IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: WARANGAL
Monday, this the 22nd day of November, 2021
Present : Smt. V. Bhavani,
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal.
O.S.No. 662 OF 2011
Between :
Vakiti @ Gurrala Madhuvani, W/o. G. Surender Reddy, aged 27 years, Occ: Govt.Employee, R/o. Bheemaram village, Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal district. … Plaintif. A n d 1Pulla Komuraiah, S/o. Iddaiah, aged 67 years, Occ: Nil, 2Pulla Uppalaiah, S/o. Iddaiah, aged 54 years, Occ: Railway employee, 3Pulla Gattaiah, S/o. Iddaiah,a ged 52 years, Occ: Railway employee, 4Pulla Yesaiah, S/o. Iddaiah, aged 51 years, Occ: Labour, Defenants no. 1 to 4 are R/o. Chinthagattu village, Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal. 5Pulla Sadanandam, S/o. Gattaiah, aged 48 years, Occ: Employee in AP TRANSCO, R/o. fat No.302, Padmalaya Enclave, Naimnagar, Hanamkonda. 6Govardhan Reddy, S/o. not known, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Manthrapuri colony, Bheemaram village, Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal district. 7Mohan Rao, S/o. not known, aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Bheemaram village, Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal district. 8Pulla Ravi, S/o. late Komuraiah, aged 45 years, Occ: Business, 9Pulla Bikshapathi, S/o. late Uppalaiah, aged 43 years, Occ: Business, Defendants no. 8 and 9 are R/o. Chinthagattu village, Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal. 10 Smt. Sangu Sambarjyam, W/o. govardhan Reddy, aged 43 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Cirke, Qr.No.728, CCC Naspur Colony, Naspur village, Macherial Mandal, Adilabad District. 11 Smt. Sirigineni Swarupa Devi, W/o. Mohan Rao, aged 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.28-42, Naspur colony, Naspur village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. Defendants No. 8 and 9 are added as per orders in I.A.No.762/2015,
dated 09.10.2015.
Defendants No. 10 and 11 are added as per orders in I.A.No.1228/2013,
dated 11.08.2017.
… Defendants.
This suit is coming up before me for fnal hearing on 06-09-2021 in the presence of Sri. K. Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for plaintif and Sri Ch. Chidambarnath, learned counsel for the defendant no.6,7,10 & 11, defendant no. 1 and 2 died, defendant no. 8 and 9 were forfeited, and defendants no.3 to 5 were set exparte and upon perusing the entire material papers available on record, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for plaintif and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following :
~ 2 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendant's 1 to 7 for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant's from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule plots i.e. item no.1& 2.
2. The brief case of the plaintif is as follows:
a) The plaintif submits that she purchased an extent of 375 square yards in survey number 148/B denoted as plot number 22 through registered sale deed vide Doc.No. 2094 of 2009 dated 12.5.2009 from Velagala Venkata Rama Simha through his registered sale-cum-GPA holders i.e. Syed Sharifuddin, Gopagoni
Pratap, and Gangadi Adi Reddy vide Doc.No.138 of 2008 (Item no.1). The plaintif also has purchased an extent of 375 square yards denoted with Plot Number 23 in survey number 148/B under registered sale deed vide document bearing number 1689 of 2009 dated 18.4.2009 from Velagala Venkata Rama Simha from his registered sale cum GPA holder Syed Sharifuddin, Gopagoni Pratap and
Gangadi Adi Reddy vide document no 1379 of 2008. That the total extent of property i.e. 750 square yards (Item 1 and 2) constitutes under one compact block. Ever since the date of her purchase under registered sale deeds, she is in exclusive, uninterrupted and continuous possession of suit schedule plots i.e.
item 1 and 2 as absolute owner.
b) It is further submitted that the vendor of the plaintif purchased Item No.1 of the suit plot under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.249 of 2001 on 14.2.2001 and Item no 2 of suit plot under registered sale deed Vide Doc.No.no 75 of 2001
dt 20.1.2001 from his erstwhile vendor Irukulla Sadanandam who inturn
purchased the same under registered sale deed vide Doc.no. 2186 of 2000 dated 14.8.2000 and 2187 of 2000 dated 14.8.2000 from his erstwhile vendor Vontela
Devender and in turn Vontela Devender purchased the item no.1 and 2 of suit schedule property and other property under a registered document.
