1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE I CLASS:: BHIMADOLE
Present: Sri T.A.S.S. Rama Aditya Rishik,
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.
Friday, the 14th day of July 2023
O.S. No. 73/2017
Between:
1.Kothapalli Ratnaji, W/o late Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Female, Aged 51 years, House Wife, R/o D.No.1-85, G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.
2.Kothapalli Ravi Babu, S/o late Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 37 years, Employee, R/o D.No.1-85, G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.
3.Kothapalli Raghuram, S/o late Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 34 years, Private Employee, R/o D.No.1-85, G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.
… Plaintiffs AND
Boda Subbarao, S/o Venkanna, Hindu, Male, Aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No. 1-20, G. Kothapalli Vilage, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.
… Defendant
This suit is coming on 30.06.2023 for a final argument before me in the presence of Sri E. Srinivasa Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy, Advocate for Defendant. Upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01.This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, and his men and followers, from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property (hereinafter referred to as the "scheduled property") in any manner costs of the suit and other reliefs.
02.The brief averments of the plaint in a nutshell are:
i.The plaintiffs are permanent residents of G. Kothapalli Village of Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal. The defendant is also a resident of the same village. Taking into consideration of the long-standing 2 possession and the eligibility of Sri Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, i.e., the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, said Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao was assigned an agricultural land to the extent of Ac. 05.00 cents of dry land in R.S. No. 259 of G. Kothapalli Village, i.e., the scheduled property, on 05.06.1986 through a D-Form Patta bearing No. 26/AB/1396 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer and he was given the possession of the same.
ii.The said Bhaskara Rao's name was mutated, and he was issued Pattadar Pass Books bearing No. 520527. He cultivated the scheduled property till his death, i.e., 05.05.2016. The said Bhaskara Rao died intestate leaving the plaintiffs, i.e., Class I heirs, behind. Thus, the plaintiffs succeeded to the scheduled property.
iii.The plaintiffs are cultivating the scheduled property, and the name of the 1st plaintiff was also mutated in the online records. While so, the defendant made futile attempts to dispossess the plaintiffs from the scheduled property with a view to grab away the same taking advantage of his caste. While so on 10.08.2017, when the plaintiffs were sowing black gram in the scheduled property, the defendant attempted to interfere with the scheduled property, and the plaintiffs resisted them. Hence, this suit.
03.On receipt of the summons, the defendant filed his written statement. The defendant denied all the allegations in the plaint para-wise and further submitted as follows:
i.Considering the long-standing possession and eligibility of the defendant's mother, Smt. Boda Goyamma, the Government assigned her land to the extent of Ac. 2.00 cents in R.S. No. 262/2P of G. Kothapaill village and issued D-form Patta bearing L.D. No. A1/86/A8/13 dt. 07.10.1986 along with other ryots. On the same day, Smt. Boda Goyamma took possession of the said property in R.S. No. 262/2P and had been cultivating.
ii.While so, the then Government decided to construct the Yerra Canal check dam near the said property in R.S. No. 262/2P and acquired it along with other lands nearer to it by awarding compensation and giving some other land for cultivation. Accordingly, the Government has acquired the said property in R.S. No. 262/2P and constructed a Checkdam. But, the Government has not paid the compensation amount to Smt. Boda Goyamma, but given a land to the extent of Ac. 5.00 cents of land in R.S. No. 259 of G. Kothapalli Village, i.e., Schedule Property, and authorized her to cultivate the said land.
iii.Ever since the Government authorized Smt. Boda Goyamma to cultivate the scheduled property, she has been cultivating the same with teak trees with the help of her son, i.e., defendant herein, till 3 her death. The defendant's mother has been in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property till her death. After the death of Smt. Boda Goyamma, the scheduled property devolved upon the defendant and he has been in possession and enjoyment of same and planted cashew nut trees on it. The defendant also raised Blackgram in the scheduled property at present.
