IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE KADAPA

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

Singam Mallaiah … 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

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 sale deed No:- 9369/2011 dated 15-12-2011 have no right
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 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 property 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 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 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 by declaring the right 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
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/defendants dated

16-07-1984, 13-05-1991, 14-11-1979 and 30-01-1993 speak about the 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 corporation 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 shown a in this suit plaint. This suit for permanent injunction is not is not at
all maintainable since the respondents/defendants denied the title of the
petitioner/plaintiff 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 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 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. The suit property have been laying 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 the best of 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

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