1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GIDDALUR

Present : Sri B. Rajesh,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur

Wednesday, this the Eighteenth (18th) day of December, 2019

Original Suit No. 302 of 2008

Between :

1. Shaik Mohammad Shareef, S/o. Late Abdul Sattar Saheb @ Abdul Sattarmiya,
(Died) his legal heirs,
2. Shaik Mohammad Shoyub, S/o. Late Shaik Mohammad Shareef, aged about 48
years, Muslim, Business,
3. Shaik Khaja Mohammad Ayub, S/o. Late Mohammad Shareef, aged about 41
years, Muslim, Business,
4. Mohammad Umar Farooq, S/o. Late Mohammad Shareef, aged about 35 years,
Muslim, Private Employee,
5. Mohammad Zareena Begum, W/o. Mohammad Abdul Jabbar, aged about 52
years, Housewife, Muslim, Brodipeta, Guntur.
6. Syed Nazma Sulthana, W/o. Syed Ghouse, aged about 46 years, Muslim,
Housewife, College Road, Cumbum Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.
7. Mohammad Farhana, W/o. Karimulla Farooqi, Aged about 37 years, Muslim,
Housewife, Abdulkhadar Street, Vijayawada.
8. Mohammad Rizwana, W/o. Mohammad Yaqubal Khaja Mirja, aged about 34
years, Muslim, Housewife, Chandole Post, Pittalavaripalem Mandal, Guntur
District.
9. Shaik Mallika Begum, W/o. Late Mohammad Shareef, aged about 75 years,
Muslim, Housewife,

Plaintiffs 2 to 4 & 9 are residents of Nayak Street, Cumbum Village and Mandal,
Prakasam District.

(Plaintiffs 2 to 9 were added as legal heirs of Late 1 st plaintiff as per Orders in

I.A. 44/2018 in O.S. 302/2008, Dt. 09-02-2018.
… Plaintiffs
And

1. Shaik Abdul Rawoof, S/o. Abdul Sattarmiya, aged about 58 years, Muslim,
College Road, Cumbum Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.
2. Syed Noorjahan, W/o. Late Syed Shaikshavali, aged about 45 years, Muslim,
Housewife, Resident of Cumbum, Now at H. No. 4-189-2, Mamatha Nagar, Near
Venkata Ramana Colony, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
… Defendants

This suit has come on 19-11-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri S.V. Nagendra Babu and Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiffs and of
Sri S. Yasin Basha, Advocate for 1st Defendant and Sri V. Venkata Subbaiah and Sri T.E.
Anjani Kumar, Advocates for 2nd defendant; upon perusing the oral and documentary
evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over
for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

1. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of grant of

perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, nominees and

their representatives from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and
 2

enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments made in the plaintiff as set out in the plaint are that one

Shaik Abdul Wahab, S/o. Yusub sharif Saheb is the junior paternal uncle to the 1 st

plaintiff and 1 st defendant and he is the original owner of the suit schedule property

and other properties. The said Shaik Abdul Wahab executed registered gift deed to an

extent of Ac 1.00 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 out of Ac. 1.76 cents which is situated at

Kagithalagudem Village of Cumbum Mandal in favour of the 1 st plaintiff on 01-04-1976

and he accepted the said gift deed and delivered the possession to the 1 st plaintiff,

since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property. The said Shaik Abdul Wahab also gifted the land to an extent of Ac. 0.76

cents in Sy. No. 79/2 which is situated to the east of the plaint schedule property in

favour of the 1st defendant on 01-04-1976. The dispute arose between the 1 st plaintiff

and 1st defendant relating to their family properties. The 1 st defendant filed the false

suit against the 1st plaintiff and his sons in order to take revenge against him on the

file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Markapur. The 1 st defendant in collusion

with the 2nd defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of him by creating collusive, nominal and fictitious documents in favour of

the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant has no right to execute register sale deed in her

favour relating to the suit schedule property. Even if the 1 st defendant executes any

document in favour of the 2 nd defendant and such alleged document will not confer

any right to her over the suit schedule property.

3. It is further contended that the 1st plaintiff came to know their evil thoughts,

then he got issued legal notices to the defendants through his counsel on 25-01-2006

though they received notices but they did not give any reply to them. It is further

contended that they are with an intention to knock away the plaint schedule property

and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of him. Inspite of

amicable approaches with them and they are not listening his words. As such he has

no other option except to approach the Hon'ble Court for the relief of perpetual

injunction, against them.