iv.Due to eye sore to the plaintiffs over the development of the defendant and his family members, they fabricated the alleged D- from Patta issued in the name of Bhaskara Rao and other connected revenue records by forging the signatures of Revenue officials to grab the scheduled property. In fact, no such Patta was issued in the name of Bhaskara Rao, as alleged. But, said Bhaskara Rao got mutated his name in the revenue records by managing the revenue officials. Thus, the suit is bad for the non-joinder of M.R.O., Dwaraka Tirumala, who can speak about the correctness and genuineness of the alleged D-form Patta issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff's husband.
v.The defendant applied to M.R.O., Dwaraka Tirumala, through the Right to Information Act, regarding the assignment of land to his mother, the acquisition of his mother's land, and the compensation amount etc., for which a reply was received stating that the land assigned to the defendant's mother was acquired for constructing Yerrakuva Check Dam, but no compensation amount was paid yet. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands; as such, they are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
04.On behalf of the Plaintiffs, the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and one Duggirala Dharma Rao, a 3rd party to this suit proceedings, got examined as P.W.2, and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 got marked. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant got examined as D.W.1, one Birudugadda
Yesuratnam, a 3rd party to this suit proceedings, got examined as D.W.2, and one Korapati Venkatesh, a 3rd party to this suit proceedings, got examined as D.W.3, and no document got marked.
05.After hearing both sides and considering the entire material on record, now, the issues before this Court is:
1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of plaint scheduled property?
4
3. Whether the defendant is trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for?
5. To what relief?
06. Issues No. (i) to (iv):
Since the evidence to be discussed is common, issues (i) to (iv)are taken up together.
07.Before considering the rival contentions raised by both sides, I briefly mention the admitted facts relevant to decide this suit. The plaintiffs and the defendant are permanent residents of G. Kothapalli
Village. One Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. Kothapalli
Bhaskara Rao died on 05.05.2016. Ex.A3 is the Death Certificate of
Bhaskara Rao. Whereas one Smt. Boda Goyamma is the mother of the defendant.
08.It is the plaintiffs' case that the defendant is interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession of the scheduled property without any manner of right or title. On the other hand, the defendant contends that he was in possession of the scheduled property. P.W.1 reiterated the contentions of the plant in his chief affidavit. P.W.1 testified that his father, Kothapalli
Bhaskara Rao, was assigned agricultural land to the extent of Ac. 05.00 cents of dry land in R.S. No. 259 of G. Kothapalli Village, i.e., the scheduled property, on 05.06.1986 through Ex.A1 D-Form Patta bearing
No. 26/AB/1396, and he was given the possession of the same.
09.P.W.1 further testified that the Bhaskara Rao's name was mutated against the scheduled property in the revenue records, and he was issued
Ex.A2 Title Deed Pass Book bearing No. 520527. Ex.A4 is the Meeseva 5 copy of Adangal dt. 10.08.2017 issued in the Bhaskara Rao’s favour with respect to the scheduled property. Ex.A5 is the Meeseva copy of Form-1B
dt. 15.08.2017 issued in Bhaskara Rao's favour with respect to the
scheduled property. Later, the Bhaskara Rao cultivated the scheduled property till his death, i.e., 05.05.2016. The Bhaskara Rao died intestate, leaving the plaintiffs, i.e., Class I legal heirs, behind. Thus, the plaintiffs succeeded to the scheduled property.
10.P.W.1 further testified that the plaintiffs are cultivating the scheduled property, and the name of the 1st plaintiff was also mutated in the online records. Ex.A6 is the Meeseva copy of Adangal dt. 22.07.2022 issued in the 1st plaintiff’s favour with respect to the scheduled property.
Ex.A7 is the Meeseva copy of Form-1B dt. 22.07.2022 issued in the 1st plaintiff's favour with respect to the scheduled property. While so on 10.08.2017, when the plaintiffs were sowing black gram in the scheduled property, the defendant attempted to interfere with the scheduled property, and the plaintiffs resisted him. During the cross-examination,
P.W.1 deposed that defendant used to harvest cowpeas (Bobbarulu) and black grams from the scheduled property in the absence of plaintiffs from
August 2017.