~ 3 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
c)It is submitted by the plaintif that the registered sale deeds of his vendors and vendors vendor's clinchingly proves that they are in settled possession since more than four decades. That since more than a decade the surrounding area of the suit schedule property became Abadi and several residential houses came in the vicinity and the value of the property increased manifolds. The defendants though having no right and title over the suit schedule property, have tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property. The plaintif with the help of her husband dug a borewell in the schedule property.
When she tried to dig trenches in order to construct a compound wall around her property, the defendants along with their yes-men came to the suit schedule property on 19.6.2011 and obstructed the plaintif from constructing the wall and by laying a false claim they have been trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintif and tried to dispossess the plaintif from the suit schedule property.
The plaintif claimed that since the defendants are threatening to dispossess her, having no other alternative she is seeking indulgence of this court for the relief of permanent injunction against all the defendants.
d)Initially, the suit was fled by the plaintif against the defendant no. 1 to 7.
After issuance of summons the defendant no.1 and 2 died. Hence, their LR’s were brought on record i.e. Defendant no.8 and Defendant no.9 vide I.A.No.
762/2015 dated 09.10.2015. The defendant No. 6 and 7 fled their written statements. Initially defendant no.3 and 4 made their appearance through their counsel. But, subsequently as they failed to fle written statement they were set ex-parte. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintif fled a petition under order 1, rule 10 of CPC vide I.A.No.1228/2013 dated 11.08.2017 to implead the wives of Defendant no.6 and 7 as Defendant no.10 and Defendant no.11 since the property is purchased in their names by Defendant no 6 and 7. The petition was allowed vide order dated: 11.08.2017 and Defendant no.10 and Defendant no.11 were impleaded accordingly.
~ 4 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
3.The defendants no.6 and 7 fled their written statements independently by denying averments in the plaint and interalia contending that they purchased an extent of 375 sq.yards each out of Sy.no 148/A & 148/B under registered sale deeds vide Document bearing no 5665 of 2009 dt 28.10.2009 and 5664 of 2009
dt:28.10.2009 respectively in the name of their wives Sanga Sambarajyam and
Sirigineni Swaroopa Devi respectively from original pattedars and owners viz.,
Pulla Gattaiah, Pulla Uppalaiah, Pulla Komuraiah, Pulla Eswaraiah who are the sons of late Iddaiah. That, ever since the date of purchase, the defendant no 6 and 7 along with their wives are in exclusive possession and enjoyment over their respective lands purchased by them.
a)The defendants no 6 and 7 further submitted that with an intention to construct a house in the above referred properties they had obtained permission along with sanctioned plan from the Grampanchayat on 28.8.2010 vide RC No.
54/HCP/GPB/2010 and RCNO 53/HCP/GPB/2010 respectively. Subsequent to obtaining of permission, they made an application in electricity ofce on 31.5.2011 in the name of their wives and also they dug a borewell on 19.6.2011.
Thereafter, defendant no 6 and 7 started construction by digging 21 pits to raise pillars over their respective properties and raised pillars to the extent of bed level and completed the bed.
b)It is further submitted by them that at the time of granting permission for construction of house the Grampanchayat ofcials called for objections if any by giving a paper publication in Sakshi paper on 3.8.2010, but no persons has fled any objections including the plaintif. They further submitted that they have invested an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- lakhs each for construction of house to the extent of basement level. They denied the contention of the plaintif that she started construction over the suit schedule property and it is a case made against these defendants and their wives in order to grab their property.
~ 5 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
c)It is further submitted by the defendant no 6 and 7 that originally the land in Sy.no 148/A and 148/B consisting of 13.10 guntas originally belonged to P.
Iddaiah and that his name was entered in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor from time to time in respect of the said land and he continued to be in possession of the same till his demise. After his demise in the year 1945, his sons i.e Defendant no.1 to 4 herein have succeeded to his estate as legal heirs and ever since they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of said land including the suit schedule property without interruption from anybody including the plaintif, her vendor or any one claiming through them.
d)It is further contended that the plaintifs vendor and his vendor’s vendor has no right, claim and title in respect of suit schedule property or any part thereof and the plaintif brought her sale deed into existence in order to grab the suit schedule property. Thus, plaintif doesn’t get valid and legal title in respect of suit schedule property by virtue of said sale deed alleged to have executed by her vendor as referred above, in respect of suit schedule property. The sale deeds of plaintif has no legal sanctity in the eye of law since her vendor and vendor’s vendor have no right or title in respect of the suit property. The plaintif has no title and no possession over the suit schedule property and has no locus standi to fle the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
e) After fling I.A.No.1228/2013, dated 11.08.2017 under order 1, rule 10 of
C.P.C was allowed, the defendants 10 and 11 were impleaded and thereafter they fled additional written statements and contended that the plaintif has no title, right and possession over the suit schedule property and further contended that the suit in the present form for bare injunction is not maintainable and she ought to have fled suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. That there is no actionable claim or cause of action to the plaintif as against these defendants and hence, the suit of the plaintif against them is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed. These defendants further reiterated the ~ 6 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
contents of written statements fled by the defendants no 6 and 7 and hence they are not reproduced to avoid repetition of facts.
