Sri T.V.Rajesh Kumar

1

APVZ010004942024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION) AT VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram.

Monday, the 30th day of June, 2025

APPEAL SUIT No.116/2024

(Old APPEAL SUIT No. 30/2019 on the file of

Hon’ble Principal District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram)

Between : Karanam Janardhana Rao S/o late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 61 years, Landlord, residing at Thotapalem, Vizianagaram. … Appellant/1st Defendant And:

1. Parchuri Rama Krishna S/o Late Siva Rama Prasad, Hindu, aged 48 years, Employee, resident of Thotapalem, Vizianagaram. (Plaintiff).

2. Gondela Prakash S/o Late Adinarayana, Hindu, aged 53 years, Business, residing at Indiramma Colony, Near Central Bank of India, Thotapalem, Vizianagaram. (2 nd Defendant).

3. Pogili Ramana S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 51 years, Business, residing at Indiramma Housing Colony, Near Pradeep Nagar, Thotapalem, Vizianagaram. (3 rd Defendant). … Respondents/Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 and 3

(On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No. 282/2013 dated

21.01.2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Vizianagaram)

Between :

Parchuri Rama Krishna. ... Plaintiff

And:

1. Karanam Janardhana Rao.

2. Gondela Prakash.

3. Pogili Ramana.... Defendants

2

This Appeal came up before me on 16.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.N.M.Raju, Ld.Counsel for Appellant/1st Defendant and of Sri

P.Seshadri, Ld.Counsel for 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the Appellant, challenging the Judgment and

Decree of the Trial Court dated 21.01.2019 in O.S.No.282/2013. This appeal is received by transfer from the Honourable Principal District Judge’s Court,

Vizianagaram, as per the directions of Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

ROC No.102/OP Cell-E/2023, Dated 04.01.2023.

2.The Appellant is the 1st Defendant and the 1st Respondent is the

Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. In the present Appeal, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in O.S.

No.282/2013 for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

3. The grounds of appeal are that :

The Decree and Judgment of Trail Court is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case and the Trail Court ought to have dismissed the suit holding that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff could not establish his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property at any point of time much less, as on the date of filing of the suit and that the Trail Court ought to have seen that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence in proof of his possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property except Ex.A.2 3

Registered sale deed, which is not sufficient to establish the possession. The Trial

Court ought to have seen that the Appellant/1st Defendant filed his detailed written statement narrating the origin of his title and set up his own right and thus, throw suspicion as to the right and title of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and as such, should have dismissed the suit and the Trail Court ought to have seen that the vendors of both the Appellant/1st Defendant and 1st Respondent/Plaintiff are own brothers and that the vendor of the Appellant/1st Defendant sold away the property way back in the year 1999 in the capacity of "Kartha" of the joint family and that no partition took place and as such the court cannot decide the dispute in a suit for injunction simpliciter and should have dismissed the suit. The Trail Court erred in not appreciating the evidence of the D.Ws 1 and 2, who categorically deposed about the genealogy of the vendors of the Appellant/1st Defendant and the 1st

Respondent/Plaintiff and decreed the suit and hence, the Judgment is liable to be set aside by allowing this Appeal.

4.Heard arguments on both sides.

5. The factual matrix of the case is that:

According to the plaint, one Pakki Sesha Sai is the original owner of the plaint schedule property and he executed agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney in favour of Kanakala Satyanarayana on 20.03.2004 after receiving the balance sale consideration and the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from Kanakala Satyanarayana by means of a registered sale deed dated 30.6.2005 4 and ever since, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no manner of right in the property and are making efforts to interfere into the property. Therefore, the suit is filed.

6.According to the Written Statement of the 1st defendant, one

Naghabhushanam is the son of Pakki Apparao and the said Nagabhushanam is vendor of Exhibit B.3-Sale Deed dated 20.07.1994 executed in favour of

Kanthimahanthi Balakrishna Patro, who executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Rajamahendravarapu Suresh under Exhibit B.2, who in turn executed registered Sale Deed under Exhibit B.1 in favour of 1st Defendant. After purchase of part of the plaint schedule property to an extent of 350 Sq.Yards from

Kantimahanthi Bala Krishna Patro, 1st Defendant got right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the suit be dismissed. The

Defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte.

7. After considering the pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following

Issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession enjoyment of

the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

8.During trail before the Trail Court, the Plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 who is a third party. The plaintiff exhibited A.1 to A.7 documents. On the other hand, the 1st Defendant himself was 5 examined as D.W.1 and also examined D.W.2, who is a third party. The 1st

Defendant exhibited B.1 to B.3 documents. After recording and appreciating the evidence on behalf of the both parties, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the Plaintiff proved his case and is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction and accordingly, decreed the suit with costs.

9.Aggrieved by the said decree and Judgment of the trial Court, the unsuccessful 1st Defendant filed this appeal, contending inter-alia that the Decree and Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the appellant urged to set-aside the decree and

Judgment of the Trial Court and consequently, allow the Appeal.

10.Now, the points that arises for consideration in this appeal are:

1. “ Whether the plaintiff proved that he is in lawful possession

and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing

of the suit and as such, he is entitled for the relief of permanent

injunction, as prayed for or not?”

2. “ Whether the Trial Court erred in appreciation of facts and

evidence and as such the Judgment and Decree of Trial Court

needs an interference by the Appellate Court as prayed for, or not?”

11. POINT Nos. 1 and 2 : The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant who is the 1st Defendant is that that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on hand and failed to uphold the principles of Law to be followed in a suit for Permanent Injunction and totally highlighted the weakness in the case of the Defendants, which is against to Law and it is well settled law that 6 the Plaintiff has to prove his own case, but cannot rely on the weakness in the case of the Defendant and further, the Trail Court failed to appreciate the evidence on hand and the admissions of P.W.1 goes to show that he is not in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and there is no evidence of partition and even though there is a serious dispute of Title, without following the settled

Law, the Trail Court decreed the suit for Permanent Injunction and hence, prayed to allow the Appeal and dismiss the suit.

