JCJ, DUBBAK 1 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: DUBBAK
Present: Ms. VEMUGANTI THARANI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Dubbak
Wednesday , this the 30th day of April, 2025
OS. No. 29/2014
Between:- Barrenkala Chandraiah S/o. Pedda Narsaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Tukkapur village, Thoguta mandal, Medak District.
...Plaintiff
AND
1. Sakali Chandraiah S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thoguta village and mandal
2. Barrenkala Raja mallaiah S/o. Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Tukkapur Village, Thoguta mandal, Medak District.
3. Gopani Kistaiah S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Tukkapur village of Thoguta mandal.
...Defendants
This suit is coming before me on 24-04-2025 for final hearing, in the presence of Sri. L. Sai Baba, counsel for Plaintiff and counsels for the Defendants Sri S. Haris Chandra, Sri. Ch. Nagaraju and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
: : JUDGEMENT : :
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, agents servants etc, from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property .
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff owns land in two schedule properties i.e. Sy. No. 311, measuring
Ac.01.23 gts, located in Tukkapur village, Thoguta mandal, and another one Sy. No. 355, measuring Ac. 02.00 gts, situated at Kangal village, Thoguta mandal. The plaintiff states that the suit schedules land bearing Sy. No. 311, measuring Ac. 1.25 gts, is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff purchased another parcel of land bearing
Sy. No. 355, measuring Ac. 02.00 gts, situated in Kangal village, from its original owner
Smt. Rukmini Bai for Rs. 2000/- on July 28, 1983, through a simple sale deed.
Consequently, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and has been in continuous possession since then.
JCJ, DUBBAK 2 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair
The defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property but are illegally interfering with these properties with the help of "unsocial elements" based on incorrect entries in revenue records. On 29-09-2010, the defendants tried to interfere into the suit schedule property and the plaintiff resisted them with the help of neighbors. But the defendants are threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit schedule property.
Hence the plaintiff is left with no alternative but to file a suit.
3. Following the institution of the suit, summons were duly served to the defendants and defendant No.1 filed a written statement and defendants No.2 and 3 have filed another written statement.
4. The averments of the written statement of defendant No.1 in brief are as follows:
The suit is considered ill-conceived as it does not disclose cause of action as against the defendant and the suit suffers from an inherent defect under order II rule 7 of Civil
Procedure Code (C.P.C) for misjoinder of causes warranting its return. The items No.1 and 2 are two separate properties situated in two different villages and similarly this defendant and defendants No.2 and 3 are of separate villages and does not reveal how they are even interested in the suit schedule property and what their activities are. It doesn’t specify the date, time, which defendant interfered with which suit schedule property etc. as required under Order VI Rule 3 of the C.P.C.
This defendant is no way concerned with the suit Sy.No. 311 extent Ac.1.23gts in
Thukkapur village. But the plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of land bearing Sy. No.
355, measuring Ac. 02.00 gts in Kangal village and the alleged simple sale deed executed by
Smt.Rukmini Bai is forged and is invalid and inadmissible in evidence and doesn’t confer any title or possession as it is unregistered. The defendant No.1 in fact purchased the said property bearing Sy. No. 355/A, measuring Ac. 01.14 gts, Sy.No.357 measuring Ac. 00.06 gts, Sy. No. 358/A, measuring Ac. 02.21 gts and Sy. No. 359, measuring Ac. 00.16 gts in
Kangal village from Smt.Rukmini Bai vide registered sale deed doc No. 435/2010 on 11-03- 2010 in the name of his wife who is the owner and possessor of the said property including item No.2 of suit schedule property. The plaint is thus bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The alleged interference by defendants is created for the purpose of this suit.The allegations are false and vague, lacking specifics about the alleged interference.Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for all the said reasons.