4.After perusing pleadings and documents on record, the following issues are settled for trial by one of my learned predecessors in ofce:
(i)Whether the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on date of fling of the suit ?
(ii)Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction ?
(iii) whether the suit is barred for non joinder of necessary parties as prayed by the defendants ?
(iv) To what relief ?
5.During the course of trial , the husband of the plaintif is examined as Pw1 and EXA1 to A16 are marked on the side of plaintif. On behalf of defendants, the defendant no.7 got examined as DW1 and exhibits B5 to B9 are marked through
DW1. EXB1 to B4 are marked through PW1 during his cross examination.
6.Heard the learned counsels on both sides, who submitted in lieu with their pleadings. Perused the memorandum of written arguments fled on behalf of the plaintif .
7.Now the pleadings and evidence adduced on both sides are to be read in juxtaposition in order to arrive at a just conclusion.
a)It is the case of the plaintif that she purchased the suit schedule property i.e. plot no 22 and 23 to an extent of 375 sq.yards each in Sy.no 148/B which is constituting a compact block under two registered sale deeds through registered sale-cum-GPA holders Syed. Shareefuddin, Gopagoni Prathap and Gangidi Adi
Reddy. It is further submitted that her vendor in turn purchased the same ~ 7 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
through registered sale deed from erstwhile vendor Irukulla Sadanandam and he in turn purchased the same from his vendor by name Vontela Devender under registered document. That the plaintif and her vendors ie all the predecessors in title were in settled possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property pursuant to their purchase from much prior to the year 1968 and the documents fled by him unerringly proves that she is in settled possession over the suit schedule property.
8. ISSUE NO1 AND 2: As the issues 1 and 2 are inter-related and inter-linked, this court is taking up the discussion of these two issues under one head. The basic requirement for grant of perpetual injunction relief is that the plaintif must plead and establish to the satisfaction of the court, that she is in possession and enjoyment of a specifc and identifed extent of land, in respect of which, she is claiming the relief and that defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession.
9.On behalf of the plaintif to substantiate her case, she got examined her husband as Pw.1 after obtaining the leave of the court. PW1 reiterated and re- afrmed the avermnets in the plaint in his evidence. Hence, they are not restated to avoid repetition of facts. To prove that the plaintif is the owner of the suit property and that of his vendor and vendors vendor i.e. all the erstwhile vendors were having valid title in respect of suit schedule property EXA1 to A10 are marked. Ex.A1 is original sale deed, dated 18.04.2009, Ex.A2 is original sale deed, dated 12.05.2009, Ex.A3 is original GPA-cum-sale, dated 5-3-2008 vide
Doc.No.1380/2008, Ex.A4 is GPA-cum-sale dated 5-3-2008 Doc.No.1379/2008,
Ex.A5 is original sale deed, dated 20.01.2001, vide Doc.No.75/2001, Ex.A6 is original sale deed, dated 14.02.2001 vide Doc.No.241/2001, Ex.A7 is original sale deed, dated 18.08.2000 vide Doc.No.2186/2000, Ex.A8 is pahani for the year ~ 8 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
1954-55, Ex.A9 is CC of sale deed, dated 16.03.1968 vide Doc.no.552/1968 and
Ex.A10 is CC of sale deed dated 18.08.2008 vide Doc.no.2187/2008.
10. It is the consistent case of the plaintif all through that the ultimate vendor of plaintif i.e. Dr. V. Devender Reddy had purchased the land in Sy.No.148 to an extent of Ac:7-22 gts undr registered sale deed bearing document No.552/1968,
dated 16.03.1968 under Ex.A9 from his vendor Billa Venata Dharma Reddy who is
the pattedar of the said land and after his purchase as aforesaid had carved out the same into plots and sold one out of it to Irukulla Sadanandam to the extent of 750 Sq. yards i.e. Item No.1 and 2 of schedule property under registered deed vide Doc.No.2186/2000, dated 14.08.2008, marked as Ex.A7, and who in turn sold to V. Venkata Rama Simha through registered document bearing Nos.
