IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHILAKALURIPET.
PRESENT: T. VASUDEVAN,
ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
Tuesday, this the 30 th day of April, 2019
O.S. No. 142 / 2015
BETWEEN:
Pathuri Prasad ---Plaintif
AND
Pallapu Venkata Rao ---Defendant
This suit was coming on 8-10-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.D. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintif and Sri G.P.V. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Defendant, and upon perusing the material available on record 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 for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him, his men, agents and hired people, from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2)Case of the plaintif in the plaint is that plaintif Pathuri Prasad is absolute owner to land in an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in S.No.26 of Vankayalapadu village which is a triangular bit of land, since, he had been purchased from his vendor under a document dt: 9.6.1992. Plaintif with his partners established stone crushing unit in that Ac.1.25 cents of land and in that business, plaintif also occupied poramboke land of Government adjacent to S.No.26 in S.No.28/C for the purpose of dumping stone chip material and keeping stone crusher material and thereby he possessed and enjoyed that extent in S.No.28/C for the past 20 years.
Knowing the occupation and possession of that land in S.No.28/C, defendant around 7 years back, approached the plaintif and purchased an extent of Ac.0.23 cents under an unregistered agreement of sale in S.No.28/C, obtained possession and enjoyment of the same. Towards northern side of plaintif's land the real estate business men started real estate ventures and they tried to encroach into the plaintif's remaining land in order to form a road connecting the National high way, by the time, the plaintif objected and enquiries are going on through the
Revenue authorities in this regard. While so, the so called real estate people with the help of local officials encroached around Ac.0.12 cents of land in S.No.28/C sold to defendant and formed a road connecting their real estate venture with the
National high way. The defendant got an apprehension that he will loose the remaining extent, purchased from the plaintif and in compensation of that extent of land, defendant is attempting to interfere into the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment into the land in S.No.26 and trying to occupy an extent of Ac.0.12 cents which is the suit property herein. Under these circumstances, plaintif got issued a legal notice on 26.9.2015 demanding the defendant to withdraw his attempts of encroaching into the plaintif's land. The defendant having received the notice neither gave any reply nor stopped his preparations and trying to disturb the plaintif's possession over suit schedule property, therefore, plaintif approached this court seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant, his men and agents in any way interfering into the suit schedule property.
3)The defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments in the plaint and further stated that the defendant purchased land from the plaintif on 12.4.2008 under an agreement of sale which is unregistered and subsequent to that purchase, defendant is in an uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of that property purchased but due to hike in the land value, the plaintif by associating with real estate people trying to grab the land sold away to defendant and the apprehension of plaintif that this defendant is making preparations to encroach the land of plaintif is an imaginary and the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties who are revenue authorities who said to be interfered into the possession of plaintif and there is no cause of action for this suit, as well as, the plaintif approached this court with unclean hands, hence, the plaintif is not entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction, therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
4)Basing on the pleas in plaint and written statement following issues have been framed for trial :-
1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties ?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of cause of action “apprehension” ?
3. Whether there is cause of action to file suit ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction ?
5. To what relief?
5) During the trial to establish plaintif's case, balance of convenience in his favour and to show that if injunction is not granted he will sufer with irreparable loss and hardship, plaintif Pathuri Prasad himself deposed as
P.W.1 by examining Thota Peda Gurunadham and Busi Yesobu as P.Ws 2
and 3 and produced Exs.A1 to A11 documents. Ex.A1 Certified copy of sale deed dt: 9.6.1992 in favour of P.W.1. Ex.A2 Certified copy of sale deed (Link deed)
dt: 9.1.1992 in his favour. Ex.A3 Office copy of the legal notice dt: 26.9.2015.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgment. Ex.A5 Form TOT 003 – Registration certificate issued by Commercial Tax department, Government of A.P., dt: 9.3.2009 along with the Advice of turn over Tax. Ex.A6 Proceedings of the General Manager,
Industrial Department, dt: 7.5.2009. Ex.A7 Acknowledgment from the District
Industry Center, Guntur dt: 7.5.2009. Ex.A8 Form No.4 – Certificate of License to the factory issued by the Inspector of Factories, Guntur. Ex.A9 Consent Order of the A.P Pollution Control Board, dt: 14.7.2016. Ex.A10 Copy of the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
Vankayalapadu dt: 13.6.2007. Ex.A11 Tax receipt No.46378 issued by Secretary,
Gram Panchayat, Vankayalapadu dt: 31.3.2016 along with the License for
Industries and Practice. To disprove the case of the plaintif and to place material that the plea of defendant is probable and reliable than the case of plaintif, the defendant Pallapu Venkata Rao himself deposed as D.W.1 by exhibiting
Exs.B1 and B2 documents. Ex.B1 Copy of Field map. Ex.B2 Copy of village Map of Vankayalapadu village in S.No.26 of Vankayalapadu.