11.In this regard, it is worth noting that P.W.2's evidence in his chief affidavit is identical to that of P.W.1's evidence. Therefore, there is no need to reproduce P.W.2's evidence from his chief affidavit separately.
During the cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao used to reside in the scheduled property, and P.W.2 was aware of this fact as he had worked as a labourer there. However, P.W.2 mentioned that he did not possess any documents to prove his involvement in labour work at the scheduled property since his childhood.
6
12.In rural areas, it is common for appointments of labourers or financial transactions between owners and labourers to occur without extensive documentation. Thus, the non-production of documents demonstrating P.W.2's labour work at the scheduled property does not necessarily discredit the authenticity of his evidence unless it is contradicted by other reliable evidence, which has not been presented in the current case.
13.Upon careful examination of the cross-examination, it becomes evident that P.W.2 learned that, in 2016, after the death of Kothapalli
Bhaskara Rao, the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's possession of the scheduled property. This information was learned from the elders.
Therefore, P.W.2 is not an eyewitness to the defendant's encroachment upon the scheduled property, but he did testify about the possession of the scheduled property by Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao. P.W.2's testimony on this aspect withstood the test of cross-examination.
14.Moreover, the defence counsel posed various suggestions to both
P.W.1 and P.W.2, challenging the truthfulness of the plaintiff's case and the evidence presented. However, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 denied those suggestions, and nothing emerged from their testimony that could cast doubt on the plaintiffs' case.
15.In D.W.1's testimony, he reiterated the grounds stated in his written statement. Notably, D.W.1 stated that the government granted a patta land measuring Ac. 03.50 cents in R.S. No. 267/3 and R.S. No. 262/2P of
G. Kothapalli Village to his mother, Boda Goyamma, in 1986. He further claimed that this land was subsequently submerged in a check dam. The plaintiffs do not dispute this fact. D.W.1 also mentioned that no 7 compensation was paid to the defendant or his mother for the loss of the aforementioned land. This fact is not seriously disputed in the present case, and any finding regarding the non-payment of compensation does not directly impact the proceedings of this case.
16.During D.W.1's cross-examination, he testified that after the death of Boda Goyamma, Ac. 01.50 cents out of the total Ac. 03.50 cents in R.S.
No. 267/3 of G. Kothapalli Village was given to his daughter. He further testified that Ac. 02.00 cents out of the total Ac. 03.50 cents in R.S. No.
262/P of G. Kothapalli Village was acquired by the government for the construction of a check dam. According to D.W.1, his daughter is in possession of Ac. 01.50 cents in R.S. No. 267/3, but the land still remains in the name of Boda Goyamma as per Ex.A9, the Ward Secretariat Copy of Adangal dated 09.12.2022. However, D.W.1 did not explain who issued the land to his daughter and why he himself is not in possession of it, considering that Ex.A9 still reflects Boda Goyamma as the landholder despite her demise.
17.Moving on, D.W.2 testified in his chief affidavit that he is the eastern boundary holder of the scheduled property and owns land measuring Ac. 02.10 cents in R.S. No. 262/3 of G. Kothapalli Village.
Similarly, D.W.3 testified in his chief affidavit that he is the western boundary holder of the scheduled property and owns land measuring Ac.
01.60 cents in R.S. No. 258/9 of G. Kothapalli Village. Both D.W.2 and
D.W.3 testified that D.W.1 was in possession of the scheduled property and had cultivated cashew plants on it, not the plaintiffs. Additionally, during the cross-examination, D.W.2 stated that the plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendant based on Ex.A1, despite D.W.1 being in possession 8 of the scheduled property. Except this, nothing emerged from D.W.2's evidence that discredits the defendant's claim.
18.It is important to note the cross-examination of D.W.3, where he accepted the suggestion that P.W.1 had filed a case against him for cutting some trees on the scheduled property. D.W.3 further stated that he had filed an application for survey and demarcation of the scheduled property and subsequently served notices regarding this application to his boundary holders, which included Boda Veeraswamy, Patiyya, Kasani Ramarao, and
Kothapalli Ravi/P.W.1.