12.The contention of the learned counsel for 1st Respondent/Plaintiff is that the partition need not be in writing and it can be proved in other way and oral partition is permitted under Law and cloud on title must be serious cloud, but not all contentions on title can consider as serious and boundaries in Exhibits B.3 and

B.2 are not tallying and the Trail Court rightly decreed the suit.

13.As already stated, in order to prove his case, the Plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and he filed his chief-affidavit by reiterating the averments of plaint. During cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that the GPA holder sold the suit schedule property to him and he is not having acquaintance with Pakki Sesha Sai and it is recited in Exhibit A.1-Sale deed that Pakki Sesha Sai inherited the suit schedule property from his ancestors and he is not aware of the family members of

Pakki Sesha Sai. He further deposed that the suit schedule property is situated in

Survey No.51/3 and the schedule shown in Exhibit A.4 and plaint schedule mismatched with each other and they are not one and the same. He further deposed 7 that he is not having any documentary proof to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property except Exhibit A.2. He further deposed that Kanakala Satyanarayana did not hand over any revenue record along with link document of Exhibit A.2 to him. He further deposed that it is mentioned in Exhibit

A.1 that the property was devolved by way of succession and pursuant to partition, but he did not produce the Partition Deed, which was taken place in between Pakki

Sesha Sai and his family members. He further deposed that he is not aware originally the property belongs to Pakki Nagabhushana Rao. He denied the suggestions that neither Kanakala Satyanarayana nor Pakki Sesha Sai has transferable interest over the plaint schedule property and that Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

14.P.W.2 is a third party and he filed his chief-affidavit by supporting the case of Plaintiff. During cross-examination, he deposed that he is not aware how many brothers Sesha Sai has and he did not obtain any proof from Sesha Sai to show that the property covered under Exhibit A.7 fell to his share and he did not obtain any revenue record showing Title of Sesha Sai over the plaint schedule property covered by Exhibit A.7. He further deposed that Sesha Sai has four brothers and he owns and possess Ac.0.16 cents of land as per revenue record.

15.The 1st Defendant filed his chief-affidavit as D.W.1, by reiterating the averments of his written statement. During cross-examination, D.W.1 deposed that

before purchasing the property covered under Exhibit B.1, he verified the revenue

8 records and took the same from its original owner and originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to Pakki Apparao and the name of the son of Pakki

Apparao is Nagabhushanam. He further deposed that he did not produce any documentary proof to show that Pakki Apparao was the owner of Ac.0.16cents covered by S.No.51/3 and it is referred in Exhibit B.3 that the executant executed the document in the capacity of ‘Head’ of the family. He further deposed that

Exhibit B.2 is executed on 01.11.2010 and Exhibit B.1 is executed on 02.11.2010.

He further deposed that the boundaries set out in Exhibit B.3 and the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit B.2 are quite different. He denied the suggestions that the property which is purchased by him under Exhibit B.1 is not part of plaint schedule property and that he is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and P.W.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

16.D.W.2 is a third party and he filed his chief-affidavit by supporting the case of the 1st Defendant. During cross-examination, he deposed that he is not aware the details of the brothers of Nagabhushana Rao and he is not aware whether Nagabhushana Rao and Seshasai partitioned their family properties or not.

He further deposed that one Pakki Nagabhushana Rao has Ac.0.16cents of land covered in Survey No.51/3 and the same is referred to Exhibit A.3. He denied the suggestion that Defendant No.1 has no right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property and also his predecessor in interest.

9

17.The law is well settled that the Plaintiff has to prove his case with cogent and convincing evidence, but cannot rely on the weakness in the case of the

Defendants. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the vendor of the plaintiff got the plaint schedule property towards his share in the partition and the plaintiff purchased the same under registered sale deed. Indisputably, the plaintiff did not file any document to show the alleged partition. Even assuming for a moment that it is an oral partition, no cogent and convincing evidence is adduced by the plaintiff to prove the aspect of oral partition and moreover, he did not whisper anywhere in the plaint about ‘oral partition’.

18.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, he categorically deposed that the schedule shown in Exhibit A.4 and the plaint schedule mismatched with each other and they are not one and the same. P.W.1 further deposed that he is not having any documentary proof that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property except Exhibit A.2. On perusal of Exhibit A.2, it is nothing but

Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.06.2005 executed in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court deviated from the oral and documentary evidence on record and relied on Sale deed filed by the Plaintiff and might have presumed that the plaintiff is in possession over the plaint schedule property on the concept of ‘possession follows title’, which is not tenable in view of facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. If the Sale deed of the Plaintiff is taken into consideration and presumption is drawn as ‘possession follows title’, the 1st 10

Defendant also filed Registered Sale deed, covering the plaint schedule property.

Both the Plaintiff as P.W.1 and 1st Defendant as D.W.1 deposed in their cross- examination about mismatch of boundaries.

19.The Trail Court relied on the evidence and documents of the contesting Defendant without much scrutinizing the documents and evidence of the plaintiff. In this case, the Plaintiff is not disputing the purchase of property by 1st Defendant under Exhibit B.1 document, but it is the contention of the plaintiff that the property which the 1st Defendant purchased under Exhibit B.1 is not the part of plaint schedule property for which, the 1st Defendant denied. According to

Plaintiff, Exhibit A.3 reflects the name of Pakki Seshasai for Ac.0.16cents covered under Survey No.51/3 and as per the contention of the Defendant, Pakki Apparao is the owner with respect to Ac.0.16cents covered by Survey No.51/3.

Indisputably, Naghabhushanam is son of Pakki Apparao and the said

Nagabhushanam is vendor of Exhibit B.3-Sale Deed dated 20.07.1994 executed in favour of Kanthimahanthi Balakrishna Patro, who executed General Power of

Attorney in favour of Rajamahendravarapu Suresh under Exhibit B.2, who in turn executed registered Sale Deed under Exhibit B.1 in favour of 1st Defendant. In

Exhibit B.3-Sale Deed, there is a recital that “ పక్కి�లేటు�అప్పా�రావుగారికు�మారు�డు� కు�టుం��బ యజమానినాగభూ�షణరావువ్రా� యిం�చిఇచి�నశు�ద్ద"కు#యచీటి" (Pakki late సమిష్టి�

Apparao gari kumarudu samishti kutumba yajamani Nagabhushana Rao vrayinchi ichina suddha kraya cheeti). The said document was executed on 20.07.1994 and 11 the recital goes to show that Pakki Nagabhushanarao, being ‘Kartha’ of the family, executed the said Sale Deed. The evidence of P.W.1 is that he is not having acquaintance with Pakki Sesha Sai and it is recited in Exhibit A.1-Sale deed that

Pakki Sesha Sai inherited the suit schedule property from his ancestors and he is not aware of the family members of Pakki Sesha Sai. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the genealogy of the vendors of the Appellant/1st Defendant and the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff.

