O.S.233/20141 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), KAVALI
Present: Smt. A. Geetha Vani,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kavali
Friday, the 17th day of April, 2026
Original Suit No. 233/2014
Between:
Gunturu Venkata Subba Rao S/o Late Pitchaiah, Aged about 42 Years, Employee, residing at Flat No. 101, Saipriya Enclave, Kakani Nagar, Lane No. 8,
Vishakapatnam. ... Plaintiff
Vs
Pakala Bujjamma, D/o Late Pakala Chalamaiah, Aged about 53 Years, Hindu, Residing at Door No. 5-11-22, Punuruvarti Street, 5th Ward, Kavali,
SPSR Nellore District. ... Defendant
This suit coming on 17-3-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P. Suneel Kumar Singh, Advocate for the defendant, having stood over for consideration, after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following :-
J U D G M E N T
1.The suit filed for declaration of right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule mentioned property and for delivery of possession of the property, in case the defendant fails to do so, the same may be ordered through court of
Law.
O.S.233/20142 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
2.The Plaint averments in brief are as follows :
One Pakala Chalamaiah Son of Polaiah is the grandfather of plaintiff.
The said Pakala Chalamaiah got six daughters and among them, plaintiff’s mother is Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma. The defendant is the last daughter.
The said Pakala Chalamaiah purchased 18 ankanams of site situated in Kavali
Bit 1, 5th Ward, Punuruvari Street, Kavali from Mangamuri Audi Reddy and was enjoying the said site by him with full and absolute rights since long time. The said Pakala Chalamaiah and his wife are staying with their second daughter
Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma and she was looking after them with great love and affection in all aspects. The said Pakala Chalamaiah out of love and affection and towards Pasupu Kunkuma settled 9 ankanams out of the above said 18 ankanams in favour of their second daughter Gunturu Venkata
Ramanamma, who is the mother of the plaintiff on 24.04.1986 under a registered settlement deed, registered under document No. 473/1986 of Kavali
Sub Registrar Office with full rights. The said registered settlement deed under certified extract is filed herewith and its contents may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. On the date of settlement itself the said 9 ankanams of site was inducted possession to said Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma and since then she was in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.
3. The plaintiff further submits that thereafter the said Gunturu Venkata
Ramanamma and her husband Pitchaiah with their own funds constructed ACC shed house in the said site, bearing Door No. 5-11-2022 and they both were living in the said house shown in the plaint schedule along with her parents and only son i.e. the plaintiff herein till the death of Pakala Chalamaiah i.e. during the year 1993 and mother Late Pakala Chenchamma till 2001. In the mean while Gunturu Pitchaiah i.e. husband of Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma and father of plaintiff died on 11.08.1999. The plaintiff got job at Hyderabad and he was staying at Hyderabad. Later the said Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma joined
O.S.233/20143 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR her son at Hyderabad and staying in her son’s house. While so the said Gunturu
Venkata Ramanamma out of love and affection settled the plaint schedule house and site in favour of the plaintiff on 17.09.2007 under a registered settlement deed, registered under document No. 4421/2007 of Kavali Sub
Registrar with full rights. The said registered settlement deed is filed herewith and its contents may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. On that day itself the schedule site and house was inducted possession to the plaintiff and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.
Subsequently the plaintiff transferred to Visakhapatnam and he along with his mother Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma shifted his family to Visakhapatnam. On account of plaintiff's employment, the plaint schedule house was kept vacant and the same is not in use and also damaged.
4. The plaintiff further submits that on 22-01-2009 the plaintiff approached the municipal office, Kavali to pay the property tax to the schedule house and there it was noticed that the schedule house was in the name of Pakala Bujjamma i.e.
the defendant herein. Then the plaintiff came to know that the defendant unauthorizedly, illegally and without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, entered her name in municipal records. Then the plaintiff demanded the defendant, as she is in unauthorized occupation without any right to vacate the schedule property and hand over it to him. The defendant promised to vacate, but have not vacated the same with ulterior motives of grabbing the same. By misrepresenting the facts the defendant managed the then municipal officers and got mutated her name without any right. The plaintiff gave a written complaint on 22-01-2009 itself to the Municipal Commissioner how the defendant's name is entered in the municipal records against the plaint schedule property and requested to take action and delete her name and enter the plaintiff's name. The Municipal Commissioner had issued notice to the defendant on 20-08-2009 requesting to submit documents standing in her name
O.S.233/20144 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR to show her right over the plaint schedule property.
5. The plaintiff further submits that after receiving the notice the defendant did not submitted any documents and reply. Again the Commissioner, Kavali
Municipality gave second notice on 02-01-2010 to the defendant. After receiving the same, without submitting any documents to show her right over the plaint schedule property, defendant gave a written reply to the Commissioner, Kavali
Municipality with false allegations that Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma has created false documents and transferred the schedule property on her son's name and requested not to change her name. On that the Municipal
Commissioner has issued a letter to the Sub Registrar. Kavali to know that the registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff is registered and entered in the registers. The Sub Registrar, Kavali sent a letter to the Municipal
Commissioner, Kavali on 09-06-2010 under Letter No.1/10 that the said settlement deed is registered under document No.4421/2007 in Kavali Sub
Registrar Office that Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma executed the said settlement deed in favour of Gunturu Venkata Subba Rao. It is submitted that the Sub Registrar, Kavali has certified that the transfer of plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff through registered settlement deed is correct and genuine. Based on the letter of Sub Registrar, Kavali and after due enquiry the Municipal Commissioner, Kavali issued an endorsement vide Letter No. RF
No.51/TTP No.13/2010/A1 dated 26-06-2010 that delete the name of defendant and substitute or enter the name of plaintiff against the schedule house property and also changed correct door number to the schedule house as 5-11-22 with
Assessment No. 1030002239 and collected house tax in the name of the plaintiff for the period 2014-2015-.
