Page 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI.G.SAI KRISHNA, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, the 26th day of April, 2022

I.A.No.94/2021 IN O.S.No.572/2021

Between:

Sri Gullala Seshubalu, S/o. Veera Raju, aged 52 years, Male, Hindu, Business, Residing at Door No.65-4-319, Mulagada Housing Colony, Visakhapatnam-530011.

…Petitioner/Plaintiff

And:

Smt. Allu Sarojini, W/o. Jogi Satyanarayana Sai, Aged about 51 years, Hindu, Female, Residing at Door No.68-1-102/2, Mulagada Village, Mindi, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondent/Defendant

This petition is coming on today i.e., 22-04-2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Murali Krishna Raju and Smt.K.(B) Satyavani, Advocates for Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri L.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property until disposal of the suit, for reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.

2. On 26-04-2021, upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, this Court granted exparte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent from ever interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property until 11-05-2021. The notice and injunction warrant were served on the respondent through court personally on 08-05-2021. At the first

Page 2 of 8

hearing on 25-06-2021, the counsel for respondent filed vakalat. The counter of respondent was filed on 08-11-2021.

3. The averments of the petition affidavit in brief are as follows:

As per the petition affidavit averments, the respondent is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which is vacant site in an extent of 245.41 sq. yards and same was gifted to the plaintiff by his mother under a registered gift settlement deed dated 29-09-2004 and further that, since that date, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The Petitioner further submitted that the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation issued notice to the plaintiff to pay vacant land tax and he paid the tax on 06-05-2005 and continued paying the tax every year till date. It is the case of the petitioner that in the 1st week of May, 2005 when he started clearing the plants in the vacant site for construction of foundation in the schedule property, the respondent came with men and threatened that she would obstruct his work and that even when asked the respondent failed to show any Title documents regarding the schedule property. That thereafter, the plaintiff got constructed a foundation, asbestos sheet shed in the plaint schedule property, which collapsed due to Hud Hud cyclone in October, 2014. The petitioner submitted that the defendant filed caveat petition before the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam against the plaint schedule property but she never came to the schedule property until 2nd week of 2021. That on 02-04-2021 at about 10 AM the defendant tried to encroach into the schedule property but was prevented by the plaintiff with the help of neighbours.

4. The averments of the counter of the respondent in brief are as follows:

The respondent stated that she is the owner of vacant house site in an extent of 200 sq.yards situated in Plot No.65 of Mulagada village bounded on the

Page 3 of 8

East-site belonging to M.Ganesh Raju, South- RCC house belonging to Prabhakar Rao, West-House belonging to Pilaka Venkata Ramana, North-12 feet road. According to the respondent, the said site is a layout formed in Government land and allotted by the Government to landless persons including to one Bammidi Appanna vide proceedings in B.R.No.262/84 dated 12-06-1984 issued by Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the said Bammidi Appanna was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the site and he sold away the property under a unregistered sale deed on 19-12-1992 to the respondent and that in the year 2003, the respondent got constructed a basement for construction of her house in the said site but she could not proceed with the construction due to financial troubles. It is stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the vacant site covered by Plot No.64 in Survey No.55 and that the Government formed Mulagada Housing Colony only in Survey No.55 and that the plaint schedule property is not situated in Mulagada Housing Colony. The respondent stated that the petitioner filed wrong documents to claim right over the property covered in Plot No.64 in Survey No.55. The respondent sought dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

5. Despite several adjournments granted neither parties submitted their arguments.

6. Perused the petition, petition affidavit, counter, suit documents. The following point arises for consideration of the Court:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the petitioner until disposal of the suit as prayed?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified extract of Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 29-09-2004, Ex.A2 is the certified extract of Tax receipt issued by the GVMC dated 07-04-2015, Ex.A3 is the certified extract of notice issued by the GVMC dated 01-04-2005, Ex.A4 is the

Page 4 of 8

certified extract of vacant tax receipt dated 06-05-2005, Ex.A5 is the certified extract of online receipt for the property tax paid to GVMC for the plaint schedule property dated 05-06-2015, Ex.A6 is the certified extract of tax receipt issued by GVMC for the plaint schedule property dated 06-04-2021, Ex.A7 are the photographs (12 in number). No documents were marked for the respondents.

8. POINT:

According to the plaint schedule property, the property is situated in Survey No.56/1A in Mulagada Housing Colony in Gajuwaka bounded by East-Respondent's RCC slabbed building, South-Site of Sri Gullala Veera Raju who is father of the petitioner, West- House of Pilaka Venkata Ramana, North-Road. As per Ex.A1, recitals at Page No.3, the petition schedule property is situated in Survey No.56/1A part in Mulagada village. As per recitals at Page No.1 of Ex.A1, the said schedule property was acquired by the mother of the petitioner through her father. There is no mention of Mulagada Housing Colony in the description of plaint schedule property as shown in Page No.3 of Ex.A1. The survey number and boundaries at Page No.3 of Ex.A1 correspond with the plaint schedule property. Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.A6 show that the aforesaid property covered by Survey No.56/1A of Mulagada Village was assessed to vacant land property tax by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) with Assessment No.4164/3 and the petitioner has been paying vacant land tax every year. The aforesaid documents prima facie establish that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the respondent in his counter stated that his property is situated in Survey No.55 of Mulgada village in Plot No.65 bounded on East-Site belonging to M.Ganesh Raju, South-RCC House belonging to Prabhakar Rao, West-House of Pilaka Venkata Ramana, North-12 feet Road. It is the case of the respondent that the plaint schedule property covered by Survey No.56/1A is not situated in Mulagada

Page 5 of 8

Housing Colony because the Government formed the said colony in Survey No.55 only and under the garb of this petition, the petitioner is trying to claim his right over the plaint schedule in Plot No.64 of Survey No.55 of Mulagada village. The respondent did not file any document in support of his defence that the Mulagada Housing Colony was covered by Survey No.55 only and that the plaint schedule property is not situated in Mulagada Housing Colony. Except for the aforesaid defence, the respondent did not dispute other facts. As the respondent's property covered by Plot No.64 in Survey No.55 is different from the plaint schedule property, it is not possible for the petitioner to claim right over the site of the respondent under the garb of injunction granted with respect to the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the respondent that the petitioner is trying to claim right over the respondent's property under the garb of Ex.A1 is misplaced. As per Ex.A1, only the plaint schedule property covered by Survey No.56/1A of Mulagada village is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and not the site covered by Plot No.64 of Survey No.55 of Mulagada village. If the defence of the respondent that the plaint schedule property is not situated in Mulagada Housing Colony is true, then the petitioner would not be able to enjoy the fruits of the decree in this case as it would not be possible to identify the plaint schedule property.

9. The vacant land receipts paid up to date also support the case of the plaintiff. Further, the 3rd party affidavit and the petition affidavit prima facie show that there is threat about dispossession by the defendant to the plaintiff.

10. Since the petitioner claims to be under threat of dispossession in the immediate future, the loss which the petitioner would suffer if no order is passed would be far more than the loss which the defendant would suffer if orders are passed. Therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. Hence, Point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

Page 6 of 8

11. In the result, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the respondent is hereby restrained from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property until disposal of the suit.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

• No oral evidence is adduced on either side –

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner/Plaintiff:

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna I AJCJ:VSP

Page 7 of 8

Date of Presentation:23-04-2021 Date of filing:26-04-2021

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI.G.SAI KRISHNA, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, the 26th day of April, 2022

I.A.No.94/2021 IN O.S.No.572/2021

Between:

Sri Gullala Seshubalu, S/o. Veera Raju, aged 52 years, Male, Hindu, Business, Residing at Door No.65-4-319, Mulagada Housing Colony, Visakhapatnam-530011.

…Petitioner/Plaintiff

And:

Smt. Allu Sarojini, W/o. Jogi Satyanarayana Sai, Aged about 51 years, Hindu, Female, Residing at Door No.68-1-102/2, Mulagada Village, Mindi, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondent/Defendant

The petitioner/plaintiff prays to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, their men and their agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property until disposal of the suit.

A fixed court fee of Rs.2/- is affixed on the petition.

This petition is coming on today i.e., 22-04-2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Murali Krishna Raju and Smt.K.(B) Satyavani, Advocates for Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri L.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth order and :

D E C R E T A L O R D E R

• 1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;
• 2. that accordingly, the respondent be and is hereby restrained from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property until disposal of the suit; and

Page 8 of 8

• 3. that there be no order as to costs.
• * A copy of schedule is hereby attached. (1)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 26th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

• No costs memo is filed on either side -

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna I AJCJ:VSP