20. In this case, both the Plaintiff as well as the 1st Defendant claiming right, title and possession over the property covered under Survey no.51/3 and indisputably, both of them purchased the property under registered sale deeds. It is very crystal clear that there is a serious cloud cast over the Title. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 that he is not having any documentary proof to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property itself dis- entitles him to the relief of Permanent Injunction.

21. In Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & Others, decided on 25 March, 2008, Honourable Supreme Court has summarized the position in regard to suits for Prohibitory Injunction relating to immovable property. The same is reproduced hereunder:

(a) Where a cloud is raised over Plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the Plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction.

12

Where there is merely an interference with Plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession.

But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.

13

The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to Plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

22. In T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy vs M.Mallappa and another, decided on 7 th day of September, 2021 reported in 2021 (5) ALD 231 (SC), Honourable

Supreme Court has held that “a suit for Permanent Injunction is not maintainable without claiming declaration of Title, when the title is disputed”.

23. In Arshutunnisha and Others Vs. Mohammed Kasim (died) and others, decided on 29 th day of September, 2023 reported in 2023 (6) ALD 122 (AP), the Honourable High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, held that..

“In a suit for prohibitory injunction filed by Plaintiffs claiming title as well as possession over the schedule property, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the possession and the suit will be decided with reference to findings on possession and the question of Title will not be a direct and substantial issues, but in cases where De Jure possession has to be established on basis of title to property, issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide issue of possession, as laid down by Hon’ble Apex

Court in AIR 2008 SC 2033, Both trial court as well as first appellate court considered question of possession os schedule property basing on oral and documentary evidence placed before trial court, by respective parties and having considered every document filed by Plaintiffs, with reference to 14 proof of their contents and probative value, held that documents filed by plaintiff would not establish that plaintiffs are in possession of schedule property and dismissed the suit holding that on facts that the plaintiff failed to establish the possession of schedule property, concurrent findings of both courts, based on principles of appreciation of evidence relating to documents, warrant no interference in second appeal and the second appeal dismissed as devoid of merits”.

24. In Syed Fahim Arif and Another Vs. Rahmatunnisa Begum another, decided on 22 nd day of March, 2005 reported in 2005 (3) ALD 545 (DB), the Honourable High court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that “the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the right and possession over the suit property and the plaintiff should succeed on strength of his own title by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge burden on him and he cannot succeed on the weakness of Defendant’s case.”

25.In view of the above said authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court and

Hon’ble High Court of A.P, it is clear that if there is serious title dispute, a mere

suit for Injunction simpliciter in not maintainable. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on hand and decreed the suit for relief of Permanent Injunction, by ignoring the basic principles of Law and as such, the Decree and Judgment of Trail Court dated 15 21.01.2019 is liable to be set aside and the present Appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the Points are answered.

26.In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the Decree and Judgment of the Trial Court dated 21.01.2019 in O.S.No.282/2013 is hereby set aside, consequent to which, the Suit is dismissed. Each party do bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 30 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this Appeal.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram.

Copy to: The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE ( SENIOR

DIVISION) AT VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 27th day of June, 2025

APPEAL SUIT No.108/2024

(Old APPEAL SUIT No. 34/2019 on the file of

Hon’ble Principal District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram)

Between:

1. Bammidi Pentayya S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 50 years, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Bammidi Ramaswamy S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 48 years, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3. Bammidi Appalanarasayya S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 45 years, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Appellant/Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 And: 1. Palla Thati Naidu S/o late Appalaswamy, aged about 45 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Kornana Appayyamma W/o Surianji, aged about 41 years, resident of Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

3. Palla Appalanaidu S/o Late Appalaswamy, aged about 43 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4. Palla Srinu S/o Late Appalaswamy, aged about 40 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

5. Palla Sanyasi Rao S/o Late Appalaswamy, aged about 31 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/Plaintiffs 2

6. Bammidi Thoudu S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram. District. … Respondent No.6/Defendant No.1

(On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.230/2013

dated 18.02.2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Vizianagaram)

Between:

1. Palla Appala Ramaswamy (Died).

2. Palla Thatinaidu.

3. Korgana Appayyamma.

4. Palla Appalanaidu.

5. Palla Srinu.

6. Palla Sanyasi Rao. (Plaintiffs 2 to 6 being LRs of 1st Plaintiff

were added as per orders in I.A 2080/2017 dt.09.01.2018)... Plaintiffs

And:

1. Bammidi Thoudu.

2. Bammidi Pentayya.

3. Bammidi Ramaswamy.

4. Bammidi Appalanarasayya.... Defendants

This Appeal came up before me on 17.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Rambabu, Ld. Counsel for Appellants and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel for Respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the Appellant, challenging the Judgment and

Decree of the Trial Court dated 18.02.2019 in O.S.No.230/2013. This Appeal is received by transfer from the Honourable Principal District Judge’s Court,

Vizianagaram, as per the Proceedings of Honourable High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Amaravathi in ROC No.102/OP Cell/E2023, dated 04.01.2023.

3

2.The Appellants are the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and the Respondent

Nos. 1 to 5 are the Plaintiffs and the Respondent No.6 is the Defendant No.1 in the above said suit. The parties will be referred to in similar manner as arrayed in

O.S.No.230/2013 in the present Appeal for the sake of convenience and to avoid

confusion.

3. The grounds of appeal are that - The Decree and Judgment passed by the Trail Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the Trail Court erred in shifting the burden on the Defendants and erred in observing with regard to Exhibit B.1 as it is not based on the evidence, but only imagination of probable factors and erred in observing that receipt for subsequent payment without obtaining endorsement on the reverse of the sale agreement is unsustainable under Law and the trial court should have seen that non-obtaining registered sale deed as per Exhibit B.1 by the father of the

Defendants will not create any doubt with regard to the transaction under Exhibit

B.1 and possession and enjoyment of the Defendants over plaint schedule property. The Trial Court erred in applying separate yard stick in assessing the genuineness of Exhibits A.1 to A.6 on another part and should have seen that the boundaries in Exhibits B.4 and B.5 which are of the year 2001 and 2002 confirms the ownership as well as the possession of the Defendants over the plaint schedule property and also should have seen that when the

Respondents/Plaintiffs failed to establish the possession and enjoyment over the 4 plaint schedule property, drawing presumption for non-filing of pattadar passbook and title deeds by the Defendants/Appellants is untenable at Law and the Trail Court also should have seen that except the oral evidence of P.W.2, no other oral evidence is adduced by the Respondent to prove their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the

Defendants/Appellants and decreed the suit and therefore, the Judgment and

Decree of Trial court liable to be set aside.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that :

As per the plaint, the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and the deceased Palla Ramaswamy/1st Plaintiff used to be in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and after demise of his father, the Revenue officials issued pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of deceased Palla Appala Ramaswamy/1st Plaintiff and the defendants have no manner of right and making efforts to interfere into the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit was filed for Permanent Injunction. The Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased Palla Appala Ramaswamy/1st Plaintiff and added as per orders in I.A. 2080/2017 dt.09.01.2018.

5.The 2nd defendant filed written statement and the defendants 1, 3 and 4 adopted the same. As per the written statement, the deceased plaintiff Palla 5

Appala Ramaswamy and his father by name Palla Satyamma alienated Item No.1 to 4 of the suit schedule property to the father of the 2nd defendant by name

Bammidi Ramappadu by way of agreement of sale dated 11.05.1980 and after his death, himself and his brother partitioned the Item No.1 to 4 and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and the extent and boundaries of suit schedule property are incorrect and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. On considering the pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following

Issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the extent and boundaries of the plaint schedule property are incorrect as contended by the defendants ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction `

restraining the defendants and their men and servants from ever

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiff over the plaint schedule property?

4) To what relief?

7.To prove the case, the 1st Plaintiff/Palla Appala Rama Swamy filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of chief-examination by reiterating the averments of the plaint. After filing the chief-affidavit, the 1st plaintiff passed away and consequently, his proof affidavit was eschewed. The youngest son of Palla 6

Appala Rama Swamy by name Palla Sanyasi Rao filed chief-affidavit as P.W.2 and exhibited A.1 to A10 documents. On the other hand, on behalf of

Defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and also examined D.W.2 and exhibited B.1 to B.3 documents. After recording and appreciating the evidence on behalf of the both parties, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their case and entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction and accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs.

8.Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment of the trial Court, this appeal was filed by the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and urged to set-aside the decree and Judgment of the trial Court, by allowing this Appeal.

9.Now, the points that arises for consideration in this appeal are:

1. Whether the plaintiffs proved that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and as such, they are entitled

for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for?

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in appreciation of facts and evidence and as such the Judgment and Decree of Trial Court needs an interference by the Appellate Court as prayed for, or not?

10. POINT Nos-1 and 2:It is the contention of the learned Counsel

for Appellants that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence on hand and

failed to look into the documentary evidence adduced by the Defendants who are appellants and even though there is a dispute over the Title, the Trial Court decreed the suit for the relief of Permanent Injunction, which is against to the 7

principals of Law and the documents filed by defendants and evidence of D.Ws.

1 and 2 clearly established their possession over the plaint schedule property and as such, the Appeal is liable to be allowed.

11.On the other hand, the contention of learned Counsel for the

Respondents/Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and even though, the Defendants contended that they are in possession over the plaint schedule property, no piece of document has been filed to establish the same and the admissions of D.W.1 itself are sufficient to say that the Defendants are not having any right, title, interest or possession over the plaint schedule property and on the other hand, the Plaintiffs filed A.1 to

A.10 documents i.e. Adangals, pattadar pass books, Title Deed, land tax receipts relating to plaint schedule property, which categorically discloses that the

Plaintiffs are in possession over the plaint schedule property and the Trial Court rightly decreed the suit with costs and therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12.As already stated, to prove their case, the 1st Plaintiff filed his chief- affidavit, however the same was eschewed as he died and one of the sons of 1st

Plaintiff was examined as P.W.2 and he filed his chief-affidavit by reiterating the averments of the Plaint. During cross-examination, he deposed that he is unaware as to how many items, the suit schedule property consists and he is not aware how Palla Satyam got the property and he is not aware of the name of father of 8

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. He further deposed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He further deposed that Exhibits A.8 and A.9 were issued by the revenue officials with respect to the Ac.0.94 cents covered by plaint schedule properties and Exhibits A.1 to A.7 were obtained through Mee-

Seva. He further deposed that he did not produce the revenue records from 1982 to 2013, showing the possession of his father and grandfather over the suit schedule properties. He denied the suggestions that from the date of Agreement,

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

13.The 2nd Defendant was examined as D.W.1 and he filed chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of Written Statement. During cross- examination, he deposed that he did not produce any registered document to show that his father has right, title and interest with respect to suit schedule property and did not file pattadar passbook and Title deed before the court and they were pledged with Bank and he did not produce original Sale Agreement and it was burnt in the fire accident. He further deposed that around 38 years back, the agreement of sale was reduced into writing and he cannot say the date, month and year in which the sale agreement was reduced into writing. He further deposed that 1-B Register was submitted in the Bank and he is having nothing to do with the land covered by Item Nos. 5 to 7 of the suit schedule property. He further deposed that their names are mutated in revenue record and he did not 9 produce any proof to show that their names were muted in the revenue record.

He denied the suggestions that the plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of Palla Appalaswamy during his life time and after his demise, the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment over the same.

14.D.W.2 is a third party and he filed his chief-affidavit by supporting the case of Defendant. During cross-examination, he admitted that Survey number mentioned in Exhibit B.4 and the suit schedule survey number are different and the extent of suit schedule property is Ac.0-70cents and he cannot say the suit schedule survey number.

15.The Plaintiffs asserted that they have been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. To substantiate their version,

P.W.2 testified and the Plaintiffs filed all the relevant documents i.e., Adangals,

Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deed and also land tax receipts, which clearly disclosed that the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Except some minor negligible discrepancies in the cross- examination of P.W.1 such as he is unaware as to how many items the suit schedule property consists and that he is not aware how Palla Satyam got the property, there is nothing in favour of the Defendants.

16.On the other hand, even though, it has been asserted by the

Defendants that they are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by virtue of Agreement of Sale alleged to have executed on 30.04.1980, 10 no piece of document has been filed to establish the same. The vague reason given by the Defendants is that the Agreement of Sale was burnt in a Fire accident, but no piece of evidence has been adduced to prove the said aspect. On the other hand, the evidence of D.W.1 clearly discloses that he is nothing to do with the land covered by Item Nos. 5 to 7 of the suit schedule property and their names are mutated in revenue record, but he did not produce any proof to show that their names were muted in the revenue record and that he did not produce any registered document to show their right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property and also that he did not file the pattadar passbook, title deed

before the court and they were pledged with the Bank and the 1-B Register was

also submitted to the Bank. The defence taken by the Defendants appears to be very unreasonable as there is every opportunity to them to produce the said documents said to be in Bank, if really they are in existence. Further, D.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that the Survey number mentioned in Exhibit B.4 and the suit schedule survey number are different.

17.The learned Counsel for Appellants vehemently contended that there is a cloud over the Title of the Plaintiffs and as such, a suit for mere

Injunction is not maintainable. In Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & Others decided on 25 March, 2008, Honourable Supreme Court has summarized the position in regard to suits for Prohibitory Injunction relating to immovable property. The same is reproduced hereunder:

11

(a) Where a cloud is raised over Plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the Plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with Plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and 12 issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction.

But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.

But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to Plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

18.Mere raising a vague contention without any evidence that the plaint schedule property belongs to the Defendants would be of no consideration. The law is well settled that if there is a serious cloud over the Title of the parties, then a suit for Declaration is to be filed, but not mere Injunction. To raise the 13 contention of cloud over the title, the Defendants are expected to adduce cogent and convincing evidence or shake the credibility of the case of the Plaintiffs, which shall lead to a serious doubt as to the title of the parties. According to the

Defendants, the deceased plaintiff Palla Appala Ramaswamy and his father by name Palla Satyamma alienated Item No.1 to 4 of the suit schedule property to the father of the 2nd defendant by name Bammidi Ramappadu by way of agreement of sale dated 11.05.1980. The title of Plaintiffs is not disputed, but the contention of the Defendants is that the 1st Plaintiff and his father alienated Items 1 to 4 of plaint schedule property, for which no document is produced. It is well settled law that no title can be passed based on agreement of sale. Further, the alleged agreement of sale dated 11.05.1980 did not see the light of the day till date. As already stated above, the vague reason given by the Defendants is that the Agreement of Sale was burnt in a Fire accident, but no piece of evidence has been adduced to prove the said aspect.

19.In this case, there is no such serious cloud cast over the title and on the other hand, the documents filed by the Plaintiffs clearly established their possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of suit and as such, the Trial Court rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit with costs and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and therefore, the present Appeal fails on merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Points are answered.

14

20.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this Appeal.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram.

Copy to: The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE ( SENIOR

DIVISION) AT VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 27th day of June, 2025

APPEAL SUIT No.108/2024

(Old APPEAL SUIT No. 34/2019 on the file of

Hon’ble Principal District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram)

Between:

1. Bammidi Pentayya S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 50 years, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Bammidi Ramaswamy S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 48 years, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3. Bammidi Appalanarasayya S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 45 years, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Appellant/Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 And: 1. Palla Thati Naidu S/o late Appalaswamy, aged about 45 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Kornana Appayyamma W/o Surianji, aged about 41 years, resident of Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

3. Palla Appalanaidu S/o Late Appalaswamy, aged about 43 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4. Palla Srinu S/o Late Appalaswamy, aged about 40 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

5. Palla Sanyasi Rao S/o Late Appalaswamy, aged about 31 years, resident of Chinabattiavalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/Plaintiffs 2

6. Bammidi Thoudu S/o late Ramappadu, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, resident of Pedabattiavalasa Village, Kumili Panchayat, Poosapatirega Revenue Mandal, Vizianagaram. District. … Respondent No.6/Defendant No.1

(On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.230/2013

dated 18.02.2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Vizianagaram)

Between:

1. Palla Appala Ramaswamy (Died).

2. Palla Thatinaidu.

3. Korgana Appayyamma.

4. Palla Appalanaidu.

5. Palla Srinu.

6. Palla Sanyasi Rao. (Plaintiffs 2 to 6 being LRs of 1st Plaintiff

were added as per orders in I.A 2080/2017 dt.09.01.2018)... Plaintiffs

And:

1. Bammidi Thoudu.

2. Bammidi Pentayya.

3. Bammidi Ramaswamy.

4. Bammidi Appalanarasayya.... Defendants

This Appeal came up before me on 17.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Rambabu, Ld. Counsel for Appellants and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel for Respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the Appellant, challenging the Judgment and

Decree of the Trial Court dated 18.02.2019 in O.S.No.230/2013. This Appeal is received by transfer from the Honourable Principal District Judge’s Court,

Vizianagaram, as per the Proceedings of Honourable High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Amaravathi in ROC No.102/OP Cell/E2023, dated 04.01.2023.

3

2.The Appellants are the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and the Respondent

Nos. 1 to 5 are the Plaintiffs and the Respondent No.6 is the Defendant No.1 in the above said suit. The parties will be referred to in similar manner as arrayed in

O.S.No.230/2013 in the present Appeal for the sake of convenience and to avoid

confusion.

