IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
(FTC), GUDIVADA
Present: Smt. A. Purnima,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada,
FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Gudivada.
Monday, this the 30th day of October, 2023.
O.S.No.37/2008 and O.S.No.38/2008
O.S.No.37/2008 (old suit in O.S.No.605/2005 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudivada):
Between:- Gunja Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged about 27 years, Cultivation, Resident of Tattivarru Village, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.
...Plaintiff.
And
Gunja Rattamma @ Kaila Rattamma, D/o. Late Sambaiah, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Properties, Resident of Tattivarru Village, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. …Defendant.
O.S.No.38/2008 (old suit in O.S.No.265/2005 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudivada):
Between:- Gunja Ratnamma, W/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, Hindu, Aged about 72 years, Cultivation, Resident of Tattivarru Village, Gudivada Rural and Mandal, Krishna District.
...Plaintiff.
And
1. Gunja Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Late Sarojini, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Cultivation, Resident of Tattivarru Village, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 2ASCJ (FTC), GDV
2. Gunja Padmavathi, W/o. Venkatram, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, Bank Employee, Resident of Plot No.31, Medical and Health Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
3. Gunja Bharathi, D/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, Hindu, Aged about 47 years, Advocate, Resident of Tattivarru Village, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.
4. Gunja Rama, D/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, C/o. Venkatram, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, Private Employee, Resident of Plot No.31, Medical and Health Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
[Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.153/2018, dated 14.08.2019]. …Defendants.
These both suits came before me on 09.10.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Baji Sherif Khan, Advocate for the Plaintiff in
O.S.No.37/2008 and Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.38/2008 and
Sri M.N.P. Reddy, Advocate for the Defendant in O.S.No.37/2008 and Plaintiff in O.S.No.38/2008 and Sri K.V. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.38/2008. Upon hearing arguments on both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
1.The suit in O.S.No.37/2008 is filed by the plaintiff to declare him as “absolute owner” of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, for consequential reliefs of “recovery of possession” in respect of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and to grant “Permanent Injunction” restraining the defendant, her men and supporters from interfering with the peaceful possession
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 3ASCJ (FTC), GDV
and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and also for costs.
2.The suit in O.S.No.38/2008 is filed by the plaintiff to grant “Permanent Injunction” restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and to declare that she is the “lawful owner” of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The plaintiff is also seeking “alternative relief of division” of the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties into two equal shares, to allot “one such share” to the plaintiff, for “future mesne profits” in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and also for costs.
3.The pleadings of the plaint in O.S.No.37/2008 in brief are that:-
(i)The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, which is situated in R.S.No.56/4 of Tattivarru
Revenue Village accounts. One Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja
Sarojini are the parents of the plaintiff and their parents blessed with the plaintiff and three daughters by name Gunja Padmavathi
Kumari, Gunja Bharathi and Gunja Rama. The marriage of the parents of the plaintiff was performed on 21.02.1965 in the premises of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Vari Temple, Ponnuru, Guntur
District, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Custom prevailed in their community. The father of the plaintiff worked in Agricultural
Marketing Department and worked in various places and in various capacities and retired as Assistant Director/Special Grade Secretary of Agricultural Marketing Committee, Gannavaram.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 4ASCJ (FTC), GDV
(ii)Further pleaded that, the father of the plaintiff got executed a Will on 20.02.2001 in a sound disposing state of mind and bequeathed the plaint schedule mentioned properties to the plaintiff and died on 14.06.2003 leaving behind his wife and his children. The defendant herein filed suit as if she is the legally wedded wife of the father of the plaintiff herein by name Gunja
Venkata Ratnam and seeking “Permanent Injunction” against the plaintiff.
(iii)Further pleaded that, the defendant is never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property prior to 29.07.2005. The defendant herein is not legally wedded wife of his father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam. The grandmother of the plaintiff never announced “Oli” in favour of the defendant as alleged by the defendant in the said suit. The entire record shows that, the mother of the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of his father.
(iv)During the life time of Gunja Venkata Ratnam, the then
VAO, of Tattivarru Village was collected pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of father of the plaintiff so as to make some entries in the said pass books and also with regard to the entry of the loan availed by father of the plaintiff in PACS, Ramanapudi, but the then VAO, tampered the entries in the pattadar pass book as well as title deed and returned the same. The entry regarding to the plaint schedule mentioned properties in the pattadar pass book was not properly made and the entries striked out in the pattadar pass book therefore the father of the plaintiff made a representation to the then District Collector, Krishna on 05.10.2000 and also send
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 5ASCJ (FTC), GDV
memorandum of representation to the then Revenue Minister and other Government Officials.
(v)Further pleaded that, the father of the plaintiff was paying land revenue for the entire plaint schedule mentioned properties during his life time. The plaint schedule mentioned properties are the ancestral property of the father of the plaintiff and the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff have no right in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned properties so as to announce “Oli” in favour of the defendant. As per the Will dated 20.02.2001, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Item
Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
(vi)The mother of the plaintiff was also died on 17.03.2005 as intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and his three sisters as her legal heirs therefore the plaintiff became absolute owner of the Item
Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. Hence, prays to declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, for consequential reliefs of possession of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and also for Permanent Injunction in respect of the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property as the defendant trespassed into the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property under the guise of injunction orders. Hence, the suit.
4.(i)The defendant filed written statement and denied the pleadings of the plaint and reiterated her pleadings in her written statement which is pleaded by her in O.S.No.38/2008. Further stated that, the plaintiff is causing hurdles to her to do agricultural
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 6ASCJ (FTC), GDV
operations in the plaint schedule mentioned properties therefore she filed suit against him for the relief of Permanent Injunction and to declare that, she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties in O.S.No.38/2008 and then the plaintiff herein who is the defendant in O.S.No.38/2008 filed suit with false allegations who is no way concerned to the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
(ii)Further stated that, to her knowledge, her husband by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam never married Gunja Sarojini and he never blessed children as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant is the only legally wedded wife of Gunja Venkata Ratnam and she never obtained any divorce from her husband from any court of law, till the death of her husband. To her knowledge, her husband by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam never executed any Will in favour of anybody that to on 20.02.2001 as alleged by the plaintiff and there was no necessity to him to execute such alleged Will. The documents filed by the plaintiff are created to file the present suit only for wrongful gain and he filed the present suit only as a counter blast for the suit in O.S.No.38/2008. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
5.The pleadings of the plaint in O.S.No.38/2008 in brief are that:-
(i)The marriage of the plaintiff was performed with one
Gunja Venkata Ratnam on 25.05.1966 in the house of parents of plaintiff at Tattivarru Village as per Hindu Rites and Caste Custom prevailed in their community. The said Gunja Venkata Ratnam is none other than the son of maternal uncle of the plaintiff. The
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 7ASCJ (FTC), GDV
marriage of the plaintiff was performed at the request of Gunja
Peramma who is the mother of the husband of the plaintiff out of love and affection on the plaintiff. The said Venkata Ratnam worked in Agricultural Department and retired as Assistant Director in
Agricultural Marketing Committee in Vijayawada. During his service, he was also worked in various places. The husband of the plaintiff died on 14.06.2003 leaving behind her as his sole legal heir and to succeed his entire properties including an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in
R.S.No.56/4 and an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in R.S.No.78/1 situated in
Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts.
(ii)Further pleaded that, the husband of the plaintiff got the plaint schedule mentioned properties from his parents. The plaintiff and her husband lived happily, till the death of her husband i.e., on 14.06.2003. At the time of marriage of the plaintiff, the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property given to the plaintiff towards her “Oli” as per custom prevailed in “Hindu Harizana Mala
Community”. As such, the plaintiff have been in possession and enjoyment of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property with absolute rights, she is also paying necessary land revenue to the Revenue Department. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property after the death of her husband and also she is paying land revenue in respect of the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
(iii)Further pleaded that, the defendant is the resident of
Tattivarru Village and he is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 8ASCJ (FTC), GDV
schedule mentioned properties by saying that he is the son of late
Venkata Ratnam, but the plaintiff never blessed any child through her husband as such she is issue-less. The defendant is no way concerned to the plaint schedule mentioned properties, belongs to the plaintiff. There is no such alleged son to the plaintiff through her husband by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam. The defendant is attempting to create hurdles to the plaintiff in making agricultural operations in the plaint schedule mentioned properties who have no manner of right, title and interest in the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The defendant is proclaiming in the village that, he will not allow the plaintiff to do agricultural operations in the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
(iv)Further pleaded that, the plaintiff is an old age woman and she is depending on the income derived from the plaint schedule mentioned properties to eke out her livelihood. Except the plaint schedule mentioned properties there is no other source of income to her. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and also to declare her as lawful owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. Hence, the suit.
6.The 1st defendant filed written statement and denied the pleadings of the plaint and also denied the marriage between the plaintiff and Gunja Venkata Ratnam. Further stated that, the plaint schedule mentioned properties fell to the share of his father in oral partition took place about 30 years back among the father of the defendant and Gunja Sundaram who is the brother of the father of
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 9ASCJ (FTC), GDV
the defendant. Since then the father of the defendants was in separate possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The paternal grandmother of the defendants have no title or possession in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property to declare “Oli” in favour of the plaintiff at the time of her marriage with late Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
The marriage between the mother and father of the defendants was already performed on 21.02.1965. So question of performing the second marriage with the plaintiff does not arise. The entries in the
Revenue records will not create any right to the plaintiff. The plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties at any point of time. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. (i)The 1st defendant filed additional written statement and stated that, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are his elder sisters who are the daughters of Gunja Venkata Ratnam. Further stated that, the father of the defendants purchased an extent of Ac.0.34 cents in
R.S.No.85/2C of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts under registered sale deed dated 28.07.1993 from Saraswathamma. The said Saraswathamma gifted an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in
R.S.No.85/2C in favour of father of the defendants out of love and affection on him and got executed registered gift settlement deed under bearing Document No.3664/1993 which is part and parcel of the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. As such,
Gunja Venkata Ratnam is the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 10ASCJ (FTC), GDV
properties fell to his share during the course of oral partition and the part of the Item No.3 purchased by him and remaining part of the
Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property gifted by Gunja
Saraswathamma to the father of the defendants. The father of the defendants performed the funerals of Sundaram who is the husband of Gunja Saraswathamma.
(ii)Further stated that, Gunja Venkata Ratnam got executed
Will on 20.02.2001 in favour of mother of 1st defendant by creating life interest and created absolute rights to the 1st defendant and died on 14.06.2003. The mother of the defendants was also died on 17.03.2005 leaving behind the defendants as her legal representatives. After the death of mother of the defendants, the 1st defendant having right, title and interest in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned properties by virtue of Will dated 20.02.2001.
(iii)The mother of the defendants was also received pension, GPF and other benefits after the death of Gunja Venkata
Ratnam. The mother of the defendants and the defendants shown as legal heirs of Gunja Venkata Ratnam in all concerned employment records of the Gunja Venkata Ratnam. The defendants along with their parents were resided in Satyanarayanapuram,
Gudivada in Door No.17/265 for about six or seven years. After that, their father constructed house in Satyanarayanapuram, Gudivada under Door No.16/129 and they were residing in the said house till the same was sold.
(iv)Further stated that, the 1st defendant constructed RCC building in Tattivarru Village after the death of their mother. The father of the defendants suffered from Cancer disease and took
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 11ASCJ (FTC), GDV
treatment in Chest Hospital and MNJ Cancer Hospital at Hyderabad,
NIMS Hospital and Gandhi Hospital in Secunderabad and in Cancer
Institute (WIA) Chennai and died on 14.06.2003. The 1st defendant performed the funerals and all death ceremonies to his father and the Tombs of their parents were also constructed in the land which is situated in R.S.No.78/1. The Tomb of paternal grandmother of the defendants was also constructed by his father in the said land. So, if the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam, then she has to reveal all those facts in the suit filed by her but she did not reveal those facts because she have no knowledge about the health problems of Gunja Venkata Ratnam and about the places in which he took treatment for his disease and who look after his welfare, all those facts are not revealed by her.
(v)Further stated that, the plaintiff is the niece of father of the defendants herein but she is no way concerned with the family and properties of Gunja Venkata Ratnam but she filed the present suit with false allegations only to grab the plaint schedule mentioned properties. Further stated that, as per the alleged wedding card filed by her, her marriage was performed in the house of Gunja Venkata Ratnam but she pleaded that, her marriage was performed in her parent’s house which is contrary to her wedding card filed by her. The father of the defendants was paying land revenue in respect of entire plaint schedule mentioned properties during his life time and after his death, the 1st defendant is paying land revenue, but the plaintiff colluded with the Revenue Officials and made wrong entries in the Revenue records without any
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 12ASCJ (FTC), GDV
documentary evidence and such wrong entries will not create right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff.
(vi)Further stated that, the 1st defendant filed written statement on 13.07.2005 and after that the plaintiff filed petition to add the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and therefore he filed additional written statement on 12.06.2008 by disclosing all facts, but after seven years the plaintiff filed petition in
I.A.No.61/2013 basing on the cross examination of plaintiff/PW.1 did on 04.08.2009 but the plaintiff failed to take steps within limitation therefore the suit is bared by limitation. The plaintiff is also not paid proper Court Fee. The plaintiff initially filed suit for the relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction without including the all properties acquired by Gunja Venkata Ratnam and subsequently she added Item No.3 and relief of “partition” but the plaintiff failed to assign any reasons why she has not included all the other lands in the present suit. As such, the claim of the plaintiff for partial partition is not maintainable.
(vii)The plaintiff pleaded that, the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties are ancestral properties of
Gunja Venkata Ratnam but she failed to add all proper and necessary parties to the suit as Gunja Venkata Ratnam had three daughters, but the plaintiff added the daughters of Gunja Venkata
Ratnam at belated stage only to overcome from all legal defects and fill up the said gaps in the suit therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.
(viii) Further stated that, the plaintiff filed suit by stating that, the 1st defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 13ASCJ (FTC), GDV
mentioned properties and the family of Gunja Venkata Ratnam but subsequently she changed her pleadings by taking inconsistent pleadings and seeking the relief of partition by adding the defendant Nos.2 to 4 as parties to the suit and it shows that, the plaintiff filed the present suit only to grab the valuable properties and to extort money from the 1st defendant.
(ix)The 1st defendant filed suit in O.S.No.37/2008 and in that suit, the names of defendant Nos.2 to 4 are not included as such, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed petitions in both suits but the plaintiff resisted the claim of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and alleged that, they have no right in the plaint schedule mentioned properties and therefore the said petitions were dismissed but the plaintiff changed her version recently and impleaded the defendant Nos.2 to 4 herein as a parties in the present suit. The subject matter in the both suits is one and the same as such the defendants herein intends to take steps to implead in O.S.No.37/2008 as parties to the suit. The suit is not maintainable for “partial partition” and also “bared by limitation”, therefore prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
8.The 3rd defendant filed “written statement” after adding them as parties as per orders in I.A.No.153/2018 dated 14.08.2019 and the same is adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 4 by denying the pleadings of the plaint in O.S.No.38/2008 but almost all reiterated the additional written statement filed by the 1st defendant on 30.10.2019 and also supported the version of 1st defendant in all aspects who is the brother of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 14ASCJ (FTC), GDV
9.Based on the pleadings and documents, the following issues are framed on 31.03.2006 “in O.S.No.37/2008” for the purpose of Trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration
of his title in respect of the plaint schedule
mentioned property as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
possession of the plaint schedule mentioned
property as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
10.Based on the pleadings and documents, the following issues are framed on 29.08.2005 in “O.S.No.38/2008” for the purpose of Trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule mentioned property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration
of her title in respect of the plaint schedule
mentioned property as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Permanent Injunction as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
The following additional issues are framed on 19.08.2008 in
O.S.No.38/2008.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
The following additional issues are framed on 17.01.2017 in
O.S.No.38/2008.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 15ASCJ (FTC), GDV
1. Whether the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint
schedule properties are liable for partition into
two equal shares and the plaintiff is entitled for
one such share as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne
profits from the date of suit till date of delivery
of her share of property relating to Item Nos.2
and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned
properties as prayed for?
The following additional issue is framed on 18.08.2017 in
O.S.No.38/2008.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of
plaint schedule mentioned properties as prayed
for?
The following additional issues are framed on 25.11.2019 in
O.S.No.38/2008.
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the suit is filed for partial partition?
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of all necessary parties?
4. Whether the Court Fee paid by plaintiff is correct or not?
11.The plaintiff in O.S.No.38/2008 filed petition to club the both suits and to record the evidence in O.S.No.38/2008 and the same was allowed on 02.11.2006 as per orders in I.A.No.1854/2006 and the both suits are clubbed on 02.11.2006. The evidence is recorded in O.S.No.38/2008.
12.During the course of trial in O.S.No.38/2008, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited “25 documents” which were marked as Exs.A1 to A25. Two more witnesses got examined as PWs.2 and 3. The Executive Officer of “Sri Sahasra Lingeswara
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 16ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Swamy and Sri Veera Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Ponnuru” got examined as PW.6. The chief examination-affidavit of one Kaila
Arjuna Rao and additional chief examination-affidavit of said person filed on 18.04.2007 and 06.10.2009 respectively but he did not turn up therefore, the chief examination-affidavit of Kaila Arjuna Rao is deemed to be eschewed on 19.04.2010. Likewise, the chief examination-affidavit of Gunja China Koteswara Rao filed on 15.09.2009 is also did not turn up therefore his chief examination- affidavit is also eschewed on 19.04.2010 which were filed as PWs.4 and 5.
After closure of plaintiff’s side evidence, the 1st defendant filed his chief examination-affidavit and also filed additional chief examination-affidavit and got examined as DW.1 and exhibited 76 documents which were marked as Exs.B1 to B76. The Ex.B77 marked through the cross examination of PW.6. The chief examination-affidavit of Gunja Chitti Babu filed as DW.2 and his chief examination-affidavit eschewed on 12.04.2022 as he died. Two more witnesses got examined as DWs.3 and 4 on behalf of the 1st defendant.
After closure of the 1st defendant’s side evidence, the 3rd defendant got examined as DW.5 and no documents marked on behalf of the defendant Nos.2 to 4.
13.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed on behalf of the 1st defendant and perused the same.
14.Issue No.1 in O.S.No.38/2008:-
Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint
schedule mentioned property?
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 17ASCJ (FTC), GDV
The plaintiff in O.S.No.38/2008 by name Gunja Ratnamma filed suit initially for the relief of Permanent Injunction in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned properties which is an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in R.S.No.56/4 and an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in R.S.No.78/1 with a specific pleading that she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties as Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property which is an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in
R.S.No.56/4 of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts given by her mother-in-law who is the mother of her husband by name Gunja
Venkata Ratnam under “Oli” as per custom prevailed in their community and the said “Oli” announced by her mother-in-law at the time of marriage of the plaintiff by name Gunja Ratnamma. As such, she have been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property with absolute rights and her name is also mutated in the Revenue records. The plaintiff is also paying necessary land revenue to the concerned authorities.
15.The further contention of the plaintiff is that, the Item
No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property which is an extent of
Ac.1.58 cents in R.S.No.78/1 is also in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff after the death of her husband by name Gunja Venkata
Ratnam and she is also paying land revenue to the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property also. But the defendant who is no way concerned to the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties is trying to interfere and causing troubles to the plaintiff, in enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and also to do agricultural operations. So that, she filed suit for the relief of “Permanent Injunction” restraining the
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 18ASCJ (FTC), GDV
defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.
16.The specific contention of the 1st defendant by name
Gunja Lakshmana Rao against whom the present suit initially filed by the plaintiff by seeking the relief of “Permanent Injunction” is that, the plaintiff is no way concerned to the plaint schedule mentioned properties and the plaintiff is not the wife of his father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam. Himself, his three sisters and his mother by name Gunja Sarojini are the legal heirs of his father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam and further contending that, the plaintiff tampered the Revenue records and then claiming the Item
Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. As such, she never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties at any point of time. The defendant further contending that, his father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam got executed Will on 20.02.2001 by bequeathing his properties in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is disputing and alleging the marriage between the parents of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is inturned disputing the marriage between the plaintiff as well as his father.
17.The plaintiff is contending that, her husband by name
Gunja Venkata Ratnam never married the mother of the defendant
Nos.1 to 4 and the 1st defendant is claiming the plaint schedule mentioned properties only for wrongful gain. The sisters of the 1st defendant i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 4 are added as parties subsequently basing on the petition filed by the plaintiff and as per orders in I.A.No.153/2018 dated 14.08.2019 and the contention of
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 19ASCJ (FTC), GDV
the defendant Nos.2 to 4 is also that, the plaintiff is no way concerned to the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their mother by name Gunja Sarojini are the legal heirs of their father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
18.The plaintiff mainly contending that, the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property given by her mother-in-law who is the mother of her husband under “Oli” which is their Caste
Custom, but the 1st defendant stated in his written statement that, there is no such tradition or custom in their community. Both parties are relating to “Hindu Harizana Mala Community”. Regarding to the issuance of Revenue records in respect of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, the defendant stated in
Page No.6 of his written statement that, the plaintiff might have managed the Revenue officials and made false entries in the
Revenue records without support of any documentary evidence and trying to enter into the plaint schedule mentioned properties under the guise of exparte injunction orders passed by the Hon’ble
Vacation Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Further pleaded in his written statement that, the cist receipts produced by the plaintiff are not belongs to the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
19.So, to prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and during the course of trial, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited 25 documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A25. Ex.A1 is the wedding invitation card dated 25.05.1966 in respect of the marriage performed between the plaintiff and Gunja Venkata Ratnam. Ex.A2 is the copy of No.3 revenue Adangal for the Fasali 1408 to 1412 got issued on
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 20ASCJ (FTC), GDV
21.12.2004 by the Secretary, Gram Sachivalayam, Tattivarru Village.
Ex.A3 is the original Identity Card of plaintiff dated 16.05.2003 got issued by Election Commission of India. Ex.A4 is the original
Household supply card dated 03.03.1996 got issued by Mandal
Revenue Officer, Gudivada in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the bunch of cist receipts (which are 59 in number) from the year 1971 to 2005. Ex.A6 is the Death Certificate of Gunja Venkata Ratnam who died on 14.06.2003 and got issued by Secretary Gram Sachivalaym,
Tattivarru Village. Ex.A7 is the letter issued by Executive Officer of “Sri Sahasra Lingeswara Swamy and Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy
Temple on 14.11.2021” and Exs.A8 to A25 are also original cist receipts got issued by Secretary Gram Sachivalayam, Village
Administrative Officer and Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on different dates.
20.The cist receipts shows the name of Gunja Ratnamma but the bunch of cist receipts which is marked as Ex.A5 is not disclosing the survey number or extent, for which survey number or for which extent she paid land revenue only Fasali names and date of payment of land revenue is mentioned in all the receipts, in some receipts the details of amount paid by Gunja Ratnamma i.e., the plaintiff is mentioned, likewise in Ex.A8. But in some of the cist receipts, the survey number 56/4 which is relating to Item No.1 is mentioned and those receipts are issued after filing of this suit and those documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff after recalling her evidence.
21.So, these documents cannot be taken into consideration which are filed subsequent to filing of this suit to prove the
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 21ASCJ (FTC), GDV
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, except the tax receipts there are no other documents filed by the plaintiff to prove her possession and enjoyment in respect of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The plaintiff is also failed to prove her relationship with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam. She filed one Household Supply Card issued by Government of Andhra
Pradesh relating to the year 1996 which is marked as Ex.A4 and in that the name of husband of the plaintiff mentioned as “Venkata
Ratnam”. Likewise in Voter Identity Card which is marked as Ex.A3 and in that also the husband name of the plaintiff is mentioned as “Venkata Ratnam. The Ex.A2/Revenue Adangal shows that, an extent of Ac.0.96 cents is mutated in the name of plaintiff, but the enjoydar name is mentioned as “Gunja Ratnamma”, but not pattadar.
22.So, Gunja Peramma who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff got right and title in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned properties so as to announce “Oli” at the time of marriage of plaintiff is not proved by the plaintiff who got examined as PW.1. PW.1 admitted during the course of cross examination that, no document is there in the name of Gunja Peramma for any part of the plaint schedule mentioned properties during her life time.
23.Therefore the mother-in-law of the plaintiff/PW.1 is not entitled to announce “Oli” as per their caste custom without having any right in respect of the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Further she deposed that, except her oral evidence there is no documentary evidence to show that, she lived
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 22ASCJ (FTC), GDV
with Venkata Ratnam, till his death. PW.1 further deposed that, she do not know whose name is mentioned in the official records of
Venkata Ratnam as his wife and other family members particulars of
Venkata Ratnam. Admittedly Gunja Venkata Ratnam worked as
Assistant Director in Agricultural Marketing, Vijayawada and retired.
The same is also admitting by the plaintiff herein, but she is disputing about the relationship between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Gunja Venkata Ratnam. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 inturned disputing about the relationship of the plaintiff with the Gunja
Venkata Ratnam.
24.PW.1 admitted during the course of cross examination that, there are no documents to prove that, she is residing along with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam during his life time. The 1st defendant is contending that, the names of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their mother are also entered in the Service Register of Gunja
Venkata Ratnam and their names are also mentioned in the official employment records of the Gunja Venkata Ratnam and to prove his contention, he was also filed Service Pension Papers presented by them before Assistant Director of Marketing Special Grade
Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Gannavaram and those pension papers marked as Ex.B8 reveals the particulars of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their mother as if they are legal heirs of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
25.According to the Ex.B8, Gunja Venkata Ratnam was entered into employment on 04.05.1965 and retired on 30.06.1998.
The plaintiff who got examined as PW.1 contending that, her marriage performed with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam on 25.05.1966
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 23ASCJ (FTC), GDV
and to prove the same she filed wedding invitation card which is marked as Ex.A1 and it shows that, the marriage between
Ratnamma and Venkata Ratnam was performed on 25.05.1966 at the house of Kakollu Raghavulu.
26.The plaintiff pleaded that, her marriage performed with
Gunja Venkata Ratnam on 25.05.1966 in the house of parents of plaintiff at Tattivarru Village. Whereas in the cross examination,
PW.1 deposed that, her marriage with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam was performed at her house at Tattivarru. Further PW.1 deposed that, there is no other evidence to show the existence of “Oli” system in their community i.e., presentation of property to the daughter-in-law at the time of marriage by her in-laws.
27.So, except the Exs.A1, A3 and A4 which are the wedding invitation card, voter identity card and household supply card, there are no other documents to prove the marriage between the plaintiff and Gunja Venkata Ratnam. It is true, the Exs.A3 and A4 which are the household card and voter identity card, reflecting the name of husband of the plaintiff is Venkata Ratnam. Whereas the wedding invitation card which is marked as Ex.A1 shows that, the marriage between the plaintiff and Venkata Ratnam was celebrated on 25.05.1966, but the contention of the defendants is that, the marriage between the Gunja Sarojini and Gunja Venkata Ratnam who are the parents of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 was performed on 21.02.1965 i.e., prior to one year of alleged marriage between the plaintiff herein and Gunja Venkata Ratnam which was allegedly took place on 25.05.1966.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 24ASCJ (FTC), GDV
28.The evidence of PW.1 itself shows that, there are no other documents to prove that the name of the plaintiff was entered into Service Register of the Gunja Venkata Ratnam who worked and retired as Assistant Director in Agricultural Marketing, Vijayawada.
29.Coming to the other witnesses who were examined on behalf of the plaintiff as PWs.2 to 4. The evidence of PW.2 by name
Tirukkavalluri Venkata Swami Dasu, resident of Gudivada, deposed that, he was a Purohit at Tattivarru Village and he used to perform the marriage of the persons who belongs to the Hindu Harijana Mala community in the village since long time. During that course, he performed the marriage of plaintiff with her husband by name Gunja
Venkata Ratnam, who is the son of her maternal uncle and the marriage was celebrated in the house of Gunja Venkata Ratnam at
Tattivarru Village. He is also deposed about the custom prevailed in their community about announcement of “Oli” by in-laws of the bride at the time of marriage.
30.During the course of cross examination, PW.2 deposed that, he is doing Pourohithyam since for the last 15 years to the
Hindu Harizana Male Community people. He is giving evidence at the request of Ambedkar, who is younger brother of PW.1. The marriage of Venkata Ratnam was performed on 26.05.1966 at the house of Kaila Sambaiah. Further PW.2 deposed that, in his presence the mother-in-law of PW.1 by name Peramma informed that she will given Ac.0.96 cents of land to PW.1 towards “Oli”. Further PW.2 denied that, he is giving evidence at the request of Kaila people.
31.Coming to the evidence of PW.3 and he deposed about the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of Item
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 25ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. During the course of cross examination, PW.3 deposed that, he do not know whether the defendant is resident of their village i.e., Tattivarru
Village and whether he never resided in their village. Pw.3 deposed that, the marriage of the plaintiff with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam was performed at the house of Kaila Sambaiah during summer of 1966. Peramma is the mother of Gunja Venkata Ratnam and she used to possess about Ac.3.68 cents, she got that property from her husband. He do not know whether there was any partition among
Venkata Ratnam and his junior paternal uncle. The marriage of
Venkata Ratnam was performed at his age of 30 to 40 years, at that time the plaintiff was aged about 18 or 19 years.
32.So, the plaintiff never raised dispute or never questioned about her marital status with deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam during his life time and she kept silent for all those years and after the death of Gunja Venkata Ratnam, she filed the present suit by claiming the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties as if she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. According to the Death Certificate filed by the plaintiff as well as defendants which are marked as
Exs.A6 and B10, Gunja Venkata Ratnam died on 14.06.2003. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff in the year 2005 before learned
Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudivada and later on, the suit is transferred to this court on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction.
33.According to the evidence of PW.1, her marriage performed with Gunja Venkata Ratnam on 25.05.1966 and the Gunja
Venkata Ratnam died on 14.06.2003. Till such time, she never
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 26ASCJ (FTC), GDV
raised any dispute with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam by claiming Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property as if the same is given to her by the mother of the Gunja Venkata Ratnam under the custom of “Oli” prevailing in their community. No doubt, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 shows that, the mother-in-law of the plaintiff by name Peramma announced “Oli” at the time of her marriage with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
34.PW.3 deposed that, Peramma who is the mother of the
Gunja Venkata Ratnam as well as mother-in-law of the plaintiff herein got Ac.3.68 cents through her husband, but to prove the same also there is no at least Revenue records stands in the name of the Peramma is filed by the plaintiff to prove her contention.
35.According to the evidence of plaintiff, her marriage was celebrated on 25.05.1966 with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam. So, the
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property was also given to her in the year 1966 itself. Then the plaintiff has to take steps to mutate her name in the Revenue records and also for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property which is an extent of Ac.0.96 cents situated in R.S.No.56/4 of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts.
36.The cist receipts filed by the plaintiff which are marked as Exs.A5 and A9 to A25 are shows that, the plaintiff paid land revenue to the Government, but the Ex.A5/bunch of revenue cist receipts are not disclosing that for what extent and in which survey number that extent is situated and therefore the tax receipts filed
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 27ASCJ (FTC), GDV
under Ex.A5 as if relating to the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, is silent.
37.The 1st defendant is contending that, under the guise of exparte Temporary Injunction orders passed by this court, the plaintiff trespassed into the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The 1st defendant who got examined as DW.1 filed pattadar pass book and title deed stands in the name of the
Gunja Venkata Ratnam to prove that, the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties mutated in his name and it was also partitioned among Gunja Venkata Ratnam and his brother and as such, Gunja Venkata Ratnam was in separate possession and enjoyment of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties till his death. DW.1 further deposed that, prior to his death, the said Gunja Venkata Ratnam got executed Will in favour of the 1st defendant/DW.1 and his mother on 20.02.2001 and the same is also filed by the DW.1 and the said Will marked as Ex.B14. The 1st defendant/DW.1 is also filed Vivaha Lagna Pathrika of his parents which shows the date of marriage of his parents as on 21.02.1965 and that “Vivaha Lagna Pathrika” marked as Ex.B15.
38.The 1st defendant/DW.1 is also filed registered gift deed
dated 28.07.1993 got executed by Saraswathamma, W/o. Gunja
Sudarsanam in favour of Gunja Venkata Ratnam for an extent of
Ac.1.14 cents in R.S.No.85/2C which is Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property which is included in the schedule of the plaint in O.S.No.38/2008 subsequently by the plaintiff as per orders in I.A.No.1392/2007 dated 29.10.2007 in respect of land covered by Ex.B48/original registered gift deed dated 28.07.1993.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 28ASCJ (FTC), GDV
The 1st defendant/DW.1 filed the Will which is marked as Ex.B14 said to have been executed by his father in favour of the 1st defendant/DW.1 and also by creating life interest to his mother by name Gunja Sarojini.
39.So, these documents are shows that, deceased Gunja
Venkata Ratnam was in possession and enjoyment of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties during his life time and then he got executed Ex.B14/Will and died on 14.06.2003, whereas the Ex.B14/Will got executed on 20.02.2001. So, after two years of date of Ex.B14, Gunja Venkata Ratnam died, therefore the
Exs.B1/title deed, B2/pattadar pass book and B47 which is registered sale deed got executed by Gunja Saraswathamma in favour of Gunja Venkata Ratnam in respect of Ac.0.34 cents and the
Ex.B48 is the registered gift deed in respect of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property are clearly proves that, the
Gunja Venkata Ratnam was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties but not Gunja Peramma so as to announce “Oli” to the plaintiff in respect of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
40.So, the main dispute between the both parties is regarding to the marital status of the plaintiff with the Gunja
Venkata Ratnam as well as marital status of mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 with the Gunja Venkata Ratnam. The plaintiff pleaded that, her marriage performed with the Gunja Venkata
Ratnam on 25.05.1966 in the house of parents of plaintiff in
Tattivarru Village, as per Hindu Rites and Cast Custom prevailed in their community. The plaintiff further contended that, her husband
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 29ASCJ (FTC), GDV
by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam is the son of her maternal uncle.
Whereas the 1st defendant stated in his earlier written statement which is filed on 13.07.2005 that the marriage between his father and mother was celebrated on 21.02.1965 in “Sri Sri Sri Anjaneya
Swamy Vari Temple at Ponnuru”. Therefore, he is contending that, when the first marriage is in existence, there is no question of second marriage or marriage between the plaintiff and his father that to on 25.05.1966.
41.The marriage between the plaintiff and Gunja Venkata
Ratnam is also can be believable one because the Ex.A1/wedding invitation card clearly shows that, the marriage between the Gunja
Venkata Ratnam and Gunja Ratnamma was performed in the year 1966. PWs.2 and 3 are also supported the version of the PW.1 in such aspect, but it appears that, the marriage between the Gunja
Sarojini and Gunja Venkata Ratnam was suppressed by Gunja
Venkata Ratnam which was taken place prior to the marriage of the
PW.1 with Gunja Venkata Ratnam and it appears that, as on the date of marriage between the plaintiff and Gunja Venkata Ratnam, she may not know about the marriage between Sarojini and Gunja
Venkata Ratnam who are the parents of the defendant Nos.1 to 4.
But subsequently the plaintiff definitely knew about the relationship between the Gunja Sarojini and Gunja Venkata Ratnam but the plaintiff did not take any steps during the life time of Gunja Venkata
Ratnam either claiming properties or by claiming pension or death benefits of Gunja Venkata Ratnam as legally wedded wife of Gunja
Venkata Ratnam. The pension proposal papers which is filed by the 1st defendant/DW.1 which is marked as Ex.B8 shows the relationship
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 30ASCJ (FTC), GDV
between the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their mother.
42.So, the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam has legally announced that, Gunja Sarojini is his wife but not plaintiff herein. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the Item
Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties as if she is in possession and enjoyment of the same because the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in the name of Gunja Venkata Ratnam during his life time under Exs.B1 and B2 but the plaintiff did not take steps to get pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of Item
Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties even after the death of Gunja Venkata Ratnam or she did not take steps to examine the Revenue Authorities to prove her contention. On one hand the plaintiff/PW.1 is denying the relationship between the
Gunja Sarojini and Gunja Venkata Ratnam and on the other hand, the suggestion of the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the defendants side witnesses is that, Gunja Sarojini is not legally wedded wife of the Gunja Venkata Ratnam and she is concubine of him, but the plaintiff did not mention the same in her pleadings and she totally denied the relationship between the 1st defendant and she further pleaded that, she never blessed with children through
Gunja Venkata Ratnam therefore the 1st defendant/DW.1 is not son of the Gunja Venkata Ratnam and then initially filed suit against the 1st defendant only for the relief of “Permanent Injunction” in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
43.Keeping aside the relationship between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, PW.1 has to establish her possession and enjoyment
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 31ASCJ (FTC), GDV
in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned properties either under the tradition or custom of “Oli” or after the death of Gunja Venkata
Ratnam, she is in possession and enjoyment of the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property as if she is legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam. Except the land revenue receipts which are not disclosing the survey numbers of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, there are no other documents filed by the plaintiff/PW.1. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to claim possession in respect of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
44.Issue No.2 and additional issue No.1 dated 19.08.2008 in O.S.No.38/2008:-
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration
of her title in respect of the plaint schedule
mentioned property as prayed for?
and
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
At first instance, the plaintiff filed suit and claiming the relief of declaration with a pleading that, she is the lawful owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties therefore prays to declare her right and title in respect of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties in O.S.No.38/2008. The specific stand of the plaintiff who got examined as PW.1 is that, her mother- in-law by name Gunja Peramma given Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property to her at the time of her marriage under the tradition and custom of “Oli” prevailed in their
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 32ASCJ (FTC), GDV
community. As such, she have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and she is also having right and title in respect of the Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property which is an extent of
Ac.0.96 cents situated in R.S.No.56/4 of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts.
45.Whereas the 1st defendant filed written statement and stated that, the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property fell to the share of his father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam by way of oral partition among himself and his brother by name Gunja
Sudarsanam at about 30 years back and since then he was in separate possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and the paternal grandmother of the 1st defendant have no right, title or possession in respect of the Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property to declare alleged “Oli” in favour of the plaintiff at the time of her marriage with the
Gunja Venkata Ratnam said to have been allegedly performed on 25.05.1966 at Tattivarru Village. So, the 1st defendant denying the right and title of the plaintiff/PW.1 in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
46.As seen the evidence of plaintiff/PW.1 in respect of Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property, she deposed that, there are no documents in the name of Gunja Peramma for any part of the plaint schedule mentioned properties during her life time and also deposed that, there is no proof to show that, the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property given by her mother-in-law to her and she have not produced any documents before Revenue
Authorities so as to mutate her name in the place of her father-in-
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 33ASCJ (FTC), GDV
law in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. PW.1 further deposed during the course of cross examination that, the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property is not stands in the name of her mother-in-law.
47.So, the evidence of PW.1 clearly shows that, the Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property was not belongs to
Gunja Peramma who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff by name
Gunja Ratnamma. So, when the mother-in-law as well as maternal aunt of the PW.1 is not having any right or title in respect of the
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property then she is not entitled to declare or announce such traditional or custom of “Oli” prevailed in their community. No doubt PW.2 deposed that, he performed the marriage between the PW.1 and deceased Gunja
Venkata Ratnam on 25.05.1966 at Tattivarru Village and Gunja
Peramma was also announced “Oli” at the time of their marriage, but PW.1 clearly deposed in her evidence that, there are no documents to prove that the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property belongs to her mother-in-law and given to PW.1.
48.As per the evidence of PW.1, it is also clear that, there are no even Revenue records stands in the name of Gunja Peramma in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
PW.3 deposed that, the plaintiff have been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0.96 cents of land which is Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property, as her self acquired property since long time. Except the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3, there are no documents to support the version of PW.1 that, her mother-in-law “announced Oli” in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 34ASCJ (FTC), GDV
schedule mentioned property to her at the time of her marriage. As such, she have been in possession and enjoyment of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Without producing any documentary evidence regarding to the right and title of Gunja
Peramma so as to orally transfer the same in the name of the PW.1 in respect of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property, it cannot be said that, the plaintiff is lawful owner of the
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
49.PW.1 deposed in her cross examination that, “no title deed or pattadar pass book was given to her by the Revenue
Authority in respect of Item No.1. PW.1 admitted that, no document is there in the name of Gunja Peramma for any part of plaint schedule mentioned properties, during her life time”.
50.The relevant portion of cross examination of PW.1 as referred above, itself is clearly shows that, there are no documents stands in the name of Gunja Peramma or PW.1 in respect of Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. So, Gunja Peramma is not entitled to announce “Oli” in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property at the time of marriage between the
PW.1 and deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam. It may be true, the marriage between the plaintiff and deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam was performed on 25.05.1966 and the same is also proved by the
PW.1 by producing the Ex.A1 which is wedding invitation card in respect of the marriage celebrated between the PW.1 and deceased
Gunja Venkata Ratnam. But there is no any evidence placed by the
PW.1 to prove that, why she was kept quiet during the life time of deceased Gunja Peramma and deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam,
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 35ASCJ (FTC), GDV
without hesitating her right and title in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property or regarding to the relationship between mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and deceased Gunja
Venkata Ratnam.
51.The stand taken by the PW.1 in her pleadings that, the 1st defendant is not the son of the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam and there is no any relationship between her and 1st defendant. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 are also not shown by the PW.1 as defendants in her plaint and after lapse of some years, she took steps to add the defendant Nos.2 to 4 who are the sisters of 1st defendant as well as daughters of Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja Sarojini and then the learned counsel for the PW.1 suggested to the DW.1 and
DW.5 during the course of their cross examination that, Gunja
Sarojini is concubine of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam, but not legally wedded wife.
52.So, the plaintiff/PW.1 indirectly admitting about the relationship between the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam and deceased Gunja Sarojini who are the parents of defendant Nos.1 to
4. In such event, it cannot be said that, the PW.1 is not known about the relationship between the parents of the defendant Nos.1 to 4.
Therefore, the PW.1 has to reveal that what happened to her and for not disputing the relationship between the deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam and Gunja Sarojini, during their life time if the marriage between the PW.1 and deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam was performed by their elders.
53.According to the Ex.B15/Vivaha Lagna Pratrika, the marriage between the Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja Sarojini
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 36ASCJ (FTC), GDV
was performed on 21.02.1965 in Anjaneya Swamy Vari Temple,
Ponnuru. As per Ex.A1/wedding invitation card, the marriage between Gunja Venkata Ratnam and PW.1 was performed on 25.05.1966. The both documents i.e., Ex.A1 as well as Ex.B15 shows that, the marriage between the Gunja Venkata Ratnam, Gunja
Sarojini and Gunja Ratnamma was performed. So, if there is already existence of marriage between Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja
Sarojini as per Ex.B15 then why again the marriage between PW.1 and deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam was performed on 25.05.1966, is also not revealed either by pleadings or evidence of
PW.1. The parents of DW.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are no more and Gunja Peramma is also no more to speak out the truth and about marital status of the parents of the DW.1.
54.The specific stand of the PW.1 is that, there was no such marriage between parents of the defendant Nos.1 to 4. The mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is not legally wedded wife of her husband by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam. If so, why the PW.1 did not take steps to mention her name in all employment registers and relevant documents maintaining by the Government Authorities relating to the Government Employee or Government Servant.
Admittedly the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam worked in
Agricultural Marketing Department and retired as Assistant Director of Agricultural Marketing in Vijayawada. Therefore, it appears that, there was no good marital relationship between PW.1 and Gunja
Venkata Ratnam though there was marriage performed between them as per the evidence of PW.2 who acted as Purohit to perform
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 37ASCJ (FTC), GDV
the marriage between the PW.1 and deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam.
55.Keeping aside the marital disputes or marital relationship between the PW.1 and Gunja Venkata Ratnam, it is for the plaintiff even to prove that, her mother-in-law by name Gunja Peramma who is the mother of the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam announced “Oli” in respect of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property on the date of her marriage. Except the tax receipts which are marked as Exs.A8 to A25 there are no other documents to prove the right and title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
“It is well settled law that, the Revenue records will not confer any right and title of the person” and the same is also reiterated by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2021 SCC Online SC 802).
56.As per the said decision and the evidence placed by the both parties in respect of Item No.1 it clearly shows that, there is no any reliable evidence placed by the PW.1 to prove her right and title in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property so as to declare her as lawful owner of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property
57.So far as Item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property which is an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in R.S.No.78/1 situated in Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts is also claiming by the PW.1 by stating that, after the death of her husband by name Gunja
Venkata Ratnam who died on 14.06.2003, the plaintiff have been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 38ASCJ (FTC), GDV
mentioned property as a legal heir of deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam, but to prove the same also there is no any sufficient evidence placed by the plaintiff, therefore this court is of the opinion that, the plaintiff is not lawful owner of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property as prayed for. Accordingly, these two issues are answered.
58.I ssue No.3 in O.S.No.38/2008:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Permanent
Injunction as prayed for?
In view of the foregoing discussion on issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of “Permanent Injunction” as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
59.Additional i ssue No.1 dated 17.01.2017 and
additional issue No.1 dated 18.08.2017 in O.S.No.38/2008:-
1. Whether the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint
schedule properties are liable for partition into
two equal shares and the plaintiff is entitled
for one such share as prayed for?
and
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of
plaint schedule mentioned properties as
prayed for?
When the suit proceedings are at the stage of cross examination of DWs.1 to 4, then the plaintiff filed petition on 12.03.2013 U/O.6 R.17 CPC so as to amend the plaint in
O.S.No.38/2008 in respect of alternative relief of “partition” of the
Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and to allot one such share to her and the plaintiff is seeking proposed amendments in respect of relief portion only under the said petition
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 39ASCJ (FTC), GDV
which is filed by her to amend the relief. However the petition filed
U/O.6 R.17 CPC by the PW.1 in I.A.No.61/2013 was dismissed by this court on 30.07.2015 on merits. Later on, the PW.1 preferred Revision
before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Revision
Petition was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 13.04.2016 as per orders in Civil Revision Petition No.3333/2015.
60.So, as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh the relief portion in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property is amended and then Neat Copy of
Plaint is filed by the plaintiff/PW.1. The initial stand of the PW.1 is that, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are no way related to the plaint schedule mentioned properties, but surprisingly she filed petition by seeking alternative relief of partition in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. However, the plaintiff/PW.1 did not choose to amend the pleadings in respect of alternative relief of partition. Without taking steps to amend the pleadings, she straight away take steps to amend the relief only in respect of the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
61.On one hand, the plaintiff is disputing the relationship of defendant Nos.1 to 4 with the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam, on the other hand, the plaintiff is seeking alternative relief of partition in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. So, it appears that, the plaintiff/PW.1 is indirectly admitting that, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are legal heirs of Gunja
Venkata Ratnam and therefore, she is seeking “alternative relief of partition” of the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 40ASCJ (FTC), GDV
properties into to two equal shares and to allot one such share to her. The plaintiff/PW.1 is not pleaded or filed any documents in respect of the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties as if she is in “joint possession” and enjoyment of the
Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties along with the 1st defendant or defendant Nos.2 to 4.
62.So, if the plaintiff/PW.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not joint family members or legal heirs of deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam, then the plaintiff/PW.1 is not entitled to straight away claim the alternative relief of partition in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The parties are not entitled to seeking mere relief without any basis in their pleadings and also supportive evidence to prove their pleadings.
63.After passing of orders by the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No.3333/2015, then the plaintiff/PW.1 took steps to amend the plaint and then amended the relief portion only which is the alternative relief of partition but there is no any amendment of pleadings in respect of alternative relief of partition. Moreover there is no pleadings that how the Item Nos.2 and 3 of plaint schedule mentioned properties can be derided into two equal shares and what is the basis for that.
64.So, when there is no pleading in respect of joint possession and enjoyment of the PW.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the PW.1 is also not filed any documents to prove the relationship between the PW.1 and Gunja Venkata Ratnam as if she is the legal heir or legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam then she is not entitled for alternative relief of partition of
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 41ASCJ (FTC), GDV
the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
Accordingly, these two issues are answered.
65.Additional i ssue No.2 dated 17.01.2017 in
O.S.No.38/2008:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits
from the date of suit till date of delivery of her
share of property relating to Item Nos.2 and 3 of
the plaint schedule mentioned properties as
prayed for?
In view of the foregoing discussion on additional issue No.1
dated 17.01.2017, the plaintiff is not entitled for “mesne profits” in
respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of her share of the property because there is no evidence or supportive pleadings in respect of the alternative relief seeking by the plaintiff/PW.1 in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
66.Additional issue No.1 dated 25.11.2019 in
O.S.No.38/2008:-
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
The said issue is framed basing on the pleadings of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in their additional written statement filed by them after amendment of the plaint as per orders of the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition
No.3333/2015 dated 13.04.2016. The 1st defendant stated in his
additional written statement in Para No.6 by stating that, “the 1st
defendant filed his written statement on 13.07.2005 and also filed his additional written statement on 12.06.2008 by disclosing all the real and true facts, but after seven years, the plaintiff/PW.1 herein
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 42ASCJ (FTC), GDV
filed the petition in I.A.No.61/2013 on 10.03.2013. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff examined as PW.1 and on 04.08.2009, she has cross examined, in the said cross examination, the counsel for the 1st defendant has suggested regarding to the family affairs of the defendants herein, as such the plaintiff herein has knowledge about the family of the defendant herein even after her cross examination also, the plaintiff failed to take steps within limitation, as such the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff is no where stated that, inspite of her due diligence she failed to seek such relief which intends to cause prejudice to the defendant herein. As such, the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable”.
67.It is true, the plaintiff/PW.1 filed the present suit in the year 2005 against the 1st defendant only and 1st defendant filed written statement on 13.07.2005 then issues framed on 29.08.2005.
Since the date the suit proceedings in O.S.No.38/2008 are coming for trial. The chief examination-affidavit of PW.1 filed on 09.02.2007.
The 1st defendant disclosed about his relationship with the deceased
Gunja Venkata Ratnam as he is his father and then he filed another suit seeking declaratory relief in respect of the Item Nos.1 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties herein in O.S.No.37/2008 and in that suit also he categorically stated about his relationship with the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam, defendant Nos.2 to 4 and their mother as well as right and title of Gunja Venkata Ratnam in respect of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties,
68.The plaintiff/PW.1 kept quiet and did not take steps to amend the pleadings as well as relief, immediately after filing of
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 43ASCJ (FTC), GDV
written statement or chief examination-affidavit of PW.1 that, what actually she wants in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
69.In the year 2013 she filed petition U/O.6 R.17 CPC by seeking alternative relief of partition in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties without amending pleadings to that effect. Therefore the 1st defendant filed additional written statement by stating that, the suit is barred by limitation. If the plaintiff/PW.1 filed suit straight away for the relief of partition in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties then there is no question of attracting limitation in respect of seeking of the relief of partition by the parties because if the joint family members are residing separately and the property is in possession and enjoyment of any one of the joint family member or a legal heirs of a deceased male or female, then the property can be considered as if the same is in joint possession and enjoyment of the all co-sharers or all joint family members. But here the plaintiff/PW.1 at first instance filed suit for the “relief of Permanent
Injunction” as well as to declare her as lawful owner of the Item
Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, subsequently she took steps to add the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in the plaint and such steps taken by her in the year 2007 and she filed one petition U/O.6 R.17 CPC so as to add the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in the schedule of the plaint and that petition was allowed on 29.10.2007 as per orders in I.A.No.1392/2007. Even at that time also she did not take steps to amend the pleadings in respect of
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 44ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Except taking steps to amend the schedule and relief that she is lawful owner of the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. So, that is also technical error on the part of the plaintiff/PW.1 because without pleadings one cannot seek only relief. There must be some basis for the relief and the pleadings must be proved by the parties by placing sufficient evidence then only the parties are entitled for the relief claimed by them.
70.So, the plaintiff/PW.1 got knowledge about the existence of the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and also relationship between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam even then also she did not take steps seeking the relief of partition and after lapse of eight years from the date of filing of the suit, then the plaintiff/PW.1 took steps to amend the relief portion and then claimed alternative relief of partition. If suppose the plaintiff/PW.1 have no knowledge about the existence of the Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and the relationship between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam then she has to take steps immediate after filing of written statement by the 1st defendant at first instance, but there are no such steps taken by the plaintiff/PW.1 and she did not also take steps even within three years from the date of filing of the written statement by the 1st defendant at first instance in O.S.No.38/2008. As per Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963, if there is no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this
Schedule in the Act, then the period of limitation is “three years”
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 45ASCJ (FTC), GDV
when the right of sue accrues. Therefore on this aspect, the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
71.Additional i ssue No.2 dated 25.11.2019 in
O.S.No.38/2008:-
Whether the suit is filed for partial partition?
The another contention of the 1st defendant by way of
additional written statement filed by him on 30.10.2019 is that, “the
plaintiff/PW.1 initially filed suit for the relief of declaration and
Permanent Injunction without including all the properties acquired by Gunja Venkata Ratnam and subsequently she added Item No.3 and relief of partition but the plaintiff herein failed to assign any reason why she has not included all the other lands in the present suit for the partition. As such, the claim of the plaintiff for partial partition is not maintainable”.
72.It is true, at first instance, the plaintiff/PW.1 is not shown
Item No.3 in the schedule of the plaint and subsequently she took steps to add the Item No.3 in the schedule of the plaint and after amending the alternative relief, she filed her additional chief examination-affidavit on 20.03.2023 and stated in her additional chief examination-affidavit that, “the defendant filed another suit in
O.S.No.37/2008 and claiming right in respect of the Item Nos.1
and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property as he is son of her husband by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam through his mother by name Gunja Sarojini basing on the alleged Will dated 20.02.2001 said to have been executed by Gunja Venkata Ratnam in favour of
Gunja Sarojini. In fact the husband of the PW.1 never married the mother of defendants during his life time. To the knowledge of PW.1,
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 46ASCJ (FTC), GDV
the mother of the defendants was not the legally wedded wife of
Gunja Venkata Ratnam and she was kept mistress of her husband and in that connection the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were born to the
Gunja Sarojini through the husband of PW.1. Further PW.1 stated in her additional chief examination-affidavit that, her husband never obtained divorce from the PW.1 during his life time and due to that reason PW.1 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam”.
73.So, after 12 years of filing of the suit by the plaintiff/PW.1 in O.S.No.38/2008, then she changed her version and then stated that, the mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 was kept mistress of
Gunja Venkata Ratnam i.e., concubine of him but not legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam. So, it is for the plaintiff/PW.1 to mention all those facts even at the time of filing of the suit in her pleadings but she suppressed the facts and then filed suit for the relief of “Permanent Injunction” in respect of the Item
Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule mentioned properties without disclosing the relationship between the 1st defendant and deceased
Gunja Venkata Ratnam and after lapse of 12 years she changed her version and then filed her additional chief examination-affidavit by adding some of the properties as well as alternative relief of partition and without pleadings then stated that, the Gunja Sarojini who is the mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam. If so it is for the plaintiff/PW.1 to question the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam during his life time and then she has to take steps to claim properties of him or pension or any other retirement benefits of
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 47ASCJ (FTC), GDV
deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam if at all Gunja Sarojini who is the mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam. The plaintiff/PW.1 is also not mentioned all the properties relating to deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam in the schedule of the plaint. The 1st defendant stated in the written statement that, the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam got executed Will in favour of Gunja Sarojini on 20.02.2001 and then created life interest to her in respect of the properties belongs to the Gunja Venkata Ratnam and after the death of the mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 then absolute rights created to the 1st defendant by their father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam under the
Will dated 20.02.2001.
74.So, the 1st defendant who got examined as DW.1 stated in his additional written statement filed on 30.10.2019 with a specific pleading that, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable because some other properties of deceased Gunja
Venkata Ratnam bequeathed by him to the mother of the defendant
Nos.1 to 4 and 1st defendant by way of Will dated 20.02.2001 and the said Will is also filed by DW.1 which is marked as Ex.B14.
75.Coming to the evidence of PW.1 in respect of properties of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam, she deposed that, an extent of
Ac.1.58 cents, an extent of Ac.1.14 cents and an extent of Ac.0.96 cents mutated under Katha No.559. PW.1 further deposed during the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 to 4 that, the present suit is filed by the PW.1 for partition. PW.1 admitted that, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are children of Sarojini and Venkata Ratnam. PW.1 further admitted that, the
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 48ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Tombs of Gunja Peramma, Venkata Ratnam and Sarojini are in the land in R.S.No.78/1 of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts. PW.1 further admitted that, the death benefits of deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam claiming by Sarojini. PW.1 was not made representation
before the consent office so as to stop the dispersement of death
benefits of Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
76.The contention of the 1st defendant is that, the father of the defendants purchased an extent of Ac.0.34 cents in R.S.No.85/2 of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts from Gunja Saraswathamma under registered sale deed dated 28.07.1993. The said Gunja
Saraswathamma gifted an extent of Ac.0.80 cents situated in the same survey number under registered gift deed dated 28.07.1993 and the both documents filed by the 1st defendant/DW.1 which were marked as Exs.B47 and B48. The said total extent of Ac.1.14 cents included in the schedule of the plaint by the plaintiff/PW.1 subsequent to filing of the suit as per orders in I.A.No.1392/2007
dated 29.10.2007. Therefore the contention of DW.1 is that, the suit
for “partial partition” is not maintainable. However even after subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiff took steps to add the
Item No.3 in the schedule of the plaint which is covered by the
Exs.B47 and B48 which are the original registered sale deed as well as original gift deed got executed by Gunja Saraswathamma in favour of Gunja Venkata Ratnam on 28.07.1993. Therefore, the contention of the 1st defendant by way of his additional written statement that, the suit is not maintainable for partial partition is not correct. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 49ASCJ (FTC), GDV
77.Additional i ssue No.3 dated 25.11.2019 in
O.S.No.38/2008:-
Whether the suit bad for non-joinder of all
necessary parties?
The another contention of the 1st defendant by way of his
additional written statement dated 30.10.2019 is that, the plaintiff
initially filed suit against him only though he is having three sisters who were born to their parents apart from the 1st defendant, but the plaintiff failed to include the daughters of Gunja Venkata Ratnam who are proper and necessary parties to the suit as such the pleadings of the plaint are quiet contra to each other, as such the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the facts. The 1st defendant further stated in his
additional written statement dated 14.12.2016 and 30.10.2019
respectively that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties to the suit proceedings.
78.Then the plaintiff again took steps to amend the plaint so as to add the sisters of the DW.1 as defendant Nos.2 to 4 and she filed petition U/O.1 R.10 CPC and the same was allowed on 14.08.2019 as per orders in I.A.No.153/2018 then the other daughters of Gunja Venkata Ratnam by name Gunja Padmavathi,
Gunja Bharathi and Gunja Rama were added as defendant Nos.2 to 4 and then they filed their written statement by reiterating the contents of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant on 30.10.2019.
79.As per the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff/PW.1 shows that, she knows about the children of Gunja Venkata Ratnam
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 50ASCJ (FTC), GDV
who are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 but she did not add the defendant
Nos.2 to 4 initially and she filed suit against the 1st defendant only seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties with a specific pleading that, she is in possession and enjoyment of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. Subsequently the plaintiff/PW.1 took steps to include the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and then take steps to add the defendant Nos.2 to 4 and then again take steps to seek alternative relief of partition in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
80.So in this suit, the plaint was amended on three times after filing of the plaint by the plaintiff/PW.1. So, this type of taking steps itself clearly shows that, in what way the plaintiff is trying to drag on the suit proceedings years together by taking steps one by one. The plaintiff/PW.1 got knowledge about the defendant Nos.1 to 4 even prior to filing of the suit because the Gunja Venkata Ratnam worked in various places as a Government Employee and he was also blessed four children through the Gunja Sarojini and all are grown up by the date of filing of the plaint by the plaintiff/PW.1, so it cannot be said that, PW.1 has no knowledge about the defendant
Nos.1 to 4 and the relationship between Gunja Sarojini as well as
Gunja Venkata Ratnam. Therefore it appears that, the plaintiff intentionally did not take steps to include the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the plaint at the time of filing of the present suit and subsequently in the year 2019 she took steps to add the defendant
Nos.2 to 4 in this suit therefore the contention of the defendant
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 51ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Nos.1 to 4 that the suit is bad for non-joinder of all necessary parties, is correct. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
81.Additional i ssue No.4 dated 25.11.2019 in
O.S.No.38/2008:-
Whether the Court Fee paid by plaintiff is correct
or not?
The said issue is also framed basing on the additional written statement filed by the 1st defendant on 30.10.2019 that the suit is liable to be reject and also dismissed for in sufficient Court Fee paid by the plaintiff. At first instance, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration as well as Permanent Injunction in respect of plaint schedule mentioned properties and she paid total Court Fee of Rs.6,223/- (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Three Only) by calculating the suit claim U/Sec.50(1) A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, but subsequently the plaintiff took steps to claim the alternative relief of partition but she did not paid Court Fee to that effect. Therefore the contention of the defendants is that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff is not paid proper Court Fee.
82.During the cross examination of 1st defendant/DW.1 and plaintiff/PW.1, nothing is elicited through the cross examination of them in respect of deficit Court Fee or insufficient Court Fee paid by the plaintiff/PW.1. It is true, the plaintiff/PW.1 is not paid Court Fee in respect of alternative relief of partition but when the plaintiff is not seeking the relief of partition which is not a main relief therefore there is no need to pay Court Fee in respect of alternative relief of partition because she paid Court Fee for the main relief i.e.,
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 52ASCJ (FTC), GDV
declaration and Permanent Injunction. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
83.I ssue No.1 in O.S.No.37/2008:-
Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
plaint schedule mentioned property?
The plaintiff in O.S.No.37/2008 is the 1st defendant in
O.S.No.38/2008 and he filed suit against the plaintiff in
O.S.No.38/2008 by stating that, he is the absolute owner of the
plaint schedule mentioned properties i.e., Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties which are also Item Nos.1 and 3 shown in the schedule of the plaint in O.S.No.38/2008 by stating that, he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties as his father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam got executed Will on 20.02.2001 in a sound disposing state of mind and bequeathed his properties in favour of the 1st defendant by creating life interest to his mother by name Gunja Sarojini. The father of the plaintiff died on 14.06.2003 and their mother also died on 17.03.2005 therefore the plaintiff who is the 1st defendant in
O.S.No.38/2008 is in possession and enjoyment of Item Nos.1 and 2
of the plaint schedule mentioned properties with absolute rights.
84.Further pleaded that, the defendant who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.38/2008 filed petition in I.A.No.765/2005 in old suit
No.265/2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Gudivada and obtained interim orders and then trespassed into the plaint schedule mentioned properties under the guise of interim orders. The plaintiff further pleaded that, the defendant is never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 53ASCJ (FTC), GDV
properties prior to 29.07.2005 as alleged by her. Therefore, the plaintiff is also seeking consequential relief of recovery of possession in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
85.After framing of issues, the plaintiff in O.S.No.38/2008 who is the defendant in O.S.No.37/2008 took steps to club the both suits as the parties are one and the same and the relief is also one and the same and therefore the both suits clubbed and evidence recorded in O.S.No.38/2008.
86.Coming to the evidence placed by the 1st defendant who filed suit in O.S.No.37/2008 by pleading that, he is the absolute owner of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties of the said suit, he got examined as DW.1 and exhibited 77 documents which were marked as Exs.B1 to B77.
87.The documents under Exs.B1 and B2 which are the title deed pass book and pattadar pass book got issued by concerned
Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudivada in the name of the Gunja Venkata
Ratnam on 15.05.1995 and old Ryth pass book issued in favour of
Gunja Venkata Ratnam which is marked as Ex.B3. These three documents shows that, the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam was the enjoydar of the subject matter of the properties which are the plaint schedule mentioned properties in both suits. As discussed under issue No.1 in O.S.No.38/2008, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the children of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam who were born through Gunja Sarojini. The defendant herein who is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.38/2008 disputing about the marital relationship between
the Gunja Venkata Ratnam as well as Gunja Sarojini but she did not
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 54ASCJ (FTC), GDV
produce proper evidence to prove her version as if she is only legally wedded wife of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam but not
Gunja Sarojini.
88.The family members of the PW.1 are also not examined on behalf of the plaintiff/PW.1 to prove that, there was no any valid marriage between the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja
Sarojini. If it presumed that, the marriage between deceased Gunja
Venkata Ratnam and deceased Gunja Sarojini was not legal marriage, but the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are treated as legitimate children of deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam as well as Gunja
Sarojini. Moreover, PW.1 was also admitted in her cross examination that, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the children of Gunja Venkata
Ratnam as well as Gunja Sarojini, though she is disputing the marriage between the parents of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in
O.S.No.38/2008.
89.Undisputedly the property which is claiming by the both parties belongs to the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam. As there is no registered documents stands in the name of Gunja Venkata
Ratnam but Exs.B1 to B3 shows that, the name of the Gunja
Venkata Ratnam mutated in the Revenue records in respect of the land claiming by the both parties. No doubt the Revenue records cannot confer the right and title of the parties, but except Exs.A2,
A5 and A8 to A25 there is no any better evidence placed by the
PW.1 to support her contention that, the plaint schedule mentioned properties in both suits is not succeeded by the deceased Gunja
Venkata Ratnam or not acquired by him during his life time, but the
DW.1 is filed documents under Exs.B1 to B3 in respect of Item Nos.1
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 55ASCJ (FTC), GDV
and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties. The Ex.B14 which is the unregister original Will got executed by Gunja Venkata
Ratnam in favour of his wife as well as plaintiff in O.S.No.37/2008 who got examined as DW.1 clearly shows that, he bequeathed his properties in favour of his wife by name Gunja Sarojini as well as
DW.1. The recitals of Ex.B14 shows that, Gunja Venkata Ratnam created life interest to his wife by name Gunja Sarojini and created absolute rights to DW.1 after her life time.
90.To prove the recitals of the Will, the DW.1 choose to examine attestor as well as scribe of the Ex.B14 who got examined as DWs.3 and 4. DW.4 is the one of the attesting witness of the
Ex.B14 and DW.3 is the scribe of the Ex.B14. Except the denial suggestions nothing is elicited through the cross examination of
DWs.3 and 4 that, the Gunja Venkata Ratnam never executed any
Will muchless under Ex.B14 and there is no any such instances come across so as to execute such type of alleged Will as per the version of PW.1 by deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam on 20.02.2001.
The DW.1 was also proved the recitals of the Will as required
U/Sec.65 of Hindu Succession Act, 1925 r/w Sec.68 Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.
91.The person who relied on the Will must be examined any one of the attestor of the Will because the Will must be attested by two witnesses and to prove the recitals of the Will any one of the attesting witness must be examined on behalf of the person who is relying on the Will by claiming the properties mentioned in that Will.
Registration is not required in respect of the Wills but attestation of the two witnesses is mandatory. DW.4 deposed that, Gunja Venkata
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 56ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ratnam got executed Will in favour of DW.1 and Gunja Sarojini and he was also subscribed his signature in the presence of DW.3. The
DW.4 and another witness by name Nandamuri Nageswara Rao attested the Ex.B14.
92.So, the DW.1 is also proved the recitals of the Will by examining the DWs.3 and 4. As seen the cross examination of
DWs.3 and 4 nothing is elicited, to create doubt in respect of the execution of the Will by the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam under
Ex.B14. The DW.1 was also filed land revenue tax receipts which were marked as Exs.B16 to B36 and also house tax demand notices and payment receipts which were marked as Exs.B44 to B46.
93.The another contention of the DW.1 is that, his father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam suffered with cancer disease and took treatment in various hospitals and to prove the same also, he filed some of the medical bills and medical reports filed by the DW.1 which were marked as Exs.B51 to B55 shows that, the deceased
Gunja Venkata Ratnam suffered with cancer disease in his last days and died on 14.06.2003, but PW.1 deposed that, “the deceased
Venkata Ratnam died due to Lung cancer, she do not know about the name of the hospital in which the deceased Venkata Ratnam was treated. She has not filed medical prescriptions of the deceased
Venkata Ratnam”. The PW.1 was also admitted about the Tombs of deceased Gunja Peramma, deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam and deceased Gunja Sarojini in the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The DW.1 is also filed photographs of the
Tombs which are five in number and marked as Ex.B56. The DW.1 is
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 57ASCJ (FTC), GDV
also filed revenue tax receipts stands in his name which were marked as Exs.B70 to B76.
94.The 3rd defendant got examined as DW.5 and she is also supported the version of DW.1 who is her brother in all aspects. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 who are the sisters of DW.1 are also not disputing about the execution of the Will under Ex.B14 by their father by name Gunja Venkata Ratnam and bequeathing of entire his properties to the DW.1. So, when there is no better evidence placed by the PW.1 to prove that, she is the lawful owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, but the DW.1 produced registered documents as well as Revenue records and also Will got executed by Gunja Venkata Ratnam who is the owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties in both suits therefore the plaintiff in
O.S.No.37/2008 is declared as absolute owner of the plaint schedule
mentioned properties. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
95.I ssue No.2 in O.S.No.37/2008:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of
his title in respect of the plaint schedule
mentioned property as prayed for?
The plaintiff in O.S.No.37/2008 is also filed certified copy of gift deed dated 23.10.1980 got executed by Gunja Sudharshanam in favour of Gunja Peramma and Gunja Lakshmana Rao for an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in R.S.No.76/1 but the property covered by the original of Ex.B49 is not the subject matter of this suit. It appears that, the DW.1 filed the certified copy of registered gift deed dated 23.10.1980 to prove the relationship of him with the deceased
Gunja Venkata Ratnam. The registered gift deed under Ex.B48 dated
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 58ASCJ (FTC), GDV
28.07.1993 got executed by Gunja Saraswathamma, W/o. Gunja
Sudharshanam in favour of Gunja Venkata Ratnam shows that, she got gifted an extent of Ac.0.80 cents out of Ac.1.14 cents situated in
R.S.No.85/2C of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts which is part of the Item No.3 of plaint schedule mentioned property in
O.S.No.38/2008 and also Item No.2 in O.S.No.37/2008.
Ex.B47/original registered sale deed dated 28.07.1993 shows that, the said Gunja Saraswathamma again got executed registered sale deed in favour of Gunja Venkata Ratnam on 28.07.1993. The said G.
Saraswathamma sold Ac.0.34 cents out of Ac.1.14 cents in
R.S.No.85/2C of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts under Ex.B47, therefore the property covered by Exs.B47 and B48 bequeathed by the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam under Ex.B14/Will dated 20.02.2001 to the DW.1. Therefore these documents shows that, the plaintiff in O.S.No.37/2008 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned properties therefore the plaintiff in
O.S.No.37/2008 who is the 1st defendant who got examined as DW.1
in O.S.No.38/2008 is entitled for declaration of his right and title in respect of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties in O.S.No.37/2008. The oral and documentary evidence placed by the DW.1 clearly shows that, he is in possession and enjoyment of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties in both suits therefore he is also entitled for Permanent
Injunction in respect of the said property. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 59ASCJ (FTC), GDV
96.I ssue No.3 in O.S.No.37/2008:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
possession of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule
mentioned property as prayed for?
The plaintiff is also claiming recovery of possession in respect of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in
O.S.No.37/2008 which is also Item No.1 in O.S.No.38/2008 with a
specific pleading that, the defendant in O.S.No.37/2008 i.e., PW.1 filed suit and then got ad-interim injunction orders and then trespassed into the plaint schedule mentioned properties under the guise of interim orders passed in O.S.No.38/2008 therefore the DW.1 is claiming recovery of possession in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. But the contention of the PW.1 is that, the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in both suits was given by her mother-in-law by name Gunja Peramma at the time of her marriage with the deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam. The PW.1 pleaded that, the Gunja Peramma given the Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in both suits under the custom of “Oli” prevailed in their community.
97.PW.2 also deposed that, Gunja Peramma announced “Oli” at the time of her marriage. PW.2 knows personally about the announcement of said “Oli” at the time of her marriage because he did marriage of PW.1 with the deceased Gunja Venkata Ratnam and performed their marriage as Purohith. So that, he got personal knowledge.
98.If so, it is for the plaintiff to take necessary steps to register the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 60ASCJ (FTC), GDV
her name besides taking steps for payment of land revenue in her name in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Further the PW.1 was also not made any attempt even to obtain pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and to that effect also the pleadings of the PW.1 is silent. Therefore the tax receipts which are filed by the PW.1 and marked as Exs.A8 to A25 does not confer any right or title to the PW.1 in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in both suits. Moreover, Gunja
Peramma is not the title holder of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in both suits therefore in what capacity she announced “Oli” in respect of an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in R.S.No.56/4 of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts is also not properly proved by the PW.1.
99.Whereas the pattadar pass book, title deed and old Ryth pass book stands in the name of the deceased Gunja Venkata
Ratnam which were marked as Exs.B1 to B3 clearly shows that, the name of the Gunja Venkata Ratnam mutated in the Revenue records in respect of said Ac.0.96 cents which is situated in R.S.No.56/4 of
Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts. When there is no registered documents stands in the name of either party of the suit, then the
Revenue records stands in the name of the respective parties can be taken into consideration so as to decide the right and title of the plaintiff if there is no dispute regarding to the flow of right and title of the such property.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 61ASCJ (FTC), GDV
100.Here the PW.1 is not disputing that, the plaint schedule mentioned properties in the both suits is not belongs to their family or their ancestors. In such circumstances, the PW.1 has to produce evidence to prove that, her mother-in-law announced “Oli” in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties in both suits because of that she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property since the date of her marriage i.e., from the year 1966 onwards. The PW.1 filed the suit in the year 2005 by claiming right and title in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in both suits. So, it appears that, the PW.1 is claiming possession in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property since from four decades. Then she has to produce at least pattadar pass book and title deed stands in her name in respect of
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property besides tax receipts which were marked as Exs.A8 to A25.
101.The evidence of PW.6 who is the Executive Officer of Sri
Sahasra Lingeswara Swamy and Sri Veera Anjaneya Swamy Temple, situated at Ponnuru, is regarding to the proving of marital status between Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja Sarojini. The evidence of
PW.6 is also not much helpful to the contention of the PW.1 so as to disprove the marriage between the Gunja Sarojini as well as Gunja
Venkata Ratnam and the document marked as Ex.B77 and Ex.A7 are not much helpful to the contention of the PW.1 so as to disprove the marital status between the Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja
Sarojini who are the parents of DW.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 in
O.S.No.38/2008 because the other documents filed by the DW.1 and
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 62ASCJ (FTC), GDV
evidence of PW.1 supports the marital status of parents of the DW.1,
DW.5 and defendant Nos.2 and 4.
102.So, in the absence of oral or documentary evidence regarding to the right and title of the PW.1 in respect of the Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in both suits, then
PW.1 is not entitled to continue in the possession of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property and therefore she is liable to hand over the possession of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property in both suits to the DW.1. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
103.Issue No.4 in O.S.No.37/2008:-
To what relief?
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by declaring that, the plaintiff is absolute owner of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties.
Further the defendant is directed to deliver possession of the
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property i.e., an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in R.S.No.56/4 of Tattivarru Revenue Village accounts to the plaintiff within two months, failing which, the plaintiff has to take steps to recover the same by following due procedure.
Further the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of Permanent
Injunction restraining the defendant, her men and supporters from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the Item No.2 of plaint schedule mentioned property.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 63ASCJ (FTC), GDV
104.Issue No.4 and additional issue No.2 dated 19.08.2008 in O.S.No38/2008:-
To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, after her transcription,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of October, 2023.
Sd/- A. Purnima,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Gudivada.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS
PW.1:- Gunja Rathnamma.DW.1:- Gunja Lakshmana Rao.
PW.2:- Tirukkavalluri Venkata DW.2:- Gunja Chitti Babu Swami Dasu. (Eschewed on 12.04.2022). PW.3:- Kotturi Seshagiri.DW.3:- Chandrala Venkata Siva Rama Krishna Rao. PW.4:- Kaila Arjuna RaoDW.4:- Kondapalli Balaji @ Balaji (Eschewed on 19.04.2010). Naidu. PW.5:- Gunja China Koteswara DW.5:- Gunja Bharathi. Rao (Eschewed on 19.04.2010). PW.6:- Tullimilli Srinivas (Executive Officer).
Exhibits marked on behalf
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS
Ex.A1 is the wedding invitationEx.B1 is the original title deed pass card dated 25.05.1966 inbook stands in the name of Gunja respect of the marriageVenkata Ratnam and issued by celebrated between the plaintiffMandal Revenue Officer, Gudivada and Gunja Venkata Ratnam. on 15.05.1995.
Ex.A2 is the true copy of No.3Ex.B2 is the original pattadar pass revenue Adangal for the Fasalibook stands in the name of Gunja 1408 to 1412 dated 21.12.2004Venkata Ratnam and issued by issued by the Secretary, GramMandal Revenue Officer, Gudivada. Sachivalayam, Tattivarru Village.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 64ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.A3 is the original VoterEx.B3 is the original Ryot pass book Identity Card of plaintiff datedstands in the name of Gunja 16.05.2003 issued by ElectionVenkata Ratnam and issued by Commission of India.Deputy Tahsildar, Gudivada.
Ex.A4 is the original HouseholdEx.B4 is the original Household Supply Card stands in the nameSupply Card stands in the name of of plaintiff and issued byGunja Venkata Ratnam. MandalRevenueOfficer, Gudivada on 03.03.1996.
Ex.A5 is the original bunch ofEx.B5 is the original Co-operative land tax receipts (59 in number)Kissan Credit Card-cum-pass book from the year 1971 to 2005.stands in the name of Gunja Venkata Ratnam and issued by Ramanapudi PACS.
Ex.A6 is the original DeathEx.B6 is the original receipt under Certificate of Gunja VenkataNo.128474 issued by Secretary, Ratnamdated20.06.2003Ramanapudi PACS in favour of issued by Secretary GramGunjaVenkataRatnamon Sachivalayam, Tattivarru Village.19.06.2003.
Ex.A7 is the letter issued byEx.B7 is the original urgent notice Executive Officer of Sri Sahasraunder R.O.R.No.532/1995 dated Lingeswara Swamy and Sri20.06.1996 issued by Mandal Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple onRevenue Officer, Gudivada to Gunja 14.11.2021.Venkata Ratnam.
Ex.A8 is the original cist receiptEx.B8 is the original service pension got issued by Secretary Grampapers submitted to Assistant Sachivalayam, Tattivarru onDirector of Market Committee to the 29.03.2006.Accountant General (A & E), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for forwarding of pension papers of G. Venkata Ratnam (six in number).
Ex.A9 is the original cist receiptEx.B9 is the office copy of gotissuedbyVillageapplication dated 15.12.2000 given AdministrativeOfficeronby Gunja Venkata Ratnam to the 24.09.2007.District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam.
Ex.A10 is the original cist receiptEx.B10 is the original Death gotissuedbyVillageCertificate of Gunja Venkata Ratnam AdministrativeOfficeronissued by the Secretary Gram 24.09.2007.Sachivalayam,Tattivarruon 20.06.2003.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 65ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.A11 is the original cist receiptEx.B11 is the original Death gotissuedbyVillageCertificate of Gunja Sarojini issued AdministrativeOfficeronbytheSecretaryGram 07.02.2009.Sachivalayam,Tattivarruon 29.03.2005.
Ex.A12 is the original cist receiptEx.B12 is the copy of no objection got issued by Village Revenuecertificate dated 24.06.2003 issued Officer on 11.04.2009. by Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudivada.
Ex.A13 is the original cist receiptEx.B13 is the original Adangal for got issued by Village Revenuethe Fasali 1411 issued by the Officer on 29.03.2010.Secretary Gram Sachivalayam, Tattivarru in favour of the defendant.
Ex.A14 is the original cist receiptEx.B14 is the original Will dated got issued by Village Revenue20.02.2001 got executed by Gunja Officer on 29.03.2010.Venkata Ratnam in favour of his wife and son i.e., the defendant herein.
Ex.A15 is the original cist receiptEx.B15 is the original Vivaha Lagna gotissuedbyVillagePatrika of G. Venkata Ratnam and AdministrativeOfficeronSarojini dated 05.02.1965. 26.04.2012.
Ex.A16 is the original cist receiptEx.B16 is the original land revenue got issued by Village RevenuereceiptNo.1084705dated Officer on 26.03.2013. 04.01.2004.
Ex.A17 is the original cist receiptEx.B17 is the original land revenue got issued by Village RevenuereceiptNo.4511135dated Officer on 29.05.2014.04.02.1996.
Ex.A18 is the original cist receiptEx.B18 is the original land revenue got issued by Village RevenuereceiptNo.4511371dated Officer on 04.05.2015.28.01.1996.
Ex.A19 is the original cist receiptEx.B19 is the original land revenue got issued by Village RevenuereceiptNo.0205526dated Officer on 17.03.2016.18.01.2003.
Ex.A20 is the original cist receiptEx.B20 is the original land revenue got issued by Village RevenuereceiptNo.5955833dated Officer on 26.04.2017. 06.04.2002.
Ex.A21 is the original cist receiptEx.B21 is the original D.M.F. receipt got issued by Village RevenueNo.811761 dated 03.04.1989. Officer on 02.03.2018.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 66ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.A22 is the original cist receiptEx.B22 is the original land revenue got issued by Village RevenuereceiptNo.436886dated Officer on 18.05.2019.03.04.1989.
Ex.A23 is the original cist receiptEx.B23 is the original land revenue got issued by Village RevenuereceiptNo.653421dated Officer on 12.02.2020. 27.01.1990.
Ex.A24 is the original cist receiptEx.B24 is the original D.C. receipt got issued by Village RevenueNo.651544 dated 29.04.1992. Officer on 04.12.2021.
Ex.A25 is the original cist receiptEx.B25 is the original D.M.F. receipt got issued by Village RevenueNo.651594 dated 29.04.1992. Officer on 07.02.2008. Ex.B26 is the original land revenue receiptNo.651495dated 29.04.1992.
Ex.B27 is the original D.M.F. receipt No.722285 dated 10.02.1993.
Ex.B28 is the original land revenue receiptNo.5728627dated 26.02.2001.
Ex.B29 is the original D.C. receipt No.722064 dated 10.02.1993.
Ex.B30 is the original D.M.F. receipt No.457341 dated 04.01.1994.
Ex.B31 is the original D.C. receipt No.457138 dated 04.01.1994.
Ex.B32 is the original land revenue receiptNo.457739dated 04.01.1994.
Ex.B33 is the original D.M.F. receipt No.0333694 dated 12.02.1995.
Ex.B34 is the original D.C. receipt No.0333847 dated 12.02.1995.
Ex.B35 is the original land revenue receiptNo.0333960dated 12.02.1995.
Ex.B36 is the original land revenue receiptNo.259677dated 04.07.1985.
Ex.B37 is the original D.T.D.C. Corrier receipt No.09065847 dated 15.12.2000.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 67ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.B38 is the original postal acknowledgment dated 08.03.2001.
Ex.B39 is the original D.T.D.C. Corrier receipt No.09065845 dated 15.12.2000.
Ex.B40 is the original D.T.D.C. Corrier receipt No.09065843 dated 15.12.2000.
Ex.B41 is the original Form for issue of Elector’s Photo Identity Card in favour of G. Sarojini, dated 19.05.2003.
Ex.B42 is the original Voter Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India in favour of G. Laxman
dated 19.05.2003.
Ex.B43 is the original Voter Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India in favour of G. Venkata Ratnam dated 19.05.2003.
Ex.B44 is the original demand notice and Municipal tax receipts issued in favour of Gunja Sarojini under House bearing No.16/129 (nine in number).
Ex.B45 is the original house tax receipt vide No.74948 under House bearingNo.98/1issuedby Sarpanch, Tattivarru (two in number).
Ex.B46 is the original house tax receipt vide No.15247 dated 31.03.1995.
Ex.B47 is the original registered sale deed dated 28.07.1993 got executedbyGunja Saraswathamma in favour of Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
Ex.B48 is the original registered gift deed dated 28.07.1993 got executed by Gunja Saraswathamma in favour of Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 68ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.B49 is the certified copy of registeredgiftdeeddated 23.10.1980 got executed by Gunja Sudharshanam in favour of Gunja Peramma and Lakshmanarao.
Ex.B50 is the certified copy of registeredsaledeeddated 27.02.1991 got executed by Gunja Peramma and Gunja Lakshmanarao in favour of P. Laxmibai.
Ex.B51 is the original medical reports and discharge summary of G. Venkata Ratnam, issued by Government General and Chest Hospital,Hyderabaddated 21.01.2003 (three in number).
Ex.B52 is the original medical reports and bills (seven in number), CT Scan reports (three in number) of G. Venkata Ratnam, issued by M.N.J Institute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Centre, Hyderabad
dated 06.02.2003.
Ex.B53 is the original medical reports and bills of G. Venkata Ratnam, issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad dated 06.02.2003 (12 in number).
Ex.B54 is the original medical reports and bills of G. Venkata Ratnam, issued by Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai dated 10.02.2003 (four in number).
Ex.B55 is the original medical bill
dated 24.10.2002, Ambulance
Services bill dated 15.06.2003, issued by Swapna Hospital, Hyderabad and Sri Venkata Sai Ambulance Services, Secunderabad respectively (two in number).
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 69ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.B56 is the photographs of Tombs of Gunja Peramma, Gunja Venkata Ratnam and Gunja Sarojini (five in number).
Ex.B57 is the original Savings Bank pass book stands in the name of Gunja Sarojini, issued by Secretary, Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Gudivada branch on 06.09.1996.
Ex.B58 is the original Savings Bank pass book stands in the name of Gunja Venkata Ratnam, issued by Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gudivada Bazaar branch on 18.01.1999.
Ex.B59 is the original Pensioner’s Identity Card stands in the name of G. Venkata Ratnam, issued by A.P. StateGovernmentRetired EmployeesAssociationon 20.01.2003.
Ex.B60 is the original Membership Card of Gunja Sarojini got issued by the Secretary, Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Gudivada Branch.
Ex.B61 is the original receipt dated 24.03.1998, issued by Department of Telecommunications.
Ex.B62 is the original Telephone Bill
dated 11.09.2003, issued by Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad Telecommunications.
Ex.B63 is the original Telephone Bill
dated 10.05.1999, issued by
B.S.N.L, Vijayawada.
Ex.B64 is the original Secondary School Leaving Certificate dated 28.01.1955 stands in the name of Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
Ex.B65 is the original Telephone Bill (final) dated 06.09.2002, issued by Vijayawada Telecommunications.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 70ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.B66 is the original certificate
dated 15.04.2002 issued in the
name of G. Venkata Ratnam by General Manager, Telecom District, Vijayawada.
Ex.B67 is the original proceedings of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (a Government of India Interprise),TelecomDistrict, Hyderabaddated07.05.2002 addressed to Gunja Venkata Ratnam.
Ex.B68 is the Domestic Gas Customer Card stands in the name of G. Venkata Ratnam got issued by Indian Gas, Gudivada Branch.
Ex.B69 is the orders dated 07.12.1998 passed by office of Accountant General (A & E) Andhra Padesh, in the name of G. Venkata Ratnam (four in number).
Ex.B70 is the cist receipt stands in the name of 1st defendant got issued by Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on 13.10.2010.
Ex.B71 is the cist receipt stands in the name of 1st defendant got issued by Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on 05.10.2011.
Ex.B72 is the cist receipt stands in the name of 1st defendant got issued by Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on 27.06.2012.
Ex.B73 is the cist receipt stands in the name of 1st defendant got issued by Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on 23.02.2013.
Ex.B74 is the cist receipt stands in the name of 1st defendant got issued by Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on 18.06.2014.
O.S.No.37/2008 and
O.S.No.38/2008 71ASCJ (FTC), GDV
Ex.B75 is the cist receipt stands in the name of 1st defendant got issued by Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on 20.07.2015.
Ex.B76 is the cist receipt stands in the name of 1st defendant got issued by Village Revenue Officer, Tattivarru Village on 18.09.2020.
Ex.B77 is the letter dated 08.04.2023 stands in the name of Temple got issued by PW.6 in the name of Gunja Lakshmana Rao (1st defendant).
Sd/- A. Purnima,
P.S.C.J., FAC/A.S.C.J., (FTC), GDV.