Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: - Sri. V.V.Seshu Babu

VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, the 6th day of September, 2018.

Original Suit No.462/2011

M/s Sri Malli Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd., rep. By its Director, Sri Jasti
Mallikarjunudu @ Balaji, S/o Sri. J. Vayunandana Rao, Hindu, aged 48 years,
R/a Lakshmi Apartments, Flat No. Ground Floor B, Near Doctors Colony,
Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.
… Plaintif

Versus
1. Yarra Eswar Naidu, S/o Ramanaidu, Hindu, aged 39 years, R/a D.No.1-
2-18/1, Vivekananda Colony, Akkireddipalem, BHPV Post,
Visakhapatnam.

2. Yenni Srinivasa Rao, S/o Bangaraiah, Hindu, aged 42 years, at D.No.1-

54-5, MVP Colony, Sector – III, Visakapatnam.

3. Smt. Vutti Venkata Durga Bhavani, D/o Sri Vutti Chiranjeevi Rao, Hindu,
aged 26 years, R/a D.No.1-44-1, MVP Colony, Sector – III,
Visakhapatnam.

4. Sri Korada Atchuta Sadhu Rambabu, S/o late Sri Narayanappadu,

Hindu, aged 42 years, R/a D.No.1-61-8, MVP Colony, Sector – III,
Visakhapatnam.
… Defendants

This suit coming on 17.07.2018 for final hearing before me in the

presence of Sri T.V.S.K.Kanaka Raju , Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendants 1,
2 & 4 remained exparte and Sri.P.Srinivas, Advocate for 3rd defendant and
having gone through the material available on the record, this court
delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01. This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the

defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.64 cents

 Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

covered by S.No.260/2 part and 260/3 part of Vellanki Village, Anandapuram

Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

02. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the

Private Limited Company and it is the absolute owner of land to an extent of

Ac.6.46 cents situated at Velanki Village and the suit schedule property is

part of the same. The suit schedule property was originally possessed and

owned by the Thatichetty family under registered sale deed dated

25.02.1993. The plaintiff partnership firm M/s KRM Marine Exports purchased

the suit schedule property under two registered sale deeds bearing

document No.484/1993 and 485/1993 from Thatichetty Apparao and

Thatichetty China Appalaswamy respectively. Subsequently, firm sold the

property in favour of M/s KRM Marine Exports Limited for valuable

consideration dated 03.06.1994 vide document No.2474/1994, the names of

the landlords were entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks

and title deeds. On 03.05.2006 M/s KRM Marine Exports Limited executed

Power of Attorney in favour of Jasti Mallikarjunudu and Chapala Rajsekhar

and basing on the same the GPA holder sold the property to the plaintiff vide

registered sale deed dated 31.01.2007 under registered Document

No.972/2007. Necessary mutations were already carried out in the revenue

records in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff even obtained Pattadar

Passbook and title deed. Land was assessed to tax, a shed was raised

bearing D.No.3-12 and plaintiff arranged barbed wire fencing with a gate,

dug a bore well and obtained electric service connection. The defendants

are no way connected to the suit schedule property but they are bent upon

to enter into the suit schedule property and also approaching revenue

officials to influence them; hence, the suit.

 Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

03. D3 filed written statement. Other defendants remained exparte.

The brief averments of the written statement of D3 are that plaintiff is put to

strict proof of all the averments made in the plaint except those that are

admitted. Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and the

plaintiff is not in possession of plaint schedule property at any point of time

and not purchased the property from the rightful owners. All the documents

mentioned in the plaint are created by the plaintiff and its predecessors from

time to time. It is their ploy to dispossess the defendants and their

predecessors. There is no land for the Thatichetty family in and around the

suit schedule property and their names are not mentioned in the revenue

records. No delivery of possession took place and the alleged possession in

changing hands is only a paper transaction. The suit schedule property

belonged to the predecessors of the defendants and they are absolute

owners and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, under the

guise of injunction plaintiff wants to dispossess them. The suit is bad for non-

joinder of the necessary parties. There is no cause of action to the suit. With

these pleas prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

05. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled

for trial:

1. Whether the suit schedule property has been in possession

plaintiff by the date of suit as alleged?
2. Whether the suit for mere permanent injunction without
declarationof title is maintainable?
3. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for?
5. To what relief?
 Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

06. To prove the case of the plaintiff, PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A13 are marked for the plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 are examined and Ex.B1

is marked for the 3rd defendant

07. Heard the arguments of both sides.

08. Basing on the pleadings, documents, evidence and arguments

the above issues are answered like here under:-

09. Issue Nos.1 to 4:

As the issues are interdependent, they are clubbed together in

order to avoid repetition and also for the sake of better appreciation and

convenience. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated

31.01.2007 under which the plaintiff Company purchased all together

Ac.6.46 cents from M/s KRM Marine Exports Limited represented by their GPA

holder Jasti Mallikarjunudu. Ex.A2 is certified copy of the sale agreement-

cum-GPA dated 03.05.2006 under which M/s KRM Marine Exports Limited

executed GPA in favour of Jasti Ramudu and one Chapala Rajasekhar and

thereunder sold the property to an extent of Ac.6.46 cents. Ex.A3 & Ex.A4

are original registered sale deed dated 25.02.1993 under which Thatichetty

Apparao and others sold Ac.1.32 cents in Document No.484/1993 in favour

of M/s KRM Marine Exports Limited a partnership firm. Under Ex.A4 similar

extent was sold to Thatichetty Chinna Appalasamy and others in favour of

M/s KRM Marine Exports Limited a partnership firm. A perusal of Ex.A3 &

Ex.A4 goes to show that the vendors was set to have acquired the property

from late Sri.Sitarama Raju who was having enam but not mentioned how

they acquired.
 Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

10. It is important to note that one Mr.Mayalagu Vellaswamy by

representing the firm purchased the properties under Ex.A3 & Ex.A4.

Pattadhar passbook and revenue title deed were issued in the name of

Mayalagu vellaswamy under Ex.A8 & Ex.A9. The Ex.A6 is the Pattadar

passbook issued in the name of Jasti Mallikarjunudu being the Director of

the Plaintiff Company. Ex.A5 goes to show that M/s KRM Marine Exports

Limited represented by its partners including Mayalagu Vellaswamy sold the

property in favour of M/s KRM Marine Exports Limited. This all goes to show

th the plaintiff traced out the title to the suit schedule property since 1993.

11. Ex.A7 is the adangal and it shows M/s KRM Marine Exports

Limited is pattadhar in possession of Ac.2.63 cents. Ex.A11 & E.A12 are the

certified copies of Adangal for the fasili 1426 shows that Jasti Mallikarjunudu

who is the Director of the Plaintiff Company is in possession and enjoyment

of the Ac.2.11 cents and Ac.0.52 cents in S.No.260/3E and S.No.260/2D.

Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 are establishing the same. Ex.A13 is the certified copy of

the 1B register obtained from Mee Seva goes to show that Jasti

Mallikarjunudu is in Ac.6.45 cents, with the help of these documents plaintiff

established its possession, title over the suit schedule property.

12. PW1 was cross-examined at length but nothing worthwhile is

elicited to impeach his evidence. PW1 stated that none of the defendants

directly threatened him with its possession but threat was extended against

their watchman. It is argument of the defendant’s counsel that the name of

the watchman is not mentioned in the plaint including the evidence affidavit

of PW1 and the said watchman is not examined before the Court. It is
 Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

further argued that there is no cause of action to the suit and only with a

created cause of action the suit was filed. Plaintiff counsel argued that the

D3 in the written statement questioned the title of the plaintiffs and plaintiff

Company over the suit schedule property and it shows the rival contest of

the defendants over the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, the

apprehension of plaintiff regarding alleged threats of defendant to disturb

their possession is sufficient to presume the cause of action as mentioned in

the plaint is true. I am of the view that there is a good amount of force in

the argument of the plaintiff’s counsel. It may as it be there.

13. Ex.B1 is the GPA executed in favour of D2 to D4 by Pusapati

Sitaramachandraraju and two others on 19.01.2011 stating that altogether

they are the owners of Ac.5.40 cents covered by S.No.260/2A; 260/2B;

260/2D; 260/3B; 260/3C; 260/3E of Velanki Village and they got the property

under registered settlement deed dated 31.07.1948 under Document

No.1405/1948 and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment

of the same. Therefore, the members executed the GPA instructing the

agents to pay taxes to the Municipal Corporation VUDA and driving

authorities, to let-out the plots and to register the same to the purchasers on

their behalf and also to attend the litigation on their behalf relating to the

property in question and they have account for the sale transaction entered

by the agents. Except the GPA no document is filed to show that the

settlement deed under which the principals are ever in possession and

enjoyment of the property from 1948 till this day. Therefore, no value can be

attached to the Ex.B1 and alleged possession of the defendants.

 Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

14. It is pleaded in the affidavit of DW1 that the family of Pusapati

Siraramaraju used to cultivate the lands through the farmers in the year

1981 but due to the mismanagement by the farmers and as the claimants

created unworthy documents the plaintiff and his purchasers in title might

purchased the property from unworthy farmers as such they have no title.

No peace of paper is filed before the Court to show that the land were given

by Dantuluri family under lease to Thatichetty family members. Added to

the same the Revenue record is also not supported the version of the

defendants that the lands in possession and enjoyment of the Dantuluru

people in time. D3 not named any person stating that he is necessary party

to the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the such person. DW2

though claimed that he cultivated the lands under lease for sometime i.e., in

the year 2010 failed to stay who was cultivating the land prior to him and

who became lease holders subsequent to him. Therefore the evidence of

DW2 cannot be believed at all. Therefore, all the issues are answered in

favour of the plaintiff and it is also entitled for permanent injunction.

15. Issue No.5: As all the issues are answered in favour of the

plaintiff the suit is to be decreed.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, restraining the

defendants by way of permanent injunction from ever interfering with the

plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of September, 2018.

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.
 Fair

Judgment in OS.No.462/2011/Mahila Court/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:
PW.1: Jasti Mallikarjunudu DW.1: Utti Venkata Durga Bhavani

DW.2: Madasu Murali Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 31.01.2007
Ex.A2: Certified copy of sale agreement-cum-GPA dated 03.05.2006
Ex.A3: Original sale deed dated 25.02.1993
Ex.A4: Original sale deed dated 25.02.1993
Ex.A5: Original sale deed dated 03.06.1994
Ex.A6: Pattadhar passbooks
Ex.A7: No.3 adangal
Ex.A8: Pattadar Passbook
Ex.A9: Pattadar title deed
Ex.A10: GOMS No.762
Ex.A11: Adangal (obtained from Meeseva)
Ex.A12: Adangal (obtained from Meeseva)
Ex.A13: Adangal (obtained from Meeseva)

For Defendants:-
Ex.B1: Certified copy of GPA executed in favour of D.2 to D.4 by Pusapati
Sitaramachandraraju and two others on 19.01.2011

VI ADJ,
VSP