In The Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge Kadap

 

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE KADAPA

I.A No:579/20 No:579/2017 17 In O.S No:-734/2017

Singam Mallaiah

… Petitioner/p Petitioner/plaintiff laintiff Vs.

1. T.Raja Gopal Reddy 2. Shaik Tajuddin 3. Shaik Khatun 4. Ramana

… Respondents/D Respondents/Defendants efendants

Counter filed on behalf of the Respondents 2 and 3

1. The petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff is put to strict proof on all the allegations made in petition which are not expressly admitted here in by these Respondents/defendants. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff has no right or authority over the suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff utterly failed to submit the alleged link sale deed No:-1989/1947 dated 08-08-1947 since the alleged vendors of

the sa sale le deed No:- 9 9369/2011 369/2011 dated 15-12-2011 have no rright ight

or title or authority over the property mentioned either in sale deed dated 15-12-2011 or in the gift deed dated 27-07-2015. The petitioner/plaintiff did not speak about the link document No:- 1989/1947 dated 08-08-1947 in the suit plaint which was recited only about the sale deed No:- 9369/2011 dated 08-08-1947 does not speak either about the suit property or about the alleged ancestors of the vendors of suit property on 15-12-2011. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff petitioner/plaintiff did not get the suit property from his father named Singam Janardhana Reddy under the gift deed dated 27-07-2015 since his father Janardhana Reddu did not get the suit schedule property from his Vendors on 15-12-2011 because the said vendors have no title or right or authority over the suit schedule property for selling to the father of

 

::2:: the petitioner/plaintiff on 15-12-2011. The petitioner/plaintiff or his father or his vendor never enjoyed the possession of suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff falsely in the suit plaint and also in the affidavit that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff or his father did not get title over the suit schedule property since the vendors of the father of the petitioner/plaintiff did not have title or right or possession over the suit schedule proper property ty at any point of time. The petitioner/plaintiff did not state in the suit plaint about the names of the sellers and purchaser in the sale deed No:-1989/1947 dated 08-08-1947 and extent and boundaries of the property shown in the schedule of that sale deed. It is simply stated in that sale deed that one Battula Venkataiah inherited that property and it is not stated who was his ancestor and how he was related and what was his family tree for inheriting that property. These respondents/defendants submit that the alleged vendors of sale deed 15-12-2011 15-12-2011 made in favour of the father of the petitioner/plaintiff are not at all the legal heirs of either Battula Venkataiah or the

purchaser of sale deed 1989/1947 dated 08-08-1947 schedule

property. That is why the petitioner/plaintiff did not speak about Vendors of purchaser of sale deed 1989/1947 dated 08-08-1947 document. 5. The plaint plan does not speak about true facts and did not show the existing sandu rasta in the plaint plan for the purpose of ingress and egress

to

reach

the

houses

of

respondents/defendants.

The

respondents/defendants 2 and 3 and another person named Kamal Basha and his wife Kursheed Bagun who sold their property bearing door No:2/762 house to the wife and son of the first defendant who filed O.S No:-571/2010 in THIRD ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT KADAPA against B.Ramaiah D-1, Jashuva D-2 and D-3 i.e commissioner of Kadapa Municipal corporation corporation for declaration and permanent injunction for A B C D E F sandu rasta as sated in the plaint plan in O.S No:-571/2010. The Honourable THIRD ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT OF KADAPA examined PW-1 and PW-2 on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff by marking Ex: A-1 to A-16

and

DW-1

and

DW-2

were

examined

on

behalf

of

respondents/defendants by marking Ex: B-1 and B-2. The Honourable THIRD ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT OF KADAPA passed decree and  judgment on on 17-04-2014 17-04-2014 b by y declaring the rright ight of enjoyment of the

 

::3:: petitioner/plaintiff to use the sandu rasta for their ingress and egress to reach to their houses shown as A B C D E F in the plaint plan. 6. The second defendant named Jashuva in O.S No:-571/2010 filed appeal A.S No:-86/2014 in PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT OF KADAPA against the decree and judgment of the THIRD ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT OF KADAPA. The Honourable in PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT OF KADAPA was pleased to dismiss this A.S No:-86/2014 in O.S No:-571/2010 on 22-03-2016 by confirming the decree and judgment of THIRD ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT OF KADAPA passed on 17-04-2014 17 -04-2014 in O.S No:- 571/2010. 7. The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S No:-571/2010 showed the property of B.Ramaiah on the south side of sandu rasta A B E F and east C D E sandu Rasta. The petitioner/plaintiff is claiming site of B.Ramaiah who is the first defendant in

O.S

No:-571/2010.The

said

first defendant in

O.S

No:-571/2010 did not claim this present O.S No:-734/2017 suit schedule property as belonging to him and that first defendant in O.S No:-571/2010 did not contest that suit and became exparte in O.S No:-571/2010 as well as in A.S No:-86/2014 since he has no right or authority over that property situated on the south of A B E F sandu Rasta. So the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit has no right or title over the present suit schedule property since the original title holder that is first defendant in O.S No:-571/2010 did not claim the suit schedule property as belonging either to him or to his ancestors. 8. The original registered sale deed of respondents respondents/defendants /defendants dated 16-07-1984, 16-07-198 4, 13-05-1991, 14-11-1979 and 30-01-1993 speak about the t he right of respondents/defendants for passing through A B C E D F sandu rasta as shown in the plaint plan in O.S No:-571/2010. Hence the Honourable court passed decree and judgment in favour of defendant 1 to 3 in O.S No:571/2010 declaring the Right of the respondents/defendants basing on the documents

Ex:-

A-1

to

A-16

in

O.S

No:-571/2010.

Now

the

petitioner/plaintiff in O.S No:-734/25017 did not show A B C D E F rasta as in the plaint plan in O.S No:-571/2010 for grabbing the sandu rasta property of the defundats 1 to 4 in this suit. The petitioner/plaintiff is so avaricious to knock away the sandu rasta as well as the property of some third parties i.e Kadapa municipal corporatio corporation n by

showing the totally false

 

::4:: sale deed dated 15-12-2011 and gift deed dated 27-07-2015 which do not prove the title and right of the petitioner/plaintiff over O.S No:-734/2017 the suit schedule property. 9. The petitioner/plaintiff has no right or title for A B C D E F G property as a in thissince suit plaint. This suit for permanent injunction is not notthe at all shown maintainable the respondents/defendants denied the titleis of petitioner/plaintiff petitioner/p laintiff for the suit property. The petitioner/plaintiff has to file this suit for declaration and for possession. The petitioner/plaintiff never enjoyed the possession of the suit property. The suit plaint for permanent injunction does not arise with out proving the proof of possession of the petitioner/plaintiff petitioner/p laintiff over the suit property. This suit for permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has no link documents for his sale deed dated 15-12-2011 and that the petitioner/plaintiff petitioner/p laintiff utterly failed to prove his possession over the suit property by submitting link documents, municipal tax receipts and land tax receipts in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff for the suit schedule property. The first defendant in O.S No:- 571/2010 named Beldari Ramaih S/o Subbaih became kuncham Rama Raju S/o Subbanna for the purpose of executing sale deed dated 15-12-2011 to the plaintiff. The said first defendant in O.S No:571/2010 and his kith and kin are bound by the decree in O.S No:- 571/2010 and the principle of resjudicata under section 11 of C.P.C in applicable to this suit. Beludari Ramaiah is no other than Kuncham Rama Raju who is second seller of suit property to the plaintiff on 15-12-2011. The first defendant in O.S No:-571/2010 named Ramaiah is living by beldari work. So the first defendant in O.S No:-571/2010 is called as Beldari Ramaiah who became Kuncham Rama Raju for the purpose of sale deed dated 15-11-2011 for playing fraud on the defendants. 10. There is no cause of action as alleged in the suit plaint for the filing this suit. The suit property belongs to Kadapa municipal corporation. So the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S No:-571/2010 filed that suit even against the commissioner of Kadapa municipal corporation as third defendant since the municipal corporation is going to lay pucca road in A B C D E F suit rasta as shown in plaint plan in O.S No:-571/2010 since the suit property belongs to Kadapa municipality corporation. corporation. The suit property have been llaying aying as vacant place since 50 years for the passage of house owners around the suit schedule property. The respondents/defendants 2 and 3 showed schedule property of O.S No:-571/2010 in the schedule of their written statement in O.S No:-734/2017 for perusal for purpose determining all the issues involved in this suit since the whole dispute with regard to this O.S No:-734/2017 was decided by THIRD ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT OF KADAPA in O.S No:-571/2010 on 17-04-2014 and also by appellate court i.e PRINCIPAL DISTICT JUDGE AT KADAPA in A.S No:- 86/2014 on 22-03-2016.

 

 

::5:: 11.Prayer:-  Hence the respondent/defundant 2 and 3 pray that the

Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss this petition with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.

The above stated facts are verified by us and the above stated facts are true and correct to th the e best o off our knowledge, information and belief and put our signatures on this on 22 day of February 2018 at Kadapa.

Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants 2 & 3

 

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE KADAPA

I.A No:579/2017 In O.S No:-734/2017

Singam Mallaiah … Petitioner/plaintiff  Petitioner/plaintiff    Vs. 1. T.Raja Gopal Reddy 2. Shaik Tajuddin 3. Shaik Khatun 4. Ramana …Respondents/Defendants  

Counter filed on behalf of the Respondents 2 and 3

Filed by:

Sri. K. Venkata Reddy B.Com., B.L., 

Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants 2

3

 

Kadapa