JCJ, DUBBAK 3 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair
5. The averments of the written statement filed by defendants No.2 and 3, in brief, are as follows:
The suit is mis-conceived, as for misjoinder of causes and parties and deserved to be returned under order VII rule 10 of C.P.C. The two items of suit schedule property are present in different villages. The defendant No.1 is resident of Thoguta and purchased item
No.2 of suit schedule property and defendants No.2 and 3 are residents of Thukkapur village and in possession of item No.1 of suit schedule property along with 10 other persons since their forefathers. There is no relationship between defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 and
3. The item No.1 is suit schedule property is ancestral property of defendants No.2 and 3 and their caste men besides other persons namely Godugu Rajaiah, Ullengula Mallaiah,
Gudise Mallaiah, Ullengula Ramavva, Godugu Ramakishtaiah, Barrenkala Pedda Yadaiah,
Kishtaiah, Bhumaiah, Boini Ramaswamy, B.Kontham Narsavva who are all necessary parties, hence suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
The total extent of Sy.No. 311 in Thukkapur village is 13 acres 39, with approximately 30 people in possession, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff, allegedly associated with extremists, misused influence to have their name and family members' names improperly recorded in the revenue records. The entries in the revenue records do not reflect the actual situation on the ground. The land was intended for a community hall, and other shareholders did not initially object to the records. The plaintiff filed the suit with malicious intent to sell the land for personal gain due to increased land value from proposed special economic zones. The land is actually in the possession of the Mudiraj Community.
The government has recently constructed a school building on item No. 2 of the suit schedule. The allegation of interference by the defendants with the help of unsocial elements is false. The cause of action and its date are fabricated for the purpose of the suit. The suit relief is improperly valued, and the court fees paid are insufficient. The market value of the land is 3,00,000 per acre, exceeding the court's jurisdiction, and the value of the school₹ building should also be included. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for all the said reasons.
6. The parties reported no compromise under Sec.89 of Civil Procedure Code. After hearing both the sides and perusing the pleadings and other documents on record, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?
JCJ, DUBBAK 4 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair
2. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. P.W.1 was cross examined. One third party chief affidavit was filed as P.W.2 but his evidence was eschewed. However, the subsequent parties were considered as P.W.3 and 4 by oversight. But to avoid confusion in addressing the parties, B.Niranjan Reddy shall be considered as P.W.3 and M.Jayababu shall be considered as P.W.4 as addressed in the docket and deposition. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were cross-examined as well. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 1 was examined as D.W.1 and Ex. B1 to B6 were marked. Third parties were examined as DWs. 2 and 3.
8. Heard learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants and perused the material on record. Before answering the issues, the Court would firstly discuss the evidence as follows:-
Analysis of the Evidence:
9. The plaintiff in support of his contention relied on documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to A13 and oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4.
10.Ex.A1 is pattadar passbook and it shows that B.Chandraiah (s/o Peddanarsaiah) i.e, the plaintiff is pattadar of property bearing Sy.No. 311 extent Ac.1.23gts in Thukkapur village.
Ex.A2 and A3 are the valuation certificates of the suit schedule property. Exs.A4, A5 shows that in 1992-94, plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of land bearing Sy.No. 311/EE extent
Ac.1.23gts. Exs.A6-A12 shows that in 1995-2003, plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of land bearing Sy.No. 311/E extent Ac.1.23gts. Ex.A13 shows that in 2009-10, plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of land bearing Sy.No. 311 extent Ac.1.23gts. Ex.A14 is sufficiently stamped simple sale deed and it cannot be discerned easily but with the help of the translated copy, its contents shows that on 28-07-1983, Smt. D.Rukmini Bai has executed a simple sale deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to land bearing Sy.No. 355 extent Ac.2.00gts. for consideration of Rs.2000/- and the possession has been delivered to the plaintiff accordingly on that day.
11.Plaintiff as P.W.1, in his chief examination, reiterated the contents of the plaint.
P.W.1 in his cross-examination rightly identified the details of the suit schedule property. He testified that the land is in Sy. No. 311 is vacant land and that is the total extent
JCJ, DUBBAK 5 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair of land in Sy. No. 311 is Ac. 13.39 gts and that his agnates alienated the remaining extent of land in Sy. No. 311 to one Pabbati Anasuya W/o. Sriram Reddy. He denied that his ancestors have share in the land of Sy.No.311. P.W.1 denied that as he is trying to occupy the land of
Ac.1.23gts., the defendants are not allowing the plaintiff into the suit land.
He testified that one Godown was constructed under the IKP scheme in the land of two acres in Sy. No. 355 at Kangal village. He denied that that one school was also built in the said land but later admitted that at the time of construction of the said school I got issued legal notice through my counsel to the Sarpanch of the village to stop the construction and that while the work is going on he got to know my vendor Rukmini Bai sold the land of two acres in Sy.No.355 along with other lands in other survey numbers to Gowraram Laxmi who is wife of D-1 through Registered Sale Deed and that he had not issued any legal notice to his vendor Rukmini Bai as she died in 2012. He further stated that in the year of 1982 he himself purchased the stamp paper used for Ex.A-14 and that in the year 1982 the transaction in respect of land of two acres in Sy.No.355 took place. He could not state the scribe of Ex.A14. He denied the other adverse suggestions put forth by learned counsel for the defendants.
12.B.Niranjan Reddy as P.W.3 deposed that he has agricultural land near land of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property and raises different crops and that the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
In his cross-examination, he stated that of the suit schedule property, one property is in
Thukkapur and one in Kangal. He stated that one building was constructed for primary school but denied that it was constructed in the suit schedule property. He could not tell the shareholders of Sy.No.311 of Thukkapur village. He admitted that a road towards Siddipet to
Gajwel is in a north-south direction and that the plaintiff land is abetting the said road on western side. He denied the adverse suggestions put forth by learned counsel for the defendants.
13.M.Jayababu as P.W.4 deposed that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property and raises different crops and that the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
In his cross-examination, he stated that the plaintiff is his uncle and that he got to know about the dispute from his paternal uncle. He admitted that he has lands adjoining suit
JCJ, DUBBAK 6 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair schedule property and he added that he sold those lands ten years back. He stated that the land bearing Sy. No, 311 is situated at Thukkapur village and land bearing Sy. No. 355 is situated at Kangal village and that he had sold the said lands to the plaintiff and that his father executed a sale deed in favour of one Gopan Narsaiah. He stated the boundaries of Sy.
No, 311 as follows: East: land of Bhoomaiah, West: Godown, North: Road, South: MLA
Muthyamreddy's land and the boundaries of land in Sy. No. 355 are as follows: East: land belonging to Narsalah, West: Land belonging to Bapureddy, North: Road, South: MLA
Muthyamreddy's land. He denied that a school is situated in the land bearing Sy. No. 355 and that under the Indira Kranthi Yojana, godowns were constructed in Sy. No. 355. He stated that he did not know whether G. Laxmi (Washer woman) sold the land bearing Sy.
NO. 353 in favour of Indira Kranthi Yojana to Gram Panchayat for construction of School
Building. He added that it might have been sold in the year 2008. He denied the adverse suggestions put forth by learned counsel for the defendants.
14.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him, sufficiently establish the plaintiff’s contention.
15.Per contra, to prove their contention, the defendants relied on documentary evidence of
Exs.B1 to B6 and oral evidence of D.W.s 1 to 3.
16.Ex.B1 shows that on 11-03-2010, Gowraram Lakshmi w/o G.Chandraiah purchased the property bearing Sy.No.355/A to an extent of Ac.1.14gts. among other lands in Kangal village from Smt.D.Rukminibai. Ex.B2 shows that on 28-07-2011, the said G.Lakshmi sold the property bearing Sy.No.355/A to an extent of Ac.1.14gts. to Tukkapur village Women mutually aided cooperative thrift and credit society represented by its member and sarpanch
G.Anitha for IKP mini market godowns. Ex.B3 shows G.Laksmi also sold other lands to said vendee in 2017.
Ex.B14 shows that the plaintiff filed a suit in OS No. 91/2019 on the file of this
Court against P.W.3, G.Lakshmi, G.Anitha and others for perpetual injunction with respect to land bearingSy. No. 355, measuring Ac. 02.00 gts, situated at Kangal village and its boundaries are North:Land of SC community, south: Road, east: Land of B.Narsimhulu, west: B.Madhava Reddy. Ex.B5 shows that plaintiff got issued a legal notice to G.Anitha under section 80 of C.P.C, stating that on 12-12-2010, she entered into the plaintiff’s land and dug trenches for construction of school and when raised objection, reported that the said lands was gifted by defendant No.1. Ex.B6 shows that on 21-12-2010, the said G.Anitha
JCJ, DUBBAK 7 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair issued a reply to the plaintiff denying the contents of the Ex.B5 letter and stated that
G.Lakshmi purchased land bearing Sy.No.355 and other lands from D.Rukminibai under registered sale deed and gifted Ac.0.05gts. of land for construction of school and the gram panchayat accepted the same and Rs.7.5 lakh were allotted in DPF scheme for 2010-11 and construction work commenced in 2010 and pillars were raised.
17.Defendant No.1 as D.W.1, in his chief examination, reiterated the contents of his written statement.
The D.W.1 in his cross-examination, testified that under Ex.B4 the plaintiff filed a case against him, Barrenkala Kistaiah and Rayamallu and that he does not remember about Ex.
B5 and Ex. B6 as such he did not file a written statement. He stated that he does not have any objection if the suit is decreed with regard to Sy. No. 311. He stated that Rukminibai affixed her signature as Rukminidevi in Ex.B1 and that he does not know whether
Rusminibai affixed her signature as Rukminibai in Ex.A14 but he stated that name of his vendor is Rukminibai and she is also called Rukminidevi. He could not tell the date on which his wife purchased the suit schedule property from Rukminibai under Ex.B1. He testified that he purchased land in Sv. No. 355, 356, 358, 359 to a total extent of Ac. 4-17 guntas in the name of his wife/Gouraram Laxmi through a registered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- and that he, his wife, Rukminibai and one Mahesh attester were present at the time of registration. He testified that he did not submit any document
before this court showing that a godown is constructed under IKP scheme by womens
mutually aided co-operative society. He denied the other adverse suggestions put forth by learned counsel for the plaintiff.
18.Defendant No.3/Gopani Kishtaiah as D.W.2, in his chief examination, reiterated the contents of his written statement.
D.W.2 stated the suit schedule property as lands bearing Sy.No. 355 to the extent of
Ac. 1.00 guntas and Sy.No. 311 to the extent of Ac. 1-23 guntas. He stated the boundaries of
Sy.No. 355 as East: his land, West: Road, North: Land of Muthyam Reddy Ex.MLA and
South: Road. He stated the boundaries of Sy.No. 311 as East: his land, West: Land of
Gournram Laxmi, North: Road and South: Land of Muthyam Reddy Ex.MLA. He stated that he is not concerned with Item No. 2 (Sy.No. 355) of suit schedule property. He stated that the total extent of Sy.No. 311 is Ac. 1-23 guntas.
JCJ, DUBBAK 8 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair
19.B.Narsaiah as D.W.3, in his chief examination, stated that defendants No.2 and 3 are his own caste people and that plaintiff is his younger brother and that item No.1 belongs to his caste people and there are cattle sheds belonging to his agnates and that Godugu, Ullengula,
Gudesela, Barrenkela, Boini and Gopani families are having share in the said property and that the claim of plaintiff is wrong.
He could state one suit survey number as in Sy.No. 311 to an extent of Ac. 01-23 gts. He stated that the plaintiff has the share to the same extent as he does in Sy.No. 311 to an extent of Ac. 01-23 gts. He stated the boundaries of Sy.No. 311 to an extent Ac. 01-23 gts. as East:
Land of Gopani Kistaiah, West: Outskirt of Kangal, Godown and road, North: Outskirt of
Kangal and South: Garden of Muthyam Reddy. He denied the other adverse suggestions put forth by learned counsel for the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.1:
20.Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 provides that a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour. Since the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of perpetual injunction, the initial burden shall lie upon him to show that he was in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit and that the defendants interfered with such possession.
21.The plaintiff’s contention in brief is that plaintiff obtained item No.1 of suit schedule property from ancestors and item No.2 vide simple sale deed on 23-07-1983 and since then he has been owner and possessor of the suit schedule property but the defendants without right or title interfered with his peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. For the sake of ease of understanding, the discussion shall be divided into two parts based on the items of the suit schedule property as follows:
Item no.1 : Sy. No. 311 (extent Ac.01.23 gts), Thukkapur (V) 22.The plaintiff’s contention is that the item No.1 of the suit schedule property is ancestral property and he has been in continuous possession of the same. As was discussed earlier,
Exs.A1, A4 to A13 show the plaintiff being the pattadar and possessor of Ac.01.23 gts of land in Sy. No. 311 in Thukkapur village from 1992 to 2010 i.e, the year in which the suit is filed. Admittedly, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, there are differences in the subdivision number. But overall, all the revenue records adduced by the
JCJ, DUBBAK 9 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair plaintiff show that the plaintiff has possession over Ac.01.23 gts of land in Sy. No. 311. The boundaries of said property were not disputed by the defendants.
23.Per Contra, it is the contention of the defendants that the total land in Sy.No.311 is 13 acres 39 gts and approximately 30 people are in its possession including the plaintiff and that item no.1 of suit schedule property is ancestral property of defendants No.2 and 3 and their caste men namely Godugu Rajaiah, Ullengula Mallaiah, Gudise Mallaiah, Ullengula Ramavva,
Godugu Ramakishtaiah, Barrenkala Pedda Yadaiah, Kishtaiah, Bhumaiah, Boini
Ramaswamy, B.Kontham Narsavva and the land was intended for a community hall, and other shareholders did not initially object to the records but due to increased market value the plaintiff has filed the malicious suit. The defendants did not adduce a single piece of documentary evidence to prove their contention.
24.P.W.1, 2 and 4, all the witnesses deposed that item No.1 of suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff and that the defendants are interfering with his possession over the said schedule property. In fact, one of the defendants’ witnesses D.W.3 also stated that the plaintiff has the share to the same extent as he does in Sy.No. 311 to an extent of Ac.
01-23 gts. P.W.1 in his cross-examination testified that the total extent of land in Sy. No. 311 is Ac. 13.39 gts and that his agnates alienated the remaining extent of land in Sy. No. 311 to one Pabbati Anasuya and that the agnates do not have a share in the said survey number.
P.W.4 stated the boundaries of his land bearing Sy.No.311 which however is not matching with the suit schedule property. But the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit was filed in 2010 and subsequently P.W.4 was cross-examined in 2018 and hence there is change in boundaries. Further P.W.4 stated that he has sold lands in Sy.No.311 and 355 to plaintiff however it is the contention of plaintiff that he obtained land bearing Sy.No.311 from his ancestors. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that P.W.4 was stating about the past transactions and is not adverse to the plaintiff’s case.
25.Be that as it may, the Exs. A1, A4 to A13 sufficiently establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the item No.1 of the suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit. The defendants failed to prove their contention with respect to item No.1 of the suit schedule property. From the perusal of P.W.1 cross-examination, it can be seen that the learned counsel for the defendants put a suggestion to P.W.1 i.e, since the plaintiff is trying to occupy the land of Ac.1.23gts., the defendants are not allowing the plaintiff into the suit
JCJ, DUBBAK 10 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair land. This suggestion is clear admission as to the defendants’ interference with the plaintiff’s possession over the land of Ac.1.23gts. which is item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
26.Thus, the plaintiff has successfully proved his claim that he was in lawful possession of item
No.1 of the suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit and that the defendants interfered with his possession. The court is thus of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for with respect to item
No.1 of the suit schedule property in order to prevent the said interference.
27.The defendants however argued that items No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property are situated in two different villages and defendants are from different villages and the suit does not disclose cause of action as against the defendants and the suit suffers from an inherent defect under order II rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C) for misjoinder of causes of action. As per Order II Rule 3, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants interfered with his possession over items No.1 and 2 of suit schedule property on 29-09-2010. It is common knowledge that Item No.1 which is in Thukkapur village and Item
No.2 which is in Kangal village of Thoguta mandal are merely 5 K.M away, hence it is quite possible for the defendants to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the said property on one day. Hence, the Court opines that there is no misjoinder of causes of action and the suit is not bad for misjoinder of causes of action.
Item no.2 : Sy. No. 355 (extent Ac.02.00 gts), Kangal (V) 28.The plaintiff’s contention is that he purchased item No.2 of suit schedule property i.e, land bearing Sy. No. 355, measuring Ac. 02.00 gts, situated in Kangal village, from its original owner Smt. Rukmini Bai for Rs. 2000/- on 28-07-1983 through a simple sale deed. He relied on Ex.A14 to prove the same. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that
Ex.A14 is an unregistered simple sale deed and hence it cannot be looked into. But in view of section 49 of the Registration Act, such a simple sale deed can be looked into for collateral purposes. In this case, a sufficiently stamped but unregistered sale deed can be looked into to determine the nature of possession. Hence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that Ex.A14 shows that plaintiff has obtained possession. However, none of the witnesses of the said transaction or scribe of the said deed was examined. In fact 29.Per Contra, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that Ex.A14 is fabricated and being unregistered it does not confer any title and possession whereas the defendant No.1
JCJ, DUBBAK 11 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair purchased the part of the item No.2 of suit schedule property and other properties in the name of his wife from Smt.Rukminibai in 2011 vide Ex.B1 and they have been in possession since then and hence the plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession hence the suit is to be dismissed.
30.As per section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908, every document of the kind mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 17, sub-section (1), and clauses (a) and (b) of section 18, shall, if duly registered, take effect as regards the property comprised therein, against every unregistered document relating to the same property. Ex.A14 is an unregistered sale deed whereas Ex.B1 is a registered sale deed. Ex.B1 falls under the category of section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Hence, Ex.B1 would take effect as regards the property comprising therein, against Ex.A14 relating to the same property. Ex.B1 shows that on 11- 03-2010, plaintiff’s wife purchased the property bearing Sy.No.355/A to an extent of
Ac.1.14gts. among other lands in Kangal village from Smt.D.Rukminibai. The defendants never disputed the fact that the Ex.B1 schedule property is part of item No.2 of suit schedule property.
31.The defendants’ contention was that the said document was fabricated. However, it is a settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered.
The defendants did not rebut the presumption. In fact P.W.1 admitted in his cross- examination that he got to know that his vendor Rukmini Bai sold the land of two acres in
Sy.No.355 along with other lands in other survey numbers to Gowraram Laxmi i.e, wife of
D-1.
32.Hence, in view of Ex.B1 it is settled that the defendant No.1 was in possession of part of item No.2 of suit schedule property since 11-03-2010 and hence even at the time of filing the suit i.e, on 30-09-2010. Thus, as a corollary it can be said that the plaintiff is not in possession of item No.2 of suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit.
33.The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that the defendant No.1’s wife subsequently sold the Ex.B1 schedule property to a third party and a school and godown was constructed and the plaintiff was never in possession of the item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Ex.B2 shows that the defendant No.1 sold Ex.B1 land to a third party and Ex.B5 shows that plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the said third party stating that on 12-12- 2010, she entered into the plaintiff’s land and dug trenches for construction of school. P.W.1 admitted that one Godown was constructed under the IKP scheme in the land of two acres in
Sy. No. 355 at Kangal village and denied that that one school was also built in the said land
JCJ, DUBBAK 12 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair but later admitted that at the time of construction of the said school he got issued legal notice through his counsel.
34.Be that as it may, the Court is not concerned with the transactions which took place after the suit was filed. It is concerned with the question of whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit. In view of the above discussion, the
Court opines that the plaintiff could not prove that he was in lawful possession of item No.2 of suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit. Hence, the Court opines that the plaintiff would not be entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as against the defendants with respect to item No.2 of the suit schedule property.
ISSUE No.2:
35.As a result, the suit is partly decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff with respect to item No.1 of the suit schedule property (Land bearing Sy.No.311 measuring Ac.1.23gts. at
Thukkapur village) and defendants are restrained by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with plaintiff’s possession over the item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The suit is dismissed with respect to item No.2 of the suit schedule property (Land bearing
Sy.No.355 measuring Ac.2.00gts. at Kangal village). The parties are to bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of April, 2025.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
DUBBAK.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Defendants Plaintiffs
DW1:G. Chandraiah PW1:B. Chandraiah
DW2:G. Kistaiah PW2:-
PW3: G. NeranjanreddyDW3:B. Narsaiah
JCJ, DUBBAK 13 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair
PW4:Monthuri Jaya Babu
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Plaintiffs
Original Pattadar Passbook Ex. A1:
Land valuation certificate, Issued by SRO Dubbak in Sy. No. 335 Ex.A2:
Ex.A3:Land valuation certificate, Issued by SRO Siddipet
Ex.A4 CC of Pahani for the year 1992-93,
Ex. A5CC of Pahani for the year 1993-94,
Ex. A6CC of Pahani for the year 1995-96,
Ex. A7CC of Pahani for the year 1996-97,
Ex. A8CC of Pahani for the year 1997-98,
Ex. A9CC of Pahani for the year 1998-99,
Ex. A10CC of Pahani for the year 1999-2000,
Ex. A11CC of Pahani for the year 2000-2001,
Ex. A12CC of Pahani for the year 2001-2002
CC of Pahani for the year 2002-2003. Ex. A13
Ex. A14Simple sale deed, dt: 28-07-1983 executed by Rukmini Bai
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Defendants
CC of Registered sale deed vide Doc. No. 435/2010 Ex.B1
CC of Registered sale deed vide Doc. No. 945/2011 Ex.B2
Ex.B3CC of Registered sale deed vide Doc. No. 8616/2017
Ex.B4CC of plaint in OS/91/2019 on the file of the JCJ Court, Dubbak
JCJ, DUBBAK 14 of 14 OS.No. 29 of 2014 Fair
Office Copy of Legal Notice Under 80 of CPC issued by L. Sai Baba, Advocate, Ex.B5
dated 14-12-2010
Office of Legal Notice, dated: 21-12-2010 from the office of S. Harishchandra Ex.B6 Advocate.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
DUBBAK.