reddy, Ac. 0-37 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఉ, Priyanka Reddy (Ex.B21 is new Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/అ, pattedar passbookAc. 3-04 gts., in Sy.No. 29, showing the name of Gandra Priyanka Reddy)
Sellor:Ac. 10-28 gts., i.e.,Registered sale Gandra Priyankadeed document no. Reddy,Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A/ఇ,26/2020, dt: 09-11- Ac. 1-19 gts., in Sy.No. 29,2020 (Ex.B19) Ac. 2-32 gts., in Sy.No. 28/A/ఆ/2- Purchaser:Ac. 0-37 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఉ, Ac. 1-34 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఇ, Veerabhadram Ac. 1-00 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/అ, Puppala (Ex.B20 isAc. 1-26 gts., in Sy.No. 28/D/ఆ, new pattedar passbook showing the name of Defendant)
Sellor:Land in Sy.No. 29-- Gandra Priyanka Reddy,
Purchaser: Itukala Kishan [7.16]. On perusal of Ex.B11, B13, B15 are the link documents of Defendant and he purchased land to an extent of Ac. 10-28 gts., from Gandra Priyanka Reddy through
Ex.B19. On perusal of Ex.B11, B13, B15 the boundaries are shown in one compact, but Defendant herein purchased land to an extent of Ac. 10-28 gts., from Gandra
Priyanka Reddy by showing boundaries separately for each extent in each survey number, since the part of property in Sy.No. 29 is sold to Defendant and as per the version of Defendant, remaining extent of land in Sy.No. 29 is sold to Itukala Kishan
O.S No. 192 of 2020 27 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
as such Ex.B19 shows the following boundaries for the land in Sy.No. 28, and for the land in Sy.No.29.
Lands in Sy.No. 28 Land in Sy.No. 29
( Sy.No. 28/A/ఇ, 28/A/ఆ/2, 28/D/ఉ, 28/D/ఇ, 28/D/అ, 28/D/ఆ) North: land of Chilukala Sammaiah and North: land of Chilukala Sammaiah Madathalapati Veeranna, South: land of Thalla Saritha South: land of Chilukala Sammaiah, East: SRSP canal Choppari Somalaxmi, West: land in Sy.No. 28 East: land in Sy.No. 29 of Dobbilla Rajitha, Thalla Saritha, West: land in Sy.No. 27 [7.17]. On perusal of boundaries of Ex.B15 on Eastern side there is a road, but in
Ex.B19 on Eastern side Defendant has shown land of Dobbilla Rajitha and Thalla
Saritha. Here Plaintiff has no document with regard to the property on his name to say that, the property is with particular boundaries. PW.1 during his cross examination he denied that, the land of Gundekari Shankarabai was acquired for
SRSP canal, and he stated that, canal was passed but not from his land. Here there is a canal on either side of suit schedule property i.e., on West and North boundaries of suit schedule property. Plaintiff stated that, he does not have knowledge about
the lands sold by Gundekari Shankarabai and Madathalapati Narsinga Rao, and
he do not even know about the pattedars in Sy.No.28, here Plaintiff has not filed the photographs showing canals on two side of suit schedule property. Here as per the version of Defendant his property is in one compact and there is no canal passing from his land except on the Eastern side of land in Sy.No.29, but on Eastern side there is a road in his link documents. Here Plaintiff or Defendant has not disclosed that there is a boundary dispute, here both are having dispute with regard to the property, they has not disclosed what exactly is the dispute between them.
From the evidence of Plaintiff and Defendant it shows that, both are claiming
O.S No. 192 of 2020 28 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
same property and there is a title dispute and not dispute with regard to the
interference of possession, moreover they nowhere claimed that they are
adjacent person to each other.
[7.18]. Further Plaintiff has shown agricultural land of Dobbilla Rajitha on Eastern side and Mango garden is on the Southern side, here the name of the person who is the owner of the Mango garden is also not mentioned. As per the suit schedule
property Southern boundary is not clear, and West and Northern side is a canal,
property cannot be identified with one boundary and only boundary mentioned
by the Plaintiff on the Eastern side is land of Dobbilla Rajitha and he has not got examined her in support of his pleadings. PW.1 got examined PW.2, he deposed that, suit schedule property survey number is 28/1/1 and he is having land more than one kilometer distance away from the suit schedule property in Sy.No 153 situated at
Singaram Village. He admitted that, he is not having land adjoining to the suit schedule property. Here PW.2 is not a adjacent land person and he has not deposed what exactly is the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant.
