Dispute over ownership of plot of land

PJCJ,ADONI 1 O.S.No.261/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI.
Tuesday, this the 18th
day of June, 2019
Present: - Sri. T. Kesava,
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.
O.S.N0.261/2015
S.M.Lakshmi Reddy ….Plaintiff
Vs
1. B.V.Subba Rao
2. K.Eranna
3.K.Nagarani
4.G.Bramhananda Reddy
5.B.Govardhan Reddy
6.G.Aneel … Defendants
(The defendant Nos.5 and 6 are added as per the orders in
I.A.NO.1376/2017 dt.22.02.2018).
This suit is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence
of Sri. M.Sreddhar Reddy and M.Satya Sri Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.
K.Venkata Swamy advocate for defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri. L.K.Jeevan
Singh Advocate for defendant No.4 and Defendant NOS.1,5,6 remained
exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court
delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This suit is filed for declaration of right and title of plaintiff, over
suit schedule property and to declare that the registered sale deeds executed
among defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not binding on the plaintiff and with
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their
men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
over suit schedule property.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:- The
plaintiff purchased suit schedule property from defendant No.1 who is a
partner of Shobha Estate. The plaint schedule property is in survey No. 163 of
Mandagiri Panchayath Sadapuram village which is part of L.P.No.736/1984.

The Shoba Estates purchased land in survey No.163 of Mandagiri village and
formed lay out by taking approved plan from concerned authorities. The
plaintiff joined as a member in the scheme formulated by Shobha Estates and
paid entire sale consideration. The defendant NO.1 who is one of the partners
of Shobha Estates executed a register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff on
19.10.1991 and delivered possession of property to him. Recently, the
plaintiff on obtaining E.C. for loan came to know that the defendant No.1 who
is representing on behalf of partner of Shobha Estates again sold suit
schedule property jointly to defendant No.2 and 3 under a registered sale
deeds dated 27.04.1991. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot get any right
and title over the suit property as the plaintiff had already purchased the
same in the year 2009 itself from the defendant No.1. Again, the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 jointly sold suit schedule property to the defendant No.4 under
registered sale deed dated 18.03.2010. The plaintiff is absolute owner of suit
schedule property and the defendants have no right and title over the same.
The defendant No.1 who has divested with the property has no right to
execute sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 cannot not convey any better title in favour of the defendant
No.4 under above referred sale deeds. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice
on 10.06.2015 for cancellation of above sale deeds but the defendants did
not respond to the said legal notice. Taking advantage of above the
defendants tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over
suit schedule property. The plaintiff came to know that after receiving legal
notice and after filing this suit Defendant No.4 executed a GPA on 26.08.2015
in favour of defendant No.5 authorizing him to alienate suit schedule
property. Again, taking advantage of registered GPA the said Govardhan
Reddy(D5) sold suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated
7.08.2017 in favour of defendant No.6. The plaintiff obtained orders in
I.A.No.261/2015 restraining the defendant No.4 from alienating suit schedule
property. Violating the orders of this court the defendant NO.5 sold away suit

schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 as such sale deed in the name
of defendant No.6 is illegal transaction and not binding on the plaintiff.
Therefore, having no option the plaintiff filed this suit for reliefs refereed to
supra.
3. The defendant No.4 filed his written statement separately
defendant Nos.2 and 3 together filed a written statement whereas defendant
No.1,5 and 6 remained exparte.
4. The averments of written statement of defendant Nos.2
and 3 in brief are as follows:- The defendant Nos.2 and 3 admitted that
suit schedule property bearing plot Nos.5 situated in survey No.163 of
Mandagiri Village Sadapuram Gram Panchayath approved in L.P.No.736/1984.
They denied remaining allegations in the plaint and specifically pleaded that
the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not aware of sale deed executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. They further pleaded that the defendant Nos.2
and 3 are subscribers of Shobha Estate membership No.383 and paid all
installments to Shobha Estates. Later on, after verifying Encumbrance
certificate at Sub-Registrar Office Adoni they obtained register sale deed from
defendant No.1. Since the date of purchase the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in
possession and enjoyment of suit property without any interruption. They
approached Sadapuram Panchayath and obtained assessment number from
grama panchayath but they stated that according to panchayath rules no
taxes are being collected for open site. Later on, as the defendants are in
need of money they sold suit property to the defendant No.4 and delivered
possession of the same to him. They verified the Encumbrance Certificate at
Sub-Registrar Office, Adoni and they have taken proper care in verifying prior
encumbrance from the suit property. The plaintiff is not member of Shobha
Estates and only to grab suit property the defendant NO.1 colluded with
plaintiff and created sale deed. The plaintiff obtained a fake document and

availed loan by misleading bank authorities. The plaintiff is never in
possession of suit property. Therefore, this suit is liable to be dismissed with
costs.
5. The averments of written statement of the defendant
No.4 in brief are as follows: The defendant No.4 denied all the allegations
in the plaint and specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession of
suit property on the date of filing of this suit and this suit is barred by
limitation. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are subscribers of Shobha Estate with
Membership No.383 and paid all installments. After payment of all
installments the defendant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant
Nos.2 and 3 on 27.04.2009. Since the date of purchase the defendant Nos.2
and 3 were in possession and enjoyment of suit property. The suit property is
an open site, therefore no land revenue is being collected. Later on, after
verifying Encumbrance certificates and link documents the defendant No.4
purchased suit property on 18.03.2010 for valuable consideration. The
defendant No.4 is an bonfied purchaser who are put in possession of suit
property by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Since, the date of purchase the
defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of suit property with absolute
rights. The plaintiff is not member of Shobha Estate in order to causing
troubles to defendant No.4 the plaintiff filed this suit a false allegations.
Hence, this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Based on pleadings of both parties following issues are
framed for trail.
1. Whether this suit is barred by limitation ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right and
title over suit property as prayed for?
3. Whether the sale deeds executed among defendant Nos.1 to 4
in respect of suit property are not binding on the plaintiff?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for?
5. To what relief ?
7. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff examined as P.W.1
besides examining one D.Ranga Reddy a 3rd
party to the suit as P.W.2. The
plaintiff got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 in support of his case.
8. To prove the case of defendants, the defendant No.4 is
examined as D.W.1, besides examining defendant No.2 as D.W.2. The
defendants got marked Ex.B.1 in support of their case.
9. Heard both sides, perused the record.
10. Issue Nos.1 to 4 : In view of issue Nos.1 to 4 are
interconnected to avoid repetition in appreciation of evidence above issues
are taken up together with discussion.
11. The undisputed case of both the parties is that Shobha
Estates which is a Real Estate partnership firm formed a lay out in survey
No.163 of Mandagiri village Sadapuram Grama Panchayath, Adoni Mandal
under approved lay out No.736/1984. The suit schedule property which is plot
No.5 with a specific measurements and boundaries shown in plaint schedule
is part of L.P.No.736/1984 formed by Shobha Estates. The defendant No.1 is
one of the partners of Shobha Estates who said to have executed sale deeds
for the same plot in favour of the plaintiff and in favour of defendant Nos.2
and 3 on different dates. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding Shobha
Estates forming lay out in L.P.nO.736/1984 in survey number 163 of
Mandagiri Sadapuram Grama Panchayath and plaint schedule property being
part and parcel of said lay out. Further, there is no dispute regarding identity

and location of suit schedule property. The dispute between the parties is
that the plaintiff is claiming suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 said to
have been executed by defendant No.1 on 19.10.1991 whereas the
defendants have been claiming suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed
executed by defendant No.1 on 27.04.2009 marked as Ex.A.2. There is no
dispute regarding defendant No.1 being one of the partners of Shobha Esttes.
12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff joined as
a member in Shobha Estates under membership No.401 in the scheme
formulated by firm and purchased suit schedule property under Ex.A.1 on
19.10.1991 executed by defendant No.1. Recently, the plaintiff for availing
loan obtained Encumbrance certificate and at that time he came to know that
Shobha Estates sold suit schedule property to the defendant Nos.1 and 2
jointly under Ex.A.2 on 27.04.2009 and again the defendant Nos.2 and 3 sold
the same to the defendant NO.4 on 18.03.2010. On that, the plaintiff got
issued a legal notice on 10.06.2015 which was received by defendant No.2
whereas the defendant Nos.1 and 3 failed to receive the same. Taking
advantage of the same the defendant No.4 executed a GPA on 26.08.2015 in
favour of defendant No.5 authorizing him to alienate suit schedule property
but in turn sold to defendant No.6 on 7.08.2017 i.e., during pendency of this
suit. The said transaction took place when this court prohibited alienation of
suit schedule property to 3rd
party. Therefore, the transaction entered by
defendant No.5 as agent of defendant No.4 is in valid and void. The
defendant No.1 without having any manner of right sold away suit schedule
property nearly 18 years after Ex.A.1. Therefore, the transactions entered
among defendant Nos.1 to 6 are in valid. Hence, this suit.
13. Per contra, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in their written
statements they categorically pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are
members of Shobha Estates and under partnership number 383 and paid all

installments and on that the defendant No.1 executed Ex.A.2 on 27.04.2009
and delivered possession of the property. They purchase the property after
due verification of Encumbrance certificate and in the said Encumbrance
certificates Ex.A.1 transaction was not reflecting and thereafter he sold suit
property to the defendant No.4. Therefore, the defendant No.4 is bonafied
purchaser for value and this suit is liable to be dismissed.
14. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, it is manifest
that the defendant denied right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
disputing correctness of Ex.A.1, therefore, The burden of proof is on the
plaintiff to prove his right and title over the suit schedule property besides
proving his possession over the same as on the date of filing of this suit.
15. Upon perusal of the schedule appended to the plaint it is
manifest that the plaintiff sought for relief of declaration with consequential
relief of permanent injunction in respect of vacant house plot bearing No.5 in
survey No.163, Mandagiri village of Sadapuram panchayath in lay out
No.736/84 with specific boundaries and measurements as shown in plaint
schedule. Since, both the parties are claiming suit schedule property there is
no dispute regarding identity and location of suit property. Further, it is
undisputed fact that the suit schedule property is a vacant site, therefore, the
principal possession follows title is applicable to gather the possession of
plaintiff over suit schedule property.
16. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as
P.W.1, besides examining one D.Ranga Reddy as P.W.2 and they reiterated
that the plaintiff is absolute owner of suit schedule property having
purchased the same under Ex.A.1 from defendant No.1 who subsequently to
create troubles to the plaintiff executed Ex.A.2 in favour of defendant Nos.2

and 3. Therefore, the documents executed among the defendants in respect
of suit property are not binding on the plaintiff.
17. To prove the case of defendants, D.Ws.4 and 2 are examined
as D.Ws.1 and 2 and they reiterated what all they pleaded in the plaint
stating that at the time of purchasing property they obtained Encumbrance
certificate and in those encumbrance certificates Ex.A.1 transaction was not
reflected. Therefore, they are bonafied purchasers and their rights are
protected.
18. It has already been referred to in the preceding paras that
Shobha Estates formed a lay out in survey number 163 of Mandagiri village
Sadapuram Grama Panchayath in L.P.No.736/1984. Admittedly, the plaintiff is
claiming suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed executed by one
B.V.Subba Rao who is one of the partners of Shobha Estates on 19.10.1991
under Ex.A.1. Upon perusal of the Ex.A.1 it makes clear that on 19.10.1991
one B.V.Subba Rao S/o. Bala Subbaiah who is one of the partners of Shobha
Estates sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff who is one of the member
in Shobha Estates with membership No.401 sold suit property to the plaintiff
and delivered the same to him. The learned advocate for defendant on this
would contend that the person who executed Ex.A.1 is different from the
person executed Ex.A.2. The plaintiff did not prove execution of Ex.A.1 as
such Ex.A.1 is in valid document. The contention of the learned advocate for
defendant is not sustainable on the simple reason that the plaintiff filed this
suit against his vendor the defendant No.1 also but remained exparte.
19. Admittedly, Ex.A.1 is a registered sale deed which provides
that the vendor had given a declaration before Sub-Registrar at the time of
registering the documents showing that he sold the suit property for valid
consideration. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, D.W.1 categorically

admitted that the defendant No.1 sold suit property to the plaintiff in the year
1991 under Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant NO.1
before filing this suit calling upon the defendants to cancel the sale deeds
obtained from defendant NO.1. Further, D.W.2 also admitted that the
defendant No.1 sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff in the year 1991.
Therefore, from the contentions of Ex.A.1 and the admissions given by
D.Ws.1 and 2 in their cross-examinations it is clear that on 19.10.1991 the
defendant No.1 who is one of the partners of Shobha Estate sold suit
schedule property to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 and delivered possession of
the suit property to him.
20. It is further contention of defendants that the plaintiff is not
member in Shobha Estte and he has not paid any money in the scheme
formulated by Shobha Estates. As per the recitals of Ex.A.1 it makes clear
that the plaintiff was a member with membership No.401 in Shobha Estate
and after paying complete sale consideration of Rs.1,890/- sale deed was
executed in favour of plaintiff on given date and delivered possession of the
property to him. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.A.1 the defendant No.1 parted
with suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Upon perusal of the Ex.A.2 it makes clear that the same
defendant No.1 who executed Ex.A.1 in the year 1991 again sold suit
schedule property on 27.04.2009 nearly 18 years after Ex.A.1 in favour of
defendant Nos.2 and 3 jointly. Admittedly, the defendant NO.1 parted with
suit schedule property and he divested with all his ownership rights over suit
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, he cannot convey any
better title in suit schedule property. Thus, as defendant No.1 parted with suit
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 the defendant Nos.2
and 3 cannot get any valid right and title under Ex.A.2. Again, the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 jointly sold away suit schedule property to the defendant No.4

under Ex.A.3 on 18.03.2010. Since, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 did get any
title under Ex.A.2 they cannot convey any title or ownership over suit
schedule to defendant No.4 under Ex.A.3.
22. It appears that in the year 2015 the plaintiff on 14.05.2015
obtained Encumbrance certificate and at that time he came to know about
the transactions under Exs.A.2 and A.3. Immediately he got issued a legal
notice to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 calling upon them to cancel Exs.A.2 and
A.3. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 evaded to receive notice and the defendant
No.2 received the same but did not come forward to get the sale deeds
canceled. In stead of canceling the sale deeds, on 26.08.2015 he executed
GPA in favour of defendant No.5 authorizing him to alienate suit schedule
property. It came on record that subsequently during pendency of this suit
the defendant No.5 sold suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.6
under a registered sale deed dated 7.08.2017 bearing document
No.5958/2017. Therefore, all the transactions subsequent to Ex.A.1 entered
by defendant NO.1 with others and the other defendant in respect of suit
schedule property are in valid since the defendant No.1 had already divested
his ownership and possession over suit schedule property in favour of the
plaintiff.
23. Further, it is relevant to mention here that as per orders in
I.A.No.1452/2015 dated 14.06.2016 this court passed temporary injunction
restraining the defendant NO.4 from alienating petition schedule property till
disposal of the suit. While the said orders are in force the agent of defendant
No.4 i.e., defendant NO.5 sold suit schedule property in favour of defendant
NO.6 under registered sale deed dated 7.08.2017 bearing document
No.5958/2017. Since, the sale transaction entered by agent of defendant
no.4 was entered while orders of this court prohibition of alienation are
substituting the sale deed executing by defendant NO.5 as agent of

defendant No.4 is not valid and the same is void document. The sale
Meeseva copy of sale deed is marked as Ex.A.10. Therefore, the sale
transaction entered by agent of defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.6 is
in valid and void document it cannot confer any right and title in possession
over suit schedule property either in favour of defendant No.5 or in favour of
defendant No.6.
24. D.Ws.1 and 2 in their cross-examination they categorically
admitted that the defendant No.1 sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff
in the year 1991 itself under Ex.A.1. Further, all subsequent sale transactions
took place after plaintiff gave legal notice on 10.06.2015 it appears that the
defendant No.1 only to get wrongful gain knowing fully well that he has no
right and title of the suit schedule property to cheat the plaintiff executed
Ex.A.2 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Since, the defendant No.1 had
already divested with ownership over suit schedule property he cannot
convey any title, ownership or possession over the suit schedule property in
favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Ex.A.2 and defendant Nos.2 and 3
cannot convey any better title to defendant No.4 under Ex.A.3. Therefore,
Exs.A.2 and A.3 are not valid and they are not binding on the plaintiff.
25. It is the specific contention of the defendants, this suit is
barred by limitation it is relevant to mention here that as per the case of
plaintiff on 14.05.2015 he obtained encumbrance certificate for availing loan
for construction of a house and at that time he came to know about Ex.A.2
and A.3 sale transaction and that he issued a legal notice to defendant No.1
to 4 calling upon them to get the sale deeds canceled. Therefore, it appears
that further as per the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that the plaintiff is residing
at Vidya Nagar, Mantralayam Mandal. Therefore, he may not have knowledge
about Exs.A.2 and A.3 transactions. Since, the plaintiff categorically proved
that after obtaining Ex.A.4 Encumbrance certificate on 14.05.2015 he came

to know about Exs.A.2 and A.3 it cannot be held that this suit is not within
limitation. Since, the plaintiff filed this suit immediately after closing the
invalid transactions entered by defendant No.1 this suit is within limitation.
Therefore, the contention of the defendant is that this suit is barred by
limitation is devoid of merits.
26. Coming to the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule
property is concerned admittedly the suit schedule property is vacant site
and the plaintiff by virtue of Ex.A.1 got absolute right and title over suit
schedule property. Since, the plaintiff proved his right and title over the suit
schedule property principal possession follows title gets attracted to the case
on hand as such the plaintiff proved his right and title besides possession
over suit schedule property on the date of filing of this suit. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 further established that there is imminent threat of
dispossession in the hands of defendants as such the plaintiff is entitled for
permanent injunction.
27. Thus, in view of the afore said discussion, this court is of
opinion that the plaintiff proved his right, title over suit schedule property
besides proving that the sale deeds entered by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in
respect of suit schedule property are in valid and they are not binding on the
plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff proved his possession over the suit schedule he
is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, issue Nos. 1 to
3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
28. ISSUE No.5 :- In view of issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered
infavour of the plaintiff this suit is decreed with costs.
In the result, this suit is decreed with costs declaring the
right, title ownership of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and

further declaring that the registered sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated 27.04.2009
bearing document No.2304/2009, registered sale deed executed by
defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 dated 18.03.2010
bearing document No.1638/2010, GPA executed by defendant No.4
in favour of the defendant No.5 dated 26.08.2015 and registered
sale deed executed by defendant No.5 as agent of defendant No.4
on 7.08.2017 bearing document No.5958/2017 in favour of
defendant No.6 are in valid and not binding on the plaintiff. Further,
the defendants are restrained from interfering with possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property by means of
permanent injunction.
Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open court on this the 18th
day of June, 2019.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge,
Adoni.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For Plaintiff: For Defendants:
P.W.1 : S.M.Lakshmi Reddy D.W.1 : G.Brhamananda Reddy
P.W.2 : D.Ranga Reddy D.W.2 : K.Eranna
Exhibits marked
For Plaintiff :
Ex.A.1 : Original registered sale deed dated 19.10.1991.
Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.27.04.2009.
Ex.A.3 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.18.03.2010.
Ex.A.4 : Encumbrance certificate dt.14.05.2015.
Ex.A.5 : Office copy of legal notice dt.10.06.2015.
Ex.A.6 : Postal receipts 4 in number.
Ex.A.7 : Unserved postal cover of defendant No.1.
Ex.A.8 : Unserved postal cover of defendant No.3.
Ex.A.9 : Mee Seva Copy of GPA Dt.26.08.2015.

Ex.A.10: Mee Seva copy of sale deed dt.7.08.2017.
For Defendants:
Ex.B.1 : Mee Seva copy of sale deed dt.18.03.2010.
PJCJ,Adoni.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI.
Tuesday, this the 18th
day of June, 2019
Present: - Sri. T. Kesava,
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.
O.S.N0.261/2015
S.M.Lakshmi Reddy
S/o. Sheshi Reddy, Hindu,
aged about 58 years, Teacher,
R/o. Vidya Nagar Vil, Mantralayam Mandal. ….Plaintiff
Vs
1. B.V.Subba Rao
S/o. Bal Subbaiah, Hindu,
aged about 68 years,
H.NO. 49-1-50 C-Camp, Kurnool.
2. K.Eranna
S/o. K.Narasanna, Hindu,
H.No.21-515/251, Ambedkar Nagar,
Adoni.
3.K.Nagarani
W/o. K.Eranna, Hindu,
H.No. 21-515/251, Ambedkar Nagar,
Adoni.
4.G.Bramhananda Reddy
S/o. G.Linga Reddy, Hindu,
H.No.4-343/17, S.B.I. 3rd
colony,
Adoni.
5.B.Govardhan Reddy
S/o. B.Hanumantha Reddy, Hindu,
aged bout 37 years,
H.No.20/207 venkannabavi Street,
Adoni.
6.G.Aneel
S/o. G.Venkatesulu,
H.No.11-105,
Anjineya Devasatanam street,
Basappabavi Street,
Bellary town. … Defendants
(The defendant Nos.5 and 6 are added as per the orders in
I.A.NO.1376/2017 dt.22.02.2018).

This suit is filed for declaration of right and title of plaintiff, over
suit schedule property and to declare that the registered sale deeds executed
among defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not binding on the plaintiff and with
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their
men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
over suit schedule property.
Plaint presented on 18.11.2015 and filed on 20.11.2015
Jurisdiction value of Rs.2,50,000/- and 3/4th of the market valid at
Rs.1,87,500/- and a Court fee of Rs.4,326/-is paid u/Sec.24 (b) of the A.P.C.F.
and Suit Valuation Act.
Cause of action for the suit arose on 19.10.1991 when the plaintiff
purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant NO.1 on 27.04.2009
when the defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of
defendant No.2 and 3, on 18.03.2010 when the defendant Nos.2 and 3
executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant NO.3, on
14.05.2015 when the plaintiff obtained E.C. and on 10.06.2015 when the
plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant No.1 to 4 and when the
defendants trying to interfere the possession of the schedule property and
the schedule plot situated at Mandagiri village of Sadapuram gram
panchayath Adoni Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court.
This suit is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence
of Sri. M.Sreddhar Reddy and M.Satya Sri Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.
K.Venkata Swamy advocate for defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri. L.K.Jeevan
Singh Advocate for defendant No.4 and Defendant NOS.1,5,6 remained
exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth
order and decree :
1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed declaring
the right and title ownership of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.
2. that the registered sale deed executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated 27.04.2009 bearing document
No.2304/2009 be and the same is hereby not valid and not binding on the
plaintiff.
3. that the registered sale deed executed by defendant
No.2 and 3 in favour of defendant NO.4 dated 18.03.2010 bearing document
No.1638/2010 be and the same is hereby not valid and not binding on the
plaintiff.
4. that the GPA executed by defendant No.4 in favour of
defendant No.5 dated 26.08.2015 be and the same is hereby not valid and
not binding on the plaintiff.

5. that the registered sale deed executed by defendant NO.5 as
agent of defendant No.4 on 07.08.2017 bearing document No.5958/2017 is
not valid and not binding on the plaintiff.
6. that the defendants be and are hereby restrained by means fo
permanent injunction from interfering with possession and enjoyment of
plaintiff over suit schedule property.
7. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8078/-
towards their costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 18th
day
of June, 2019.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADONI.
MEMO OF COSTS
Plaintiff Defendants
Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.
1. Stamps on plaint 4,326-00 (Nil not certified)
2. Stamps on vakalat 2-00
3. Advocate fee 3,000-00
4. Process 150-00
5. Publication charges 500-00
4. Writing charges 50-00
6. Typing charges 50-00
-------------
Rs. 8078-00
--------------
SCHEDULE
All that peace of suit schedule property is residential plot bearing plot
No.5 situated in survey number 163 paiki of Mandagiri villag of Sadapuram
Gram Panchayath approved lay out No.736/84 file No.17866/84 D5 Ref
No.26/84 within the registration District of Kurnool and Sub-Registration
District of Adoni and within limits of the followign boundaries:
Boundaries : East : 33 feet Road
West : Plot No.2.
North : Plot No.6.
South : Plot No.4
Measurements : East to West : 50 feet, North to South : 45 feet
Total Extent 250 Sq. Yards.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADONI.

Dispute over ownership of plot of land

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Dispute over ownership of plot of land

Similar to Dispute over ownership of plot of land (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dispute over ownership of plot of land