1 Fair copy
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALAMURU.
PRESENT: SRI V.NAGESWARA RAO NAIK
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMACHANDRAPURAM
(FAC) CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, ALAMURU
Dated Friday, the 15th day of November, 2024.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.24 of 2018
Between:
1.Naidu Venkata Ratnam, W/o.Veera Raghava, Age 65 years, Door No.8-32, Yedida Village, Mandapeta Mandal, within the limits of Alamuru Junior Civil Judge Court.
2.Naidu Veera Raghava,S/o. Satyanarayana, Age 70 years, Door No.8-… Plaintiffs 32, Yedida Village, Mandapeta Mandal, within the limits of Alamuru Junior Civil
Judge Court Limits. (Died)
AND
1.Sathi Chinna Reddy, S/o.Vishnu Reddy, Age 40 years, Cultivation and Business, Door No.10-1/4, Kutukuluru, Anaparthi DMC limits.
2.Teeparthi Mani Kumari, W/o.late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Age 46 years, Business, Door No.8-32, Sivalayam Street, Yedida Village, Mandapeta, Alamuru JCJ limits
3.Official Receiver, Rajahmundry District… Defendants Court, Rajahmundry.
This suit is coming on 22.03.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.Naga Babu, Advocate for the plaintiffs, and of
Sri.A.Satyanarayanacharyulu, Advocate for the 2nd defendant and defendants 1 and 3 are made exparte 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 the plaintiffs for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their henchmen from ever 2 Fair copy interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint “A” schedule property until their life time through process of law and for costs of the suit.
2. The concise of plaintiff's case in brief are as follows:-
It is the case of the plaintiff is that, the pliant schedule property originally belongs to Naidu Satya vathi of Yedida Village, who is mother-in-law of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd plaintiff, who acquired the same and some other properties by virtue of registered partition deed dated 28.11.1957 vide document No.2984/1957 during her lifetime, she enjoyed the same with absolute rights and executed a registered settlement deed dated 25.04.1981 vide document
No.850/1981. As per the said document, the said Naidu Satyavathi created life estate in “A” schedule property to both plaintiffs and given vested remainder rights to their sons Naidu Nageswara Rao and
Rama Mohan and she also put a condition that both plaintiffs have to enjoy “A” schedule property till their lifetime without having any alienable rights. On the East of “A” schedule property, “B” schedule property is situated. Both the properties are situated under common roof even though different door numbers were allotted. The door No.8- 106 is given to “A” schedule property and door Nos.8-107, 8-108 were given to “B” schedule property. The “B” schedule property was purchased by Naidu Nageswara Rao and Naidu Mohan Rao under a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1992 vide document No.3219/1992 from Naidu Govida Rao and others, measurements and boundaries are clearly noted in “B” schedule. The said Nageswara Rao and
Mohan Rao both of them filed IP.No.20/2024 and IP.No.21/2024 on the file of Hon’ble District Court, Rajahmundry. In the said two IPs, both
Nageswara Rao and Mohan Rao both of them shown “A” and “B” schedule properties shown as “B” schedule in said IPs, in fact both of them have vested remainder rights in “A” schedule property even though shown “A” and “B” schedule properties in this suit as their own property.
Further submitted that, the 1st defendant filed suit in O.S.No.6 of 2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Alamuru and obtained mortgage decree against the 2nd defendant on 29.11.2017 and shown 3 Fair copy “C” schedule property is the property of 2nd defendant in the said decree and judgment and given findings that in “C” schedule there are two different properties. In fact the 2nd plaintiff has only one property and the property was given by her mother by virtue of settlement deed
dated 25.04.1981. As per the conditions of the said document both
plaintiffs has enjoyed the schedule property till their demise. Both plaintiffs are Senior Citizens and both of them crossed 70 years of age and they are not having any assistance and only at the mercy of relatives they are leading their life.
Hence, there is every possibility to interfere and evict the both plaintiffs from out of “A” schedule property under the guise of decree passed in O.S.No.6 of 2016 and after disposal of above said IPs, the 2nd defendant has authorized to implement the decree passed in
IP.No.20/2014 and IP.No.21/2024. Even though, the plaintiffs are not bound by decrees in respect of “A” schedule property is concerned.
