1

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

O.S.No. OF 2021

BETWEEN :-

Tummalapalli Srinivasa Rao @ Sreenu

…Plaintiff
AND
1) Bagam Pavan Kumar
2) Bagam Srinivas @ Srinu
…Defendants

SUIT FOR DECLARATION TO DECLARE THE PLAINTIFF AS THE

ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SUIT SCHEUDLE PROPERTY AND FOR
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL
INJUNCTION AND THE PLAINT SUBMITTED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE
1 r/w SEC.26 OF C.P.C.

Description of the Parties:-

I. Description of the Plaintiff:-

Tummalapalli Srinivasa Rao@ Sreenu, Age: 57 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o. Kodumuru Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammma District is the
Plaintiff herein.
The address for the service of all summons, notices, etc.,
to the Plaintiff is as stated above or that of her Counsel I.
Venkateswarlu, M.A., B.L Advocate, Khammam.

II. Description of the Defendants:-

1. Bagam Pavan Kumar, S/o. late Nagaiah, Age: 30 Years, Occ.:

Attender in NSP, R/o. Chinthagurthi Village, Khammam Urban Mandal,
Khammam District, is the Defendant No. 1 herein.
2. Bagam Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o. late Nagaiah, Age: 29 Years, Occ.:
Agriculture, R/o. Chinthagurthi Village, Khammam Urban Mandal,
Khammam District, is the Defendant No. 2 herein.
 2

The address for the service of all court summons and

notices, etc., are same as stated above for the Defendants.
***

The plaintiff begs to submit as follows:

1. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of contiguous piece

of agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 5.071/4 gts in Sy. No.
519 situated at Kodumuru village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam
District and same was inherited by the plaintiff through a registered will
deed bearing document no. 5 of 2014 dated 12.08.2014 executed by
father of plaintiff, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed
to the plaint and herein after referred to as suit schedule land.

2. The Plaintiff submit that originally the father plaintiff i.e Late
Tummalapalli Narayana, S/o. Muthaiah is the absolute owner and
possessor of contiguous piece of agricultural land admeasuring an extent
of Ac. 5.071/2 gts in Sy. No. 519 situated at Kodumuru village,
Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District and same was purchased by him
from the previous owner Late Vutukuru Mohan Rao, S/o Venkata Rama
Rao vide registered sale deed bearing document no. of 1975 dated
14.08.1975 and ever since from the date of purchase the father of
plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The Vendor of Plaintiff’s father is the absolute owner and possessor as
well as pattadar of agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac. 5.071/2 gts in
Sy.No. 519 situated at Kodumuru village and same was inherited by him.
Therefore, the title was flown from Late Vutukuru Mohan Rao to the
plaintiff from the year 1975 to 2021 through various registered
documents. The plaintiff submits that ever since from the date of will
deed in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff have been in continuous and
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner.
Further the plaintiff is the adopted son of Late Tummalapalli Narayana,
S/o. Muthaiah.

3. The Plaintiff submit that the defendants who are brothers and their
mother is Bagam Anasuryamma, W/o late Nagaiah. That the mother of
the defendants allegedly claimed herself to be adopted daughter of
 3

Tummalapalli Narayana as she is his niece (sister’s daughter) by playing

fraud and by managing the revenue authorities got mutated part of suit
schedule property i.e Ac 4.00 Gts in her favour on strength that
Tummalapalli Narayana gifted her part of suit schedule property as
‘pasukunkuma’ in the year 1989 but in fact father of plaintiff never
adopted her as his daughter and never gifted part of suit schedule
property as ‘pasukunkuma’. That the alleged ‘pasukunkuma’ which was
executed in favour of the mother of defendants as claimed by them is of
the year 1989 but in fact the revenue entries are mutated in her name
for the first time in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 which clearly shows
the fraudulent and malicious nature of the above said alleged
transaction. Further the alleged ‘pasukunkuma’ which is an unregistered
gift deed but in fact under transfer of property act any transaction which
is of the nature of gift should be registered document. Subsequently
under the guise of above alleged fraudulent transaction the mother of
defendants in the year 2010 in turn got mutated the part of suit
schedule property to an extent of Ac 4.00 Gts in favour of defendants by
managing the revenue officials.

