Smt T.Lakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VIKARABAD,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.T. Lakshmi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Ranga Reddy District.

Dated, this the 28 th day of December, 2019.

O.S.No. 14 OF 2009

Between:­

Smt. Gongloor Padma W/o Bichaiah, Age: 33 years, occ: Household, R/o Ananthsagar Village, Kondapur Mandal, Sangareddy District. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Smt. Mangali Galamma (died) per L.rs.

2. Mangali Ramchandraiah S/o Adivaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Konkunde Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

3.Smt. Mangali Jagadamba W/o Narsimulu, Age: 38 years, Occ: Household.

4. Smt. Mangali Chandrakala W/o Ramesh, Age: 35 years, Occ: House hold.

5. Smt. Mangali Amreshwari W/o Ashok, Age: 32 years, Occ: Household.

6. Mangali Amarnath S/o Ramchandraiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, All C/o Mangali Ramchandraiah, R/o Konkunde Village, Mominpet Mandal,Vikarabad District. ( Defendant No. 2 to 6 are added as per orders in I.A.No. 187/19, dt: 10.5.2019) … Defendants

This Original Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Goverdhan Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P. Goverdhan Reddy, Advocate for the defendants and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Counsel for plaintiffs and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for Partition and Separate possession of plaint schedule agricultural lands into two equal shares and allot one share to the plaintiff. 

2

2. The averments of the Plaint in brief, are as follows:

The father of the plaintiff and defendant namely Late Mangali Hanmaiah died intestate about 18 years back leaving behind plaintiff, defendant and his wife Smt. Rukkamma as his legal heirs in respect of agricultural land bearing

Sy.No. 69/E1 extent of Ac. 1­33 guntas, 92/E extent Ac. 1­06 guntas, 198/A extent Ac. 2­34 guntas and 218/EE extent 0.29 guntas respectively situated at

Konkunde Village of Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rukkamma the mother of plaintiff and defendant also died about 10 years back. After the death of Late Hanmaiah and Smt. Rukkamma the plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant being the eldest daughter of Late Hanmaiah used to look after the joint family property and cultivation of the suit lands on behalf of joint family and shared the agricultural produce with plaintiff every year. But for the past two years, defendant changed her attitude and not giving any share out of the agricultural produce received from the suit lands to the plaintiff and whenever the plaintiff demanded for her share out of the agriculture produce, the defendant used to postpone the matter for one or other reason. By seeing the attitude of the defendant, plaintiff expressed her intention for partition of the suit lands and for allotment of her separate share in all the suit lands on 18th November 2008, but, the defendant refused for partition of the suit lands and openly declared that the suit lands are her exclusive properties. Further, plaintiff submitted that after death of Hanmaiah, the defendant got mutated the suit lands in her name and now defendant is taking advantage of the said entries is trying to alienate the suit lands to third parties in order to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff in the suit lands. Hence, the suit. 

3.On receipt of the summons, the defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in plaint. The defendant contention is that during the life time of Late Mangali Hanmaiah a will deed was executed in her favour 3 on 19­8­1983 and since then the defendant is enjoying the suit property as absolute owner, in pursuance of will deed the defendant filed an application

before the Revenue authorities for issuing passbooks and title deed in her

favour in respect of the suit schedule properties and after through enquiry the revenue authorities have issued passbooks and title deeds in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit lands and hence the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoying the property as absolute owner. Hence, when the defendant is having exclusive possession and absolute ownership over the property, partition of plaint schedule property to plaintiff does not arise and as the property is not a joint property the plaintiff is having no right or interest over the suit schedule property hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant contending that alleged will deed purported to be executed by the Hanumaiah in favour of defendant in respect of suit schedule property is fabricated one and plaintiff has no knowledge about the execution of alleged will deed. Thus there is no chance to plaintiff to object the alleged will. Further plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession in respect of suit schedule property and defendant was never in exclusive possession of suit schedule property.

Moreover, the marriage of plaintiff was performed by her parents and defendant never performed the marriage of plaintiff defendant with malafide intention to usurp the suit lands making false and baseless allegation against the plaintiff.

5.On the basis of the pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the will deed executed by Late Hanmaiah on 19.8.1983 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition as prayed for?

3. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?

4. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 are examined and exhibited A1 to A9. On behalf of defendants DW1, DW4 were examined and exhibited B1 to 4

B9 documents. Though DW2, DW3 filed the affidavits they failed to enter the witness box, hence their evidence was eschewed. 

7.Heard, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants.

8.Issue No. 1 to 3:­

The relationship of plaintiff and defendant is not in dispute. Plaintiff and defendants are the daughters of Late Mangali Hanumaiah who died intestate about 18 years back leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant and Rukkamma their mother as his legal heirs. Later Rukkamma also died. The plaintiff submit that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties inherited by her father from her grandfather Ramaiah. After the death of her parents the plaintiff and defendants are the legal heirs. It is also admitted fact that parents of plaintiff and defendant died and father of plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property during his life time which is evident from Ex.A1, A5 to A8. Ex.A2 shows that defendant was pattedar and Ex.A3, A4

9.The plaintiff herself examined as PW1 who filed affidavit in lieu of her evidence under order XVIII R 4 (1) CPC. Her evidence is nothing but reiterated the version of plaint pleadings. It is in the evidence of PW1 that, she is the sister of defendant and suit schedule properties are her ancestral properties and her father inherited the properties from grandfather. Hanumaiah their father died intestate leaving behind herself, defendant and their mother as legal heirs. After the death of their mother herself and defendant succeeded the suit schedule properties and they are in joint possession and enjoyment over the same and no partition of suit schedule properties was effected between herself and defendant. PW1 further pleaded that, without her knowledge defendant got mutated the suit lands in her favour and now taking advantage of the illegal entries trying to alienate the properties in favour of third parties thereby depriving the legitimate right of the plaintiff. PW1 also pleaded in her evidence that, defendant averred in written statement that her father 5

Hanumaiah executed the will deed in the year 1983 during his life time bequeathing entire properties in favour of defendant which is false. The defendant relying on will deed is a fabricated one. In cross examination PW1 denied that Rachaiah, Narsaiah, Buchiaha and Galamma, defendant in possessory coloumn in Ex.A1 as they are not in possession and she do not know how their names were entered in possessory coloumn. Plaintiff admitted that she has not taken any steps for cancellation of will deed as alleged by defendants also admitted that defendant only in possession of suit schedule property since the date of death of her father. The evidence of PW2 is also in the same lines of PW1.

10.The main contention of the plaintiff is that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and she is entitled to half share in the properties and the alleged will deed is fabricated one. Per contra, the contention of the defendant is that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of her father who executed a will deed during his life time in her favour as such plaintiff has no right or claim in the suit schedule property thereby depriving the legitimate right of the plaintiff in the suit lands. 

11.In support of her contention the learned Counsel for plaintiff relied on citation

1. P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs L. Lakshmi Reddy reported in AIR 1957 SC 314 wherein the Honble Apex Court held that:­ “The possession of one co­heir is considered, in law as possession of all the co­heirs. When properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co­ heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other c­heir, not in possession, merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co­heirs’ title.

2. H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N. Thimmarajamma and others reported

in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 443 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that:­ 6 “ However there is one important feature which distinguishes will from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not”. 

3. B.G. Laxman died per L.rs Vs Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and others reported in 2003 (1) ALT 3 (DB) where in it is held that:­ “mutation entries in revenue records do not decide title to land”. 

12.The contention of defendant is that the suit schedule properties are not the ancestral properties and self acquired properties of her father who purchased the same from one Adivappa of Kolkunde village. However, she has not filed any document to substantiate her plea. On the other hand plaintiff filed Ex.A6, Sessala Pahani, A7 and A8/ pahanies where grandfather of plaintiff and defendant were shown as Pattedar and father of plaintiff and defendant shown as Hissedar proving the contention of the plaintiff that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. Even DW4 admitted in cross examination that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant.

13.Ex.A1, A5, A6, A7, A8 show that father of plaintiff as Pattedar and

Inamdar. In Ex.A1, A5, A6 to A8 Hanumaiah, father of plaintiff and defendant shown as pattedar, inamdar and also Hissedar of suit schedule properties.

Now defendant has not placed sufficient evidence whether any notice was given to plaintiff at the time of mutation and on what basis the mutation was effected and even failed to file the faisal patti to establish, her contention that basing on the will deed the mutation was effected on her name. 

14.The DW1 in her evidence alleged that her father executed a will deed during his life time i.e on 19.8.1983 since then she is enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and possessor and basing on the will deed she mutated the suit schedule property on her name. Further submitted that 7 plaintiff has knowledge of alleged will deed and she never objected the same, as such she is only in exclusive owner and possessor of suit schedule property as absolute owner. If for while if we think that the alleged facts are known to plaintiff no prudent man will keep quiet when all of the properties were bequeathed to her sister alone and no father will give entire property to only one daughter. 

15.To prove the case of defendants DW1 exhibited Ex.B1 to B9 documents.

Ex.B1 shows that defendant was Pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property. Ex.B2 shows that the father of plaintiff and defendant registered will deed in favour of defendant in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.B3 shows that the father of plaintiff Mangali Hanmaiah was Pattedar and possessor of

Sy.No. 69/E to an extent of 2 acre 17 guntas, Sy.No. 92/E to an extent of 1 acre 06 guntas and Sy.No. 198/AA to an extent of Ac 2­34 guntas. Ex.B4 to B9 show that defendant was Pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property.

Further defendant failed to examine the attestors to the will deed to prove her contention that, will was executed by her father during his life time. When will is disputed, then burden is on the person who propounds a will to establish the same.

16.To establish the contention of the defendant, the Counsel for defendant relied on Citations:­

1. V. Srisailam (Vs) V. Krishna Murthy & others reported in 2003(1) ALD 500 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it is held that:­  “ Will­Proof of – 

Registered will proved by the two attesters and the scribe­Advocate who prepared the Will at the request of the testator also examined in support of the

Will­Plea that the Will was prepared on blank papers signed by the testator not established­ Further it is proved by the Registrar who registered the Will that he registered it after satisfying himself about the testator signing the document, knowing it to be his will­ Mere exclusion of some natural heirs cannot be taken as a suspicious circumstance surrounding the will­No evidence to show that the 8 propounder of the Will has taken a prominent role in execution and registration of the will­ Held, in the circumstances, the Court below is not justified in rejecting the Will. 

2. Pentakota Sathyanarayana and others (Vs) Pentakota Seetharatnam and

others reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4362 where in Hon’ble Apex

Court held that:­ “document also contained signatures of attesting witnesses and scribe­ held burden of proof to prove will had been duly and satisfactorily discharged by claimants”.

Mode of Proof of wills:­ if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.

Section 68 of the Evidence Act: Proof of document required by law to be

attested. If a document is required by law to be attested, if shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there being an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.

Section 63 of the Indian evidence Act, 1925 the “ Will is compulsorily to be attested by two or more witnesses.

Under Section 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the opinion of the experts and of person acquainted with the handwriting of the persons concerned are relevant. 

Thus the provisions mentioned above is that the Will has to be proved in the manner prescribed therein. A will has to be proved like any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed by section by Sec.

9 63 the test to be applied would be the usual test of satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matter. 

In Girja Dutt Vs Gangotri, AIR 1995 SC 346 it was held that in order to prove due execution and attestation of the will the propounder of the will has to prove that the two witnesses saw the testator sign the will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the testator.

17.As per Sec. 63 of Indian Evidence Act, the will has to be attested, it cannot be used in evidence until one attesting witness at least is examined to prove its execution. The defendant failed to take steps to prove the execution of will in her favour by her father. The Counsel for defendant argued that attestors to the will are no more however he failed to file any documentary proof to establish his contention. DW4 was examined, however he is not the attestor of alleged will. Defendant also failed to examine the scribe of will.

18.Simply because, the father executed will in favour of defendant in respect of the suit schedule properties that too ancestral properties that will not disentitle the plaintiff to claim the share in the ancestral properties. 13.

Except taking plea there is no piece of paper to accept the contention of the defendant that the properties are not the ancestral properties and mutation was effected basing on the will deed. Therefore, on perusal of oral and documentary evidence, this Court hold that suit schedule properties available as on the date of filing of suit are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant. 

19.Further, specific date of death of father of plaintiff and defendant was not mentioned by both the plaintiff or defendant. Though specific date of death of

Hanumaiah was not mentioned and though there is discrepancy as to how many years ago Hanumaiah died as per the pleadings. It is clear that

Hanumaiah died much prior to Amendment Act, 2005. Basing on the Act, 2005 both the daughters will get equal share in the ancestral properties.

10

20.It is well established principle that propounder of “will” has to remove the suspicious circumstances in execution of will and the burden lies on defendant who alleged that Hanumaiah executed the will during his life time. The burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document on the propounder. The propounder has to place sufficient cogent evidence to discharge his burden that alleged will is genuine.

21.In the absence of proof of will deed, it has to be held that defendant alone is not the owner of the suit properties. Therefore, it has to be held that the plaintiff and the defendants being the class I heirs of the late Hanumaiah will succeed to the suit schedule properties by virtue of Sec 8 (a) of Hindu

Succession Act, 1956.

22. The issuance of pattadar passbook in the name of defendant by revenue authorities basing on the will deed said to have been executed by late

Hanumaiah in favour of the defendant is illegal, as laid down by Hon’ble

Andhara Pradesh High Court in A. Rani Vs the Joint Collector and others 2007(5) ALD 88 and 2007(6) ALT 513. Further Revenue records are not the title documents and basing on it defendant cannot establish her title over the suit schedule property. 

23.In view of the discussion it is held that the plaintiff and defendant being class I heirs of Late Hanumaiah are entitled to get equal right over the suit schedule properties by virtue of Sec 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to 5 are entitled for half (½) share each in the suit schedule property. The defendant failed to remove the suspicious circumstances with regard to execution of will deed. Thus defendant failed to prove the execution of will in accordance to provisions of 63(3) of Indian

Evidence Act. 

24.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff decreed and Preliminary decree of

Partition is hereby passed as under.

11

1. That the suit schedule properties No. 1 to 4 are divided in two equal shares and plaintiff shall be allotted one share.

2. The entries in the Revenue records may be rectified as per the shares.

3. The equities if any shall be worked out on separate application in the final decree proceedings.

4. That in view of the close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 28 th Day of December, 2019.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

VIKARABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1: G. PadmaDW1: M. Galamma PW2: B. SangaiahDW2: B. Rachappa ( eschewed) DW3: G. Shaker ( eschewed) DW4: L. Ram Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1989­90(4 sheets) issued by Deputy Tahasildar. Ex.A2: Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1994­95 (7 sheets) issued by Deputy Tahasildar. Ex.A3: Attested copy of Pahani for the year 1999­2000 (6 sheets) issued by Deputy Tahasildar Ex.A4: Pahani for the year 2007­08 (4 sheets) issued by Deputy Tahasildar Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1978­79 (4 sheets) Ex.A6: Certified copy of Chesala Pahani for the year 1954­55(5 sheets). Ex.A7: Certified copy of Sesala pahani for the year 1956­58 (7 sheets) Ex.A8: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1960­61 (5 sheets). Ex.A9: Memo issued by Tahasildar Mominpet, dt: 1.11.2014. 

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Original pattadar passbook of defendant No.1. Ex.B2: Registered will deed dated 19.8.1983. Ex.B3: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1985­86. Ex.B4: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1990­91. Ex.B5: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1994­95. Ex.B6: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2003­04.

12

Ex.B7: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2005­06. Ex.B8: Certified copy of 1­B Pahani dated 12.12.2017. Ex.B9: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1427 Fasli (4 in number).

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

VIKARABAD.

13

Mode of Proof of Wills:­ “The revocation of the will (unprivileged will) is an act only a little less solemn than the making of the will itself and has to comply with statutory requirements contained in section 70 of the Succession Act”

The revocation of the will can be made only by one or other of the modes specified in Section 70. There cannot be a revocation by necessary implication. A will can only be revoked by a document executed in the same manner as a will or by tearing or by destroying the will. Merely because the will is not forthcoming, presumption cannot be drawn that the testator would have destroyed the will.

Revocation of Joint wills:­ The general principle of law is that a joint will is revocable at any time by eight of the testators duing their joint life or after the death of theof one of them by survivor.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VIKARABAD, 

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.T. Lakshmi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad,

Ranga Reddy District.

(FAC) Prl. Junior Civil Judge, 

Vikarabad, R.R.District. 

Dated, this the 24 th day of December, 2019.

O.S.No.105 OF 2004

Between:­

Smt. G.Balamani, W/o Laxmaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o New Gunj, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.… Plaintiff

AND

1. The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee,

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Counsel, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

… Defendant

This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

P.Goverdhan Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.Sampurna Anand,

Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2 and upon hearing the advocate for the plaintiff and perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff filed suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

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

The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of plot bearing no.1 in Survey no.18, admeasuring 260 square yards, situated at New Gunj, Vikarabad,

Ranga Reddy District, in pursuance of the patta certificate (house site) is­ sued by Revenue authorities on 22.8.1998, since then the plaintiff is in pos­ session and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner, plaintiff also paid an amount of Rs.2,025/­ towards betterment, develop­ ment and vacant land fee etc. to defendant no.2 on 5.2.2003. Inspite of pay­ ment plaintiff could not complete the house due to financial problems. In the mean time the defendants interfered in the suit schedule property and de­ fendants asked the plaintiff to get NOC form the collector, R.R.District how­ ever defendant no.2 never informed the plaintiff to get NOC from Collector

R.R.District at the time of issuance of building permission and while collect­ ing the building fee. Plaintiff further submitted that defendants who are the adjacent owners came to the suit land on 12.8.2004 along with their hench­ men and tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and remove the temporary tin shed built by her however she with the help of her family members and neighbours resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and protected her possession over the suit land. Hence, the suit. 

3.On receipt of summons Defendant no.1 and 2 filed their written state­ ment. Defendant no.1 filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the land in survey no. 18, admea­ suring 10 acres 02 guntas situated at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District was the patta land and the Government has allotted the land in survey no.18 with other lands in favour of the defendant no.1 in the year 1965 for forma­ tion of agriculture market yard and for office of the agricultural market committee. The defendant no.1 has formed the Gunj and got constructed shops and its office in the land survey no.18 mentioned above and after al­ lotment there was no land left over in survey no.18, therefore, the revenue authorities do not have any right to assigning or allot any piece of land out of survey no.18 in favour of the plaintiff or anybody else. And the patta cer­ tificate filed by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated document and the plaintiff has created wrongfully to grab the part of the Government land in survey no.18. The plaintiff basing on the patta tried to encroach into the land pertaining to agricultural market committee which was obstructed by municipality as the said land pertains to defendant no.1. The alleged patta certificate relied by plaintiff also not disclosing the plot no.1 which proves that there is dispute of title of the plaintiff over the suit plot which implies that mere suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable against the de­ fendant no.1 who is the true owner of the total land in survey no.18. Thus the claim of the plaintiff is false and the plaintiff has suppressed the fact of ownership of the defendant no.1 over the land at survey no.18 since the in­ junction is an equitable relief and the injunction against the true owner is not maintainable. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs. 

4.Defendant no.2 also filed its written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the defendant no.2 after receiving the application from plaintiff addressed a letter to MRO Vikarabad to clarify with regard to issuance of house site patta certificate by marking copy to the secretary, Agricultural Market committee, Vikarabad. The Market Com­ mittee Secretary replied that the Gram panchayath, Vikarabad has already allotted 19 acres 09 guntas of land in Survey no. 3,4,18 and survey no.134,

Vikarabad to the Agricultural Market Committee for establishment of Grain

Market. As such the defendant no.1 is the owner of the suit land but plain­ tiff was constructing the house in the suit site without obtaining any per­ mission from the Municipality, as such defendant no.2 issued Memo, dated 13­03­2003 and also issued notice under Section 228(1) and (2) of A.P.Mu­ nicipality Act, 1965 to the plaintiff and defendant no.2 has got every right under the Act to stop the illegal constructions made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not obtained any permission from the Municipality which is a mandatory provision for construction of a house. The plaintiff has not es­ tablished his ownership about the suit plot, as such he cannot claim any right over the suit plot. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were set­ tled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit plot as on the date of filing suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6. In support of the plaintiff’s case, she herself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A4. One Dasari Anthamma is examined as PW2 and one

Kummari Ramulu is examined as PW3. On the other hand the defendant no.1 himself examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B35.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant.

8.Issue No.1 and 2:

The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the absolute owner and posses­ sor of suit plot no.1 in Survey no.18, admeasuring 260 sq. yards, situated at

New Gunj, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, in view of patta certificate (house site) issued by revenue authorities on 22.8.1998 (Ex.A1) and since then she is in physical possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owner. Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 who filed her chief affidavit as con­ templated U/O XVIII R 4(1) CPC which is the reiterated version of plaint pleadings.

9.Per Contra, the contention of defendant no.1 and 2 is that Government allotted land at Sy.No.18 with other lands in favour of defendant no.1 in the year 1965 for formation of agricultural market committee. Further there is no left over land at Sy.No.18 thus allotting 260 sq yards to plaintiff at

Sy.No.18 does not arise and the alleged patta on which the plaintiff is rely­ ing is a forged and fabricated document. Thus plaintiff has not established her ownership over the suit schedule plot and trying to raise illegal con­ struction without any permission as such defendant no.2 issued notice and further contended that plaintiff misrepresented the facts. 

10. The case on hand is a suit for injunction simplicitor. It is well settled law that in a suit for injunction simplicitor, the primary question to be con­ sidered is one of the possession as on the date of filing of suit. Thus it is the burden of plaintiff to establish her possession over the suit schedule plot as on the date of filing of suit. 

11. It is in the evidence of PW1 that revenue authorities issued patta certifi­ cate (Ex.A1) to her on 22.8.1998 as such she became absolute owner and possessor of suit plot. Further she paid an amount of Rs.2,025/­ towards betterment, development and vacant land fee, Ex.A2. When defendant no.2 directed to get NOC from collector for issuance of building permission she made a representation to collector under Ex.A3, A4. Further Ex.A2 to A4 are only Xerox copies of documents which has no evidentiary value and this court cannot take into consideration while appreciating evidence. 

12. In cross examination PW1 admitted that she is aware of allotting

Sy.No.18 to Market committee, Vikarabad and defendant no.2 has not is­ sued any permission for construction in the suit schedule property. 

13. PW2, PW3 deposed in the lines of PW1 and gone with the version of PW1 by saying that PW1 is in possession of suit schedule property as Govern­ ment allotted the same by way of patta. PW2 deposed that PW1 is in posses­ sion of suit schedule property since 4 years onwards. Further PW3 deposed that since 30 yrs onwards PW1 is in possession of suit schedule property.

Thus there is no corroboration between PW1 to PW3 with regard to posses­ sion of suit schedule property. The alleged patta certificate was allotted to plaintiff in the year 1998 thus there is question of residing in the suit plot since 30 yrs does not arise thus the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is contrary to the version of PW1. 

14. DW1 who is Secretary Agriculture market Committee, Vikarabad was ex­ amined and cross examined and posted for further cross examination but later in view of his transfer his evidence is eschewed. 

15.Later the Secretary Agricultural Market Committee who took charge of

DW1 was examined as DW2 who exhibited Ex.B1 to B35 documents who deposed that defendant no.1 is the owner of land at Sy.No.18 to an extent of A.10.20 gts which was allotted in the year 1965 as New Gunj and

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat on 24.5.65 handed over to Agricultural Market

Committee vide GO RT No.317 issued by Government.

16. DW2 further contended that plaintiff tried to occupy plot of defendant no.1 and the said illegal interference was resisted by defendant no.1 and there is no structure in suit schedule plot as alleged by plaintiff and even filed WP No.34973/12, Ex.B20 before the Hon’ble High Court to which counter was filed under Ex.B22 and para wise remarks submitted to the

Hon’ble High Court under Ex.B26 by defendant no.1 contending that tin

shed raised by plaintiff in the suit plot pertains to Market committee and even possession was handed over to Market Committee under Ex.B23 and vide Ex.B24 Market committee took possession allotted by Gram Panchayat.

Both D1 and D2 contended that alleged patta was fabricated one and even they addressed a letter to MRO for verification to which they replied under

Ex.B27 that they have not allotted any patta at Sy.No.18 and the signature of MRO on patta certificate is forged one and also a memo was issued by

Government of AP, Revenue department dt.9.9.2011, Ex.B28 that they have not issued any patta certificate at Sy.No.18 as per records. Further Ex.B33 reveals that Government sanctioned the proposal of allotment of four plots of

Vikarabad Gram Panchayat to Agricultural Market Committee of which one of the plot pertains to Sy.No.18. Even Ex.B18, 19 reveals that MRO,

Vikarabad has not issued any house site certificate at Sy.No.18 of Vikarabad and no permission was given by Municipality Vikarabad and also issued no­ tice U/Sec. 228(1) and (2) of APM Act, 1965. 

17. Though Ex.B1 to B7 one Asifa Begum was shown as Pattadar and in 

Ex.B7 to B13 the possessory column was shown as Market Committee and

Kotha Gunj which shows that Market Committee is in possession since the date of allotment of land by Gram Panchayat vide Ex.B33. But the Ex.B14 to

B17 CC of pahanies for the fasli 1420 to 1423 Asifa Begum is only shown as pattedar and possessor which might be managed by plaintiff. All the docu­ ments filed by the defendant clearly establishes that plaintiff manipulated and fabricated the Ex.A1 with malafide intention to grab the valuable Gov­ ernment land pertaining to defendant no.1.

18. Further for a while if we presume that patta certificate is issued by rev­ enue authorities no where only one patta will be issued alone to plaintiff and there is every chance of allotting to others also. What is the reason for allot­ ting patta alone to plaintiff was not properly elicited by plaintiff which lead­ ing to conclusion that it is fabricated. Even MRO, Vikarabad admitted the same vide Ex.B18, B27.

19. DW2 further contended that plaintiff was never in possession of suit schedule plot and defendant no.2 has not given any permission to plaintiff for construction of house. In cross examination DW2 admitted that plaintiff presently residing in the suit schedule property which amounts to illegal possession basing on the fabricated patta certificate. Though DW2 admitted that the alleged patta certificate was cancelled no document was filed to that effect. 

20. Defendant no.1 established his possession since 1965 onwards by filing relevant documents by way of documentary evidence further plaintiff who re­ lied her possession on Ex.A1 patta certificate is fabricated one as per the

MRO, Vikarabad thus the possession of plaintiff happen to be illegal posses­ sion further Ex.A2 to A4 are Xerox copies of documents to which this court will not give any significance. The correspondence of MRO, Vikarabad re­ veals that Ex.A1 is fabricated and once the same is kept aside there is noth­ ing on record to say that plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule plot. In the present case on hand plaintiff should prima facie establish her case that she is in possession of suit schedule plot as on the date of filing of suit and she cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendants case to establish her possession. 

21. In the instant case plaintiff is relying her possession basing on Ex.A1 which was issued by revenue authorities as per her own contention to which revenue authorities stated no such patta was issued to plaintiff. Further the

Ex.B7 to B13 show that Market Committee is only in possession of Sy.No.18 since 1965 onwards. Thereby the possession of plaintiff in suit schedule plot does not arise.

22. It is well settled law that a suit for injunction is an equitable remedy and the primary requirement for the grant of an equitable remedy is that the person who claims the remedy must come before the court with clean hands. He must show equity and must show his entitlement under the eq­ uity to the relief he has sought. Fairness and good faith are the two impor­ tant things required for obtaining any equitable relief. If the plaintiff in his conduct with the person against whom the relief is sought has acted in an unfair or inequitable manner he would not be entitled to the injunction.

Thus equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act should be denied to such a person. 

23. On scrutiny of evidence on record there is no piece of paper to show that plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule plot as on the date of filing of suit thus this court hold that plaintiff failed to establish her initial burden that she is in lawful possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. Thus plaintiff failed to prove her case beyond all proba­ bilities. Therefore she is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for.

Accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

24. Issue No.3:

In view of finding on the above as plaintiff failed to establish her pos­ session over the suit schedule plot as on the date of filing of suit she is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly the issue is an­ swered against the plaintiff. 

25. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 24 th day of December, 2019.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1 is G.Balamani DW1 is L.Srinivas PW2 is D.AnthammaDW2 is M.Srinivas PW3 is K,Ramulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 is the Original house site certificate issued by Revenue authorities Ex.A2 is the receipt issued by Municipal Commissioner, Vikarabad Ex.A3 is the copy application to the collector, dt. 2.1.2004. Ex.A4 is the copy application to the collector, dt. 25.6.2004.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 is Pahani for the year 1954­55 Ex.B2 is Pahani for the year 1956­58 Ex.B3 is Pahani for the year 1960­61 Ex.B4 is Pahani for the year 1963­66 Ex.B5 is Pahani for the year 1970­71 Ex.B6 is Pahani for the year 1974­75 Ex.B7 is Pahani for the year 1975­76 Ex.B8 is Pahani for the year 1980­81

Ex.B9 is Pahani for the year 1985­86 Ex.B10 is Pahani for the year 1990­91 Ex.B11 is Pahani for the year 1995­96 Ex.B12 is Pahani for the year 2000­01 Ex.B13 is Pahani for the year 2004­05 Ex.B14 is Pahani for the year 2011 Ex.B15 is Pahani for the year 2012 Ex.B16 is Pahani for the year 2013 Ex.B17 is Pahani for the year 2014 Ex.B18 is Memo issued by MRO Vikarabad, dated 9.9.2004 Ex.B19 is Letter dated 6­8­2004 (from Municipal Commissioner to the personal in charge A.M.C., Vikarabad. Ex.B20 is attested copy of order issued by the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.No.34973/2012 Ex.B21 is attested copy of Memo issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Vikarabad, dated 13.3.2013 Ex.B22 is attested copy counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 in W.P.No. 34973/2012 Ex.B23 is attested copy of reference letter 227, dated 7.3.1965 Ex.B24 is attested copy of reference letter dated 10.3.1965 Ex.B25 is attested copy of resolution Gram Panchayath, Vikarabad, dated 24.2.1965 Ex.B26 is attested copy of L.R.R.O.C. No. C 1730/W.P.No.34973/2012, dated 3.11.2012 Ex.B27 is attested copy of letter M.R.O.B/223/2007 Ex.B28 is attested copy of memo issued M.R.O dated 9.9.2004 Ex.B29 is attested copy of reference letter to director of marketing dated 7.3.1965 Ex.B30 is attested copy of letter issued to Sarpanch, Grampanchayath dated 7.3.1965 Ex.B31 is attested copy of reference letter, dated 20.1.1978 Ex.B32 is attested copy of letter dated 17.1.1978 Ex.B33 is attested copy of abstract letter dated 10.5.1996 Ex.B34 is attested copy of letter issued by chairman A.M.C. dated 15.6.1994 Ex.B35 is attested copy of plan. 

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD.

1 CC 365 of 2018

 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE 

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT.T. LAKSHMI,

I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

DATED, THIS THE 4 th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

C.C. No. 365 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Mominpet. …Complainant

A N D

Dappu Narsimulu, S/o Sayanna, Age: 42 years, Occ: RTC Bus driver Br. No.AP29 Z 0580, Caste: SC(Madiga) R/o Enkathala village of Mominpet Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and of Sri. M.Gopal Reddy, Advocate, for the

Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T 

The State represented by SI of police, PS Mominpet filed the charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.17/2018 for the offences punishable under section 304­A, 338 IPC. 

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

a) On 28.3.2018 at 1500 hrs a complaint was received from

PW1 stating that on 28.3.2018 afternoon hours while he was proceeding to Shivrampur village and came to Marpally along 2 CC 365 of 2018 with Vinay Kumar, Satish on the bike Hero Glamour Motor cycle bearing no. TS 08 EN 0242 of Vinay kumar and proceeding to Marpally from AGR function hall, Vinay drove the motor cycle and Dattu and Satish being pillion riders and when they reached Mominpet cross road at about 1430 hours one RTC bus bearing No.AP29 Z 0580 driven in rash or negligent manner and without any indications took right turn and dashed to their motor cycle, as a result of which Vinay

Kumar received bleeding injury on his right hand and Satish also received bleeding injuries on stomach and ribs.

Immediately they were shifted to Sangareddy Government hospital for treatment. 

Basing on the complaint, PW12, SI of police, First

Investigating Officer in the case registered a case in

Cr.No.17/2017 for the offence punishable under section 337

IPC and took up the investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and 8 at PS and visited scene of offence where he conducted scene of offence panchnama in the presence of PW5 and PW9 and visited Sanga Reddy hospital by that time the injured persons were referred to Gandhi hospital for better treatment and on 28.9.2018 it was informed that injured Satish succumbed to injuries and immediately PW12 deputed PW10 to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased and accordingly he conducted inquest in the presence of PW6 and LW10/S.Tirupathi. Later PW12 added 3 CC 365 of 2018 304­A along with 337 IPC. PW12 gave a requisition to PW11 for inspection of crime vehicle who inspected and opined that the accident took place not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. On 30.3.2018 accused surrendered himself voluntarily and admitted his guilt and PW12 issued 41­A

Cr.P.C. notice to accused. LW12/Dr.CH Laxman Rao conducted post mortem examination and opined the cause of death was due to “injury to pelvis”. After completion of further investigation PW10 filed the charge sheet before the court for the offence punishable u/sec. 304­A, 338 of IPC against the accused.

3. Copies of relevant documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused on his appearance before the court as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. who denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to establish the case against the accused examined PW1 to PW12 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. 

 5. Heard the Learned counsel for accused and learned APPO.

4 CC 365 of 2018

 6. Now, the main point that arise for determination are:­

1. Whether the accused was driving the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident?

2. Whether the crime vehicle was driven in rash or 

negligent manner and whether the accident occurred 

due to that reason?

3. Whether the prosecution proved its case and established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/s. 304­A and 338 of IPC?

7. POINT NO.1 and 2:

It is the case of prosecution that accused, driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP29 Z 0580 drove the bus in rash or negligent manner and without any indications took right turn and dashed to the Hero Glamour Motor cycle br.no. TS 08 EN 0242 of Vinay kumar, as a result of which Vinay Kumar received bleeding injury on his right hand and Satish also received bleeding injuries on stomach and ribs and Satish succumbed to injuries while obtaining treatment.

8.In order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has to establish that 

1) Accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident

2) The accident was either due to rash or negligent act of the accused. 

9.It is not in dispute that deceased Satish succumbed to injuries while he fell down from Hero Glamour Motor cycle br.no.TS 08

EN 0242 of Vinay kumar and sustained bleeding injuries on stomach and ribs. PW1 who is brother of PW2 who also injured in the accident lodged the complaint before PS 5 CC 365 of 2018

Mominpet on 28.3.2018 under Ex.P1. PW12 registered the FIR under Ex.P8.

10.Basing on the complaint PW12 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW8 and visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchnama in the presence of

PW5 and PW9 and deputed PW10 to conduct inquest over the body of deceased Satish and PW10 conducted inquest over the body of deceased Satish in the presence of PW6 and

LW10/S.Tirupathi. Ex.P4 is the Inquest report. PW6 corroborated the same. The undisputed PME report under

Ex.P9 reveals that cause of the death was “due to injury to

Pelvis”. It is also not in dispute that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle, RTC bus which is evident by MVI report Ex.P7. All these aspects are not disputed by the accused. 

11.To prove these aspects prosecution relies on the testimonies of eye witnesses i.e. PW1, 2, 4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW3 is the father of deceased. PW4 is owner of the shop near the scene of offence. PW5 is panch witness for scene of offence. PW6 is the inquest panch. PW7 is the doctor who treated PW2. PW8 is cited as circumstantial witness who turned hostile. PW9 is another panch witness for scene of offence. PW10 is 2nd IO and PW11 is the MVI. PW12 is the 1st

IO. 

6 CC 365 of 2018

12. PW1 who lodged the complaint and set the criminal law into motion deposed that himself along with PW2 and deceased were proceeding on Hero Glamour Motor cycle bearing no. TS 08 EN 0242 to Marpally to meet one pandit and when they reached Shankerpally cross roads rear turning towards

Marpally one RTC bus bearing no. AP 29 Z 0580 hit their bike from behind and they fell down and PW2 and deceased sustained injuries and shifted to Sangareddy Government hospital and from there to Gandhi hospital for better treatment and while undergoing treatment deceased Satish succumbed to injuries and identified the accused as RTC driver who drove the bus on the day of accident. He stated that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of driver of

RTC bus. Even the statement given by PW1 before IO, basing on which FIR was registered does not disclose the name of the driver of RTC bus nor he has given any descriptive particulars of the driver.

13.PW2 who drove the bike bearing no. TS 08 EN 0242 also deposed in the lines of PW1 and he also identified the RTC driver as the accused in the court hall. Though PW1 and 2 identified the accused to be the driver of crime vehicle but they have not stated before police that they can identify the driver of the crime vehicle nor given any descriptive particulars of the driver and even they have not disclosed whether they have any prior acquaintance with him. 

7 CC 365 of 2018

14.Coming to the evidence of PW3 who is the father of deceased

Satish is not an eye witness to the incident deposed that on receipt of information over phone through PW1 he proceeded to hospital and his son succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi hospital. Thus his evidence amounts to hearsay which did not render any help to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused to the offence. 

15.PW4 who is cited as eye witness and owner of the adjacent shop to the scene of offence turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW4. PW5 who is panch witness to scene of offence panchnama also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchnama.

Though they were cross examined by the learned APPO under section 145/154 of Indian Evidence Act nothing was elicited to say that they are interested in the accused person. 

16.Though PW6 mediator to the inquest panchnama deposed that police conducted inquest panchnama under Ex.P4 over the dead body of the deceased which is of no use when none of the prosecution witness deposed about the details of the driver of the crime vehicle and rash or negligent act of the driver. Hence the evidence of PW6 is not sufficient to establish the case of prosecution. 

17.PW7, the doctor who issued medical certificate under Ex.P5 admitted that basing on the treatment given at Gandhi 8 CC 365 of 2018 hospital he issued the medical certificate. PW8 who is cited as circumstantial witness turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version. Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW8. 

18.PW9 one of the mediator for scene of offence deposed that

Police, Mominpet conducted scene of offence panchnama and drawn rough sketch in their presence under Ex.P3. PW5 in cross examination deposed that police took measurements at the scene of offence with tape in his presence. However, Ex.P3 does not disclose the said details which amounts to contradiction. Even PW9 who is another mediator to the scene of offence panchnama deposed in cross examination that he has not seen the directions of scene of offence in Ex.P3 and even cannot say the boundaries to the scene of offence thus their evidence is not trust worthy. Learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW4/Mamidigi Vijayamma, LW10/Sugla

Tirupathi. 

19.Now we have to see whether the crime vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner on the road and whether the accident was due to that reason. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed from which direction the bus is proceeding,

PW1 deposed that bus came from behind and hit bike on which they were travelling, PW2 version is that bus is coming in the same direction and hit their bike, and PW3 came in different version that accident took place at Mominpet cross 9 CC 365 of 2018 roads. Thus the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 not corroborate with each other. Further the IO who conducted the scene of offence admitted that directions shown in Ex.P3 are wrong and he also admitted that as per his investigation the crime vehicle came in opposite direction and hit the bike. Thus the evidence of IO who investigated the case is quite contradictory to evidence of eye witnesses. IO is silent from which side bus is proceeding which is fatal to the case of prosecution. 

20.The 2nd Investigating officer, PW10 who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased deposed the manner of conducting inquest and PW11 who is motor vehicle inspector deposed that he inspected the RTC bus bearing no. AP29 Z 0580 and opined that the accident was not due to mechanical defects of crime vehicle under Ex.P7. 

21.PW12 who is 1st Investigating officer whose evidence is in routine manner in the lines of charge sheet. In any accident case scene of offence panchnama plays a vital role. Further the investigating officer has not seized the trip sheet of crime vehicle to establish that accused is driving the crime vehicle at the relevant time of the incident further the rash or negligent act also not proved by the prosecution. The trip sheet and SR details are the important documents to know the details of the duties of the driver and to establish who is the driver at the relevant time of the accident. Non submitting of the same

before the court is the failure on the point of the investigating

10 CC 365 of 2018 officer to establish the case. When driver of the crime vehicle was not arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence of the road accident, and when eye witnesses has not identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle before the police or at the time of investigation or before the court during trial, he cannot be connected to the occurrence of accident or as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The evidence of PW12 not corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW3 who are the prime witnesses to establish the case. Therefore this court hold that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Even prosecution failed to place the factual details such as road condition, density of public, overtaking of vehicle etc. In the absence of such evidence because the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle it cannot be taken for granted that crime vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner by the accused who is driver of the RTC bus. 

22.On scanning the evidence on record one can say that prosecution failed to establish that the accused drove the RTC bus in rash or negligent manner at the relevant time of accident resulting in the death of Satish. Hence the points are answered against the prosecution. 

23. POINT NO.3

For the foregoing reasons and in view of the above circumstances this court hold that prosecution failed to 11 CC 365 of 2018 establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section 304­A IPC. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution. 

24. In the result, accused is not guilty for the offence punishable 

U/s.304­A and 338 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted

U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437­A Cr.P.C. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the, 4th Day of March, 2021.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is M.Dattu­None­ PW2 is M.Vinay Kumar PW3 is M.Veeresham PW4 is Mohd. Aslam PW5 is Mohd. Feroz PW6 is V.Chiranjeevi PW7 is Dr.Raj Kumar PW8 is K.Sangaiah Swamy PW9 is B.Mallesh PW10 is Md. Yakub Ali PW11 is M.P.Kishore PW12 is K.Arun Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR 

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is statement of PW1 ­Nil­ Ex.P2 is 161 statement of PW4 Ex.P3 is scene of offence panchnama 12 CC 365 of 2018

Ex.P4 is Inquest panchnama Ex.P5 is Medical certificate Ex.P6 is 161 statement of PW8 Ex.P7 is MVI report Ex.P8 is FIR Ex.P9 is PME report 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

13 CC 365 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

CALENDER CASE NO. 365 OF 2018

1. Date Of Offence : 28.3.2018

2. Date of Complaint : 28.3.2018

3. Date of Apprehension : 30.3.2018

4. Commencement of Trail : 27.3.2019

5. Closure of Trial on : 7.12.2020

6. Date of Judgment : 4.3.2021

7. Complainant : The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S.Mominpet.

8. Name of the accused : Dappu Narsimulu, S/o Sayanna, Age: 42 years, Occ: RTC Bus driver Br. No.AP29 Z 0580, Caste: SC(Madiga), R/o Enkathala village of Mominpet Mandal.

9. Offence : U/s. 304­A, 338 of IPC.

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result, accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.304­A and 338 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437­A Cr.P.C. 

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, 

VIKARABAD.

14 CC 365 of 2018

Lr.Dis.No. 2021, dated

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

[ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB]

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, VIKARABAD,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present : T.Lakshmi Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

O.S. No. 161 of 2009

Between:

1. Chettukindi Siddhamma, W/o Ch. Basvaraj, Aged 39 years, Occ: Household,

2. Chettukindi Basvaraj, S/o Chandrappa, Aged 45 years, Occ: Private Employee, Both R/o H.No.3-104/28, Goutham Nagar, Patancheru village

and Mandal, Medak District. ..…..Plaintiffs

AND

1. Smt. Chettukindi Umarani, W/o Ch. Sangamesh, Age: 45 Years, Occ: household,

2. Chettukindi Sangamesh, S/o Chandrappa, Aged about 50 Years, Occ: Lorry Owner,

3. D. Narsingam, S/o Sitharam, Aged about 65 Years, Occ:Retired teacher. All Residents of Mominpet village and Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. .....Defendants

This case is coming before me on 10.08.2018, in the presence of Sri N. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs, and of Sri.T. Venkatesh, Advocate for Defendant this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1. This is the Suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for Declaration, Recovery of

Possession and Cancellation of Sale Deed Document No.167/2009, dated 19-01-2009 to the extent of 96 square yards.

2.The brief facts of the pliant in brief are as follows.

The Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of open plot at Survey No. 356, admeasuring 96 square yards in Mominpet Village purchased from defendant No.3 on 11-05-1985 though unregistered document after praying sale consideration and in physical possession since the date of purchase. Even the name plaintiff No.2 was mutated in Grampanchayath Records with the consent of defendant No.3. The plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 are own brothers 1 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB] since plaintiff No2 private employee, lorry driver requested his brother defendant No.2 to look after the plot. Plaintiff No.2 in order to construct house in the plot obtained permission from

Gram panchayath office and left his wife, Plaintiff No.1 at his house. Later Plaintiff No.2 obtained hand loan from defendant No.2 by keeping the original documents of suit schedule property as security towards repayment of land loan. Thus defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.3 with malafide intention in order to knock away the suit schedule property and to disposes plaintiff No.2 from suit plot provoked the defendant No.3 and got executed under

Registered Sale Deed Document vide No.167/2009, dated 19-01-2009 in the name of his wife,

Umarani, defendant No.1.

Later Plaintiff No.2 gifted the suit scheduled property to Plaintiff No.1 vide document No.

277/2009, dated 27-01-2009 and when they went to Gram Panchayath office to effect transfer of ownership they came to know about the mischief played by his brother ie, defendant No.2, who purchased by way of getting registered sale deed from defendant No.3 including some more land belonging to him in the name of his wife Smt. Umarani, Total extent of land of 152

Sq. yards including the suit schedule property without any notice to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed objection petition before Gram Panchayath office, Mominpet against effecting transfer of ownership in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property which they have purchased in the year 1985 from defendant No.3 for valuable consideration.

The defendant No.1 and 2 in collusion with defendant No.3 occupied the suit plot belonging to plaintiffs and raised foundation wall till basement level in the illegally occupied plot thus having no other alternative filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and cancellation of illegal sale deed executed by defendant No.3 infavour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property.

3.After receipt of Summons defendant No.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and D1 and D2 filed the Written Statement and the same is adopted by D3. They denied the material allegations as under.

That the plaintiffs are not the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and they never purchased the same from defendant No.3 on 11-05-1985 under Registered Sale Deed.

Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 who are the brothers together jointly purchased the suit 2 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB] schedule property from defendant No.3 but due to financial crises sold the suit plot to defendant NO.1 for Rs.20,000/- on 29-03-2009 and executed documents. Even plaintiff No.2 filed application before Gram Panchayth, Mominpet for transfer of title infavour of defendant

No.1. Further defendant No.2 gifted the suit schedule property infavour of his wife, defendant

No.1 purchased from plaintiff No.2 vide Gift Deed No. 277/2009 on 22-01-2009 wherein plaintiff No.2 himself filed transfer application on 30-03-2004 stating that he is not having any objection for transfer of title infavour fo defendant No.1 Thus defendant No.1 is in possession of entire land, having purchased the half from plaintiff No.2 vide unregistered sale deed on 29-03-2009. Further defendant contended that plaintiff No.2 by taking advantage of earlier documents when he purchased the plot form defendant No.3 playing fraud upon this defendants inorder to grab the suit schedule property. The defendant NO.1 being absolute owner of suit schedule property started construction work then plaintiff No.2 made false representation before the revenue authorities stating that he is the owner of suit schedule property. No money transaction took place between the plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs are not in physical possession and enjoyment of suit plot. The document executed by plaintiff

No.2 on 29-03-2009 clearly established that alienation of plot infavour of wife of defendant

No.2, i.e. defendant No.1 inrespect of suit schedule property. Hence prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing upon the pleadings of both the parties the following issues have settled for trial.

(1) Whether plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.2 jointly purchased the open plot

admeasruing 96 square yards in Sy.No.356 of Mominpet village in the year

1985?

(2) Whether to declare the registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff on

19.01.2009 vide document No.167/2009 is null and void?

(3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession as prayed for?

(4) To what relief ?

5. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Exs A1 to A12 were exhibited. On behalf of defendant no witnesses were examined and no documents were exhibited.

3 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB]

6. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted written arguments and defendant failed to adduce his arguments inspite of availing sufficient time.

7. Issue No.1 to 3:

The plaintiff No.2 (PW1) has filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination U/o. 18 Rule 4 (1) of CPC. His evidence is nothing but re-iterated version of plaint pleadings. It is in the evidence of PW1 that himself and his wife plaintiff No.1 are husband and wife and absolute owners of suit schedule property which was purchased under unregistered sale deed, dated 11-05-1985 from defendant No.3 after paying entire sale consideration and obtained physical possession in the year 1985 and even PW1 name was transferred in Gram Panchayath records with the consent of defendant No.3. Later PW1 obtained permission from Gram

Panchayath office and constructed house over the suit plot and house number was allotted by Gram Panchayath. The House No.8-178 and his wife is residing in the said house. Inview of his employment he requested his brother, defendant No.2 to look after the plot in his absence. After few years inview of financial needs obtained hand loan form defendant No.2 by keeping the original documents of his plot as security with a condition that he will take back the documents after repayment of loan amount. Thus defendant No.2 colluded with defendant No.3 with malafide intention to knock the suit property got executed another sale deed bearing document No.167/2009 dated 19.1.2009 in the name of defendant No.1, ie wife of defendant No.2. Later the PW1 came to know the mischief played by defendant No.2 when he gifted the property to his wife, Plaintiff No.1 when he went to Grampanchayath office for transfer of ownership, hence PW1 filed objections against affecting transfer of ownership in the name of defendant No.1 inrespect of suit schedule property even PW1 requested the defendant No.1 and 2 that he will pay the hand loan amount but they refused to receive the amount hence got issued legal notice for which defendant No.2 gave reply and D3 failed to give the reply and D1 and D2 in collusion with the D3 trying to construct house hence filed the suit for declaration of title and Recovery of possession and cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.167/2009 dated 19.01.2009. Further PW1 contended that he never sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.1 for valid sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- on 29.3.2009 and executed the documents in the presence of village elders. In order to prove 4 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB] his claim PW1 got marked Ex.A1 to A12 , A1 is Office copy of legal Notice to D2, dt:

17.4.2009, Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal Notice to D3, dt: 17.4.2009, Ex.A3 is Original Reply

Notice from D2, dt: 30.5.2009, Ex.A4 is Original Gift Settlement Deed, dt 27.1.2009 vide

Doc.No.277/2009, Ex.A5 is CC of Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.167/2009 dt.19.1.2009,

Ex.A6 is Application filed before the Gram Panchayath Mominpet dt 21.3.2009, Ex.A7 declaration certificate of Gram Panchayath Mominpet dt 23.6.2009 subject to objection. Ex.A8 is Sketch Map permitted for construction of house to D2 Gram Panchayath Mominpet subject to objection, Ex.A9 is Tax receipt dt 13.6.2006, Ex.A10 is Tax receipt dt 16.11.2007, Ex.A11 is the Original EC dt: 7.4.2009, Ex.A12 is Original Valuation Certificate dt 11.5.2009. The documents filed by PW1 proves the facts of his claim. Ex.A4, A11, Gift deed and encumbrance certificate shows that plaintiff No.2 as the owner of suit schedule property.

Ex.A9, A10 House Tax Receipt paid by the plaintiff No2 inrespect of suit schedule property.

8. Mohd. Arif who is a know person to plaintiffs and defendants examined as PW2 whose versions corroborated with the version of PW1 on all aspects. Nothing was elicited to impeach his testimony.

9.Per contra, the defendant No.2 who alleged that the suit schedule property was purchased jointly by himself and plaintiff No.2 and later in view of financial need he sold the property to defendant No.1, defendants nor filed any documents to substantiate his plea that plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No.2 jointly purchased and even failed to cross examine the PW1 and PW2 inpsite of availing sufficient time hence cross examination of PW1 and PW2 forfeited and defendant reported no evidence on his behalf and even failed to adduce the arguments on his behalf. Except the contention of written statement none of the documents filed before the court. Without any documentary evidence on record one cannot rely the contention of defendants. On the other other hand plaintiff filed the documents Ex.A1 to A12 which established his claim, added to it the defendant did not stated any thing about gift deed, Ex.A4.

No prudent man would keep quite if his property was gifted by other person to his wife. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. If there is any truth in the version of defendant they might have taken steps to cross examine the PW1, PW2 or might have filed documents, except 5 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB] vague plea that suit schedule property was jointly purchased by plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 and inview of financial needs the same was sold to defendant No.1.

10.Since the plaintiff established that he is the owner of suit schedule property and in possession over the suit schedule land beyond preponderance of probabilities hence they are entitled to declare as owners of suit schedule property and registered sale deed No.167/2009

dated 19.01.2009 in respect of suit schedule property is null and void and defendant also

directed to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the actual physical possession to plaintiffs. Hence the issues are answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No.4:

In view of findings and conclusions on above issues, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as owners and cancellation of sale deed document No.163/2009, dated 19.01.2009 as null and void further defendant No.1 and 2 directed to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the physical possession to plaintiffs as prayed for. Accordingly the issue is answered.

11. In the result, the suit of plaintiff is decreed with cost as under.

1. That plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessor of the suit schedule plot admeasuring 96 square yards in Sy.No.356 bearing premises G.P. No.8.178 situated abutting main PWD road leading from Sadhshivpet to Vikarabad in Mominpet village, Grampanchayath and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. That the sale deed No.167/2009 dated 19.01.2009 is canceled executed by D3 infavour of D1 registered before Sub Registrar, Vikarabad. The Superintendent of this court directed to forward a copy of decree to the Sub-Registrar, Vikarabad forthwith as required under Rule 149 of criminal rules of practice and circular order 1980.

3. The defendant No.1 & 2 directed to vacate the suit schedule plot adm.96 sq. yards in

Sy.No.356 bearing premises G.P. No.8-178 situated abutting main P.W.D Road leading from

Sadashivapet to Vikarabad in Mominpet village, G.P and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to actual physical possession to plaintiffs.

4.That the defendant do pay the suit costs to the plaintiff.

6 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB]

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Addl: Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF PLAINTIFF

PW1: C.Basavaraju, PW2: Mohd. Srif

EXHIBITS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is Office copy of legal Notice to D2, dt: 17.4.2009 Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal Notice to D3, dt: 17.4.2009 Ex.A3 is Original Reply Notice from D2, dt: 30.5.2009 Ex.A4 is Original Gift Settlement Deed, dt 27.1.2009 vide Doc.No.277/2009 Ex.A5 is CC of Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.167/2009 dt.19.1.2009 Ex.A6 is Application filed before the Gram Panchayath Mominpet dt 21.3.2009 Ex.A7 declaration certificate of Gram Panchayath Mominpet dt 23.6.2009 subject to objection. Ex.A8 is Sketch Map permitted for construction of house to D2 Gram Panchayath Mominpet subject to objection. Ex.A9 is Tax receipt dt 13.6.2006 Ex.A10 is Tax receipt dt 16.11.2007 Ex.A11 is the Original EC dt: 7.4.2009 Ex.A12 is Original Valuation Certificate dt 11.5.2009

EXHIBITS MARKE

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

-Nil- Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District 7 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB]

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All the part of parcel of plot adm.96 sq. yards in Sy.No.356 bearing premises G.P. No.8- 178 situated abutting main P.W.D Road leading from Sadashivapet to Vikarabad in Mominpet village, G.P and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with in following boundaries.

Northy: House of Parasuramulu South : House of Mazhar Ali East: PWD Road West : Internal G.P Road.

10.For the foregoing reasons this court come to conclusion that petitioner failed to show primafacie case and balance of inconvenience in their favour. When there is no primafacie case balance of convenience infavour of petitioner he is not entitled for injunction against the respondent till the disposal of the suit. Accordingly I answer this point against the petitioner.

Hence this court is not inclined to got injunction in favour of the petitioner in the these 8 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB] circumstances. However opportunity is there during the course of trial to both the parties to prove their contentions.

11.IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed without cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist and corrected and pronounced by me the open court on this day 9th January, 2018.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC. Junior Civil Judge Court, Tandur 9 [ OS.161 /2009, AJCJ,VKB] 10

1

OS 152 of 2009

IN THE COURT OF THE I. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VIKARABAD

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.T. Lakshmi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad,

Ranga Reddy District

Dated, this the 28 th day of December, 2019.

O.S.No.152 OF 2009

Between:-

Smt. Kanamgari Laxmamma W/o K. Lingappa, age: 40 years, occ: House hold, R/o Nagasamunder Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Plaintif

AND

1. Kanamgari Chandrappa S/o K. Balappa, age; 40 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Nagasamunder Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Smt. K. Sayamma W/o K. Chandrappa, age: 33 years, occ: House hold. … Defendants

This Original Suit is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri P. Sampurna Anand, Advocate for the Plaintif and Sri. G. Lavakumar,

Advocate for Defendant No.1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit fled by the plaintif for perpetual injunction in favour of plaintif in respect of suit land bearing Sy.No.3/EE/1 admeasuring 0-17 guntas situated at Nagasamunder village, Dharoor

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and henchmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.

2. The averments of the Plaint in brief, are as follows:

2

OS 152 of 2009

The plaintif is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.3/EE/1 admeasuring 0-17 guntas situated at Na- gasamunder village of Dharoor Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e suit schedule property. Originally one Kanamgari Balappa who is the father in law of the plaintif was the pattedar who died leaving behind his two sons namely K. Lingappa, who is husband of plaintif and K. Chan - drappa/defendant No.1. Both partitioned the property along with other lands at Sy.Nos 146, 147 and 245. Basing on the partition the Mandal

Revenue Ofcer, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District issued proceed- ings vide No. 2681/1997 in favour of husband of plaintif and defendant

No.1 issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of husband of plaintif and defendant No.1 and they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The husband of plaintif died leaving behind the plaintif as his legal heir during his life time he has sold away the lands which were fell to his share, except the suit schedule property which was in his possession. The plaintif after the death of her hus - band approached the Mandal Revenue Ofcer and made an application for transfer of the suit schedule property in her favour.

The plaintif further submitted that, she raised the Cotton crops in suit schedule property, but on 12-8-2009, the defendant No.1 who is brother in law of plaintif tried to dispossess the plaintif from the suit schedule property and obstructed the work of the plaintif. But, the plaintif resisted the defendant No.1 and protected her possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant created some false docu- ments after the death of husband of plaintif and claiming the suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintif from suit schedule property.

Hence, the suit.

3. On the other hand the defendants fled written statement by denying all the plaint averments and submitted that, the husband of plaintif and defendants are own brothers. After the death of their father K. Balappa 3

OS 152 of 2009

they have partitioned the lands. The husband of plaintif sold away his share of property i.e lands at Sy.No.s 3, 146, 147 and 245. After partition of the said lands Sy.No. 3 were bifurcated as Sy.No. 3/EE/2a to an extent of Ac. 0-17 guntas which fell to the share of husband of plaintif and

Sy.No. 3/EE/2b to an extent of Ac. 0-18 guntas which fell to the share of defendant No.1. The defendants further submitted that, the husband of plaintif sold the total extent Ac. 1-03 guntas at Sy.No.147 which includes the share of the defendant No.1 to one Mr. Boini Buchappa. In view of the same the husband of the plaintif has relinquished his rights in Sy.No. 3/

EE/2a which fell to his share in favour of the defendant No.1 vide docu- ment dated 23-9-2001 and delivered the possession to the defendant

No.1, since then the defendant No.1 is in possession for the total extent i.e Ac. 1-03 guntas at Sy.No.147. Hence they prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration:-

1) Whether the plaintif is entitled for Perpetual Injunction against defendant No.1 and 2 for the Plaint schedule property?

2) To what relief?

5. During course of trial, on behalf plaintif she herself examined as PW1, and exhibited Ex.A1 to A13. Though PW2 and PW3 fled the afdavits they failed to enter the witness box, hence their evidence was eschewed.

On behalf of defendant DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B8 were exhibited.

6.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintif as well as defendant.

7.Issue No.1: The plaintif has fled evidence afdavit in lieu of her chief examination U/Order XVIII R 4(1) of CPC which is the reiterated version of plaint pleadings.

8.It is in the evidence of PW1 that she is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.3/EE/1, admeasuring 0.17 4

OS 152 of 2009

guntas situated at Nagasamundar village of Dharoor Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District suit schedule property which she acquired after the death of her husband. Originally one Kanamgari Balappa who is father in law of plaintif was the pattedar who died leaving his two sons namely

K.Lingappa and K.Chandrappa i.e. the plaintifs husband and defendant herein.

9.In support of her contention the plaintif has fled the true copies of pahanies Ex.A1 to A3 for the year 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-02 showing that suit schedule property originally in the name of father in law of plaintif and partitioned between husband of plaintif and defendant. Ex.A4 for the year 2003-04 shows that husband of plaintif and defendant no.1 were pattedar and possessors of suit schedule property. Ex.A5, A6 for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 showing husband of plaintif as pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property. Ex.A7, A8 pattedar pass book and title deed of husband of plaintif showing mutation efected vide proceeding no.1268/1997 dt. 27.6.1998. Ex.A9 to

A13 also shows that husband of plaintif is the pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property.

10. Per contra the contention of defendant is that after the death of their father himself and the plaintiffs husband partitioned the lands and husband of plaintif sold away the lands fell to his share and land at

Sy.No.3 was partitioned between them and husband of plaintif got Ac 0.17 guntas, suit schedule property herein and he got Ac 0.18 guntas.

The husband of plaintif sold entire land at Sy.147 including the share of defendant as such he relinquished his right over the land at Sy.No.3/EE/2/ a to an extent of Ac.0.17 guntas vide document dt. 23.9.2001 as such he is in physical possession of suit schedule property.

11.The evidence of PW1 reveals that her father in law is the original pattedar of suit schedule property and after his death the suit schedule property including other lands were partitioned between her husband 5

OS 152 of 2009

and her brother in law, defendant no.1 and both of them are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares including the suit schedule properties. Further PW1 submitted that her husband sold away his share of lands during his life time except the suit land and after demise of her husband she made application before the Mandal Revenue

Ofcer, Dharur which is pending and defendant no.1 who is her brother in law due to her deserted condition trying to dispossess her from the suit schedule property. In cross examination she deposed that her husband exchanged his share of land with defendant no.1 who in turn gave land at

Sy.No.147. Further PW1 admitted that suit schedule property is being cultivated by defendant no.1 who took possession forcibly and till today defendants are only cultivating the suit schedule property. Further PW1 deposed that since during the lifetime of her husband defendants are only cultivating the suit land. The evidence of PW1 is supported by way of documentary proof i.e. Ex.A1 to A13 proving her contention that suit schedule property in name of her husband but plaintif has not fled any document to establish her contention that she gave representation

before the MRO, Dharur for mutation of suit schedule property on her

favour after the death of her husband. Further plaintif failed to fle any document to say that she is in possession of suit schedule property on the date of fling of suit.

12.The contention of defendant is that plaintif is not having any right over the suit schedule property and in order to harass them a false suit was fled and they are only in possession of suit schedule property.

13.It is in the evidence of DW1 that they are the absolute owners of suit schedule property agricultural land bearing Sy.No.3/EE/1, admeasuring 0.17 guntas situated at Nagasamundar village of Dharoor Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. The husband of plaintif and D1, her husband are the real brothers and partitioned the lands at Sy.No.3, Sy.No.146, Sy.No.147 and

Sy.No.245 after the death of their father in law. To prove her contention 6

OS 152 of 2009

got marked Ex.B1 to B8, showing that DW1 as pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property acquired the same from ancestors.

14.In cross examination she admitted that she has not fled any document to say that the husband of plaintif relinquished his share in respect of suit schedule property in lieu of their share in Sy.No.147 to an extent of

Ac 1.03 guntas and also admitted that she was not present at the time of execution of release deed nor witnessed the said document. Finally she denied that Ex.B1 to B8 were created for the purpose of the present case and taking advantage of absence of plaintif got mutated the suit schedule property on her name.

15.Though defendant pleaded that husband of plaintif relinquished his share in suit schedule property in lieu of land at Sy.No.147 to an extent of Ac 1.03 guntas, they failed to fle any piece of paper to establish the same. Further even defendants failed to fle the document that the plaintif sold total extent of land to one Boini Buchappa.

16.DW2 deposed in the lines of DW1 and further stated that husband of plaintif executed the documents relinquishing his share and he acted as witness to the said document. In cross examination he also admitted that the said document was not fled before the court.

17.It is admitted fact that suit schedule property is one among the ancestral properties of plaintiffs husband and defendant no.1. It is also undisputed that husband of plaintif got suit schedule land during partition. Whereas the contention of defendants is that he relinquished the suit schedule property in lieu of land at Sy.No.147 vide document

dated 23.09.2001 and delivered vacant and physical possession to

defendant no.1 but no document was fled to establish their contention.

The document dt. 23.09.2001 as alleged by defendant pertains to the year 2001 whereas Ex.A9 to A13 shows that husband of plaintif as pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property pertaining to the year 7

OS 152 of 2009

2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. If at all husband of plaintif delivered physical possession to defendants as per their own contention the question of showing husband of plaintif as pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property does not arise.

18.It is the suit for perpetual injunction, plaintif has to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. Further plaintif has not fled any document to show that she is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of fling of suit. Further the husband of plaintif died prior to fling of suit and though she gave representation before the MRO,

Dharur for mutation of suit schedule property as per her own contention on her name inspite of it, Ex.A9 to A13 Pahanies refects the name of husband of plaintif as pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property which was not elicited by PW1. The said representation given to MRO was not fled before the court by plaintif. It is for the plaintif to show that she is in possession of suit schedule property and prove her possession over the suit schedule property but should not depend on the weakness of defendants. Except bald allegations that defendants created some false documents and claiming the suit schedule property. Further plaintif herself admitted that defendants only cultivating the suit schedule property thus question of interference by defendants does not arise. Thus plaintif failed to discharge her initial burden that she is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of fling of suit beyond preponderance of probabilities. Therefore the plaintif is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the plaintif.

19.Issue No.:2

In view of fndings on the above issue the plaintif is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly the issue is answered.

8

OS 152 of 2009

20. In the result, the suit of plaintif is dismissed. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 28 th Day of December, 2019.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1 is K.LakshmammaDW1 is K.Sayamma PW2 is D.Shivappa DW2 is K.Balakistaiah PW3 is R.Anthappa

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the CC of Pahani 1999-2000 Ex.A2 is the CC of Pahani 2000-2001 Ex.A3 is the CC of Pahani 2001-2002 Ex.A4 is the CC of Pahani 2003-2004 Ex.A5 is the CC of Pahani 2005-2006 Ex.A6 is the CC of Pahani 2006-2007 Ex.A7 is Original Pass Book Ex.A8 is Original Title deed Ex.A9 is the Mee-Seva pahani for the year fasli no.1420, dt. 4.12.2017 Ex.A10 is the Mee-Seva Pahani for the year fasli no.1421, dt. 4.12.2017 Ex.A11 is the Mee-Seva Pahani for the year fasli no. 1422, dt. 4.12.2017 Ex.A12 is the Mee-Seva Pahani for the year fasli no. 1423, dt. 4.12.2017 Ex.A13 is the Mee-Seva Pahani for the year fasli no.1424, dt. 4.12.2017

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 is the Mee-seva 1-B ROR dt.3.1.2018 of Chandrappa/D1 Ex.B2 is the Mee-seva 1-B ROR dt.3.1.2018 of Sayamma/D2 Ex.B3 is the Mee-seva Pahani for fasli 1426 dt.4.1.2018 of Chandrappa/D1 pertaining to Sy.No.3/EE/2/b Ex.B4 is the Mee-seva Pahani for fasli 1426 dt.4.1.2018 of Sayamma/D2 pertaining to Sy.No.3/EE/2/a Ex.B5 is the Mee-seva Pahani for fasli 1427 dt.4.1.2018 of Chandrappa/D1 pertaining to Sy.No.3/EE/2/b Ex.B6 is the Mee-seva Pahani for fasli 1427 dt.4.1.2018 of Sayamma/D2 9

OS 152 of 2009

pertaining to Sy.No.3/EE/2/a Ex.B7 is the Mee-Seva Pahani dt.2.8.2019 of Chandrappa/D1 pertaining to Sy.No.3/EE/2/b Ex.B8 is the Mee-seva pahani dt.2.8.2019 of Sayamma/D2 pertaining to Sy.No.3/EE/2/a

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD.