IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHEVELLA, RANGAREDDY
DISTRICT
Present: Sri Singuru Mohan Rao, Junior Civil Judge, Chevella
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2017
O.S.No. 118/2016
Between:
1. Vemula Venkatesh S/o Late Gandaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No. 4-5, Kismathpur, Rajender nagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.
2. Eragadinila Krishna S/o Late Jangaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No. 15, Kokapet village, Rajender nagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.
… Plaintiffs
And
Podugu Srinu S/o P.Buchaiah, Aged:34 yrs,Occ: Business R/o Gopularam village, Shankerpally Mandal, R.R.District. … Defendant
This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.Pandu, Advocate for the Plaintiff sand defendants set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit for grant of perpetual injunction from restraining the defendant, his agents, sub ordinates and henchmen etc from interfering and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit lands bearing sy.no.192/A admeasuring Ac.2-30gts, Sy.No.192/AA admeasuring Ac/1-38gts,
Sy.No.192/E admeasuring Ac.0-15gts and Sy.No.192/EE admeasuring Ac.
0-15gts, total admeasuring Ac.5-18gts situated at Donthanpally Village,
Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within the described boundaries towards east land of Chandranaik, towards west Government 2 land, towards south land of Nageshwer Rao and towards north land of
Jaipal .
2. The brief averments of the plaint are; that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of the suit lands and the plaintiffs purchased the suit property originally from the lawful owners from Badri
Beemaiah under Ex.A1 register sale deed vide document no.
4512/2008 dt.10-12-2008 within one compact, since then the plaintiffs has been in enjoyment of the suit property and after purchasing the suit land the plaintiffs have applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records and the Tahasildar of Shankerpally
Mandal denied to mutate the names of the plaintiffs and issued a memo in file no. B/2674/2008. Against the memo the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella
Division in file no. C/967/2010 and after issuance of notices to interested parties and after thorough enquiry the claim of the plaintiffs allowed and set aside the mutation passed in favour of Smt.
Khateeza Begum by M.R.O.Shankerpally in proceeding no. 3450/2005
dt. 7-4-2006 in pursuance of registered sale deed bearing no.
4978/1988 dated 22-6-1988. No appeal preferred against the orders of RDO, Chevella and the said order still holds good.
3. While things stood thus the defendant without any manner of right in and over the suit property on 13-10-2016 the defendant came to suit land and along with his men and caused to interference in to the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from suit property. However the plaintiffs resisted the high 3 handed acts of the defendants, having no other option the plaintiff approached this court.
4. The defendants remained exparte. In order to prove the claim of plaintiffs, plaintiff no. 1 is examined as PW1 and one independent witness examined as PW2 on their behalf.
5. Heard counsel for the plaintiff.
6.Now the point for consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit within the described boundaries? If so, as to what relief.
7. The learned counsel for plaintiffs would argued that the plaintiffs purchased the suit property, since then they are enjoying the same and when they applied for mutation in revenue records, the MRO,
Shankerpally denied to mutate the names of plaintiffs and issued a notice to interested parties on the ground that he had issued mutation proceedings against one Smt. Kateezabegum. Against the orders of MRO plaintiffs preferred appeal and after thorough enquiry the RDO, Chevella set aside the order of MRO,Shankerpally and thereafter mutated the names of plaintiffs in the pahanies under Ex.A2 and A3 and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He would argued that defendant without any manner of right he tried to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. However plaintiffs resisted the acts of defendant and their men with the help of neighboring land owners. He would argued that the suit is one for perpetual injunction, possession only significance. To prove the possession of plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 examined as PW1 and one of the witness 4 examined as PW2 to prove and to establish the possession over the suit property. The unimpeachable evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 documentary evidence and after scrutiny of documents it goes to show that he along with plaintiff no.2 had purchased the land in one compact to an extent of Ac.5-18gts.
Admittedly the names of plaintiffs shown in the patta coloumn and also shown in the relevant coloumns of possession. Since the suit is for perpetual injunction it is necessary to looked into possession.
Hear the case on having plaintiffs established prima-facie possession over the suit property by producing the oral and documentary evidence. Also established the title to the property though Ex.A1. In the light of discussion point is answered in favour of plaintiffs against the defendant.
8. In the result, the suit is decreed as to order no costs; granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, sub ordinates and henchmen, etc from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of July, 2017.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHEVELLA,R.R.DIST.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Plaintiffs:-
Defendant:-
PW1: Vemula Venkatesh-Nil- PW2: P.Ramchander Naik 5
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A1: CC of registered sale deed bearing no.4512/2008 dt.10-12-2008 Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the fasli 1425 (2015) (numbered in 5) Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the fasli 1425 (2016) (numbered in 5) Ex.A4: Copy of the appeal filed before RDO,Chevella.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS
-Nil-
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHEVELLA,R.R.DIST.