Page 1 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Present: Smt. Shanker Sridevi, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.
Monday the 30 th day of September, 2024.
OS No.392 of 2021
(Old OS No.2149 of 2019)
and
OS No.448 of 2021
(Old OS No.2881 of 2019)
S.No.392 of 2021: O
Between: T.Chandrakala W/o. Venkatesh Goud, aged 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. 8-57, Ibrahimpatnam Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy(D). ...Plaintiff.
AND
1. Samela Venkataiah S/o. Samela Keshav, aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.208, Anupamnagar, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Kalyankar Lingoji S/o. Shankraiah, aged 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10-12/1/A, Gajwel Mandal, Pregnapur Road, Medak District – 502 278.
Page 2 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
3. Smt.Mandala Kamala W/o. M.Ram Reddy, aged 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-10-20/29A, Gokhale Nagar, Ramanthapur, Amberpet, Hyderabad – 500013.
4. Smt.Sudini Pitchamma W/o. Jaipal Reddy, aged 70 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Plot No.3, H.No.1-9-8/9/3/A, Flat No.201, Innova Xanadu, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500081.
(The Defendants No.2 to 4 are added as parties in view of allowing of IA.NO.18 OF 2021 by Order dated 4-3-2022). …Defendants.
OS.No.448 of 2021
Between:
1. Kalyankar Lingoji S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10-12/1/A, Gajwel Mandal, Pregnapur Road, Medak District.
2. Smt. Mandala Kamala W/o. M.Ram Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-10-20/29A, Gokhale Nagar, Ramanthapur, Amberpet, Hyderabad.
3. Smt. Sudini Pitchamma W/o. Jaipal Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Plot No.3, H.No.1-98/9/3/A, Flat No.201,
Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiffs.
AND
1. Smt. Chandrakala W/o. Venkatesh Goud, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o. 8-57, Ibrahimpatnam Village, Ibrahimpatnam Nagar Panchayath, Ranga Reddy District.
Page 3 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
2. Agam Pandu Mudiraj S/o.Agam Nagaiah aged about 42 years, Occ:Business R/o.H.No.1-64, Bachupally Village, Medchal Malkajgiri District.
3. Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. {Defendant No.2 and 3 are added as per Orders in IA No.103 of 2021 in
OS No.448 of 2021, dated 04.03.2022}.
{Defendant No.3 is not necessary party as per Orders in IA No.103 of 2021, dated 04.03.2022}.
...Defendants.
Both these Suits OS.NO.392 OF 2021 and OS.NO.448 OF 2021 are coming before me on 26-07-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.D.Jagan, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri.B.Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the Defendants in
OS.No.392 of 2021 and of Sri. B.Venkateshwar Reddy, learned
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sri. Devender Reddy, learned counsel for Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 set exparte in
OS.No.448 of 2021, and the matters having been stood over for
consideration till this day, this court made the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
PLEADINGS IN OS.NO.392 of 2021:
1. This is a Suit OS.NO.392 OF 2021 filed by the Plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, supporters and workmen from ever interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule land i.e., the open land admeasuing Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.235/A, situated at
Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy (D).
Page 4 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiff are as follows:
(a). The Plaintiff submit that her husband late Shri T.Venkatesh
Goud was son of T.Mallaiah. T.Mallaiah had two sons and two daughters, T.Mallaiah was the son of late T.Anjaiah. T.Mallaiah predeceased T.Anjaiah. T.Anjaiah during his lifetime acquired the land admeasuring Ac.2-00gts in Sy.No.235 situated at Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of the oral family settlement among his relative T.Anjalah situated at
Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(b). It is submitted that as T.Mallaiah predeceased T.Anjalah,
T.Anjaiah divided the open land among the sons of T.Mallaiah namely T.Venkatesh Goud and T.Narsing Goud, hence both of them acquired Ac.1-00gts respectively and the same were mutated in the revenue records.
(c). It is submitted that Plaintiff is the wife of T.Venkatesh goud and after the death of T.Venkatesh Goud, the property admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts devolved upon her and the same was mutated on her name hence the Plaintiff has become the absolute owner and possessor of the land and the Revenue authorities also
Page 5 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
issued Patta Passbook No.105090190989 and the Khata No.3343 and that the Plaintiff is peaceful possessor without any interruption from whosever for the above said property.
(d). It is submitted that while the matter stood thus, the
Defendant who is stranger to the suit schedule property came to suit property on 11-9-2019 and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff without any reason and constantly trying to dispossess the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff could resist the illegal acts of the Defendant with the help of her neighbors and the Defendants left the suit schedule property but threatened her that they will come again and dispossess the
Plaintiff by hook or crook and the defendant made similar attempt on 25-8-2019 and the Plaintiff could stop the illegal acts of the defendant with the great difficulty and immediately on 25-8-2019 she lodged complaint at Ibrahimpatan Police station and the police had advised the plaintiff to approach Civil Court as the dispute is in civil in nature and that the Defendant No.1 is stranger to the Suit schedule property and influential person, hence she is constrained to file the present Suit.
Page 6 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
(3). The Defendants No.2 to 4 in OS.NO.392 OF 2021 filed written statement denying the averments of the Plaintiff and contended as follows:
(a). The Defendant No.2 is the absolute Owner of the Plot bearing
No.429 admeasuring 611 sq.yards in survey numbers 234, 235, 236 and 240 situtated at Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy (D) having purchased the same under registered Sale deed dated 16-09-2015 vide Document No.19334 of 2015.
(b). It is submitted that the Defendant No.3 is the absolute
Owner of the Plot bearing No.428 admeasuring 611 sq.yards in survey numbers 234, 235, 236 and 240 situtated at Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy (D) having purchased the same under registered Sale deed dated 16- 09-2015 vide Document No.19334 of 2015.
(c). It is submitted that the Defendant No.4 is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.425 Part B admeasuring 360 Sq. Yards in
Sy.No’s.234, 235, 236 and 240 of Mangalpally Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased
Page 7 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
the same under a Registered Sale deed dated 07-06-2014 Vide
Document No.7754 of 2014.
(d). It is submitted that one Bobbala Srinivas Reddy is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.424 admeasuring 600 Sq.
Yards in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 and 240 of Mangalpally Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale deed dated 02-04-2014 vide
Document No.2049 of 2014.
(e). It is submitted that similarly one Papineni Penchal Reddy is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.425 Part A admeasuring 304 Sq. Yards or 254.18 Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 and 240 of
Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale deed dated 26-03-2014 vide Document No.1902 of 2014.
(f). It is contended that one Bobbali Divya Reddy is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.427 admeasuring 583 Sq. Yards in
Sy.No.234, 235, 236 and 240 of Mangalpally Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having got the
Page 8 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
same under a Registered Gift deed dated 23-02-2015 Vide
Document No.1918 of 2015 executed by her mother Smt.Bobbala
Shoba Rani who purchased the same under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.2050 of 2014 from the same vendors. It is contended that the plots of the Defendants No.2 to 4 and the said
Penchal Reddy and Divva Reddy are situated adjacent to each other including the Plot No.426, 430 and 431 belongs to the vendors of the Defendants 2 to 4. It is submitted that the
Defendants 2 to 4 also got regularized their plots under Lay-out
Regularization Scheme.
(g). It is contended that the Defendants No. 2 to 4 have purchased the above said properties from the following owners i.e.,
1) Maruthi Hemanth Housing Limited,
2) Maruthi Housing Corporation,
3) Smt.K.Madhavi and
4) K.Ram Reddy represented by their G.P.A M/s. MRM Property Management Private Limited Represented by its GPA Holder.
(h). It is contended that their vendors have purchased the said land under the following three separate documents i.e.,
Page 9 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
(i) Sale deed dated 14-02-1994 (Doc.No.341/1994) from Ganta
Janga Reddy Rep.by GPA holder Kasu Ram Reddy (Vide G.P.A
No.12/IV/1993 dated 30-03-1993) in favour of Smt.K.Madhavi in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-21 Guntas in Sy.No.234, 235 and 240 of Mangalpally Village,
(ii). Sale deed dated 22-03-1994 (Doc.No.646/1994) from
Ganta Yadagiri Reddy Rep.by GPA holder Kasu Ram Reddy (Vide G.P.A No.299/1V/1994 dated 17-03-1993) in favour of
Smt.K.Madhavi in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-21
Guntas in Sy.No.234, 235 & 240 of Mangalpally Village and
(iii). Sale deed dated 19-12-1997 (Doc.No.1858 /1997) from Thalla
Narsing Goud in favour of Kasu Ram Reddy in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-39 Guntas in Sy.No.235/Ka of Mangalpally
Village.
(i). It is contended that similarly the vendor Kasu Ram Reddy also purchased the lands under different sale deed i.e., (1). Sale deed bearing No.2553/93 dated 26-11-1993 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.3-22 gts in Sy.No.241 Part from Gadusu
Venkatesh, (2). Sale deed bearing No.924/97 dated 19-06-1997 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.1-21 gts in Sy.No.240/Aa from Thalla
Mallaiah, Thalla Ramulu, Thalla Srinivas, Thalla Veera Swamy,
Thalla Kumar & Thalla Srishylam,
Page 10 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
(3). Sale deed bearing No.291/98 dated 17-02-1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.236/Vu from Kaki
Laxmaiah, (4). Sale deed bearing No.433/98 dated 9-03- 1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.229/E from Thalla
Shankeraiah, (5). Sale deed bearing No.1108/98 dated 3-07-1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.236/Vo from Adulla
Krishna Reddy.
(j). It is contended that the Vendors got their names mutated in the revenue records and title deeds and patta pass books were issued in their names vide Patta No.1208 (K.Ram Reddy) and 1193 (Smt.K.Madhavi)and later the vendors developed the land and divided into 465 plots Dof various sizes by obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayath concerned, and the said layout is known as "RAM ENCLAVE" and out of the said 465 plots an extent covering 127 plots of various sizes with proportionate land for the roads was sold to parties and cold storage and after selling the land to the said cold storage and to the others the available plotted area is 1,18,939 Sq. Yards i.e., equally to 338 plots of various sizes.
Page 11 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
(k). It is contended that in the year 2001 also one Shanthi Rani and another have filed a Suit and then the Defendant No’s. 2 to 4 lodged a police complaint with PS Ibrahimpatnam on the same day and the Police called the Plaintiff and visited the plots of the
Defendant No’s.2 to 4 and having seen the existence of plots and the layout as claimed by them, the police warned the Plaintiff and their henchmen not to come near their plots and did not register a case against the Plaintiff as the same is of a civil nature. Later they erected plot stones with fencing around their plots jointly to prevent the grabbing activity by the Plaintiff and her henchmen.
(l). It is contended that the Plaintiff and her henchmen now and then are coming and disturbing Plot stones of Defendants 2 to 4 and fencing and writing their phone numbers on the plot stones.
The Plaintiff and her henchmen again on 29-10-2019 came to plots of the Defendants No. 2 to 4 plots and tried to put a name board claiming to be the said land belongs to Plaintiff, which the
Defendants No. 2 to 4 removed immediately. It is contended that the Plaintiff is continuously trying to grab Defendants 2 to 4 plots basing on the false and created documents and in the above
Page 12 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
circumstances the Defendants herein having no other alternative filed a suit in O.S.No.2881 of 2019 on the file of Court of Hon’ble
Ist Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for the relief of perpetual injunction against the Plaintiff and the
Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant exparte status quo Order
against the Plaintiff on 6-11-2019. Later the said suit was transferred to this Hon'ble court and renumbered as O.S.No.448 of 2021. It is submitted that while going through suit numbering register, the counsel for Defendants No.2 to 4 came to know about this Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.1, who is one of her associates and she obtained exparte interim injunction against the Defendant No.1 in collusion with each other. Later these Defendants No.2 to 4 filed an implead petition and got themselves impleaded as Defendants No.2 to 4 in this suit.
(m). It is submitted that the Defendant No.2 to 4 are in possession of their respective plots from the date of its purchase and prior to that the vendors of Defendants No.2 to 4 were in possession of the same without any interruption from anyone. It is
Page 13 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
submitted that the Plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and she is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and she filed the above suit is for the relief of
Perpetual Injunction on all false allegations with an intention to get the decree behind the back of Defendants No. 2 to 4 without making them as parties to the suit with an intention to grab their plots and she did not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the real facts as the husband of plaintiff already alienated his property through registered sale deed bearing documents No.528 of 1997 and 529 of 1997 dated 27-03-1997 to one P.Jogeshwara Rao and P.Venkata Lakshmi respectively and hence the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as sought for and prayed the Court to dismiss the Suit.
