Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4 of 2010 Page 1 of 44
and
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of plaintiffs title and
possession over the suit schedule property and direct the defendants
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 2 of 44
rough plan and directed to deliver the vacant possession of the same
to the plaintiff and in case if the defendants fails to do so, the plaintiff
at liberty to get it done through Court and also for consequential relief
over entire extent of Ac.0.36 cents of the suit schedule property and
for costs.
under what law and under what section of law particular suit is filed, is
not mentioned in the plaint. It creates a much trouble for the judge
who is not a trial judge in reading the plaint, written statement and
under Or.7 R.1 and 2 CPC. It is not mentioned under what section of
Sec.26 of CPC read with Or.7 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. If the sections
between section of law and the orders and rules, the section of law will
prevail over. For example, Sec. 32(c) of C.P.C. contradicts Or.16 R.12
and chief affidavits of both sides, the evidence adduced on both sides,
plaintiff.
property of the plaintiff and the plaintiff and their predecessors are in
possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. The father
enjoying the same till his death. After the death of M. Sanjeeva
namely Narasa Reddy raised a dispute with the plaintiff in enjoying the
and the said suit was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, Hindupur
by its decree and judgment dt. 24-6-1991 on merits. Against the said
Hindupur. On merits, the said appeal was dismissed by its decre and
was preferred by Narasa Reddy before the Honble High Court of A.P.
litigation was ended in favour of plaintiff and all the courts were
enjoyment of the suit schedule property in his own right. Neither the
father of the plaintiff after the sale by virtue of the sale deed dt.
property and the same was subjected to property tax by the Grama
the mulberry shed. Apart from this, the plaintiff has constructed a
house bearing D.No.2/19-A and use to reside in the same with his
rough plan. The remaining open space is being used by the plaintiff for
tying cattle and for manure pits and a portion of the suit schedule
own right.
boundary to the plaint schedule property in between the road and the
plaint schedule property blocking the access to the plaintiff into the
public road, for which the plaintiff raised objections saying that the
plaintiff in using the road that was running immediately on the eastern
Easement Act, 1882. For example, the plaintiff may ask injunction to
in every plaint filed by the plaintiff through his advocate. So, in this
Officer, Parigi P.S. but the police did not take any action. The
panchayat was also held in this regard. In the said panchayat, the
in the suit schedule property on the eastern side as shown in the plaint
no right and title and possession whatsoever over the suit schedule
litigation.
their ancestors through whom they are claiming the property are
along with all other amenities. For which, the plaintiff got issued a
Hindupur and the same was acknowledged and the defendant No.5
property.
the western side of the mulberry shed belongs to the plaintiff. The
to 7 are shown in the plaint rough plan as AECF portion marked in red
encroached into the plaint schedule property high handedly and made
shown as GBHI portion in the red colour in the plaint rough plan.
that they are nothing to do with suit property belonged to the plaintiff
shown as AECF and GBHI portion in the plaint rough plan and the
defendants are well aware that the said portion of the property in the
No.505/95 before the Honble High Court of A.P. the defendants high
shown as AECF and GBHI portion of the plaint rough plan are illegal
must file under Sec.39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff
on sections of laws is that on perusal of the plaint title itself the Court
must come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs prayer is crystal clear
i.e. why this Court insisting the plaintiff to file a suit under appropriate
provision of law. Since the defendants are very powerful and are
having much political influence the plaintiff filed the present suit for
property shown as AECF and GBHI portion and for delivery of the
handedly.
The cause of action for the suit arose on the date when the
date when the plaintiffs father sold an extent of Ac.0.90 cents of land
sale deed dt. 23-10-1956 and on the date when G.Narasa Reddy
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 8 of 44
thought whom the defendants are claiming the property filed suit in
24-6-91 when the said suit was dismissed on merits and on the date
and on the date when the second appeal No.505/95 was preferred and
and on the dates when the defendants tried to encroach into the suit
Parigi Mandal within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence the suit.
5. Now let us come to the averments what are made in the written
plaint.
consideration.
that the suit schedule property was and is his ancestral property. If
such allegations are true, the plaintiff alone cannot maintain the suit
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 9 of 44
by himself and all the legal heirs of the original pattadars become
such property, the plaintiff alleges that an extent of Ac.0.90 cents was
Ac.0.36 cents. These defendants are not aware of the said allegations
and the plaintiff shall be put to strict proof of the same. If such
inherited by all the legal heirs of the original owners. The plaintiff
alone cannot claim absolute and exclusive right and title to the said
to all their joint family properties including the suit schedule property.
The said Mandala Narayana Reddy is alive and he has also got three
plaintiff has got four sons namely Venkatarami Reddy, the plaintiff,
Jayarami Reddy and Kesava Reddy whereas he has got two daughters
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 10 of 44
suit schedule property along with the legal heirs of Mandala Narayana
Reddy.
for the sake of arguments be imagined to own possess and enjoy the
suit schedule property as his own. All the legal heirs of late Sanjeeva
Reddy along with Mandala Narayana Reddy and his children named
above are all therefore necessary and proper parties to the suit. The
plaintiff alone filed the suit ignoring all the remaining co-owners of the
suit schedule property. The suit is therefore bad for non joinder of
ground alone.
the Court to have wrongful gain, if possible. The rough sketch is false
sketch filed by the plaintiff. The said house is an existence for more
than 80 years and till now. This fact is well known to one and all
including the plaintiff and all the other members of his family. The
plaintiff has himself shown the said house in the rough sketch. The
plaintiff has got no right to lay a claim to such house at this stage for
any reason whatsoever. The plaintiff has lost his right, if any over the
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 11 of 44
property now claimed by him by efflux of time too. The remedy of the
plaintiff has got nothing to do with the same. The question of trespass
and their ancestors have been residing in the said house shown in the
rough sketch for more than 80 years and they have been paying house
tax relating to the said houses. The plaint does not indicate the EFG
further denied that there is a cause of action for the suit and the cause
plaintiff alleges that the suit schedule property was and is their
cannot maintain the suit by himself and all the legal heirs of the
plaintiffs father and the said sale deed was attested by Mandala
The sale of the property was therefore through a registered sale deed
Ramaiah. It is therefore deemed that all the legal heirs of the said
to all their joint family properties including the suit schedule property.
The said Mandala Narayana Reddy is alive and he has also got three
plaintiff has got four sons namely Venkatarami Reddy, the plaintiff,
Jayarami Reddy and Kesava Reddy whereas he has got two daughters
suit schedule property along with the legal heirs of Mandala Narayana
Reddy. The plaintiff cannot claim as sole owner of the property and
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 13 of 44
schedule property alone. So, all the legal heirs of the late Mandala
Sanjeeva Reddy and Mandala Narayana Reddy and his children named
above are all therefore necessary and proper parties to the suit. The
plaintiff alone filed the suit ignoring all the remaining co-owners of the
suit schedule property. The suit is therefore bad for non joinder of
ground alone.
document which does not disclose the actual facts on the field. The
from Mandala Sanjeeva Reddy the father of the plaintiff and his
1964. The said Govinda Reddy was residing in the said house along
with the family members right from 1964 and till his death. The
time jointly and then got partition of the said house about 32 years
that they got their respective shares in the house in which they are
existence right from 1964 and till now. This fact is well known to one
and all including the plaintiff and all the other members of his family.
the rough sketch. Such rights of the defendants over the said houses
cannot be disputed at this stage. The plaintiff has lost his right, if any,
over the suit property now claimed by him by efflux of time too. The
remedy of the plaintiff is barred even if he has got any merits in the
family on the other side and it is in existence for more than 50 years.
any claim by the plaintiff or his family men to the property beyond
that the plaintiffs rough sketch also shows the open space in between
that the 5th defendant stopped constructing mulberry shed is false and
he has in fact completed the construction and the shed is being used
at any time. The defendant No.5 constructed the shed in the year
2005 but the existence of such shed is not shown in the rough sketch.
since 1964. The voters lists of the village for the year 1984 filed
and the same are shown in the rough sketch filed by the plaintiff. The
1977 itself. The electric service No. 62 is available for some decades
which fact is proved from their bills for 6/87, 6/88 and 6/89 as well as
7) To what relief?
and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. The plaintiff also examined his brother
arguments.
Reddy has filed his chief-affidavit in support of proving the facts made
injunction and for other reliefs against the defendants. These facts are
the facts which are introductory in nature. Most of the facts which are
stated by the plaintiff in the suit are one and the same of the plaint
the second page of the registration extract of sale deed that out of
Ac.1.26 cents in S.No. 255-2, the said Mandala Sanjeeva Reddy sold
and attested.
Further more, the registered sale deed is a public document within the
office, a sale deed is not proved, it has to be proved. This was held in
59 Cal. W.N.757.
1872. Sec. 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that such
that the suit schedule property belongs to his grand father Ramaiah
and his grand father had two sons namely his father and Narayana
Reddy and his father is no more. His junior paternal uncle is alive. In
plaintiff (PW1) admitted that his father blessed with one son and one
daughter through his first wife and three sons including himself and
one daughter through his second wife. The witness further stated that
There was partition which was reduced into writing on a white paper
not filed before this Court. As such this Court came to the
the plaintiff.
one son and one daughter through his first wife and three sons
including himself and one daughter through second wife and they are
was partition which reduced into writing on white paper among their
three brothers. Their elder brother already separated long back from
his three brothers. This fact is to be proved as the half blood brother
of the plaintiff and his three brothers are equally entitled and they are
Or.1 R.1 of CPC speaks about necessary parties. At this juncture this
This was amended by Act 104 of 1976, Sec.52 which comes into force
on 1-2-1997. For the plaintiff there is no remedy even in the appeal
u/sec. 99 priviso which provides that nothing in this rule shall apply to
non-joinder of necessary parties. The witness stated in his evidence
that there is a partition which bald statement and he never tried to
prove the same. So, the suit can be rejecting in limini for non joinder
of necessary parties.
(Revenue) 69
Court, Hindupur for grant of permanent injunction and the said suit
on the file of Additional District Judge, Hindupur and on merits the said
505/1995 on the file of Honble High Court of A.P. and the same was
other than those mentioned in Secs. 40, 41, 42, are irrelevant,
Act.
final.
state.
Evidence Act.1872.
other provision of this Act. This Court cannot invoke Sec. 40 unless
and those judgments are not relevant in some other provision of this
23/91 and SA 505/95 before the Honble High Court of A.P. are hereby
the same invoking sec. 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 r/w 11 of
The plaintiff (PW1) further stated that recently when the matter
side of the plaint schedule property in between road and the plaint
schedule property blocking the access to the plaintiff into the public
road, for which the plaintiff raised objections saying that the
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 22 of 44
plaintiff in using the road that was running immediately on the eastern
with the material particulars u/sec. 156 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
pending before the Honble High Court of A.P. in S.A. 505/1995, the
and obstructed his road way to the extent of 26 x 26 feet into the suit
further says that during the pendency of second appeal before Honble
to wait for more than three years, is a question, which shows the
conduct of the plaintiff u/sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 for
defendants 1 to 3.
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 23 of 44
This Court cannot say that it is a delay as per law under Article
parties to the suit, is another question under Or.1 R.9 of CPC. So, the
before the Station House Officer, Parigi P.S., but the police died not
plaintiff to file a complaint u/sec 2 (d) read with 190 and Sec.200 of
Station House Officer, Parigi P.S. not registered the F.I.R. the
provided by this Code. No one can say that he does not know law.
construction of the houses along with other amenities. For which the
Hindupur. These two notices were marked as Exs.A5 and A6. Inspite
on the western side of the mulberry shed belongs to the plaintiff. This
4 to 7.
With regard to Exs. A2, A3 and A4, this Court already evaluated
says that his grand father has no right whatsoever in S.No. 255-2.
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 25 of 44
Witness further admitted that his father do not have any patta form in
respect of S.No.255-2 and further says he does not know as to how his
father acquired the land in S.No. 255-2. PW1 further stated that he
does not know the name of the diglot pattadar in respect of S.No.
255-2 and he has not filed revenue record to show the earlier
he does not remember when his father and his junior paternal uncle
was orally partitioned and he denied that the children of his junior
paternal uncle are necessary and proper parties as they have got
share in the property and the witness further admitted that they are
four brothers and two sisters and their four brothers divided about 20
years ago and they orally partitioned their properties. Witness adds
the entire property stands in the name of his father and his grand
him. It is not true to suggest that this property was recorded in the
schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff in oral partition and
admitted that there are no houses in 0.90 cents of land and he denied
partition which was reduced into writing on a white paper among their
the witness submitted that there was an oral partition. His eldest
brother already separated long back from their three brothers and the
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 26 of 44
witness further stated that his father has another brother Narayana
Reddy and the witness adds that Narayana Reddy has no right in the
suit survey number and he is not aware whether his father and his
his father and in his evidence and chief affidavit says that the suit
acquired property of his father and he do not know how his father
acquired that land and he do not have any idea whether his father and
the brother of his father were joined at the date of Ex.A1. He denied
that his father was the manager in the joint family and he sold the
are not conclusive proof but they may part of evidence as per the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The witness is stopped from making any
poramboke land and he has not raised any objection when the house
third party to the suit. He knows the plaintiff and defendants in the
present suit as stated in his affidavit. But whereas the truth is PW2 is
the brother of the plaintiff. He further stated that after the death of
his father, he and his other two brothers namely M. Ramanjina Reddy
1-5-1989 with meets and bounds orally. The suit schedule property
Reddy. Since then his brother alone is enjoying the suit schedule
oral partition he and his other brothers are enjoying their respective
shares. Along with him, his other brothers also obtained pattadar pass
books and title deeds from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Parigi for the
father had two wives and his father had one son and one daughter
through his first wife and his father had three sons and one daughter
through the mother of PW2 i.e. second wife. The suit schedule
stated that he is not aware from whom, his father purchased the
properties. He admitted that he has not filed his pass book in Court.
the suit schedule land about ten years ago. Since the witness was
examined on 7-8-2012, ten years ago means in the year 2002 the
per the evidence of PW2. The plaintiff also constructed his house in
the portion of suit schedule land. The witness further stated that she
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 28 of 44
cannot exactly say how much extent of the suit schedule property is in
possession of the plaintiff and he denied that the oral partition of their
properties is false. He also stated before the Court that the plaintiff
1966.
and he did not remember who is the scribe of the partition document
and who are attestors and further stated that he do not know when his
stated that after the death of his father, himself and his other two
remember who is the scribe of the partition document and who are
Act.
Sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 has two limbs. The
This Court dare to declare that the chief affidavit filed by the
chief affidavit of PW2 with his previous statement. Sec. 145 of the
Indian Evidence Act,1872 does not confine the right for contradiction
witness is found to be asulating witness and this Court did not believe
true, why the plaintiff neither mentioned in his plaint nor in his chief
justined abroad.
counsel for plaintiff, DW1 stated that 2-16 is the door number of his
house. The voters list was prepared of their village. His fathers
his village for the year 2009 against door number 2-16 is of him. In
the said voters list against D.No. 2-17 Narasimha Reddy s/o Narasaiah
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 30 of 44
13) Now let us see the evidence of DW2. DW2 is the third
admitted that the houses were in existence even prior to his birth. As
4, 6 and 7, who are his own brothers, to give evidence on their behalf
also and to defend the suit proceedings. The plaint allegations are
this Court evaluated each and every document in accordance with the
all of the defendants. The plaint rough plan annexed to the plaint is a
0.21 cents shown as AECF and GBHI portions in respect of which the
reliefs are claimed are the imaginations of the plaintiff as against the
real facts on the field. The plaintiff, in paragraph No.5 of the plaint,
refers to his mulberry shed with D.No. 2/99 in Parigi village panchayat,
be found nor the exact extents nor their boundaries are shown
shares in the said property. Though the plaintiffs claim is that the
how much extent their erstwhile joint family owned and possessed in
the said property and also as to what extent their family succeeded to.
The said Mandala Ramaiah has got two sons Mandala Sanjeeva Reddy
and Mandala Narayana Reddy. The plaintiff herein is one of the four
sons of the said Mandala Sanjeeva Reddy and also being one of the
several grand sons of the said Mandala Ramaiah. The very case of the
contents of the said sale deed and the acquisition of the ownership and
to question the defendants right over the said property since 1956.
Rs.90/- by the fourth defendant and his father to the said Mandala
western side of his property. The plaint also shows some litigation
different and distinct and there is nothing common in both the causes
misconceived and do not exist at all. The clubbing of two different and
distinct causes of action to file one suit against different parties is not
alone.
DW3 further stated that the plaintiff has suppressed the facts
about the ages of the existing structures which are in fact in existence
for more than some decades. Such evasive tactics of the plaintiff are
the other side are separated by a drainage channel for more than 55
panchayat with the panchayat funds. The plaintiff though earlier got
marked by this Court. The copy of the declaration under Sec. 8/18 of
1-B register copies in the name of the plaintiff and his brothers
individually are produced which show that the plaintiff is divided from
his brothers long back. The online copies of the ration cards issued to
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 34 of 44
in the names of the plaintiff, his brothers and the plaintiffs sons
partitioned himself not only from his brothers but also from his own
sons. The plaintiff therefore not entitled to contend that he has got
the right to file the suit in respect of the property shown in the plaint
schedule.
within the meaning of Sec.74 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as they are
revenue documents. This was held in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan
also public document Aina Devi v Bachan Singh AIR 1980 All
AIR 1972 Ori.158. It is settled law that original voters list is a public
document.
for 6/88 on 14-8-88 for Rs.83-00. Ex.B7 is the original receipt issued
for Rs.86/-. Ex.B8 is the original receipt issued by APSEB for collection
the time of exhibiting and marking this document, the learned counsel
tax demand notice and receipts in the name of fifth defendant dt.
the name of sixth defendant in 6 Nos. one such receipts shows dt.
original house tax demand notice and receipts in the name of seventh
for D.No. 2-73. Ex.B.26 is the Online copy of ration card RAP
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 37 of 44
Now all the ration cards are public documents? Yes. These
the Indian Evidence Act,1872 and u/sec. 29-A of Indian Penal Code,
Act, 2000.
OS 220/83 not filed against him in the District Munsif Court, Hindupur.
anything about the suit filed by Narasa Reddy against the plaintiff He
admitted that he knows the fourth defendant who is his brother and
mulberry shed. The land of that shed is within the suit schedule
survey number property. He further stated that he does not know the
did not care for such objection and proceed further in construction of
counsel for plaintiff, I dare to make statement that the art of cross-
facts in issue nor relevant facts and the learned counsel for plaintiff did
not deny not even single document exhibited by DW3 and marked by
this Court. As such all the documents are taken into consideration and
him something new and appraise him that of those things, with which
But this Court courageous and courteous mentioned that what issues
After perusing Exs.B1 to B27 any prudent man can make in his
reveals the same fact. PW1 (plaintiff) has not stated any time of
defence.
possession.
extinguished.
1977 itself.
15) Now the point for consideration is though the specific issue
is not framed whether the plaintiff can make join of cause of action
O.S.No. 4 of 2010 Page 40 of 44
misconceived and do not exist at all. The clubbing of two different and
distinct causes of action to file one suit against different parties is not
alone.
(b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the
property or any part thereof is held; and
(c) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of
action:
the suit.
his chief affidavit that the plaintiff is not entitled to club two causes of
16) Viewing in any angle, the plaintiff is totally failed to prove his
government poramboke land and not in the suit schedule property and
1872.
this Court is under the considered view, the plaintiff is totally failed in
18) Since the plaintiff filed vexatious suit against the defendants
and the defendants defended the vexatious suit, the plaintiff is liable
Civil Procedure,1908.
19. Issue No.7: In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs by
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff Defendants
Ex.A7/Rough sketch
Exhibits marked for defendants