 3

4. The 1st defendant has resisted the averments of plaint by way of written

statement and interalia submitted that the gift deed dt. 01-04-1976 is created one.

The 1st plaintiff knows the each and every fact of his family. The defendant No. 1 is

younger brother to the plaintiff and he filed the a false suit against him and 2 nd

defendant to give trouble to them. He further contended that the said property is

ancestral property of 1st plaintiff and 1 st defendant, they sold the said property to the

2nd defendant on 18-05-2001 for valuable consideration. He further contended that

the 1st plaintiff got executed a relinquishment deed for the ancestral property to an

extent of Ac. 1.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 in favour of 1 st defendant and he sold the said

property to the 2nd defendant. The 1st plaintiff has known the said fact and he filed the

false suit against the defendants. The said property sold to the 2 nd defendant by the

1st defendant long back which is known to the plaintiff. The 1 st plaintiff has filed the

bare injunction suit against the defendants instead of filing the declaration suit.

Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The 2nd defendant has resisted the averments of the plaint by way of written

statement and interalia submitted that the 1 st plaintiff and 1 st defendant are the

brothers and sons of one Shaik Abdul Sattarmiah who are belong to a reputed family

in Cumbum town and having vast properties in various places. Both the brothers

partitioned their properties in the year 1978-1979, the suit schedule property and land

on its east fell to the share of 1 st defendant. He became the owner to an extent of Ac.

1.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 situated at Kagithalagudem village. The 1 st plaintiff and

defendant No.1 divided several properties equally in the year 1978-79 and alienated

their individual shares of properties to others and they are living separately since

1978-79. The 2nd defendant purchased the suit schedule property and other land on

its east to an extent of Ac. 1.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 from 1 st defendant on 18-05-2001

for valuable consideration of Rs. 67,000/- and got registered sale deed in her name.

She made enquiry prior to purchase the sale and find out that the said land was in

possession and enjoyment of the 1 st defendant through the partition in the year 1978-

79.
 4

6. She further contended that she entered into the suit schedule property and

other properties immediately after she purchased and she leased out the said land to

the Shaik Dadapeera, S/o. Nasar Saheb for sharing of grain basis. She used to come to

Cumbum every season and used to collect the grain from the harvesting platform

from him. The suit schedule property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of her.

She further contended that the Government laid the bypass road during the year 2003.

The Government has taken over Ac. 0.21 cents in the east of her land for land

acquisition. One Syed Hussain, younger brother of the 1 st defendant went to R.D.O.

Office and misrepresented that he was managing the land on behalf of her brother's

wife and tried to obtain compensation. Then the Revenue department conducted

enquiry and paid amount to her. Syed Hussain along with his friend Valapati Ramaiah

tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property,

remaining extent of Ac. 1.55 cents of land, she got filed the suit in O.S. 233/2005

against them on the file of this court for the relief of perpetual injunction and

obtained decree on 09-11-2005.

7. She further contended that the she sold the some part of the land by entering

into agreement of land previously, the plaintiff issued notices in the year 2006, he did

not file the suit immediately, the 2nd defendant approached the 1st plaintiff recently

and asked why he has filed the suit, in which he stated that the 1 st defendant troubled

him in a suit on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Markapur and he

wants to trouble him, he filed the suit against him. She further contended that the 1 st

plaintiff filed a fictitious suit against the defendants and the said suit is liable to be

dismissed with compensatory costs sum of Rs. 50,000/- to her under section 35-A of

C.P.C. There are no merits in the suit, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. Basing on the rival pleadings, the court has settled the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule

property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for

3. To what relief.
 5

9. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the deceased 1 st plaintiff himself got examined as

P.W.1, Kanchi Ramarao examined as P.W.2 and Shaik Hussain examined as P.W.3 and

got marked Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendants, the 1 st defendant examined as

D.W.1, the 2nd defendant examined as D.W.2. Chief affidavit of D.W.3 filed and the

same is eschewed and Exs. B1 to B11 are marked.

10. Heard the arguments on both sides.

11. ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2:

The deceased 1st plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants, in respect of suit

schedule property for the relief of perpetual injunction. Thus, the plaintiff is under

obligation to establish the possession over the suit scheduler property as on the date

of filing of the suit. In doing so, the deceased 1 st plaintiff himself got examined as

P.W.1, who reiterated the plaint averments, in support of his evidence Exs. A1 to A5

are marked. The deceased 1st plaintiff got examined P.W.2 who is cultivated the suit

schedule property on lease, he also got examined P.W.3 who is attending coolie work,

during the sowing season, cutting and harvesting the crop in the suit schedule

property. P.W.1 in his testimony, categorically stated that the Shaik Abdul Wahab, S/o.

Yusuf shareef saheb is the paternal junior uncle to the P.W.1 and 1 st defendant. The

paternal uncle of the P.W.1 has executed Ex. A1 gift deed in favour of the P.W.1 on 01-

4-1976 to an extent of Ac. 1.00 in sy. No. 79/2 out of Ac. 1.76 cents bounded by East:

Land of the 1st defendant which was gifted by the paternal grand father of the 1 st

defendant and P.W.1, South: The land of Abdul Lathif Saheb, West: Panta Kaluva and

North: land of Somisetty Rangaiah and others, the P.W.1 accepted the gift deed

executed by the his paternal junior paternal uncle and since then he has been in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The P.W.1 further stated that

the paternal junior uncle of 1st defendant and P.W.1 also executed a gift deed in favour

of the 1st defendant to an extent of Ac. 0.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 which is situated to

the east of the suit schedule property, the 1 st defendant accepted the gift deed

executed by his junior paternal uncle and since then he has been in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show
 6

that the dispute arose between the P.W.1 and 1 st defendant relating to their family

properties. The 1st defendant filed false suit in O.S. 55/2004 on the file of Hon'ble

Senior Civil Judge's Court, Markapur against the P.W.1 and his sons for partition of the

properties. As if they have not partitioned their family properties. He further stated

that the 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant is trying to interfere with his

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by creating collusive and

nominal documents in favour of the 2 nd defendant. The 1st defendant has no right to

execute any document in favour of the 2 nd defendant relating to the suit schedule

property. The P.W.1 further contended that even if the 1 st defendant executed any

document in favour of the 2nd defendant such document will not bind on the P.W.1.

The P.W.1 examined the P.Ws. 2 & 3 who are deposed and supported the version of

P.W.1.

12. Be it noted, during the cross examination P.W.1 stated that he obtained Ex. A2

pattadar pass book from the Revenue Authority in the year 1980. There is a house in

the suit schedule property. P.W.1 further stated that there was no date on Ex. A2

pattadar pass book, he does not know the name of M.R.O. who issued the Ex. A2 in his

favour. The patta number was not mentioned in Ex. A2 and there is no round seal

under Ex. A2 of V.R.O. & M.R.O. The suit schedule property was entered under Ex. A2

pattadar pass book which was issued by the M.R.O. He further stated that he came to

know that the 1st defendant sold the suit schedule property in the year 2001 to the 2 nd

defendant. He further stated that the father of P.W.1, D.W.1 and one Abdul Rahaman

are the brothers and Abdul Rahaman was adopted to one Abdul Razak who is his

paternal uncle. The father of P.W.1 might have got Ac. 1.75 cents in his name. P.W.1

categorically stated that D.W.1 sold Ac. 1.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 and executed a

register sale deed on 18-05-2001 for valuable consideration of Rs. 67,000/-. He further

stated that Shaik Dada Peera was cultivating the land to an extent of Ac. 0.76 cents on

lease basis from the 2nd defendant. He does not know whether the 2 nd defendant sold

Ac. 1.55 cents to Shumshuddin, Dardar and Munna under registered sale deed or not.

13. Be it noted, during the cross examination of P.W.2 stated that the 1 st defendant
 7

is the brother of P.W.1. He have been cultivating the suit schedule property to an

extent of Ac. 1.00 cents and another land to an extent of Ac. 0.40 cents on lease basis,

whenever there is a water in the tank, the surrounding farmers of the lands raising

crops. He does not know whether the plaintiff and 1 st defendant partitioned their

joint family properties or not. He does not know whether the land to an extent of Ac.

1.76 cents was fallen to the share of 1 st defendant in their joint family properties

which is situated at Kagitalagudem village. He does not know whether the 1 st

defendant sold the Ac. 1.76 cents to the 2nd defendant through a register sale deed on

18-05-2001 for valuable consideration of Rs. 67,000/-. Be it noted, during the cross

examination of P.W.3 stated that the father of P.W.3 and himself constructed the

house of plaintiff as masons. He does not know whether 1 st defendant sold the suit

schedule property to the 2nd defendant or not. He does not know whether the P.W.1

and 1st defendant partitioned their joint family properties in the year 1978-79. The

counsel for the defendants has cross examined the P.Ws. 1 to 3 at length but nothing

could be elicited from their mouth in favour of the defendants.

14. The 1st defendant in order to prove his contention and to disprove the contents

of the P.W.1, he himself got examined as D.W.1, categorically stated that the 1 st

plaintiff and 1st defendant sold the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant on 18-

05-2001 for valuable consideration. The plaintiff and defendant are brothers. The

D.W.1 further stated that P.W.1 got executed a relinquishment deed in his favour to an

extent of Ac. 1.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2. The D.W.1 sold the said property to the 2 nd

defendant, since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property. The plaintiff has known the said fact, he filed the false suit against

them.

15. Be it noted, during the cross examination, the D.W.1 stated that the plaintiff is

his elder brother, P.W.1 and D.W.1 orally partitioned their properties in the year 1978-

79 relating to the suit schedule properties and other properties fallen to his share. He

further stated that he paid the cist to the land to an extent of Ac. 1.76 cents. He sold

the suit schedule property and other property to the 2 nd defendant for valuable
 8

consideration of Rs. 67,000/- on 18-05-2001. He categorically stated that he does not

remember what are the properties to them till today, D.W.1 has categorically stated

that the plaint schedule property was stand in the name of P.W.1 and P.W.1

relinquished the same to him on 26-02-2000 but he has not filed the relinquishment

deed relating to the suit schedule property which was executed by the P.W.1 in his

favour. D.W.1 categorically admitted that Abdul Wahab executed gift deed in favour of

the P.W.1 to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents which is suit schedule property and Abdul

Wahab was also executed Ac. 0.76 cents in his favour. He categorically stated that the

said Abdul Wahab executed the gift deed in favour of the P.W.1 relating to the suit

schedule property on the eastern boundary shown his land. The said gift deed

executed by his paternal junior uncle on 01-04-4976. He categorically admitted that

there are no signatures of the plaintiff in the sale deed executed by him in favour of

2nd defendant relating to the suit schedule property and other property. He further

stated that he does not remember the date of register sale deed which was executed

by him in favour of 2nd defendant relating to the suit schedule property, but he does

not know the attestors of the said sale deed which was executed by him to the 2 nd

defendant relating to the suit schedule property and other properties.

16. D.W.2 purchased the suit schedule property from D.W.1 categorically stated that

D.W.1 was absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she purchased the suit

schedule property from the D.W.1 to an extent of Ac. 1.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 which is

situated at Kagithalagudem village for valuable consideration of Rs. 67,000/- under Ex.

B1., since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property. She leased out the suit schedule land to one Shaik Dada Peera, S/o. Nasar

Saheb on sharing of grain basis and she used to come to Cumbum along with her

husband and she used to collect the grain from harvest flatform. She further stated

that the government was taken land for the purpose of laying the by pass road to an

extent of Ac. 0.21 cents of land on the eastern side for land acquisition in the year

2003. The Revenue Department paid the compensation to her for the acquisition of

land to an extent of Ac. 0.21 cents. Subsequently, one Syed Hussain along with his
 9

friend Valapati Ramaiah tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment

of remaining land to an extent of Ac. 1.55 cents and she got filed a suit for perpetual

injunction in O.S. 233/2005 on the file of this court and obtained decree Exs. B7 & B8

are judgment and Decree respectively. She further stated that she was in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 and Ac. 0.55 cents on its

eastern site and enjoying with all rights. She further stated that she sold the whole

land by executing a sale deed previously, she is not in possession of the said land as on

this day. The plaintiff has filed the suit against them for want of giving troubles to her

and D.W.1. She further stated that P.W.1 played fraud and filed the suit against her

and D.W.1. She wants to rely the Exs. B1 to B11. Ex. B1 is the Registered sale deed

executed by 1st defendant in her favour and the pages contains 5 pages, Dt. 18-05-

2001, Ex. B2 is the Certified copy of Ex. B1, Dt. 18-05-2001, Ex. B3 is the Cist Receipts

for 1400, 1401 Fasli paid by 1 st defendant, Dt. 17-03-1993, Ex. B4 is the Cist Receipts

for 1405, 1406 Fasli paid by the 1 st defendant, Dt. 25-03-1997, Ex. B5 is the Cist

Receipts for 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408 Fasli paid by 1 st defendant, Dt. 10-04-2000, Ex. B6

is the Cist Receipts for 1409, 1407 Fasli paid by 2 nd defendant, Dt. 20-05-2008, Ex. B7 is

the Certified copy of Judgment in O.S. 233/2005, Dt. 09-11-2005, Ex. B8 is the Certified

copy of Decree in O.S. 233/2005, Dt. 09-11-2005, Ex. B9 is the Pattadar pass book, Dt.

21-06-2008, Ex. B10 is the Title deed, Dt. 21-06-2008 and Ex. B11 is the Proceedings of

District Collector to the R.D.O., Markapur, Dt. 25-11-2004.

17. Be it noted, during the cross examination of D.W.2, categorically stated that she

does not know whether the Abdul Wahab gifted the land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents

to the plaintiff which is situated to the western side and to an extent of Ac. 0.76 cents

to the 1st defendant, as she is the housewife and her husband used to look after the

family transactions and other transactions relating to the purchase and sale of the

properties. She further stated that she went to Registrar office along with her

husband on the date of execution of Ex. B1. She further stated that she does not

remember the date of execution of Ex. B1. She further stated that she does not know

who scribed the Ex. B1 as her husband was looking after every transaction. She
 10

categorically admitted that tax paid for nine years before filing of the suit relating to

the suit schedule property. She does not know whether the plaintiff got issued legal

notice to her before filing of the suit restraining from interfering with his peaceful

possession and enjoyment over his properties. She further stated that she does not

know in which side, the road was formed in the suit schedule property.

18. It is the case of the P.W.1 that Shaik Abdul Wahab who is his junior paternal

uncle gifted the suit schedule property to him covered under Ex. A1 and he accepted

the Ex. A1, since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property. It is the case of the D.W.1 that the suit schedule property is the

ancestral property of P.W.1 and D.W.1. D.W.1 and P.W.1 are brothers and he further

stated that they sold the suit schedule property to the 2 nd defendant for valuable

consideration of Rs. 67,000/- on 18-05-2001. D.W.1 again stated that P.W.1 got

executed the relinquishment deed in his favour on 26-02-2000 for his ancestral

property to an extent of Ac. 1.76 cents. According to the P.W.1 that he got the Ex. A1

through his junior paternal uncle to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents out of Ac. 1.76 cents.

D.W.1 also got the land to an extent of Ac. 0.76 cents from his junior paternal uncle

through gift deed on 01-04-1976. The contention of the 1 st defenadnt that the suit

schedule property is the ancestral property. But it is not the ancestral property, P.W.1

got the land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 and D.W.1 got land to an

extent of Ac. 0.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2 through their junior paternal uncle.

19. During cross examination, D.W.1 stated that he sold the suit schedule property

and other properties to the D.W.2 for valuable consideration of Rs. 67,000/- through

Ex. B1 on 18-05-2001 since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property till now. Again D.W.1 admitted that the gift deed executed by

the Abdul Wahab relating to the suit schedule property in favour of P.W.1 in eastern

boundary shown as his land. He further admitted that the suit schedule property is

located on western side to his land to an extent of Ac. 0.76 cents on eastern side.

D.W.1 categorically admitted that there is no signature of P.W.1 in Ex. B1 executed by

him in favour of the 2nd defendant relating to the suit schedule property and other
 11

properties. D.W.1 categorically admitted that the suit schedule property executed by

his junior paternal uncle in the name of P.W.1.

20. The defendant No.1 contended in one occasion that P.W.1 and himself sold the

suit schedule property to the D.W.2, if really P.W.1 and D.W.1 sold the suit schedule

property to the D.W.2, D.W.1 and P.W.1 signed on the Ex. B1 at the time of execution of

it, but there is no signature of the P.W.1 on the Ex. B1. It clearly reveals that P.W.1 did

not sell the suit schedule property to the D.W.2. D.W.1 again stated that P.W.1

relinquished his right over the suit schedule property and he sold the suit schedule

property to the D.W.2. D.W.1 has stated different versions relating to the suit

schedule property.

21. D.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the suit schedule property to an

extent of Ac. 1.00 cents gifted by his junior paternal uncle to the P.W.1. which clearly

reveals that P.W.1 is the rightful owner of the suit schedule property and he has to

protect his right by way of perpetual injunction. Though, D.W.2 stated that she

purchased the property from the D.W.1, but she has not stated source of title of the

D.W.1 to sell her. D.W.1 got the property to an extent of Ac. 0.76 cents in Sy. No. 79/2

through the gift deed from his junior paternal uncle but D.W.1 stated that he got the

property through his ancestors. The source of title to the D.W.1 is through his junior

paternal uncle but not his ancestors. D.W.1 stated the source of title to the D.W.2

wrongly. D.W.2 has not purchased the property from her rightful owner, one who

purchased the property not from the rightful owner, the title cannot be defend to her

case. The title does not flow to her from her vendor (D.W.1). It may be true that the

title does not flow to her from her vendor it appears that the D.W.1 & D.W.2 created

the Exs. B1 to B11.

22. Though the title cannot be adjudicated, a comparative reading of the

documents shows that P.W.1 is having better title than the D.W.2. Though the title is

not an issue for perpetual injunction when the incidental title has to be looked into,

P.W.1 is in better possession than the D.W.2 unless he is not protected. There is a

possibility that the defendants invade the property of P.W.1.

 12

23. On careful consideration of the P.W.1 to P.W.3, Exs. A1 to A5 and D.Ws. 1 & 2 and

Exs. B1 to B11, this court is considered view that the 1 st plaintiff has established

primafacie case and D.Ws. 1 & 2 with malafied intention trying to disturb his

possession over the suit schedule property. The balance of convenience is taken into

consideration which is tilting towards the plaintiffs rather than the defendants.

Therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed

for. Accordingly, the issues No. 1 & 2 are answered in favourof the plaintiffs and

against the Defendants.

24. ISSUE No.3:

In view of the issue Nos. 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs, as such

the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction.

In the result the suit is decreed with costs by granting the perpetual

injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, nominees and their

representatives from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open

Court, this the 18th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- B. Rajesh,
Prl. Junior Civil Judge,
Giddalur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //
Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs : For Defendants :

P.W.1 : Shaik Mahammad Sharief, D.W.1 : Shaik Abdul Rawoof,

P.W.2 : Kanchi Ramana Rao, D.W.2 : Syed Noorjahan,
P.W.3 : Shaik Hussain. D.W.3 : Shaik Dada Peera @ Peer
(Eschewed)
Documents Marked
For Plaintiffs :
Ex. A1: The Registration copy of the Gift Settlement Deed executed in favour of
1st plaintiff by Shaik Abdul Wahab relating to plaint schedule property,
Dt. 01-04-1976,
Ex. A2: Certified copy of Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of 1st plaintiff,
Ex. A3: Office copy of the Legal notice issued by the 1st plaintiff through his
Advocate to the defendants, Dt. 25-01-2006,
 13

Ex. A4: Postal Receipt of 1st Defendant, Dt. 27-01-2006,

Ex. A5: Postal Receipt of 2nd Defendant, Dt. 27-01-2006.

For Defendants:
Ex. B1: The Registered sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd
defendant and the pages contains 5 pages, Dt. 18-05-2001,
Ex. B2: The Certified copy of Ex. B1, Dt. 18-05-2001,
Ex. B3: The Cist Receipts for 1400, 1401 Fasli paid by 1st defendant,
Dt. 17-03-1993,
Ex. B4: The Cist Receipts for 1405, 1406 Fasli paid by the 1 st defendant,
Dt. 25-03-1997,
Ex. B5: The Cist Receipts for 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408 Fasli paid by 1st defendant,
Dt. 10-04-2000,
Ex. B6: The Cist Receipts for 1409, 1407 Fasli paid by 2nd defendant,
Dt. 20-05-2008,
Ex. B7: The Certified copy of Judgment in O.S. 233/2005, Dt. 09-11-2005,
Ex. B8: The Certified copy of Decree in O.S. 233/2005, Dt. 09-11-2005,
Ex. B9: The Pattadar pass book, Dt. 21-06-2008,
Ex. B10: The Title deed, Dt. 21-06-2008 and
Ex. B11: The Proceedings of District Collector to the R.D.O., Markapur,
Dt. 25-11-2004.

Ild/- B.R.,
P.J.C.J.
 14

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GIDDALUR

Present : Sri B. Rajesh,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur

Wednesday, this the Eighteenth (18th) day of December, 2019

Original Suit No. 302 of 2008

Between :

1. Shaik Mohammad Shareef, S/o. Late Abdul Sattar Saheb @ Abdul Sattarmiya,
(Died) his legal heirs,
2. Shaik Mohammad Shoyub, S/o. Late Shaik Mohammad Shareef, aged about 48
years, Muslim, Business,
3. Shaik Khaja Mohammad Ayub, S/o. Late Mohammad Shareef, aged about 41 years,
Muslim, Business,
4. Mohammad Umar Farooq, S/o. Late Mohammad Shareef, aged about 35 years,
Muslim, Private Employee,
5. Mohammad Zareena Begum, W/o. Mohammad Abdul Jabbar, aged about 52 years,
Housewife, Muslim, Brodipeta, Guntur.
6. Syed Nazma Sulthana, W/o. Syed Ghouse, aged about 46 years, Muslim, Housewife,
College Road, Cumbum Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.
7. Mohammad Farhana, W/o. Karimulla Farooqi, Aged about 37 years, Muslim,
Housewife, Abdulkhadar Street, Vijayawada.
8. Mohammad Rizwana, W/o. Mohammad Yaqubal Khaja Mirja, aged about 34 years,
Muslim, Housewife, Chandole Post, Pittalavaripalem Mandal, Guntur District.
9. Shaik Mallika Begum, W/o. Late Mohammad Shareef, aged about 75 years, Muslim,
Housewife,

Plaintiffs 2 to 4 & 9 are residents of Nayak Street, Cumbum Village and Mandal,
Prakasam District.

(Plaintiffs 2 to 9 were added as legal heirs of Late 1 st plaintiff as per Orders in I.A.
44/2018 in O.S. 302/2008, Dt. 09-02-2018.
… Plaintiffs
And

1. Shaik Abdul Rawoof, S/o. Abdul Sattarmiya, aged about 58 years, Muslim, College
Road, Cumbum Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.
2. Syed Noorjahan, W/o. Late Syed Shaikshavali, aged about 45 years, Muslim,
Housewife, Resident of Cumbum, Now at H. No. 4-189-2, Mamatha Nagar, Near
Venkata Ramana Colony, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
… Defendants

The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of grant of
perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, nominees and their
representatives from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property.

Plaint presented on : 29-09-2008 Plaint filed on : 29-09-2008

CAUSE OF ACTION:- The cause of action for the suit arose in August, 2008 when the
defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property at Kagithalagudem Village, which is within the
jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION:- As the suit is filed for the relief of Permanent injunction, this suit is
notionally valued at Rs. 3,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs. 261/- is paid U/s. 26 (C) of
APCF and SV Act VII,1956.
 15

This suit has come on 19-11-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri S.V. Nagendra Babu and Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiffs and of
Sri S. Yasin Basha, Advocate for 1 st Defendant and Sri V. Venkata Subbaiah and Sri T.E.
Anjani Kumar, Advocates for 2nd defendant; upon perusing the oral and documentary
evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides 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;

2. that the defendants, their men, agents, nominees and their representatives are
restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by way of perpetual injunction; and

3. that the defendants 1 & 2 do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 3,428/- towards
costs of the suit and the 2 nd defendant do bear his own costs of Rs. 3,002/- and
the 1st defendant do bear his own costs of Rs. Nil as CM & FC not filed.

(Plaint schedule is attached to decree)

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 18 th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- B. Rajesh,
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GIDDALUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs For 2nd Defendant For 1st Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 2-00 –
Stamp on Plaint 261-00 -- –
Stamp on process 65-00 – –
Advocate Fee 3,000-00 3,000-00 (CM & FC not filed)
Type & Writing Charges 100-00 – –
Total 3,428-00 3,002-00 --

Ild/- B.R.,
P. J.C.J.,

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked
have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an
undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.