(4). Based on the respective pleadings of the Parties, the following issues are settled for trial :
1. Whether the Plaintiff is in possession of the Suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the Suit or not?.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction agianst the Defendants as prayed for or not?.
3. To what relief ?.
Page 14 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
PLEADINGS IN OS.NO.448 of 2021
(old OS. NO.2881 of 2019)
(5). This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for Perpetual Injunction against the sole defendant initially restraining her from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the
Suit Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ Properties. During pendency of the
Suit, the Defendant No.2 is added as party in view of allowing of
IA.NO.103 of 2021 by Order dated 04-03-2022.
(6). The brief facts of the case in OS No.448 of 2021 of the
Plaintiffs are as follows:
(a). It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.429 admeasuring 611 Sq. Yards or 510.86
Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 & 240 of Mangalpally Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which herein after in short called as Schedule Property “A” having purchased the same under a registered Sale deed dated 16-09-2019 Vide document No.19333 of 2015.
(b). It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.428 admeasuring 611 Sq. Yards or 510.86
Page 15 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 & 240 of Mangalpally Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which hereinafter in short called as Schedule Property “B” having purchased the same under a registered Sale deed dated 16-09- 2015 Vide
Document No. 19334 of 2015.
(c). It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.3 is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No. 425 Part B admeasuring 360 Sq. Yards or 300.99 Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 & 240 of Mangalpally
Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (herein after called as Schedule Property - C) having purchased the same under a Registered Sale deed dated 07-06-2014 Vide Document
No.7754 of 2014. It is submitted that one Bobbala Srinivas Reddy is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.424 admeasuring 600
Sq. Yards or 501.67 Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 & 240 of
Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale deed dated 02-04- 2014 Vide Document No.2049 of 2014. It is submitted that similarly one Papineni Penchal Reddy is the absolute owner of the
Plot bearing No. 425 Part A admeasuring 304 Sq. Yards or 254.18
Page 16 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 & 240 of Mangalpally Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale deed dated 26-03-2014 Vide
Document No.1902 of 2014 and Similarly one Bobbali Divya
Reddy is the absolute owner of the Plot bearing No.427 admeasuring 583 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.234, 235, 236 & 240 of
Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having got the same under a Registered Gift deed dated 23-02-2015 Vide Document No. 1918 of 2015 executed byher mother Smt. Bobbala Shoba Rani, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.2050/2014 from the same vendors. It is submitted that the plots of the Plaintiffs and the said
Penchal Reddy and Divva Reddy plots are situated adjacent to each other including the plot No426, 430 & 431 which belongs to the vendors of the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that the plaintiffs also got regularized their plots under Lay-out Regularization Scheme
(b). It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have purchased the above said properties from 1) Maruthi Hemanth Housing Limited 2)
Maruthi Housing Corporation 3) Smt.K.Madhavi and 4) K.Ram
Page 17 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
Reddy represented by their G.P.A M/s.MRM Property Management
Private Limited Represented by its GPA Holder. The vendors have purchased the said land under 3 separate documents i.e.
(1). Sale deed dated 14-02-1994 (Doc.No.341/1994) from Ganta
Janga Reddy Rep.by GPA holder Kasu Ram Reddy (Vide G.P.A
No.12/IV/1993 dated 30-03-1993) in favour of Smt.K.Madhavi in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-21 Guntas in Sy.No.234, 235 and 240 of Mangalpally Village, (2). Sale deed dated 22-03-1994 (Doc.No.646/1994) from Ganta
Yadagiri Reddy Rep.by GPA holder Kasu Ram Reddy (Vide G.P.A
No.299/IV/1994 dated 17-03-1993) in favour of Smt.K.Madhavi in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-21 Guntas in Sy.No.234, 235 & 240 of Mangalpally Village, (3). Sale deed dated 19-12-1997 (Doc.No.1858/1997) from Thalla
Narsing Goud in favour of Kasu Ram Reddy in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-39 Guntas in Sy.No.235/Ka of Mangalpally
Village and similarly the vendor Kasu Ram Reddy also purchased the lands under the registered sale deeds i.e.,
Page 18 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
(1) Sale deed bearing No.2553/93 dated 26-11-1993 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.3-22 gts in Sy.No.241 Part from Gadusu
Venkatesh, (2) Sale deed bearing No.924/97 dated 19-06-1997 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.1-21 gts in Sy.No.240/Aa from Thalla
Mallaiah, Thalla Ramulu, Thalla Srinivas, Thalla Veera Swamy,
Thalla Kumar & Thalla Srishylam, (3) Sale deed bearing No.291/98 dated 17- 02-1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.236/Vu from Kaki
Laxmaiah, (4) Sale deed bearing No.433/98 dated 9-03-1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.229/E from Thalla
Shankeraiah, (5) Sale deed bearing No.1108/98 dated 3-07-1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts in SY:No.236 (Vo from Adulla
Krishna Reddy and the vendors got their names mutated in the revenue records and title deeds and patta pass books were issued in their names Head Clerk vide Patta No.1208 (K.Ram Reddy) and 1193 (Smt.K.Madhavi)and later the vendors developed the land and divided into 465 plots of various sizes by obtaining
Page 19 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
permission from the Gram Panchayath concerned, and the said layout is known as "RAM ENCLAVE" and out of the said 465 plots an extent covering 127 plots of various sizes with proportionate land for the roads was sold to parties and cold storage and after selling the land to the said cold storage and to the others the available plotted area is 1,18,939 Sq. Yards i.e., equally to 338 plots of various sizes.
It is submitted that in the year 2001 also one Shanthi Rani and another filed a suit in O.S.No.1083 of 2001 on the file of V
Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration and recovery of possession against the Vendors of Plaintiff's and other purchasers of vendors of the Plaintiffs claiming the plots in the said lay-out and the said suit was dismissed on merits on 29- 12-2008.
(c).It is submitted that the Defendant No.1 is not the owner and possessor of the suit properties and she is no way concerned with the suit plots. The Defendant No.1 is claiming the land as agricultural land based on fabricated & created documents, which were obtained in collusion with revenue authorities without any
Page 20 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
valid orders and basing on the said false documents, the
Defendant No.1 with the help of her associates and unsocial elements tried to enter into the suit plots on 25-08-2019 at 11 A.M by removing the plot identification stones claiming the same as agriculture land and on coming to know the same through the neighbour plot owners, the plaintiffs along with their supports and well-wishers rushed to the suit plots and could prevent the Defendant No.1 and her associates from grabbing the land but they left the place stating that they will come again with greater force and occupy the same. Immediately the plaintiffs erected the plot stones and also lodged a police complaint with
P.S.Ibrahimpatnam on the same day, the police called the
Defendant No.1 and visited the suit plots and having seen the existence of plots and the layout as claimed plaintiffs, the police warned the Defendant No.1 their henchmen not to come near the suit plots and did not register a case against the Defendant No.1 as the same is of a civil nature. It is submitted that the Defendant
No.1 and her henchmen made a similar attempt as stated above on 29-10-2019 and against the Plaintiffs could resist such act of her and the Defendant No.1 is continuously trying to grab the
Page 21 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
land of the plaintiffs basing on the false and created documents, hence the Plaintiffs constrained to file the present Suit.
(7). During the pendency of the suit Plaintiff filed application to implead Defendant No.2 being the purchaser of the Suit Schedule
Property as he purchased the same inspite of pendency of status quo order and to implead the Defendant No.3 who is
Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer and the same is partly allowed as per Order in IA No.103 of 2021 in OS No.448 of 2021, dated 04.03.2022 and the Defendant No.2 is considered as proper party to Suit.
(8). The Defendant No.1 in OS No.448 of 2021 filed Written
Statement denying the averments in the Plaint and contended as follows:
(a). The husband of the Defendant i.e late T.Venkatesh Goud was son of one T.Mallaiah and that Mallaiah was having two sons and two daughters. The said Mallaiah's father T.Anjalah during his life time acquired a land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.235, situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rang
Page 22 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
Reddy District by virtue of a oral family settlement later on the said Anjaiah divided the said extent of Ac.2-00 gts among his two sons T.Mallaiah and T.Venkatesh Goud accordingly they each got
Ac.1-00 gts of land as a share and later on they got mutated their names in the Revenue Records.
(b).It is further contended that after the death of T.Venkatesh
Goud his wife/Defendant No.1 got the said land admesuring
Ac.1-00 gts of land from his husband and that she got mutated her name in revenue records vide Proceedings No.B/7716/2017,
dt: 11.10.2017 issued by Tahsildar Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, Later on she applied for Patta Passbook and after verifying her title and possession the revenue authorities issued patta pass book on her name vide Patta Pass book
No.T05090190989 and Khata No.3343 and ever since the property devolved on her name the Defendant No.1 and prior to that her husband was in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
(c).It is further contended that while things stood thus one stranger by name Samela Venkatalah S/o. Samela Keshav who is
Page 23 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
nothing to do with the said land tried to Interfere with defendant
No.1 possession over the said property on 11.08.2019 and 25.08.2019 and she filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the sald Samela Venkatalah vide OS No.2149/2019 pending on the file of the Hon'ble VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for trial and further the defendant obtained Interim injunction against to the said Samela Venkataiah and the said Order is made absolute after due enquiry. After that the present plaintiffs filed an Interim application in the said suit under order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C praying the Court to implead them as Defendants No.2 to 4 in the said suit and the said application is pending enquiry.
(d).It is further contended that there is no such suit schedule property No.” A to C “ as claimed by the plaintiffs in the said survey numbers and the entire land in the said survey numbers is an agriculture land and nobody converted the same into house plots. It is further contended by her is that the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs are only existing on paper but there is no physical existence of such plots in the given survey numbers, as
Page 24 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
such the plaintiffs in collusion with each other got created the documents only to usurp property of Defendant No.1 as she being lady and widow taking advantage of the same the plaintiffs herein filed the above false suit to gain illegally, hence prayed the Court to dismiss the Suit.
(9). Basing on the rival pleadings of parties in the suit, the following issues are framed and settled for trial as per Order XIV
Rule 5 of CPC:
(1). Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit ?.
(2). Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Perpetual injunction as prayed for ?.
(3). To what relief?.
(10) . At the stage of commencement of trial,both the suits were clubbed together by the Court by Order dated 4-1-2023 for reason both the Counsel reported no objection to club both the suits as subject matter and parties in both the Suit are same and coming up for trial. The Court ordered the evidence to be let in
OS. 448 of 2021 and the trial in said suit will be considered as trial
Page 25 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
in OS.NO.392 of 2021 and accordingly the evidence is let in
OS.NO.448 OF 2021.
(11). Heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs in OS.NO.448 of 2021 and no representation for Defendant No.1, hence it is considered as deemed heard on behalf of the Defendant No.1.
(12). To prove the case of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No.2 herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A18 and also examined K.Ram Reddy as PW2. Ex.A1, Ex.A3, Ex.A5 and Ex.A7 to
Ex.A13 are the Certified Copy of Sale Deeds document
Nos.19333/2015, dated 16.09.2015 in favour of Plaintiff No.1, 19334/2015, dated 16.09.2015 in favour of Plaintiff No.2, 7754/2014, dated 07.06.2014 in favour of Plaintiff No.3, 2049/2014, dated 02.04.2014 in favour of B.Srinivas Reddy, 1902/2014, dated 26.03.2014 executed by P.Penchal Reddy, 341/1994, dated 14-02-1994 executed by G.Janga Reddy to
Smt.K.Madhavi, 646/1994, dated 22-03-1994 executed by G.Janga
Reddy to Smt.K.Madhavi, 1858/1997, dated 19-12-1997 executed by Thalla Narsing Goud to Kasu Ram Reddy, 528/1997, dated 27-03-1997 executed by Late Thalla Venkatesh Goud to
Page 26 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
P.Jogeshwara Rao, 529/1997, dated 27.03.1997 executed by Thalla
Venkatesh Goud to Smt Pallempati Lakshmi, Ex.A2, Ex.A4 and
Ex.A6 are the Statements of Encumbrance on Property, dated 20.08.2019, Ex.A14 is the Digitally signed Lay Out Regularisation scheme dated 21-01-2018 in favour of Plaintiff No.1, Ex.A15 is the Digitally signed Lay out regularisation scheme dated 03-02-2018 in favour of Plaintiff No.2, Ex.A16 is the Digitally signed Lay out regularisation scheme dated 07-11-2017 in favour of Plaintiff No.3, Ex.A17 is the Certified Copy of Judgment, dated 28-12-2008 in OS.No.1083/2001 on the file of V Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and Ex.A18 is the
Brochure issued by Ram Enclave.
Though the Defendant No.1 filed written statement raising various contentions she did not let in any evidence to rebut or disprove the case of the Plaintiffs.
(13). ISSUE NO.1 and 2:
(i). The Plaintiffs in OS. 392 of 2021 is the defendant in OS. 448 of 2021 and vice Versa. The pleadings of the Plaintiffs in OS. 392
Page 27 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
of 2021 and pleadings of the plaintiff in OS. 448 of 2021 are narrated as follows:
(a). The case of the Plaintiff in OS. 392 of 2021 is that the suit schedule property was devolved upon her husband T. Venkatesh
Goud from his Grandfather as his father predeceased his grandfather and that after the death of the said T. Venkatesh
Goud the suit schedule property devolved upon her and that she was issued Pattadar Pass Book and title deed and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. That
Originally she filed the present suit against one Samila Venkataiah and subsequently Defendant No’s. 2 to 4 got themselves impleaded in the Suit and that as Defendant No.1 illegally interfered with her property she filed the present suit. Likewise, the pleading of the plaintiffs in OS. 448 of 2021 are that, the plaintiff in OS. 392 of 2021 is Defendant no.1 herein and that the suit schedule A, B and C are plot nos. 429,428 and 425 part B of different extents have been purchased by them under registered sale deeds and that their vendors have purchased the said land under three separate documents i.e..
Page 28 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
(1) Sale deed dated 14-02- 1994 (Doc.No.341/1994) from Ganta
Janga Reddy Rep.by GPA holder Kasu Ram Reddy (Vide G.P.A
No.12/IV/1993 dated 30-03-1993) in favour of Smt. K.Madhavi in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-21 Guntas in Sy.No.234, 235 and 240 of Mangalpally Village, (2) Sale deed dated 22-03-1994 (Doc.No.646/1994) from Ganta
Yadagiri Reddy Rep.by GPA holder Kasu Ram Reddy (Vide G.P.A
No.299/IV/1994 dated 17-03-1993) in favour of Smt.K.Madhavi in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-21 Guntas in Sy.No.234, 235 and 240 of Mangalpally Village, (3) Sale deed dated 19-12-1997 (Doc.No.1858/1997) from Thalla
Narsing Goud in favour of Kasu Ram Reddy in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-39 Guntas in Sy.No.235/Ka of Mangalpally
Village and similarly the vendor Kasu Ram Reddy also purchased the lands under Sale deed bearing document No.2553/93 dated 26-11-1993 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.3-22 gts in
Sy.No.241 Part from Gadusu Venkatesh, Sale deed bearing document No.924/97 dated 19-06-1997 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.1-21 gts in Sy.No.240/Aa from Thalla Mallaiah,
Thalla Ramulu, Thalla Srinivas, Thalla Veera Swamy, Thalla Kumar
Page 29 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
and Thalla Srishylam, Sale deed bearing No.291/98 dated 17-02-1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in
Sy.No.236/Vu from Kaki Laxmaiah, Sale deed bearing document
No.433/98 dated 9-03-1998 in respect the land admeasuring
Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.229/E from Thalla Shankeraiah, Sale deed bearing No.1108/98 dated 3-07-1998 in respect the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.236/Vo from Adulla Krishna
Reddy and the vendors got their names mutated in the revenue records and title deeds and patta pass books were issued in their names vide Patta No.1208 (K.Ram Reddy) and 1193 (Smt.K.Madhavi) and later the vendors developed the land and divided into 465 plots of various sizes by obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayath concerned, and the said layout is known as "RAM ENCLAVE" and out of the said 465 plots an extent covering 127 plots of various sizes with proportionate land for the roads was sold to parties and cold storage and after selling the land to the said cold storage and to the others the available plotted area is 1,18,939 Sq. Yards i.e., equally to 338 plots of various sizes and that the Defendant No.1 is causing illegal interference with their property. Hence they filed the present suit.
Page 30 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
(ii). The sum and substances of the claim of the plaintiffs in both the suits is that the plaintiff in OS. 392 of 2021 is claiming the suit schedule property as her own and showing the same as agricultural land and whereas the plaintiffs in OS. 448 of 2021 are claiming that there is no agricultural land available and the agricultural lands are already converted into plots and they have purchased the plots from their vendors.