4. The Plaintiff humbly submit that ever since from the date of registed
sale deed in favour of plaintiff’s father and subsequently will deed in
favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff has been in continuous and peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. It is submitted
that the mother of Defendants by creating a fraudulent and
impersonated document i.e alleged ‘pasukunkuma’ got mutated part of
suit schedule property in her favour and subsequently in favour of
defendants. The defendants who was no concern whatsoever with the
title and possession of the suit schedule property or any part thereof.
Further the defendants who are neither adjacent land owners of the
plaintiff nor having any right or interest over the suit schedule property
tried to encroach the suit schedule property and the defendants with
malafide intentions, ulterior motives, by suppressing the material facts
and with unclean hands approached the Hon’ble Court by filing a suit for
perpetual injunction by stating that as if they are the absolute owners
and possessors of part of suit schedule property i.e Ac 4.00 Gts in Sy.
No. 519 situated at Kodumuru village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam
 4

District and plaintiff tried to encroach their property and same was
registered as O.S No. 356 of 2011 on the file of the Hon’ble Ist Addl.
Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, further the plaintiff was arrayed as
Defendant no.2 and one Mr. Late Tummalapalli Narayana as the
Defendant No. 1. The Hon’ble Court after full-fledged trail decreed the
suit in favour of the defendants and granted perpetual injunction by
decree and judgment dated 24.09.2019.

6. The Plaintiff humbly submit that aggrieved by the decree and

judgment in O.S 356 of 2011 dated 24.09.2019 the plaintiff preferred
first appeal before the Hon’ble Prl District Judge, Khammam as A.S Sr
No. 556 of 2020 and same is pending for adjudication. It is submitted
that taking advantage of orders passed by trial court i.e decree and
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Ist Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam
in OS No. 356 of 2011 dated 24.09.2019 in granting perpetual
injunction, the defendants without having any right or interest over the
suit schedule property and in the absence of the Plaintiff and his family
members occupied the part of suit schedule i.e Ac 4.00 Gts on
01.06.2021. That, the Plaintiff and his family members came to know
about the illegal occupation of the suit schedule property by the
defendants without having valid title, possession demanded the
defendants to vacate the suit schedule property, but they did not come
forward to do so and in turn they have threatened the Plaintiff with dire
consequences. That, the Plaintiff approached the revenue authorities
and reported the illegal occupation of the Defendants in a private land
belongs to the Plaintiff. That, the revenue authorities expressed their
inability to do justice to the Plaintiff. That, the Plaintiff once again
approached the Defendant on 21-06-2021 and demanded them to vacate
the suit schedule property, but the defendants refused to do so and
further abused in filthy language and try to attack the Plaintiff and his
family with the help of local politicians. That, there is every danger in the
hands of Defendants to the life and limb of the Plaintiff and his family.
That, the Plaintiff is unable to protect his property in the hands of the
Defendants and on the other hand the Defendants are making efforts to
alienate the schedule property in favour of third parties, so as to multiply
the litigation and to harass the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, being an illiterate
 5

agriculturist and had lost his possession over the part of the suit
schedule property, the Plaintiff is unable to evict the Defendants from
suit schedule land. Having no other go, the Plaintiff had approached the
Hon’ble Court for seeking justice, for declaration to declare the plaintiff
as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, for recovery of
possession and also grant of perpetual injunction by way of restraining
the Defendants from alienating the schedule property in favour of the
third parties. Hence, the suit for declaration to declare the plaintiff as
the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, for Recovery of
Possession and for grant of perpetual injunction over the schedule
property.

IV) CAUSE OF ACTION:

The cause of action arose on when the Defendant illegally occupied the
suit schedule property of the Plaintiff on 15.12.2020 and the cause of
action arose on all subsequent dates when the Plaintiff had demanded
the Defendant to vacate from the suit schedule property and demanded
for deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and on 21-
12-2020 and the cause of action is recurring and continuous one as long
as until the Defendant vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the
schedule property, to the Plaintiff and also to restrain the Defendant
from alienating the schedule property in favour of the third parties by
granting perpetual injunction.

V) DECLARATION:
The Plaintiff did not file any suit earlier and no suit is pending between
the parties in respect of suit properties for similar reliefs sough herein
before any Court.

VI) JURISDICTION:
That, the suit schedule property is situated in and out of Ac 5.071/4 gts
in Sy. No. 519 situated at Kodumuru village, Chintakani Mandal,
Khammam District. As such, the Hon’ble Court has got the territorial
and the suit is valued less than twenty lakhs rupees which is within the
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

VII) LIMITATION:
 6

That, the suit is filed within the period of limitation

IX) SUIT VALUATION & COURT FEE:

That for relief of for declaration to declare the plaintiff as the absolute
owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of
schedule property measuring to an extent of Ac 5.071/4 gts in Sy. No.
519 situated at Kodumuru village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam
District and the market value of the schedule land is Rs.10,37,500/- as
per certificate issued by the S.R.O-Chintakani and the ¾ of the market
value comes to Rs.7,78,125/- and upon which a Court Fee of
Rs.10,426/- is paid U/Sec.29 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act, and the suit is
valued notionally for Rs.10,000/- for relief of perpetual injunction and
upon which a Court Fee of Rs.786/- under Sec.26 (C) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V. Act, thus in total Court Fee of Rs.11,212/- and same was paid at
SBI, Rotary Nagar Branch, Khammam.

X) ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL:

The Plaintiff has made several efforts for amicable settlement of the
dispute but on account of adamant nature of the defendant the said
efforts proved futile and as such there is no chance for any alternative
way for settlement of the dispute except filing the present suit.

PRAYER

The Plaintiff hereby pray this Hon’ble Court to decree the suit as follows:

i) To pass a declaratory decree in favour of plaintiff and against the

defendants declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and
possessor of the suit schedule described agricultural land admeasuring
an extent of Ac. 5.071/2 gts in Sy. No. 519 situated at Kodumuru village,
Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District.

ii) To direct the Defendants to vacate the suit schedule properties and
deliver the vacant possession of the same to the Plaintiff.
 7

iii) To grant perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants and by way of restraining them from alienating the schedule
property in favour of third parties

iv) To award the costs

vi) By granting any other relief or reliefs for which the Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Khammam
Date: 25-06-2021 Plaintiff

Advocate for Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

I, the above named plaintiff, do herby declare and state that the
contents of all the paras 1 to 9 of plaint are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief and the contents of paras 10 to 13 of the
plaint are believed to be true and correct on legal advice. Hence, verified
on this the 10th day of February, 2020.

PLAINTIFF
 8

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that part and parcel of Agricultural land admeasuring an extent

of Ac. 5.071/4 gts in Sy. No. 519 situated at Kodumuru village,
Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District bounded on:
EAST: Banothu Bhav Singh and Banothu Bheemla Agri. Land;
WEST: Nadendla Venkateswara Rao and Sridhar Agri. Land;
NORTH: Agri. Land of Banothu Bhav Singh;
SOUTH: Cherukuri Veerabhadram Land.

P L A I N T I F F.
VERIFICATION

I, the above named plaintiff, do hereby solemnly state and declare

that the above description of the suit property is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. Hence, verified on this the 25 th day of
June, 2021.

P L A I N T I F F.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS

SI DATE DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

No.
1. 04.05.2005 CC of Agreement of Sale cum General Power of
Attorney bearing document no. 1308/2005
2. 19.07.2007 CC of registered sale deed no. 3843 of 2007
3. 19.07.2007 CC of registered sale deed no. 3844 of 2007
4. 19.07.2007 CC of registered sale deed no. 3845 of 2007
5. 19.11.2007 CC of registered sale deed no. 5336 of 2007
6. 19.11.2007 CC of registered sale deed no. 5337 of 2007
7. 12.12.2014 CC of Decree and Judgment in O.S No. 321 of 2012
8. 16.08.2018 CC of Decree and Judgment in A.S No. 16 of 2016
9. 16.08.2018 CC of Decree and Judgment in A.S No. 44 of 2015
10. 09.11.2008 PPB of Plaintiff
 9

11. E-Pahanies of the suit schedule property in favour of

plaintiff
12. Market Valuation Certificate.

AT: KHAMMAM,
DATE: 10-02-2020
PLAINTIFF

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT
KHAMMAM
O.S.No. OF 2020
BETWEEN :-
Maddineni Satyanarayana
…Plaintiff
AND
Nagandla Sridhar
…Defendant

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERPETUAL

INJUNCTION AND RECTIFICATION OF
ENTRIES

Filed on: 10.02.2020

Filed by:

I Venkateswarlu, M.A.,B.L
Advocate, Khammam

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF.

 11

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

O.S.No. /2017
BETWEEN :-

Dharavath Kanthi Bai @ Kanthamma

… Plaintiff
And
Dharavath Sunitha and others
… Defendants

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

The open land measuring to an extent of 2027-00 sq.yds in

and out of Sy.No.161/A/AA situated under Pedda Thanda Grama
Panchayath of Yedulapuram Revenue village and SRO,
Kusumanchi of Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, is
bounded by :-

East : The property of Ajmeera Rama Kishan

West : Open place of Dharavath Padmavathi and Akiti
Someswar Rao
North : Khammam to Mahabubabad Road
South : Plots of others

Market value of the of the property is Rs.20,27,000/-

Khammam.
Date: -09-2016 Plaintiff No.1 Plaintiff
No.2
 12

Advocate for Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

O.S.No. /2016
BETWEEN :-
Bijjala Eswar Rao and another
… Plaintiffs
And
Bijjala Janardhan Rao and others
… Defendants
FORM No.8
Valuation of Immovable Property

1. Item of Immovable : Item No.1 & 2 of Suit schedule

Property properties
2. Registration District : Sub-Registrar, Khammam city and
and Sub District District.

3. Village, Mandal and : Khanapuram Haveli Revenue of

District where the Khammam Urban Mandal of Khammam
property is situated. Municipal Corporation, situated at
opposite to Indira Nagar Colony of
Kaviraja Nagar, Khammam city
 13

4. Sy.No. & Sub- : 119

Divisional No.
5. Extent : 10008-00 sq.yds and 637-92 sq.yds in
total 1645.92 sq.yds
6. Class of Land : House sites
7. Market Value : Rs.6,000/- per sq.yd
8. Rental Value : Rs.10,000/- per annum
9. Value for the purpose :
of suit i) That, the item No.1 of the schedule
property measuring to an extent of
1008-00 sq.yds, the market value being
Rs.6,000/- per sq.yd as certificate
issued by the SRO, Khammam. The
value of the item No.1 of the schedule
property is Rs.60,48,000/- and the ½
Market value of the property is comes to
Rs.30,24,000/- upon which a Court Fee
of Rs.32,726/- is paid and that, the
item No.2 of the schedule property
measuring to an extent of 637-92
sq.yds, the market value being
Rs.6,000/- per sq.yd as certificate
issued by the SRO, Khammam. The
value of the item No.2 of the schedule
property is Rs.38,27,520/- and the ½
Market value of the property is comes to
Rs.19,13,760/- upon which a Court Fee
of Rs.21,626/- is paid thus in total
court fee of Rs. 54,352/- is paid
through a challana dated 16-09-2016 in
the account of Hon’ble Prl. District
Judge at Khammam at SBH, Rotary
Nagar, Khammam for relief of
declaration to declare that the plaintiffs
are the owners and title holders of the
schedule property and in consequential
 14

relief of to declare the Registered Gift

Deed bearing No.8259/2016, Registered
Sale Deeds No.8260/2016, 8261/2016,
8308/2016, 8309/2016 and registered
will Deed No.93/2016 along with their
link documents bearing No.752/2003,
755/2003, 4120/2003, 4121/2003 are
null and void and they are not binding
up on the plaintiffs U/Sec.24(b) of
A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act read with Schedule
– I, Article – I(c)(viii) which is sufficient
and correct ; and
ii) that the relief of perpetual injunction
though it is consequential it is
notionally valued for Rs.10,000/- upon
which a Court Fee of Rs.786/- has to be
paid U/Sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. & S.F.
Act, read with Schedule – I, Article – I
(b&c) which is sufficient and correct but
no court is paid as it is a consequential
relief for declaration U/Sec.24(b) of
A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

10. Remarks : - NIL -

Khammam.
Date: -09-2016 Plaintiff No.1 Plaintiff
No.2

Advocate for Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

O.S.No. /2017
BETWEEN :-
 15

Dharavath Kanthi Bai @ Kanthamma

… Plaintiff
And
Dharavath Sunitha and others

… Defendants
LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Sl.No. Date Description of Document

1. 20-12- The agreement of sale, executed by Ajmeera

2000 Kishan infavour of plaintiff for the land
measuring to an extent of Ac.0-22 gts in
and out of sy.No.161/A for a sale
consideration of Rs.1,26,500/-.

2. 24-04- C.C. of Registered Gift Deed No.2038/2008

2008 of SRO, Kusumanchi executed by Ajmeera
Rama Kishan infavour of Dharavath Ramu
for the open land measuring to an extent of
2027-00 sq.yd which is suit schedule
property herein.

3. 07-10- Encumbrance Certificate issued to the suit

2017 schedule property showing that the suit
schedule property was kept under
mortgage to the Indian Overseas Bank on
16-07-2014

4. 05-10- Market value certificate issued by the Sub-

2017 Registrar, Khammam Rural for the suit
schedule property

5. 17-08- The death certificate of Dharavath Ramu

2015
 16

6. 18-03- Death certificate of Dharvath Peda

2014 Biksham (date of death 18-07-2009 )

Khammam.
Date: -10-2017 Plaintiff

Advocate for Plaintiff

 17

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

O.S.No. /2016
BETWEEN :-

Bijjala Eswar Rao and another

… Plaintiffs
And
Bijjala Janardhan Rao and others
… Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, Bijjala Eswar Rao, S/o. (Late) Subba Rao, aged about 53
years, Occ.: agriculture and civil contractor, R/o. H.No. 3-1-33,
Lakshmi Nilayam, Varthaka Sangam Road, Khammam City and
District, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows :-

1. That, I am the Deponent herein and the Plaintiff No.1 in the

main suit and I am giving this affidavit on my behalf and on behalf
of plaintiff No.2 who is my brother. Hence, I know the facts of the
case.

2. That, myself and Plaintiff 2 and defendant No.1 are brothers.

That the defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. The
defendants No.3 to 5 are the children of defendants 1 and 2.

3. That I am the owner and possessor of the house site

measuring to an extent of 1008-00 sq.yds in and out of Sy.No.119
of Khanapuram Haveli Revenue of Khammam Urban Mandal of
Khammam Municipal Corporation, situated at opposite to Indira
Nagar Colony of Kaviraja Nagar, Khammam city which is fully
described herein under as Item No.1 of the schedule property
annexed to plaint.

4. That the plaintiff No.2 is the owner and possessor of the house
site measuring to an extent of 637-92 sq.yds in and out of
Sy.No.119 of Khanapuram Haveli Revenue of Khammam Urban
 18

Mandal of Khammam Municipal Corporation, situated at opposite

to Indira Nagar Colony of Kaviraja Nagar, Khammam city which is
fully described herein under as Item No.2 of the schedule property
annexed to plaint.

5. That the defendant No.1 had purchased the item No.1 and 2
of schedule property house sites, in total measuring to an extent of
1645.92 sq.yds from one Chitturi Suryanarayana S/o Venkaiah
through a Registered document bearing No.3471/ 1992, dated 10-
08-1992 for a valid consideration and became the owner and
possessor of the said extent. The said Chitturi Suryanarayana had
purchased the said property from Sri Jalagam Prasad Rao S/o. late
Sri Jalagam Vengal Rao through a registered document bearing
No.437/1992, dated 10-02-1992. The said Jalagam Prasad Rao
had acquired the property from its GPA holder by name
Ch.V.L.Narasimha Rao who got GPA from the original pattedars
who are the legal heirs of late Mohammad Kashim through a
Registered document bearing No.294/1981, dated 30-01-1981 of
SRO, Khammam. Therefore, the title to the above property was
flown from the original pattedars to the land in sy.No.119 of
Khanapuram Haveli to the defendant No.1 uninterruptedly under
various registered sale deeds.

6. That the defendant No.1 who being the owner, possessor of the
house site measuring to an extent of 1645-92 sq.yds in sy.No.119
of Khanapuram Haveli Revenue of Khammam, out of which the
defendant No.1 had executed a registered gift deed bearing
No.4012/2016,dated 27-04-2016 infavour of the plaintiff No.1 who
is his younger brother for the item No.1 of the schedule property
and delivered the possession to the plaintiff No.1 for the house
site measuring to an extent of 1008-00 sq.yds. That I had accepted
the said gift and taken over the possession of the item No.1 of the
schedule property. The said gift deed is an irrevocable one. That by
virtue of said Registered gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in
favour of me, I became the absolute owner and possessor of the
item No.1 of the schedule property and enjoying the same without
 19

any interruption or what so ever. The Registered Gift deed bearing

No.4012/2016,dated 27-04-2016 is filed here with for kind perusal
of the Hon’ble Court.

7. That the defendant No.1 who being the owner, possessor of

the house site measuring to an extent of 1645-92 sq.yds in
sy.No.119 of Khanapuram Haveli Revenue of Khammam out of
which the defendant No.1 had executed a registered gift deed
bearing No.4013/2016,dated 27-04-2016 infavour of the plaintiff
No.2 who is his brother for the item No.2 of the schedule property
and delivered the possession to the plaintiff No.2 for the house
site measuring to an extent of 637-92 sq.yds. That the plaintiff
No.2 had accepted the said gift and taken over the possession of
the item No.2 of the schedule property. The said gift deed is an
irrevocable one. That by virtue of said Registered gift deed executed
by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.2, the plaintiff No.2
became the absolute owner and possessor of the item No.2 of the
schedule property and enjoying the same without any interruption
or what so ever. The Registered Gift deed bearing
No.4013/2016,dated 27-04-2016 is filed here with for kind perusal
of the Hon’ble Court.

8. That there is an house site measuring to an extent of 1000-

00 sq.yds in Sy.No.119 of Khanapuram Revenue situated towards
northern side of the item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties is
initially existing in the name of defendant No.2. The defendant
No.2 had acquired said property from one Chitturi Suryanarayana
S/o Venkaiah through a Registered document bearing
No.3472/1992, dated 10-08-1992, along with her husband, the
defendant No.1 while acquiring the property of 1645-92 Sq.yds
under Registered sale deed bearing No.3471/1992, dated 10-08-
1992 which is the present schedule property. That out of the family
necessities the defendant No.2 along with her husband, the
defendant No.1 had alienated the said extent of 1000-00 sq.yds to
me and plaintiff No. 2 through a “ Swadhina Agreement of sale ” dt
23-03-2002 and received the entire sale consideration and
 20

delivered the possession to us. Further, the defendant No.2 along

with her husband, the defendant No.1 had agreed to execute a
Registered sale deed for the said extent in our name or the
nominees proposed by us, whenever we demand. That by virtue of
said agreement of sale dated 23-03-2002 we the plaintiffs 1 and 2
became the absolute owners for the said extent of 1000-00 sq.yds
which is situated on northern side of schedule property.

9. That the defendant No.2, though she is not having any right
over the 1000 sq.yds after alienating the same to us and the house
site measuring to an extent of 1645-92 sq.yds, i.e., item No.1 and 2
of schedule properties, which stands in the name of her husband
i.e., defendant No.1 had alienated by misrepresenting, the entire
extent of 2645-92 sq.yds with false boundaries and survey
numbers to one Lingabathina Sujatha, Lingabathina Anil Kuamar,
Kalpana, Madhavi and Patibandla Nagarathnam. That after
knowing the fraudulent transfer by the defendant No.2 to the said
persons, myself and plaintiff No.2 had held a panchayat before the
elders at Khammam. That the elders admonished the defendant
No.2, for her illegal transfer with a dishonest intention and directed
the defendant No.2 to return the sale consideration to her vendees
and to cancel such Registered Sale deeds, otherwise the elders
advised us to lodge a criminal report against the defendant No.2 for
her cheating as the agreement of sale dated 23-03-2002 is in force.

10. That instead of facing criminal proceedings, the defendant

No.2 had returned the entire sale consideration to her vendees by
confirming the title and possession of us over the said 1000-00
sq.yds of house site. Since then we are enjoying the said property of
1000-00 sq.yds without any interruption are what so ever. That
the defendants No.1 and 2 represented to us, that registered sale
deeds executed to their vendees were cancelled. Subsequently, we
the plaintiffs 1 and 2 who being the owners had alienated the said
1000-00 sq.yds to one Ainala Narasimha Rao and another and
delivered possession to them through an agreement of sale.
Further, we the plaintiffs 1 and 2 had agreed to execute registered
 21

sale deed for the said 1000-00 sq.yds infavour of the Ainala
Narasimha Rao through the defendant No.2 who is their sister-in-
law herein. Therefore, neither the defendant No.2 nor we the
plaintiffs 1 and 2 are nothing to do with the said 1000-00 sq.yds,
we are either owners nor possessors of the same. That ourselves
and our vendees are continuously insisting the defendant No.2 for
registration of the said extent of 1000-00 sq.yds in our name.

11. That while we are pressuring for the registration of the

1000-00 sq.yds, that in order to avoid the same, the defendant
No.1 filed the suit against us vide in O.S.No.36/2016 and
defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.37/2016 before learned
Senior Civil Judge at Khammam for grant of perpetual injunction.
That after receiving the suit notices, we the plaintiffs 1 and 2
placed the matter before the elders and the elders admonished the
defendant No.1 and 2 for which the defendant No.1 had withdrawn
his suit vide in O.S.No.36/2016 and filed a memo before the
Hon’ble Court of Senior Civil Judge at Khammam. However, the
defendant No.2 did not come forward to withdraw her suit vide in
O.S.No.37/2016 in which the we the present plaintiffs filed our
written statement in detail.

12. That while things stood thus, we the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2
came to know that recently that defendant No.2 had obtained
registered sale cum GPA in her name for the entire extent of 2645-
92 sq.yds from her vendees for the same property alienated by her
to them in the year 2003 itself, which includes the item No.1 and 2
of the schedule properties with the false survey numbers and
boundaries vide documents bearing No.’s 752/2003, dated 10-02-
2003, 755/2003, dated 10-02-2003, 4121/2003, dated 19-07-
2003, 4120/2003, dated 19-07-2003 by suppressing the existence
of earlier agreement of sale dated 23-03-2002. Executed by
defendant No.2 in favour of us. Therefore, the defendant No.2 is
neither rightful owner nor possessor of the 1000-00 sq.yds and the
present schedule property of 1645-42 sq.yds as the survey
numbers and boundaries mentioned in documents bearing
 22

No.3471/1992 and 3472/1992 are differing from the documents

bearing No.’s 752/2003, dated 10-02-2003, 755/2003, dated 10-
02-2003, 4121/2003, dated 19-07-2003, 4120 /2003, dated 19-
07-2003.

13. That by knowing the execution of Registered Gift deeds by

the defendant No.1 in favour of us for the house site measuring to
an extent of 1645-92 sq.yds i.e., item No.1 and 2 of schedule
properties in the month of April, i.e., on 27-04-2016 the defendant
No.2 had hatched a plan and i) executed a Registered sale deed
bearing No.8309/2016, dated 10-08-2016 in the name of her sons
by name Bijjala Sekhar Rao, Chanikya Prasad who are the
defendants No.3 and 4 here in for the house site measuring to an
extent of 121-24 sq.yds in sy.no.130,131 and 119 basing on the
GPA bearing No.752/2003, dated 10-02-2003, further ii)
executed a Registered sale deed bearing No.8261/2016, dated 09-
08-2016 in the name of her sons by name Bijjala Chanikya Prasad
who is the defendant No.4 herein for the house site measuring to
an extent of 150-00 sq.yds in sy.No.119 basing on the GPA bearing
No.755/2003, dated 10-02-2003, iii) executed a registered sale
deed bearing No.8308/2016, dated 10-08-2016 in the name of her
sons by name Bijjala Sekhar Rao, Chanikya Prasad who are
defendant No.3 and 4 for the house site measuring to an extent of
105-00 sq.yds in sy.no.130,131 and 119 basing on the GPA bearing
No.4121/2003, dated 19-07-2003, iv) executed a registered
sale deed bearing No.8260/2016, dated 09-08-2016 in the name of
her sons by name Bijjala Chanikya Prasad who is defendant No.4
herein for the house site measuring to an extent of 224-00 sq.yds
in sy.no.119 basing on the GPA bearing No.4120/2003, dated 19-
07-2003, v) executed a registered Gift deed bearing No.8259/2016,
dated 09-08-2016 in the name of her son by name Bijjala Sekhar
Rao who is the defendant No.3 herein for the house site measuring
to an extent of 400-00 sq.yds in sy.no. 119 basing on the document
bearing No.3472/1992, dated 13-08-1992 and vi)
executed a registered will deed bearing No.93/2016, dated 10-08-
2016 in the name of her sons by name Bijjala Sekhar Rao,
 23

Chanikya Prasad and daughter Parepally Sridevi who are the

defendants 3 to 5 herein for the house site measuring to an extent
of 1088-76 sq.yds in sy.no.130,131 and 119 basing on the
document bearing No.3472/2003, dated 10-02-2003, though she is
not having any right or what so ever over the 1000-00 sq.yds and
the lands stands in the name of her husband who is defendant
No.1 for the land measuring to an extent of 1645-92 sq.yds i.e.,
item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties and acted against to
the spirit of panchayath held by the elders and acted against to the
document dated 23-03-2002.

14. The defendant No.2 had executed above Registered

documents i to vi to her children who are the 3 to 5 which
includes the building and site of District Consumers Forum at
Khammam. The maps annexed to the said Registered sale deeds
covers the entire extent of 1000-00 sq.yds + 1645-92 sq.yds =
2645-92 sq.yds. That the said documents are shame, nominal as
such they are null and void and they are creating a cloud over the
title of the schedule properties. That no consideration was passed
in between the parties in the above documents and the survey
numbers and boundaries mentioned in the above documents were
totally incorrect, as such said documents were liable for
cancellation, Otherwise under the guise of said documents the
defendants stretching their hands over claiming the schedule
properties in that event we will be put to an irreparable loss and
injury.

15. That the defendant No.2 is well aware and it is in the

knowledge of her with regard to the execution of Registered Gift
deeds bearing No.4012/2016, 4013/2016, dated 27-04-2016 by
her husband who is defendant No.1 herein to the plaintiffs for the
item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties and she is in the
knowledge that the we became the owners and possessors of the
schedule properties, she had clandestinely had executed Registered
Gift Deed NO.8259/2016, Registered Sale deed NO.8260/2016,
8261/2016,8308/2016, 8309/2016 and registered will No.93/2016
 24

in favour of the defendant No.3 to 5 herein and all the documents

were attested by the defendant No.1. As such, it is just and
essential to declare us alone are the owners and title holders of
the suit schedule properties and to declare the Registered Gift Deed
No.8259/2016, Registered Sale deed NO.8260/2016,
8261/2016,8308/2016, 8309/2016 and registered will
No.93/2016. Which were executed defendant No.2 in favour of 2 to
5 are null and void not binding upon the plaintiffs along with their
link documents bearing No.752/2003, 755/2003, 4120/2003,
4121/2003.

16. That while things stood thus after getting possession of the
schedule properties by us, we had let out the schedule property
of item No.1 and 2 to Lord Ganesha Idol makers by name
Bommala Sodga Ram S/o.Marvade of Rajasthan and they are
selling Idols to the devotees during this Vinayaka Chavithi season.
The defendant No.1 and 2 came to the schedule property on 04-09-
2016 at about 9-00 a.m. warned them to remove the Idols from the
schedule properties. Immediately, after the incident they intimated
to us, we rushed to the schedule properties and questioned the
interference of the defendant No.1 and 2 for which they left the spot
by threatening them for dire consequences and again they came to
the schedule property on 05-09-2016 and repeated the same
interference over the schedule properties.

17. That we the plaintiffs came to the schedule properties along

with elders and the elders admonished the defendants No.1 and 2
and warned them not to interfere over the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule properties by the plaintiffs more in
particular on the very Puja day of Vinayaka Chavithi. The
defendants No.1 and 2 continuously interfering and again came to
the schedule property on 11-9-2016 when the plaintiffs are
cleaning the schedule property and while they are constructing a
compound wall around the schedule properties on the existing
foundation & basement and continued their attempts of threat of
interference. The interference of the defendant No.1 and 2
 25

imminent and persistent and we the plaintiffs are unable to resist

the illegal attempts of the defendants No.1 and 2 in any manner. As
such, it is just and essential to restrain the defendants 1 and 2
from interfering over the schedule properties permanently. Hence
suit for declaration to declare us as the owners and title holders
for the schedule property and to declare that the Registered Gift
Deed No.8259/2016, Registered Sale deed No.8260/2016,
8261/2016, 8308/2016, 8309/2016 and registered will
No.93/2016, dated 09-08-2016 and 10-08-2016 which were
executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 to 5 along
with their link documents bearing No.752/2003, 753/2003, dated
10-02-2003 and 4120/2003, 4121/2003, dated 19-07-2003 are
null and void and not binding upon us and consequential relief of
perpetual injunction.
Hence, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to decree
the suit as prayed by me, in the interest of justice.

That the facts stated above are true and correct.

Khammam.
Date: 16-09-2015. DEPONENT

Attestation:- The Deponent solemnly affirmed and stated above facts

and signed before me. Hence, attested.

Khammam.
Date: 16-09-2016 Attestor –
Advocate
 26

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

O.S.No. /2016
BETWEEN :-

Bijjala Eswar Rao and another

… Plaintiffs
And
Bijjala Janardhan Rao and others
… Defendants

MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

That, in the above case, I am herewith paying Court Fee of Rs.

/- at State Bank of Hyderabad, Rotary Nagar Branch, Khammam,
through a Challan Dated:19-09-2016, in the account of Hon’ble
Prl.District Judge, Khammam, in lieu of Court Fee stamps. The
same may kindly be receive.
 27

Khammam.
Date: 16-09-2016 Advocate for
Plaintiff