6. The plaintiff further submits that the endorsement of Municipal
Commissioner, Kavali, the present house tax receipt dated 12-09-2014
O.S.233/20145 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR collected with correct door number and the previous tax receipt paid up till 2012-2013-2 are filed herewith and their contents may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. The Commissioner, Kavali Municipality also intimated the change of name of plaintiff by removing the defendant's name against the schedule property by way of endorsement dated 29-06-2010 to the defendant.
The plaintiff obtained copies of notices to defendant, and her representations and Municipal Office correspondence and other material papers under which the Municipality taken action from Kavali Municipality under Right to Information
Act and those are herewith filed and their contents may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. So the plaintiff have got absolute right, title over the plaint schedule property and the defendant is not having any right and title and she is in illegal possession. Hence the defendant is liable to vacate the plaint schedule property and hand over it to the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to hand over the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, he got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 13-09-2014 demanding to vacant the plaint schedule property.
7. The plaintiff further submits that the defendant got returned the said notice with an endorsement that incomplete address. The office copy of said notice and returned notice are herewith filed and its contents may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. Then again the plaintiff got issued another notice on 22-09- 2014 with correct address and the said notice was received by the defendant and got issued a reply on 03-10-2014 with all false and created allegations. The postal acknowledgment card served on defendant and the reply notice along with courier cover are filed herewith and their contents may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. The allegations in the reply notice are all false and untenable. The Pakala Venkata Chalamaiah did not execute any will in favour of the defendant. The other allegations in reply notice are all false. As the defendant failed to vacate the plaint schedule property without any manner of right continuing illegally and unauthorizedly in the plaint schedule property, the
O.S.233/20146 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR plaintiff constrained to file this suit for declaring his right over the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession. Hence the suit.
8.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint except that those are specifically herein to be admitted to be true and puts the plaintiff. It is true Pakala Chalamaiah son of Polaiah is the grand father of plaintiff. The said Pakala Chalamaiah got six daughters and among them, plaintiff’s mother is Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma. It is true the defendant is last un married daughter. It is true the said Pakala Chalamaiah purchased 18 ankanams of site situated in Kavali Bit-1, 5th ward, Puchalapalli vari Street, Kavali from Mungamuri Aadi Reddy and was enjoying the said site by him with full and obsolute rights since long time. It is not true the said Pakala
Chalamaiah and his wife are staying with their 2nd daughter Gunturu Venkata
Ramanamma and she was looking after them with great love and affection in all aspects. It is false the said Pakala Chalamaiah out of love and affection towards
Pasupu Kunkuma settled 9 ankanams out of the above said ankanams in favour of their 2nd daughter Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma on 24.04.1986 under a registered settlement deed. It is also false on the date of settlement it self the said 9 Ankanams site was inducted possession to said Gunturu Venkata
Ramanamma and since then she was in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.
9. The defendant further submits that it is utterly false the said Gunturu
Venkata Ramanamma and her husband Pitchaiah with their own funds constructed ACC sheet house in the said site bearing D. No. 5-11-22 and the both were living in the said house and till the death of Pakala Chalamaiah. It is false while so the said Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma out of love and affection settled the plaint schedule house and site in favour of the plaintiff on 17.09.2007 under a registered settlement deed. It is false on 22.01.2009 the plaintiff approached the Municipal Office, Kavali to pay the property tax to the schedule
O.S.233/20147 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR house and there it was noticed that the schedule house was in the name of
Pakala Bujjamma. It is false the plaintiff came to know that the defendant unauthorizedly, illegally and without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff entered her name in municipal records. It is false the plaintiff demanded the defendant as she is un authorised occupation without any right to vacate the schedule property and handover it to him. It is also false the defendant promised to vacate, but have not vacated the same with ulterior motives of grabbing the same. It is also false the defendant managed the municipal officers and got mutated her name without any right. The defendant not aware, the plaintiff gave a written complaint on 22.01.2009 itself to the municipal commissioner how the defendant name is entered in the municipal records against the plaint schedule property and requested to take action and delete her name and enter the plaintiff name. It is utterly false collected house tax in the name of the plaintiff for the period of 2014-2015. The allegations mentioned in the plaint all are false and untenable.
10. The defendant further submits that true to facts the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Pakala Venkata Chalamaiah who is the father of defendant and grand father of plaintiff. Before death of Pakala Venkata
Chalamaiah who is the father of defendant executed a will in favour of defendant in respect of plaint schedule property. The said will was legally executed while said Pakala Venkata Chalamaiah is in sound and disposing state of mind and validely attested and acted upon. The said Pakala
Chalamaiah died intestate living behind the defendant. The defendant is only legal heir. Subsequent to the death of father of the defendant, the defendant entitled to the plaint schedule property and she is been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The will filed herewith and their contents may be read as part and parcel of this written statement. The defendant paid municipal cist regularly. The municipal cist receipts are filed herewith and their contents may
O.S.233/20148 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR be read as part and parcel of this written statement. The plaintiff illegally demanded to vacate the plaintiff schedule premises and mis representing the facts and the plaintiff managed the municipal officers and got mutated plaintiff name without any right. Plaintiff and his mother Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma manipulated fake documents submitting before municipal commissioner and officers Pakala Venkata Chalamaiah and his wife by name Chenchamma lived about 50 years and the defendant born in the above said house and lived together until death of the Pakala Venkata Chalamaiah i.e. 1993 and mother of defendant Chenchamma died 2001 in the above said house. In the plaint schedule property the defendant has been possession and enjoyment the same. The defendant continuously living the said plaint schedule house till to date. There is no cause of action for the suit and the one pleaded in the plaint is not true and untenable. The suit filed by the plaintiff is a vexatious and speculative suit. All the other allegations in the plaint contra to what stated above are all false and untenable. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
11.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ?
2. To what relief ?
12.During course of enquiry, the Plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and on his behalf PW3 to PW4 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.21. The defendants examined DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked Ex.s. B1 to B5.
13.Heard both sides.
14. Issue Nos.1 :
The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaint schedule property belonged to the grand father of the plaintiff by name Pakala Chalamaiah who being an absolute owner of the property executed a settlement deed dated
O.S.233/20149 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR 24.04.1986 an extent of 9 ankanams out of 18 ankanams under a registered document bearing No.437/1986 of Sub Registrar Office, Kavali out of love and affection in favour of his mother who is his 2nd daughter and possession was also delivered on the same day, since then his mother had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the mother of the plaintiff and his father Pitchaiah constructed ACC shed house in the said site with their own funds house bearing No.5-11-2022 and both were living in the said house and the plaintiff is only son to his parents. The grand father of the plaintiff late Pakala Chalamaiah died during the year1993. The plaintiff’s father by name gunturu Pitchiah husband of the gunturu Venkata ramanamma died on 11-08-1999. The plaintiff and his mother were living at Hyderabad in view of his job. Subsequently the mother of the plaintiff executed a settlement deed in his favour on 17.09.2007 under a registered document and possession was also delivered to him and since then the plaintiff has been possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and after that he got transfer to Visakapatnam and he shifted the family to his working place and due to which he kept the plaint schedule property vacant. On 22.01.2009 when the plaintiff approached the municipal office, kavali to pay the property tax to the schedule house he noticed that the name of defendant got mutated in the records in respect of the plaint schedule property unauthorizedly and as such he gave written complaint on 22.01.2009 itself to the municipal commissioner to delete the name of the defendant by taking necessary action. Then the municipal commissioner had issued notice to the defendant on 20.08.2009 to submit the documents standing in the name of the defendant in connection with the suit property. After receiving the notice the defendant did not issue any replay to the commissioner municipally Kavali again the municipal commissioner gave 2nd notice on 02.01.2010 to the defendant to show her right over the suit property then the defendant gave reply with false allegations. The municipal commissioner Kavali further sent a letter to the sub register, kavali on 09.06.2010 under a letter
O.S.233/201410 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR number 01/2010 to know whether the mother of the plaintiff had executed settlement deed under a registered document in his favour and accordingly the sub registrar kavali has certified that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff by his mother is correct and genuine based on which the municipal commissioner deleted the name of the defendant and entered the name of the plaintiff about the plaint schedule property and also charged the correct door No. 5-11-2022 with assessment No. 1030002239 and collect house tax in the name of the plaintiff for the period of 2014 – 2015. The defendant alleged in her reply notice that her father and grand father of the plaintiff had executed an un-registered will in her favour is false and his grand father never executed any will and he died intestate therefore he prayed to declare his right and title and deliver the vacate possession and pass decree in his favour.
15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the father of the defendant Late Pakala Chalamaiah who is also the grand father of plaintiff had executed un-registered will in favour of the defendant and the said will was executed by him in sound and disposing state of mind and validly attested and acted upon. After the death of the father of defendant the defendant is enttiled the plaint schedule property and she has been possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant has been paying municipal cist regularly and the plaintiff demanded her to vacate the plaint schedule property mis-representing the facts and by managing municipal authorities. Further the property settled by the mother of the plaintiff as per Ex. A1 and the property settled by his grand father in favour of the mother of the plaintiff under Ex. A11 are different. Further in the cross examination PW1 deposed that “It is true that the property shown in Ex.A11 is “05-11-2022 pakka sthalam, haddulu 9 ankanalu. It is true that as per Ex.A1 the property given to me was 05.11.2022 gala naku hakku gala naku chendavalasina illu kali sthalamu haddulu”. So the the identity of the suit property is doubtful. Further the father of the defendant
O.S.233/201411 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR late Pakala Venkata Chalamaiah and his wife by name Chenchamma lived about 50 year and the defendant born in the plaint schedule house and lived together until death of the Pakala venkata chalamaiah i.e. 1993 and the mother of defendant and wife of the late pakala chalamaiah died in the year 2001 and defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till today, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
16. In this regard on perusal of the evidence of PW1/Gunturu Venkata
Subbarao he filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint and in the cross examination he deposed; “I have not filed any document to show that my grandfather
Chalamaiah purchased 18 ankanams of sited which is the part of the plaint schedule property. Out of the said 18 ankanams, my grandfather gave 9 ankanams to my mother
Venkataramanamma. I do not know whether my mother is in possession and enjoyment of the remaining 9 ankanams of land or not. It is true that after giving 9 ankanams to my mother the said 18 ankanams got divided in to 2 bits. I was not born or brought up at Kavali, likewise did not pursue my studies in Kavali or surrounding areas. As the original document of Ex.A11 was lot in transit, I have filed certified copy in this suit. It is true that the property shown in Ex.A11 is 5-11-22 “Pakka Stalamu Haddulu 9 ankanamulu.” It is true that as per Ex.A1, the property given to me was “ 5-11-22 gala naaku Hakku gala Neeku Chandalsina
Illu, Kali Stalamu Haddulu”. It is true that Ex. A12 and A13, the commissioner had mentioned the Door No. 5-11-16. It is true that in Ex.A14 also the door number is shown as 5-11-16. It is not true to suggest that the property given to my mother by way of
Ex.A11. The witness again says that the said vacant site situated
O.S.233/201412 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR on Eatern boundary belongs to Kandukuri Penusila Narasimha
Swami. The said Kandukuru Penchala Narasimha Swamy is son of the third daughter of my grandparents. It is true that no property was given to the defendant and that the property was divided among the married daughters of my grandfather.”
17. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 the defendant raised dispute that the property settled by his mother as per Ex. A1 in favour of the plaintiff and the property settled by his grand father in favour of his mother under Ex. A11 are different. Further in the cross examination PW1 deposed for the question posed by the learned counsel for the defendant that “It is true that the property shown in Ex.A11 is “05-11-2022 pakka sthalam, haddulu 9 ankanalu. It is true that as per Ex.A1 the property given to me was 05.11.2022 gala naku hakku gala naku chendavalasina illu kali sthalamu haddulu”. But the defendant failed to took a plea in this regard in her written statement. It is settled legal possession that without pleading the evidence is no useful. Admittedly the father of the Venkata
Ramanamma who is the mother of plaintiff was given 9 ankanams of site out of 18 ankanams by her father Pakala Chalamaiah under Ex.A11 by executing a register settlement deed vide document No. 473/1986, dated 24.04.1986. In this regard a certified of copy registered settlement deed got marked by the plaintiff which shows Pakala Chalamaiah had executed registered settlement deed in favour his 2nd daughter Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma who is the mother of the plaintiff out of love and affection. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that original documents of Ex.A11 i.e. the certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 24.04.1986 was not filed and as such Ex.A11 cannot be taken into consideration and further the document under ExA1 which is the settlement deed executed by the mother of the plaintiff in his favour regarding the property covered under EX A11 is the document born out EX A11 also cannot be taken into consideration. However the said settlement deed is of more than 30 years
O.S.233/201413 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR document and this court is of the opinion that it can be taken into consideration and further the said execution of settlement deed by late Pakala Chalamaiah in favour his 2nd daughter Venkata Ramanamma was admitted by the defendant but the defendant in the cross examination of PW4 put of question that the father the plaintiff executed settlement deed in favour the mother of the plaintiff extent of 9 ankanams under Ex.A11 out of 18 ankanams and the remaining 9 ankanams was also executed a settlement deed in favour of the another daughter of Late Pakala Chalamaiah by name Suseelamma under separate documents with a condition that both of them have to look after the defendant but they did not to so. But it is not the plea of defendant in her written statement.
18. Further on perusal of PW2/Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma who is the mother of the plaintiff was examined by filing her chief affidavit the defendant herein is her last sister. One Pakala Chalamaiah is her father. Her father Pakala
Chalamaiah blessed with 6 daughters and among them PW2 is the second daughter. Her father Pakala Chalamaiah purchased 18 Ankanams of site in 5th
Ward, Punuruvari Street, Kavali Bit 1 from Mangamuri Audi Reddy of Kavali long back and since then her father had been enjoying the same with full and absolute rights. Her mother name is Chenchamma. Her parents performed their marriages except the defendant, as she did not willing for marriage. Her parents
Chalamaiah and Chenchamma at their old age were staying with her and she looked after them with great love and affection in all aspects. Her father Pakala
Chalamaiah out of love and affection settled 9 Ankanams of site out of the above said 18 Ankanams with full rights in her favour under a registered settlement deed on 24-04-1986, registered under document No.473/1986 of
Kavali Sub Registry. On that day itself the said 9 Ankanams delivered possession to her and since that date she was in possession and enjoying the same with full and absolute rights. Thereafter herself and her husband Pitchaiah with their own funds constructed ACC sheets house in the said site and were
O.S.233/201414 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR living in the said house i.e. the plaint schedule along with her parents till the death of her father during the year 1993 and her mother died during the year 2001. In the mean time her husband Gunturu Pitchaiah died during the year 1999. Her son got employment in Hyderabad and on account of his employment he was staying at Hyderabad. But she was looking after her mother
Chenchamma till her death of the year 2001. Thereafter she went to her son at
Hyderabad, and she used to stay for some days at Hyderabad and for some days at Ongole where she got own house and her close relatives. Subsequently she settled the above said 9 Ankanams and house therein i.e. plaint schedule property in favour of her son the plaintiff herein under a registered settlement deed during the year 2007 with full rights. On the date of registration itself she inducted possession the schedule house property to her son and he has been enjoying the same with full and absolute rights. Subsequently her son transferred to Visakhapatnam and he shifted his family to Visakhapatnam and she used to stay in her son's house at Visakhapatnam and used to come to
Ongole. On account of her son's employment and staying at Visakhapatnam, the plaint schedule house property as kept vacant with lock and key and on account of that it is in dilapidated condition. In the plaint schedule house property the defendant is not having any right, title and possession.
19. In the cross examination PW2 deposed that; “My father gave 9 ankanams to me and 9 ankanams to my sister
Suseelamma in the said thatched house under Ex. A11. My father gave the said house to me and my sister suseelamma on condition to look after the welfare of present defendant. We settled the marriage of defendant with one person at Kavali, but I cannot say his name. At the time of marriage talking of defendant, my son/plaintiff was school going child. It is not true to suggest that after taking properties from my father, we did not look after
O.S.233/201415 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR the defendant and neglected her. It is not true to suggest that the suit schedule property is no way concerned with the said 9 ankanams thatched hut. It is not true to suggest that when we refused to look after the defendant, the children of the vendor of my father gave shelter to her and looked after welfare.”
20. On perusal of the above cross examination of PW2 the learned counsel for the defendant posed question for that PW2 deposed and denied that it is not true to suggest that the suit schedule property is no way concerned with the said 9 ankanams thatched hut. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW4 who was the husband of Suseelamma who was also gifted 9 ankanams of the remaining land along with the mother of the plaintiff deposed in his cross examination that; “My father in law has only 18 ankanams of house site property at
Kavali as per my knowledge. I do not know whether my father in law has Ac. 2.00 of landed property near Sarvayapalem Village. My father in law executed gift deed in favour of my wife for an extent of 9 ankanams out of 18 ankanams of house site and executed another gift deed in favour of the mother of plaintiff for the remaining 9 ankanams. My in laws and parents of plaintiffs were resided in the said 3 ankanams of shed.” “ It is true we looked after the welfare of defendant till date of death of my mother in law in the year 2001. My father in law died in the year 1993. It is not true to suggest that after the death of my in laws we neglected the defendant intentionally” “ It is not true to suggest that the said two gift deeds executed by my father in law in the year 1986 are not valid as we failed to look after the welfare of defendant.”
21. On perusal of the evidence of PW4 in the cross examination the defendant admitted that the execution of to separate gift deeds in favour of
O.S.233/201416 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR the mother of the plaintiff and the wife of PW4 by name Suseelamma by the father of them and defendant but she only contended that she was not looked after by the mother of the plaintiff and the wife of PW4 who are and sisters and as such the gift deeds executed in their favour are not valid.
When admittedly Late Pakala Chalamala an executed gift deed under
Ex.A11 in favour of the mother of the plaintiff he lost right again to execute will in favour of the defendant as alleged by her.
22. On perusal of the evidence of DW1/Pakala Bujjamma she filed her chief affidavit she stated that Pakala Chalamaiah is her father, and they were six daughter’s to their parents and among she is the youngest daughter to their parents. The plaintiff is the her elder sister’s son. Her father during his lifetime got married to all daughters except her, she is still remained un-married and her father being old aged he could get performed her marriage. Her father during in his life time had purchased 18 ankanams of house site from Mungamuri Audi
Reddy, Subba Reddy, Venka Reddy, Pattabhi Rami Reddy for valuable consideration of Rs. 56/- and obtained possession thereof, and her father constructed two rooms thereon, with door No. 5-11-20, 5-11-21 respectively since the date of purchase by her father had been in possession and enjoyment over the same. Since the defendant remain un married and have been caring for her parents out of love and affection her father executed a will in her favour on 24.03.1990 deputing his house site and house and at door No.5-11-20 an extent of Ac. 18 ankanams to her for her life support. Her father died in the year 1993 and mother died in the year 2001. After that her name was mutated in municipal records and she has been paying cist regularly to the government.
23. In the cross examination of DW1 deposed that; “ It is true in the said 9 ankanams there is ACC roofed shed. It is
O.S.233/201417 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR true as per my chief affidavit I got mentioned that I am residing in house D. No. 5-11-20. In the year 2001 my name was mutated to the plaint schedule property. I have submitted Ex.B6 to the authority for mutation my name regarding the plaint schedule property. It is true Ex.B6 is not in my name. It is true in Ex.B2 tax payment receipt showing that the door number is 5-11-16. It is not true to suggest that again the municipal authority send 2nd notice to me after 45 days of the 1st notice instructing within 3 days to submit documents showing my favour. It is not true to suggest that on 05.03.2010 I gave reply to the municipal commissioner in written stating that I have no documents in my favour in connection with the plaint schedule property. It is not true to suggest that as I have not submitted relevant document
before the municipal commissioner the municipal commissioner
got mutated the name of the plaintiff basing on register settlement deed in his name and removed my name. It is not true to suggest that the plaint schedule property is 5-11-2022.
Witness adds that the plaint schedule property house bearing D.
No. 5-11-20. Witness further adds that there are two houses bearing No. 5-11-20 and 5-11-21. I have stated in my written statement that two houses bearing D. No. 5-11-20 and 5-11-21.
It is true some of the house tax receipts 31 in number marked
Ex.B3 are in the name of my father and two house tax receipts are in my name. It is true there are some correction in house tax receipts in respect of D. No. 21 to 20. Witness adds that the tax collector made said corrections. It is true there is no initial for the said correction under the receipts Ex.B3.”
24. In the further cross examination of DW1 deposed that;
O.S.233/201418 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR “I have not got mentioned in my written statement that there are two houses in the plaint schedule properties. I have not got mentioned in IA No. 03/2025 that the door number of the plaint schedule property is 5-11-2022. I have got mentioned in IA No.
03/2025 that the plaint schedule property door number is 5-11-20.
It is true in Ex.B1 the name of my father is appearing as Pakala
Venkata Chalamaiah. It is true in my written statement and chief affidavit I got mentioned the name of my father as Pakala
Chalamaiah. Witness adds that my father is calling as Pakala
Chalamaiah @ Pakala Venkata Chalamaiah. It is true either in my written statement or in my chief affidavit I have not got mentioned that my father is calling Chalamaiah @ Pakala Venkata
Chalamaiah. I saw the registered settlement deed said to have executed my father Pakala Chalamaiah under Ex.A11 dated 24.04.1986. It is not true to suggest that my father signed on
Ex.A11 as Pakala Chalamaiah. It is not true to suggest that in the absence of plaintiff by taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff
I occupied the plaint schedule mentioned property and I have no right over the plaint schedule property.
25. DW2/Punnuru Srvana Nanda Reddy file his chief affidavit that he is 3rd party to the suit and in the year 1990 his maternal uncle brought him to the house of father of the defendant who is residing in the suit schedule property and executed un registered will dated 24.03.1990 where his maternal uncle
Bandaru Ramana Reddy who is aged about 19 years in those negotiations the main issue was the defendant was unmarried, unsettled life and the rest of all her sisters were married, had been living separately in various places and the defendant only taking care of her parents.
O.S.233/201419 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
26. In the cross examination of DW2 deposed that; “Plaintiff filed the present suit stating that the suit schedule property belongs to him. The plaint schedule property is an extent of 18 ankanams. It is not true to suggest that I got mentioned in
Para No.3 of my chief affidavit that the grandfather of the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from “Mungamuri Audi
Reddy, Subba Reddy, Venka Reddy, Pattabhi Rami Reddy are false.” The grandfather of the plaintiff executed unregistered will
dated 24.03.1990 in favour of defendant. I was present at the time
of execution of “WILL” dated 24.03.1990. I am not the attestor of the said will dated 24.03.1990. At the time of alleged execution will dated 24.03.1990 daughter’s of Chalamaiah were not present.
By the date of will, (dated 24.03.1990) I was aged about in between 28 and 30. Will dated 24.03.1990 attested by No.1
Bandaru Venkata Ramana Reddy and I do not know who is the 2nd attestor of WILL dated 24.03.1990.” I do not know that at the first instance the grand father of the plaintiff executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and subsequently the mother of the plaintiff executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property.”
27. On perusal of the above evidence of DW2 he deposed that he does not know about the execution of settlement deeds in favour of the mother of the plaintiff/Venkata Ramanamma and other daughter/Sulochanamma of Pakala
Chalamaiah under separate settlement deeds each 9 ankanams out of 18 ankanams. Whereas the defendant herself admitted that the late Pakala
Chalamaiah executed settlement deeds each 9 ankanams out of 18 ankanams in
O.S.233/201420 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR favour of the mother of the plaintiff and other daughter namely Venkata
Ramanamma and Suseelamma. It clearly shows that this witness has no knowledge about the family affairs of the Late Pakala Chalamaiah, hence his evidence no way helped the case of the defendant.
28. Coming to the evidence of DW3/Bandaru Ramana Reddy he filed his chief affidavit that he is 1st attestor of the unregistered will dated 24.03.1990 under which the father of the defendant Late Pakala Chalamaiah had executed un registered will dated 24.03.1990 and he stood as 1st attestor. The will scheduled property is 18 ankanams situated at Punnuruvari Street who is remembrance and due to his old age Late Pakala Chalamaiah and his wife wanted to settle house property wherein the defendant and Chalamaiah and his wife were residing for the security and welfare of the defendant. DW3 further stated in his chief affidavit due to old age he is unable to recollect his memory but he identified his signature
as 1st attestor and the 2nd attestor was Annaluru Venkata Ramanaiah. Late
chalamaiah had good conscious ness and instructed to scribe and after drafting found it correct and accordingly DW3 and other attestor Annaluru Venkata
Ramanaiah stood as attestors for the will dated 24.03.1990.
29. In the cross examination of DW3 deposed that; “ I do not know who scribed the will dated 24.03.1990 The name of the executant is Chalamaiah. After the execution of the document the document given to me and accordingly I attested the same, I do not remember the age of the executant Chalamaiah by the time of said execution. It is true my chief affidavit doesn’t contain that I witness the signature of the executant at the time of signing the document and as well at the time of my signature by the executant. I am residing Vikruthivari Street, kavali. My house was in a distance
O.S.233/201421 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR of one furlong to the house of Chalamaiah by the date of execution of the said will but I do not remember the street name of the house of the Chalamaiah. I do not know the family affairs of the said
Chalamaiah. I do not know the names of six daughters of
Chalamaiah. I do not know how the said Chalamaiah got the property covered under the said will. I have not enquired the said
Chalamaiah whether alienated the property covered under the said will to anybody. I do not know that Chalamaiah had executed registered settlement deeds in favour of his two daughters in the year 1986. I do not know who is the other attestor of the said will along with me. I do not know who is the scribe of the said will. I do not remember the door number of the property covered under the said will. I do not remember how many pages the said will contains.
Chalamaiah put his thumb impression on the said will. It is not true to suggest that Chalamaiah never executed the will in favour of the defendant in my presence and only at request of the defendant I signed on the will which was already prepared and I am deposing false. It is not true to suggest that I do not know the contents of the said will and at the instance of defendant I am deposing false. It is not true to suggest that the will is forged document.”
30. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he came to know the defendant by mis apprehending the facts got mutated her name in the municipal records and accordingly he gave a complaint to the municipal commissioner to delete this name in the records. In this regard on perusal of Ex.A13 the commissioner municipality Kavali sent a notice to the defendant herein dated 20.08.2009 that on 22.01.2009 the plaintiff herein gave a representation to the commissioner
Kavali Municipality to change his name in the place of name of the defendant to the house bearing door no. 5-11-2016 assessment No.1030002239 to pay
O.S.233/201422 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR house tax and further the defendant was asked to file her documents in connection with the said house if she has got any objection. In this regard on perusal of Ex.A14 the 2nd notice issued by the commissioner municipality Kavali to the defendant herein that already 45 days have completed and she did not furnish any documents in favour of her showing her objection to change the name of plaintiff herein in the place of defendant herein and again three more days to the defendant to furnish the documents in her favour in connection with house bearing door no.5-11-16 assessment no. 1030002239. On perusal of
Ex.A15 dated 05.03.2010 the defendant herein presented a letter to the municipal commissioner kavali that her father and his brother purchased jointly an extent of 18 ankanams vacant site on 09.06.1952 under an agreement and purchased the same from Mungamuri Audi Reddy and since then they had been in possession and enjoyment over the said site and her father had constructed house in the set site and had been living in the said house and he died in the year 1993 interstate. The mother of the defendant died in the year 2001 and the defendant has got five sisters all of them were got married except the defendant herein, the sisters of the defendant were given gold and cash towards their pasupukunkama at the time of marriage itself and the said house was given to the defendant herein, the mother of the plaintiff by creating the document of settlement deed in her favour showing that her father had executed settlement deed in her favour and subsequently the mother of the plaintiff also created a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and as such the name of the plaintiff cannot be changed by deleting her name and even if it is done it is not valid.
31. Further on perusal of Ex.A16 the municipal commissioner sent a letter to the sub register, kavali to know whether the mother of the plaintiff had executed settlement deed in his favour as represented by the plaintiff herein. On perusal of Ex.A17 the letter issued by the sub register, kavali,. SPSR Nellore District to the municipal commissioner, kavali that the property was transferred from
O.S.233/201423 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
Gunturu Ramanamma to Sri Venkata Subba Rao through document no.
4421/2007 of SRO, Kavali. On perusal of Ex.A18 is the endorsement of the commissioner, Kavali municipality to the clerk of water supply that the house bearing door no. 5-11-2006 in 5th ward bearing assessment no. 1030002239 that the name of the defendant herein was deleted and the name of the plaintiff was substituted basing on the document no. 4421/2007. On perusal of Ex.A20 is the endorsement of the commissioner, kavali municipality to the defendant herein that the house bearing door no. 5-11-2006 in bearing assessment no.
1030002239 that the name of the defendant herein was deleted and the name of the plaintiff was substituted basing on the document no. 4421/2007 since the defendant herein failed to supply any document showing her right over the said house. On perusal of the documents mentioned above the commissioner, Kavali municipality by his correspondence letters called for the information from the defendant herein to show the relevant document that she has got right over the suit property but she failed to do so the reasons best known to her. Though the defendant contended that the settlement deed under Ex.A11 was a created document to swallow the entire property of the father of the defendant by her sisters namely Gunturu Venkata Ramanamma and Suseelamma in the cross examination of PW1 and PW4 the defendant admitted by her questions that her father got executed gift settlement deed under Ex.A11 in favour of the above said her two sisters that PW1 in the cross examination deposed; “It is true after giving 9 ankanams to my mother the said 18 ankanams got divided into two bits” “ It is true no property was given to the defendant and that the property was divided among the married daughters of by grandfather” “ It is not true to suggest that taking advantage of the innocents of defendant and the age fact of my grandfather, myself and my mother my aunt
Suseelamma and her husband colluded with each other and
O.S.233/201424 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR swallowed entire property without giving any property to the defendant.”
32. Like wise in the cross examination of PW4 he deposed that; “It is not true to suggest that my wife and mother of plaintiff took the entire property of my in laws and that we neglected the defendant. It is not true to suggest that my father in law gifted the said 18 ankanmas house site in favour of my wife and mother of plaintiff with a view to perform marriage and welfare of defendant. It is not true to suggest the said deeds executed by my father in law in the year 1986 are not valid as they failed to look after the welfare of the defendant.”
33. By the above admissions the defendant admitted that her father had executed settlement deed under Ex.A11 in favour the mother of the plaintiff and
Suseelamma each 9 ankanams out of 18 ankanams so admitted facts need not to be proved. It is the contention of the defendant that her father had executed un registered will in her favour in this regard though the defendant got examined that he is the 1st attestor of the will dated 24.03.1990 but in the cross examination he deposed that “I do not who is the other attestor of the will along with me. I do not know who is the scribe of the said will.” In this regard on perusal of Ex.A11 admittedly the father of the defendant herein had executed settlement deed in favour of the sisters of the defendant herein namely Venkata
Ramanamma who is the mother of the plaintiff and other sister Suseelamma an extent of 9 ankanams to each in 18 ankanams, in the year 1986 when such is the case even the will assumed to have executed by the Late Pakala
Chalamaiah it will be not valid unless and until the settlement deed 1986 is cancelled.
O.S.233/201425 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
34. Further the defendant in her cross examination denied that it is not true that the plaint schedule property door No. 5-11-22 and she adds that there are two houses bearing door no. 5-11-20 and 5-11-21. Further deposed that she stated in her written statement that there are two houses in the plaint schedule property bearing door number 5-11-20 and 5-11-21. Further the defendant denied that there is only one house and there are no two houses in the plaint schedule property. The defendant further denied that the municipal commissioner sent Ex.A4 that correct door number of the plaint schedule is 5-11-
22. The defendant further deposed that it is true that she has also issued reply notice under Ex.A9. In this regard on perusal of Ex.A4 is the assessment master search for payment where in the assessment number of the house 1030002239 is the house bearing door number 5-11-22 Kotareddy vari street locality owner of the house is Gunturu Venkata Subba Rao assessment date 9.9.1900 so Ex.A4 issued by the Commissioner Kavali municipality clearly shows that correct door number is 5-11-22 issued on 2-8-2014. Earlier though the correspondence from the municipality kavali was done regarding the house bearing door number 5-11- 2016 assessment number 1030002239 but finally under Ex.A4 dated 2.08.2014 the door number was corrected as 5-11-2022 as rightly contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Further on perusal of Ex. A9 legal notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff was also got mentioned the plaint schedule property house bearing door no.5-11-22 by all these evidence it clearly shows that the identity dispute raised by the defendant only for the purpose of the case and she failed to prove the same.
35. The learned counsel for the defendant relied two below mentioned
Judgments of the Hon’ble High Court;
O.S.233/201426 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
1. Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Arugunta Sree Praveen vs Pothireddy Indiramma on 5 January, 2024
The Hon’ble High Court held in para No. 34. In a Suit for declaration of title, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiffs to stand on their own legs to establish the identity of the property. Mere execution of originals of Exs.A-6 and A-7 in favour of the first plaintiff and his younger brother - Arugunta Venkata Hareesh respectively does not mean that the property claimed by the plaintiffs is identifiable. When the plaintiffs pleaded that the property covered under plaint A and B schedule is covered by a AVRB,J valid approved layout, the so called layout has not seen the light of the day. There is no explanation from the plaintiffs as to why they could not produce the best evidence to establish the identity of the property. On the other hand, various admissions made by PW.1 during cross-examination means that Ramadasu executed originals of Exs.A-4 and A-5 relating to two chunks of the property with the self same boundaries and the same boundaries were there in Ex.A-3 also. Apart from this, admission of PW.1 during cross-examination means that on the strength of ex parte injunction in O.S. No.41 of 2012, he tried to fix up the boundaries and even the District Surveyor expressed his inability to identify the plaint schedule property basing on the documents available. The plaintiffs sought to prove the boundaries basing on the available sale deeds with them. Even during the course of trial before the learned Additional District Judge, plaintiffs did not take any other steps to get a comprehensive survey so as to identify the plaint schedule property. In my considered view, plaintiffs, for the reasons best known to them, withheld the best evidence available with them i.e., the so called approved layout, whose reference was made in the pleadings to establish the identity of the property. The learned Additional District
Judge rightly looked into all these aspects. In my considered view, the
evidence on record is not at all AVRB,J sufficient to establish the identity of plaint A and B schedule properties. Though the defendants 1, 3 and 4 claimed property under Exs.B-1 to B-3, even there is no whisper from their case as to whether the so called house sites claimed by them is covered under a valid layout. However, their contention is also that under the guise of ex parte injunction plaintiffs tried to encroach their property. In a suit of this nature, as this Court already pointed out, plaintiffs have to succeed on their own strength and they cannot succeed basing on the weakness of the defence.
O.S.233/201427 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
2. Ravilla Lokanatha Naidu vs Smt.Muneppagari Jamuna “The Hon’ble Court held in para No. 21. The plaintiff by above statement made attempt to say that the land covered by Ex.A3 sale deed is located on northern side of the land covered by Ex.A2 sale deed and that the land on the south side of Ex.A2 sale deed belongs to Smt. A. Venkataratnamma i.e., Ac.0.13 cents of land. As already stated above, the plaintiff categorically admitted that the dispute is with regard to Ac.0.05 cents of land purchased by the defendant under Ex.A3. Therefore, the plaintiff shall explain how the legal heirs of Smt. Sundaramma alienated Ac.0.05 cents of land to the defendant located on the southern side of Ac. 0.11 cents of land purchased by the defendant, when it belongs to Smt. A. Ventkataratnamma and others.”
36. In the above judgment No.2 the Hon’ble Courts observed that there is dispute regarding an extent of Ac.0.05 cents purchased by the defendant under
Ex.A3 therefore the plaintiff shall explain how the legal heirs Smt. Sundaramma alienated the above said extent located on southern side of Ac.0.11 cents of land purchased by the defendant. In the present case Ex.A4 Dated 2-8-2014 issued by the Commissioner Kavali municipality clearly shows that correct door number is 5- 11-22. Earlier though the correspondence from the municipality kavali was done regarding the house bearing door number 5-11-2016 assessment number 1030002239 but finally under Ex.A4 dated 2.08.2014 the door number was corrected as 5-11-2022 as rightly contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Further on perusal of Ex. A9 legal notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff was mentioned the plaint schedule property house bearing door no.5-11- 22 by all these evidence it clearly shows that the identity dispute raised by the defendant only for the purpose of the case and as such she failed to prove the same.
37. On perusal of Ex.B6 got marked by the defendant that the suit property i.e. 9 ankanams along with remaining 9 ankanams purchased by the father of defendant and grand father of the plaintiff from two persons on 09.06.1952 for which stamp duty paid by the defendant as per the assessment of the District Registrar, Nellore
O.S.233/201428 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR vide letter No. G1/2290/2025, dated 05.07.2025 and the District Registrar also confirmed that the property covered under Ex.A11 was not assigned property. On perusal of the gift deed under Ex.A11 is dated 24.04.1986 it is the contention of the plaintiff that the father of the defendant and grand father of the plaintiff had been possession and enjoyment of the property since from the date of his purchase that is from 09.06.1952 till 24.04.1986 where as the defendant contented that till his death her father had been in possession and enjoyment of the property however it is admitted that between the period 09.06.1952 till 24.04.1986 the late chalamaiah had been possession and enjoyment of the property so it is more than 34 years even as adverse possession also the rights of the chalamaiah had been confirmed so under Ex.A11 the rights of the late chalamaiah had transferred in favour of the mother of plaintiff and inturn her rights were transferred to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 hence this Court do not hesitate to declare the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in his favour and the defendant is liable to vacate and deliver the suit property to the plaintiff . Accordingly the above issue is settled in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
38. Issue No.2:
In view of aforesaid findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, this court is of considered opinion that the suit is liable to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
39. In the result suit is decreed with costs declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and the defendant is directed to va- cate and deliver the suit property to the plaintiff with in one month from the date of the Judgment, if the defendant is failed to do so the plaintiff is at liberty to get it delivered through the court of law.
O.S.233/201429 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract Basis) corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th of April, 2026.
Sd/- Sm Sdetha Sd/-A. Geetha Vanivani
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Kavali
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Plaintiff : Defendant :
PW.1 : G. Venkata Subba RaoDW.1: P. Bujjamma PW.2 : Gunturu Venkata RamanammaDW.2 : P. Sravanananda Reddy (eschewed) PW.3: Ch. SarojanammaDW.3 : B. Ramana Reddy PW.4: K. Venkata Ramanaiah
Documents marked for Plaintiff
Ex.A.1 Registered settlement deed dated 17.09.2007
Ex.A.2Signed endorsement of Commissioner, Kavali dt. 26.06.2010.
Ex.A.3Signed endorsement of Commissioner, Kavali dt. 29.06.2010.
Ex.A.4 Downloaded net copy of assessment.
Ex.A.5 Municipal House tax receipt dt. 12.09.2014.
Ex.A.6Two old tax receipts dated 15.11.2010 and 04.12.2012.
Ex.A.7Office copy of legal notice dated 13.09.2014 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.A.8Return un served notice
Ex.A.9Reply notice dated 03.10.2014.
Ex.A.10Municipal reprint receipt dated 08.02.2016.
Ex.A.11Certified copy of registered settlement deed dt. 24.04.1986
O.S.233/201430 Civil Judge’s Court,
(Sr.Division) KVL-FAIR
Ex.A.12 Attested xerox copy of office note dated 12.01.2010.
Ex.A.13 Attested xerox copy of office note dated 20.08.2009.
Ex.A.14 Attested xerox copy of notice dated 02.01.2010
Ex.A.15Attested xerox copy of application dated 05.03.2010.
Ex.A.16Attested xerox copy of letter dated 05.06.2010.
Ex.A.17 Attested xerox copy of letter dated 09.06.2010.
Ex.A.18Attested xerox copy of endorsement dated 26.06.2010
Ex.A.19Attested xerox copy of endorsement dated 26.06.2010
Ex.A.20Attested xerox copy of endorsement dated 29.06.2010.
Ex.A.21Postal acknowledgment dated 01.10.2014 served on P. Bujjamma.
Documents marked for defendant
Ex.B.1 :Original unregistered will dt. 24.03.1990 executed by the father of DW1.
Ex.B.2: Original tax receipts two in number stands in the name of DW1.
Ex.B.3:Bunch of demand notices and receipts with door No. 5-11- 20 and 5-11-21
Ex.B.4:Voter identity card of DW1.
Ex.B.5: Voter identity card of Pakala Chenchamma/mother of DW1.
Ex.B.6: Agreement of sale dated 09.06.1952 in favor of father of defendant (stamp duty penalty paid as per the orders in the
IA No. 03/2025.
Id/- Smt. A.G.V.
Sd/-A. Geetha Vaniva
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Kavali