1
THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TEKKALI
Present: Sri K. Prakash Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali (FAC)Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.
Wednesday on this 18th day of March,2020.
O.S.No.09 of 2014
Between:
1.Kalabarigi Ravikumar, S/o. Lakshmanamurthy, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Asst.Professor, AITAM Engineering College, permanent resident of Vadditandra village, Dandugopalapuram post, Santhabommali mandalam, s’rikakulam district, Presently residing at Sai Chandra Nagar, Tekkali village, Panchayat and Mandal, Srikakulam district.
2.Jada Anuradha, W/o Venugopalarao, Aged about 43 years, hindu, household duties, resident of Pydibheemavaram village, Ranasthalam mandalam, Srikakulam district. …. Plaintiffs
And:
1.Jogi Sahadevudu, S/o late Latchayya, Aged about 60 years, hindu, SC by caste cultivation, resident of Chinnabazaar street, Tekkali village and mandalam, Srikakulam district.
2.Jogi Ravi Kumar, S/o Sahadevudu, Aged about 26 years, hindu, SC by caste cultivation, resident of Chinnabazaar street, Tekkali village and mandalam, Srikakulam district. …. Defendants
This suit came up on 17.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence Sri,P. Babu Rao learned Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri B. Gowripathi Rao learned Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their relatives, agents, servants, associates and workmen from ever interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the costs of the suit.
2. The pith and marrow of the plaint is that:
This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction, against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff the plaintiffs 1 & 2 are the respondents of different places the 2nd plaintiff is maternal aunt of the 1st plaintiff, he purchased the dry land an 2 extent of Ac.0.30cents in Sy.No.466/3 in part No.168 of Tekkali in
Raghunadhapuram village of Tekkali from Gopidalai Damayanthi and others under Registered Sale Deed, dt”17.05.2011 since then the plaintiffs are been peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till the date of filing of the suit when the plaintiffs that the around schedule property suit schedule property that the construction and compound wall the defendants who are the southern and northern boundaries holders of the suit schedule property interfere foundation in order to grab the plaint schedule property to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The defendants threatened the plaintiffs to take forcible possession over plaint schedule property by disposing from the suit land. The defendants are lawless persons and they capable to enough to disposes plaintiff as such the suit filed Permanent Injunction not to dispossess from the land against defendants and others raising the cause of action that the when plaintiff purchased suit schedule property and 1st week of
June,2014 when the defendants are proclaiming the village
Raghunadhapuram over the plaint schedule property which is with in the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the suit.
2.The pith and marrow of the plaint is that:
(i)Per contra the defendant Sahadevudu filed his written statement denied all material allegations line by line, word by word and it is stated that the plaintiff has to strictly prove of those allegations which were not expressly admitted such, as those allegations that are not expressly traversed and 2nd defendant filed his adoption and it is submitted by the defendant that he is the original owner the suit schedule property Gopidali Bodemma of Tekkali village she executed a settled sale deed in favour of Appa Rao Padi on 25.02.1981 the said Apparao Padi/Plaintiff are endorsed Ramarao Padi are brothers . The 1st defendant purchased plaint schedule property from
Apparao Padi and he executed a deed dt:07.02.1983 with the specific boundaries mentioned in the sale deed in an extent of Ac.0.71cents in
Sy.No.465/5 to an extent of Ac.0.29cents in Sy.No.466/3 a total extent of
Ac.1.00 cents. In Raghunadhapuram village of Tekkali. Subsequently the said
Apparao padi executed a rectification deed since in the said sale deed the survey number was not correctly mentioned. On 22.05.200 since the date of sale deed, dt:0702.2003 the 1st defendant is peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property. The Government Revenue Department recognized the 1st defendant and issue Pattadar Pass Book, Title Deed and 3 issue Adangal/Pahani for the fasli 1422 in favour of the 1st defendant having been possession and enjoyment.
3. The plaintiff has no coolie of Ryth and possession and plain schedule property and they have nothing to do with it. The vendor of plaintiff has no right title interest.
4. He further submit that the defendant Gopidalai Bodemma is original owner in Sy.No.466/3 and she executed and settlement deed, dt:25.02.1981 in favour of Apparao padi i.e., vendor of 1st defendant and she executed sale deed in favour of Ramarao padi on 29.05.85 husband of the plaintiff vendor of an extent of Ac.1.50cents in Sy.No.466/3 the vendor of the 1st defendant
Apparao padi and plaintiffs vendor, husband of Ramarao Padi brother they were sold away in Sy.No. 466/3. The vendor of the plaintiff Gopidala Dayanthi the plaintiff vendor is Rama Rao Padi and her name is Madan Mohan
Damodar and plaintiffs vendor is no one to Gopidala Damayanthi who is original owner of property in Sy.No.466/3 and Gopidala Bodemma landed property in Sy.No.466/3 and plaintiffs vendor manipulated Pattadar Pass
Books and Title Deed and Adangal and incorporated their name in the
Revenue records without any manner to right on it.
5. It is further submit that the 1st defendant is one Kotni Venkata Murali
Krishna filed a suit for permanent injunction vide O.S.No.49/11 before this court against the plaintiffs vendor and her husband by name Ramarao padi with regarding to Sy.No.466/3 and an extent of Ac.0.60cents and the 1st defendant also filed on suit for permanent injunction before this honourable court in O.S.1/13 against the plaintiffs vendor and her husband Ramarao padi with regard to Sy.No.466/3. The above said suit are pending before this court.
Subsequently the 1st defendant filed against the plaintiffs vendor the 1st defendant constructed the compound wall whether in the property 1 Acre the documents filed the plaintiffs are fabricated. Basing on the pleadings.
6. Heard both sides
7. The court settled the following issues.
1) Whether the plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment or the plaint schedule property as in the date of filing the suit or not?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for Permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
4
8.Issue No.1:- (I) Whether the plaintiff is possession and enjoyment before the inadvertent to answer to issue, I have given my earnest consideration to referred the submission inorder to counsel for the plaintiff defendant and vehemently argued that the argued by the counsel for the plaintiff is that by reported the pleadings he would argue that the suit is filing deceitful enjoyment in the property situated in Sy.No.466/3 in Ex.P7 is the sale deed of Rama Rao Padi executed by Bodemma in turn Apparao padi executed a registered a sale deed Ananda Rao Korni Rama Rao to K.Prakasha Rao in Sy.No.466/3
Apparao Padi sold remaining property of registered sale deed, dt;07.02.1983 so entire property of 466/3 sold by Bodemma in Ex.B2. Specific boundaries .
He further argued by the counsel for the defendant to the a rectification under
Ex.B2 and Ex.P8, dt:19.05.1985 the counsel for the plaintiff were vehemently argued that the entire property in Sy.No.466/3 were sold and disposed the total extent in Sy.No.466/3 Ac.2.19cents, Ac.0.30cents sold to plaintiffs the
Ac.0.60cents sold to Murali Ac.0.90 cents i.e., total Ac.2.19 cents and said fact is clearly and clinchingly established through the document filed by the defendants itself. As per the Ex.B5 the total extent in Sy.No.466/3 is
Ac.2.19cents , Ac.0.30cents in the name of Gopidali Bodemma Ac.0.30cents,
Jogi Sahadevudu Ac.0.60cents, Kotni Venkata Murali Ac.0.90cents, Devala
Ramesh Ac.0.09cents Chin Jogarao so ones the extent of total Ac.2.19cents in Sy.No.466/3 is settled in such way the question of property purchased by the defendant. Jogi Sahadevudu beyond Ac.0.30cents is false plea.
9. He further argued that the defendant No.1 himself got executed a deed for rectification under Ex.B2, dt:22.05.200 see instead of Sy.No.446/10 , 446 of 466/3 pm 22.05.2000. It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the plaintiff what met him to got it required himself i.e., by the 1st defendant without taking into consideration of the listing authority. The rectification deed is not original vendor.
10. He further argued as per Ex.B5 i.e., as per Adanga/Pahani total extent of Sy.No.466/3 is Ac.2.19cents out of which they are 5 khata Nos.vide
Gopidalai Damayanthi to an extent of 0.30cents Jogi Sahadevudu to the extent of Ac.0.30cents to Kotni Murali Krishna to an extent of Ac.0.60cents
Dhavala Ramesh Kumar to an extent of Ac.0.90cents to Chintada Jogulu to an extent of Ac.0.09cents comprising total extent of 2.19cents. So it is clear from the documents relied by the defendant itself, the vendor of the plaintiff 5 got property to an extent of Ac.0.30cents the schedule also clearly mentioned in the sale deed as in Ex.A1 that the property fell to her in succession and then she sold the property. He further argued that the contention of the defendant cannot be taken into consideration. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that the plaintiffs vendor has no title right, there is no person in the name of Gopidalai Damayanthi their existence only Bodemma and Bodemma executed settlement deed in favour of Appa
Rao Padi of 25.02.1981 by virtue of the said settlement deed. Appa Rao Padi executed the registered Sale Deed on 07.02.1983. Subsequently Appa Rao
Padi executed a Registered Rectification Deed in the year 2000 on 22.05.2000 rectifying the Survey number from 466/10 to 466/3.
11. He further argued that Appa Rao padi sold remaining property subsequent to execution of the sale deed Bodemma executed in Ac.150cents and as per Ex.B8 western boundary holder is jogi Sahadevudu i.e., 1st defendant. PW2 purchased property under Ex.B9 on 07.12.1994 Kotni
Prasada Rao in the said documents also the western boundary mentioned as
Sahadevudu in its schedule. Therefore, it is clearly from the documents as
Ex.B8, B9, B10, defendant No.1 is having property and he further argued that
DW3 who was examined on behalf of the defendant, Doki Jeevan Kumar, categorically deposed that the 1st defendant got land to an extent of
Ac.00.30cents in Sy.No.466/3 and Ac.0.70cents in Sy.No.465/5 and he gone up submit his arguments and relying on the judgment 2009(1) ALD 337 OF
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT
HYDERABAD, N.V.RAMANA, Dr.Yadla Ramesh naidu Vs.Sub-Registrar,
Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District and others. Registration Act 1908-
Section 17-Registration of document – Effect of –more registration of
transfer of immovable property by execution of a document by
transferor in favour of transferee, confers no title on transferee.
12. He also relied on another judgment the Pattadar Pass Book and
Title Deed gives raise a presumption the person who possess those record can be presumed to be in possession. He also relied on another judgment
2007 (3) ALD 617 (DB) OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA
PRADESH AT HYDERABAD D.S.R.VARMA AND D.APPA RAO. JJ.
Second Day of April, 2007 CCCA No.254 of 2002 Mohammed Ibrahim and
another v. Mohammed Abdul Razzak, burden of proof is generally on
plaintiff. Decision should rest on rule as to burden of proof under law
6
and also the admitted or proved circumstances of the case. The strict
meaning of the word ‘onus probandi’ is that if no evidence is given by
the party on whom the burden is cast the issue much be found against
him and only then the other party has the onus of rebuttal. The first
principle of the evidence Act is that a party who is to prove an allegation
must do so. The court, cannot imagine evidence in the absence of it. The
plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and is not
assisted by any weakness, ral or apparent in the case of the defendant.
The defect in evidence of the party on whom the onus of proof lied
cannot be cured by criticism of the evidence of the other party.The plaintiff stood as fall on his own strength but not on the weakness of defendants case and prays dismiss the suit.
Issue No.2.
Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as the date of filing of the suit or not?
13. In the present case on hand, to substantiate case the plaintiff No.1 examined as PW1 and his evidence is nothing but replica of his pleadings and in support their contention they got marked as Ex.A1 the Original sale deed, dt:17.05.2004 and Ex.A2/ No.3 Adangal/Pahani, 07.01.2014, vendor of the Plaintiffs. In support of their oral and documentary evidence one Satharu
Tulasi Rao, Latchayya on Gopinadhapuram village and Kalabharini Prakash
Rao who is resident of Vadditandra village of Santhabommali Mandal are examined as PWs2 and 3. During cross examination of PW1, categorically deposed that, they purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0.30cents in
Sy.No.466/3 and he also deposed that he had verified Revenue records in respect of the plaint schedule property, i.e., Adangal/Pahani, IB-Register,
Title Deed, Fair Adangal and also obtained the certified copy of said documents. He also deposed that he was in possession and the same and he further deposed that he had no idea whether the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deed in favour of 1st defendant pertaining to the property to the extent of Ac.0.29cents in Sy.No.466/3 and also he further deposed that where in suit pending in O.S.01/2013 on the file of this court filed by the 1st defendant against Gopidalai Damayanthi and
Rama Rao Padi, the other 2 witnesses, oral evidence, that Gopidalai
Damayanthi not to PW2 and he has having knowledge about the schedule property and defendants are no way concerned in the plaint schedule property.
7
14. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant not examined and on behalf of the defendant No.1, the 2nd defendant J.Ravi
Kumar examined as DW1 and in support of his contention also filed Ex.B1 to
Ex.B12, during his cross examination, he categorically deposed that
Sy.No.466/3 of Plaint Schedule property is Ac.0.30cents and he deposed that the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. East ; Vacant sites Doki
Jeevanrao, West: Vacant sites of Kotni Murali, South : His land in Sy.No465/5,
North: Gorja. He do not know the boundaries in the mentioned in the plaint schedule property and his father is still alive and his father is unable to move due to his ill-health, he is examined as DW1. He further deposed that his father purchased land in Sy.No.466/5 an extent of 0.71cents and in
Sy.No.446/10 of extent of Ac.0.23cents, and in Sy.No.44/4 of extent of
Ac.0.06cents. As such, the survey number was wrongly mentioned in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2/Rectification Deed . After 17 years, Ex.B1 was executed and he did not know whether Apparao Padi acquired the land in Sy.No.466/3 and he did not know whether Apparao Padi had acquired any land more than 1 Acre. In
Sy.No.466/3 and an extent in Sy.No.466/3 more than 2 Acres and he did not know who was the sons of the said extent and he did not know whether
Bodemma executed any document have Ac.0.60cents of land who was western side of entire property in favour of Apparao Padi in Sy.No.466/3 and also admitted that Ramarao Padi purchased extent of Ac.1.50cents of land when Gopidalai Bodemma in sy.No.466/3 and Ex.B3/Pattadar Passbook, there is no entry with regarding land in Sy.No.466/3 there is a correction in
Ex.B3 with regard to the Patta Number and date, Ex.B4/Certified Copy of Title
Deed, column No.4 is mentioned as 466/3 and extent is Ac.0.20cents and there are corrections and had column No.3 of Ex.B4 and there are no initials of Revenue authorities concerned that rectification of the corrections. He also admitted an Ex.B5/Certified copy of Adangal/Pahani vide Ex.A2 in
Sy.No.466/3 is mentioned as Ac.0.30cents and he also admitted as Ex.B5 the total extent is Ac.2.19cents of Gopidalai Damayanthi is possession and enjoyment of 0.30cents, Jogi Sahadevudu is father of DW1 is possession of
Ac.0.30cents, Kotni Murali (DW2) is not a possession of Ac.0.60cents and
Dhavala Ramesh Kumar possession of Ac.0.90cents and Chintada Jogulu to an extent of Ac.0.09cents.
15. DW1 further deposed that in Ex.B7/Settlement Deed there is no mentioned of Sy.No.466/3 in Ex.B9 is Registered Sale Deed relating to the schedule property of the Kotni Murali and Survey number is 466/3. He further 8 deposed that plaint schedule property situated within the property of Davala
Laxmi. Davala Laxmi is owner of the plaint schedule property and he also admitted that there is no difference in Ex.B11/Registered Settlement deed about the plaint schedule property.
16. The other witnesses who were examined by the defendants are
Kotni Murali (DW2) who have purchased in Sy.no.466/3 to an extent of
Ac.0.60cents on 07.12.1994 his fall and subsequent to death of his father he became the owner of the property and East boundary of the 1st defendant
Jogi Sahadevudu, he also deposed that in Sy.No.466/6 i.e., by his father to extent of Ac.0.60cents towards west of the plaint schedule property and he also deposed that on boundaries to the plaint schedule property as follows;
Vacant site of Doki Jeevan Kumar west boundary wall belongs to him, North road, South: House of the defendants and his father purchased from the property Gudla Anandarao the said Gudla Ananda Rao purchased the land from Apparao Padi and the total extent of Ac.2.19cents in Sy.No.466/3 and the other witnesses DW3/Doki Jeevan Kumar, who is the owner of the boundaries of DW2 deposed that he do not know the total extent in
Sy.No.466/3 and who was purchased property from Davala laxmi according to him 1st defendant get land to an extent of Ac.0.30cents and Ac.0.70cents in
Sy.No.465/5. Though, he come plot to deposed that the boundaries but he fell to remember the same and he purchased plot Nos.36 to 40 whether the western boundary to the plot No.40 is the 1st defendant.
17. On careful scrutiny of the evidence let in by the both sides as PWs.1 to 3 and DWs1 to 3 to establish the possession over the plaint schedule by the plaintiff read Ex.A1/Registered Sale Deed, filed along with the suit,
dt:17.05.2014 and the Adangal/Pahani pertaining to the Sy.No.466/3 for the
Fasali 1423 except that there are no other evidence and defendant categorically denying the possession and title i.e., right title interest of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property in the absence of any other document except Registered Sale Deed. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 and 2 vehemently contesting the plaint schedule property is to west of the defendant
No.1 and he is relating on the B1 and B2 strongly whether Ex.B1/Registered
Sale Deed executed by the Apparao padi along with his minor child into be weihed. He purchased an extent of Ac.1.00cents i.e., in Sy.No.465/5 an extent of Ac.0.71cents and in Sy.No.446/10 an extent of Ac.0.23cents in Sy.No.44/4 an extent of Ac.0.06cents to substantiate his defendants. He also filed Ex.B2 to B.12. The defendant argues that the plaintiff fall to substantiate his case 9 and tried to shall be burden of proof on the schedules of the defendants without discharging the scene. He is subsequently and vehemently conjoining that Ex.B2 the rectification deed executed on 22.05.2000 rectifying in Sy.Nos.
instead of Sy.No.446/10 to 466/3 and Sy.No.44/4 to 466/3. Though, the defendant No.1 is claiming an extent of Ac.0.29cents in total in Sy.No.466/3.
18. On careful scrutinize the evidence on record, the evidence of Dw1 i.e., Jogi Ravi Kumar categorically deposed that the Pattadar Pass Book and
Title Deed which was filed i.e., an Ex.B3, B4 under B3 Pattadar Pass book there is mentioned about the Sy.No.463/3 showing in possession of the property to an extent of Ac.0.23cents in Sy.No.466/3 where in coming to the
Title Deed there is no entry in Sy.No.466/3 when the extent of Ac.0.29cents the plaintiff strongly and vehemently containing that there is no evidence but show how the entries were made in those an entry in title deed took without any entry in Ex.B3 and his strongly relating on the Ex.B5 which is Pahani for which Fasali 1423 on which A2 pertaining to the Pahani for the 1423 which is succeeding Fasali resemble one and the same equal that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.466/3 Is an Extent of Ac.2.19cents and the Ac.2.19cents was in possession of 5 Khata holders recollect their vendor of the plaintiffs Gopidalai
Damayanthi, the 1st defendants to extent of Ac.0.30cents, Kotni Venkata
Murali, DW2 to an extent of Ac.0.60cents, Daval Ramesh Kumar to an extent of Ac.0.90cents, Chintada Jogulu to an extent of Ac.0.09cents comprising the total extent of Ac.2.19cents. So even otherwise considered if rectification deed is true and correct, Sahadevudu has got an extent of Ac.0.30cents as per
Ex.B5 that the defendant cannot deny the title for the Gopidalai Damayanthi who possess an extent of Ac.0.30cents of land within as per the document filed by the defendant i.e., Ex.B11 vide Doc.No.1406/1960 which was executed by Gopidalai Pentayya in favour of his wife Gopidalai Bodemma and
Foster daughter of Pentayya and Bodemma and sons of Madan Mohan Padi i.e., Appa rao Padi bequeath his property. So according to the defendant himself under Ex.B11 by virtue of settlement deed executed by Gopidalai
Pentayya , Damayanthi has got some property from the document itself may be subsequently those Apparao Padi and Rama Rao Padi sell away their shares of property by virtue of the Ex.B5 and A2 Gopidalai Damayanthi got property because even otherwise considered under Ex.A1 Sahadevudu purchased only an extent of Ac.0.23cents in Sy.No.466/3 even the rectification deed is considered subsequently Bodemma executed a settlement deed in favour of Appa Rao Padi. In the said documents i.e., Ex.B7 also Survey 10
Numbers are mentioned as 446/10, 465/5, 44/4. So based on Ex.B7 vendor of
Sahadevudu , Appa Rao Padi conveyed the same extent of land one Acre by all of sudden after completion of 17 years Appa Rao Padi came and executed the rectification deed even otherwise considered as per law the right of property of any person extinguishes after 12 years as per the Limitation
Act,1965 no person even he is absolutely owner of the property he cannot claim the ownership of the property. While executing the said deed i.e., Ex.A2/
Rectification Deed executants, Apparao Padi did not gave any reasonable cause and sufficient cause for executing the Ex.A2, and there is no base at all how they came to know after death and 17 years a mistake to correct up and who made payment for the rectification was made the document was very much silent since sale under Ex.A1, held in the year 1983 the rectification deed is 2000. So it creates a doubt and a cloud over the execution of Ex.A2.
19. It is rightly argued by the counsel for which defendant who relied on the judgment reported 2007 (3) ALD 617 (DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD D.S.R.VARMA AND
D.APPA RAO. JJ. Mohammed Ibrahim and another v. Mohammed Abdul
Razzak, with 2nd proportion of law. Even Hon’ble Apex Court also categorically held there the plaintiff has to proof this case and he given burden upon the weakness of the defendant.
20. The plaintiff is relied up on the sale deed and the Adangal/Pahani of
Fasli 1423 which is succeeding proceeding to the Ex.B5 which was filed by the defendant for this only the defendant vehemently argued the case the plaintiff his relating on the said document, in fact on careful scrutinize the
Gopidalai Damayanthi got property by the virtue of Ex.B11/Settlement deed was executed by the original owner and Gopidalai Pentayya in favour of his wife Bodemma Foster daughter Damayanthi and nephews Rama Rao Padi and Appa Rao Padi when conjointly read documents in Ex.B11, Ex.B5 , Ex.A2
Damayanthi has got property Sahadevudu fail to prove that he has got property beyond 1Acre. Other document which are pertaining to the 3rd parties in fact it is held by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ramayanam
Satish Kumar vs.Thamada Bhaskara Rao and another, reported 2018
Section 54 and 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, read as follows:
“Sale” defined:- “Sale’ is a transfer of ownership in exchanges for a
price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made:-
Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of
11
one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other
intangible things, can be made only by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one
hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered
instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immovable property, takes place when the seller
places the buyer, or such property shall take place on terms settled
between the parties.
Sale defined under its whole settled law the follows title and counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment presumption to be given in respective evidence in reduced by the D1 with the presumed to be drawn when the party in entering into witness box and other his own case a presumption has to be drawn that the case said better by him in correct.
21. As could be seen from the entire record, DW1 in examined on behalf of defendant No.1. DW1 himself Ramesh Kumar himself examined as a party to the proceedings in the capacity of the 2nd defendant.
22. However the suit is filed for Permanent Injunction it is settled proportion of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs P.
Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 held that died for LRs when ever there is a possession basing on the title mere injunction is not maintainable. When there is no cloud over the title of the property and the person who came to the court for seeking the injunction has to filed a suit for as declaration.
23. But here in the present case, the case set up by the defendant No.1
Gopidalai Damayanthi did not possession any land to convey in Sy.No.466/3 but the document in Ex.A2 who is called to Ex.B5 except in Fasali because to show clinchingly that the total extent in Sy.No.466/3 is Ac.2.19cents which it was devolved into 5 Khatas and whether in this the plaintiffs vendor got
Ac.0.30cents even a rectification deed is considered i.e., Ex.A2, the 1st defendant and his evidence land but the land possession by his distinct one.
Since the defendant going to established his case it is whole settled as per the procedure duty of the person who assets has to prove the defendant No.1 asserted that the Damayanthi has no property in Sy.No.466/3 as per the
Written Statement pleadings of the 1st defendant Gopidalai Bodemma executed a settlement deed in favour of Rama Rao Padi, Appa Rao Padi for
Apparao Padi an extent of Ac.0.89cents and to Ramarao Padi to an extent of
Ac.1.50cents therefore, they sold away the entire property in Sy.No.466//3 12 under its pertaining that the plaintiffs vendor is no way in nature to Gopidalai
Bodemma in fact which was sort by their own document in Ex.B11. Whether
Gopidalai Pentayya executed a document settled in favour of Gopidalai
Bodemma. Apparao Padi, Ramarao Padi and Gopidalai Damayanthi. D1 purchased only extent of Ac.0.71cents and Ac.0.29 cents total in 1Acre not more than that in Sy.No.465/5. But all of sudden the rectification deed is executed. So it is clear from the entire evidence of plaintiff as well as defendants and plaintiff vendor property she conveyed way of sale deed.
24. Therefore, issue No.1 settled in favour of the plaintiff for the above reasons for the plaintiff his vendor got property and conveyed the same to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 sale deed.
Issue No.2, Whether the plaintiff is entitle for Permanent Injunction or not?
U/sec.36 of Specific Relief Act claims the Permanent Injunction. The
Permanent Injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession in the possession and burden of proof lies on the plaintiff who is seeking the order of injunction has to proof that he was in actual possession of the property as on the date of the suit.
25. Here in the present suit the plaintiff actual proof that the plaintiff has been possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of suit. As on appreciation of oral or documentary evidence.
It was also held the case 2019(2( ALT 7 (SC) IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA Mrs.R. BANUMATHI and R.SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Balkrishna Dattataya Galande V.Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and
another, reported that permanent injunction can be granted when the person
proof lies that he was in possession on the date of the suit the evidence
orally as well as documentary clinchingly clues peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the nature of the property.
Issue No.3 : To what relief?
26.In the result, this suit is DECREED WITHOUT COSTS in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant by granting Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants, their relatives, agents, servants associates interfering with 13 the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of March, 2020.
Junior Civil Judge,
Kotabommali (FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff:
P.W.1/11.06.2018/ 10.09.2018: Sri K. Ravi Kumar P.W.2/11.06.2018/ 10.09.2018 : Sri. S.Tulasi Rao P.W.3/10.12.2018 : Sri. K. Prakasa Rao
For Defendant:
D.W.1/15.04.2019 01.07.2019/11.07.2019 : Sri J. Ravi Kumar D.W.2/21.11.2019: Sri. K.V.M.Krishna D.W.3/02.01.2020: Sri. Doki Jeevan Kumar
Documentary Evidence For Plaintiff:
Ex.A.1/11.06.2018/ 10.09.2018: Original Registered Sale deed, dt;17.05.2014. Ex.A.2/11.06.2018/ 10.09.2018 : No.3 Adangal, dt:07.01.2014 in favour of the Vendor of the Plaintiff.
For Defendant:
Ext.B.1/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, dt:07.02.1983. Ext.B.2/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Regd. Rectification Deed, executed by Appa Rao Padi in his favour, dt:22.05.2000. Ext.B.3/ 15.04.2019:Certified copy of Pattadaar Passbook, issued in favour of 1st Defendant. Ext.B.4/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Title Deed, Issued in favour of 1st Defendant. Ext.B.5/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Adangal for fasli 1422, issued in favour of 1st Defendant, dt:24.12.2012, land in Sy.Bo.466-5. Ext.B.6/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Adangal for fasli 1422, issued in favour of 1st Defendant, dt:24.12.2012, land in Sy.Bo.466-3. Ext.B.7/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Regd.Settlement Deed, executed by Gopidalai Bodemma, in favour of Apparao Padi,
dt:25.02.1981.
Ext.B.8/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed, executed by Gopidalai 14
Bodemma in favour of Ramarao Padi, dt:29.05.1985. Ext.B.9/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed, executed by Dandasi Ramarao in favour of Kotni Prasada Rao, dt:07.12.1994.
Ext.B10/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed, executed by Dhavala Lakshmi, in favour of Doki Jeevan Kumar, dt:05.06.2007.
Ext.B11/15.04.2019: Certified copy of Regd.Settlement Deed, executed by Gopidalai Pentayya, in favour of Gopidalai Bodemma & 3 others, dt:13.04.1960.
Ext.B12 : Two Photographs, along with CD.
Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali (FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali
Date of Presentation : 04.06.2014 Date of Filing : 04.06.2014.
15
THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TEKKALI
Present: Sri K. Prakash Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali (FAC)Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.
Wednesday on this 18th day of March,2020.
O.S.No.09 of 2014
Between:
1.Kalabarigi Ravikumar, S/o. Lakshmanamurthy, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Asst.Professor, AITAM Engineering College, permanent resident of Vadditandra village, Dandugopalapuram post, Santhabommali mandalam, s’rikakulam district, Presently residing at Sai Chandra Nagar, Tekkali village, Panchayat and Mandal, Srikakulam district.
2.Jada Anuradha, W/o Venugopalarao, Aged about 43 years, hindu, household duties, resident of Pydibheemavaram village, Ranasthalam mandalam, Srikakulam district. . …. Plaintiffs And:
1.Jogi Sahadevudu, S/o late Latchayya, Aged about 60 years, hindu, SC by caste cultivation, resident of Chinnabazaar street, Tekkali village and mandalam, Srikakulam district.
2.Jogi Ravi Kumar, S/o Sahadevudu, Aged about 26 years, hindu, SC by caste cultivation, resident of Chinnabazaar street, Tekkali village and mandalam, Srikakulam district. …. Defendants
This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their relatives, agents, servants, associates and workmen from ever interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction, notional value of the suit is Rs.10,000/- a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/Sec 26(c) of A.P.C.F and
S.V. Act.
This suit came up on 17.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence Sri,P. Babu Rao learned Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri B. Gowripathi Rao learned Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court doth decree and as follows:-
D E C R E E
(i)that the suit be and the same is hereby DECREED WITHOUT COSTS in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant by granting Permanent
Injunction, restraining the Defendants, their relatives, agents, servants associates interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.
(i) that the defendants do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.Nil/- towards costs of the suit; 16 (Copies of Schedule, Valuation Slip are here with enclosed).
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 18th day of March,2020.
Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali
(FAC) junior Civil Judge,
Tekkali
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendants:
Stamp on plaint : Rs. 786.00Stamp on vakalat : Rs. 3.00
Stamp on vakalat : Rs. 2.00 Stamp on Petitions : Rs. 2.00 Stamp on petition : Rs. 3.00 Advocate Fee : Rs. 500.00 Stamp on process : Rs. 100.00 ------------------- Advocate Fee : Rs. 500.00 Costs certified : Rs. 505.00
------------------- -------------------
Costs Certified : Rs. 1391.00 -----------------
Certified that the decree is properly drafted.
Superintendent. Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali
(FAC) junior Civil Judge,
Tekkali
Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.
17