1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KAVALI
Present:- Smt. S.Sailaja,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, kavali.
Friday, the Twelfth (12th) day of March, 2021.
O.S.N0.20 of 2015
Annavaram Mohan Rao S/o.Balaiah, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Krakuturu Village and Post, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... Plaintif
VERSUS
1. Annavaram Mahalakshamma W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, Aged about 53 years,
2. Annavaram Madhava Rao S/o.Late Malakondaiah, Hindu, Aged about 55 years,
3. Annavaram Audaiah S/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, Aged about 27 years,
4. Annavaram Yekambara Rao S/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, Aged about 22 years,
All residents of Krakuturu Village and Post, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendants
This suit is coming before me on 08.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.Venugopal Reddy - Advocate for Plaintif, and of Sri B.Ravindra Babu - Advocate for Defendant No.1, Sri S.V.Rajendra Vara Prasad – Advocate for Defendant No.2, and of Sri A. Jagan Mohan Rao – Advocate for Defendants No.3 & 4, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
01. This suit is filed by the Plaintif against the Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, assignees, successors or any other persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever; and for costs of the suit.
2
02. The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:
A. The Plaintif submitted that originally the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of 2nd Defendant, who acquired the same by inheritance and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later the 2nd Defendant sold the plaint schedule property to him for a sum of Rs.18,500/- by way of executing Registered sale deed dt.10-08-2015, which is duly executed and validly attested at Sub-Registrar Office, Vinjamur vide document No.1020/2005 and delivered the possession. The 2nd Defendant also handed over the xerox copies of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in respect of the plaint schedule property to him on the date of execution of Registered Sale Deed. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising Tobacco crop. Thereafter his possession and enjoyment also booked in the revenue records. He obtained 1-B Form (ROR) dated 02-02-2015 from Mee Seva in respect of the plaint schedule property, which was certified by the Tahsildar,
Kalgirii, which clearly shows that the patta stands in his name. He also obtained copy of No.3 A/c from Mee Seva on 02-02-2015 in respect of plaint schedule property for fasali 1424, which was certified by Tahsildar, Kaligiri, which discloses that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
B. He further submitted that after sold the plaint schedule property, the prices of the lands were increased, the Defendants expressed their grievance that they got loss due to the sale and demanded him to pay excess and exorbitant amount, for which he refused the same. Due to which the
Defendants bore grudge against him and they are giving out in the village that they will encroached the land by hook and crook by creating documents with the assistance of revenue authorities and 1st Defendant also issued notices to him and Tahsildar of Kaligiri and VRO of Krakutur with all false allegations by colluding 2nd Defendant. He sent suitable reply. But recently, the Defendants with a malafide intention and also to grab the plaint schedule property tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and also tried to obstruct the cultivation in the tobacco plants without having any right and title over the same but he resisted them with the help of villagers. The Defendants are 3 powerful persons in the village and they have got large following and having unruly elements, he being a law abiding citizen, is not in a possession to resist the high handed acts of the Defendants , having no other go, he is constrained to file this suit. Hence, the suit.
03. Brief averments of the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 are as follows:-
The Defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral joint property of 2nd Defendant, the 2nd Defendant acquired right and title over the plaint schedule property by inheritance and he was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as a rightful owner. The 1st
Defendant issued notice to the Plaintif, Tahsildar of Kaligiri and V.R.O. of
Krakutur. Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the 1st Defendant and she is absolute owner of the property and she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and she also obtained pattadar pass book on 18.12.2004, Patta No.1207 from Tahsildar, Kaligiri and later her name was also mutated in the revenue records and also the Government of A.P., announced debt relief of crop loan in her name over the plaint schedule property. Later the Plaintif made attempts to cause obstruction to her and also she came to know that the Plaintif create and fabricated the documents producing before Kaligiri Mandal Tahsildar and influenced the revenue people, mutated his name in the place of her name in adangal/pahani. She maintained the total family and she is cultivated the plaint schedule property. She filed the fasali 1424 dt.13-12-2014 to prove her case. The Plaintif suppressed all the original facts and filed this unjust suit by producing false documents and hence there is no cause of action in favour of the Plaintif and prays the court to dismiss the suit with costs.
04. Brief averments of the written statement filed by the Defendant No.2 are as follows:-
The 2nd Defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted the facts are one and the same as alleged by the 1st Defendant in her written statement.
4
05. Brief averments of the written statements filed by the Defendants No.3 & 4 are as follows:-
The 3rd Defendant filed his written statement, which is adopted by the 4th
Defendant, denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted the facts are one and the same as alleged by the 1st Defendant in her written statement.
06.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial
1. Whether the Plaintiff has been in possession and
enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the
date of institution of the suit?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?
3. To What relief?
07. On behalf of Plaintif, PWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of Defendant No.1, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. On behalf of Defendants No.3 & 4, DW2 was examined. The
Defendant No.2 did not let in evidence on his behalf and no documents were marked.
08. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintif as well as the Defendants. I have also carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence on record relied upon by both parties.
09. Issues No.1 and 2:
1. Whether the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?
For the sake of convenient discussion, and as the Issues No.1 and 2 are interdependent with each other, they are taken up together. A. The Plaintif examined himself as PW-1 and deposed in Chief, in accordance with his contentions. In his Cross-examination by the Counsel for
Defendant No.3 & 4, he deposed thatthe 2nd Defendant executed the sale deed in his name in the year 2005 and the survey number of the plaint schedule property is 228/2. He further deposed that he does not know whether the 5
Tahsildar issued pattadar pass book in the name of 1st Defendant on 18.12.2004 to an extent of 1.82 cents in Sy.No.228/2. He admitted that he has not filed the pattadar pass book issued in his name but again he says that he deposited the pass book with the bank. Further he admitted that in the adangal for fasalie 1424, the name of 1st Defendant mentioned as pattadar and the names of 1st Defendant and Annavaram Ravanamma was shown as enjoydars.
He also admitted that he has not obtained the signatures of sons of his vendor as they were minors at the time of his purchase.He denied suggestion that in the adangal for fasalie 1424, his name was entered with pen. Further he denied the suggestion that the 1st Defendant availed crop loan over an extent of
Ac.1.82 cents and the name of 1st Defendant entered in the revenue records as on the year 2004 and he obtained a nominal sale deed from 2nd Defendant by plying fraud. He also denied the suggestion that he managed the revenue officials and got mutated his name in the revenue records and he never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He also denied the suggestion that the 1st Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Further he denied rest of the suggestions.
B. To support his Case, the Plaintif had examined one Deverieddy
Venkateswara Reddy, who is the 3rd party of the case proceedings as PW.2. He had deposed in Chief, supporting the evidence of PW.1, regarding the purchase of plaint schedule property by PW.1 from 2nd Defendant by way of Registered
Sale Deed dt.10-08-2005 for consideration of Rs.18,500/- vide Ex.A1 and since then PW.1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by obtaining all revenue records of the same and later the defendants demanded excess amount due to hike of land rates. In his Cross Examination, PW.2 had deposed that he came to the Court at the request of the Plaintif and that he know the plaint schedule property but he has no land near the plaint schedule property. He further admitted that his brother by name Harischandra Reddy, who is follower of YSR party, who defeated in the elections by one Malineni
Lakshmamma. He also admitted that 1st Defendant was also follower of YSR
Party and she elected as ward member but subsequently she joined in TDP 6 party. PW.2 denied the suggestion that due to the political reasons , they have disputes with 1st Defendant and deposing false evidence against 1st Defendant and denied the rest of suggestions posed by the counsel for defendants.
C. To support his Case, the Plaintif had examined one Deverieddy Rami
Reddy, who is the 3rd party of the case proceedings as PW.3. He had deposed in
Chief, supporting the evidence of PW.1, regarding the purchase of plaint schedule property by PW.1 from 2nd Defendant by way of registered sale deed dt.10-08-2005 for consideration of Rs.18,500/- vide Ex.A1 and since then Pw.1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by obtaining all revenue records of the same and later the defendants demanded excess amount due to hike of land rates. In his Cross Examination, PW.3 had deposed that he came to the Court at the request of plaintif. Further he deposed that he does not know the survey number of his land. He further deposed that the 1st Defendant elected as member of 3rd ward in their village, who elected on behalf of congress party and he supported her. He further deposed that later the 1st Defendant joined in TDP party. He denied the suggestion that due to the political reasons, he deposing false evidence against the defendants as the 1st
Defendant changed the party.
D. The 1st Defendant examined herself as DW-1 and deposed in Chief, in accordance with her contentions. In her Cross-examination by the Counsel for
Plaintif, she deposed that the Plaintif filed the suit for an extent of Ac.0-90 cents in Survey No.228. She admitted that he does not know the total extent of
Survey No.228 but the said survey number divided as Six sub divisions and that she has also does not know the sub division number of the plaint schedule property. Further she admitted that she is having Ac0-90 cents of land in Survey
No.228. She also admitted that her father-in-law has not executed any document in her favour. She further admitted that the plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the Plaintif since four years, who raising
Tobacco in the same. And that her father-in-law handed over the pass boos stands in his name to her but she does not know how much extent of land given to her by her father-in-law. She also filed pattadar pass book stands in 7 the name of her father-in-law ie., Malakondaiah. She further admitted that her father-in-law has four sons and two daughters, her husband is 3rd son of her father-in-law. She also admitted that she does not know whether her father-in- law and her sons partitioned the property and also she does not know how much extent of land acquired by her as per pattadar pass book, stand in the name of her father-in-law.
She further deposed that she is having pattadar pass book to an extent of
Ac.0-90 cents, which obtained in the year 2004. But again she says that she does not know for how much extent passbook was issued in her name. She further admitted that she was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property prior to four years back but she does not know for which fasalie she filed the adangals. She also admitted that Plaintif is her relative and herself and other Defendants are living jointly. She does not know the other
Defendants are contesting the suit or not. She does not know whether her husband sold the plaint schedule property to the Plaintif under Ex.A1. She also not verified the sale deed executed by her husband in favour of Plaintif till today. She admitted that she availed loan in the bank prior to the suit but she did not file any document to prove the same. She denied the suggestion that the original pattadar passbook and tittle deed are available with her husband and also after execution of Ex.A1 by her husband, the land value was hiked abnormally, her husband demanded Rs.1,00,000/- to Plaintif and he refused to pay the said amount, on that reason, they are un-necessarily interfering with the possession of the plaintif. She further denied rest of the the suggestions.
E. To support their Case, the Defendants had examined 3rd Defendant as
DW.2 and deposed in Chief, supporting the evidence of DW.1. In his cross- examination, he deposed that the plaint schedule property belongs to their joint family, which is ancestral property, as such he is having right in the same.
The extent of plaint schedule property is Ac.0-91 cents but he does not know how much extent got by him towards his share. He further admitted that they have not partitioned their family properties but himself and other Defendants got share in the plaint schedule property. He further admitted that he has not 8 verified the documents filed by the Plaintif till today. He deposed that the pattadar pass book and title deed are issued in the name of his mother. Further he deposed that his grand-father executed the document in favour of his mother in respect of plaint schedule property but again he says that he does not know whether there is any document executed by his grand-father. Further he admitted that the Plaintif mutated his name in the revenue records, on that his mother filed objections before the revenue authorities about deletion of her name. He also admitted that the plaint schedule property is in possession of the plaintif since 4 years. He denied the suggestion that his grandfather was not executed any document in favour of her mother. He also denied the suggestion that either himself or other Defendants have no right over the plaint schedule property and the Plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase. He further denied rest of the suggestions.
F. The Learned counsel for Plaintif filed written arguments by discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record. Further he argued that the evidences of PW1 to 3 were corroborated with each other respect to the contents of plaint, and also documents supported the contentions of Plaintif that the suit schedule property belongs to 2nd Defendant, and 2nd Defendant executed Ex.A.1 in favour of Plaintif, and sought to decree the suit as prayed for.
G. The Learned counsel for Defendants filed written arguments by discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record. Further he argued that the suit schedule property belongs to Defendant No.1. Further, submitted that the
Plaintif failed to prove his contentions with regard to purchase of plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 and his possession and enjoyment over the same and sought to dismiss the suit.
H. It is the case of Plaintif that he was Purchased the plaint schedule property from Defendant No.2 under Registered Sale Deed for the land in
S.No.228-2 to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents. The Plaintif contended that, the
Defendants were trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand the Defendants disputed the 9 same and contented that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.2 is rightful owner of the same. It is clear that the dispute with regard to the title over the plaint schedule mentioned property as well as possession of the same.
I. The relief sought by the Plaintif is for Permanent Injunction over the plaint schedule property. Since the Plaintif has come to the Court, claiming to be in possession of the Plaint Schedule Property of Ac.0.91 cents in
Sy.No.228/2, it is his burden to prove the same by producing cogent evidence.
To prove his case the Plaintif examined himself as PW1, and third parties examined as PW2 and PW3 and documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to A5.
J. As per plaint, the schedule shown as the land in Sy.No.228-2 to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents out of Ac.1.82 cents and same situated with in the following boundaries : East : land of Annavaram Kallaiah, West : Land of Gunupati
Subbarami Reddy, North : Land of Molathati Yasob, South : Road.
K. It is clear that the Plaintif had claimed possession of the plaint schedule property by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 10-08-2005 in
Ex.A.1. As seen from the document in Ex.A.1 the Plaintif had purchased the plaint schedule property from Defendant No.2 for the consideration of
Rs.18,500/- and on the same day the property was delivered by the seller i.e.,
Defendant No.2. The Defendants admitted that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property of Defendant No.2. But the revenue records are stands in the name of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 did not plead or explain as to how she got right and title over the property. Even DW1 admitted that her father-in-law has not executed any document in her favour. Under Hindu Law the wife will not be entitled for any share during the life time of her husband.
So the documents Ex.B.1 to B5 which shows the name of Defendant No.1 in the revenue records as Pattadar Pass Book, Adangal, 1B namuna and said documents are not helpful to the case of Defendant No.1.
L. The Plaintif had filed documents in Ex.A.2 & A3 which are pertaining to the year 2015 i.e., year of filing of suit. So these documents show that the
Plaintif was in possession of property as on the date of filing of the suit. In fact 10
DW1 & DW2 also admitted in their cross-examination that the Plaintif is in possession of the plaint schedule property. But they stated the Plaintif is in possession of the property since 4 years. The evidence of DW1 & DW2 was recorded on 05-07-2019 &09-08-2019. So the period of 4 years can be taken as from 2015 i.e., year of filing of suit. So it is clear that the Plaintif is able to establish that his possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.
M. As seen from the written statement the Defendant No.2 simply denied the document executed in favour of the Plaintif in Ex.A.1. But he did not make any specific contentions or pleadings in this regard. In cross-examination of
PW1, it was suggested by the learned counsel for Defendant No.1 that the Sale
Deed is nominal document and it was obtained by play fraud. Said suggestion was denied by PW1 in clear terms. The Defendants No.3 & 4 did not plead as to how the Sale Deed is nominal, in what circumstances the said document executed nominal etc. So also the Defendant No.1 did not plead the details of fraud played up on by the Plaintif over the Defendant No.2 without such material particulars the mere contentions of the Defendants No.3 & 4 can not be believed. The Defendant No.2 did not let in evidence and did not enter in to witness box to prove his contentions that he did not executed Ex.A.1 in favour of Plaintif. The settled principle of Law is that when the witness fails to enter into the witness box to speak his case on oath, an adverse inference can be drawn to the efect that his case is false. So on account of the failure of the
Defendant No.2 to enter into the witness box, this Court concludes that the case set up by him is false. The Defendant No.2 did not produce any material to disprove the contentions of the Plaintif.
N. The evidences of PW1 to PW3 clearly shows that they had deposed very clear and consistence terms that the Plaintif is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property since the date of purchase under
Ex.A.1. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 are not at all discredited by the
Defendants. Even though Ex.A.4 legal notice was issued by the Defendant No.1 prior to filing of suit she did not dispute the possession of the Plaintif over the 11 plaint schedule property in the said notice. The reply notice was issued by
Plaintif in Ex.A.5 clearly shows that he had ascertained his right and title and possession over plaint schedule property even prior to the filing of suit. So it shows that the Defendants threatening the possession of the Plaintif over the plaint schedule property in one manner or other. So the possession of Plaintif has to be protected by granting permanent injunction in his favour.
O. The documents in Ex.B.2 & 4 shown the name Annavaram Ravanamma as Sada Binama and she has not made as a party and she did not claiming any independent title over the plaint schedule property. The Defendants did not plead about her possession. So these documents did not helpful to Defendants.
The Plaintif name shown in Ex.B.2 & 5. The documents in Ex.A.2, A3 and Ex.B.5 are latest documents. Being the latest documents which are reliable by the
Plaintif are considered as they are showing the date before filing of the suit. As per above discussion clearly shown that the Defendants disturbing the possession of Plaintif over the plaint schedule property and therefore the
Plaintif able to established his contentions.
P. The decision reported in 2005 (3) ALD page 15 in case of K.Abdul
Raheem (died) per L.Rs and others Vs. Hajeerappa and others. Where in held that “ in a suit for mere injunction, it is no doubt true that possession is to be established by the Plaintif and possession must be of such a nature, which can be protected by a court, a lawful possession or a judridical possession.
The facts and circumstances of the above decision is relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand.
Q. As per supra the Plaintif discharged his burden, then onus shifted to
Defendants. To prove their contentions the 1st Defendant examined as DW1, and 3rd Defendant examined as DW2 and Ex.B.1 to B5 were marked. DW1 and
DW2 were admitted the possession of the Plaintif over the plaint schedule property. As stated supra the documents Ex.B1 to B5 were not supporting the case of Defendants. The DW1 and DW2 clearly deposed no partition took place between their family members. Even the Defendants did not examine 3rd parties i.e., neighboring land owners to prove that they are in possession and 12 enjoyment of plaint schedule property by cultivating the same as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the Defendants failed to discharge their burden. As per above discussion it clears that the possession of Plaintif are to be protected by granting injunction.
R. In any suit both parties have to prove their respective contentions. In view of the admissions of DW1 & DW2 that the Plaintif is in possession over the plaint schedule property by cultivating the same, and the documents i.e., Sale
Deed, Adangal, 1 B relied up on by the Plaintif also shown the possession of the Plaintif. But the Defendants did not prove their pleas that disputed title and possession of the Plaintif over the property by producing rebuttal evidence.
Hence, this court concludes that the Plaintif proved his prima facie case i.e., possession of Plaintif over the plaint schedule property, as in permanent injunction suits possession has to be established by the party who came to court by pleading his possession, and the Defendants failed to prove their contentions. Therefore, this court concludes and holds that the Plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for by him.
Therefore, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintif against the Defendants.
10. Issue No.3: To What relief?
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, assignees, successors or any other persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of March, 2021.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Kavali.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
Witnesses examined for:
Plaintiff:
PW-1: Annavaram Mohan Rao. PW-2: Deverireddy Venkateswara Reddy . PW-3: Devireddy Rami Reddy.
13
Defendants:
DW-1: Annavaram Mahalakshmamma. DW-2: Annavaram Audaiah.
EXHIBITS MARKED:
Plaintiff:
Ex-A.1: Registered Sale Deed dt.10-08-2015, executed by the 2nd Defendant in favour of Plaintif.
Ex.A2: 1-B form (ROR) dt.02-02-2015, obtained through mee seva.
Ex.A3: Copy of NO.3 adnagal dt.02-02-2015, obtained through mee seva.
Ex.A4: Served copy of legal notice dt.20-01-2015 issued by the 1st Defendant to Plaintif.
Ex.A5: Reply notice dt.03-02-2015 issued by the Plaintif to Defendants.
Defendants:
Ex.B1: Pattadar Pass Book dt.18-12-2004, of 1st Defendant.
Ex.B2: Adangals for fasalies 1419 to 1421 and 1424 obtained under RTI Act,
Ex.B3: 1B extract dt.02-02-2015, obtained through mee seva.
Ex.B4: Adangal for the fasali 1424 dt.13-12-2014, obtained through mee seva.
Ex.B5: Adangal for the fasali 1424 dt.10-02-2015. obtained through mee seva.
PJCJ, KVL.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KAVALI
Present:- Smt. S.Sailaja,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, kavali.
Friday, the Twelfth (12th) day of March, 2021.
O.S.N0.20 of 2015
Annavaram Mohan Rao S/o.Balaiah, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Krakuturu Village and Post, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... Plaintif
VERSUS
1. Annavaram Mahalakshamma W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, Aged about 53 years,
2. Annavaram Madhava Rao S/o.Late Malakondaiah, Hindu, Aged about 55 years,
3. Annavaram Audaiah S/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, Aged about 27 years,
4. Annavaram Yekambara Rao S/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, Aged about 22 years,
All residents of Krakuturu Village and Post, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendants
Suit for restrain the defendants their men, agents assignees , successors or any other persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint over the plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever by way of granting permanent injunction.
Plaint presented on : 04-03-2015
Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10000/- and Court fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/Sec.26 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit is coming before me on 08.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.Venugopal Reddy - Advocate for Plaintif, and of Sri B.Ravindra Babu - Advocate for Defendant No.1, Sri S.V.Rajendra Vara Prasad – Advocate for Defendant No.2, and of Sri A. Jagan Mohan Rao – Advocate for Defendants No.3 & 4, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-
I) the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, assignees, successors or any other persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
ii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum Rs.1988/- towards the costs of this suit.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 12th day of March ,2021.
Prl.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KAVALI
TABLE OF COSTS
Plaintiff Defendant
Rs. 786-00Stamp on plaint-- Rs.2-00 Stamp on Vakalath2-00 Rs.100-00 Stamp on process-- Rs.100-00- Typing charges -- Rs.-- P.W. charges-- Rs. -00Advocate Fee-- Rs. 1988-00 TOTAL2-00 ( F.C.Memo Filed)
Prl.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KAVALI
PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
SPSR. NELLORE REGISTRATION DISTRICT Vinjamur Sub-Registration are kaligiri Mandal Krakuturu village survey No.228-2 an extent of Ac.0.91 cents out of Ac.1.82 cents or 0.368 ha of dry land is bounded by
EAST:Land of Annavaram kallaiah
SOUTH:Road
WEST:Land of Gunupati Subbaramireddy
NORTH:Land of Molathati Yasob
Prl.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KAVALI