19.Thus, based on D.W.3's testimony, it appears that P.W.1 was in possession of the scheduled property. Upon reviewing the overall oral evidence presented by both the plaintiffs and the defendant, it can be observed that their testimonies align with their respective cases, except for the evidence provided by D.W.3. Surprisingly, D.W.3's evidence actually supports the plaintiff's case. This discrepancy raises concerns and highlights the need for a careful examination of the evidence in order to determine the truthfulness and reliability of each party's claims. Once both parties have presented their evidence, the burden of proof loses significance. Now, it is necessary to examine the documentary evidence on record to gain a better understanding of the case.
20.The defendant claims that the plaintiffs fabricated Ex.A1 D-Form
Patta and Ex.A2 Title deed Passbook in favour of Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao.
The defendant also alleges that there are corrections in Ex.A1 and that the plaintiffs obtained Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 seven days prior to the suit by influencing the revenue authorities. During the cross-examination, the defendant posed these allegations as suggestions to P.W.1 and P.W.2, who both denied them. It is important to note that suggestions made 9 during cross-examination do not constitute evidence in themselves but rather reflect the defendant's position against the plaintiff's case. The ultimate determination of the case will depend on the overall evaluation of the evidence and the Court's assessment of its credibility and weight.
21.P.W.1 testifies during cross-examination that his father, Kothapalli
Bhaskara Rao, was granted the scheduled property through Ex.A1 in 1986 and remained in possession of it. The evidence provided by P.W.1 aligns with the contents of Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A4, and Ex.A5. It is evident from the records that Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao passed away on 05.05.2016 as per
Ex.A3. The present suit was filed on 23.08.2017, Ex.A4 was issued on 10.08.2017, and Ex.A5 was issued on 15.08.2017. The defendant now argues, during the argument stage, that since Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 were obtained after the death of Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao, he could not have been in possession of the scheduled property as mentioned in Ex.A4 and
Ex.A5. However, it is important to note that the fact of Kothapalli
Bhaskara Rao's death can only be known to the revenue officials if an application is submitted by his legal heirs to mutate their names in his place. Even after his death, the continued mention of Kothapalli Bhaskara
Rao's name in Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 does not render the documents invalid. It can be understood that, by the date of Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, the fact of
Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao's death had not been brought to the attention of the revenue officials.
22.The defendant argues that Ex.A1 is fabricated and contains corrections. While I have examined Ex.A1 and found a correction in the figure associated with the column "extent of land," Ex.A2, Ex.A4, and
Ex.A5 do not show such corrections and indicate the land's extent as claimed by the plaintiffs, i.e., Ac. 05.00 cents. Furthermore, the defendant 10 suggests that the plaintiffs fabricated Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and obtained Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 by manipulating the concerned public authorities. However, besides these vague suggestions, the defendant did not present any documentary evidence or confront P.W.1 with any evidence supporting their claims. Additionally, P.W.1 testified during cross-examination that the plaintiffs' names were mutated in the revenue records regarding the scheduled property in March 2022, resulting in Ex.A6 and Ex.A7.
23.Upon examining Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, their contents align with the evidence provided by P.W.1 and support the authenticity of Ex.A1, Ex.A2,
Ex.A4, and Ex.A5. The subsequent mutation of the plaintiffs' names does not weaken their case unless reliable evidence is presented to prove that the mutation was fraudulent or fake. In the present case, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence, apart from oral suggestions, to challenge the validity of Ex.A6 and Ex.A7. The defendant also argues that the plaintiffs obtained Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 by manipulating the concerned public authorities.
24.During the cross-examination, the suggestion was made to P.W.1 that the defendant had requested the concerned M.R.O. Office for the list of Patta holders in 1986, and the office responded that no such records were found. The suggestion further claimed that the reason for not submitting the list was that the plaintiffs had managed the M.R.O. Office.
However, it is important to note the issuance dates of the documents:
Ex.A1 on 05.06.1986, Ex.A2 on 28.08.2006, Ex.A4 on 10.08.2017, Ex.A5 on 15.08.2017, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 on 22.07.2022.
25.It is highly unlikely and unbelievable that the plaintiffs could successfully manipulate government officials and obtain these documents in their favour, spanning from 1986 to 2022. The plaintiffs are ordinary 11 individuals engaged in cultivation for their livelihood. It is difficult to comprehend how common people could manipulate government officials and revenue records over such a long period. Additionally, there is no document or reliable oral evidence presented by the defendant to support his claim that the government officials issued invalid documents to the plaintiffs or that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are fabricated.
26.Furthermore, during his cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that he had evidence to show that he occupied and cultivated the scheduled property. However, no such document was marked or presented on his behalf. Additionally, D.W.1 made an irrelevant and contradictory statement during his cross-examination, claiming that he had sufficient evidence to prove that his land was not submerged in the check dam.
However, he did not produce any such evidence in the case. Apart from oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence on record to substantiate the defendant's claim.
27.Moving on to further discussion, P.W.1 filed Ex.A8 Endorsement issued by the Tahsildar to the defendant, obtained through the Right to
Information Act. The gist of Ex.A8 is that:
•The defendant filed a petition bearing No. WEG20220321234 on Spandana grievance redressal program requesting to enter his name in the online revenue records with respect to the property he was enjoying after losing the said submerged land in the check Dam.
•Initially, the Boda Goyamma had the land to the extent of Ac. 02.00 cents in R.S. No. 262/2P of G. Kothapaill village, and it was submerged in a Check Dam.
•However, no compensation was provided to Boda Goyamma. Later, Boda Goyamma encroached on the land adjacent to the said submerged land and enjoyed it cultivating cashew and mango plants.
•In pursuance of the defendant’s request, the Village Revenue Officer, G. Kothapalli, and the Revenue Inspector, Dwaraka 12
Tirumala, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the effect that:
i.In the past, Boda Goyamma was granted a D-Form patta land, i.e., Ac. 2.00 cents in R.S. No. 262/2P of G. Kothapaill village; ii.Said land was completely submerged in a Check Dam; iii.But, no compensation was paid to Boda Goyamma with respect to the said Submerged land; iv.At present, the land which the defendant claims to be cultivating, i.e., the land to the extent of Ac. 05.00 cents in R.S. No. 259 is recorded online as the land of Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao, S/o Venkata Rao; v.The land defendant was cultivating is present in R.S. No. 146/1 to the extent of Ac. 02.00 cents, which is a stone land as per R.S.R.; and vi.The concerned Government Officials have no objection to issuing Pattadar Passbooks to the defendant with respect to the land to the extent of Ac. 02.00 cents in R.S. No. 146/1.
28.Apart from suggesting to P.W.1 during cross-examination that the plaintiffs managed to obtain Ex.A8 by influencing revenue authorities, the defendant failed to present any evidence that could cast doubt on the veracity of Ex.A8. During the cross-examination, D.W.1 accepted the suggestion that he applied for a letter to the Collector's Office, Eluru, requesting a patta for the land he was cultivating, citing the reason that he was not compensated for the loss of his land in R.S. No. 262/P of G.
Kothapalli Village. However, he denied the suggestion that he did not receive the endorsement from the Collector's Office, i.e., Ex.A8.
29.The defendant also suggested to P.W.1 during cross-examination that he did not cite the M.R.O., Dwaraka Tirumala, as a witness because the true facts might come to light, implying that Ex.A8 is invalid. P.W.1 denied this suggestion. The defendant relies on the "Mulkala Chandraiah v. State of Telangana, (2019) 3 ALT 441" case to support this suggestion. Where it was held that "mere entries in the pahanies were not 13 sufficient in themselves to prove actual possession, but she held to that effect.”
30.Alleging that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden in establishing their case, the defendant further relied on “Bommaku
Narsinga Rao v. State of Telangana, (2015) 4 ALT 285”. Wherein it was held that“While there can be no dispute that the law with respect to burden of proof, i.e., legal burden in cases of allegations of fabrication and forgery of document lies on the person who alleges so, the crucial aspect on this issue is also well settled that there lies an initial onus on the party who relies on the document to prove its truth, validity and binding nature.
Only after discharge of such onus, the onus shifts to the other party who alleges fabrication and forgery to prove his stand.”
31.It is noteworthy to mention that Ex.A1, Ex.A2, and Ex.A4 to Ex.A8.
are public documents. The general presumption is that the entries made in public documents are true and accurate. This presumption stands unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The purpose of this presumption is to establish a level of trust and reliability in the record of rights. It ensures that the information contained within the record is considered valid and legally binding unless there are valid grounds to challenge it. Essentially, the burden of proof falls on anyone who wishes to contest the accuracy of the entries or propose amendments that deviate from what is currently recorded. In the case on hand, no revenue record was filed by the defendant supporting his possession of the scheduled property or making the plaintiffs' version doubtful. Thus, the principle laid down in Bommaku
Narsinga Rao supra cannot be applied in this case.
32.It is crucial to understand that the inclusion of a public official, i.e.,
M.R.O., Dwaraka Tirumala, as a witness by the plaintiffs becomes relevant 14 only when there exists substantial evidence, particularly in the form of documents that challenges the authenticity of the documents issued by that official.
33.The plaintiffs relied on “Somisetti Venkata Rama Krishna Rao v.
Kandiboyina Kondaiah, (2008) 2 ALT 304” wherein it was held that “When the recitals relating to the delivery of possession are clear and categorical in the title deeds, the discrepancy, if any, in the oral evidence cannot be taken as a ground to disbelieve the factum of possession.”
34.In the case on hand, apart from the oral testimony of D.W.1 and
D.W.2, which lacked corroboration from D.W.3, there is no other evidence on record that undermines the credibility of Ex.A1, Ex.A2, and Ex.A4 to
Ex.A8. Consequently, the defendant's mere denial of the authenticity of
Ex.A1, Ex.A2, and Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 cannot hold equal weight when compared to the established veracity of these documents. Hence, it is safe to say that the plaintiffs discharged their burden in establishing their case by adducing Ex.A1, Ex.A2, and Ex.A4 to Ex.A8, besides the consistent and reliable oral testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
35.Therefore, it is my considered opinion that the presence of M.R.O.
Dwaraka Tirumala as a necessary party in this suit is unwarranted. The absence of substantial evidence challenging the aforementioned documents renders their credibility intact, thus, rendering the involvement of the public official unnecessary in the proceedings.
36.Moving on, during the cross-examination of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the defendant posed suggestions that Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao had landed properties at Nimmalagudem and a landed property to the extent of Ac. 02.40 cents in R.S. No. 223/5 at G. Kothapalli Village. But, 15
P.W.1 denied the said suggestion. Later, P.W.1 accepted the suggestions that:
1)Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao had landed property to the extent of Ac. 01.78 cents at Saripalli Village;
2)1st plaintiff has landed property to the extent of Ac. 02.88 cents in R.S. No. 254 at Nimmalagudem Village;
3)1st plaintiff has another landed property to the extent of Ac. 0.69 cents in R.S. No. 269/4 at Nimmalgudem Village;
4)P.W.1 has landed property to the extent of Ac. 01.00 cents in R.S. No. 254 at Nimmalagudem Village; and
5)3rd plaintiff has landed property to the extent of Ac. 01.00 cents in R.S. No. 254 at Nimmalagudem Village.
37.During the cross-examination, P.W.1 accepted the suggestions that
before granting a D-Form Patta to a person, the Village Revenue Officer,
Revenue Inspector, and Mandal Revenue Officer visit the village and conduct inquiries regarding the duration of cultivation of the D-Form Patta land by that person and the duration of their residency in the village. This information is typically verified using documents such as the Voter List,
Ration Card, and other similar documents.