6) Heard the arguments of both sides. The learned counsel for the plaintif by relying upon the contents in Exs.A1 to A11 submitted that oral evidence adduced from P.Ws 1 to 3 who includes plaintif and the neighbouring land owners are establishing the case of the plaintif that the plaintif being lawful owner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in S.No.26 of
Vankayalapadu by establishing a stone crusher lawfully and the defendant having a land, purchased the land poramboke and attempting to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit property, therefore, the plaintif got case in his favour, balance of convenience is also in his favour, thereby, entitled to injunction restraining the defendant and if no injunction is granted, the defendant may with the help of real estate people disturb the possession of plaintif, thereby, may cause irreparable loss, hardship, hence, it is just and necessary to protect the possession of plaintif by granting permanent inunction and prayed to do so. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that it is an admitted fact by plaintif as P.W.1 that he sold Ac.0.23 cents under an agreement of sale, thereby, the land of defendant is no way concerned for the relief prayed and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land purchased by him which is part and parcel of land in S.No.26 and the plaintif having suppressed this fact, approached this court with unclean hands seeking the discretionary relief of permanent injunction, therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable as the relief sought is against the true owner, under the circumstances, prayed to dismiss the suit.
Issue No.1 :-
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties ?
7)On plain reading of the contents in the plaint as well as oral evidence of plaintif Pathuri Prasad as P.W.1 and the relief claimed itself discloses that the suit had been instituted for the injunction simplictior alleging that the defendant is neighbouring land owner to the suit property and he intentionally attempting to dispossess the plaintif and even a legal notice under Ex.A4 had been given to the defendant to withdraw his attempts, there was no change in his attitude and it was came to the knowledge of plaintif that the defendant making preparations to dispossess the plaintif from the suit property. From and out of above material it is clear that specific allegations against the defendant alone had been made and relief sought is against the defendant only but not against any other persons alleging that they also attempting to dispossess the plaintif. The contents in the plaint at para No.8 are also goes to show that the real estate people with the help of local people tried to encroach the suit property, but, it was stopped by the plaintif, whereas, the defendant under the apprehension that he will loose the rest of extent purchased by him trying to encroach an extent of Ac.0.12 cents in
S.No.26 belongs to the plaintif and attempted to encroach the same. It itself discloses that the apprehension of dispossession is only from the defendant but not from any one and the relief sought being personal relief against the defendant only, this court is of the view that non implication of the revenue officials or real estate people as defendants in this suit may not be the ground to dismiss the suit, since, the dispute between the plaintif and defendant be decided even in the absence of those real estate people and revenue authorities efectively, thereby, this court concluded that the persons who said to be attempted to interfere into the plaintif's property are not at all necessary parties.
8)Further it is settled principle of law as ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Mumbai international Pvt., Ltd., VS regency convention center and hotels pvt., ltd., reported in (2010) 7 S.C.C 417 while dealing with Order 1 R 10 of CPC that “With regard to impleadment of parties, it is for the
plaintif in a suit being domonus litis to choose the persons against
whom he wishes to litigate and the relief therefore, he cannot be
compelled to sue of a person against whom he does not seek any relief”.
9)In obedience to above ruling it is clear that it is for the plaintif who approached the court by paying court fee to choose the parties in order to seek the relief since he being supreme over the cause and in view of the above discussed facts contained in the evidence of P.W.1/plaintif, this court is of the view that there is no strength in the plea taken by the defendant that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, accordingly, this point is answered against the defendant since no evidence is available on his behalf to show that who are necessary parties and whose presence is required to decide the dispute efectively.
Issues No.2 and 3 :-
2. Whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of cause of action “apprehension” ?
3. Whether there is cause of action to file suit ?
10)Sec.38 of Specific relief act 1963 in its clauses No.1 to 3 provides “ the cause of action/grounds to seek the relief of permanent injunction and when it can be granted” as follows :-
Sec.38 Perpetual injunction when granted.-
1. Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this
Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintif to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
2. When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
3. When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintif's right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:-
a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintif;
b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not aford adequate relief;
d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
11)On plain reading of this section.38 in its clause (1) and (3) together as above it is clear that where the defendant invades or threatened to invade the plaintif's possession over suit schedule property, the plaintif can approach the court seeking permanent injunction against such defendant. Evidence of P.W.1 and contents in the plaint are goes to show that the defendant being purchaser of land from the plaintif at the instance of real estate business people in order to get compensatory extent of Ac.0.12 cents by occupying the land of plaintif attempting to interfere into the possession of plaintif. These facts are itself disclosing that the defendant invades or threatens to invade, thereby, created apprehension in the mind of plaintif that the defendant with the help of his men and supporters may trespass and may dispossession from the suit property, therefore, in obedience to the law referred in above Sec.38 of Specific relief Act, this court is of the view that this suit is maintainable, since the cause of action is proved for approaching the court by the plaintif. Therefore, there is no strength in the plea taken by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable as there was no cause of action. Accordingly, these points are answered against the defendant.