(iii). It is an admitted fact that both the suits were clubbed together and the evidence is let in OS. 448 of 2021. The relief of injunction is an equitable relief and cannot be granted just for asking without there being a case made out by the parties without any suppression of the material fact.
(iv). The Plaintiff in OS. 448 of 2021 initially have let in evidence by examining PW1 and PW2 and documents as Exhibits A1 to
A18 were marked through PW1. Both PW1 and PW2 were cross examined at lenght by the learned Counsel for defendants. A perusal of the cross examination of said witnesses vindicates the case of the Plaintiffs in OS.NO.448 OF 2021 as the learned
Page 31 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
Counsel for the Defendant No.1 did not bring out any answers from them to demolish the case of the Plaintiffs. The chief and cross examination of PW1 and PW2 strengthen their case without leaving any lacunaes. Further the Defendant No.1 in OS.NO.448 of 2021 and Plaintiff in OS.NO.392 of 2021 having filed written statement raising various contentions has not let in any evidence and in fact she did not enter the witness box at all and this Court has treated her evidence as “NIL”. In this background, the evidence let in by PW1 and PW2 remained unrebutted and further the documents filed by them clearly shows that as on the date of filing of the Suit they are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule property, hence this Court answer the ISSUE NO.1 and 2 in favour of the Plaintiffs in OS.NO.448 of 2021 and against the
Plaintiff in OS.NO.392 of 2021.
(14). ISSUE NO.3:
In the result the suit of the Plaintiff in OS.NO.392 OF 2021 is dismissed and in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
Page 32 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
In the result, the suit of the Plaintiffs in OS No.448 OF 2021 is decreed without costs granting permanent injunction restraining the DefendantS, their agents, servatns or anyone claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties.
Typed to my dictation by the typist directly on the computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 30th day of September, 2024.
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
IBRAHIMPATNAM,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF S : PW1: Mandala kamala PW2: K.Ram Reddy
FOR DEFENDANTS :
-Nil -
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.19333/2015,
dated 16.09.2015 in favour of Plaintiff No.1
Ex.A2: Statement of Encumbrance on Property dated 20-80-2019.
Page 33 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
Ex.A3: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.19334/2015,
dated 16.09.2015 in favour of Plaintiff No.2
Ex.A4: Statement of Encumbrance on Property dated 20-08-2019.
Ex.A5: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.7754/2014,
dated 07.06.2014 in favour of Plaintiff No.3
Ex.A6: Statement on Encumbrance on Property dated 20-08-2019
Ex.A7: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.2049/2014,
dated 02.04.2014 in favour of B.Srinivas Reddy
Ex.A8: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.1902/2014,
dated 26.03.2014 executed by P.Penchal Reddy
[ Ex.A9: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.341/1994,
dated 14-02-1994executed by G.Janga Reddy to
Smt.K.Madhavi
Ex.A10: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.646/1994,
dated 22-03-1994 executed by G.Janga Reddy to
Smt.K.Madhavi
Ex.A11: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.1858/1997,
dated 19-12-1997 executed by Thalla Narsing Goud to
Kasu Ram Reddy
Ex.A12: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.528/1997,
dated 27-03-1997 executed by Late Thalla Venkatesh
Goud to Pallempati Laxshmi
Ex.A13: Certified Copy of Sale Deed document No.19333/2015,
dated 16.09.2015 in favour of Plaintiff No.1
Ex.A14: Digitally signed Layout regularization scheme
dated 21-01-2018 in favour of Plaintiff No.1
Ex.A15: Digitally signed Layout regularization scheme
dated 03-02-2018 in favour of Plaintiff No.2
Page 34 of 34 OS.No. 392 of 2021 &
OS.No.448 of 2021
ASCJ, IBP.
Ex.A16: Digitally signed Layout regularization scheme
dated 07-11-2017 in favour of Plaintiff No.3
Ex.A17: Certified Copy of Judgment dated 28-12-2008 in OS.No. 1083/2001 on the file of V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar
Ex.A18: Brochure issued by Ram Enclave
FOR DEFENDANT NO.1: - Nil-
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
IBRAHIMPATNAM,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.