75/2001, dated 20.01.2001 and Doc.No.249/2001, dated 14.02.2001 marked as
Ex.A5 and A6 and thereafter the said V. Venkata Ramasimha had again sold the same to Sd. Shareefuddin, G. Pratap, G.Adireddy through registered agreement of sale cum G.P.A vide Document bearing no.1380/2008, dated 05.03.2008 and 1378/2008, dated 05.03.2008 i.e. Ex.A3 and A4 and inturn the said purchasers had sold to the plaintif through two registered separate sale deed for valid sale consideration in respect of Item no.1 and 2 of the suit schedule plots, vide
Docuemnt bearing Nos.1689/2008, dated 18.04.2009 and 2094/2000, dated 12.05.2009 marked as Ex.A1 and A2 and ultimately the link document i.e. Ex.A9 is executed in favour of Dr.V. Devender Reddy by erstwhile vendor namely B.
Venkata Dharma Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy who was the absolute owner and for that purpose the name of said Dharma Reddy is shown as Pattedar in the Khasra pahani i.e. for the years 1954-55 marked as Ex.A8.
11. A perusal of all the aforesaid exhibits ie EXA1 to A10 clinchingly shows that the ultimate vendor of plaintif i.e. V.Devender Reddy purchased the land in Sy.no ~ 9 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
148 to an extent of 7.22 gts under registered sale deed dated 18.3.1968 ie. EXA9 from his vendor Billa Venakata Dharma Reddy who is the pattedar of said land.
EXA8 Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 is refecting the name of Billa Dharma reddy.
12. The learned counsel for plaintif contended that the entries in Khasra pahani denotes title in whose name the entry is refected and has evidentiary value. In this regard the learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in
2002 (5)ALT370 between Union of India(UOI)Represented vs Vasavi
cooperative housing.
13.In cross-examination of Pw1, the pleaded case of the defendant was suggested to Pw1 and he denied those suggestions in toto. He admitted that there is no averment in EXA7 and A10 as to how his vendor acquired the property under those documents. He further admitted that EXA7 and A10 are not annexed with private rough sketch alleged to have been layout plan for the respective plots. He admitted that Defendant no.5 is grand son of Idda Pullaiah @ Pulladu and that no family members of Pulla Iddaiah sold to Devender Reddy. He admitted about the proceedings initiated by Defendant no.5 before revenue ofcials against Billa Dharma Reddy and Ramana Reddy and the orders passed by
DRO rectifying the entries by deleting the name of “Billa” persons from revenue records basing on application fled by Defendant no.5 for rectifcation of revenue entries in respect of suit survey number. Pw1 further added that the High Court suspended the orders passed by DRO in the writ petition fled under EX.B13 by the aggrieved parties. Further, with regard to EX.A11, Ex.A12, 14 and 16 it is suggested to him that the subject matter of the present suit is not the subject matter of the suits covered under aforesaid exhibits and he denied it. Pw1 admitted that himself and his vendor are not a party to proceedings under ~ 10 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
EXA11, 12, 14 and 16. He further deposed that the suit schedule property covered under EX.A15 (OS 1076 OF 2000) and the present suit schedule property are one and the same.
14.He further denied the suggestion that on 19.6.2011 the defendant no 10 and 11 dug bore well in the suit schedule property by obtaining permission from concerned authority. He denied suggestion that he has not fled an appeal before
DPRO for cancellation of permission granted by Grampanchayat. He further admitted that Defendant no.10 and 11 are brought on record as per the orders in
I.A.No. 762 of 2015. He admitted that there are 21 pits for construction of pillars are existing in the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that
Defendant no.10 and Defendant no.11 got dug the said pits after obtaining permission from gram panchayat and that the vendor from whom he purchased the property is not having any title over the property and that Defendant no.10 and 11 are in possession, not him and that there is no claim against Defendant no. 10 and Defendant no.11 thereby the suit is not maintainable against them as there is no cause of action against Defendant no.10 and defendant no.11 including other defendants.
15.It is argued by the counsel for the plaintif that neither the defendants 1 to 5 nor their alleged vendors have no semblance of interest or right over the land in suit schedule number. To substantiate the same the plaintif has relied upon
EXA11 to A16 i.e the judgments and decrees pronounced by competent civil courts in respect of the land in schedule survey number i.e adjacent plots of suit schedule plots fled against the defendants herein. It is further submitted that the same defense and pleadings now taken by the defendants in case on hand through written statements was taken by them in the aforesaid previous suits covered under EXA11 to A16 but the same were not considered by the appellate ~ 11 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
courts and they were not suited by not considering their claim setup under EXA11 to A16. It is further submitted that after said EXA11 to A16 by feigning ignorance and exposing self stayed legacy of Late Pulla Iddaiah without any authenticity on record by conspiring together to defraud the legitimate right of plaintif EXB1 to
B6 were created and brought into existence.
16.On the other hand in order to substantiate their case , the defendant no 7 got examined himself as DW1 by reiterating and reafrming the averments in the written statement in his evidence afdavit. Initially ,though defendant no 6 fled his chief afdavit to examine himself as DW2, subsequently the same was eschewed. It is the case of the defendant no 7 that his wife i.e. defendant no.11 has purchased an extent of 375 sq.yards out of Sy.no 148/A & B under a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.5664/2009, dated 28.10.2009 from the legal heirs of original pattedars and owners namely Pulla Uppalaiah, Pulla Komuraiah,
Pulla Eshaiah, who are sons of Late Pulla Iddaiah, the original pattedar of suit survey number of Chintagattu village. After the death of Iddaiah his sons i.e defendant 1 to 4 herein have succeeded to the estate of Iddaiah i.e land to an extent of 13.10 guntas covered by Sy.no 148. After perusing all the records they purchased their respective plots and started construction over the suit schedule property by obtaining due permission from Grampanchayat in his wife name and dug a borewell on 19.6.2011 and Dug 21 pits for erection of pillars and raised 21 pillars and completed the bed around 21 pillars and also applied for sanction of electricity connection in the name of his wife ie defendant no.11 and accordingly got sanctioned meter . He relied upon EXB5 to B8 in support of his contentions.
Ex.B5 is CC of sale deed, dated 28.1.2009 Doc.No.5664/2009 Ex.B6 is building permission along with map given by Grampanchat, Bheemaram village, dated 28.08.2010 in favour of D11. Ex.B 7 is payment of receipt issued by NPDCL, dated 31.05.2011. Ex.B 8 is cash payment receipt issued by Sri Sairam Borewells, dated 19-6-2011.
~ 12 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
17.In his cross examination DW1 admitted that the names of D1 to D4 were not refected in any of the document for the land in sy.no 148/A and B. He stated that there is an order in favour of Pulla Iddaiah from RDO, but he has not fled the said order and that as per the RDO order, the rights of Pulla Iddaiah was confrmed. The defendant no.1 to 4 fled an application before DRO, based on which DRO passed an order. He further admitted that his vendors D1 to D4 fled a petition before RDO challenging the revenue entries and their ancestors were the pattedars and also informed that third parties were occupied the lands of
Pulla Iddaiah in SY.No 148/A and B. It is also admitted by him that objections fled
before RDO in between 2000-01. There is no delivery of possession made by any
of the revenue ofcials in favour of his vendors at any point of time. It is also admitted by him that against the orders passed by DRO a writ petition was fled
before Hon’ble HC. He also admitted that EXA8 is Khasra Pahani refecting the
name of Billa Dharma Reddy.
18.It is further admitted that the entire land in Sy.no 148/A and B is abutting to Warangal-Karimnagar main road near KITS junction and further admitted that since last 30 to 40 years there is no cultivation. There is no lay out plan either ofcially or un ofcially. There is no conversion proceedings for the land in Sy.no 148/A and B issued by panchayat from agriculture to non-agricultural. He further deposed that there is no document to show that his vendors having inherited the suit schedule property within the boundaries except pahanies. He further submitted that he has verifed Sethwar and faisal patti but he has not fled the said documents. He admitted that there is 6 months gap from resolution and granting of permission by gram panchayat. He further admitted that as per clause 12 and 13 of EX.B8 the permission is subject to approval of KUDA so also same is meant for obtaining loan. He denied the suggestion that gram panchayat never passed resolution on 30.3.2010 and consequent to that issuance of EXB6 is not correct. He further denied the suggestion that on ~ 13 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
28.8.2010 Sarpanch has no authority to sign on any permission as by that time gram panchayat was declared as major panchayat.
19.Dw.1 further admitted that in EX.B5 there is no declaration about the retained extent and alienated extent of his vendors. He also admitted that he has not fled any documents to show defendant no.1 to defendant no.5 are only legal heirs of deceased Iddaiah. He also deposed that he has knowledge that Hon’ble
High court set aside the proceedings of DRO in favour of Iddaiah passed by DRO in a writ petition fled by Bixapathi advocate. That except Ex.B5 there is no other document to confront his alleged property is existing within the given boundaries and further admitted that EXB7 AND B8 are the post suit documents. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 to B3 are not pertaining tot he suit schedule property and the property appearing in Ex.B1 to B3 is not the suit schedule property. He stated that he purchased his property basing on the proceedings issued by RDO and DRO and Tahsildar. He further denied the suggestion that he has not fled any document to prove that there is a proceeding issued by competent authority in favour of his vendor. He further denied the suggestion hat his vendors are not having any right over the suit schedule property and that the deceased Iddaiah is not the owner and after his death his LR'S did not became the owner of suit schedule property as stated by him and that no constructions commenced in the schedule property on 15.06.2011 and 19.06.2011. He admitted that the boundaries which are mentioned by the plaintif in their schedule physically available on the ground.
20.The learned counsel for the defendants has claimed that the said Venkata
Dharmareddy in collusion with the revenue authorities and village ofcials have manipulated the records. But, Dw.1 during his cross examination has admitted that the entire land in Sy.No.148/A and 148/B was converted into house plots. He ~ 14 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
also admitted that Ex.A8 Khasra pahani is refecting the name of Billa
Dharmareddy. When Dw.1 was questioned with regard to the purchase of plots by third parties in Sy.No.148/A and 148/B and raising constructions in their respective plots, he categorically deposed that the persons who purchased from third parties has compromised with their vendor and thereafter raised constructions by executing separate documents. Dw.1 further categorically deposed that there is no document to show that his vendors have inherited the suit schedule property within the boundaries except pahanies.
21.The learned counsel for the plaintif has claimed that mere execution of registered docuemnts ipsofacto does not convey any semblance of interest or right for the so conveyed land unless and until the vendor possess alienable right and saleable interest. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the plaintif has relied upon the decision reported in 2016 (1) ALT 550 (F.B.)
between Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh rep. By Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad
and others, wherein it is held at para no.22.11 “that mere act of registration does not transfer or create a right in faovur of a party than what the vendor or executant possesses”. Even as per the Exs.A11, A12 A14, A15 and A16 the defendants no. 1 to 5 have failed to establish their claims in respect of land in suit survey number. The learned counsel for the plaintif also vehemently argued that the documents adverted by the defendants under Ex.B5 to B8 are of no avail, and cannot have any presumptive value and lacks enforceability.
22. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the mere marking of documents i.e. Ex.A14 to A16 does not dispense with proof of documents unless any one of the party to Ex.A11, 12, 14, 16 ought to have been examined in support of contention of Pw.1. He further submitted that ~ 15 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
the plaitnif have to succeed on his own strength, but not on the weakness of the defendants. The counsel for the defendant has relied upon the decision reported
in 2016 (5) ALT 739 between Durgampudi Padmamma vs. Kallutla
Kotamma (died) and another. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the defendant is not relevant to the facts in case on hand as in the above case the plaintif ‘s title on the basis of long possession and prescription is held established on the facts peculiar to the case, the decision relied upon is not helpful to the defendant.
23. The counsel for the defendant also relied upon the decision reported in
2002 (1) ALT 466 between Sajana Granites, Madras vs. Manduva
Srinvias Rao and others, wherein paragraph-10, it is held that in a suit for declaration of title , and for recovery of possession, can succeed only on the strength of his own title, and that it is not obligatory on the defendants to plead and prove the possible defects in the plaintifs title and so if the plaintif fails to establish his title, even if the defendant fails to establish his own title, plaintif must be non-suited.
24.In this case on hand, the plaintifs is not seeking declaration of title for the suit property and she fled the suit for mere injunction. Even then the burden is on the plaintif to establish her case and cannot expect relief on the basis of the weakness of the case of the defendants or on the basis that the evidence adduced by the defendants does not establish their title to the suit property.
25.The learned counsel for the defendant also relied upon another decision reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 296 between Kashi Math Samsthan ~ 16 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
and another vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another, where at paragraph no.13, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that :
13, it is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a primafacie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will sufer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove primafacie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concern would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove primafacie case to go for trial, it is not open to the court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would sufer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted.
26.Therefore, keeping this principle in mind, let us now see, whether the plaintif has been able to prove primafacie case to get an order of injunction.
Apart from the oral evidence, the plaintif has produced the registered sale deeds through which the property was transferred in her favour as well as in favour of her predecessors in title. According to the contentions of the plaintif the suit property originally belongs to one Billa Venkata Darmareddy in whose name the patta was recorded in the revenue record vide Ex.A8-Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55. Subsequently the land in Sy.No.148 had became Abadi and the land in Sy.No.148 is demarked into house plots and was sold in favour of various purchasers.
27. The Khasara Pahani for the year 1954-55 happens to be an important document as to the rights of the individuals over any land. That was fled as
Ex.A8 and it refected thename of Billa Dharma Reddy. While the defendant ~ 17 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
vociferously attacking the plaintifs right to seek injunction based on her possession, the defendant also is duty bounded to place atleast some evidence to demonstrate and convey that he has been in defact possession of the suit property.
28. In contrast, the defendant did not fle any documents, except certain sale deeds. Assuming that there is likelihood of change of title or possession over the property subsequent to Khasara Pahani, it needs to be seen as to whether the defendant has placed any reliable material before this court. From Ex.A9 to
A16 it is established that competent civil court has opined that there was a valid transfer of property in favour of vendors vendor of plaintif herein. The inference to be drawn from these fndings can be dislodged, if only the defendants adduced any superior evidence. As observed earlier the documents fled by the defendants comprised of sale deed of the year 2009 under which the defendant no.7 purchased property in the name of his wife and Ex.B6 building permission issued by Grampanchayat Bheemaram, dated 28.08.2010 in favour of Defendant no.11 by Sarpanch and Ex.B7 and B8 are the payment receipts issued by NPDCL and Cash payment receipt issued by Sri Sairam Borewells. These documents by itself cannot prove possession of the defendants over the schedule property as the defendant failed to fle any document showing that his vendor has any semblance of right and title to execute the sale deed i.e. Ex.B5.
29. On perusal of the record it is clear that the defendants no. 1 to 4 have fled application before the revenue authorities for rectifcation of revenue records challenging the revenue entries and their ancestors were there pattedar and that third parties occupied the lands of Pulla Iddaiah in Sy.No.148/A and B. As admitted by Dw.1 there is no delivery of possession made by any of the revenue ofcials infavour of his vendor at any point of time. Further, a Writ petition was ~ 18 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
fled before the Hon’ble High Court against the orders passed by the DRO.
Admittedly, no such rectifcation has taken place and the Hon’ble High Court has set aside the proceedings of DRO in favour of Iddaiah passed by DRO in Writ
Petition fled by one Bixapathi Advocate vide Ex.A13. Further, no document is fled by the defendants to show the name of Pulla Iddaiah was recorded in Khasra pahani for the Sy.No.148/A and 148/B.
30. Though the defendants no. 1 to 5 fled petition before DRO, RDO claiming
Pulla Iddaiah was original pattedar of land inSy.No.148, the same was set aside by Hon'ble High Court under Ex.A13. Furthermore, no such document is fled by defendant no.7 or on behalf of defendant no.6, 7 or defendant no.10 and 11 in support of their claim that Pulla Iddaiah was the original pattedar of land in
Sy.No.148 and that their vendors have inherited the suit schedule property as
LR's of Iddaiah. It is for the defendants to establish this claim. There is no document standing int he name of vendors of defendant no. 6 and 7 even if the land stood in the name of Iddaiah in the revenue records. As already stated defendants no. 1 to 5 did not choose to contest the suit. In the cross examination, Dw.1 has admitted that the boundaries which are mentioned by the plaintif in their schedule are physically available on the ground. As per the registered sale deeds placed before this court, this court is of the opinion that there is a valid transfer of property infavour of the plaintif and possession follows title, thereby the plaintif is able to establish title as well as pssession over the suit schedule plots and on the other hand the defendants are not able to establish their claims, thereby the plaintif is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence, the Issues No. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.
~ 19 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
31Issue No.3: Coming next fnally to the question in regard to non joinder of necessary parties i.e. the wives of defendant no.6 and 7 as parties to the suit.
The defendants no.6 and 7 claims that they have purchased the property under registered sale deeds from their vendors in the name of their wives. Basing on the above contentions pleaded by the defendants no. 6 and 7 in their written statements, the plaintif has impleaded Defendant no. 10 and 11 who are the wifes of defendant no. 6 and 7 respectively as per the orders in I.A.No.1228/2013
dated 11.08.2017. Therefore, it can be said that the suit not sufered from the
defect of non-joinder.
32But, the counsel for the defendant claims that the suit of the plaintif against the defendants no. 10 and 11 is not maintainable as there is no cause of action or actionable claim to the plaintif against these defendants. On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintif has vehemently argued that when the application for the impleadment of the defendant no. 10 and 11 is sought by the plaintif through I.A.No.1228/2013 dated 11.08.2017 with notice to the defendants no. 6 and 7 and defendant no. 10 and 11, no technical objection was raised by the defendants at that point of time. He further argued that if the defendants were aggrieved by the orders of impleadement passed by the Hon’ble
Court, they ought to have challenged the same in revision, but no such steps were taken by the defendants. Further, the defenants no. 10 and 11 also fled their written statements without any protest and therefore, they are now estopped and precluded to advance arguments that there was no cause of action in order to seek decree against the defendant no.10 and 11 and the said version of the defendants is unsustainable and untenable in the eye of law.
33.Admittedly the suit fled by the plaintif is for the relief of bare injunction simplicitor. What is to be seen in a suit for injunction is that whether the ~ 20 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
plaintif was in peaceful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit and whether he is able to prove interfere of the defendants over his possession and enjoyment of the property.
34.When the plaintif claims absolute title under Ex.A1 and A2 and Ex.A8 and
Exs.A3 to A7, A9 and A10 are the sale deeds got executed by the vendors of the plaintifs showing their continuous possession in respect of the land in Sy.No.148 and no interference of defendant no.10 and 11 was pleaded by the plaintif in his pleadings, there is no need to implead them in the suit by the plaintif for bare injunction, wherein the cause of action would accrue only against those who are making illegal interference. Also, no suggestion is put to Dw.1 during his cross examination in respect of interference by the defendants no. 10 and 11. It is established from the evidence on record that the vendors of the defendants no.10 has no title to the property and right to execute Ex.B1 and it is a true document. Though, the defendants no.10 and 11 were added by the plaintif basing on the contentions raised by the defendants in their written statements , that the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties, the same is not tenable in the eye of law as there is no cause of action pleaded against defendant no.10 and 11. Accordingly, this point is answered against the plaintif.
35.In view of the above discussion, the plaintif is entitled for the relief as prayed for. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, granting perpetual injunction infavour of the plaintif, restraining the defendants, their successors, agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property. The suit of the plaintif against defendant no.10 and 11 is dismissed.
(Typed by me on my Laptop, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2021)
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
WARANGAL
~ 21 ~ O.S.No.622 of 2011
Prl. JCJ, W gl.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFs: PW.1 : G. Surender Reddy
FOR DEFENDANT : Dw.1 S. Mohan Rao, Dw.2 Sangu Goverdhan Reddy (eschewed)
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFs : Ex.A1 is original sale deed, dated 18.04.2009 Ex.A2 is original sale deed, dated 12.05.2009 Ex.A3 is original GPA-cum-sale, dated 5-3-2008 vide Doc.No.1380/2008 Ex.A4 is GPA-cum-sale dated 5-3-2008 Doc.No.1379/2008 Ex.A5 is original sale deed, dated 20.01.2001, vide Doc.No.75/2001 Ex.A6 is original sale deed, dated 14.02.2001 vide Doc.No.241/2001 Ex.A7 is original sale deed, dated 18.08.2000 vide Doc.No.2186/2000 Ex.A8 is pahani for the year 1954-55 Ex.A9 is CC of sale deed, dated 16.03.1968 vide Doc.no.552/1968 Ex.A10 is CC of sale deed dated 18.08.2008 vide Doc.no.2187/2008 ExA11 is CC of decree in O.S.No.1271/2000 along with its judtment Ex.A12 is CC of Judgment in appeal No.59/2003 dated 14.07.2004 Ex.A13 is order in WP.M.P.No.22829/2004 in WP.No.17415/2004,
dated 29.09.2004.
Ex.A14 is decree and judgment in AS.No.60/2003 on the fle of Hon'ble PDJ. Ex.A15 is judgment and decree in O.s.No.1076/2000, dated 11.02.2003 on the fle of PMD. Ex.A16 is decree inO.s.No.1152/2000 along with its judgment, dated 11.02.2003 on the fle of PDM.
FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 to B4 are the positive photographs Ex.B5 is CC of sale deed, dated 28.1..2009 Doc.No.5664/2009 Ex.B6 is building permission along with map given by Grampanchat, Bheemaram village, dated 28.08.2010 in favour of D11. Ex.B 7 is payment of receipt issued by NPDCL, dated 31.05.2011 Ex.B 8 is cash payment receipt issued by Sri Sairam Borewells, dated 19-6-2011 Ex.B 9 is CD of Ex.B1 to B4.
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
WARANGAL