Issue No.4 :-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction ?
12)To prove that the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of suit property as on today, as well as, possessed the same as on the date of instituting this suit 2015 and there is a threat of dispossession in the hands of defendant, the plaintif by examining himself as P.W.1, examined two more witnesses and exhibited Exs.A1 to A11 documents. Evidence of P.W.1 discloses that he purchased total extent of Ac.1.26 cents in the suit schedule property in S.No.26 consisting in triangular bit from his vendor on 9.6.1992 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same till today by establishing a stone crushing unit for some days and the same is known to the defendant also. To support the same, oral evidence also adduced from P.Ws 2 and 3. Evidence of P.W.2 Thota Peda Gurunadham and P.W.3
Yesobu goes to show that they possessed properties near to suit property consisting various extents of land by obtaining lease from gram panchayat,
Vankayalapadu and the suit schedule property is in the S.No.26 of Vankayalapadu village, and stone crushing unit in the name of M/s Sai Baba stone crushers is also there. In support of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, plaintif produced Exs.A1 to A11 documents. Ex.A1 C.C of sale deed dt: 9.6.1992 goes to show that the plaintif purchased total extent of suit property in S.No.26 in which the suit property is also a part. Ex.A2 C.C of sale deed dt: 9.1.1992 stands in the name of the plaintif goes to show that the vendor of plaintif under Ex.A2 got right to transfer the property to plaintif and accordingly he executed registered sale deed i.e., original of Ex.A1 by transfering the suit property to plaintif and all these documentary evidence goes to show that transfer of property under Ex.A1 document is lawful one and
P.W.1 is not an encroacher. Contents in Ex.A5 Registration certificate issued by commercial tax department, Government of A.P dt: 9.3.2009. Ex.A6 Proceedings of the General manager, Industrial development dt: 7.5.2009. Ex.A7
Acknowledgment of District secretaries, Guntur dt: 7.5.2009. Ex.A8 Certificate of license to the factory issued by Inspector of factories, Guntur. Ex.A9 Consent order of A.P pollution control board dt: 14.7.2016. Ex.A10 Copy of resolution of Gram panchayath of Vankayalapadu dt: 13.6.2007 and Ex.A11 tax receipts issued by
Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Vankayalapadu dt: 31.3.2016 are all disclosing that the plaintif owned a land under Ex.A1 in which the suit property is a part, established a stone crushing unit by name M/S Sai Baba stone crushers by associating with his partners and doing business even by the time of this suit which is evident from the tax receipt Ex.A11, thereby, the plaintif proved that as on the date of instituting this suit i.e., in the year 2015 plaintif was in possession and enjoyment of suit property and his possession was a lawful one under Exs.A1 and A2 registered documents copies, therefore, it can be presumed that plaintif continued his lawful possession from the date of this suit to till today also.
13)Since the defendant who pleaded in his written statement that the land purchased by defendant from plaintif is part of land in S.No.26 under Ex.A1, therefore, he became true owner to suit property and the plaintif is not entitled for the relief of injunction against true owner, it is for him to establish the same.
The proof required is though not strict, but, requires preponderance of probabilities. To prove his plea, the defendant cross examined P.W.1 by exhibiting
Exs.B1 and B2 documents and also deposed himself as D.W.1. Though the agreement of sale under which the defendant purchased land from plaintif dt:
12.4.08 is not placed before the court, admission of plaintif in his cross examination, evidence of P.W.1 and contents in the plaint are all goes to show that the defendant purchased land in an extent of Ac.0.23 cents from the plaintif in the year 2018 under possessory agreement of sale and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of his purchase. Plaintif at para No.5 in the plaint pleaded the same and as P.W.1 both in his evidence in chief at para No.3, as well as, in his cross examination dt: 28.11.2016 admitted this fact that the defendant purchased an extent of Ac.0.23 cents from the plaintif as on the date as pleaded by the defendant. Hence, evidence of D.W.1 is well supported by the admissions of P.W.1. Now it is for the defendant to prove that the land purchased by him under possessory agreement dt: 12.4.2008 is part and parcel of
AC.1.26 cents in S.No.26. It is also the duty of the plaintif to place evidence that the land is poramboke land adjacent to the land and the land purchased by the defendant under that possessory agreement is the land in S.No.28C. To substantiate the plea taken by both parties, the defendant having pleaded that the property purchased by him is part of suit property in S.No.26 of
Vankayalapadu, placed no documentary evidence except Exs.B1 and B2 which are copies of Filed map and village map of Vankayalapadu village. Under the circumstances, the material available on record is the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and the evidence of D.W.1 to support the plea of defendant. It was elicited in the evidence of P.W.1 in his cross examination that “P.W.1 sold 23 ½ cents of land to the defendant under the possessory agreement of sale and the property therein in
S.No.28/C which is on the east of suit property in S.No.28/C”, it itself made it clear that the land sold by plaintif to defendant and the land for which relief sought in this suit are not one and the same, thereby, the defendant Is not at all a co-owner of suit property and the property admittedly sold by the plaintif to defendant is not at all a part of S.No.26 of Vankayalapadu village. To support the same, evidence available is the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3.
14)P.W.2 Thota Gurunadham and P.W.3 Yesobu evidence goes to show that they are cultivating the land in various extents in S.No.28C of Vankayalapadu village which is a Government poramboke land and they are enjoying the land with the permission of gram panchayath, Vankayalapadu as lease and the land in
S.No.26 is adjacent to it. These admissions and statements of P.Ws 2 and 3 both in their cross examination and chief examination goes to show that land in S.No.28C and land in S.No.26 of Vankayalapadu are two diferent lands with various extents.
The field maps confronted to P.W.1 are also goes to show the same. Ex.B1 Field map of S.No.26 and Ex.B2 village map of Vankayalapadu are all evidencing that the land in S.No.26 and 28C are two diferent lands and S.No.28C land which is poramboke and is on the eastern side to S.No.26. In view of the material available on record and the evidence discussed it is clear that land in S.No.26 which is in an extent of Ac.1.25 cents purchased by plaintif under Ex.A1 possessed by him by establishing stone crusher as contained from Exs.A5 to A11 and the land admittedly sold by him to the defendant in S.No.28C not one and the same and there is no evidence in the hands of defendants to show that he purchased part of land i.e., Ac.23 ½ cents in S.No.26 with specific boundaries. The boundaries contained in Ex.A1 sale deed copy of plaintif under which the plaintif purchased the suit property and the boundaries elicited from him in his cross examination that the land sold by him to the defendant are also diferent. Under these circumstances and the evidence available on record, this court is of the view that the case of the plaintif that the defendant knowing the nature of the land as government poramboke purchased under possessory agreement dt: 12.4.08 in an extent of Ac.0.23 cents and subsequently the realtors near to that property formed a road in Ac.0.12 cents out of Ac.0.22 cents, therefore, the defendant in order to get compensatory extent from the land of S.No.26 is trying to encroach is appears tobe probable and reliable than the plea of defendant that the defendant purchased Ac.23 ½ cents in S.No.26 covered under Ex.A1, thereby, this suit is not maintainable against him. Accordingly, this court came to a conclusion that the plaintif who possessed the land as on the date of this suit and his possession is proved to be a lawful one and is entitled to claim the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. Conduct of defendant in conducting this suit and claiming title over the property purchased by the plaintif under Ex.A1 alleging that the property purchased by the defendant is a part and parcel of the land covered by Ex.A1 are all goes to show that the defendant is trying to interfere into the plaintif’s possession over suit property which is part and parcel of property covered under Ex.A1 copy of sale deed, therefore if the defendant is permitted to do so, there is every chance of dispossessing the plaintif, in such event, the loss occurred to the plaintif may not be compensated in terms of money, hence, this court is of the view that plaintif successfully placed evidence before the court that the balance of convenience is in his favour and if injunction is not granted against the defendant and in favour of plaintif the loss which will be occurred cannot be compensated in terms of money, hence, this court is of the view that the plaintif who approached this court with lawful possession over the suit property and entitled for the discretionary relief of permanent injunction as sought for. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintif.
Issue No.5 :- To what relief ?
15)In view of the above discussion with regard to issues No.1 to 4, this court is of the view that this suit for injunction simplicitor is not bad for non joinder of necessary parties and there is a cause of action for seeking the relief by instituting the suit since the plaintif has got apprehension of dispossession and the plaintif proved his possession as on the date of instituting the suit, as well as, as on today and got threat of dispossession in the hands of defendant and plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction in obedience to the ruling of
Hon’ble High court of Judicature at Hyderabad in a case between
Khaneez Fathima VS Samru Sulthana reported in 2007(3) APLJ 98 (SN)
(H.C.). Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintif.
