1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.
PRESENT: Smt. B. Sridevi,
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DIST. AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 28th day of November, 2017

O.S. No. 213 / 2006

&
O.S.No. 763/2011
&
O.S.No.764/2011
O.S. No. 213 / 2006
BETWEEN:-

1. Ch. Naga Venkata Ranga Kumar,

S/o Ch. Koteswara rao, Aged about 38 yrs,
Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.5-49/32,
Prashanth Nagar, Old Alwal, Secunderabad.

2. Boina Yadagiri, S/o Siddaiah,

Age: 43 years, Occ: RTC Employee,
R/o : H.No.13-97, Srinivasa Nagar Colony,
R.C. Puram, Medak District
(plaintiff no.2 is the proforma party) .…. Plaintiffs

AND

1. V.T. Srinivas, S/o V. Radha Krishna Murthy,

Age: 40 years, Occ: Ordinance Factory Employee,
R/o : Q.No.22280, Ordinance Factory Estate,
Yeddumailaram, Medak District.

2. Subramanneswara Rao,
S/o B. Nageswara Rao,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o : H.No.5-153/1, Chandanagar,
Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District ….. Defendants

This Suit filed by the plaintiffs Under order 7 rule 1 r/w section 6 of

Specific Relief Act praying the court to direct the defendants to deliver the

vacant possession of the suit schedule A and B plots by dismantling the

illegally raised structures on the Northern portion of Plot No.27 and North-

west corner of plot No.19 as shown in red color in the plan annexed in
 2

Sy.no.124 Hafiz pet village in favour of the plaintiffs and to award costs of the

suit.

O.S. No. 763 / 20011(Old No.2484/2005)

BETWEEN:-
Vakkalagadda Tirumala Srinivas, S/o V. Radha Krishna Murthy,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o : Q.No.22280, Ordinance Factory Estate,
Yeddumailaram, Medak District.
…......Plaintiff
AND
Ch. Ranga Kumar S/o Not known,
Aged about 35 yrs, Occ: Private Employee,
R/o. H.No.5-49/32, Prashanth Nagar, Old Alwal,
Secunderabad.
…........Defendant

This is suit is filed under order VII rule 1 and 2 r/w 26 of CPC praying

the court to grant perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant his agents,

henchmen, assignees, heirs, servants, executors and administrators from

interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scuit

schedule property I.e Plot No. 26, admeasruing 150-00 sq.yards or 125-

40Sq.meters., situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingamapally Mandal and

Municipality, R.R.Disrtrict and to ward costs.

O.S. No. 764 / 2011(Old No.2469/2005)

BETWEEN:-

1. Ch. Naga Venkata Ranga Kumar,

S/o Ch. Koteswara rao, Aged about 38 yrs,
Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.5-49/32,
Prashanth Nagar, Old Alwal, Secunderabad.

2. Boina Yadagiri, S/o Siddaiah,

Age: 43 years, Occ: RTC Employee,
R/o : H.No.13-97, Srinivasa Nagar Colony,
R.C. Puram, Medak District
(plaintiff no.2 is the proforma party) .…. Plaintiffs

AND

1. V.T. Srinivas, S/o Not known to the plaintiffs.

 3

Age: 40 years, Occ: Ordinance Factory Employee,

R/o : Q.No.22280, Ordinance Factory Estate,
Yeddumailaram, Medak District.

2. Subramanneswara Rao,
S/o Not known to the plaintiff's
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o : H.No.5-153/1, Chandanagar,
Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District ….. Defendants

This is suit is filed under order VII rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of CPC praying the

court to grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant's, their agents,

supporters, henchmen or anybody else claiming through them be restrained

perpetually from causing any sort of interference in the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule plots bearing no.19 and

27 (schedule A & B) in sy.no.124 situated at Hafeezpet village,

Serilingamapally Mandal, R.R.Disrtrict and to award costs.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri Sreedhara Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs
in OS 213/06 and in 764/11 and for defendant in OS 763/11
and of Sri M.V. Nageshwara Rao, Advocate for defendants in
OS 213/06 and in 764/11 and for plaintiff in OS 763/11 and
having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court
delivered the following:-

COMMON JUDGMENT
This suit in OS No.213/2006 was clubbed with OS No.763/2011 and

764/2011 as per the order dt.7-8-2014 passed by this court and joint trial

conducted in O.S. No.213/2006 for conducting joint trial.

