Written Arguments M. Deepthi

IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE VI ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE : RANGA

REDDY AT KUKATPALLY
OS. NO. 496 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Smt. M. Deepthi … Plaintiff
AND
Varakantham Surender Reddy & Others … Respondents
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
1. It is submitted that the present suit is filed by the Plaintiff seek

declaration of documents of the Defendants as null and void and not
binding on the Plaintiff.
2. It is submitted that the relief sought in the suit is under Section 31 of

the Specific Relief Act, which permits any individual to seek a relief
against any instrument which causes him injury in any manner. The
prerequisite for a suit to be maintainable is that the party
approaching the court shall plead and prove that there is an injury
caused.
3. That in the circumstances of the present suit, it is the case of the

Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 & 3 herein in collusion with each
other have tried to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff over
her extent of Ac. 00-20 Gts under the guise of the documents that are
being sought to be declared as null and void by way of the present
suit. Aggrieved by such actions the Plaintiff approached the concerned
police authorities and as a counter blast the Defendant No. 1 herein
has filed a suit vide O.S. No. 150 of 2013 seeking a relief of injunction
against the Plaintiff herein, restraining the Plaintiff from interfering
with the alleged possession of Defendant No. 1.
4. The Plaintiff herein got knowledge of the documents under question
only after receiving notices in the above stated suit. As such the
present had been filed seeking Declaration of documents as null and
void. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the present suit is clear
and apparent on the face of the record. Further, it was the oral
contention of the counsel for Defendant No. 1 & 3 that the suit lacks
cause of action. It is pertinent to state that cause of action is a bundle
of facts and the plaint is completely clear in that regard.
5. It is submitted that the relief sought in the present suit is not in the
nature as contemplated under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,
which contemplates a declaratory relief in so far as title is concerned.
It is imperative to state that it is not the case of the Plaintiff that the
title of the Plaintiff over an extent of Ac. 00-20 Gts is under cloud.
However, it is the case of the Plaintiff that, due to the fraudulent
documents created by Defendant No. 1 in collusion with Defendant
No. 2 (Vendor of the Plaintiff’s Vendor), the Defendant No. 1 along with
Defendant No. 3 are attempting to claim the property of the Plaintiff
by interference and other illegal actions. As such the Plaintiff has
established the injury being caused due to such instruments, which
have been created subsequent in time to that of the Plaintiff.
6. It is pertinent to state herein that the Plaintiff has purchased an

extent of Ac. 00-20 Gts from one Vellanki Rao vide Sale Deed Doc. No.
4109/1998 dt 05.06.1998. It is submitted that the said Vellanki Rao
purchased an extent of Ac. 01-20 Gts from Defendant No. 2 herein.
Whereas, the Defendant No. 1 claims to have purchased the suit
schedule A and B properties in the year 2007 from Defendant No. 2,
by when Defendant No. 2 had alienated the complete extent of land
acquired from his father except As. 00-20 Gts of land. As such,
documents of the Defendant No. 1 which alleged draw title to an
extent of Ac. 04-03 Gts are liable to be adjudged as null and void and
not binding on the Plaintiff in light of the law and principle
established under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act.
7. During oral arguments, it is the contention of the counsel for

Defendant No. 1 & 3 that Defendant No. 2 was left with a land parcel
of Ac. 01-00 Gts and claims that the same can be corroborated to Suit
Schedule A Property. However, the Defendant No. 1 & 3 have failed to
establish and prove as to how the said Ac. 01-00 Gts could be
corroborated to Suit Schedule A property, specifically. That apart, the
issue in so far as the Suit Schedule B property has not been
addressed and is therefore left open.
8. It is pertinent to mention that, out of the Ac 9-20 Gts of land acquired

by the father of A. Somayajulu, the said A. Somayajulu had already
sold an extent of land admeasuring Ac 09-00 Gts to various
purchasers in the year 1998 vide registered conveyance deeds.
Therefore, after selling Ac 09-00 Gts of land in Sy. Nos. 28, 29 and 30
in Gopannapally Village of the available Ac 09-20 Gts, sale of another
Ac 04-03 Gts of land does not arises as there is no extent of land
available to effect the sale. It is pertinent to mention that the
contention that the extent of land under the ownership of Respondent
No. 2 was between Ac 08-00 Gts to Ac 09-00 Gts is an admitted fact
by DW-2 as part of his cross examination before this Hon’ble Court dt.
13.11.2019. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vathsala Manickavasagam and Ors. Vs. Respondent: N. Ganesan
and Ors., (vide Civil Appeal No. 1241 of 2005) that “As far as the
principle to be applied in Section 17 is concerned, the Section as it
reads is an admission, which constitutes a substantial piece of
evidence, which can be relied upon for proving the veracity of the facts,
incorporated therein. When once, the admission as noted in a statement
either oral or documentary is found, then the whole onus would shift to
the party who made such an admission and it will become an
imperative duty on such party to explain it. In the absence of any
satisfactory explanation, it will have to be presumed to be true. It is
needless to state that an admission in order to be complete and to have
the value and effect referred to therein, should be clear, certain and
definite, without any ambiguity, vagueness or confusion.” (Para 24).
9. In furtherance of the said contention, it is submitted that, subject to

the admission made by DW2 regarding the total extent of land held by
Respondent No. 2, the onus of proof shifts towards the Defendant to
prove anything contrary. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Ors., (AIR 2003 SC 4548)
that “there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus
of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact
and which, never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is
a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a
suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to
create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the
defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the
absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held
to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiffs title.”
(Para 29)
10. It is also submitted that both DW-1 and DW-2 have categorically
stated in their depositions in cross that they have not filed any
document to prove their possession over the the suit schedule A and B
properties. That apart, they have also admitted that in their attempt to
get mutation effected they have served notice to the Plaintiff as she is
the over and possessor of an extent of Ac. 00-20 Gts. Although the
said mutation proceeding of the Defendants is under challenge before
the special tribunal, it can be deduced that the Defendants have
admitted that title and possession of the Plaintiff by serving notice as
stated above.
11. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the
suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed in her
favour which is undisputedly prior in time. The Respondents have
devised an evil/malafide plan to misappropriate the rightful property
of the Plaintiff by acting in a collusive manner while their entire
stance is based on a fictitious document which does not confer any
valid/enforceable title.
Hence, based on the above-mentioned averments, the balance of

convenience and preponderance of probability lies in favour of the Plaintiff
herein. The Plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss if the reliefs sought are
not granted and cannot be compensated in any manner. Therefore, it is
prayed that the relief of declaration of registered deeds as null and void and
injunction may be granted in favour of the Plaintiff and pass such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
Date: 22.04.2024
Place: Kukatpally
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
ADVOCATE :: KUKATPALLY
IN THE COURT OF THE
HON’BLE VI ADDL DISTRICT
JUDGE; RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT : AT KUKATPALLY
OS. NO. 496 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Smt. M. Deepthi
....PLAINTIFF
AND
Varakantham Surender Reddy

and Others
....RESPONDENTS
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
FILED ON: 22.04.2024
FILED BY:
S. NAGESH REDDY
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Written Arguments M. Deepthi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Written Arguments M. Deepthi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE VI ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE : RANGA

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

1. It is submitted that the present suit is filed by the Plaintiff seek

2. It is submitted that the relief sought in the suit is under Section 31 of

3. That in the circumstances of the present suit, it is the case of the

6. It is pertinent to state herein that the Plaintiff has purchased an

7. During oral arguments, it is the contention of the counsel for

8. It is pertinent to mention that, out of the Ac 9-20 Gts of land acquired

9. In furtherance of the said contention, it is submitted that, subject to

Hence, based on the above-mentioned averments, the balance of

OS. NO. 496 OF 2014

Varakantham Surender Reddy

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED

FILED ON: 22.04.2024

You might also like