[7.19]. DW.1 during his cross examination, he do not know his vendors or her vendors has got surveyed the land or not, but he has verified all the documents and physical possession before purchasing the property. DW.1 herein stated that, he has not seen while his vendor Gandra Priyanka Reddy cultivating his property, but he verified with the surrounding persons as to her possession. Here Gandra Priyanka
Reddy is having Pattedar pass book vide Ex.B21.
[7.20]. DW.1 stated that, he enquired with Raji Reddy, Sudhakar Reddy and Somaiah about the possession of Gandra Priyanka Reddy and also with Villagers and he
O.S No. 192 of 2020 29 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
cannot say their names. DW.1 stated that, has not met Madathalapati Veeranna,
but here DW.1 during his cross examination he stated that, he has lodged three
reports against Madthalapati Veeranna and his associates. DW.1 stated that, there was a mango garden, he has verified with them. DW.1 also stated that, he do not know where Plaintiff is having land and the boundaries of his land, here the plaintiff is alleging that Defendant is interfering with his possession, whereas
Defendant herein is saying that, he doesn't even know where the plaintiff’s land is and he is also denying the existence of land in Sy.No.28/1/1. Further, Plaintiff submitted that, Thasildar Shayampet has issued proceedings after conducting the survey in which it shows that, his mother is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., [7.21]. Plaintiff herein submitted that, on the application of Chilukala Sammaiah,
dt: 09-09-2017 to District Collector, Warangal, as they are discrepancies in land in
Sy.No. 28, the land was surveyed and report was submitted on 25-11-2019 and
Tahsildar, Shayampet after considering the report on patta and possession of parties after physical verification passed orders vide R.C No. B/1640/2019, dt: 09-01-2020 vide Ex.A1 and directed for correction entries in Revenue records. The plaintiff herein submitted that, suit schedule property is shown as a Item No.7 in the said
list and he is in possession as per the said proceedings. Defendant herein
submitted that, he does not have knowledge with regard to the orders passed
vide R.C No. D/640/2019, dt:09-01-2020 and without issuing any notices to the
parties the said orders were passed.
[7.22]. On perusal of Ex.A1, Thasildar, Shayampet has passed orders basing on the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector, dt: 25-11-2019, report of Mandal Surveyor,
Shayampet dt: 25-11-2019, and notices of Tahsildar Shayampet office vide Notice
O.S No. 192 of 2020 30 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
No.B/1590/2019, dt: 28-11-2019 and 02-12-2019. In the said report Tahsildar
Shayampet has mentioned that, basing on the application of Chilukala Sammaiah for rectification of entries that, he is having land to an extent of Ac. 2-20 gts., in Sy.No.
28 and the pattadar pass book was issued for land to an extent of Ac. 1-09 gts., only, therefore directed for survey of entire land in Sy.No.28. In the said report vide Ex.A1, it was mentioned that, after surveying land in sy.No. 28, the total extent is Ac. 16-02 gts., but in the pahanies only land to an extent of Ac. 15-36 gts., is recorded. Further,
Tahsildar Shayampet has mentioned the names of the pattedars and possessors which are as follows:
As per the pahanies the names of farmers Farmers who are in possession and enjoyment
Sy.No. Extent Name of Pattedar Name of Farmer name Extent
Possessor 28/d/ఈAc.1-34 gts.,MadathalapatiMadathalapatiMadathalapatiAc.1-34 gts., Veeranna, S/o.Veeranna, S/o.Veeranna, S/o. Narsinga RaoNarsinga RaoNarsinga Rao 28/1/2Ac.1-10 gts.,MadathalapatiMadathalapatiMadathalapatiAc.1-10 gts., Agamma, W/o.Agamma, W/o.Veeranna, S/o. RajaiahRajaiahNarsinga Rao Madathalapati Veeranna, S/o.Ac.0-05 gts., Narsinga Rao Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o. 28/d/ ఆAc.1-26 gts.,Punati Hari, S/o. VenkataswamyVenkataswamyAc.0-01 gts., Venkataswamy Chilukala Sammaiah, S/o.Ac.1-18 gts., Mallaiah Gundekari Shankara Bhai,Ac.0-16 gts., Tripuraneni Gopi 28/A/ఈAc.1-00 gts.,Tripuraneni GopiW/o. Sambaiah Chand, S/o. Chand, S/o. Nageshwar Rao Chilukala Nageshwar Rao Sammaiah, S/o.Ac.0-24 gts., Mallaiah 28/A/అAc.0-29 gts.,Chilukala Sammaiah,ChilukalaChilukalaAc.0-29 gts., S/o. MallaiahSammaiah, S/o.Sammaiah, S/o. MallaiahMallaiah 28/B/Ac.0-20 gts.,Chilukala Sammaiah,ChilukalaChilukalaAc.0-20 gts., S/o. MallaiahSammaiah, S/o.Sammaiah, S/o. MallaiahMallaiah
