LAWS(APH)-2024-8-9

T.VENKATA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Vs. KODALI RAYANA RAO

Decided On August 05, 2024
T.Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi Appellant
V/S
Kodali Rayana Rao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this CRP is to the order dtd. 13/2/2024 in I.A.No.1337/2023 in IA No.658/2022 in O.S.No.1630/2022 passed by learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada allowing the petition filed under order VII rule 14(3) r/w Sec. 151 CPC by the plaintiff permitting the plaintiff to mark certified copy of index document regarding volume No.1598 for the document bearing No.1047 to establish his case.

(2.) (a) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1630/2022 seeking permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule site in an extent of 400 Sq. Yds. covered by R.S.No.363/1, Plot No.140 situated in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff's case is that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff's father Kodali Satyanarayana under registered sale deed dt.16/2/1982 from Bandi Kondaiah and gifted to the plaintiff under a registered document No.3905/2012 dt.28/7/2012 and the plaintiff has been enjoying the same. The revenue survey division records relating to R.S.No.363/1 in an extent of Ac.2.91 cents stands in the name of Bandi Kutumbaiah and maintained by the revenue officers. The said property was obtained by Kutumbaiah in a family partition along with his sons.

(3.) (a) The defendant filed written statement and contesting the suit. While the defendant was leveling a part of the land measuring 1400 Sq. yds., and fencing the same, the plaintiff started falsely claiming the suit property without any right or title. At the instance of the plaintiff, a pre-litigation case in PLCF.P.No.206/2022 was registered and therefore the plaintiff cannot maintain parallel proceedings by way of present suit. There is a cloud over plaintiff's title and hence the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaint averments that the plaintiff's father purchased the suit property and gifted to the plaintiff is false. The admission in the plaint that the defendant has put up barbed fencing stands sufficient proof that the defendant is in possession over 1400 Sq. yds.