Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
Vaddari Jhatipat Ramloo - Appellant
Vs.
T. Sri Hari - Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 467, 468, 469 and 475 of 2004
Decided On: 28.10.2014
Civil Law – Civil Suits – Second Appeal - Suit for injunction – Specific performance of Agreement - Plaintiff absolute owner and actual possessor of the land - Land stands in the name of the plaintiff and his paternal and in partition with his uncle this land fell to the share of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the first defendant and father of the third defendant and one made an attempt to encroach the plaint schedule property, thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction in on file of the District, West and the said suit was decreed in plaintiff on further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have no concern with the plaint schedule property and they are trying to forcibly suit schedule property by making false allegations that the suit schedule property is part of Survey No. 10 and it belongs to the second defendant – It is further alleged that on tried to encroach the suit schedule property and the plaintiff, with great difficulty, resisted the acts of the defendants. Alleging that the cause of action arose on plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed and obtained interim injunction order against the defendants. Subsequently – Held, Entries in are treated as important entries as far as area is concerned. They are generally reliable. But in this case, there is a correction in struck off the name of the original owner and written the name of the father of the plaintiff is nothing on record to show that by what authority made corrections in the For making corrections in there should be an order of any other competent revenue officials higher than nothing on record to show that was authorized to make any corrections except there is no other document showing the title of PW. 3 he purchased the land from under a private sale deed. Admittedly, the sale deed is not filed is mutated in his name in the revenue records. He further says that he has gifted 5 out to his son and 4 and 600 sq. yards of land to his son the plaintiff. Admittedly, there is no document to prove the said partition. He himself admitted that there are no documents to show that he has gifted 5 to his brothers son and open land to the plaintiff deposed that he is the owner of the suit property and originally it was owned by his father and that he got the suit property under a partition. Admittedly, no such partition deed has been filed. It is his further case that in the plaint averments the plaintiff claimed that of the suit land stands in his name and also in the name of his paternal uncle and that he got the property in the partition with his uncle case is that he gifted and open land to the plaintiff – Ordered accordingly
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
1. All these appeals are connected and dealing with one and the same dispute and therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. SA No. 467 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 112 of 2002 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 608 of 1992 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District.
3. SA No. 475 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 74 of 2002 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 101 of 1990 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District.
4. SA No. 468 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 72 of 2002 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 646 of 1991 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District.
5. SA No. 469 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 11 of 2001 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 208 of 1987 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District.
6. The unsuccessful defendant namely Vaddari Jhatipat Ramloo in OS Nos. 208 of 1987 and 646 of 1991 and the plaintiff in OS Nos. 101 of 1990 and 608 of 1992 has filed the present four second appeals.
7. Joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in OS No. 208 of 1987. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in OS No. 208 of 1987 for the sake of convenience. The case of the plaintiff namely Srihari in OS No. 208 of 1987 is as follows. He is the absolute owner and actual possessor of the land admeasuring 0-08 gts., in Survey No. 9, situated at Moosapet village of Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The patta of the land stands in the name of the plaintiff and his paternal uncle T. Yadaiah and in partition with his uncle this land fell to the share of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the first defendant T. Srinivas Rao and father of the third defendant T. Sri Ramloo and one T. Narsimha Rao made an attempt to encroach the plaint schedule property, thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction in OS No. 100 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, West and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 21.03.1985. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have no concern with the plaint schedule property and they are trying to forcibly encroach the suit schedule property by making false allegations that the suit schedule property is part of Survey No. 10 and it belongs to the second defendant. It is further alleged that on 12.04.1987, they tried to encroach the suit schedule property and the plaintiff, with great difficulty, resisted the acts of the defendants. Alleging that the cause of action arose on 12.04.1987, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 293 of 1987 and obtained interim injunction order against the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 707 of 1998 alleging that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants occupied an area of 600 square yards on 10.01.1988 out of the suit schedule property and this 600 square yards of land is the disputed property now. It is further alleged that the defendant constructed compound wall over the compound ABCDE (as described in the plaint), but also erected a big gate. Consequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 707 of 1988 seeking amendment of plaint and sought further relief of recovery of possession and dismantling of the construction made by the defendant. The said I.A. was allowed ad the suit was accordingly amended. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 ar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