The 2nd defendant also filed suit against Naidu Nageswara Rao and
Naidu Venkata Satya Naga Mohan in O.S.No.209/2014 in District
Court, Rajahmundry and it is pending and both plaintiffs herein are parties to the said suit and also the present “A” schedule property also shown as 2nd item and claiming rights even the “A” schedule property along with other properties. “A” schedule property shall be excluded from O.S.No.209/2014 even though for abundant caution for activities of 2nd defendant added as a 2nd defendant in this suit.
The plaintiffs further submit that during their lifetime they are entitled to reside in “A” schedule property till their demise by virtue of settlement deed as discussion supra and recently the men of 1st defendant tried to disposes them from out of “A” schedule property and they are also openly proclaiming in Yedida Village that they will disposes them illegally and highhandedly without having any legal right. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants restraining them by way of permanent injunction.
3. The 2 nd defendant filed his written statement, his case in brief are as follows:- The 2nd defendant denied the allegations and specifically contended that one Sathi Chinna Reddy and 1st defendant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 2016 against the 2nd plaintiff on the 4 Fair copy basis of mortgage deed executed by 2nd plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant and that the said suit was decreed in favour of 1st defendant and against the 2nd plaintiff by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court,
Ramachandrapuam on 29.11.2017 and he is not party to the said proceedings and the decree is not binding on him.
The 2nd defendant further submits that the sons of plaintiffs by name Nageswara Rao and Venkata Satya Naga Rammohanarao executed promissory note on 02.02.2012 by deposing the equitable mortgage by deposing the document dated 19.12.1992 executed by
Naidu Govindarao and others in favour of sons of plaintiffs and thus the sons of plaintiffs created and expressed their intention to creat the equitable mortgage and subsequently he filed suit in O.S.No.209 of 2014 before Hon’ble IX Addl. District Court, East Godavari and the said suit was decreed in his favour on 23.01.2017 for a sum of
Rs.14,73,000/-. He further submits that he categorically annexured plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties in O.S.No.209 of 2014, wherein the plaint “A” schedule property representing item No.2 and “B” schedule property representing item No.1 in the said suit and thus he obtained decree upon plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties against the sons of plaintiffs and the said fact is well aware of the plaintiffs and subsequently he preferred I.A.No.1492 of 2017 before the Family
Court, Rajahmundry for passing of final decree proceedings.
Therefore, the plaintiffs did not come to the Court with clean hands and prays the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing upon the pleadings and documents filed by the either side of party the following issues were framed on 11.07.2018 by my learned predecessor for trial:
1.Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of plaint “A” schedule property as on the date of this suit or not ?
2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek permanent injunction over the plaint “A” schedule property as prayed for ?
3.To what relief ?
5 Fair copy
5.In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff, herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Further examined
P.W.2, in support of the case of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, the 2nd defendant, she herself examined as D.W.1 and got Marked Exs.B1 to B4. Further, examined sister of D.W.1 as D.W.2 in support of the case of the 2nd defendant.
6.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant. Perused the material available either oral and documentary on record.
7. Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of plaint “A” schedule property as on the date of this suit or not?
To establish case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff, herself examined as PW1 and filed her chief examination affidavit. In lieu of his chief examination affidavit is nothing but replica of the plaint.
The plaintiffs contention is that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to Naidu Satyavathi, who is mother-in-law of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd plaintiff, who acquired the same and some other properties by virtue of registered partition deed dated 28.11.1957 and during her lifetime, she enjoyed the same with absolute rights and executed a registered settlement deed dated 25.04.1981, created life estate in “A” schedule property to both plaintiffs and given vested remainder rights to their sons Naidu Nageswara Rao and Rama
Mohan and she also put a condition that both plaintiffs have to enjoy “A” schedule property till their lifetime without having any alienable rights. On the East of “A” schedule property “B” schedule property is situated. Both the properties are situated under common roof even though different door numbers were allotted. The “B” schedule property was purchased by Naidu Nageswara Rao and Naidu Mohan
Rao under a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1992 vide document
No.3219/1992 from Naidu Govida Rao and others. The said
Nageswara Rao and Mohan Rao both of them filed IP.No.20/2024 and
IP.No.21/2024 on the file of Hon’ble District Court, Rajahmundry. In the said two IPs, both Nageswara Rao and Mohan Rao both of them 6 Fair copy shown “A” and “B” schedule properties shown as “B” schedule in said
IPs, in fact both of them have vested remainder rights in “A” schedule property even though they shown the “A” and “B” schedule properties in this suit as their own property. The 1st defendant filed suit in
O.S.No.6 of 2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Alamuru and
obtained mortgage decree against the 2nd defendant on 29.11.2017 and shown “C” schedule property is the property of 2nd defendant in the said decree and judgment and the said Hon’ble court gave decision that the schedule property in “C” schedule are two different properties and preliminary deree on 29.11.2017. In fact the 2nd plaintiff has only one property and the property was given by her mother by virtue of settlement deed dated 25.04.1981. As per the conditions of the said document both plaintiffs has enjoyed the schedule property till their demise. But in the above stated circumstances, there is every possibility to interfere and evict the both plaintiffs from out of “A” schedule property under the guize of decree passed in O.S.No.6 of 2016 and after disposal of above said IPs, the 2nd defendant has authorized to implement the decree passed in IP.No.20/2014 and
IP.No.21/2024. The plaintiffs further submit that during their lifetime they are entitled to reside in “A” schedule property till their demise by virtue of settlement deed as discussion supra and recently the men of 1st defendant tried to disposes them from out of “A” schedule property and they are also openly proclaiming in Yedida Village that they will disposes them illegally and highhandedly without having any legal right.
8. In support of their contention the 1st plaintiff filed Ex.A1 certified copy of registered partition deed dated 28.11.1957; Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 25.04.1981; Ex.A3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 19.12.1992 and Ex.A4 is
Tax receipt dated 31.01.2018. On perusal of Ex.A1 it shows that the mother-in-law of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd plaintiff acquired the schedule property by virtue of registered partition deed dated 28.11.1957 vide document No.2984/1957 and she enjoyed the same.
Later, she executed settlement deed dated 25.04.1981 unde document
No.850/1981 under Ex.A2 which establishes that the said Nayudu 7 Fair copy
Satyavathi created life estate rights in “A” schedule property to both the plaintiffs and given vested remainder rights to their sons Nayudu
Nageswara Rao and Rammohan with a condition that both plaintiffs have to enjoy “A” schedule property in their life time without having any alienable rights. As per the Ex.A2, the plaintiffs have to enjoy “A” schedule property till their lifetime without any alienable rights. Here in the present suit the 2nd plaintiff died, the 1st plaintiff has to enjoy the schedule property till her last breath without having any alienable rights, later the property goes to their sons Nayudu Nageswara Rao and Rammohan as per the condition put by said Nayudu Satyavathi by creating vested remainder rights to them. Ex.A3 is the registered sale deed dated 19.12.1992 vide document No.3219/1992 alleged to purchase from Nayudu Govindarao and others by Nayudu Nageswara
Rao and Nayudu Mohana Rao. Ex.A4 is the tax receipt dated 31.01.2018.
9.In support of their documentary evidence, the 1st plaintiff herself orally examined as P.W.1. As per testimony of P.W.1 it is elicited that she is having two sons, after filing of the suit her husband was passed away and that during the life time of her husband, herself, her husband and two sons are lived together. After the demise of her husband, herself and her sons are living together. She further admitted that the partition was held on 28.11.1957 and by the time of Ex.A1 she was married and living together with her husband. Her mother-in-law passed away about 10 years back. As per Ex.A1 her mother in law
Satyavathi got house property and that her husband was passed away two years back. She further admitted that herself and her husband (2nd plaintiff) filed this suit and that one Mohan Rao and Nageswara Rao are her sons and that she did not join her sons as legal representatives of her husband. She does not know whether the 2nd defendant filed suit for mortgage for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- in
O.S.No.209/2014 on the file of IX Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Rajamahendravaram against her two sons during the life time of her husband. She does not know whether the said suit was decreed for
Rs.14,00,000/-. Neither her husband nor her sons informed about the said suit and decree. She does not know whether the plaint A, B and C 8 Fair copy schedule properties are the mortgage schedule properties in
O.S.No.209/2014. She does not know whether any appeal was
preferred on the decree in O.S.No.209/2014. She does not know about
F.D.P.1492/2017. She does not know about IP petitions filed by her sons and that her sons informed about IP petitions. She does not know the stage of IP petitions filed by her two sons. She does not know whether the 2nd defendant was shown as a party in the IP petitions filed by her two sons. She does not know the 1st defendant. She does not know about the relief sought against the 1st defendant. She does not know whether the house bearing door No.8-31, 8-38 were referred in Ex.A1 or not. Her mother in law executed Ex.A2 in favour of herself and her husband (2nd plaintiff). She did not go through Ex.A2. She further admitted that Ex.A2 was executed in her favour, her husband (2nd plaintiff), her two sons and the same was mentioned in Ex.A2.
She further admitted that in Ex.A2 there is averment that the right was conveyed to her two sons and possessions was delivered to her and her husband (2nd Plaintiff). She denied the suggestion that the 1st defendant is her follower and that there are no disputes between her and her two sons about properties. She did not produced any record
before this Court to show that she is paying tax to the house bearing
door No.8-31 and 8-38. She is paying house tax to the Grama
Panchayat, tax receipts are available with her. She does not know about Ex.A3. She further admitted that there are no disputes between them and Naidu Govindarao, Naidu Mahalakshmi and Naidu
Janakiramayya (vendors of Ex.A3). She denied the suggestion that she filed this false suit against the defendants No.1 and 2 though she has knowledge about O.S.No.209/2014 and IP proceedings, herself, her two sons and 1st defendant are colluded together and filed this false suit, and she has no right over the suit schedule house.
10.In support of case of the plaintiffs, they examined one Naidu
Satya Venkata Apparao as P.W.2. P.W.2 filed his chief examination affidavit, in lieu his chef examination affidavit he stated that since 50 years, he knew the P.W.1 and her husband, residing in plaint schedule property and that two years back the husband of P.W.1 died and even after her death P.W.1 has been residing in the plaint schedule property.
9 Fair copy
During cross-examination the P.W.2 admitted that the 1st Plaintiff is her relative and that in total four families of Naidu surname people are residing in Yeditha and that the four families of Naidu surname people are relative to each other and that the husband of 1st Plaintiff was passed away about 2 years back. He further admitted that after the death of the husband of 1st Plaintiff, the house property devolved on herself and her two children, her house is situated one house away from the house of 1st Plaintiff and that the plaint schedule house originally belongs to Naidu Satyavathi who is the mother in law of 1st
Plaintiff.
He further admitted that two sons of 1st Plaintiff are indebted and that the two sons of 1st Plaintiff filed IP petition before the court and that he did not see any document executed by the husband of 1st
Plaintiff in her favour or in favour of her sons and that the plaint schedule property was attached and put for sale.
11.Per contra, the 2nd defendant filed affidavit, in lieu of her chief examination affidavit it is nothing but replica of written statement and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is Certified Copy of Decree in
OS.No.209/2014, Dt.23.01.2015 on the file of Hon’ble IX Addl. District
& Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram; shows that it was decided basing on the mortgage deed alleged to have been executed promissory note by the sons of plaintiffs; Ex.B2 is Certified Copy of
Order in IA.No.1492/2017 in OS.No.209/2014, Dt.26.03.2019 on the file of Hon’ble IX Addl. District & Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram; shows about the costs of the petition; Ex.B3 is Certified Copy of
Petition in EP.No.12/2022 on the file of Hon’ble IX Addl. District &
Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram, shows that it is a petition in
execution proceedings NO.12/2022 on the file of Hon’ble IX Addl.
District & Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram and Ex.B4 is Certified
Copy of Orders in IP.No.20/2014, Dt.07.11.2017 on the file of Hon’ble I
Addl. District & Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram, shows that the said IP petition filed by Nayudu Satya Naga Rammohan, who is one of the sons of plaintiffs herein declaring him as insolvent relating to “B” and “C” schedule properties.
10 Fair copy
12.In support of contention of 2nd defendant, she examined as
DW.1, during chief examination she averred that one Sathi Chinna
Reddy and 1st defendant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 2016 against the 2nd plaintiff on the basis of mortgage deed executed by 2nd plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant and that the above suit was decreed in favour of 1st defendant and against the 2nd plaintiff by the Hon’ble
Senior Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuam on 29.11.2017 and he is
not part to the said proceedings and the decree is not binding on him.
The sons of plaintiffs by name Nageswara Rao and Venkata Satya
Naga Rammohanarao executed promissory note on 02.02.2012 by deposing the equitable mortgage by deposing the document dated 19.12.1992 executed by Naidu Govindarao and others in favour of sons of plaintiffs and thus the sons of plaintiffs created and expressed their intention to create the equitable mortgage and subsequently he filed suit in O.S.No.209 of 2014 before Hon’ble IX Addl. District Court,
East Godavari and the said suit was decreed in his favour on 23.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.14,73,000/-. He categorically annexured plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties in O.S.No.209 of 2014, wherein the plaint “A” schedule property representing item No.2 and “B” schedule property representing item No.1 in the said suit and thus he obtained decree upon plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties against the sons of plaintiffs and the said fact is well aware of the plaintiffs and subsequently he preferred I.A.No.1492 of 2017 before the Family
Court, Rajahmundry for passing of final decree proceedings.
13.Whereas in cross examination she testified that she got acquaintance with Plaintiffs 1 and 2 about 14 years back and that the
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have been residing in the plaint schedule property since 14 years as on today also they are residing in it and that about 5 years back the 2nd Plaintiff passed away, since then, the 1st Plaintiff has been continuing in the same house and that the plaint schedule property initially belongs to the mother of 2nd Plaintiff namely Naidu
Satyavathi. She does not know whether the said Naidu Satyavathi got the property under partition in the year 1957 and that the said Naidu
Satyavathi executed the plaint schedule property in favour of the
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the sons of Plaintiffs in the year 1981. She does 11 Fair copy not know whether the said Naidu Satyavathi executed the plaint schedule property by creating life interest in favour of Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and vested remainder was given to the sons of Plaintiffs and that the names of sons of Plaintiffs are Ram Mohan and Nageswara Rao. She does not know whether Ram Mohan is residing in Visakhapatnam and
Nageswara Rao is residing in Bangalore and that the said Ram Mohan and Nageswara Rao are married and they are having their families.
She does not have any personal knowledge about the residence of
Ram Mohan and Nageswara Rao and that she lent amount to the sons of Plaintiffs but not to the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and that she filed
OS.No.209/2014 on the file of Hon’ble IX Addl. District Court,
Rajamahendravaram against Ram Mohan and Nageswara Rao and that the said suit was decreed in her favour and the EP proceedings are pending. She does not know during the pendency of the said EP proceedings, the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed this suit as they are life interest holders. She does not know one Satti China Reddy who is the 1st
Defendant. She does not know about the amounts lent by him and the suits filed by him in the courts. She has objections for the stay of 1st
Plaintiff in the plaint schedule property though she is life interest holder and that she has no objection for the stay of 1st Plaintiff unless she is evicted through process of law.
14.In support of case of the 2nd defendant, she examined one
Lanka Venkata Satya Soma Sekhara Rao as D.W.2. D.W.2 filed his chief examination affidavit, in lieu his chef examination affidavit he stated that Nayudu Satyavathi is the mother-in-law of P.W.1, executed settlement in favour of his son Nayudu Veerraghava, 2nd plaintiff herein and that the 2nd plaintiff died leaving behind widow P.W.1 with his two sons namely Nageswara Rao and Venkata Satya Rammohanarao filed
I.P.No.20/2014 and Nageswara Rao filed I.P.No.21/2014 before I Addl.
District Court, Rajamahendravaram seeking edification by insolvency proceedings in both I.Ps., his sister D.W.1 was not shown as party. He further admitted that his sister DW.1 filed suit in O.S.No.209/2014 seeking for recovery of amount on the suit mortgage deed and that the said suit was decreed in favour of D.W.1 in respect of 94.1/3 sq. yards and 74 sq. yards and subsequently DW.1 filed IA.No.1492/2017 12 Fair copy seeking final decree and it was allowed on 26.03.2019 against the plaint schedule and later D.W.1 launched EP.No.12/2022 for sale of schedule properties. The said Nayudu Venkata Satya Naga
Mohanarao and Nageswara Rao to avoid genuine debt, filed
I.P.No.20/2014 and I.P.No.21/2014 and after death of Veera Raghava, the property was devolved upon his two sons and enjoying estate of deceased.
During cross-examination the DW.2 admitted that he does not know whether one Naidu Satyavathi conveyed registered settlement deed in favour of Plaintiffs dated 25.04.1981 and that at present
Plaintiff No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of schedule property and that during the life time of Plaintiff No.2, he enjoyed the schedule property after that Plaintiff No.1 is enjoying the schedule property and that the sons of Plaintiff No.1 namely Naidu Nageswara Rao and Ram
Mohan Rao are residing at Yeditha village and that Plaintiff NoS.1 and 2 and the sons of Plaintiff No.1 did not execute any document in favour of D2. DW.1 filed suit and the same is decreed and now EP proceedings EP.No.12/2022 is pending for adjudication. He further deposed that he has serious objection to live Plaintiff No.1 in schedule property. He denied the suggestion that what are the contents stated in his chief examination affidavit are false and that he is deposing false evidence to support the version of DW.1.
15.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that as per Ex.A1, the mother-in-law of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd plaintiff acquired the schedule property by virtue of registered partition deed dated 28.11.1957 vide document No.2984/1957 and she enjoyed the same.
Later, she executed settlement deed dated 25.04.1981 under document No.850/1981 under Ex.A2 which establishes that the said
Nayudu Satyavathi created life estate rights in “A” schedule property to both the plaintiffs and given vested remainder rights to their sons
Nayudu Nageswara Rao and Rammohan with a condition that both plaintiffs have to enjoy “A” schedule property in their life time without having any alienable rights. As per the Ex.A2, the plaintiffs have to enjoy “A” schedule property till their lifetime without any alienable 13 Fair copy rights. Here in the present suit the 2nd plaintiff died, the 1st plaintiff has to enjoy the schedule property till her last breath without having any alienable rights, later the property goes to their sons Nayudu
Nageswara Rao and Rammohan as per the condition put by said
Nayudu Satyavathi by creating vested remainder rights to them.
Ex.A3 is the registered sale deed dated 19.12.1992 vide document
No.3219/1992 alleged to purchase from Nayudu Govindarao and others by Nayudu Nageswara Rao and Nayudu Mohana Rao. Ex.A4 is the tax receipt dated 31.01.2018. Further argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 supported the case of plaintiffs and the plaintiffs herein are not parties to the Exs.B1 to B4 documents. More over the schedule property is different. More over the D.W.1 herself admitted that she has no obejciton for stay of 1st plaintiff in the plaitn schedule proerpty though she is life interest holder and unless she is evicted through process of law. D.W.2 stated she is having serious objection to live the plaintiff No.1 in the plaitn scheduyle property.
16.Per contra, the 2nd defendant counsel argued that, the 2ndplaintiff was died, no steps have been taken to add the LRs of 2nd plaintiff. The schedule property is consist of A B C schedules, door number is given to A schedule is 8-38, B schedule 8-31. New number of the A schedule property given door No.8-106, 8-107 and 8-108. More over there was discrepancies It is not true to suggest that the A B C schedules. The plaintiffs are intentionally suppressed the real facts of the schedule property and also not added as parties to the proceedings in Exs.B1 to B4. In the said circumstancws the learned counsel for 2nd defendiated denied the case of the plaintiffs, the suit is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration and seeks to dismiss the suit.
17.In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on decisions in (1) Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court reported in S.A.(MD) No.792/2021 and C.M.P.(MD) No.10851/2021 in between S.Panneer Selvam and others Vs. M.Abdul Ajeez ; (2) 2018(1) ALT (SC) 51 (DB) reported in Civil Appeal No.10833 of 2010 between Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar Vs. Rameshwar Lal and another; (3) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Civil Appeal No.5577 14 Fair copy of 2021 in between T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy and M.Mallappa and another; (4) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Civil Appeal
No.8241 of 2009 in between Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs.
Didar Singh and another.
18.To counter blast the arguments and decisions relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant relied on decision in 2022(1) ALT 107 (AP) reported in
Second Appeal No.20 of 2021 in between K.Ramulu Panasaladibba
Vs. K.Appa Rao Panasaladibba and others.
19.A perusal of decision facts and gone through it, wherein it is observed that the suit for declaration is lies when there is a dispute relating to title. Herein in the present case on hand, the defendants not disputed the title of the plaintiffs. So, the question of fling suit for declaration does not arise. Moreover, in every suit the parties has to come to the Court with clean hands as referred by the defendant’s counsel. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction, it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish the plaint against the respondents making out this lawful right and interest as well as possession of property in dispute. A party approaching the court for equitable relief of injunction makes such attempt with clean hands.
Suppression of material facts is demonstrative of manner of approach by the parties who come to the court with unclean hands. A perusal of the decision facts relied by both sides, it is observed that in the present case it is clear that the mother in law of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd plaintiff acquired properties under Ex.A1, she executed settlement deed dated 25.04.1981 vide document No.850/1981 created life estate relating to “A” schedule property to both plaintiffs and given vested remainder rights to the sons of Nayudu Nageswar Rao and Rammhan with a condition both the plaintiffs have to enjoy the “A” schedule property till their lifetime without having any alienable rights. So, when the schedule property was created life interest and vested remainder rights in favour of the parties, when one of the party is alive, the property cannot go into the hands of others, when there is specific class non-alienable to the third parties. So, the documents relied by 15 Fair copy the plaintiffs appears to be genuine and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are reliable. Moreover, D.Ws.1 and 2 also know about the status of the property. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 did not borrowed any debt from the defendants, so under the guise of Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 the 2nd defendant cannot evict the 1st plaintiff from the suit schedule property unless due process of law.
20.It is undisputed fact that the plaint schedule property is absolute property 1st plaintiff, it is well know to the 2nd defendant. Upon gone through the evidence either oral or documentary evidence of both parties, the evidence of the P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1 and 2 un- undoubtedly proves that the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint “A” schedule property. Moreover, the evidence of
D.Ws.1 and 2 also clearly supported the case of plaintiffs.
21.Further, D.W.1 and 2 categorically admitted that they have no way concerned and they have no right over the suit schedule properties and they have been not claiming any right over the suit property. Even though the defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs, but their admissions clearly established the case of the plaintiffs. Once the parties to the suit are admitted the case of the other party what is required and necessary to prove as contemplated under Section 58 of
Indian Evidence Act 1887 which reads as under “facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any preceding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing”.
22.This is a suit filed for mere injunction simplicitor, in every suit for mere injunction the 1st party has to prove that they are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by filing appropriate documents by showing their right and interest over the suit schedule properties including the revenue records and other circumstantial situations to show that she is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.
Moreover, in the present suit the 1st plaintiff is proved her case by filing
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 about the title how the 1st plaintiff acquired the schedule property, Ex.A4 is a tax receipt, which sows that the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and 16 Fair copy by examining herself as PW1, and PW2. Hence, the 1st plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit “A” schedule property against the 2nd defendant.
23.In view of above foregoing discussion, it is clearly proved that the 1st plaintiff established her case in proving her right, title and interest over the plaint “A” schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the 1st plaintiff and against the defendants.
24. Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek permanent injunction over the plaint “A” schedule property as prayed for ?
In view of findings given to issue No.1 it is held that the 1st plaintiff succeeded is proving her possession and enjoyment over the plaint “A” schedule property. Thereby the 1st plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction over the plaint “A” schedule property. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the 1st plaintiff and against the defendants accordingly.
25. Issue No.3:- To what relief?
In view of findings given to issue Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the 1st plaintiff and against the defendants.
26. In the result, suit is decreed with costs, granted permanent injunction in favour of the 1st plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their men, agents and henchmen from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1st plaintiff over the suit “A” schedule property until due process of law.
Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant after corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of November, 2024.
Sd/-V.NAGESWARA RAO NAIK
(FAC) CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
ALAMURU.
17 Fair copy
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: PW.1/13.10.2022:Naidu Venkata Ratnam (1st plaintiff)
PW.2/29.11.2022:Naidu Satya Venkata Apparao.
FOR 2 nd DEFENDANT: DW.1/30.10.2023:Theeparthi Mani Kumari (2nd defendant)
DW.2/08.12.2023:Lanka Venkata Soma Sekhara Rao.
FOR DEFENDANTS 1 & 3 : - None –
EXIHIBTIS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1 :Certified copy of registered partition deed dated 28.11.1957.
Ex.A2 :Certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 25.04.1981.
Ex.A3 :Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 19.12.1992.
Ex.A4 :Tax receipt dated 31.01.2018.
FOR 2 nd DEFENDANT:
Ex.B1 : Certified Copy of Decree in OS.No.209/2014, Dt.23.01.2015 on the file of Hon’ble IX Addl. District & Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.
Ex.B2 : Certified Copy of Order in IA.No.1492/2017 in
OS.No.209/2014, Dt.26.03.2019 on the file of Hon’ble IX
Addl. District & Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.
Ex.B3 : Certified Copy of Petition in EP.No.12/2022 on the file of
Hon’ble IX Addl. District & Sessions Court,
Rajamahendravaram.
Ex.B4 : Certified Copy of Orders in IP.No.20/2014, Dt.07.11.2017 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.
FOR DEFENDANTS 1 & 3 : - Nil -
Sd/-V.NAGESWARA RAO NAIK
(FAC)CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
ALAMURU.