PLEADINGS IN OS 213/2006
1) The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is the the

absolute owner of an open plot bearing No.27 admeasuring 147.5 sq. yards

farming part of Sy.No.124 covered by Gram Panchayat lat out situated at

Hafiz pet village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District having acquired the
 4

same under registered sale deed No.7256/2001 dt: 21-9-2001 from its earlier

owner N. Anjaiah and the said Anjaiah earlier acquired the above mentioned

plot under a registered sale deed dt: 10-6-1997 vide document No.4005/1997

and the plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner of Plot No.19 admeasuring 118 sq.

yards in Sy.No.124 of Hafizpet village having acquired the same under a

registered sale deed and the vendors of the plaintiffs delivered the physical

possession of the same and they are in peaceful and physical possession of

the above plots. The plaintiffs further stated that, with a view to flow the water

coming by the nearby colonies, the plaintiffs herein and their neighbors left 10

feets width for drainage purpose out of their respective properties and

presently plot No.27 consists of 135 sq. yards and plot No.19 consists of 83

sq. yards while the matter stood thus on 11-9-2005 and 12-9-2005 the

defendants herein without any right or title over the above mentioned plots

tried to occupy the said plots. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 13-9-2005 the

defendants herein without any right or title over the above mentioned plots

tried to occupy the said plots. The plaintiffs herein filed a suit on 13-9-2005

on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District which was made over to the

Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District vide OS No.764/11

(2469/2005) and that the defendants came to the knowledge about the filing

of suit in OS No.2469/2005 filed another suit in OS No.2484/2005 on the file

of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District and obtained exparte injunction order

by suppressing the earlier suit filed by of plaintiff, Further the plaintiff stated

that, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil

Judge, R.R. District granted exparte injunction order restraining the

defendants here in from interference of the above mentioned plots which were

described as schedule A and B properties int the earlier suit on 13-9-2005 and
 5

the Court observed that the plaintiffs here in should not raise any structures

pending disposal of above suit for perpetual injunction. The defendants took

the advantage of exparte injunction order in their suit in OS No.2484/2005,

illegally occupied an extent of 112.5 sq. yards of land from schedule A

property as shown in rough sketch from the Northern side of Plot No.27 of the

plaintiff No.1 and to an extent of 6 sq.yards from schedule B property as

shown in rough sketch from the North West corner of Plot No.19 on 14-10-

2005. Inspite of objections raised by plaintiffs, the defendants dismantled the

portion covered by the Plot No.27 and Plot No.19 and constructed a room in

Plot No.27 forcible as the plaintiffs are residing 40 Kms., away from the suit

schedule plots. Further the plaintiff stated that except the illegally occupied

area by the defendants in Plot No.27 of plaintiff No.1 and plot No.19 of plaintiff

No.2 the remaining are is in the possession of plaintiffs. The defendants took

the law into their hands and thereby illegally occupied the portion of plot

No.27 of the plaintiff No.1 and portion of Plot No.19 of plaintiff No.2 and raised

room in schedule 'A' property with a view to derive the wrongful gains by

illegal methods. Hence the suit.

2) The first Defendant filed written statement and the second defendant

filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. The first

defendant stated that, the plaint is neither true nor correct, the first defendant

has no knowledge about the ownership of the above said property. The

defendant further stated that the plaintiffs without physical verification and

without taking care and cautions might have purchased lands situated in the

Nala with a hope to encroach the same but they failed to succeed in their

attempt and now wants to grab the lands of neighbours including the

defendants and for that purpose they hatched a plan to illegally occupy the
 6

same filed this present case to achieve their goal. The first defendant denied

on the date of filing of the suit by plaintiffs against the defendants vide OS

No.2469/2005 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District were covered

by basements and the plaintiffs filed developed photographs in the above

mentioned suit for the proof of the above said structure is false. Further the

first defendant denied the Additional Junior Civil Judge, R. R. District

observed while granting injunction order that the plaintiffs herein should not

raise any structures pending disposal of above case. He also denied that the

first defendant with support of defendants No.2 illegally and un-authorisedly

constructed a small room over the suit -A schedule property without obeying

the injunction order passed by the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, R.R.

District. He denied that the defendants took the law into their hands and

thereby illegally occupied the portion of Plot No.27 of the plaintiff No.1 and

portion of plot No.19 of plaintiff No.2 as shown in plan and raised room in

schedule -A property with a view to derive the wrongful gains by illegal

methods. In fact the defendants constructed a room and boundary wall in

their respective plots even prior to obtain interim exparte order in OS

No.2469/2005 and the defendants raised constructions over their respective

plots as such there is no question of illegal constructions over their respective

plots. The defendants not at all taken law in to their hands and they are law

abiding citizens.

