1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.
Present: SRI NAGESWARA RAO NAIK.V, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
Friday, the Twentieth (20th ) day of March, Two thousand Twenty.
O.S.No.307 of 2012
Between: Y.Raghupathy, S/o late Y.Munaswamy chetty, 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Gopalakrishnapuram village, Palakuru post, Puthalapattu mandal, Chittoor District. …Plaintiff.
And
P.Adikesavulu, aged about 36 years, S/o P.Sampath Chetty, Hindu, employee, residing at D.No.16205, Devarayareddy street,Chittoor town and Mandal, Chittoor District. …Defendant.
This suit is coming on 03012020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Dayasekhar, Advocate for the plaintiff; and of Sri.C.K.Raghu, Advocate for defendant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his men, and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs and in the same way the defendant filed counter claim to grant permanent injunction over the counter claim same suit property.
2. The averments of the plaintiff case in brief are as follows: The plaintiff submitted that, he has purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 09092009 from one P.Ramachandra, and delivered possession to the plaintiff on that date itself. Since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally, the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the vendor of the plaintiff by name
P.Ankaiah Chetty. During partition the vendor of the plaintiff and his brothers have divided the joint family properties including the plaint schedule property under a partition list dated 24082003, during the 2 partition the plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s vendor’s father by name P.Ankaiah Chetty i.e. E schedule property.
During the life time of P.Ankaiah Chetty, he was in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner till his death, after his death, the plaintiff’s vendor
P.Ramachandra was succeeded to the estate of his father and he was in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner. At the time of purchase of the plaint schedule property is a house site, after purchasing the same the plaintiff has constructed a Zink sheet roofing house and also tractor shed in a portion of the site in the year 2010. The remaining site has been using the plaintiff by tethering cattle and storing hayrick Pendal etc. By recognizing the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment, the Grampanchayat also assessed the house tax and assigned D.No.43, and also collecting house tax from the plaintiff.
3.He further, submitted that the land of the defendant is situate on the southwest corner of the plaint schedule property. The defendant is highhandedly trying to encroach the plaint schedule property and falsely claiming the way in the plaint schedule property, though he has no manner of right, title over the plaint schedule property. On 16072012 at about 900 a.m., the defendant along with his followers came to schedule property and tried to interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment and also tried to grab the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.
4. The defendant filed his Counter Claim, his case in brief are as follows: The plaint schedule property, its measurements and boundaries are wrongly mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint with a view to get wrongful gain. The subject matter of the suit in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents out of Ac.017 cents. The defendant has mentioned the said property which exclusively belongs to him as written statement schedule property for better particulars and better appreciation of the case of defendant. Originally the land in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents out of Ac.017 cents 3 belongs to Parna Gurrappa Chetty. One P.Veeraswamy chetty is only son of
Parma Gurrappa chetty. The said P.Veeraswamy chetty has filed the partition suit against his father P.Gurrappa chetty in O.S.No.40/66 on the file of
Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor claiming half share in all the joint
family property of him and his father. In the said partition the suit schedule property and other properties are fell to the share of P.Gurrappa Chetty. The said P.Gurrappa chetty has executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 17011981 in favour of T.Chengalraya Chetty in respect of suit schedule property in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of Ac.04 ½ cents and other properties and also inducted T.Chengalraya Chetty into physical possession of the properties covered under registered gift settlement deed dated 17011981.
In accordance with the said gift settlement deed the said T.Chengalraya chetty enjoyed the said properties with absolute rights. The said
G.Chengalraya chetty executed a gift settlement deed dated 04081986 in favour of the defendant in respect of land in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of
Ac.004 ½ cents and also other landed properties. More over the said
T.Chengalraya chetty has also inducted the plaintiff into physical possession of the said properties covered under gift settlement deed dated 04081986.
As on the date of execution of gift settlement deed dated 04081986 the defendant was a minor, his father P.Sampath Chetty acted as a guardian of the defendant, on behalf of the defendant his father P.Sampath chetty has looked after the said properties. The defendant has derived exclusive right, title and possession over the suit schedule property in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of Ac.04 ½ cents. Considering the right, title and possession of the defendant the Revenue authorities has issued Pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the suit schedule land in Sy.No.675/3. P.Munirathnam chetty who is a cousin brother of P.Ramachandra Chetty has purchased the certain properties from P.Veeraswamy towards his share of property. The said
P.Munirathnam Chetty not purchased the land in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of 4
Ac.004 ½ cents. Actually the said land fell to share of P.Gurrappa Chetty and same was derived by the defendant. However, the said P.Munirathnam
Chetty and P.Veeraswamy Chetty are tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant by disputing his title. Such that the defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.284/94 on the file of 3rd Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor against P.Veeraswamy Chetty and
P.Munirathnam Chetty for declaration of his title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit land in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of
Ac.004 ½ cents and other landed properties. Upon the full fledged trial the said suit was decreed on merits on 14082000 declaring the right, title and possession of the defendant by granting permanent injunction. Against the said decree and judgment the aid P.Veeraswamy Chetty has filed appeal in
A.S.No.168/2000 on the file of 8th Additional District judge, Chittoor. The
said Appeal in A.S.No.168/2000 was dismissed. Moreover, the defendant has filed execution petition in E.P.No.14/2003 in O.S.No.284/94 on the file of 1st
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor against P.Veeraswamy Chetty and
P.Munirathnam Chetty under order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The defendant has constructed a house in the written statement schedule property for his domestic purpose. The plaintiff P.Munirathnam Chetty and others are highhandedly and illegally demolished the house in the suit schedule property on 07112009. As such the defendant has preferred a complaint to the S.I. of police, Puthalapattu P.S., there after filed a criminal case against the plaintiff and others and the same is pending on the file of III Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in C.C.No.785/2012. Apart from that the plaintiff also initiated contempt proceedings against the plaintiff and others. The plaintiff knowingly and willfully suppressed the above all facts and filed present suit with a view to get wrongful gain. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the defendant is guilty of suppression of 5 fact. The defendant has also constructed a cement sheet house in the suit schedule property and using the same storage of agricultural implements, produce and fertilizers etc., in the said house and also obtained electricity service connection etc., to the suit property. The said P.Munirathnam Chetty, the plaintiff and other relatives and associates are conspired together and created a false and spurious sale deed dated 09092009 as if the said
P.Ramachandra Chetty @ P.Ramachandra said to have right over the suit schedule property as per the alleged partition deed dated 24082003. The said P.Munirathnam Chetty has not purchased the suit property in
Sy.NO.675/3 from P.Veeraswamy Chetty. The said P.Munirathnam Chetty and P.Ramachandra Chetty are partitioned the properties including properties covered under the sale deed dated 13101982. P.Munirathnam
Chetty who is unsuccessful in O.S.No.284/94 has also created a false and spurious sale deed dated 02092009, The plaintiff has also obtained a false and spurious sale deed dated 02092009 from P.Guruswamy Chetty and
P.Parthasarathy Chetty by creating a right of way in Sy.No.675/3. The intention of the plaintiff and their men and agents is only to knock away the suit schedule property in illegal manner. There is no document produced by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's vendors to show that any point of time they have enjoyed the suit schedule land in Sy.No.675/3, Moreover, the alleged house tax receipts, electrical receipts etc., are not at all related to the suit schedule property and the receipts are set up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, his men, agents are highhandedly and illegally demolished the house constructed by the defendant in the suit schedule land are described as written statement schedule. There are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6
5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for ? 2 To what relief ?
6.Basing on the counter claim the following issues were settled for trial:
1 Whether the defendant is entitled to get the relief of permanent
injunction against the plaintiff in respect of written statement schedule property as prayed for ? 2 To what relief ?
7.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Further, one P. Anjaneyulu Chetty who is third party examined as PW2. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B46.
8.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant filed written arguments on behalf of their parties. Perused the material available either oral or documentary evidence on record.
9. Issues No.1:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
10.Initially in every suit the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he is having lawful right, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Here in the present suit, whether the plaintiff proved his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.
11.To prove the said issue No.1 the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1.
He filed his affidavit, in lieu of his chief examination affidavit shows nothing but replica of plaint. The brief case of the plaintiff is that, he purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 09092009 from 7 one P.Ramachandra son of Ankaiah Chetty for a true and valid consideration and inducted into possession of the property on the same day. Originally, the plaint schedule property is ancestral property of his vendor P.Ramachandra, the father of his vendor P.Ankaiahchetty and his brothers have divided the joint family properties under a partition list dated 24082003, during partition E schedule property was allotted tot he share of P. Ankaiah Chetty during his life time he was in possession and enjoyment after h is demise, plaintiff vendor P.Ramachadra were succeeded the property from his father.
At the time of purchase of the plaint schedule property is a house site, after purchasing the same the plaintiff has constructed a Zink sheet roofing house and also tractor shed in some portion of property in the year 2010, in the remaining site he has been using for tethering cattle and storing hayrick
Pendal etc and the Grampanchayat also assessed the house tax and assigned
D.No.43, and also collecting house tax from the plaintiff. That the land of the defendant is situated on the southwest corner of the plaint schedule property. The defendant is highhandedly trying to encroach the plaint schedule property and falsely claiming the way, though he has no any manner of right, title over the suit schedule property, in the same way on 16072012 at about 900 a.m., the defendant along with his followers came and tried to interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment and also tried to grab. Hence, the suit.
12.In support of his pleadings, the plaintiff exhibited Ex.A1 to A7 such as
Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed executed by P.Ramachandra in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the house tax receipts issued by Panchayath secretary,
Palakuru Grampanchayat, Ex.A3 electricity receipt and demand notices,.
Ex.A4 Photos numbers in 5 along with C.D. Ex.A5 certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.785/2012, Ex.A6 is the bunch of electricity demand notice and receipt and Ex.A7 p photographs along with C.D.
8
13.To support his pleading and documentary evidence, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1. During cross examination it is elicited that suit schedule survey Number is 675/3 to an extent of Ac.0.04 ½ cents out of Ac.0 17 cents. There is a Zink sheet shed in the suit property, the boundaries are east: Rajia Veedhi, West: Land of Munirathnama Chetty, North: Land of
Govinda Chetty, South: Land of Munemma and Adikesavulu. He admitted that Parna Veeraswamy Chetty field a partition suit against his father in the year 1996 in O.S.No.41/1966 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge’s court, Chittoor and the said suit was decreed, the schedule property and some other properties fell to the share of Gu9rrappa Chetty as per the partition decree, and Parna Gurrappa Chetty transfered his property in the name of
T.Chengalraya Chetty under a registered gift deed dated 17011981 and since then he is enjoying property. Further, he admitted that Chengalraya
Chetty executed a gift deed in respect of property for an extent of Ac.0.04 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3 in favour of defendant. The defendant is enjoying the property property covered under gift deed except the land for an extent of
Ac.0.04 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3. One Puchayaka Ramachandra Reddy is cousin brother of Puchakayala Munirathanam Chetty, Puchakayala
Munirathnam Chetty purchased land from Parna Veeraaswamy Chetty,
Puchakayala Peddabba Chetty who is father of Munirathnma Chetty purchased an extent of Ac.0.04 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3. He has not filed sale deed relating to Peddabba Chetty. He does not know the defendant filed suit in O.S.No.284/1994 against Purchakayala Munirathnma Chetty and Panna
Veeraswamy chetty seeking declaration of right over property and also consequential relief of permanent injunction. Even prior to filing of E.P.
against him, there was a cement sheet shed in the schedule property.
Witness added that after purchase property by him he raised the said shed.
He has not filed any document relating to Ramachandra Chetty. He got right over the property through his senior paternal uncle Peddabba Chetty. He has 9 no idea when Ramachandra Chetty and Munirathnam Chetty divided their properties, but he know that they divided their properties under written document. The defendant is in possession of land to an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents out of Ac.017 cents in Sy.No.675/3. Boundaries to the land in possession of the defendant, East: Rajaveedhi and land of Munemma, West:
Land of Venkatadri chetty, but not Munirathnam Chetty as suggested. North:
his land, South: Land of Subramanyam.
14.His vendor Ramachandra and Munirathnam Chetty are partitioned their joint family properties nearly about 20 years back. There is written partitioned deed in between Ramachandra and Munirathnam Chetty in respect of their properties, Munirathnam Chetty purchased properties other than the suit schedule property from one Veeraswamy Chetty. Ex.A1 is a registered sale deed dated 09092009 it was not recited that his vendor was derived the suit schedule property under partitioned, so also it was not mentioned how his vendor derived right over the suit schedule property. He has not stated about the alleged partition deed dated 24082003 on whom the suit schedule property fell to their share and other details of the partition in his chief affidavit. As on the date of Ex.B1 there is a quarrel between him and defendant and his father and defendant lodged a report in against him and others in Puthalapattu police station. The defendant also filed execution petition against him and others with regard to violation of injunction decree.
The Pattadar pass book and title deed issued to defendant in respect of Ac./0 04 ½ cents of the suit schedule property. The total extent in Sy.No.675/3 is
Ac.017 cents. The defendant having Ac.004 ½ cents out of Ac.017 cents.
The Sathyamma idol and Racha consisting Ac.001 cent out of Ac.017 cents.
One Anjaneyulu Chetty is having Ac.002 ½ cents out of Ac.017 cents. There is a house of Anjenyulu Chetty is situated towards the east of the road. There is Racha is situated on the western side of road. He is having one house in the suit village. Himself and his family members are having ration card and 10
Aadhar cards. The name of his son is Y.Vijaya Kumar and Y.Chitra is his daughter and Y.Sampoorna is his wife. As per the voters list for the year 2012 of Puthalapattu assembly constancy shows that, he, his wife, his son and his daughter are residing in the house bearing D.No.27 viz voters serial No.105 to 108 under Ex.B5, He voluntarily added that previously they are resided in the said D.No.27, and recently they constructed new house and residing therein. In the year 2012 New Electoral Enumeration List discloses they are residing in D.No.207 under Ex.B6. As per the voter list in the year 2011 himself, his wife, his son and his daughter are residing in the same door number, i.e., 27 under Ex.B7. The voter list of year 2009 under Ex.B8, voter list of the years 2007 under Ex.B9 and ration card dated 15072006 shows that he, his wife, his son and his daughter are residing in the same D.No.27.
As per 1B register extract discloses that Puchakayala Ankaraja Chetty has no property in Sy.No.675/3 under Ex.B10. As per Ex.B10 Kasula Varadaiah
Chetty has an extent of Ac.012 cents in Sy.No.675/3, he voluntarily added that the Kasula Varadaiah Chetty sold away Ac.006 cents to Gurrappa Chetty out of Ac.012 cents. He further, stated that as per Ex.B10 the defendant having Ac.0.04 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3 out of Ac.017 cents. He voluntarily also added that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.004 ½ cents. As per Ex.B10 his vendor have no property in Sy.No.675/3.
15.Further, he stated that he has only one house in the suit village i.e., door bearing No.207 under Ex.B11. He categorically admitted the defendant is enjoying an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3 under Ex.B14 and also he got issued 1B under Ex.B15 and also got issued Pattadar pass book and title deed for an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents in the same survey number.
He is relative of one Puchakayala Munirathnam Chetty, one Puchakayala
Munirathnam Chetty and Ramachandraiah Chetty who is his vendors are relatives. He filed partition deed held in between Puchakayala Munirathnam
Chetty and Ramachandraiah Chetty and their family members but he does not 11 remember the year. He also admitted that in Ex.A1 there is no recital how his vendor derived the right and title over the plaint schedule property, so all so he has not filed any revenue record relating to suit schedule property to show his vendor and vendors ancestor are having right. Further he stated that he is one of the accused in C.C.No.785/2012 which is related to the sale deed
dated 02092009 and 09092009, the both the documents are prepared
subsequent to the gift deed of defendant.
16.Further plaintiff in support of him, he examined one of the villager as
PW2. During cross examination he deposed that, the entire extent in
Sy.No.675/3 is an extent of Ac.017 cents, he also having an extent of Ac.002 cents in the same survey number. He admitted that the defendant having
Ac.02 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3. Racha is in existence is an extent of Ac.01 ½ cents, road is consistent of about Ac.006 cents. Gurrappa Chetty executed gift settlement deed in favour of Chengalraya Chetty in respect of Ac.,004 ½ cents in the same survey number, in turn the same was gifted by Chengalraya
Chetty in favour of the defendant in the year 1996. Further, he admitted that
Plaintiff has no right over the Written statement property, the son of Parna
Gurrappa Chetty Parna Veeraswamy Chetty, said Veeraswamy filed partition suit against Gurrppa Chetty and he admitted that the said Veeraswamy Chetty was not allotted share in Sy.,No.675/3 in the partition. He also admitted the defendant got issued revenue records relating to the written statement schedule property. Further he admitted that Veeraswamy Chetty not sold the suit schedule property to Puchakayala Munirathnam Chetty as it was not allotted to him. He also admitted that he, plaintiff and others are accused in criminal case filed by the defendant in C.,C,.No.785/2012. He denied the suggestion that Plaintiff and his family members objected the defendant for enjoying their written statement schedule property. He is one of the attestor in the register sale deed obtained by the plaintiff and he is brother in law to
P.Munirathnam Chetty. The dispute in between plaintiff and defendant is 12 relating to Ac.004 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3. Puchayakala Munirathnamm and
Ankaiah Chetty are not purchased the above said property, the said property purchased by father of Munirathnam Chetty by name Tirumala Chetty. Ex.A1 was scribed in his presence at SubRegistrar office, but he does not know the was clear recital about the source of title of vendor of the plaintiff. He also admitted that as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 there was no revenue records brought by the plaintiff so also by his vendor. He know about the previous litigation in respect of plaint schedule property but same is not mentioned in his chief examination affidavit. As on the ate of purchase of suit schedule property by Tirumala Chetty there was existence of house, witness voluntarily added that subsequently the house was demolished and kept as vacant. He has not seen any documents in Grampanchayat office in respect of suit property, he cannot say the Survey number and electric service connection number.
17.The brief case of the defendant is that, the plaintiff vendor is not entitled to execute sale deed in respect of suit schedule property, by suppressing the title of the vendor falsely contended that he purchased the
Plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 09092009 from one P.Ramachandra S/o Ankaiah Chetty for a true and valid consideration.
Originally, the suit schedule property not belongs to the plaintiffs vendor by name P.Ramachandra and the said P. Ramachandra has no right to execute such sale deed. The measurements and boundaries shown in the Plaint schedule are wrong. Originally the land in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of Ac.04 ½ cents out of Ac.017 cents belongs to Parna Gurrappa chetty, one Parna
Veeraswamy Chetty is the only son of Parna Gurrappa Chetty and he filed partition suit against his father Parna Gurrappa Chetty in O.S.No.40/1966 on the file of Additional Sub Judge claiming his half share in all joint family properties, in the said partition the suit schedule property and other properties are fell to the share of Parna Gurrappa Chetty. The said Parna 13
Gurrappa Chetty has executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 17011981 in favour of T.Chengalaraya Chetty relating to an extent of Ac.0 04 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3 and inducted T.Chengalraya Chetty into possession, as per the said gift settlement deed T.Chengalraya Chetty enjoyed the property with absolute rights, in turn T.Chengalraya Chetty executed a
Gift settlement deed dated 04081986 in favour of defendant relating to same property and also other landed properties and delivered possession.
18.As on the date of execution of gift settlement deed dated 04081986 the defendant who was minor, his father P.Sampanth Chetty acted as his guardian. Thus he derived the exclusive right, title and possession over the said property, subsequently he got issued all the revenue records and also mutated his name as enjoydar since the property is a cultivable land.
19.In support of his case he examined himself examined as DW1. During cross examination he deposed that Ex.B42 to 44 are related to survey number 675/3. He voluntarily added that there is some other land also mentioned in
Sy.No.675/3. He did not file any revenue records to show that he has constructed house in an extent of Ac.04 ½ cents. He voluntarily added that the revenue authorities never issued any revenue records relating to construction of house. The recitals mentioned in Ex.B41 and B42 the land an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents shown as agricultural land. He acquired the said property through gift settlement deed executed by P.Chengalraya Chetty, but not it is his ancestral property. Ex.B39 the property mentioned in the sale deed is different from the plaint schedule property. In Ex.B38 the plaintiff name and plaint schedule property was not mentioned, he voluntarily added that the said Ex.B38 is the parent document to Ex.B39. There is no date, month and year on Ex.B1, so also he did not file the receipt issued by the photo studio. He did not mentioned about the Ex.B1 photos in his written statement so also in his chief examination as he captured those photos in the year 2009. The Sy.No.675/3 the total extent Ac.017 cents some portion of 14 property is agricultural land and some portion of land is house property as on the ate of filing of the suit in the year 2012. As per Ex.B2 the Sy.No.675/3 and an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents is recorded as agricultural lands. There is no signature of Tahsildar in all pages in Ex.B10 except in last page, he added that he obtained Ex.B10 under RTI act and the VRO endorsed his signature in every page. The Ex.B14 obtained in the year 2013 on that day also in
Sy.No.675/3 shown as Ac.004 ½ cents so also Ex.B15. In Ex.B13 Plot number mentioned as 575/3. In Ex.B13 door number was not mentioned and extent of house. He voluntary added that as on date of Ex.B13 no door number was allotted.
20. He did not mention in his written statement as well as in his chief examination affidavit about the electricity service connection number and payment receipts. Ex.B32 was filed by him obtained under RTI Act from electricity department issued by electricity department. In Ex.B17 there was no boundaries mentioned to an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents so also in Ex.B16 there was no boundaries. In Ex.B29 no house number is mentioned, he added that as on date of Ex.B29 no house number ws allotted. As per Exs.B5 to B9, he is not residing in the suit village. Exs.B5 to B9 the old house number mentioned relating to plaintiff's ancestors are resided in the said house. He did not mention the specific measurement in how much extent he constructed zinc sheet house and how much extent kept vacant. His father filed suit in O.S.No.284/1984 filed by his father and on his behalf against
P.Veeraswamy chetty and P.Munirathnam chetty. They have not filed suit against Ramachandra chetty and his father Ankaiah chetty so also in
E.P.344/2003 also not filed against them, the plaintiff filed the present suit
stating that he purchased plaint schedule property from one Ramachandra chetty. He added that the document purchased from Ramachandra chetty is a false document. He has issued legal notice dated 11102010 to the Electricity department, Puthalapattu stating that not to issue any service connection to 15 the plaintiff and also made representation on 25112009 under RTI Act. The contents in Ex.A24 are true and correct. In Ex.B26 the door number and measurements are not shown. He adeed that as on the date of issuance of
EX.B26 the door number was not given. The electricity department has mentioned the ate of registration and date of lease of service connection number mentioned. He did not mention the measurements of the construction of house to an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3 in his written statement as well as in his chief examination affidavit. He has not filed judgment or decree relating to suit in O.S.No.40/1996 on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. He voluntarily added that they filed judgment and decree and other relevant documents before III Addl.
Magistrate Court, Chittoor in O.S.No.284/1994. There is no recital in Ex.B17
that the said property fell to the share of Gurrappa Chetty under partition.
He has not produced any revenue record to show that P.Chengalraya Chetty was in possession and enjoyment over the property situated in Sy.No.675/3 to an extent of Ac.004 ½ cents since 1981 to 1986. The Sy.No.675/3 the total extent is Ac.017 cents. He does not know the extent claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit. The extent mentioned by plaintiff and him are different. The documents filed under Ex.B34 and 35 shows that the counter claim of properties are agricultural landed properties. The boundaries to the
Ac.004 ½ cents is as follows: East: Bus road leading to Kanipakam–
Puthalapattu, West: House of Raghupathi plaintiff, North: Lands of Govinda
Chetty and others, South: Plot of Munemma and her son Varadaiah Chetty, at present Gurrappa Chetty and idol of Gramadevatha. He has only one house in
Gopalakrishna puram vide D.No.43. He voluntarily added that he filed
Panchayath secretary certificate with regard to D.No.43.
21.It is relevant to refer the documents filed by the plaintiff under Ex.A series such as Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed executed by P.Ramachandra in favour of plaintiff dated 09-09-2009, on perusal of the documents and contents it 16 shows that the land which is in possession and enjoyment of vendor of the plaintiff
P.Ramachandra the same property sold to the plaintiff by receiving a valid consideration of Rs.12,000/- in Sy.No.675/3 for an extent of 104 sq.yards which is nearly AC.0-02 cents with specific boundaries, Ex.A2 is the cist receipt issued by grampanchayat of Palakuru village dated 30-06-2015 which is subsequent to filing of the present suit, Ex.A3 is the electricity bills and demand notices stands in the name of plaintiff Y.Raghupathi. Ex.A4 photographs along with C.D. which clearly shows that the plaintiff constructed shed and also constructed traced shed beside the said in front of the said sheds there is bus road is running, as per the Exs.A2 to A4 those exhibits clearly depicts the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Coming to Ex.A5 is the certified copy of judgment in criminal cases vide C.C.No.785/2012, on perusal of the facts of the judgment it was relates to the suit schedule property and also the present suit in O.S.307/2012 also mentioned, at the end of the judgment the result the accused 1, 3 to 8 are not found guilty for the offence U/S.427, 463, 423 read with 149 IPC. Even though the criminal cases are no way relevant in the civil cases but as per Sec.52 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 which reads in Civil cases, the fact that the character of any person concern is such so as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is irrelevant. Except in so far as such character appears from the facts other wise relevant.
22.As per the above section of law to apply the above criminal case judgment with the present case facts, it is very crucial to believe the probability of the case of the plaintiff why because the defendant filed C.C.785/2012 stating that the plaintiff and others colluded with each other and got forged and fabricated the sale deed
dated 13-10-1982 and 02-09-2009 such as Ex.P5 and P6 and P7 which is no way
relevant to the present case as the present suit based on the sale deed executed on 09- 09-2009 executed by Ramachandra in favour of plaintiff, so the Ex.A5 is no way relevant to the present case facts. So also the character of the criminal case is irrelevant in the civil cases when there is no probability to believe such version.
Coming to Ex.A6 bunch of electricity bills stands in the name of plaintiff and Ex.A7 photographs shows that as on the date of construction of said and tractor shed there 17 is no house constructed in and around to the suit property, prior to the construction of houses around the plaintiff property he was constructed house and also tractor shed and residing therein.
23.As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A7 clearly established that the plaintiff purchased the property from his vendor C.Ramachandra under Ex.A1 and after purchasing the property he was constructed shed and tractor shed, the evidence of PW2 also supports the version of the plaintiff and also his evidence corroborates with the evidence of PW1.
24.Even though the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the vendor of the plaintiff Ramachandra has no right and title over the suit property to execute sale deed under Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff and the ancestor of vendor of the plaintiff not acquired the property during the partition, when the vendor of the plaintiff and his ancestors not derived the property from the ancestors during partition how the plaintiffs vendor have right to execute such document and also argued that the Ex.A1 document is forged and fabricated without having any valid right and title. To justify the arguments advanced by the defendant, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per Ex.A5 the defendant filed criminal case against the plaintiff and others the same was acquitted that there is no forged and fabricated by the vendor of the plaintiff and others, the Ex.A5 judgment is enough to show the intention of the defendant for sprinkling the water against the plaintiff as the plaintiff is purchased the property from his vendor and deciding therein by constructing house. Further the plaintiff counsel argued that the defendant is not residing in the suit village and he was residing since several years in Chittoor town only without having any proper right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, he intentionally dodging against the plaintiff basing on the unlawful documents.
25.To justify the arguments advanced by the plaintiff counsel, the defendant counsel argued that as a matter of fact there is no mentioning about the partition deed in Ex.A1 sale deed is clearly discloses that Ex.A1 is the created document subsequently by anticipating the legal consequences. It is pertinent to note that the during the cross examination of PW1 he stated he is ready to produce the original 18 partition deed and also examine the witness relating to the partition deed. But admittedly he has not field original partition deed held among his vendors family and also not examined any of the witness. As per the well settled principle of law even though the witness stated that he is ready to produce the original document and not examined one of the witness of the partition deed but mere saying and raising the mere suggestion is not considerable ground why because the question suggested by the counsel they has to stand on those questions by filing documents from other side when there is no such evidence from other side the suggestion put by the defendant counsel is no way helpful to the case of the defendant.
26. Further he vehemently argued that Ex.A2 house tax receipts said to have been issued by panchayat secretary palakuru grampanchayat and Ex.A3 and A6 are electricity bills and demand notices those are also created for this case and photos are marked, when such is the vehement argument by the defendant who prevented them to summon the witness and examined the electricity department and grampanchayat department. Further it is observed that they finding in
C.C.No.785/2012 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Chittoor, those findings in the criminal case is not binding on the civil case. Further it is observed from the arguments of defendant, as seen from the Ex.A1 to A7 though the defendant counsel vehemently denying the title of the plaintiff but the exhibits filed under A series clearly establishes that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as covered under Ex.A1 and also he filed house tax receipt under Ex.A2 and electricity demand notice under Ex.A3 and A6 and also filed photographs under Ex.A4 and A7 relating tot he suit schedule property. The evidence of PW2 also supports the case of the plaintiff as he is none other than the neighbour of the suit property and also as per the evidence of PW2 it appears that he also having some of the extent in the suit survey number out of Ac.0-17 cents.
Originally the suit Sy.No.675/3 the entire extent of Ac.0-17 cents out of that several persons were purchased property in the same survey number in the same way the defendant also purchased an extent of Ac.0-04 ½ cents to that effect the evidence of
PW1 and 2 categorically admitted that they are no way relevant to the property of 19 defendant. The admission of PW1 and 2 clearly establishes that the property covered under Ex.A1 and the property covered under the documents of defendant is no way relevant to each other.
27.In view of the above facts and circumstances as per the evidence of PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A7 clearly established the plaintiffs exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit property, thereby the plaintiff is entitled for the grant of permanent injunction. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2:
To what relief ?
28.In view of the finding given the issue No.1 it is held that the plaintiff establish this case, hence he is entitled for the relief as claimed. Therefore, the issue
No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant accordingly.
The issue relating to counter claim :
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the defendant is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff in respect of written statement schedule property as prayed for ?
29.To prove the said aspect the defendant himself examined as DW1 and marked volumeness documents under Ex.B1 to B46. Ex.B1 is the bunch of photographs along with negative, as per Ex.B1 it appears that it was obtained prior to filing of the suit, as on the date of taking photographs there is no houses in the suit schedule property. More over it is impossible to believe that the plaintiff and his family members are highhandedly threatened the defendant. Coming to Ex.B2 certified copy of pattadar pass book stands in the name of defendant, Ex.B3 certified copy of title deeds stands in the name of defendant, Ex.B4 FMB issued by Mandal
Revenue office, Puthalapattu which is stands in the name of defendant. As seen from
Exs.B2 to B4 it was clearly discloses that the counter claim property is a cultivable 20 land and so far not converted. Coming to Ex.B5 to B11 the certified copy of voter list and ration card shows that the plaintiff is residing in D.No.2-7 but not in D.No.4-
7. Even though the plaintiff admitted that he has only one house in the village i.e.,
D.No.2-7, to justify the same the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that after filing of the suit the gramapachayhat of Palakuru village assessed the door number to the plaintiff in D.No.4-3., so the allegations raised by the defendant under Ex.B5 to
B11 is no way helpful to the case of the defendant to believe the version of the plaintiff. Ex.B10 the certified copy of 1B extract which shows that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule survey number 675/3 for an extent of
Ac.0-04 ½ cents. Mere saying that the survey number disappears in 1B extract that the vendor of the plaintiffs name was not mentioned, the said fact is no way relevant to the present case facts why because mere non mentioned the name of the vendor of the plaintiff in 1B register, it cannot be ground to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff and to believe the version of defendant that the plaintiff's vendor has no right to execute Ex.A1 document in favour of plaintiff. Ex.B12 is the certified copy of decree, PW1 admitted that he has knowledge about the previous suits and also its results, to that effect the learned counsel for the defendant argued that though inspite of having knowledge the plaintiff again brought Ex.A1 into existence which discloses the Ex.A1 sale deed is a false one.
30.To justify the arguments of defendant the plaintiff counsel argued that mere saying allegations without filing any relevant documents the arguments advanced by the defendant is baseless. Admittedly even though the defendant filed voluminous documents under Ex.B1 to B46 those documents cannot be defers from the evidence of PW1 and 2, moreover there is no evidence from the defendant to show that the property covered in Ex.A1 and the property covered in Ex.B16 which is certified copy of registered settlement deed executed by T.Chengalraya chetty in favour of the defendant is one and the same. Further the defendant relied upon Ex.B13 house construction by the defendant, Ex.B14 certified copy of Adangal pahani relating to counter claim property, Ex.B15 is 1B extract, and Ex.B16 certified copy of registered gift settlement deed executed by T.Chengaraya chetty in favour of the 21 defendant, Ex.B17 is the certified copy of registered settlement deed executed by
B.Gurrappa chetty, on perusal of Ex.B13 to B17 clearly appears that the defendant is residing the suit property, whereas as seen from the evidence of PW1 and 2 they categorically admitted that the defendant is residing in an extent of Ac.0-1 ½ cents in
Sy.No.675/3. He also relied upon Ex.B18 certified copy of judgment in
O.S.No.284/1994, Ex.B19 certified copy of decree in O.S.No.284/1994, Ex.B20
certified copy of judgment in A.S.No.168/2000, Ex.21 certified copy of order in OEP
No.344/2003, Ex.B22 certified copy of decree in OEP No.344/2003, Ex.B23 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.284/1994, as seen from the Exs.B18 to 23 those documents are relates to previous proceedings of the Hon’ble courts and those documents clearly establishes the right and title of the defendant over the counter claim property.
31.Further the defendant relied upon Exs.B24 dated 22-12-2012 original letter issued by Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ex.B25 dated 25-11-2009 certified copy of letter addressed by the defendant to Assistant Engineer, Puthalapattu, Ex.B26 is the certificate issued by panchayat secretary, Ex.B27 dated 26-11-2009 certified copy of letter addressed by defendant to Assistant Engineer A.P. transco, Puthalapattu,
Ex.B28 letter issued by APSPDCL, Chittoor, Ex.B29 is the application for
L.T.service connection the name of defendant, Ex.B30 certificate issued by
A.P.S.P.D.C.L., for L.T. application register, Ex.B31 is the certified copy of legal notice issued to Assistant Engineer, Puthalapattu, Ex.B32 is the certified copy of certificate issued by panchayat secretary, Ex.B33 receipt and acknowledgement and feed back forms issued by APSPDCL, Ex.B34 is the certified copy of application for
L.T. service connection in the name of plaintiff. Ex.B36 electricity receipt issued by electricity department dated 26-11-2009 as seen from the Exs.B24 to B36 those are issued relating to electricity connection to the house of the defendant, to that effect there is no dispute from the plaintiff about the issuance of said exhibits.
32.Moreover the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the house tax receipts obtained service connection and electricity bills clearly discloses that those are false and the documents issued in favour of the defendant by following due 22 procedure. Ex.B37 is the 10(1) and no.2 adangal for the falsi 1403 dated 29-09- 1994, Ex.B38 certified copy of sale deed executed by P.Veeraswamy chetty in favour of P.Munirathnam chetty dated 13-10-1982 , Ex.B39 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 02-09-2009 by P.Guruswamy chetty, P.Parthasarathy in favour of plaintiff
Y.Raghupathi. To prove the said aspect the learned counsel for the defendant argued that at the time of obtaining Ex.B39 it is stated that the suit property is a cart track, if that is being so how Ex.A1 sale deed is a valid one. Moreover Ex.B38 and B39 are against the case of the plaintiff. As seen from the Exs.B38 it is document has executed for the Sy.No.675/6 for an extent of Ac.0-8 ½ cents whereas the defendant is claiming property in Sy.No.675/3 for an extent of Ac.0-04 ½ cents. So the Ex.B38 is no way helpful to the case of the defendant. Ex.B39 certified copy of sale deed executed by P.Gurswamy chetty and P.Parthasarathy in favour of plaintiff
Y.Raghupathi relating to S.No.675/4 for an extent of Ac.0-08 ½ cents the said document is also no way helpful to the case of the defendant. Ex.B40 is the certified copy of deposition of Anjaneyulu chetty in O.S.No.284/1994, as per the well settled principle of law the deposition of living person cannot be taken into consideration unless and until the said person was examined and confronted with the document.
Here in the present case there is no such circumstances thereby the Ex.B14 cannot be taken into consideration. Ex.B41 is the 1B namuna stands in the name of defendant showing several properties such as survey No.675/3 to an extent of Ac.0-04 ½ cents,
Sy.no.675/4 for an extent of Ac.0-08 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/6 for an extent of Ac.0-1 cents and in Sy.No.675/8 for an extent of Ac.0-01 cent which shows ancestral property of defendant. Ex.B42 is the adangal pahani relating to Sy.No.675/3 stands in the name of defendant for an extent of Ac.0-04 ½ cents which shown as ancestral property. Ex,B43 is the original pattadar pass book stands in the name of defendant which shows the defendant issued the said pattadar pass book relating to Sy.Nos.
675/4, 675/6, 675/3 and 675/8 for an extent of Ac.0-08 ½ cents, Ac.0-11 cents, Ac.0- 4 ½ cents and Ac.0-7 ½ cents so also Ex.B44 original title deed issued for the same
Survey No. as if Ex.B43. Ex.B45 is the original aadhar card which shows that the defendants father residing in D.No.4-3, G.K.Puram, Puthalapattu mandal, and 23
Ex.B46 which shows that the mother of defendant residing in 403, G.K.Puram of
Puthalpattu mandal, the Exs.B45 and B46 are filed subsequent to the suit, so those documents cannot be relied in favour of the defendant.
33.It is pertinent to say here that there is no dispute from the evidence of PW1 and 2 that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0-4 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3, the case of the defendant by way of counter claim is also specific that he is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-4 ½ cents in Sy.No.75/3. As per settled principle of law that title follows possession. As per settled law the defendant filed relevant documents to show that the defendant is having right,title and possession over the property shown as counter claim, there is no dispute from the PW1 and 2 so it can be said that the defendant is having right and title over the property in Sy.No.675/3 for an extent of Ac.0-4 ½ cents. When it is clear admission from PW1 and 2, even though the plaintiff vehemently denied the right and title of the defendant the admission of the witness is enough to believe the case of the defendant. In the said circumstances the probabilities shows in favour of the defendant that he is the original owner for an extent of Ac.0-04 ½ cents in
Sy.No.675/3. Even though the defendant filed voluminous document, those documents cannot be relied upon except the documents filed under title deed which show the clear right and title of the defendant by sticked on with the some of the documents filed by the defendant and also considering the admission made by the plaintiff as PW1 and 2 it is deems that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of property in an extent of Ac.0-04 ½ cents in Sy.No.675/3.
34.As per well settled principal of law as contemplated under section 58 of
Indian Evidence Act it is deemed that admitted fact need not be proved. In the same way, here in the present case, PW1 and 2 categorically admitted that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of property covered in Ex.B16 and B17. Further it is observed that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the property covered under Ex.A1 and the defendant property are one and the same, as well as it is not the case of the defendant that the property covered in Ex.A1 and the property covered in B series of 24 the defendant document are one and the same. Admittedly the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0-2 cents whereas the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-4 ½ cents which is situated in the same survey number why because the entire survey number of property is Ac.0-17 cents were purchased the property in the same survey number and enjoying there on by constructing the house sites. Once the plaintiff as PW1 and 2 admitted about the possession and enjoyment of defendant what is required to believe the version of defendant. Further as seen from the arguments of both parties the properties of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and the property of defendant under Ex.B16 and 17 are not and the same. As per the document it appears that the both parties are enjoying their respective properties individually. In the said circumstances the probabilities are in favour of each parties that they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties according to their sale deeds.
35.In view of the above discussion made supra, it is held that the defendant established that he is in possession and enjoyment over the property as claimed by way of counter claim and the admission of PW1 and 2 also supports the case of the defendant about his possession and enjoyment. Thereby it is held that the defendant is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction over the property claimed under counter claim. Hence the issue No.1 in counter claim is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.2 : To what relief?
36.In view of the foregoing discussion and findings given in issue
No.1, it is held that the defendant clearly established his possession and enjoyment over the counter claim property, hence he is entitled for the relief as sought for. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
37. In the result, suit is decreed with costs, granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant, his henchmen and agents from in any way interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of 25 the suit property.
With regard to the relief of counter claim is concerned.
In the result, counter claim is decreed with costs, in favour of the defendant, granted permanent injunction in favour of the defendant, restraining the plaitniff, his henchmen and agents from in any way interfering with defenadnt’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of counter claim property.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant after transcribed by her, corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court on this, 20th day of March, 2020.
II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW1: Y.Raghupathi. DW1 : P.Adikesavulu PW2: P.Anjeneyulu Chetty.
EXIHIBTIS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A.1:Registered sale deed executed by P.Ramachandra in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A.2:House tax receipts issued by the Grama Panchayath Secretary, Palakuru. Ex.A.3:Electricity receipts and demand notices. Ex.A.4:Photos with C.D. Ex.A.5:Certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.785/2012. Ex.A.6:Bunch of electricity demand notice and receipt. Ex.A.7:Photographs along with CD.
FOR DEFENDANT:
Ex.B1:Bunch of photos number in 18. Ex.B2:Certified copy of Pattadar pass book in the name of defendant. Ex.B3:Certified copy of title deed in favour of defendant. Ex.B4:Land pass book, title deed Sy.No.675 FMB issued the M.R.O., Puthalapattu. Ex.B5:Certified copy of Photo voter list. Ex.B6:Certified copy of new electors list in Annexure – I. Ex.B7:Certified copy of photo voter list for the year 2011. Ex.B8:Certified copy of photo voter list for the year 2009. Ex.B9:Certified copy of photo voter list for the year 2007. Ex.B10:Certified copy of extract issued by the Tahsildar, Puthalapattu. Ex.B11:Certified copy of ration card of plaintiff. Ex.B12:Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.284/1994.
26
Ex.B13:House construction by P.Adhikesavulu and living certificate. Ex.B14:Certified copy of Adangal/Pahani in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.B15:1B namuna issued by Tahsildar, Puthalapattu Mandal. Ex.B16:Dt: 04081986 : Certified copy of registered settlement deed executed by T. Chengalraya Chetty in favour of defendant. Ex.B17:Dt: 17011981 : Certified copy of registered settlement deed executed by P. Gurrappa Chetty. Ex.B18:Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.284 of 1994. EX.B19:Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.284 of 1994. Ex.B20:Certified copy of Judgment in A.S.No.168 of 2000 of VIII ADJ, Chittoor. Ex.B21:Certified copy of Order in O.E.P.No.344 of 2003 of I AJCJ, Chittoor Ex.B22:Certified copy of decree in O.E.P. No.344 of 2003 of III AJCJ, Chittoor Ex.B23:Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.284 of 1994 of III AJCJ, Chittoor. Ex.B24:Dt: 22122018 : Original letter addressed by Asst. Divisional Engineer RuralII, Chittoor to Defendant Vide D.No.1635/2012. Ex.B25:Dt: 25112009 : Certified copy of letter address by defendant to Asst. Engineer, Puthalapattu. Ex.B.26:Dt: 25112009 : Certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary. Ex.B27:Dt:26112009 : Certified copy of letter addressed by T.Adikesavulu to Assistant Engineer A.P. TRANSCO, Puthlapattu. Ex.B28:Dt: 26112009 : 196122 issued by APSPDC, Chittoor. Ex.B29:Certified copy of application for LT service connection in the name of defendant. Ex.B30:Certified copy of certificate issued by APSPDCL of LT application Register. Ex.B31:Dt:110102010: Certified copy of legal notice issued to Asst. Engineer (O) of Puthalapattu. Ex.B32:Dt:27082012: Certified copy of certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary Puthalapattu. Ex.B33:Dt:28082012: Receipt No.399052 and acknowledgment and feedback forms issued by APSPDCL, Chittoor. Ex.B34:Certified copy of application for LT service connection in the name of plaintiff. EX.B35:Dt:03112012: Original certificate issued by Tahsildar of Puthalapattu Mandal, Vide ROC. No.A/RTI/31/2012. Ex.B36:Electricity receipt issued by Electricity Department dt: 26112009. Ex.B37:Dt: 29091994: Original 10 (1) Account and No.2 Adangal for the fasli 1403 issued by Mandal Revenue officer of Puthalapattu Mandal. Ex.B38:Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by P.Veeraswamy Chetty to P.Munirathnam Chetty. Ex.B39:Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by P.Guruswamy Chetty, P.Parthasaradhi to Y.Raghupathi. Ex.B40:Certified copy of chief examination affidavit in O.S.No.284/1994
dated 24012020 by Anjineyulu Chetty.
Ex.B41:1BNamoona stands in the name of defendant obtained through Mee Seva on 06122017. Ex.B42:Adangal/Pahani stands in the name of defendant obtained through Mee Seva. Ex.B43:Original Pattadar pass book stands ion the name of defendant. Ex.B44Original title deed stands in the name of defendant Ex.B45:Original Aadhar card stands in the name of P.Sampath chetty defendant’s father. Ex.B46:Original Aadhar card stands in the name of P.Chinna Papamma defendant’s mother.
II A.J.C.J.,
27
C.T.R.
O.S. No. 307 of 2012
Dt: 20.03.2020.
Judgment pronounced in open court. (Vide separate one).
In the result, suit is decreed with cost, granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant, his men, agents and other followers from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
II AJCJ
28