3. The grounds of appeal are that - The Decree and Judgment passed by the Trail Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the Trail Court erred in shifting the burden on the Defendants and erred in observing with regard to Exhibit B.1 as it is not based on the evidence, but only imagination of probable factors and erred in observing that receipt for subsequent payment without obtaining endorsement on the reverse of the sale agreement is unsustainable under Law and the trial court should have seen that non-obtaining registered sale deed as per Exhibit B.1 by the father of the

Defendants will not create any doubt with regard to the transaction under Exhibit

B.1 and possession and enjoyment of the Defendants over plaint schedule property. The Trial Court erred in applying separate yard stick in assessing the genuineness of Exhibits A.1 to A.6 on another part and should have seen that the boundaries in Exhibits B.4 and B.5 which are of the year 2001 and 2002 confirms the ownership as well as the possession of the Defendants over the plaint schedule property and also should have seen that when the

Respondents/Plaintiffs failed to establish the possession and enjoyment over the 4 plaint schedule property, drawing presumption for non-filing of pattadar passbook and title deeds by the Defendants/Appellants is untenable at Law and the Trail Court also should have seen that except the oral evidence of P.W.2, no other oral evidence is adduced by the Respondent to prove their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the

Defendants/Appellants and decreed the suit and therefore, the Judgment and

Decree of Trial court liable to be set aside.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that :

As per the plaint, the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and the deceased Palla Ramaswamy/1st Plaintiff used to be in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and after demise of his father, the Revenue officials issued pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of deceased Palla Appala Ramaswamy/1st Plaintiff and the defendants have no manner of right and making efforts to interfere into the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit was filed for Permanent Injunction. The Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased Palla Appala Ramaswamy/1st Plaintiff and added as per orders in I.A. 2080/2017 dt.09.01.2018.

5.The 2nd defendant filed written statement and the defendants 1, 3 and 4 adopted the same. As per the written statement, the deceased plaintiff Palla 5

Appala Ramaswamy and his father by name Palla Satyamma alienated Item No.1 to 4 of the suit schedule property to the father of the 2nd defendant by name

Bammidi Ramappadu by way of agreement of sale dated 11.05.1980 and after his death, himself and his brother partitioned the Item No.1 to 4 and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and the extent and boundaries of suit schedule property are incorrect and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. On considering the pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following

Issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the extent and boundaries of the plaint schedule property are incorrect as contended by the defendants ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction `

restraining the defendants and their men and servants from ever

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiff over the plaint schedule property?

4) To what relief?

7.To prove the case, the 1st Plaintiff/Palla Appala Rama Swamy filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of chief-examination by reiterating the averments of the plaint. After filing the chief-affidavit, the 1st plaintiff passed away and consequently, his proof affidavit was eschewed. The youngest son of Palla 6

Appala Rama Swamy by name Palla Sanyasi Rao filed chief-affidavit as P.W.2 and exhibited A.1 to A10 documents. On the other hand, on behalf of

Defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and also examined D.W.2 and exhibited B.1 to B.3 documents. After recording and appreciating the evidence on behalf of the both parties, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their case and entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction and accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs.

8.Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment of the trial Court, this appeal was filed by the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and urged to set-aside the decree and Judgment of the trial Court, by allowing this Appeal.

9.Now, the points that arises for consideration in this appeal are:

1. Whether the plaintiffs proved that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and as such, they are entitled

for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for?

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in appreciation of facts and evidence and as such the Judgment and Decree of Trial Court needs an interference by the Appellate Court as prayed for, or not?

10. POINT Nos-1 and 2:It is the contention of the learned Counsel

for Appellants that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence on hand and

failed to look into the documentary evidence adduced by the Defendants who are appellants and even though there is a dispute over the Title, the Trial Court decreed the suit for the relief of Permanent Injunction, which is against to the 7

principals of Law and the documents filed by defendants and evidence of D.Ws.

1 and 2 clearly established their possession over the plaint schedule property and as such, the Appeal is liable to be allowed.

11.On the other hand, the contention of learned Counsel for the

Respondents/Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and even though, the Defendants contended that they are in possession over the plaint schedule property, no piece of document has been filed to establish the same and the admissions of D.W.1 itself are sufficient to say that the Defendants are not having any right, title, interest or possession over the plaint schedule property and on the other hand, the Plaintiffs filed A.1 to

A.10 documents i.e. Adangals, pattadar pass books, Title Deed, land tax receipts relating to plaint schedule property, which categorically discloses that the

Plaintiffs are in possession over the plaint schedule property and the Trial Court rightly decreed the suit with costs and therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12.As already stated, to prove their case, the 1st Plaintiff filed his chief- affidavit, however the same was eschewed as he died and one of the sons of 1st

Plaintiff was examined as P.W.2 and he filed his chief-affidavit by reiterating the averments of the Plaint. During cross-examination, he deposed that he is unaware as to how many items, the suit schedule property consists and he is not aware how Palla Satyam got the property and he is not aware of the name of father of 8

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. He further deposed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He further deposed that Exhibits A.8 and A.9 were issued by the revenue officials with respect to the Ac.0.94 cents covered by plaint schedule properties and Exhibits A.1 to A.7 were obtained through Mee-

Seva. He further deposed that he did not produce the revenue records from 1982 to 2013, showing the possession of his father and grandfather over the suit schedule properties. He denied the suggestions that from the date of Agreement,

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

13.The 2nd Defendant was examined as D.W.1 and he filed chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of Written Statement. During cross- examination, he deposed that he did not produce any registered document to show that his father has right, title and interest with respect to suit schedule property and did not file pattadar passbook and Title deed before the court and they were pledged with Bank and he did not produce original Sale Agreement and it was burnt in the fire accident. He further deposed that around 38 years back, the agreement of sale was reduced into writing and he cannot say the date, month and year in which the sale agreement was reduced into writing. He further deposed that 1-B Register was submitted in the Bank and he is having nothing to do with the land covered by Item Nos. 5 to 7 of the suit schedule property. He further deposed that their names are mutated in revenue record and he did not 9 produce any proof to show that their names were muted in the revenue record.

He denied the suggestions that the plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of Palla Appalaswamy during his life time and after his demise, the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment over the same.

14.D.W.2 is a third party and he filed his chief-affidavit by supporting the case of Defendant. During cross-examination, he admitted that Survey number mentioned in Exhibit B.4 and the suit schedule survey number are different and the extent of suit schedule property is Ac.0-70cents and he cannot say the suit schedule survey number.

15.The Plaintiffs asserted that they have been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. To substantiate their version,

P.W.2 testified and the Plaintiffs filed all the relevant documents i.e., Adangals,

Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deed and also land tax receipts, which clearly disclosed that the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Except some minor negligible discrepancies in the cross- examination of P.W.1 such as he is unaware as to how many items the suit schedule property consists and that he is not aware how Palla Satyam got the property, there is nothing in favour of the Defendants.

16.On the other hand, even though, it has been asserted by the

Defendants that they are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by virtue of Agreement of Sale alleged to have executed on 30.04.1980, 10 no piece of document has been filed to establish the same. The vague reason given by the Defendants is that the Agreement of Sale was burnt in a Fire accident, but no piece of evidence has been adduced to prove the said aspect. On the other hand, the evidence of D.W.1 clearly discloses that he is nothing to do with the land covered by Item Nos. 5 to 7 of the suit schedule property and their names are mutated in revenue record, but he did not produce any proof to show that their names were muted in the revenue record and that he did not produce any registered document to show their right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property and also that he did not file the pattadar passbook, title deed

before the court and they were pledged with the Bank and the 1-B Register was

also submitted to the Bank. The defence taken by the Defendants appears to be very unreasonable as there is every opportunity to them to produce the said documents said to be in Bank, if really they are in existence. Further, D.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that the Survey number mentioned in Exhibit B.4 and the suit schedule survey number are different.

17.The learned Counsel for Appellants vehemently contended that there is a cloud over the Title of the Plaintiffs and as such, a suit for mere

Injunction is not maintainable. In Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & Others decided on 25 March, 2008, Honourable Supreme Court has summarized the position in regard to suits for Prohibitory Injunction relating to immovable property. The same is reproduced hereunder:

11

(a) Where a cloud is raised over Plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the Plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with Plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and 12 issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction.

But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.

But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to Plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

18.Mere raising a vague contention without any evidence that the plaint schedule property belongs to the Defendants would be of no consideration. The law is well settled that if there is a serious cloud over the Title of the parties, then a suit for Declaration is to be filed, but not mere Injunction. To raise the 13 contention of cloud over the title, the Defendants are expected to adduce cogent and convincing evidence or shake the credibility of the case of the Plaintiffs, which shall lead to a serious doubt as to the title of the parties. According to the

Defendants, the deceased plaintiff Palla Appala Ramaswamy and his father by name Palla Satyamma alienated Item No.1 to 4 of the suit schedule property to the father of the 2nd defendant by name Bammidi Ramappadu by way of agreement of sale dated 11.05.1980. The title of Plaintiffs is not disputed, but the contention of the Defendants is that the 1st Plaintiff and his father alienated Items 1 to 4 of plaint schedule property, for which no document is produced. It is well settled law that no title can be passed based on agreement of sale. Further, the alleged agreement of sale dated 11.05.1980 did not see the light of the day till date. As already stated above, the vague reason given by the Defendants is that the Agreement of Sale was burnt in a Fire accident, but no piece of evidence has been adduced to prove the said aspect.

19.In this case, there is no such serious cloud cast over the title and on the other hand, the documents filed by the Plaintiffs clearly established their possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of suit and as such, the Trial Court rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit with costs and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and therefore, the present Appeal fails on merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Points are answered.

14

20.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this Appeal.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram.

Copy to: The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(EXCISE):VIZIANAGARAM

Present : Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram,

(FAC) Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Tuesday, the 04th day of October, 2016

C.C.No. 629/2014

Between: State Represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Vizianagaram.… Complainant.

And:

1) Rambha Sanyasi Rao.

2) Potnuru Samuel ... Accused.

This case coming on 22.09.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant-State, and Sri K.L.Narasinga Rao and Sri D.Narayanappadu, Advocates for the accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.45/2013-14 of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Vizianagaram for the offence punishable under Sections 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.This case was taken on file for the offence under Sections-34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, against the accused.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to them in Telugu for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Upon hearing both sides, charge u/secs 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, having understood the same, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 and Mos 1 to 3.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material stood against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration in this case is, 'Whether the prosecution proved the offence of accused for illegal possession of Indian Made Liquor Bottles and thereby bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt' ?

9. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows :

On 17.7.3013, the Prohibition and Excise S.I, Vizianagaram-I along with

P&E H.C and P&E Constables while conducting route watch, found the accused coming on a Hero Honda Passion Plus motorcycle, opposite to A.P.Development Corporation at

Kanapaka area at 5.40 a.m. On suspicion, they stopped the motorcycle in the presence of mediators i.e., Karrothu Sanyasi Rao and Biyyala Gowri Naidu (PW1 and LW-2) and found the accused in possession of two bags containing 11 Brihans Nopicana Export

Quality XXX Matured White Rum plastic bottles each 750 ML and 11 Golkonda Brandy plastic bottles each 750 ML and 8 Tibachelor and blended of select Indian whiskies,

Delux Whisky each 750 ML without permit or license. The P&E S.I., drew samples of 3 bottles from each brand for the purpose of analysis, affixed identification slips duly sealed and signed by the accused and arrested the accused after explaining the grounds of arrest and seized the liquor bottles and the vehicle under the cover of mediators report. Basing on the mediators report, the P&E SI registered the case and sent the samples to the Chemical Analyst who opined that the samples are Indian

Liquor. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

10.It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 were found in illegal possession of liquor bottles without having any valid license and therefore, they are liable to be convicted. The accused contended that they never committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case by the Excise officials for their statistical purpose.

11.PW2, who according to the prosecution is a mediator for arrest and seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he does not know anything about the case and he does not know the accused. Even though he was declared as hostile and cross-examined by the learned A.P.P, he failed to elicit any material answers from him except putting some suggestions about the occurrence report, which was denied by him.

12.The only evidence available is the evidence of PW1 who is P&E H.C. PW1 deposed that on 17.7.2013, he along with PW1 and LW2-Biyyala Gowri Naidu and the

Proh.and Excise constable and Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector (LW4 and 5) while conducting route watch, found the accused at about 5.40 a.m near A.P. Development

Corporation, Kanapaka while accused were coming on motorcycle and on verification, they found 11 Brihans Nopicana Export XXX Matured White Rum plastic bottles bearing label “for defence service in A.P. only canteen services A.P. for sale to defense persons only” and on verification of second bag, they found 11 Golkonda Brandy plastic bottles bearing label united spirits HQ and 8 Tibachalor Indian Whisky, Delux each 750 ML. He further deposed that they have drawn one bottle from each brand i.e, 3 bottles as samples for Chemical Analysis and affixed identification slips on sample bottles.

13. In this case, the prosecution did not examine the Investigating officer and did not mark the FIR. The learned counsel for accused contended that the investigating agency has set up the material objects and as such there are different dates mentioned on material objects. On perusal of the dates on material objects, it was mentioned as '17.6.2013'. According to PW1, the route watch was conducted on '17.7.2013'. Hence, it is clear that the dates that are mentioned on identification slips affixed on material objects are different with that of the date of alleged arrest of accused and seizure of liquor bottles. The prosecution failed to explain the said discrepancy.

14.Further the contention of PW1 is that on the dictation of LW5-

B.V.Muralidhar, P&E SI, Vizianagaram-I, one B.Madhavi Devi, Excise Constable drafted the occurrence report. But the said Madhavi Devi is not cited as witness and also not examined by the prosecution. The mediator i.e., PW2 turned hostile and he deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1-Occurrence report. As already stated, the prosecution did not examine the investigating officer and did not mark the F.I.R. The law is well settled that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The available evidence on hand is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and therefore, it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, both the accused are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. A1 and A2 are directed to execute self bond for Rs.5000/- each u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred. Mos 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 04 th day of October, 2016.

Sd/- T.V Rajesh Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

(FAC)Spl. Judl. I Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- P.W.1: D. Venkateswara Rao, P&E H.C., -None- P.W.2: Karrothu Sanyasi Rao

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Mediators Report Dt.17.7.2013.

Ex.P.2: Signature of PW2 on Ex.P1 mediators report.

For Defence: - N I L -

M.Os.Marked

MO1: Brihan's Trapicana white rum plastic bottle of 750 ML. MO2: Goukonda Brandy pet bottle of 750 ML. MO3: Tibachalor Deluxe plastic bottle of 750 ML.

Sd/- T.V Rajesh Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

(FAC)Spl. Judl. I Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram

1

IN THE CO U R T OF THE SPECIAL JU DICIAL M A GIST R A T E OF I CLASS, 

(EXCISE), VIZIANA G A R A M.

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Ku m ar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Vizianagaram

(FAC) Spl.Judicial First Class Magistrate(Excise), Vizianagaram.

Wednesday, the 28th day of September, 2016

C.C.No. 689/2014

(Old C.C No. 654/2014 on the file of Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram)

Between:­ State represented by the Inspector of Police, Wo m e n Police station, Vizianagaram. … Co m plainant.

And :­ Karrothu Ra m prasad… Accused.

This case is coming on 26.9.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Co m plainant­State and of Sri P.Ra m babu, leaned counsel for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivers the following :

JUD G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Wo m e n Police Station filed charge sheet in 

Crime No.18/2014 against the accused for the offence under section 498­A of IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 498-A of IPC and

2.

sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. At that stage, in terms of Orders of Honourable District Court in P.R.No.190/2014-A, dated 9.9.2014, the

matter has been transferred to this court and renumbered as C.C. 689/2014.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of docu ments were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

2

4. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The su m and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in 

Telugu for the offence u/sec.498­A of IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Upon hearing both sides, charges u/secs 498­A of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu and having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P W 1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, examination of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there is no incriminating material stood against him from the evidence of prosecution witness.

7.Heard argu ments on both sides. 

Now the point for determination in this case is, 'Whether the

8. prosecution proved the offence of accused for subjecting his wife to cruelty and demanding and taking of dowry by the accused and thereby bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ' ?

9. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

The marriage of the defacto complainant by na me Karrothu

Ra m a na m m a (PW1) was performed with the accused on 31.8.2002 at her parent's house. Before the marriage, the accused asked the parents of P W 1 an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ towards dowry, 10 tulas gold and Rs.50,000/­ as adapaduhula lanchana ms and received the same from the parents of P W1 on the date of marriage in the presence of elders. During the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a female child and later, the accused addicted to drinking alcohol and used to harass P W1 both physically and mentally for 

3

money. On 11.3.2014 at about 10 p.m, the accused beat P W1 in drunken state and abused her in filthy language and due to unbearable torture of the accused, P W1 went to her parent's house and later gave report to the police.

10.As already stated, the prosecution examined P W1 only.

11. P W­ 1 deposed that her marriage with the accused was taken place in the month of August, 2002 at K.L.Puram in the presence of elders and after the marriage, the accused looked her properly and she blessed with a baby girl and after some years, petty disputes took place between herself and the accused and on the advice of elders, she signed in a report but she does not know its contents.

12. The learned APP sought permission of the Court to declare P W1 as hostile and to put questions to her as in cross­examination. After obtaining permission, the learned APP asked questions to P W 1 as in cross­ examination, but P W1 denied the suggestion of learned APP that she is deposing false to help the accused in view of compro mise.

13. The learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses as the main witness attributed hostile attitude and no purpose will be served if the others are examined. As the main witness did not support the case of the prosecution, the point to determine stands short and it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under sections 498­A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute self bond for Rs.5000/­ u/sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred. 

4

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of September, 2016.

Sd/­ T.V Rajesh Ku m ar

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

FAC: Spl.Judl. First Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Exa mined For Prosecution:­For Defence:­ P.W.1: Karrothu Ra m a na m m a. ­None­

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:­ Ex.P­1: Signature of P W 1 on report dt.14­03­2014. Ex.P­2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P Ws­ 1. 

For Defence:­ ­ N I L ­ M.Os.Marked ­NIL­

Sd/­ T.V Rajesh Ku m ar

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

FAC: Spl.Judl. First Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram.

5