3) Further more the first defendant stated the real facts are that the first

defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.26, admeasuring

150.00 sq. yards or 125.40 sq. mtrs, situated at Hafeezpet village,

Serilingamapally Mandal and Municipality, R.R. District vide registered

document sale deed No.8839/1997 dt: 24-12-1997 and the same executed by
 7

I. Venkat Reddy and the same was registered with the Joint Sub-Registrar,

R.R. District. The defendant No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of

plot No.22,23,24 total admeasuring 450 sq. yards situated at hapizpet village,

Serlingampally mandal and municipality, R.R. District by virtue of registered

sale deed No.2432/2002 dt: 23-03-2002 executed by M. Sadanandam

infavour of Defendant No.2 agreement of sale cum general power of attorney

vide document No.2443/2003 dt: 28-02-2003 executed by C. Krishna Reddy

infavour of defendant No.2 and agreement of sale cum GPA vide document

No.3529/2002, dt:25-4-2002 executed by C. Krishna reddy in favour of the

Defendant No.2 and the same were registered with the Joint Sub Registrar,

R.R. District. Since the date of purchase the defendants 1 and 2 are in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any

interference from anybody and they constructed a 5’ height boundary wall

around his plot with stones and a rooms inside the boundary walls and they

were given to rent to the tenants. The plaintiff No.1 without any right or title

with a bad intention to grab property of the defendants 1 and 2 trying to

encroach into the suit schedule property with the help of his henchmen and

interfering with the possession of the defendants 1 and 2 and started creating

troubles in all sorts of illegal methods taking advantage of the innocence of

the defendants 1 and 2. The defendant No.1 is Central Government

employee, working and residing at Yeddumailaram, which is at a distance of

30 KM from the suit schedule property. Further the first defendant stated that

the plaintiffs 1 and 2 with an intention to encroach the suit schedule property

tried to demolish the boundary walls constructed the defendants 1 and 2 and

on 11-9-2005 when the plaintiff No.1 tried to demolish the boundary wall

constructed around the suit schedule property the defendant No.1 having
 8

came to know about the same and he went to the suit schedule property and

stopped the same with the help of locality people and timely help of the

neighbors. The plaintiffs warned the defendant No.1 that he will encroach the

same at any time and also stated that nobody will stop his encroachment and

threatened the defendant No.1 with dire consequences. Immediately, the

defendant No.1 reported the matter to the police Serilingampally situated at

Miyapur, but they have not taken any action saying the matter is purely civil

nature and asked directions from this Court to take proper action. The first

defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule with hard earned money by

rendering services to the Government and by defendant No.2 by doing

business and it is his life investment with a pond hope to construct a House in

future. They have no other properties except the suit schedule property.

The defendant No.1 having no other alternative approached the Court and

filed a suit for perpetual injunction vide OS No.2484/2005 and IA

No.4760/2005 for exparte Interim Injunction and prayed the Court to restrain

the plaintiff No.1 and his henchmen from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the plot bearing No.26. It seems through the

above suit that the plaintiffs have purchased suit schedule property without

physical verification of the land and simply got executed sale deed in their

favour, but infact there were no plots bearing Nos. 19 and 27 physically

available and there is a Nala nearby the Plot of the Defendant No.1 and there

is a land of 15 to 20 feets in between the Plot of the defendant No.1 and there

is a land of 15 to 20 feets in between the Plot of the defendant No.1 and Nala.

The defendants 1 and 2 never tried to encroach the plots of the plaintiffs and

he never attempted to demolish any construction by any body. When there

was no plots physically available with plot Nos. 19 and 27 the question of
 9

encroaching does not arise. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court

with clean hands and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief sought in the

prayer of the plaint. Still further the plaintiff already filed a petition in OS

No.2469/2005 to appoint a Commissioner for demarking the boundaries of the

suit schedule property and executing the warrant with the help of the

Government Surveyor. Hence the defendant prayed the Court to dismiss the

suit since there are no merits or valid grounds.

4) Basing on the rival contentions made by both parties, the following

issues were framed by my learned predecessor in my office on 12-10-2006 :-

1) Whether the defendants encroached the suit schedule property and

rightful possessors?
2) Whether the plot numbers 1 and 2 are not physically available?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of
possession of suit schedule property?
4) To what relief?
To prove his contention, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and in the

evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 to A6 and Ex.A8 to Ex.A12 are marked. In support of

his contentions, he also examined PW2. On behalf of the defendants,

defendant examined himself as DW1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and also Ex.A13

through DW1 were marked. The defendant got examined DW2.

5) PLEADINGS in OS No.763/2011

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.26,

admeasuring 150-00 sq.yards or 125.40 sq.meter, situated at Hafeezpet

village, Serilingamapally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.Disrtrict and same was

acquired by virtue of registered document vide sale deed No.8839/1997 dt.24-

12-1997 and the same executed by Sri I. Venkat Reddy. Ever since the date

of pruchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above

 10

suit schedule property without any interference from anybody. He constructed

a 5' height boundary wall around his plot with stones. The defendant without

any right or title with a bad intention to grab property of the plaintiff trying to

encroach into the suit schedule property with the help of his henchmen and

interfering with the possession for the plaintiff and started creating troubles in

all sorts of illegal methods taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiff.

Further the defendant is trying to demolish the boundary wall constructed by

him. On 11-9-2005 when the defendant tried to demolish the boundary wall

constructed around the suit schedule property the plaintiff having came to

know about the same and he went to the suit schedule property and stopped

the same with the help of locality people and timely help of the neighbours

and the defendant warned the plaintiff that he will encroach the same at any

time and also stated that no body will stop his encroachment and also

threatened with dire consequences. Immediately the plaintiff reported the

matter to the police Serilingamapally, situated at Miyapur but they have not

taken action saying the matter is purely Civil nature. Hence the suit.

6) The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments in the

plaint and stated that the plaintiff herein along with one Subrramanyam and

their henchmen tried to interfere into the plot of defendant which is the subject

matter of OS No.764/2011 (Old No.2469/2005 ) on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, R.R.Disrtrict. The plaintiff herein falsely claiming defendant plot of

land as if it belongs to him in collusion with one Subramanyam who is one of

the defendant in the suit filed by this defendant. On 11-9-2005 and as on 14-

9-2005 there were no structures over the petition described property. In fact

the plaintiff and his henchmen tried to interfere into his plot no.27, he raised

the objections not to interfere into his land and during the said deliberations
 11

and with his knowledge he filed a suit in OS 764/2011 for perpetual injunction

and wherein the Hon'ble court granted injunction order. As counter blast the

plaintiff herein suppressing the pendency of his case filed the present suit on

the next day of defendant suit and obtained exparte orders by suppressing the

material facts. Though they both are neighboring plot owners, the the plaintiff

herein is not in a position to locate his plot. Even though defendant have filed

an application in defendant suit for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner

to measure the entire suit plots and its lay out with the help of an official

surveyor vide I.A No.4288/2005. Unless the entire lay out surveyed the

boundary disputes between defendant and plaintiff would not be justified.

7) The defendant further submitted that is the the absolute owner of an

open plot bearing No.27 admeasuring 147.5 sq. yards farming part of

Sy.No.124 covered by Gram Panchayat lat out situated at Hafizpet village,

Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District having acquired the same under

registered sale deed No.7256/2001 dt: 21-9-2001 from its earlier owner N.

Anjaiah and the said Anjaiah earlier acquired the above mentioned plot under

a registered sale deed dt: 10-6-1997 vide document No.4005/1997, the

vendors of the defendant's delivered the physical possession of the same and

he is in peaceful and physical possession of the above plot. The defendant

further stated that, with a view to flow the water coming by the nearby

colonies, the plaintiff herein and their neighbors left 10 feets width for

drainage purpose out of their respective properties and presently plot No.27

consists of 135 sq. yards, while the matter stood thus on 11-9-2005 and 12-9-

2005 the plaintiff herein without any right or title over the above mentioned

plots tried to occupy the said plots. The defendant and his neighboring

owner jointly filed a suit on 13-9-2005 vide OS No.764/11 (Old No.2469/2005).

 12

He further submitted that the plaintiff in collusion with Subramanyeshwar Rao

taking with the advantage of exparte injunction order in the present suit

illegally occupied an extent of 112.5sq.yards of land from defendant plot of

land from the Northern side of plot no.27, and an extent of 6 sq.yards from

plot of defendant neighbor from North West corner of plot No.19 on 14-10-

2005. in spite of objections raised by defendant, the plaintiff dismantled the

portion covered by the plot No.27 and plot no.19 and constructed a room in

defendant plot No.27. Therefore he (defendant herein) filed a suit in OS

No.213/2006 on the file of this court for recovery of illegally occupied area U/s

6 of the Specific Relief Act. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

8) Basing on the rival contentions made by both parties, the following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor in office on 23-07-2010 :-

1) Whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule

property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed
for?
3) To what relief?
To prove his contention, the plaintiff got examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1

to Ex.A3. Subsequently this case was clubbed with OS 213/2006.

9) PLEADINGS in OS No.764/2011

The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is the the absolute

owner of an open plot bearing No.27 admeasuring 147.5 sq. yards farming

part of Sy.No.124 covered by Gram Panchayat lat out situated at Hafizpet

village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District having acquired the same under

registered sale deed No.7256/2001 dt: 21-9-2001 from its earlier owner N.

Anjaiah and the said Anjaiah earlier acquired the above mentioned plot under
 13

a registered sale deed dt: 10-6-1997 vide document No.4005/1997 and the

plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner of Plot No.19 admeasuring 118 sq. yards

in Sy.No.124 of Hafizpet village having acquired the same under a registered

sale deed and the vendors of the plaintiffs delivered the physical possession

of the same and they are in peaceful and physical possession of the above

plots. The plaintiffs further stated that, with a view to flow the water coming by

the nearby colonies, the plaintiffs herein and their neighbors left 10 feets width

for drainage purpose out of their respective properties and presently plot

No.27 consists of 135 sq. yards and plot No.19 consists of 83 sq. yards while

the matter stood thus on 11-9-2005 and 12-9-2005 the defendants herein

without any right or title over the above mentioned plots tried to occupy the

said plots and damaged some portion of basement over the suit plots. On

information the plaintiffs immediately lodged a complaint before the police

Miyapur for taking necessary action. Hence prayed to grant perpetual

injunction in favour of the plaintiff's against the defendant's and their men etc.

10) The defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the averments of

the plaint and stated that the first defendant has no knowledge about the

ownership of the above said property. The defendant further stated that the

plaintiffs without physical verification and without taking care and cautions

might have purchased lands situated in the Nala with a hope to encroach the

same but they failed to succeed in their attempt and now wants to grab the

lands of neighbours including the defendants and for that purpose they

hatched a plan to illegally occupy the same filed this present case to achieve

their goal. Further more the first defendant stated the he is the absolute

owner and possessor of Plot No.26, admeasuring 150.00 sq. yards or 125.40
 14

sq. mtrs, situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingamapally Mandal and

Municipality, R.R. District vide registered document sale deed No.8839/1997

dt: 24-12-1997 and the same executed by I. Venkat Reddy and the same was

registered with the Joint Sub-Registrar, R.R. District and he constructed a 5'

heigh boundary wall around his plot with stones and ra room inside the

boundary wall. On 11-9-2005 the plaintiff no.1 tried to demolish the boundary

wall constructed around the suit schedule property and stopped the same with

the help of locality people and timely help of the neighbors. He lodged a

complaint against the plaintiff's in Sherlingampally police station but they have

not taken any action saying the matter is purely civil nature. Then he filed a

suit in OS 763/11 (Old No.2484/2005) and I.A vide No.4760/05 for exparte

interim injunction and the Hon'ble court granted the Exparte Interim injunction

against the plaintiff no.1 and the case is pending. In fact there were no plots

bearing No.s 19 and 27 physically available and there is Nala nearby the plot

of the D1 and there is a land of 15 to 20 feets in between the plot of the

defendant no.1 and Nala. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit.

11) The defendant No.2 filed his written statement denying the averments

of the plaint and stated that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plot

No.22,23,24 total admeasuring 450 sq. yards situated at Hapizpet village,

Serlingampally mandal and municipality, R.R. District by virtue of registered

sale deed No.2432/2002 dt: 23-03-2002 executed by M. Sadanandam

infavour of Defendant No.2 agreement of sale cum general power of attorney

vide document No.2443/2003 dt: 28-02-2003 executed by C. Krishna Reddy

infavour of defendant No.2 and agreement of sale cum GPA vide document

No.3529/2002, dt:25-4-2002 executed by C. Krishna reddy in favour of the

 15

Defendant No.2 and the same were registered with the Joint Sub Registrar,

R.R. District. Since the date of purchase the he is in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interference from

anybody and he constructed a 5’ height boundary wall around his plot with

stones and bricks a room inside the boundary wall. On 11-9-2005 the plaintiff

no.1 tried to demolish the boundary wall constructed around the suit schedule

property and stopped the saem with the help of locality people and timely help

of the neighbors. In fact there were no plots bearing No.s 22,23 and 24

physically available and there is Nala nearby the plot of the D2 and there is a

land of 15 to 20 feets in between the plot of the defendant no.2 and Nala.

Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit. Since physically there was no land as

stated in the sale deeds of the plaintiff's and they wanted to occupy the plot of

the D2 illegally. When there was no plots physically available with plot Nos.s

19 and 27 the question of encroaching doesn't arise. The vendors of the

plaintiffs might have shown the Nala in the lay out as plots and the plaintiffs

without physical verification purchased the same and recently they came to

know the said facts and trying to encroach the plots of the D2 and others

illegally. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

12) Subsequently this case was clubbed with OS 213/2006 along with OS

No.763/2011.

13) The above suits are filed as cross suits in respect of same subject

matter, hence they were clubbed together and the trial was conducted by the

parties in OS 213/2006.

14) On perusal of record in OS 764/2011 it was found on 21-7-2014 the

following issues were framed by my learned predecessor in office as follows.

 16

Issue No.1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as
registered sale deed Doc.No.9684/2006 is null and void and
also consequential relief of declaration as Sale Deed
Doc.No.1373/2006 as null and void?
2) To what relief?
In view of perusal of issue no.1 it was mistakenly typed though the said

relief not claimed by the party herein and the payment of court fee here

referred in this suit. Therefore in the circumstances issue no.1 is recasted as

follows:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed for?
15) Issue No.1 to 3 in OS 213/2006, Issue No.1 and 2 in OS 763/11 and
Issue No.1 in OS 764/11:-
OS No.213/2006
1) Whether the defendants encroached the suit schedule property and
rightful possessors?
2) Whether the plot numbers 1 and 2 are not physically available?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of
possession of suit schedule property?
OSNo. 763/11
1) Whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule
property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed
for?
OSNo. 764/11
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for?
2) To what relief.
In order to avoid repetitions the above issues are answered at a

stretch since the point involved in the above issues are inter related to each

other. The suit in OS No.213/2006 is filed under Specific Relief Act praying

the court to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit

schedule A and B plots by dismantling the illegally raised structures on the

Northern portion of Plot No.27 and North-west corner of plot No.19 as shown
 17

in red color in the plan annexed in Sy.no.124 Hafiz pet village in favour of the

plaintiffs and to award costs of the suit. The suit in OS No, 763/11 is filed to

grant perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant his agents, henchmen,

assignees, heirs, servants, executors and administrators from interfering with

the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property

I.e Plot No. 26, admeasruing 150-00 sq.yards or 125-40Sq.meters., situated

at Hafeezpet village, Serilingamapally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.Disrtrict

and to ward costs. The suit in OS No.764/2011 is filed to grant of perpetual

injunction restraining the defendant's, their agents, supporters, henchmen or

anybody else claiming through them be restrained perpetually from causing

any sort of interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiffs over the suit schedule plots bearing no.19 and 27 (schedule A & B) in

sy.no.124 situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingamapally Mandal, R.R.Disrtrict

and to award costs.

16) It is the contention of the plaintiff's in OS 213/2006 and in OS 764/2011

and as defendant's in OS 763/2011 is that the plaintiff No.1 is the the absolute

owner of an open plot bearing No.27 admeasuring 147.5 sq. yards farming

part of Sy.No.124 covered by Gram Panchayat lat out situated at Hafiz pet

village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District and the plaintiff No.2 is the

absolute owner of Plot No.19 admeasuring 118 sq. yards in SY.No.124 of

Hafizpet village having acquired the same under a registered sale deed and

the vendors of the plaintiffs delivered the physical possession of the same and

they are in peaceful and physical possession of the above plots. The plaintiffs

further stated that, with a view to flow the water coming by the nearby

colonies, the plaintiffs herein and their neighbors left 10 feets width for
 18

drainage purpose out of their respective properties and presently plot No.27

consists of 135 sq. yards and plot No.19 consists of 83 sq. yards while the

matter stood thus on 11-9-2005 and 12-9-2005 the defendants herein without

any right or title over the above mentioned plots tried to occupy the said plots.

The plaintiffs contention is that they also filed another OS No.764/11

(2469/2005) and that the defendants came to the knowledge about the filing

of suit in OS No.764/11 filed another suit in OS No.763/11 (old No. 2484/2005)

on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District and obtained exparte

injunction order by suppressing the earlier suit filed by of plaintiff. The

defendants took the advantage of exparte injunction order in their suit in OS

No.2484/2005, illegally occupied an extent of 112.5 sq. yards of land from

schedule A property as shown in rough sketch from the Northern side of Plot

No.27 of the plaintiff No.1 and to an extent of 6 sq.yards from schedule B

property as shown in rough sketch from the North West corner of Plot No.19

on 14-10-2005. Inspite of objections raised by plaintiffs, the defendants

dismantled the portion covered by the Plot No.27 and Plot No.19 and

constructed a room in Plot No.27 forcible as the plaintiffs are residing 40

Kms., away from the suit schedule plots. The plaintiffs further contention is

that except the illegally occupied area by the defendants in Plot No.27 of

plaintiff No.1 and plot No.19 of plaintiff No.2 the remaining are is in the

possession of plaintiffs.

17) It is the contention of the defendant in OS 213/06 and in OS 764/2011

and in OS 763/2011 as plaintiff that is the absolute owner and possessor of

Plot No.26, admeasuring 150-00 sq.yards or 125.40 sq.meter, situated at

Hafeezpet village, Serilingamapally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.Disrtrict and

same was acquired by virtue of registered document vide sale deed

 19

No.8839/1997 dt.24-12-1997 and the same executed by Sri I. Venkat Reddy.

Ever since the date of purchase the he is in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the above suit schedule property without any interference from

anybody. He constructed a 5' height boundary wall around his plot with

stones. The plaintiffs in above two suits without any right or title with a bad

intention to grab property of the plaintiff trying to encroach into the suit

schedule property with the help of his henchmen and interfering with the

possession for the plaintiff and started creating troubles in all sorts of illegal

methods taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiff. Further the

defendant is trying to demolish the boundary wall constructed by him. On 11-

9-2005 when the defendant herein tried to demolish the boundary wall

constructed around the suit schedule property the plaintiff having came to

know about the same and he went to the suit schedule property and stopped

the same with the help of locality people and timely help of the neighbours

and the defendant warned the plaintiff that he will encroach the same at any

time and also stated that no body will stop his encroachment and also

threatened with dire consequences. Immediately the plaintiff reported the

matter to the police Serilingamapally, situated at Miyapur but they have not

taken action saying the matter is purely Civil nature.

18) As trial was conducted in the OS 213/2006, hence the evidence was

adduced in OS 213/2006. As per the evidence on record the plaintiff no.1 in

OS 213/2006 was examined as PW1 and in his chief examination the plaintiff

no.1 i.e PW1 reiterated the contents on par with the plaint. Whereas in the

cross examination he categorically stated that a Nala is there towards right

side of his plot at present which was not existing at the time of purchase and

its width may be 10 feets. PW1 admitted that is is true that it (Nala) is running
 20

by cutting my plot and that one Yadagiri plot is situated towards back side of

my plot. PW1 further admitted that the plot of Yadagiri was also cut away by

Nala and he do not know about cutting in plot no.32 in the same Nala in the

same layout. Still further PW1 also stated that he do not know how many plots

affected due to Nala. Thus from the evidence of PW1 it is established that the

plot of PW1 is cutting by Nala and as per the pleadings the plaintiff contended

that his plot no.is 27 whereas as per pleadings of the defendant, defendant

plot no.is 26. therefore, both plot numbers are different. PW2 was examined

by the plaintiff. PW2 is advocate commissioner who filed Ex.X1 report and

thorough him Ex.X1 to Ex.X5 are marked . Ex.X1 is report filed by PW2 dt: 30-

10-2006, Ex.X2 to Ex.X4 are three photographs took by PW2 at scheduled

property and Ex.X5 is Work memo dt: 9-9-2006. The evidence of PW2 is

supports to the case of defendant rather than that of the plaintiffs. Because

the evidence of PW2 coupled with commissioner's report under Ex.X1 and

supports the case of defendant rather than of the plaintiff and categorically

depicts the existence of Nala as pleaded by the defendant and goes contrary

to the case of plaintiff's. PW1 got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. Ex.A1 is the sale

deed. However in Ex.A1 plot no. is different from the plot no. pleaded by the

defendant herein. Because the plaintiff pleaded that the plots 27 and 19

whereas the defendant pleaded plot no.26 as theirs. Ex.A2 is Certified Copy

of plaint in OS No.2484/2005 dt: 14-9-2005, Ex.A3 is Certified copy of Sworn

Affidavit, Ex.A4 is Certified copy of petition filed under order 39 rule 1&2 of

CPC, Ex.A5 is Original market value certificate dt: 8-12-2005, Ex.A6 is

Original market value certificate dt: 8-12-2005, Ex.A7 is Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 are

registered sale deed dt: 10-7-1997 apart from certified copies of sale deeds

dt: 10-6-1997 and 18-12-1995, Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 are five photographs with
 21

negatives and Ex.A13 is photostat copy of layout in Sy.No.124 of Hafeezpet

village.

19) However the Ex.A2 to Ex.A13 are not of much use to the case of

plaintiff, the plaintiff filed documents in related to his plot and others plot (3 rd

parties) whereas the defendant categorically pleads towards plot no.26 and

the same is admitted by PW1. Since pw1in his cross examination

categorically stated that it is true due to Nala cut the plot no.s 19 and 27 and

sustained loss. Therefore with the admission of plaintiff himself it is clear Nala

is cutting his plot. Therefore the very existence of plaintiff is in question.

Further more Ex.X1 commissioner's report clearly shows Nala is cutting

towards northern side of property. Therefore, it is clear that both property

covered of A and B schedule property was covered by Nala.

20) On behalf of defendant DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were

marked. DW1 in his chief examination got marked documents Ex.B1 is

Registered sale deed dt: 24-12-1997 vide document No.8839/1997, Ex.B2 is

Registered sale deed dt: 18-12-1995 vide document No.11404/1995 and

Ex.B3 is Copy of report submitted by DW1 to SHO PS Serilingampally dt: 11-

9-2005. Whereas in the cross examination he categorically stated that he

purchased plot no.26 which is situated northern side of plot belong to plaintiff

no.1 and he also stated that plot no. 20 belonging to D2 is stated situated

towards northern plot number 19 belonging to plaintiff no.2. As seen from

entire evidence of DW1 he stated consistent his evidence through out cross

examination. Therefore, there is consistent in the evidence of DW1. As seen

admittedly the evidence adduced by the DW1 it categorically shows that the

defendants are concerned with plot no.26 whereas the plaintiff claims plot

no.19 and 27. therefore, as seen from entire evidence placed on record
 22

coupled with the admissions of PW1 that categorically shows that the plaintiffs

in 213/2006 is not entitled for relief of delivery of vacant possession of A and B

plots by dismantling illegal constructions as prayed for. Whereas the suit in

OS 763/2011 deserves to be decreed as prayed for. Whereas the suit in

764/2011 is liable to be dismissed. Thus these are answered accordingly.

21) Issue No.4 in OS 213/2006, Issue No.3 in OS 763/2011 and Issue

No.2 in OS 764/2011:- To what relief:-

In view of my discussion above the suit in OS 213/2006 is liable to be

dismissed whereas the suit in OS 763/2011 deserves to decreed whereas the

suit in OS 764/2011 is liable to be dismissed.

RESULT:-
22) OS No.213/2006: In the result, the suit is dismissed. But under the
circumstances no costs.

23) OS No.763/2011: In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant's by granting perpetual injunction,

restraining the defendant his agents, henchmen, assignees, heirs, servants,

executors and administrators from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But under the

circumstances no costs.

24) OS No.764/2011: In the result, the suit is dismissed. But under the

circumstances no costs.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 28th day of November, 2017.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
 23

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 : Ch. Naga Venkata Ranga Kumar
PW2 : D. Anil Kumar

FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW1 : V. Tirumala Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1 : Registered sale deed No.7256/2001, dt: 21-9-2001
Ex.A2 : Certified Copy of plaint in OS No.2484/2005 dt: 14-9-2005
Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Sworn Affidavit
Ex.A4 : Certified copy of petition filed under order 39 rule 1&2 of CPC
Ex.A5 : Original market value certificate dt: 8-12-2005
Ex.A6 : Original market value certificate dt: 8-12-2005
Ex.A7 :
Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 : registered sale deed dt: 10-7-1997 apart from certified
copies of sale deeds dt: 10-6-1997 and 18-12-1995

Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 : five photographs with negatives.

Ex.A13 : photostat copy of layout in Sy.No.124 of Hafeezpet village

FOR DEFENDANTS : -

Ex.B1 : Registered sale deed dt: 24-12-1997 vide document

No.8839/1997
Ex.B2 : Registered sale deed dt: 18-12-1995 vide document
No.11404/1995
Ex.B3 : Copy of report submitted by DW1 to SHO PS Serilingampally
dt: 11-9-2005

Documents Marked through Court :-

Ex.X1 : report filed by PW2 dt: 30-10-2006
Ex.X2 to Ex.X4 : Three photographs took by PW2 at scheduled property
Ex.X5 : Work memo dt: 9-9-2006

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT