1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:: NELLORE

Monday, this the Third day of April 2017

Present::CH. RAMACHANDRA MURTHY,
IV Addl. District Judge,
Nellore.
A.S.No.66/2014
1. Challa Krishnaiah
son of Chengaiah
Hindu, aged 70 years,

2. Challa Chengaiah
son of Krishnaiah, aged 42
years, Hindus, agriculturist,
1 and 2 appellants are residing
at Venkatakrishna Puram,
Kasumuru Panchyat,
Venkatachalam Mandal,
S.P.S.R.Nellore District.
3. Challa Penchalaiah
son of Krishnaiah
Hindu, aged 39 years,
agriculturist, presently residing
at Chilakavari Kandriga village,
Thotambedu Mandal, Chittoor …......... Appellants
District.

Vs.
1. Malli Obaiah
son of Chenchaiah,
2. Malli Krishnaiah
son of Chenchaiah, , they are aged
about 59 and 58 years respectively,
Hindus, 1st respondent is a builder
mason and second respondent is an
agriculturist and they both reside at
Venkatakrishna Puram, Vaddepalem,
Kasumuru Panchyat, Venkatachalam
Mandal, Nellore District.
3. V.Chengamma
wife of Ramanaiah, aged about 53
years, Hindu, agriculturist, and resides
at Venkatakrishnapuram, Vaddepalem,
Kasumuru Panchyat, Venkatachalam
Mandal, Nellore District.
 2

….......... Respondents
APPEAL PREFERRED UNDER SECTION 41, RULE 1 ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2014 IN
OS NO.383/2006 ON THE FILE OF Ist ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NELLORE.
In
OS No.383/2006

1. Challa Lakshmamma (died)

2. Challa Krishnaiah

3. Challa Chengaiah

4. Challa Penchalaiah

(Amended as per order in IA

No.338/2013 dated 11.04.2014) ..... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Malli Obaiah

2. Malli Krishnaiah

3. V.Chengamma
….. Defendants

This appeal coming on 3-3-2017 for final hearing before me in the

presence of Sri D.Venkata Ramaiah advocate for Appellants and of Sri P.Raghu
Rami Reddy advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court made the following-

JUDGMENT
1. Appellants are the plaintiffs in OS No.383/2006 on the file of the Ist

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore preferred appeal against the decree and

judgment dated 25.08.2014 against dismissal of the suit for permanent

injunction.

2. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the court below.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are that

(I) The plaintiffs and their family members occupied the suit property in

the year, 1975. They made the suit property fit for cultivation. On the

application, 1st plaintiff was granted D-form patta by the then Thasildar, Nellore
 3

on 20.11.1978. She also got Ryotvari patta. 1 st plaintiff obtained pattadar

passbook and title deed. She is paying land revenue. Defendants are nothing

to do with the suit property. They are trying to interfere with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Hence, the

suit.

4. 3rd defendant filed written statement, adopted by D1 and D2 by

filing a memo. They denied the avernments in the plaint. They contends that

3rd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property for

the last 35 years. On the petition filed by the 1 st defendant, the then Joint

Collector, Nellore after conducting enquiry cancelled D-form patta stands in

the name of 1st plaintiff vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.E1/5380/2005 dated

29.05.2005. The 1st plaintiff is also contested the proceedings before the Joint

Collector, Nellore. The plaintiffs are nothing to do with the suit property. Mere

suit for permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration is not

maintainable. Therefore, the defendants requested to dismiss the suit with

costs.

5. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed by the

trial court.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as

prayed for?

2. Whether the suit without a prayer for declaration is

maintainable?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary

party?
4. To what relief.

6. On behalf of the plaintiff PW-1 to PW-3 were examined and Ex.A1

to A16 were marked. On behalf of the defendants DW1 was examined and

Ex.B1 to B6 were marked.

 4

7. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, the learned Junior Civil Judge held that the patta in

Ex.A1 was cancelled and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over

the suit property. By observing the same the suit of the plaintiff for permanent

injunction was dismissed with costs.

8. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiffs preferred the

present appeal.

(i) In the grounds of appeal it is contended that

1. :- The Court below failed to appreciate

oral and documentary evidence.
2. :- The court below ought to have seen
that the Ryotvari Passbook was issued
in the name of the plaintiff after due
enquiry.
3. :- The court below ought to have seen
that the Joint Collector set aside the
order of MRO, Venkatachalam and
restored the land to the plaintiff and
it can be seen under Ex.A5.
4. :- The court below ought to have seen
that as per Ex.A3 and A4 documents
and as per Ex.A5 the plaintiff has been
in possession and enjoyment over the
suit property.
5 :- The court below ought to have seen
that the Joint Collector, Nellore has
misused his powers by suppressing
the order dated 02.06.1994 under
Ex.A5.

Therefore, appellants requested to allow the appeal by setting-aside

the said decree and judgment and decree the suit for permanent injunction as

prayed for.

9. Heard both sides and perused relevant records and written

arguments submitted on behalf of the appellants.

10. Now the points for consideration in the present appeal is:

1. Whether the plaintiffs have been in possession and

enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of
filing of the suit.
 5

2. Whether the decree and judgment by the learned

Ist Addition Junior Civll Judge, Nellore in OS
383/2006 dated 25.08.2014 are liable to be set
aside.
POINTS Nos.1 and 2

1. Whether the plaintiffs have been in possession and

enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of
filing of the suit.
2. Whether the decree and judgment by the learned Ist
Addition Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in OS 383/2006
dated 25.08.2014 are liable to be set aside.

They are interrelated and I deal with them together.

11 . It is not in dispute that the suit property is situated in

Sy.No.474/1P in an extent of Ac.1.75 cents at Vaddepalem of Venkatachalam

Mandal. Originally the suit property belongs to Government. During pendency

of suit 1st plaintiff died.

12. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession

and enjoyment over the suit property and defendants are nothing to do with

suit property. On the other hand, the defendants contends that the patta

stands in the name of the 1 st plaintiff was cancelled and that 3 rd defendant has

been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property and paying land

revenue and that the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the suit property.

13. The husband of the 1st plaintiff examined as PW1. He deposed

that the 1st plaintiff obtained D-form patta in Ex.A1 in the year, 1978 and that

they are in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

14. During his cross examination, he deposed that he does not know

the avernments of the plaint. He does not know the survey number and patta

number of the suit property as he is an illiterate. He does not know whether

Joint Collector, Nellore has cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deed

stands in the name of his wife. He denied a suggestion that the defendants are

in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He denied a suggestion

that there is correction of Survey number in Ex.A1 patta and that it is a

 6

fabricated document. He does not know whether Ex.A3 and A4 were cancelled

by the date of filing of the suit. He denied a suggestion that they are not in

possession and enjoyment over the suit property. At present he is residing at

Venkatakrishnapuram Village. Ex.A7 to A10 were issued by the President of

Kasumuru Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society. He does not know

whether Ex.A12 to A14 does not disclose that they are relating to plaint

schedule property.

15. Pw2 deposed that the plaintiff has been in possession and

enjoyment over the suit property and plaintiff constructed a thatched house

and residing therein along with her family. During his cross examination, he

deposed that he does not know the native place of the plaintiff. He knew that

Joint Collector, Nellore cancelled pattadar passbook stands in the name of the

plaintiff. He denied a suggestion that the plaintiff is not in possession and

enjoyment over the suit property and that he is deposing false taking

advantage of disputes with the defendants.

16. PW3 deposed that he occupied the land on the east of the

plaintiff. He sold away the same to one S.Nageswara Rao, Advocate Nellore

about ten years ago. Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the

suit property. He denied a suggestion that he never sold any land to

S.Nageswara Rao and that the plaintiff has not been in possession and

enjoyment over the suit property.

17. 1st defendant examined as DW1. Defendants 2 and 3 are his

brother and sister respectively. He deposed that the plaintiff is nothing to do

with the suit property. They are in possession and enjoyment over the suit

property .During his cross examination, he deposed that the plaintiff is residing

at Kotturupalli Gramam. He denied a suggestion that the plaintiff has been in

possession and enjoyment over the suit property since, 1975 and residing

therein along with his family. He denied a suggestion that the then Joint
 7

Collector, Nellore after due enquiry set aside the orders of MRO of

Venkatachalam and resumed the land and restored the possession of the land

to the plaintiff and that they are nothing to do with the suit property.

18. Ex.A1 is patta stands in the name of 1 st plaintiff. As argued by the

learned advocate for the defendants the Sy.No.479/1A is corrected as 474/1A.

No explanation was offered by the plaintiff as to correction of Survey number

in Ex.A1.

19. Ex.A2 is Ryot passbook stands in the name of the 1 st plaintiff.

Ex.A3 is pattadar passbook and Ex.A4 is title deed stands in the name of the 1 st

plaintiff in respect of the suit property.

20. Ex.A5 is proceedings of Joint Collect, Nellore dated 02.06.1994,

wherein the Joint Collector cancelled the orders of MRO. Ex.A6 and Ex.B2 are

adangals filed by the parties to the suit to prove their respective possession

over the suit property. As observed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, the

adangals filed by them are relating to the year after filing of the suit. The

learned Junior Civil Judge has rightly observed that those adangals relating to

subsequent to filing of the suit are not relevant and those documents cannot

be taken into consideration.

21. Ex.A7 to A10 are receipts issued by Primary Agriculture Co-

operative Society in the name of the plaintiff. As argued by the learned

advocate for the defendants, the survey number and other details of the suit

property are not mentioned in Ex.A7 to A10. Therefore, no value can be

attached to those documents to prove the possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiff over the suit property right from the year, 1975.

22. Ex.A12 to A15 are notices of the year, 1994 with regard to enquiry

conducted by District Collector. Those documents are not relevant to prove the

contentions of the plaintiff.

 8

23. Ex.A11 is house patta issued in the name of 1 st plaintiff for an

extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.474/1 and 473/1. Admittedly, the suit property

is covered in Sy.No.474/1P. Therefore, Ex.A11 is also not relevant to prove the

contentions of the plaintiff.

24. Ex.A16 field measurements sketch issued by VAO, Kasumuru.

Admittedly, the Village Administrative Officer is not competent to issue field

measurement sketch. No value can be attached to Ex.A16.

25. The learned advocate for the plaintiff argued that as per

proceedings in Ex.A5 dated 02.06.1994, the orders of Mandal Revenue Officer

were set aside and that the proceedings in Ex.B6 dated 25.09.2005 are not valid

and that Joint Collector passed orders and they are not in according to law and

that Joint Collector has no power to cancel the same and valid documents are

issued to the plaintiff. In support of his contention he relied upon decisions

reported in

1. (VALLABHDAS PALLOD (DIED)

AND OTHERS VS. NAGAR PANCHAYAT
(MUNICIPAL COUNSEL), ZAHEERABAD
AND OTHERS) 2009(4) ALD 129(DB)

2. (P.SREERAMULA REDDY AND

OTHERS VS. COMMISSIONER OF
LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF AP
AND OTHERS) 2005(1) ALD
(NOC) 22

26. Evidently the powers of the Joint Collector to take up enquiry and

decide the question of validity of the patta cannot be doubted. The plaintiffs

engaged the advocate, an opportunity was given to show as to why the patta

cannot be cancelled. After due enquiry the then Joint Collector, Nellore the

pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the name of 1 st plaintiff Challa

Lakshmmama was cancelled and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Venkatachalam to report the persons responsible for issuing the passbook and
 9

how he has issued pattadar passbook and title deed to the person who is

neither has got title over the land and not in possession of land.

27. As against the order in EX.B6 no challenge was made by the

plaintiffs and it was allowed to become final. As per proceedings of Ex.B6 the

pattadar passbook and title deed stands in the name of the 1 st plaintiff in Ex.A3

and A4 were cancelled. It was also observed in Ex.B6 that the 1 st plaintiff is not

in possession and enjoyment over the property. The order of the Joint

Collector is valid and binding of the plaintiffs since they did not prefer any

further appeal against the said order. Even assuming that the order of the

Joint Collector may not be relevant, the plaintiffs are not entitled to

permanent injunction since they did not produce any documents including

revenue records to prove their continuous possession over the suit property

right from the year, 1975. As per Ex.B6 proceedings clearly shows that the land

was resumed by the government and therefore, the question of the plaintiff

being in possession does not arise.

28. The present 1st plaintiff filed revision petition in CRP 6024/2012

on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said petition was

disposed off on 04.12.2012 observing that

“When the Joint Collector, Nellore passed the

order in the appeal, the same can be taken into
consideration. As he being public servant, he
need not be called for the purpose of speaking
about the contents of the order of appeal. If the
concerned party is aggrieved by the order, he can
be prefer necessary appeal”.

29. In view of the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and in veiw of the proceedings of Joint Collector, in Ex.B6, it is

clear that the 1st plaintiff has not been in possession and enjoyment over the

suit property. Ex.A1 to A4 documents were cancelled by Joint Collector under

Ex.B6 proceedings. The plaintiffs did not prefer any appeal against those
 10

proceedings of Joint Collector. In the present suit this court has no power to

cancell the proceedings of Joint Collector passed under Ex.B6. Unless and until

the orders of Joint Collector are cancelled by preferring any appeal, those

orders are valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The decisions referred to above

are not applicable to present set of facts.

30. It is for the plaintiffs to prove their possession over the suit

property as on the date of filing of the suit. As stated above, Ex.A1 to A4

documents were cancelled under Ex.B6 orders. Other documents are not

relevant to prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit

property right from the year, 1975. Viewed from any angle there are no

grounds to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The learned

Junior Civil Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly

dismissed the suit. I do not find any ground to disturb the finding recorded by

the court below. The said finding is valid and justified and liable to be

confirmed by dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, the points are answered.

31. In the result the Civil Appeal preferred by the Appellants/plaintiffs

against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.383/2006 dated 25.8.2014 on the

file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is hereby dismissed with costs by

confirming the said decree and judgment.

Typed on my direct dictation by the Typist (VI ADJ Court) and corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of April 2017. .

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
---NIL---

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE.
11