O.S No. 192 of 2020 31 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
28/1/1Ac.1-14 gts.,MadathalapatiGundekariGundekariAc.1-14 gts., Agamma, W/o.Shankara Bhai, W/o.Shankara Bhai, RajaiahSambaiah W/o. Sambaiah 28/D/అAc.1-00 gts.,Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Ac.1-00 gts., VenkataswamyVenkataswamyVenkataswamy 28/D/ఇAc.1-34 gts.,Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Ac.1-34 gts., VenkataswamyVenkataswamyVenkataswamy 28/d/ఉAc.0-37 gts.,Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Ac.0-37 gts., VenkataswamyVenkataswamyVenkataswamy 28/A/ఇAc.1-00 gts.,Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Ac.1-00 gts., VenkataswamyVenkataswamyVenkataswamy 28/A/ఆAc.2-32 gts.,Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Punati Hari, S/o.Ac.2-32 gts., VenkataswamyVenkataswamyVenkataswamy 28CanalAc.0-07 gts., 28Gravel RoadAc.0-01 gts., [7.23]. On perusal of Ex.A1, Tahsildar has issued proceedings, but they have neglected the pahanies, in which the Sy.No. 28 has been divided as Sy.No. 28/A, 28/B, 28/C, 28/D. But on perusal of above chat prepared by Tahsildar shayampet for total extent of land Ac. 15-36 gts., in Sy.No. 28, even there is Gravel road and canal covering Ac. 0-08 gts., of land, which is more than the extent ought to be in Sy.No. 28 ie., Ac. 16-02 gts., but as per the report it shows Ac. 16-04 gts., Moreover, the report does not shows with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/C. Further, in the said report it was mentioned that, Chilukala Sammaiah, Madathalapati Veeranna only appeared at the time of enquiry, and Punati Hari and Tripuraneni Gopi Chand has not attended and not submitted any written objections.
[7.24]. On perusal of Ex.B13, Punati Hari purchased properties through Registered sale deed Doc. No. 1739/2014, dt:26-09-2014 from Karru Aruna, and he got mutated his name in revenue records and issued Pattedar passbook. Here Tahsildar has mentioned the name of Punati Hari in Ex.A1 with regard to the all the properties
as mentioned in Ex.B18 in the pattedar pass book of Punati Hari. The same
O.S No. 192 of 2020 32 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
properties which were on the name of Punati Hari were transferred to Gandra
Priyanka Reddy. Here Punati Hari has sold same properties through Registered
sale deed Doc. No. 3744/2019, dt:02-12-2019 to Gandra Priyanka Reddy, and she
got mutated her name in revenue records and issued Pattedar passbook. Ex.A1 is prepared on 09-01-2020 here Gandra Priyanka Reddy purchased properties from
Punati Hari before passing orders in Ex.A1. However Defendant has not purchased the said property as on passing Ex.A1. Defendant herein has purchased property from Gandra Priyanka Reddy.
[7.25]. Defendant in his written statement he submitted that, without notice to original owners orders in Ex.A1 has been passed, as such his vendor Gandra Priyanka
Reddy made an application before Tahsildar, Shayampet for conducting detailed enquiry as to the ownership and possession in Sy.No. 28/D. As per Ex.B55 it was mentioned that, revenue officials visited the spot and conducted enquiry on 29-02- 2020 and the orders passed vide File No. B/1640/2019, dt: 09-01-2020 is set aside. On perusal of Ex.B55, basing on the application of Gandra Priyanka Reddy, on 29-02- 2020 Tahsildar Shayampet has set aside the proceedings no. D/640/2019, dt: 09-01- 2020, basing on the sale transactions and directed for fresh survey by issuing notice to all the pattedars in Sy.No. 28 of Neredupally Village of Shayampet Mandal. Here later Plaintiff has filed present suit seeking for injunction on 18-11-2020 and seeking injunction. Here on perusal of sale transactions and also report of Tahsildar along with set aside order, here there is title dispute with regard to the property and not about the possession alone. PW.1 during his cross examination, he stated that, he do not know that, Ex.A1 proceedings canceled by Tahsildar, Shayampet on 29-02- 2020.
O.S No. 192 of 2020 33 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
[7.26]. Defendant herein submitted that, Plaintiff damaged, the boundary, and fencing poles erected by the Defendant, then he lodged report, as such police registered FIR vide Cr.No.155/2020 of P.S Shayampet. Here Plaintiff has admitted
that, an FIR was registered against him basing on the report lodged by
Defendant. Here Plaintiff has not disclosed how his mother Gundekar shankar
Bai succeeded property and how much property she has sold and why the
property has not mutated on the name of Gundekar Shankar Bai or the plaintiff.
The learned counsel for Defendant herein submitted written arguments and mentioned all the averments as in the written statement and submitted that,
Defendant has verified all the link documents and purchased the properties and the plaintiff herein is taking advantage of entries in pahanies and plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. Further the learned counsel for Defendant submitted in his written arguments that Plaintiff does not know the location of his property.
[7.27]. On perusal of pleadings of both parties, Plaintiff herein has not placed any document to show that, he is having particular extent of property with particular boundaries. Even the suit schedule property is not on the name of mother of plaintiff. Plaintiff has not disclosed how much property his mother and his maternal uncle succeeded and how much they sold, and to whom, and what is the remaining extent in their possession. Plaintiff herein has not mentioned anything in his pleadings as to the how much property has been transferred and no documents has been placed to that extent to say that he succeeded suit schedule property from his mother. Defendant herein is denying the title of plaintiff and existence of property itself with specific boundaries. Here Plaintiff has not filed any documents to show his possession or existence of properties. The identity of property and possession are
O.S No. 192 of 2020 34 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
also in question and moreover there is no patta on the name of mother of plaintiff with regard to the entries as to her possession. Admittedly Plaintiff’s mother died
in the year 2009. But the Tahsildar Shayampet has issued proceedings on 09-01-
2020 that the mother of plaintiff is in possession over the property and the said
proceedings were issued after physical survey by the revenue inspector. How a
dead person can be in possession over the property, and how the Tahsildar has
passed such a report vide Ex.A1 showing the physical possession of the person
without even knowing that person such person is alive or not. Therefore, the
physical survey report submitted by Mandal Revenue Inspector and the report
issued by Tahsildar itself shows whether the survey was conducted physically or
not. However Ex.A1 has been set aside through Ex.B55. Here the documents filed by the plaintiff does not show his possession over the suit schedule property. The identity of property itself is in question. The plaintiff do not know anything about the properties succeeded by his mother or sold by her, but basing on the entries in the pahanies he is claiming that his mother is having land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 gts., if he is in possession after death of his mother, then why he has not got mutated his name by making an application before revenue officials. Furthermore, why no passbook has been issued to his mother during her lifetime.
[7.28]. In the present case, Defendant herein has filed link documents, but they have not submitted the original documents as to the vendors from whom Tripuraneni
Gopi Chand purchased the properties. No documents has been placed that
Madathalapati Agamma sold the properties or not. Moreover, when the patta is on
the name of Madathalapati Agamma, how her children Gundekari Shankara Bai
and Madathalapati Narsinga Rao sold the properties without mutating their
O.S No. 192 of 2020 35 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
names in revenue records. Therefore, in the present case the dispute is not regarding with the interference of possession, from the pleadings and evidence adduced there is clearly dispute with regard to the identification of property and title dispute. Therefore, in the above all circumstances, the Court cannot grant mere injunction without establishing title or right over the suit schedule property, therefore, no relief is granted.
Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered against Plaintiff.
[8]. Issue No.2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek Perpetual
Injunction over suit schedule property against Defendant?
[8.1]. Plaintiff herein got examined himself as PW.1 and PW.2 on his behalf and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 but failed to prove the existence of property with particular boundaries and his possession over the suit schedule property with proper documentary evidence. The onus is on the Plaintiff to prove his possession over the particular property, the plaintiff has to prove the existence of property in particular survey number with particular extent and with particular boundaries, then only he is entitled for any relief. But in the present case Defendant herein has filed Ex.B1 to
B55 and got examined as DW.1 and submitted that, he purchased properties through a registered sale deed and his vendors also got transferred properties and having pattedar passbooks and plaintiff herein has not filed the pattedar pass book or any document showing patta on his name or his mother’s name. Further plaintiff has not disclosed anything in his pleadings, as to how much property has been succeeded by his mother and since when and how much property she sold. This case clearly shows that, there is a title dispute and identification of property is in question, therefore plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the particular property as such he is not
O.S No. 192 of 2020 36 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
entitled to any relief.
Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered against Plaintiff.
[9].Issue No.3: To what relief?
Since Plaintiff failed to prove his possession, no relief is granted.
Accordingly Issue No.3 is answered against Plaintiff.
[10].Result:
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Draw Decree accordingly.
Dictated to my Typist, corrected and transcribed and pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 27 th day of March, 2025.
Sd/-
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Appendix of evidence.
Witness examined
For Plaintiff:
PW.1: Gundekari Bharath,
PW.2: Pendem Srinivas.
For Defendants:
DW.1: Puppala Veerbhadram.
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1: is the letter vide ROC No. B/1640/2019 dt: 09-01-2020 of the office of
Tahsildar Shayampet,
Ex.A2: is the meeseva copy of Pahani for the year 1427 fasli dt: 11-08-2017,
Ex.A3: is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1989-90,
Ex.A4: is the attested copy of pahani for the year 1998-99,
O.S No. 192 of 2020 37 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Ex.A5: is the attested copy of pahani for the year 2009-10.
For Defendants:
Ex.B1: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 307/2007, dt: 21-03-2007, (12 pages in number), (along with no due certificate dt: 09-04-2007),
Ex.B2: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 309/2007, dt: 21-03-2007, (12 pages in number),
Ex.B3: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta number 196 of Sri. Chilukala
Rajaiah,
Ex.B4: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 326/2007, dt: 24-03-2007, (12 pages in number), (along with no due certificate dt: 19-04-2007),
Ex.B5: is the receipt of primary agricultural co-operative society, dt: 26-03-2006
Ex.B6: is the receipt of primary agricultural co-operative society, dt:07-05-2007,
Ex.B7: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 201 of Sri. Gaju Rajaiah,
Ex.B8: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 327/2007, dt: 24-03-2007, (9 pages in number),
Ex.B9: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 195 of Smt. Kurakula
Mallamma,
Ex.B10: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 328/2007, dt: 24-03-2007, (12 pages in number), (along with no due certificate).
Ex.B11: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 681/2014, dt: 26-04-2014, (7 pages in number),
Ex.B12: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 224 of Sri. Thripuraneni
Gopichand,
Ex.B13: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 1739/2014,
dt: 26-09-2014, (4 pages in number),
O.S No. 192 of 2020 38 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Ex.B14: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 430 of Smt.Karru
Aruna,
Ex.B15: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 3744/2019,
dt: 02-12-2019, (7 pages in number),
Ex.B16: is the Mee seva copy of 1-B ROR, dt: 02-12-2019,
Ex.B17: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (old) with patta no. 432 of Sri. Punati Hari,
Ex.B18: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (new) vide Khata No.431 of Sri. Punati Hari,
Ex.B19: is the Original Registered Sale Deed document no. 26/2020, dt: 09-11-2020, (5 pages in number),
Ex.B20: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (new) vide Khata No.60194 of Sri. Puppala
Veerabadram,
Ex.B21: is the Original Pattedar Passbook (new) vide Khata No.60151 of Gandra
Priyanka Reddy,
Ex.B22: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1981-1982,
Ex.B23: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1982-1983 (2 papers),
Ex.B24: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1985-1986,
Ex.B25: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1986-1987 (2 papers),
Ex.B26: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1987-1988 (2 papers),
Ex.B27: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1989-1990 (2 papers),
Ex.B28: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1992-1993,
Ex.B29: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1993-1994,
Ex.B30: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1994-1995,
Ex.B31: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1996-1997,
Ex.B32: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1997-1998,
Ex.B33: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1998-1999 (2 papers),
O.S No. 192 of 2020 39 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
Ex.B34: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2002-2003 (2 papers),
Ex.B35: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2003-2004 (2 papers),
Ex.B36: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2005-2006 (2 papers),
Ex.B37: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007,
Ex.B38: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007 (2 papers),
Ex.B39: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008 (2 papers),
Ex.B40: is the Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010 (2 papers),
Ex.B41: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28-D/అ,
Ex.B42: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08- 2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28-d/ఆ,
Ex.B43: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/D/ఇ,
Ex.B44: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/d/ఉ,
Ex.B45: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/A/ఆ,
Ex.B46: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 1425 fasli, dt: 20-08-2015, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/A/ఇ,
Ex.B47: is the Mee seva copy of 1-B ROR, dt: 20-08-2015,
Ex.B48: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2019, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28-D/అ,
Ex.B49: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/d/ఆ,
Ex.B50: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with
O.S No. 192 of 2020 40 of 40 27-03-2025
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.
regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/D/ఇ,
Ex.B51: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/d/ఉ,
Ex.B52: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/A/ఆ,
Ex.B53: is the Mee seva copy of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli, dt: 03-06-2017, with regard to the land in Sy.No. 28/A/ఇ,
Ex.B54: is the Mee seva copy of 1-B ROR,
Ex.B55: is the proceedings of Tahsildar, Shayampet vide R.C No.B/1640/2019,
dt: 29-02-2020, (2 papers in number).
Sd/-
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal