Kum.Sindhu Gurram

O.S.No.88/20121

JCJ, NDK

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NANDIKOTKUR

Present:- Ms. Sindhu Gurram. Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur

Friday, 28thday of June, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 88/2012

1. P. Sreenivasulu died by his LRs.,

2. P. Lalithamma

3. P. Raghavendra Naidu (Minor)

4. P. Raghavi (Minor)

The plaintiffs 3 & 4 are minors, rep. by next friend their mother 2nd plaintiff)

Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.401/2016 in O.S.No.77/2014,dt.22.02.2017. …Plaintiffs VS

1. S. Meghanadha Gowdu

2. G. Venkataramana …Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Ranga Swamy, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri C.C.V.

Ranga Reddy, Advocate for defendants, after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men or anybody on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the rastha of EFGA portion shown in the plaint plan and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The 1st plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule house from 1st defendant on 22.06.2011 for valid consideration of Rs.6,52,000/- and he

O.S.No.88/20122

JCJ, NDK

executed a registered sale deed on 22.06.2011 in favour of 1st plaintiff and delivered the possession to the plaintiff. Since the date of purchasing the suit schedule house, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit schedule house is shown as ABCD in the plaint plan and the said rastha was mentioned as EFGA in the plaint plan and the rastha was also mentioned under Registered sale deed, dated,22.06.2011. The 1st defendant is vendor of the 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant is the follower of 1st defendant. On 19.06.2012 the defendants tried to dug the pits in the rastha portion shown in the plaint plan as EFGA and the 1st defendant prevented the same with the neighbours and threatened the 1st plaintiff that at any point, he will dig the pits in the rastha portion and he will not allow him into the rastha portion. The 1st plaintiff died on 29.04.2016. Thereby, the plaintiff

Nos.2 to 4 are added as legal representatives of 1st plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their agents or anybody on their behalf to dug up pits in the rastha portion shown in the plaint plan as EFGA and not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. The brief averments of written statement of defendant No.2 :

The defendant No.2 in his written statement admitted that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule house from the 1st defendant on 22.06.2011 under the registered sale deed, dated.22.06.2011 and was kept in possession of the same since the date of purchasing the suit schedule house.

He also admitted that 1st defendant is the vendor of plaintiff. But the 2nd defendant pleaded that he is not follower of the 1st defendant.

The defendant No.2 further pleaded that the plaintiff is no doubt, the owner and enjoyer of the suit schedule house and he purchased the same from the 1st defendant by way of registered sale deed bearing document

O.S.No.88/20123

JCJ, NDK

No.2071/2011, dated.22.06.2011. It is clearly mentioned in the said registered sale deed that the plaintiff is having rastha from the main rastha i.e., from the North-East corner of the house bearing Door No.8/95(1) towards southern side and the measurements of the said rastha are 22 feet in length and 5 feet in width. The said rastha mentioned in the registered sale deed, dated.22.06.2011 is not EFGA rastha shown wrongly by the plaintiff in the plaint plan filed by him. The plaintiff at no point of time used the EFGA portion shown in the plaint plan as his rastha to reach his house. The plaintiff suppressed the said fact which is clearly recited in the registered sale deed, dated.22.06.2011 and he falsely claim the EFGA rastha shown in the plaint plan for his ingress and egress. In fact, there is no EFGA rastha as shown in the plaint plan filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no right of passage through the EFGA portion. The EFGA portion shown in the plaint paln was in fact the portion of the house bearing Door No.8/95 (1) of the defendant and now, since the 1st defendant sold the house to the 2nd defendant, the said EFGA portion shown in the plaint plan includes in the house bearing D.No.8/95 (1) and that it is the property of the 2nd defendant.

The averment of the plaint are against the recitals of registered agreement, dated. 22.06.2011 filed the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 pleaded that the plaintiff cannot claim EFGA portion shown in the plaint plan as his rastha to to his house, as it is the portion of house bearing Door No.8/95 (1) belonging to 2nd defendant.

The defendant No.2 further pleaded that on 20.01.2011 the 1st defendant agreed to sell the house bearing Door No.8/95 (1) to the 2nd defendant for a valid consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- and received advance consideration of Rs.2,00,000/19.06.2012- from the 2nd defendant and executed an agreement of sale on the even date in favour of the 2nd

O.S.No.88/20124

JCJ, NDK

defendant. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- to the 1st defendant and obtained a registered sale deed bearing document No.2406/2012, dated.28.07.2012 in respect of the said house. Having full knowledge of the execution of the agreement of sale, dated.20.01.2011 by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant, the plaintiff falsely averred in his plaint that the 2nd defendant is the follower of the 1st defendant and that on 19.06.2012, both the defendants tried to dig the pits in the EFGA portion shown in the plaint plan. He further pleaded that no such incident took place on 19.06.2012 by interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule house and prayed this Court to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff filed this suit with unclean hand by suppressing the facts.

Defendant No.1 adopted written statement of defendant No.2.

4. Basing on pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants for the rastha portion named as EFGA over the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

2. Whether the Regd. Sale deed bearing Doc. No.2406/2012, dated.20.07.2012 executed in favour of 2nd defendant in the said suit schedule house is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff ?

3. To what relief ?

5. To prove their case, the 2nd plaintiff and 2nd defendant are examined as PW.1 and DW.1 respectively. On behalf of plaintiffs, Exs.A1, A2 are marked and on behalf of defendants, Exs.B1, B2 are marked.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material available both in oral and documentary.

O.S.No.88/20125

JCJ, NDK

7. ISSUE NO.1:

It is the specific case of plaintiffs that the 1st plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule house from defendant No.1 under Registered Sale deed, dt.22.06.2011 for valid consideration of Rs.6,52,000/- and in the said sale deed, he had obtained rights over the rastha which was shown as EFGA in the plaint plan. The 1st defendant who is the vendor of 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant being the follower of 1st defendant on 19.06.2012 tried to dug the pits in the rastha portion shown in the plaint plan as EFGA. The plaintiffs during the course of pendency of suit, the 1st plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as legal representatives by orders of this Court in

I.A.No.401/2016, dt.22.02.2017. Thereby, the plaintiff No.2 got examined herself as PW.1 and in their favour, Exs.A1, A2 are marked which are plaint plan and Registered Sale deed, dt.22.06.2011 respectively. The averments in chief examination affidavit of PW.1 is in consonance of the plaint.

In the course of cross-examination of PW.1, she admitted that the present suit is filed for rastha and the present suit is not intended to claim the property of defendant No.2 in the year 2011 her husband purchased the suit schedule property and she was present at the time of registration of

Ex.A2. She admitted that 2nd defendant purchased house in the northern side of suit schedule property and also admitted that her husband and defendant No.2 purchased the respective properties from defendant No.1. On

Ex.A2 their house plan is highlighted with red borders highlighting the individual rooms in the house and measurements were also mentioned. She admitted that on Ex.A2 there is rastha on the northern side of suit schedule property and on the eastern side, there is no indication as to door way. She admitted that there are windows, doors, 10 feet sandhu rastha on the eastern side of defendant No.2 property. She admitted the measurements of

O.S.No.88/20126

JCJ, NDK

sandhu rastha of measurement North to South 22 feet, East to West 5 feet and they are claiming sandhu rastha out of that North to South 22 feet, East to West 5 feet. She admitted that she is claiming for the sandhu rastha as shown in Ex.A2 attached house plan and she is not claiming any right over the property of defendant No.2 by this suit. She also admitted that she is aware of the fact that her husband filed some other suits against defendants, but she do not know whether the said suits were dismissed or not. She also admitted that sandhu rastha 22x5 is not highlighted with red borders to show that it is purchased. She denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel that her husband filed the suit for claiming the vacant land situated on the eastern side of defendant No.2 property and she also denied that she do not have right over the vacant land.