38.The argument presented by the learned counsel for the defendant raises the issue of whether the plaintiffs and Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao, as alleged owners of other landed properties, can be considered as landless poor persons eligible for the grant of a D-Form Patta. While it is true that
D-Form Patta lands are typically granted to landless poor individuals, the mere ownership of other landed properties by the plaintiffs and Kothapalli
Bhaskara Rao does not automatically invalidate the authenticity of Ex.A1.
39.During the cross-examination of P.W.1, suggestions regarding the ownership of various lands were raised, but no evidence was presented to establish when the plaintiffs and Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao acquired those lands. Additionally, the defendant did not provide any documentary 16 evidence to demonstrate that the plaintiffs and Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao acquired the lands mentioned in the cross-examination prior to the date of
Ex.A1. It is important to note that Ex.A1 shows that Kothapalli Bhaskara
Rao acquired the scheduled property on 05.06.1986, and there is a possibility that the plaintiffs and Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao might have acquired the other lands mentioned in the cross-examination after that date.
40.Without concrete evidence or a specific allegation that the plaintiffs and Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao acquired the aforementioned lands prior to
Ex.A1, it is not justified to conclude that they are not landless poor persons and that Ex.A1 is fabricated solely based on vague suggestions raised during the cross-examination of P.W.1. The burden lies on the defendant to present substantial evidence to disprove the authenticity of
Ex.A1, which has not been provided in this case.
41.The D.W.1 testified in his evidence that there is a title dispute involved with the scheduled property, and thus, a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable. Substantiating his contention, the defendant relied on “N.R. Srinivas v. Madduri Mallareddy, (2005) 1 ALT 169”, wherein it was held that “It is also the well settled proposition of law that in a suit for injunction, the question of title has to be and can be gone into. What is the effect of consideration and decision regarding the finding relating to title in a suit for injunction is a different subject. But, the law established and remained unsettled is that the question of title can be gone into in a suit for injunction.”
42.It is settled law that a cloud is said to be raised over a person's title when some apparent defect in his title to a property or when some prima facie right of a third party over it is made out or shown. In such cases, an 17 action for declaration is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property.
43.On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser merely denies the plaintiff's title without any claim to the title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for an injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that the defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiffs title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of the title. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the Court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction.
44.At this stage, I deem it apposite to refer to Anathula Sudhakar v.
P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594. Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
a)Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy;
b)Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he is to sue for possession with consequential injunction;
c)Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for injunction simpliciter;
d)A cloud is said to rise over a person's title when there is some apparent defect in his title to a property or when some prima facie right of a third party over it is made out or shown; 18
e)As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally, the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue, and the prayer for an injunction will be decided with reference to the finding of possession;
f)But 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 finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession;
g)But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for an injunction unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issues regarding title; where the averments regarding title are absent 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;
h)Even where there are necessary pleadings and issues, 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 a comprehensive suit for declaration of title instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction; and,
i)Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issues relating to title, on which parties lead evidence if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, 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; it is only where the plaintiff suing for an injunction has a clear title and possession that he 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.
45.Thus, typically, in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the primary issue is on determining possession of a property, and the matter of title is generally not directly or significantly relevant. The Court decides on the injunction based on the determination of possession. However, in instances where establishing rightful possession depends on proving title to a property, such as in the case of vacant land or in the case where the defendant produces reliable documentary evidence challenging the title of the plaintiff, the question of title may become a crucial and substantial issue. This is because it would be impossible to decide on the issue of possession without first determining the matter of the title.
19
46.In this particular case, the defendant failed to provide any supporting documents to substantiate his title or even question the validity of Ex.A1, Ex.A2, and Ex.A4 to Ex.A8, except for the oral allegation. Based on this, I firmly believe that the dismissal of this suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot seek the relief of a mere injunction without a declaration of title is unfounded.
47.During the cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that he had submitted objections to the Advocate Commissioner Report. Originally, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10, C.P.C., requesting the measurement of the scheduled property and the establishment of boundaries by an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the
Mandal Surveyor. On 13.07.2022, the objections by both the parties against the Advocate Commissioner Report were considered nil since both parties failed to submit any objections despite multiple opportunities. I carefully reviewed the Advocate Commissioner's Report and the accompanying Sketch he prepared. In his report, the Advocate
Commissioner identified the boundaries of the scheduled property as follows:
•Northern Boundary: Land in R.S. No. 44 at a length of 901 links bounded by one Kasani Ramarao, •Southern Boundary: Land in R.S. No. 141 by the road passing from G. Kothapalli to Ramasingavaram.
•Eastern Boundary: Land in R.S. No. 141 at the length of 930 links bounded by a Check Dam and one Boda Durga Rao, and •Western Boundary: Land in R.S. No. 258 at a length of 800 links bounded by one A. Durga Rao.
48.The northern and eastern boundaries mentioned above align precisely with the northern and eastern boundaries of the scheduled property. It was revealed during the cross-examination that D.W.3 had 20 filed an application to replace the name of Achanta Venkata Durga Rao with his own name in relation to the land in R.S. No. 258-9. This confirms that even the aforementioned western boundary corresponds to the western boundary of the scheduled property. Therefore, except for the southern boundary, all the other boundaries match the respective boundaries of the scheduled property. It is worth noting that there is a time gap of approximately two years between the date of the suit and the
Advocate Commissioner Report dt. 06.09.2019. This time gap raises the possibility of a change in ownership concerning the southern boundary of the scheduled property. However, it is important to mention that neither party challenged the Advocate Commissioner Report. Further, it was stated in “Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. Legend Estates (P) Ltd., Ranga Reddy
District, Hyderabad, 2015 (2) ALD 206” that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prove the identity of his property by adducing his evidence.
49.In the present case, the plaintiffs have effectively presented their case and have established their position, as highlighted in my preceding observations. The evidence on record does not raise any doubts about the plaintiffs' claims. Upon a thorough examination of the entire evidence presented and the Exhibits submitted, it is evident that the plaintiffs have established their possession over the scheduled property. Accordingly, the
Issues (i) to (iv) are answered in the plaintiffs’ favour.
50. Issues No. (v):
In view of the answer to issue No. (i) to (iv), this suit shall be decreed.
51. As a result, this suit is decreed, with costs, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, and followers from ever 21 interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the plaint scheduled property in any way.
Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of July 2023.
Sd/- T.A.S.S. Rama Aditya Rishik/-
Junior Civil Judge -cum-
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Bhimadole.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:
P.W.1: Kothapalli RavibabuD.W.1. Boda Subbarao
P.W.2: D. Dharmarao D.W.2. Birudugadda Yesuratnam
D.W.3. Korapati Venkatesh
Documents marked
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1/ 05.06.1986Original D form patta issued by M.R.O., Dwaraka Tirumala, in favour of Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao.
Ex.A2/ Original title deed passbook issued by RDO, Eluru bearing No. 520527.
Ex.A3/ 25.05.2016Original Death Certificate of Kothapalli Bhaskara Rao
Ex.A4/ 10.08.2017Meeseva copy of Adangal
Ex.A5/ 15.08.2017Meeseva copy of 1B account
Ex.A6/ 22.07.2022Meeseva copy of danger for land to the extent of AC.05.00 cents in survey No.259 of G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala mandal.
Ex.A7/ 22.07.2022Meeseva copy of Form-1B in the name of Kothapalli Ratnaji for a land to the extent of AC.05.00 cents in survey No.259 of G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala mandal.
Ex.A8/23.03.2022Copy of Endorsement issued by Thasildar to the defendant, which was obtained through R.T.I. Act, attested by Deputy Thasildar.
Ex.A9/Ward Secretariat copy of land to the extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Registered Survey No. 267/3, G.Kothapalli Village, standing in the name of one Boda Goyamma.
22
For Defendant: NIL
Id/- T.A.S.S.R.A. Rishik/- J.C.J. -cum-
J.M.F.C., BDL.