RESULT :-
16)In the result, this suit filed for relief of permanent injunction against the defendant, his men and agents restrained them from interfering in any way with the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property is here by decreed with costs. The defendant, his men and agents are hereby restrained accordingly by way of permanent injunction.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of April, 2019.
Additional Junior Civil Judge,
FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:
P.W.1 Pathuri Prasad D.W.1 Pallapu Venkatarao
P.W.2 Thota Peda Gurunadham and
P.W.3 Busi Yesobu
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 Certified copy of sale deed dt: 9.6.1992 in favour of P.W.1.
Ex.A2 Certified copy of sale deed (Link deed) dt: 9.1.1992 in his favour.
Ex.A3 Office copy of the legal notice dt: 26.9.2015.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.A5 Form TOT 003 – Registration certificate issued by Commercial Tax department, Government of A.P., dt: 9.3.2009 along with the Advice of turn over
Tax.
Ex.A6 Proceedings of the General Manager, Industrial Department, dt: 7.5.2009.
Ex.A7 Acknowledgment from the District Industry Center, Guntur dt: 7.5.2009.
Ex.A8 Form No.4 – Certificate of License to the factory issued by the Inspector of
Factories, Guntur.
Ex.A9 Consent Order of the A.P Pollution Control Board, dt: 14.7.2016.
Ex.A10 Copy of the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat issued by the
Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Vankayalapadu dt: 13.6.2007.
Ex.A11 Tax receipt No.46378 issued by Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
Vankayalapadu dt: 31.3.2016 along with the License for Industries and Practice.
FOR DEFENDANT:
Ex.B1 Copy of Field map.
Ex.B2 Copy of village Map of Vankayalapadu village in S.No.26 of Vankayalapadu.
Additional Junior Civil Judge,
FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHILAKALURIPET.
PRESENT: T. VASUDEVAN,
ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
Tuesday, this the 30 th day of April, 2019
O.S. No. 142 / 2015
BETWEEN:
Pathuri Prasad S/o Kotaiah, Hindu, 50 yrs, Stone Crusher Business, R/o
Vankayalapadu village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. ---Plaintif
AND
Pallapu Venkata Rao S/o Ankamma, Hindu, 45 yrs, Jerayathi, R/o
Upparapalem, Vankayalapadu village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur.
---Defendant ******
This suit is filed for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him, his men, agents and hired people, from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
Plaint presented on : 19-11-2015 Plaint filed on : 08-12-2015
Cause of action for the suit arose on 9.6.1992, when the plaintif purchased the extent of Acl.1.26 cents in S.No.26, of Vankayalapadu village and later, having encroached, utilizing the Government Poramboke land in an extent of AC.0.23 cents in S.No.28/C and perfected his title and when the defendant purchased the said extent, from the plaintif roughly 7 years back and as there is no registration to the assigned land, the transaction was not registered and at present, as the realtors, formed illegal layouts, in their ventures and at the helm of forming approach road, to the National High way and when the defendant under apprehension, of losing his site, to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, is under illegal attempts, to encroach upon the land of the plaintif, in S.No.26 and inspite of retorts by the plaintif, including that of legal notice dt: 26.9.2015, the defendant is still under persuasion of attempting to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif, in the schedule land till today and at Vankayalapadu village, where the suit schedule property is situated and both parties resides, within the jurisdiction of this court.
PARTICULARS OF VALUATION :
This being a suit for the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintif values the relief, notionally at Rs.10,000/-, On which a Court Fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.
Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.10,000/-.
This suit was coming on 8-10-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.D. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintif and Sri G.P.V. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Defendant, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;
2. That the defendant, his men and agents are hereby restrained from interfering in any way with the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property
3.That defendant do pay to the Plaintif a sum of Rs.4,148/- towards costs of the suit and the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.2,252/-
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30th day of April, 2019.
Additional Junior Civil Judge,
FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
(plaint schedule annexed to the decree)
TABLE OF COSTS
For Plaintif For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat Rs.2-00 Rs.2-00 Stamp on PlaintRs.786-00 Process FeesRs.110-00 Pleader's FeesRs.3,000-00Rs.2,000-00 (as claimed) Typing ChargesRs.150-00Rs.150-00 Writing ChargesRs.100-00Rs.100-00
TOTAL: Rs. 4,148-00 Rs. 2,252-00
Additional Junior Civil Judge,
FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.