8.It is the case of defendants that the EFGA portion on the plaint plan is wrongly shown and the EFGA portion actually forms part of the house purchased by the defendant No.2 from the defendant No.1 under Ex.B2. The defendants admitted the fact that according to Ex.A2 the plaintiffs have right over the rastha which is shown on Ex.A2 and have also admitted that it is mentioned in the recitals of Ex.A2. The defendants on their behalf examined defendant No.2 as DW.1 and the averments in chief examination affidavit of

DW.1 is in consonance with the pleadings in the written statement.

During the course of cross-examination of DW.1, he admitted that on the north of his house, there is varanda. He admitted that from the North of his house, there is a passage to go inside the house or to come out and there is a public rastha on the north of his house. There is a public rastha on the north of his house. On the east of his house, there is no one resided. he admitted that there is rastha on the eastern side of his house. He is aware of the fact that the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and he knows

O.S.No.88/20127

JCJ, NDK

that his wife and sons are legal representatives in this suit. He denied the suggestion that on the northern side of the plaintiffs' house, there is rastha.

He knows that the plaintiff purchased the house bearing No.8/95 from defendant No.1 on 22.06.2011, but he do not know that it is registered. he admitted that he received Exs.A1 & A2 from the court at the time of receiving summons and stated that he do not know the contents of Ex.A1. He stated that he do not know the defendant No.1 mentioned on Ex.A1 that the plaintiff only has right to use EFGA portion of plaint plan. He denied the suggestion that he has no right over rastha in EFGA portion of plaint plan,

EFGA is used by plaintiffs family only and that he obstructed plaintiff No.1 from using the EFGA rastha. he denied that he do not have any roght to occupy the EFGA rastha and he admitted that though Ex.A1 it is mentioned in page No.5 near 'note' that there is rastha but, in his document, it is not mentioned.

9. Appreciation of evidence :

In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs are pleading right over EFGA rastha shown in the plaint plan and he alleges that it is mentioned on Ex.A2 that he had right over the rastha. On perusing

Ex.A2 at page No.5 near note, it is very clear, specifically mentioned that the plaintiff has got right over sandhu rastha of 22 feet length and 5 feet width.

The defendants admitted in their written statement that pertaining to the note mentioned on Ex.A2 and did not deny the ownership of the plaintiffs over sandhu rastha admeasuring 22 feet length and 5 feet width. However, defendants pleaded that the EFGA portion on plaint plan Ex.A2 is shown as rastha, but the EFGA portion forms part of his house which the defendant

No.2 purchased under Ex.B1 from defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 failed

O.S.No.88/20128

JCJ, NDK

to mention in his written statement or adduce evidence regarding the specifications of the house portion which he alleges that the plaintiff is wrongly claiming as EFGA. While so,the recitals of EX.A2, the house plan attached in Ex.A2 shows that the suit schedule house is a North-East and the recitals of Ex.B1 shows that the defendant no.2 house is also a North-East house. Under the boundaries of Ex.A2, it is given that on East, there is sandhu rastha, house of B. Vijay Kumar, Beeraiah house situated; on West- K.

Nagabhushi house is situated and on North – CC road, house of defendant

No.1 bearing D.No.8/95(1) and on south – houses of Subrahmanyam,

Sreenivasulu, Veeraiah house and on the page No.5 in the note,it is mentioned that from the main road rastha, from house No.8/95(1) in the direction of North-South : 22 feet length and 5 feet width rastha is given to the plaintiff for ingress and egress . The case of plaintiff is strengthened by documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A2 that he has right over the sandhu rastha, but the defendants failed to establish his contention that the plaintiff is claiming right over the portion of his house through this suit. Though in the cross-examination of PW.1, it is suggested that they have filed the case to recover the vacant land on the eastern side of defendant No.2 property. The defendants failed to plea the particular fact in the written statement. The pleading in written statement of defendant No.2 is vague, ambiguous. Even, if the recitals of Ex.B1 is considered, the house of defendant No.2 is bounded on east with sandhu rastha, West with certain vacant land of house bearing

H.No.8/95 which stands in the name of defendant No.1, on North – road, on south with certain vacant land bearing H.No.8/95 which stands in the name of defendant No.1. Therefore, from the cumulative study of Ex.A2, Ex.B1 and from the admitted facts so far, it is understood that the defendant No.1 sold the house under Ex.A1 to plaintiff No.1 and the house under Ex.B2 to

O.S.No.88/20129

JCJ, NDK

defendant No.2 under two different transactions which are situated adjacent to each other. It is also understood that between the defendant No.2 and defendant No.1, there was an agreement of sale that was executed on 20.01.2011 which is prior to the execution of Ex.A2 and subsequently, after payment of entire sale consideration Ex.B2, dated.28.07.2012 pertaining to the house bearing No.8-95(1) is executed in favour of defendant No.2. The defendants in the cross-examination of PW.1 gave a suggestion that the suit is filed to claim the vacant land situated on eastern side of defendant No.2 property. On examining Ex.B2 on eastern side, the sandhu rastha is situated.

Clearly Ex.B1 does not confers defendant no.2 any rights over sandhu rastha which is situated on eastern side of the house under Ex.B1. The defendants without pleading in the written statement the exact portion of their house had put a suggestion straightly in the cross- examination of PW.1 and with respect to the sandhu rastha, the rights are clearly given to the husband of

PW.1 under Ex.A2. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff

No.1.

10. ISSUE NO.2:

As discussed earlier, Ex.A2, Ex.B2 pertains to two different independent transactions. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant denied the ownership of each other pertaining to their respective houses mentioned under Ex.A2, B2 respectively either in their pleadings or in their oral evidence. As such there is no material proposition regarding Ex.B2 that is agreed by one party and denied by another party. As such this issue need need be discussed. The only dispute in the present case is with respect to the rastha which is made clear by foregoing discussion. This issue is answered accordingly.

O.S.No.88/201210

JCJ, NDK

11. ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men or anybody on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the rastha of

EFGA portion as shown in the plaint plan

Dictated to stenographer, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 28thday of June, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1: P. LalithammaDW.1: G. Venkataramana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Ex.A1: Plaint plan.

Ex.A2: Registered sale deed, dt.22.06.2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Original registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2406/2012 executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.2, dt.28.07.2012.

Ex.B2: Original plan.

JCJ, NDK

O.S.No.45/20071

JCJ, NDK

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NANDIKOTKUR

Present:- Ms. Sindhu Gurram. Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur

Friday, 28th day of June, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 45/2007

M. Ramalingam Gowd

... Plaintiff

-Versus-

1. Kuruva Chandrudu,

2. Kuruva Gopal

3. Kuruva Sreenivasulu

4. Kuruva Sankar a… Defendants

This suit is coming on 26.06.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.C.V. Ranga Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri B.

Ranga Swamy, Advocate for defendants 1 & 4, defendants No.2, 3 died and case against D2, D3 is abated, after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or anybody on their behalf from encroaching into RRR rastha portion and dug up foundations at EFQ points and built up walls as shown in the plaint plan and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiff is the owner and enjoyer of house shown as ABCD in the plaint plan which is his ancestral property. The main door of the house faces towards West. There is a rastha in front of plaintiff's house which is shown as RRR rastha in the plaint plan.

This RRR rastha runs from South to North. The said RRR rastha is slope towards northern side and joins on eastern side rastha. There are houses on either side of the RRR rastha and the spouts of the houses are facing into the

RRR rastha and the rain water flows through the spouts into the RRR rastha

O.S.No.45/20072

JCJ, NDK

and it flows towards North to East. The house of the plaintiff and other houses existing since 60 years and the rain water, kitchen water and water from bath-room flow through the edges of RRR rastha and flow into eastern side drain since 60 years peacefully without interruption from anybody. The width of RRR rastha is 4 feet.

The defendants are brothers, owners and enjoyers of houses which are shown as EFGHIJKLMNOP in the plaint plan. The old house of the defendants was removed and they are constructing a new houses which are shown as

EFGHIJKLMNOP in the plaint plan with three portions. The main door of the old house is faced towards north. The defendants 1 to 3 while constructing the new house tried to encroach 1 feet site of the RRR rastha portion and dug up foundation at EF point on 27.03.2007. The 4th defendant also tried to dug up foundation at FQ point and block the RRR rastha highhandedly. The plaintiff averted the acts of defendants with the help of village elders. The defendants do not have right to encroach 1 feet RRR rastha portion and block the RRR rastha at FQ point as shown in the plaint plan. The defendants are highly influenced persons and has rowdy elements in the village. If the defendants are allowed to encroach RRR rastha and construct a wall and block the RRR rastha at FQ point, the rain, kitchen, bath-room water will not flow through the edge of the RRR rastha and the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss. Thereby, the plaintiff is seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, anybody from encroaching into the RRR rastha portion and dug up foundation at FQ point and built up a wall as shown in the plan.

3.The brief averments of written statement of defendants is :

The defendant had denied all the pleadings in the plaint and pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner of suit schedule house. Defendants have

O.S.No.45/20073

JCJ, NDK

removed the old house and in the same place, they have constructed a new house. As per the case of plaintiff, the defendants encroached 1 feet and dug up foundation at EF point and the 4th defendant tried to dug up foundations at FQ point and block the RRR rastha and thereby the cause of action for the suit is against different persons at different places and that the plaintiff has to file separate suit and also to pay separate court fee as per

Section 6 of APCF and SV Act. In the plaint, the measurements of the suit schedule house ABCD is not noted intentionally and the plaintiff supprressed the measurements and came to the Court with unclean hands and thereby, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. The plaintiff has not filed any proof to show that the defendants encroached 1 feet into the rastha and there is no proof that the RRR rastha is only little 4 feet and dug up foundation at EF point on 27.03.2007 and there is also proof that the 4th defendant also tried to dug up foundation at FQ point and block the RRR rastha. The defendant further pleaded that the plaint plan is imaginary and RRR rastha shown in the plaint plan and the proposed constructions to the north is false. There is no RRR rastha to the north of proposed construction as alleged by the plaintiff and the same is created by plaintiff. Hence, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit.

4.To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. To prove their contention, the defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B1 & B2 were marked on their behalf.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the suit for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

O.S.No.45/20074

JCJ, NDK

6.Heard both sides and perused the material available both in oral and documentary.

7. ISSUE N0.1 :-

The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case got examined himself as

PW.1 and Exs. A1 to A5 are marked which are photographs along with negatives, plaint plan, Election Commission identity card, House tax receipt, dated.03.04.2017, Registered sale deed bearing document No.1744/1946, dated.16.09.1946 executed by one Yellamma who is grandmother of plaintiff.

8.The averments in chief affidavit of PW.1 is in consonance with pleadings in the plaint. In the course of cross-examination of PW.1 it is elicited that he filed the present suit against four persons namely Palle

Chandrudu, Gopal, Sreenivasulu, Shankar and second defendant, defendant

Nos.2, 3 died during the pendency of the case, but he do not remember the date of death of defendants No.2,3. He also admitted that opposite to his house, the defendants 1 to 4 houses are situated and he filed suit against them as they are constructing a wall in the rastha opposite to his house in which water flows and because of the construction, the water is being diverted into his house. But, he do not remember whether he mentioned in the plaint or in the chief affidavit. He do not remember his house door number and it is purchased by his paternal grandmother from one Ramaiah.

But, he do not know whether the vendor of his grandmother had verified the link documents before purchasing it. The width of the rastha is approximately 6 feet. His paternal grandmother name is Yellamma. She has 3 sons namely Bheemanna, Hanumanna, Shankaraiah and two daughters namely Nagamma, Ayyamma. He do not know whether the said Yellamma gave the suit schedule property to her children. The suit schedule property was given to three of her sons namely Bheemanna, Hanumanna,

O.S.No.45/20075

JCJ, NDK

Shankaraiah. He is the son of Hanumanna. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule house does not belong to him and he do not have documents to show that the suit schedule property is in his name, but paid house tax. On east of suit schedule property, his house is situated, on west

Palle Chandrudu, Gopaludu, Sreenivasulu and Shankar houses are situated.

On north there is vacant site and on the south houses are situated. He denied the suggestion that western portion of the suit schedule house bearing No.2-37A there is no rastha and varandah. He denied the suggestion that plaint plan is false and on the western side of suit schedule house, water is flowing from the slopes of the houses situated therein to the rastha. He do not remember whether he mentioned in his chief affidavit whether water is flowing from South to North. He affirmatively stated that the rastha is 5 to 6 feet width. He denied the suggestion that the defendants have not encroached 1 feet RRR rastha. He stated that he acquired the suit schedule property through succession. His father expired, but he did not file the death certificate . He stated that he appeared before this Court on few occasions for the criminal case filed by the defendants against him and another criminal case which was filed by him against the defendants. He denied the suggestion that there is no cause of action to the suit and the suit schedule house is not in his name, he has no right to file this suit.

9.On the other hand, defendant No.1 got examined as DW.1 and in his chief affidavit, he had reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement. Ex.B1, Ex.B2 are marked which are photographs.

In the course of cross-examination of DW.1 it is elicited that the defendants are four brothers. His house was purchased by his great grandfather by name Acchayya nearly 25 years ago. His father's name is

Subbayya. His grandfather purchased a house and not a site. He cannot say and do not remember the measurements of his house site. DW.1 admitted

O.S.No.45/20076

JCJ, NDK

that there is rastha on the eastern side of his house and the plaintiff house is situated on the eastern side of rastha. The house of plaintiff is west facing to rastha and the plaintiffs are not using the said rastha. He also admitted that he do not mentioned either in his written statement or in his chief affidavit that the plaintiff is not using the rastha. DW.1 stated that he has document in which it is mentioned that rastha is on the eastern side of his house and he has exclusive right on the rastha.

10.DW.1 again reverted his previous statement that the house site is purchased by his father Subbanna from one Bramhin. He denied that he purchased his house in the year 1981 measuring East-West 60 feet, North-

South is 45 feet. On the north of plaintiff house, Ediga naganna house is situated and on the Eastern side,he do not know the name, but one Pinjari caste family is having land, on the southern side, one Saraswathamma is situated. Exs.B1 and B2 are photographs and negatives and denied that as shown in photographs, he has constructed by encroaching into the RRR rastha. He also denied the suggestion that he is not submitting the document because in the document, there are exact measurements and the encroachments into RRR rastha will be understood. He admitted that he has constructed a wall and he do not know that a temporary injunction is granted by the Court directing him to not to construct a wall. He denied the suggestion that he has violated the court orders.

11. Appreciation of Evidence :

It is specific case of plaintiff that the defendants are own brothers, owners and enjoyers of houses shown as EFGHIJKLMNOP in plaint plan. The old house of the defendants is removed and started to construct three portions and there house is north facing. In that process, defendants 1 to 3 tried to encroach 1 feet RRR rastha and dug up foundation at EP point on

O.S.No.45/20077

JCJ, NDK

27.03.2007 and the 4th defendant tried to dug up foundation at FQ point and block the RRR rastha. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants do not have right to encroach 1 feet RRR portion and block the same at FQ point and if the defendants succeeds in their attempts and block the rastha at FQ point, the rain water, kitchen water and bath-room water of plaintiff will not flow through edge of RRR rastha causing much inconvenience to him. The spouts of house of plaintiff and other houses are facing into the RRR rastha portion and rain water flows into the RRR rastha and flow towards North-East.

12.The burden of proof heavily lies on the plaintiff to establish firstly that there is RRR rastha situated in front of his house and secondly, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendants by trying to dug up foundation near his house will block the RRR rastha and thereby the rain water, sewage water, etc., will not flow outwards from the RRR rastha. The plaintiff in order to show his possession had submitted EXs.A3, A4 which primarily shows the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule house site. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not owner of suit schedule site and thereby, a suit cannot be filed by him, but it is to be taken into consideration that the nature of suit is that of permanent injunction and in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff need not have to prove his title, but has to necessarily establish his possession and Exs.A3, A4 substantiates the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule house site. Further, DW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that the plaintiff’s house is west facing and it is situated on the eastern side of RRR rastha. This impliedly means that the defendants are admitting to the possession of plaintiff, but he only denies the plaintiff’s title which need not have to be established considering the nature of suit.

13.The plaintiff pleaded that there is rastha opposite to his house and the

O.S.No.45/20078

JCJ, NDK

defendants also admitted the said fact in his cross-examination. He admitted that there is RRR rastha on the eastern side of his house and on eastern side of rastha, there is plaintiff's house. Therefore, the existence of RRR rastha is also admitted by both the parties. The primary dispute in this case is that if the defendants succeed in their attempts to dug up foundation at FQ point near his house, it will obstruct the out flow of water from RRR rastha.

To establish the said fact, no documentary evidence is adduced by the plaintiff and it is needless to mention that no documentary evidence would aid this Court to understand the out flow of water from RRR rastha considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The relief for permanent injunction is an equitable relief that has to be granted considering the facts and circumstances of case by upholding the interest of justice.

From the evidence of PW.1, DW.1, it is admitted fact that there is RRR rastha in front of plaintiff house and the plaintiff house is west facing. Ex.A2 depicts the house of plaintiff,with rastha in front of it and there is water stagnated in front of his house. It is also a known,natural fact that water from houses falls on to the road or rastha as the case may be whenever there is rain. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are trying to dug up foundation which means that they have actually not constructed any foundation. On the other hand, DW.1 admitted in his pleading that they have constructed a new house. Therefore, as the preventive relief, the plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from laying any foundations if the construction encroaches RRR rastha. The said fact cannot be proved through documentary evidence and only oral evidence can substantiate the same.

The oral evidence so far establishes that there is rastha in front of plaintiff house and Ex.A2 clearly depicts that the water from plaintiff house flows through the RRR rastha. Through the suit, the plaintiff is not claiming any right over the rastha, he is only seeking the defendants to refrain from

O.S.No.45/20079

JCJ, NDK

digging the foundation and the defendants on the other hand stated that they have not made any efforts to dug up foundation at EFQ points, but admitted that they are constructing new house. The plaintiff has only filed the suit as a preventive measure which is the basic nature of injunction. If the relief of permanent injunction is not granted the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss that cannot be compensated in money. From the foregoing discussion, the suit is liable to be decreed in interest of justice.

14. ISSUE NO.2 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men or anybody on their behalf from encroaching into RRR rastha portion and dug up foundation at EFQ points and build up walls.

Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in

Open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: M. Ramalingam GowdDW.1: Kuruva Chandraiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A1 : Photograph and Negative. Ex.A2 : plaint plan. Ex.A3 : Election Commission Identity Card. Ex.A4 : House Tax receipt, dt.03.04.2017. Ex.A5: Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.1744/1946, dt.16.09.1946 executed by one Yellamma (Grandmother of plaintiff).

FOR DEFENDANTS : Ex.B1 : Photograph. Ex.B2 : Photograph.

JCJ. NDK.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Ms. Sindhu Gurram Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the 20th day of February, 2020.

Original Suit No.23/2012

Wudar Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Swamy Reddy, aged about 42 yrs., Agriculturist, D.No.1-129, Gadevemula (V&M), Kurnool District. ... Plaintif

Vs.

1. S. Mahaboob Basha, S/o.Sattar Miah, Muslim, aged about 50 yrs., Business, R/o.H.No.15-9153/3, Hazi Nagar, Nandikotkur (T&M), Kurnool District.

2. M. Chandra Sekhara Reddy, S/o.Late M. Samba Siva Reddy, Hindu, aged 45 yrs., Agriculturist, R/o. Gummaluru (V), Pamulapadu (M), Kurnool Dt.

3. G. Gangadharappa, S/o.Kalappa, Hindu, aged57 yrs., Business, Vasavi Fancy Store, K.G. Road, Nandikotkur (T). Kurnool District.

.... Defendants

This suit is coming on 11-02-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Allagadda Chandra Sekhara Rao and Sri S. Venkata Reddy, counsel for Plaintif and of Sri T. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for defendant

No.1 and Sri T. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for defendant No.3, defendant

No.2 remained absent and set exparte, after hearing both the counsel and perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The present suit is filed by the plaintif under order 7 Rule 1 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit schedule property and for costs.

2. The pleadings of the plaintif in brief are that :

2

He is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which he acquired it from one G. Swamy Reddy of Nandikotkur village under a

Registered sale deed, dt.11.08.2011 vide Doc.No.2832/2011 and that his vendor acquired the same from his grand father Ganthi Narayana Reddy under a Will, dt.02.01.2002 and since then he in possession and enjoyment of the same. He further contended that when he started developing the schedule property, the defendant and their henchmen tried to dispossess him on 27.02.2012, but he averted the same with the help of his people and that the defendants left the place by saying that they would dispossess him by any means and that the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, he filed the suit.

3. The pleadings of defendant No.1 in brief are that :

3.1The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments of plaint and contended that the vendor of the plaintif has no right and interest over the suit schedule property and he has no right to alienate the same to the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif will not get any right, title over the suit schedule land under the Regd. Sale deed, dt.11.08.2011. Further, Ganthi

Narayana Reddy has no right, title over the property and he has no right to bequeath the suit schedule property in favour of his grand son G. Swamy

Reddy. The alleged Will in favour of G. Swamy Reddy is fabricated document with forged signatures to grab the property and hence, the sale deed is a void document.

3.2He further contended that originally the suit schedule property belongs to G. Venkateswara Reddy who is the father of G. Swamy Reddy. The said Venkateswara Reddy got the land to his share in family oral partition which took place about 35 years back among himself, his father G. Narayana

Reddy and his brothers and since the date of partition, the said G.

3

Venkateswara Reddy had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and subsequently laid plots in the suit schedule property and sold to various persons during 1979 to 1982. While so, on 23.06.1982 one S. Halima Bee purchased Ac.0.04 ½ cents in Sy.Nos.827B/1, 827/B2 from G. Venkateswara

Reddy under Registered sale deed and delivered the property. The said

Halima Bee sold it to Shaik Maqbul Basha and Shabbir Basha under Regd.

Sale deed, dt.08.10.1991 and subsequently on 22.09.2003 the defendant

No.1 purchased it from them under Regd. Sale deed and property was delivered to him on the same day. The said G. Venkateswara Reddy sold the entire suit schedule land and the vendors have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further contended that after purchase of the plot, he laid foundations and pillars were laid in order to construct shops in the year 2010, but it could not be completed due to lack of funds. Similarly, some of the purchasers also laid foundations in their respective sites for constructing buildings and now as the value of site increased, in order to grab property G. Swamy Reddy, the son of Venkateswara Reddy had created unregistered Will with forged signatures and obtained pattadar pass book by managing the Revenue Authorities. Further, in collusion with plaintif, he executed a Registered Sale deed and that the suit schedule property was made as plots 33 years back which are in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers. It is further contended that neither the plaintif nor his vendor has right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and that the suit without impleading other purchasers of the suit schedule property is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement denying material facts and contended that he do not possess any property at the suit schedule property and that he has no knowledge about the plaintif and he is no where 4 concerned to the suit schedule property and that he is unnecessarily added in the suit. He further pleaded that there is no cause of action for the suit against him and prays to dismiss the suit against him.

Defendant No.2 remained absent and set exparte.

5. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property against the defendants No.1 to 3 as prayed for ?

2. Whether the registered sale deed, dt.22.09.2003 filed by defendant No.1 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff ?

3. To any other relief ?

6. To prove his case, the plaintif got himself examined as PW.1 and also examined Pws.2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. To prove defendants case, the 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 are marked on their behalf.

7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record both oral and documentary.

8. ISSUE No.1:

Under this issue, the burden of proof lies on the plaintif to prove his possession as on the date of filing of the suit so that, he will be entitled for grant of perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property against defendants 1 to 3. To prove his case, the plaintif got himself examined as

PW.1, the vendor of Ex.A1 is examined as PW.2, the attestor of Ex.A3 is examined as PW.3. It is the case of plaintif that he purchased the suit schedule property from his vendor PW.2 under Ex.A1 on 11.08.2011 for valid consideration. The vendor of plaintif i.e., PW.2 acquired the suit schedule 5 property from his paternal grandfather by name G. Narayana Reddy under

Ex.A3 which is Will, dt.02.01.2002, by saying so, the plaintif stated that since the time of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land. Later when he started developing the suit schedule lands, defendants 1 to 3 along with their henchmen tried to dispossess him on 27.02.2012. On perusal of Exs.A1 to A3, it is apparent that the suit schedule land was purchased by the plaintif from the vendor PW.2. Further, the plaintif also submitted Exs.A5, A6 which are original pattadar pass book and title deed of plaintif respectively at the time of filing of the suit.

9.PW.1 in his cross-examination affirmatively stated that he is the bonafide purchaser as he had purchased the suit schedule property after carefully examining Ex.A3 which is the link document through which the PW.2 obtained the suit schedule land. He further stated that basing on the pass book of PW.2, Ex.A3, the registration took place. PW.1 also stated in his cross-examination that PW.2 told him that after sale of suit schedule land, there is some extent of land remaining in eastern side of suit schedule land in the same survey number.

10.PW.2 got examined and he produced Ex.A8 which is certified copy of

Registered sale deed, dt.26.07.2007 executed by him in favour of K.V. Rami

Reddy. In his cross-examination, he stated that 30 years ago, a partition took place with respect to ancestral property among his father and his father's brothers. Thereafter, as PW.2 and his wife had taken good care over his paternal grandfather, the suit schedule land was given to him under Will which is marked as Ex.A3. He also stated that in the land covered under

Ex.A8, a factory was built and constructed.

6

11.So far, it is apparent and admitted fact that the vendor of plaintif i.e., PW.2 and G. Venkateswara Reddy who is vendor of Ex.B2 are father and son. PW.2 who is vendor of plaintif had produced before this Court Ex.A3 under which he obtained the suit schedule land. On the other hand, the pleadings of defendant No.1 is that originally G. Venkateswar Reddy obtained the suit schedule land through oral family partition. It is observed by this

Court that when there is a documentary evidence in the form of a Will, the oral partition among the said G. Venkateswara Reddy and his brothers do not stand good in the eyes of law. Further, in his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he had not seen the link documents, encumbrance certificate from his vendor while purchasing the suit schedule land under Ex.B1. He also admitted that plaintif has been in lawful possession over the suit schedule land. He also admitted the execution of Exs.A1, A2, A3. He also specifically admitted that since 11.08.2011 which is the date of purchase of suit schedule property by plaintif under Ex.A1, the plaintif had beenin possession and enjoyment of the same. He also admitted that on 27.02.2012 he and other defendants had interfered the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif.

12.Thereby, firstly, the plaintif has produced documentary evidence in all aspects in order to substantiate his case. But defendants in order to show that their title is not defective over the suit schedule land and that Exs.B1 is valid had not submitted the entire connected documents. Adding to that, the defendants also admitted that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of suit and thereafter too. He also stated that remaining part of suit schedule land site was vacant and it is in possession of plaintif. Thereby, though the defendants had denied the execution of Ex.A3, they themselves have admitted the due execution of Ex.A3.

7

13.PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that after purchasing the suit schedule land, his vendor informed him that in the same survey number certain extent of land was remaining. His evidence is not clear about the exact extent of land that was left remaining after purchasing the suit schedule land under Ex.A1. On the other hand, DW.1 without taking a pleading in his written statement had admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintif constructed compound wall in suit schedule land to an extent of

Ac.0.20 cents. DW.1 also stated that the remaining part of suit schedule site was in possession of plaintif. But there is no pleading in this behalf and thereby, the mere admission by DW.1 in his cross-examination will not discredit the case of plaintif. In view of aforementioned discussion, this

Court is inclined to grant perpetual injunction to the plaintif. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintif.

14. ISSUE NO.2:

Under this issue, the burden of proof lies on defendant No.1 that

Exs.B1 is valid and binding upon plaintif. But as discussed earlier, the defendant No.1 himself admitted that he had not gone into the link documents before execution of Ex.B1. Hence, DW.1 is not a bonafide purchaser and the Law does not protect a non-bonafide purchaser. Hence,

Ex.B1 is not true, valid and binding over plaintif. Accordingly, this issue is not answered in favour of defendant.

15. ISSUE NO.3:

In view of findings of this Court under issue Nos.1 & 2, this issue is answered accordingly.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with 8 the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction, pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20 th day of February, 2020.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif: For Defendants :

Pw1. Wudar Venkateswara Reddy DW.1: S. Mahaboob Basha

Pw2: Ganthi Swamy Reddy

Pw3: L.V. Ramana Reddy

PW.2: P. Sanjanna

Exhibits Marked For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original Regd. Sale deed bearing Doc.No.2823/2011 executed by G. Swamy Reddy in favour of plaintif, dt.11.08.2011.

Ex.A2: Original Rectification Deed bearing Doc.No.3404/2011 concerned to sale deed bearing Doc.No.2832/2011, dt.17.09.2011.

Ex.A3: Original Will executed by grandfather of the vendor of plaintif in favour of vendor, dt.02.01.2002.

Ex.A4: Original Title deed of vendor of plaintif.

Ex.A5: Original Pattadar pass book of plaintif.

Ex.A6: Original title deed of plaintif.

Ex.A7: Attested true copy of Adangal pahani relating to fasli 1421 with relate to plaint schedule land.

For Defendant:- -Nil-

Ex.B1: Regd. Sale deed, dt.22.09.2013 executed by S. Maqbul Basha and Shabbir Basha in favour of defendant No.1.

Ex.B2: Regd. Sale deed, dt.08.10.1991 executed by S. Maqbul Basha and Shabbir Basha in favour of defendant No.1.

9

Ex.B3: Regd. Sale deed, dt.26.03.1982 executed by G. Venkateswara Reddy in favour of defendant No.1.

Id/- S.G. J.C.J.NDK 10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Ms. Sindhu Gurram Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the 20th day of February, 2020.

Original Suit No.23/2012

Wudar Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Swamy Reddy, aged about 42 yrs., Agriculturist, D.No.1-129, Gadevemula (V&M), Kurnool District. ... Plaintif

Vs.

1. S. Mahaboob Basha, S/o.Sattar Miah, Muslim, aged about 50 yrs., Business, R/o.H.No.15-9153/3, Hazi Nagar, Nandikotkur (T&M), Kurnool District.

2. M. Chandra Sekhara Reddy, S/o.Late M. Samba Siva Reddy, Hindu, aged 45 yrs., Agriculturist, R/o. Gummaluru (V), Pamulapadu (M), Kurnool Dt.

3. G. Gangadharappa, S/o.Kalappa, Hindu, aged57 yrs., Business, Vasavi Fancy Store, K.G. Road, Nandikotkur (T). Kurnool District.

.... Defendants

The present suit is filed by the plaintif under order 7 Rule 1 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit schedule property and for costs.

Plaint presented on 01.03.2012; and filed on 01.03.2012. J.V. of Rs.10,000/- and C.F. of Rs.786/- is paid U/sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.02.2012 at Nandikotkur village & Mandal when the defendants and their men tried to trespass into the plaint schedule land and on subsequent dates which are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming on 11-02-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Allagadda Chandra Sekhara Rao and Sri S. Venkata Reddy, 11 counsel for Plaintif and of Sri T. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for defendant

No.1 and Sri T. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for defendant No.3, defendant

No.2 remained absent and set exparte, after hearing both the counsel and perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and DECREE as follows:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed.

2. That the defendants and their men are hereby restrained by perpetual injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.

3. that the defendants do pay to the plaintif the sum of Rs. 4,188/- and also bear their own costs of Rs.2/- (not certified) being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 20 th day of February, 2020.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

Memo of costs

For Plaintif:For defendant

1. Stamp on plaint Rs. 786-00

2. Stamp on VakalathRs. 2-00 Rs. 2-00

3. Stamp on processRs. 300-00 -Nil-

4. Advocate fee Rs. 3,000-00 not certified

5. Typing charges Rs. 100-00

---------------------- ------------------

TOTAL Rs. 4,188-00 Rs. 2-00

---------------------- ------------------

Id/- S.G.

JCJ, NDK.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. Sindhu Gurram, Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Monday, the 22nd day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No.92/2012

1. Kummari Laxmamma, W/o.Kummari Parameswaraiah, Hindu, 50 yrs., House-wife, R/o.Kota Veedhi, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District. ...... Plaintif

Vs.

1. R. Jacob @ Yakob died by his Lrs. S/o.Chennaiah, Pastor, Christian, 80 yrs., H.No.24-58 C/A, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District.

2. Seshamma (died) W/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 70 yrs.,

3. R. Prem Kumar, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 58 yrs.,

4. R. Devid Raju, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 45 yrs.,

5. R. Vara Surya Prakasha Rao, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 48 yrs.,

6. Mery Sampath Kumari, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 50 yrs.,

7. Mery, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 49 yrs.,

8. Sarada, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 46 yrs.,

9. Premitha, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 44 yrs., (All are Christians, R/o.H.No.24/58-CA, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur (V&M), Kurnool District).

(D2 to D9 are added as per orders in I.A.No.377/2016, dt.04.05.2018)

.... Defendants

2

This suit is coming on 19.06.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Nagasekhara Reddy, counsel for the Plaintif and defendants 1, 2 & 5 died, defendants 3, 4, 6 to 9 remained absent and set exparte, after hearing the counsel for plaintif and perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by plaintif seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his men, agents or anybody on his behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site of the plaintif and for costs.

2. The brief averments of plaint is that the plaintif is the absolute owner and enjoyer of the suit schedule site ABCD which she has purchased from

Katepogu Devaiah and his sons in the year 1994 under a registered sale deed, dt.25.01.1994 and since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any body's interruption. While so, on 30.06.2012 the defendant No.1 tried to trespass into the suit schedule site along with his men without having any right. But the plaintif averted the illegal act of defendant No.1 with the help of neighbours. The defendants are powerful persons having support of political leaders and rowdy elements in the town and on the other hand, the plaintif is a poor lady and unable to prevent the illegal act of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 while leaving the suit schedule site threatened the plaintif that he will not leave the matter at any cost. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying all the averments of plaint and stated that he purchased a site to an extent of Ac.0.12 ¼ cents in

Sy.No.170A/2 from one K. Yohan and Danamaiah nearby the suit site to construct church who are also the owners of the suit site. He purchased 3

Ac.0.06 ¼ from Danamaiah under Registered sale deed, dt.31.01.2007 for constructing a house for Pastor of the church to be appointed. He further contended that that the plaint plan and boundaries are wrong and that the suit for bare injunction without seeking relief of declaration of title and possession is not maintainable and the suit is barred by limitation and prays the court to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed ?

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title and possession ?

3. To what relief ?

5.Later, defendant No.1 died leaving behind him defendants No.2 to 9 as his legal heirs. Later D2, D5 also died, defendants D3, D4, D6 to D9 remained absent and set exparte. The learned counsel for plaintif had not taken steps to add legal representatives of D2, D5 by submitting that their legal representatives are already on record.

6. To prove her case, the plaintif got examined herself as PW.1 and one

Kummari Krishnaiah was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked.

The defendant No.1 had filed chief affidavit which was eschewed on 13.11.2018 on account of his death. No other oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendants.

7. The learned counsel for plaintif argued in brief that the plaintif had purchased suit schedule site from one Katepogu Devaiah under Registered

Sale deed dated dt,.25.01.1994 and since then, the plaintif had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The plaintif 4 got examined herself as PW.1. As the attestors of Ex.A1 died, PW.2 who is son of one of the attestors got examined on behalf of plaintif. The learned counsel for plaintif further contended that P.W.1, P.W.2 remained affirmative during the course of cross examinations and no material facts were elicited by defendants. Subsequently, during the pendency of suit, the defendant

No.1 died and his chief affidavit was eschewed. Through I.A.No.367/2018, the legal representatives of defendant were brought on record i.e., defendant 2 to defendant 9. But the defendant No.2, 5 also died and the remaining defendants did not appear before this Court inspite of receiving notice. As such, the remaining defendants remained exparte. Thereby, the defendants miserably failed to produce any kind of oral or documentary evidence before this Court to prove their contention. To conclude the learned counsel for plaintif had argued that Exs.A1 to A3 and the oral evidence of Pws.1, 2 categorically establishes his case and as such, the plaintif is entitled for peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule site.

8. ISSUE No.1 :

In order to answer this issue, it has to be primarily ascertained whether the plaintif has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule site as on the date of filing of the suit. It is pertinent to note that the suit schedule site is a vacant site and in these cases, the possession is dejure possession where the possession follows title. To show her title, PW.1 produced before this Court Ex.A1 which is registered sale deed, dt,.25.01.1994 executed in favour of plaintif by one Danamaiah and Devaiah under which she had purchased suit schedule site. Further, Ex.A2 which is encumbrance certificate shows that the suit schedule property stands in the name of plaintif / PW.1.

5

9.In the cross-examination of PW.1, she has firmly stated that the suit schedule house site was sold to her by one Danamaiah and Devaiah after due measurements. PW.1 stated that she knows the defendant to be a church father and she is illiterate, she cannot say the survey number or total extent of the land. PW.1 stated that on eastern side of suit schedule house site, the house site of Basheer is situated and he has constructed a house in it. PW.1 denied the suggestions that the suit schedule property was sold to the said Basheer prior to selling it to her. Further, she also denied the suggestions that the said Danamaiah and Devaiah had sold the suit schedule property to Ramijabi and Katizabee which was subsequently sold to defendants. She also denied suggestions that the suit schedule site is in possession and enjoyment of defendant till date and was purchased by defendant to construct a church and perform prayers. She also denied suggestions that the present suit is not maintainable as she did not seek relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property. To conclude, in cross-examination of PW.1, no material facts were elicited by the defendant counsel as P.W.1 deposed affirmatively to her case. Now, PW.2 who is son of one of the attestor’s of Ex.A1 deposed in similar lines to P.W.1 and had corroborated the case of plaintif / PW.1 as rightly argued by learned counsel for plaintif.

10. On the contrary, the defendants had taken pleading that in

Sy.no.170/A2 they are in possession of 0.12 ¼ cents of land and that the plaintif do not have any site as stated in plaint and plaint plan,Ex.A3. But the defendants failed to produce any kind of oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their case. Defendants No.2, 5 has died and remaining defendants i.e., D3, D4, D6 to D9 were set exparte. Hence, the plaintif has succeeded in establishing that as on date of filing of suit she has been in 6 possession and enjoyment of suit schedule site. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered affirmatively in favour of plaintif.

11. Issue No.2 :

The defendant has taken pleading that the present suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking title over the suit schedule property. But mere pleading is not sufficient to state that the present suit is not maintainable for the abovementioned discussion. In these circumstances, this issue is answered in favour of plaintif.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or anybody on their behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule ABCD site.

Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me

through Video Conference, on this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintif: For Defendants:

Pw1: Venkata LaxmammaDW.1: Eschewed

Pw.2: Kummari Krishnaiah

Exhibits Marked For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Registered sale deed, dt.25.01.1994 executed by one Katepogu Devaiah and his son in favour of plaintif.

Ex.A2 certificate of encumbrance on property.

Ex.A3: Plaint plan.

For Defendants: -Nil-

Id/- S.G. J.C.J.NDK 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. Sindhu Gurram, Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Monday, the 22nd day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No.92/2012

1. Kummari Laxmamma, W/o.Kummari Parameswaraiah, Hindu, 50 yrs., House-wife, R/o.Kota Veedhi, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District. ...... Plaintif

Vs.

1. R. Jacob @ Yakob died by his Lrs. S/o.Chennaiah, Pastor, Christian, 80 yrs., H.No.24-58 C/A, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District.

2. Seshamma (died) W/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 70 yrs.,

3. R. Prem Kumar, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 58 yrs.,

4. R. Devid Raju, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 45 yrs.,

5. R. Vara Surya Prakasha Rao, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 48 yrs.,

6. Mery Sampath Kumari, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 50 yrs.,

7. Mery, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 49 yrs.,

8. Sarada, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 46 yrs.,

9. Premitha, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 44 yrs., (All are Christians, R/o.H.No.24/58-CA, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur (V&M), Kurnool District).

(D2 to D9 are added as per orders in I.A.No.377/2016, dt.04.05.2018)

.... Defendants

8

This suit is filed by plaintif seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents or anybody on his behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site of the plaintif and for costs.

Plaint presented on 04.07.2012; and filed on 04.07.2012. J.V. of Rs.10,500/- and C.F. of Rs.816/- is paid U/sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 30-06-2012 at Nandikotkur Town &

Mandal when the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming on 19.06.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Nagasekhara Reddy, counsel for the Plaintif and defendants 1, 2 & 5 died, defendants 3, 4, 6 to 9 remained absent and set exparte, after hearing the counsel for plaintif and perusing the material available on record, this court doth order and DECREE as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed.

2. That the defendants, their men, agents or anybody on their behalf are hereby restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule ABCD site.

3. that the defendants do pay to the plaintif the sum of Rs. 2,608/- being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram,

Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Memo of costs

For Plaintif:For defendant

1. Stamp on plaint Rs. 816-00

2. Stamp on VakalathRs. 2-00 -Nil-

3. Stamp on processRs. 270-00 exparte

4. Advocate fee Rs. 1,500-00

5. Typing charges Rs. 50-00

---------------------- -----------------

TOTAL Rs. 2,608-00 Nil

---------------------- -----------------

9

SCHEDULE

Property situated at Nandikotkur town and Sub Registration District,

Kurnool Registration district.

Sy.No.170A/2,Extent : 0.02 ½

East : Site of Basheer and others West : Remaining site of vendors of the plaintif North: Site of Hasan and others South: Rastha

Id/- S.G. JCJ,NDK.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. Sindhu Gurram Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Monday, the 22nd day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No.93/2012

1. Kummari Hanumanthu S/o.Kummari Thimanna, Hindu, age 45 yrs., Coolie,

2. Kummari Parameswaraiah, S/o.Balaiah, Hindu, 55 yrs., Coolie,

Both are R/o. Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District.

...... Plaintiffs

Vs.

1. R. Jacob @ Yakob died by his Lrs. S/o.Chennaiah, Pastor, Christian, 80 yrs., H.No.24-58 C/A, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District.

2. Seshamma (died) W/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 70 yrs.,

3. R. Prem Kumar, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 58 yrs.,

4. R. Devid Raju, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 45 yrs.,

5. R. Vara Surya Prakasha Rao, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 48 yrs.,

6. Mery Sampath Kumari, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 50 yrs.,

7. Mery, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 49 yrs.,

8. Sarada, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 46 yrs.,

9. Premitha, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 44 yrs., (All are Christians, R/o.H.No.24/58-CA, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur (V&M), Kurnool District).

2 (D2 to D9 are added as per orders in I.A.No.404/2016, dt.04.05.2018.)

.... Defendants

This suit is coming on 19.06.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Nagasekhara Reddy, counsel for the Plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 & 5 died, defendants 3, 4, 6 to 9 remained absent and set exparte, after hearing the counsel for plaintiff and perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents or anybody on their behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

ABCD and CDEF sites of the plaintiffs and for costs.

2.The contention of plaintiffs is that they are absolute owners and enjoyers of the suit schedule sites ABCD, CDEF. Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 purchased the suit schedule sites ABCD & CDEF to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents & Ac.0.02 cents respectively from one Katepogu Yohanu and Devaiah in 1980 under a

Registered Sale deed, dt.18.08.1980 and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same without anybody's interruption. While so, the defendant No.1 who is having site on southern side of CDEF site, on 02.07.2012 tried to occupy the suit schedule ABCD and CDEF sites along with his men without having any right. But the plaintiffs averted the illegal act of defendant No.1 with the help of neighbours. The defendant No.1 is a powerful person having support of political leaders and rowdy elements in the town and on the other hand, the plaintiffs are poor persons and unable to prevent the illegal act of defendant No.1. Hence, the suit.

3.The brief averments of written statement is that the defendant No.1 is believer of Christianity and retired as Pastor. The suit schedule site and 3 other land nearby suit sites originally belonged to one K. Yohan and Devaiah i.e., Vendors of plaintiff who had sold an extent of Ac.0.12 ¼ cents to one

Smt. Ramizabee, W/o.Shaik Basha Miah and Smt. Kathizabee, W/o.Shaik Johni

Miah under Registered sale deed on 11.02.1977 for valid consideration and delivered possession to them. Subsequently, this defendant No.1 had entered into Agreement of Sale, dt.10.01.2000 with Smt. Ramizabee and

Kathizabee in order to construct a Church by name “Bethelu Prarthana

Mandiram”. The entire sale consideration was also paid to Ramizabee and

Kathizabee and the possession was also delivered. The defendants subsequently had raised a hut in the said Ac.0.12 ¼ cents of site and conducted prayers and later construction was undertaken with the help of devotees, friends and relatives and the Church is raised at roof level and compound wall completed. It was further contended that the plaintiffs are not aware of the fact that an extent of Ac.0.12 ¼ cents of land was delivered to the vendors of this defendant on 11.02.1977 and delivered possession to them. It was further contended that the plaintiffs have no site as stated in plaint and the plaint plan in Sy.No.170A/2 and they do not have right over suit schedule site to file the present suit for permanent injunction. It was also contended that plaintiffs have approached bofore this Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. It is also the contention that the present suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration of title and possession. Also, the present suit is barred by limitation and the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against true owners. As such, the defendant contended to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

4

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable without seeking declaration of title ?

3. To what relief ?

5.Later, defendant No.1 died leaving behind him defendants No.2 to 9 as his legal heirs. Later D2, D5 also died, defendants D3, D4, D6 to D9 remained absent and set exparte. The learned counsel for plaintiff had not taken steps to add legal representatives of D2, D5 by submitting that their legal representatives are already on record.

6. To prove their case, the plaintiff No.2 got examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4.

7. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff who argued that defendants remained exparte and no evidence is adduced to disprove their case. He further argued that Exs.A1 to A4 categorically establishes their case.

Perused the material available on record both in oral and documentary.

8. ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:

Plaintiff No.2 had filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief by reiterating the averments of plaint in his chief examination affidavit. To prove their case, the plaintiff No.1 & 2 filed Exs.A1 to A4 which are Ex.A1 registered sale deed, dt.18.08.1980 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and his wife,

Ex.A2 is registered sale deed, dt.18.08.1980 in favour of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A3 certificate of encumbrance on property and Ex.A4 is plaint plan. Though defendant No.1 denied the averments of plaint by filing his written statement, he later died leaving behind the defendants 2 to 9 as his legal representatives. Further, defendants No.2 & 5 also died and other defendants remained absent and set exparte. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 was not contradicted by defendants. On perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiffs i.e., Exs.A1 to A4, it categorically shows that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The unchallenged 5 testimony of PW.1 / plaintiff coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 proves the claim of the plaintiff. In view of the above facts and circumstances, material on record, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

9. ISSUE No.3 : In view of findings of this Court on issues No.1 & 2, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or anybody on their behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule ABCD & CDEF sites.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me through Video Conference, on this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Pw1: K. Parameswaraiah - None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Registered sale deed, dt.18.08.1980 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and his wife.

Ex.A2 registered sale deed, dt.18.08.1980 in favour of plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A3 certificate of encumbrance on property and Ex.A4 is plaint plan.

For Defendants: -Nil-

Id/- S.G. J.C.J.NDK 6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. Sindhu Gurram Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Monday, the 22nd day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No.93/2012

1. Kummari Hanumanthu S/o.Kummari Thimanna, Hindu, age 45 yrs., Coolie,

2. Kummari Parameswaraiah, S/o.Balaiah, Hindu, 55 yrs., Coolie,

Both are R/o. Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District.

...... Plaintiffs

Vs.

1. R. Jacob @ Yakob died by his Lrs. S/o.Chennaiah, Pastor, Christian, 80 yrs., H.No.24-58 C/A, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool District.

2. Seshamma (died) W/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 70 yrs.,

3. R. Prem Kumar, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 58 yrs.,

4. R. Devid Raju, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 45 yrs.,

5. R. Vara Surya Prakasha Rao, S/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 48 yrs.,

6. Mery Sampath Kumari, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 50 yrs.,

7. Mery, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 49 yrs.,

8. Sarada, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 46 yrs.,

9. Premitha, D/o.Late R. Jacob @ Yakob, 44 yrs., (All are Christians, R/o.H.No.24/58-CA, ABM Palem, Nandikotkur (V&M), Kurnool District).

(D2 to D9 are added as per orders in I.A.No.404/2016, dt.04.05.2018.)

.... Defendants

7

This suit is filed by plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents or anybody on his behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ABCD & CDEF site of plaintiffs and for costs.

Plaint presented on 09.07.2012; and filed on 09.07.2012. J.V. of Rs.10,000/- and C.F. of Rs.786/- is paid U/sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 02-07-2012 at Nandikotkur Town &

Mandal when the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule ABCD & CDEF sites which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming on 19.06.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Nagasekhara Reddy, counsel for the Plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 & 5 died, defendants 3, 4, 6 to 9 remained absent and set exparte, after hearing the counsel for plaintiff and perusing the material available on record, this court doth order and DECREE as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed.

2. That the defendants, their men, agents or anybody on their behalf are hereby restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule ABCD &

CDEF sites.

3. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 2,608/- being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram

Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

8

Memo of costs

For Plaintiff:For defendants

1. Stamp on plaint Rs. 786-00

2. Stamp on VakalathRs. 2-00 -Nil-

3. Stamp on processRs. 270-00 exparte

4. Advocate fee Rs. 1,500-00

5. Typing charges Rs. 50-00

---------------------- -----------------

TOTAL Rs. 2,608-00 Nil

---------------------- -----------------

SCHEDULE

Suit schedule sites situated at Nandikotkur town and Sub Registration

District, Kurnool Registration district.

ABCD Site : Sy.No.170A/2,Extent : 0.04

East : Pagidyala Road West : site of plaintiff No.2 (CDEF site) North: Remaining site of vendors of plaintiff South: Rastha

CDEF Site : Sy.No.170A/2,Extent : 0.02

East : Site of plaintiff No.1 (ABCD site) West : Site of defendant North: Remaining site of vendors of plaintiff South: Rastha

Id/- S.G. JCJ,NDK.