A.sai Kumari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION):: AMALAPURAM

Present:SaiKumariAkuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Amalapuram

Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019

O.S.No.248 of 2011:-

Between:-

1) Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 53 years, Hindu, Cycle Mechanic, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram mandal.

2) Mattaparthi (rokkala) Krishnam Raju, S/o Venkata Ramaraju, Aged 17 years, Student, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

3) Mattaparthi (Rokkala) Bhagyasri, D/o Venkata Ramaraju, Aged 14 years, Student, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

4) Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Late Krishnamraju, Aged 22 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

5) Mattaparthi Sonu Jai Satyaraj, Being Minor represented by mother guardian 4th petitioner Mattaparthi Kanakamma, Aged 6 months, Hindu, D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal. (Plaintiffs 4 to 5 are added as L,.Rs of deceased 1st plaintiff as per Orders in I.A.No.697 of 2017, dated 29-07-2017) . . . Plaintiffs AND

1) Gollinka Durga, W/o Krishna Murthy, D/o Balla Sriramulu, Aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o Sompalli, Razole.

2) Sapay Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavarm Mandal.

3) Sapay Satyanarayana, S/o Vemala Rao, Aged 34 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal.

4) Pitani Suryanarayana, S/o Mairdi, Aged 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Devaguptham Village, Allavaram Mandal.

5) Velligatla Veeraju, S/o Linga Murthy, Aged 44 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal.

6) Mallety Ramakrishna, S/o Subbarao, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal. . . . Defendants

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri N.V.Suryanarayana, Learned Counsel for plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 6 were set exparte and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for defendants 2 to 4 and Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for 5th defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

2

O.S.No.288 of 2014:-

Between:-

Sape Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal. . . . Plaintiff AND

1) Mattaparti Venkataramaraju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculture, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

2) Mattaparti Krishnamraju, S/o Venkataramaraju, Aged 20 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

3) Mattaparti Bhagya Sri, D/o Venkataramaraju, Aged 19 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

4) Suda Ganapati, S/o Tatayya, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.11- 112, market Area, Konkapalli, Peruru Panchayat. Amalapuram Rural Mandal. . . . Defendants

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for plaintiff and of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

O.S.No.2 of 2019:-

Between:-

1) Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 48 years, R/o D.No.4- 41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

2) Mattaparthi Krishnamraju (died)

3) Suda Ganapathi, S/o Tatayya, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Inam, D.No.11-112, Near Konkapalli Market, Konkapalli, Amalapuram.

4) Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Krishnamraju, Aged 22 years, R/o D.No.4- 41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

5) Mattaparthi Sonu Jayi Satyaraj, being minor reprersented by mother guardian 4th plaintiff Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Krishnamraju, Aged 6 months, Hindu, Minor, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal. . . . Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are added as per orders in I.A.No.1281 of 2016, dated 29- 11-2016) AND

1) Sape Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 62 years, Hindu, Inam, Near Panchayat Building, Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal.

2) Sape Satyanarayana, S/o Vemala Rao, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Inam, Near Panchayat Building, Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal.

3) Illa Bhagyasri, W/o Ramakrishna, Aged 20 years, Hindu, Inam, CISF Unit, IGST PP, Jharli District, Jhajjar, Haryana-124141. . . . Defendants

3

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for plaintiffs and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for defendants 1 and 2 and Sri T.V.Prasada Rao, Learned Counsel for 3rd defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

O.S.No.248 of 2011:-

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to a) declare the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs title over in respect of their properties; b) to grant decree and judgment to vacate the plaint A schedule property by the 5th and 6th defendants and deliver the same to the plaintiffs possession after evicting them; c) to grant personal and preliminary and final decrees and judgment to divide the plaint B schedule property into Two equal portions by metes and bounds and vacate on such portion by the 2nd to 4th defendants and deliver the same to the plaintiffs possession after evicting them and d) to grant decree and judgment to the divided remaining ½ portion of B-schedule into 3 equal portion by metes and bounds and Two portions out of 3 portions to deliver to the plaintiffs separate possession after evicting them; e) to grant past profits for the last three years i.e., prior to filing of P.O.P Rs.2,87,232/- with subsequent interest and to grant subsequent profits from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of delivery of possession as per order XX Rule 18 C.P.C on a separate application defendants in respective ration; f) to award costs of the suit and any other relief, which the Hon’ble court deems to fit and proper under the circumstances of the cause in the interest of justice.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: A Genealogical table are herewith filed and also schedules A and B are here with filed 'A' schedule property is the one item of self acquired property of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs mother

Satyavati and B' schedule property is the Joint self acquired property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother Satyavati and her husband Kondala Rao. The 1st

Petitioner/Plaintiff is the father of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs and 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs

4

are having, elder sister by name Kombathula Santosha Lakshmi and deceased brother Srinivasa Rao, who is the 1st husband of 1st Defendant.

During the life time of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother gave an extent of Ac.1- 00 cents in R.S.No.83/4 of Yentrukona to the Santosha Lakshmi towards pusupukum at the time of her marriage at the intency of 1st Plaintiff. The 1st

Plaintiff settled her marriage. The said property bequeathed from her under will. The testatrix of will appointed the 1st Plaintiff as guardian either to manage the said property or to sale the said property on behalf of Santosha Lakshmi.

To that effect the 1st plaintiff leased out the same to Sapay Vemala Rao for the yearly rentals. Ever since the said Vemala Rao cultivating the same as tenant.

The 1st Plaintiff also gave an extent of Ac.0-80 cents to Arigla Satyanarayana on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiff on lease, but both are committed default to pay yearly rentals. On that the 1st Plaintiff filed tenancy petition before Hon'ble court Special Officer, Amalapuram for eviction, which as A.T.C.Nos. 12 of 16 and 13 of 06 and dismissed on dafault are numbered. Due to financial incapacity the petitioner not filed suit for recovery of arrears of rentals.

Recently the 1st Plaintiff again filed A.T.C.Nos. on behalf of Santosha Lakshmi and 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs as per will of Satyavati, which are yet to be numbered subsequently which are numbered as A.C.T.No. 1 of 2011 and A.C.T.No.2 of 2011.

3. It is further submitted that the 1st Plaintiff met with an accident with Motor vehicle unfortunately. Due to that he bedridden due to financial incapacity he unable to got proper treatment. The 1st Plaintiff leased out Ac.2-21 cents of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs to the Yallamilli Venkata Raman for the period of 10 years and he received Rs.90,000/- to lump-sum from him and expended the same to maintain the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing food. shelters, clothes and education to them and some amount expanded for hint set right his disability and to became normal person to looked after the care and welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, are responsible person. Even though he is not perfectly set right.

The 1st Plaintiff is the sole bread earner of his family and he has looked after

5

the welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing food, shelter, clothes and education as guardian of them. But 'A' and 'schedule properties are in the illegal possession of Defendants and they unauthorizedly enjoying same and got huge profits against the executed wills and and wishes of 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs mother and father Kondala Rao.

4. It is further submitted that during the life time of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother executed a will with regard to her properties of them of 'A' schedule property and other properties and here share in 'B' schedule property in favour of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs on 09-05-1997 and she died on 22-07-1997. After demise of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother, the 1st Plaintiff looked after the care and welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing education and Sidharta

Convent at Rajahmundry. Subsequently he shifted to local school due to financial crisis. Subsequently on 26-05-1998 the Satyavati's husband executed a registered will in favour of his elder son Srinivasa Rao, Krishnam

Raju and daughters Kombhattula Santosha Lakshmi and Bhagyasri. Already

Rokkal Satyavati gave an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to Santosha Lakshmi of herself acquired property through will. Even though her husband Kondala Rao gave some property the self-acquired property of his wife on extent of Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.83/4 to the Santosha Lakshmi and the same was recited in his registered will. After demises of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother, they are care under the control of 1st Plaintiff, but the Kondala Rao used to visit the house 1st

Plaintiff and he was taking care of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs with love and affection.

After demises of Kondala Rao the co-sharer of Srinivas Rao not delivered the shared property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, at least the share of menses profits to them even if the 1st Plaintiff demanded, and 1st Defendant 1st husband and 2nd

Defendant colluded together and they created forged will, which was executed by Kondala Rao with regard to his wife property in favour of his elder son

Srinivas Rao and filed suit with false allegation against 1st Plaintiff and other for permanent injunction with regard to properties of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs

before Honourable Principal Junior Civil Judge as O.S.74 of 2005. While the

6

suit is pending the Plaintiff Srinivas Rao died and the L.R. Petition is pending, which was filed by 1st Defendant as wife of Rokkal Durga W/o late Srinivas

Rao even if she is the wife of Gullinka Krishna Murthy by committing impersonation after time the Plaintiffs did not know the subsequent marriage of 1st Defendant. There after the 1st to 3rd Defendants colluded together and they created factitious Registered Sale Deed with regard to 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs property with a view to grab away the properties of them by false representations and statements even if the 1st Plaintiff issued two legal notices to the 1st to 3rd Defendant and other and public notice published in daily news paper. The 1st Defendant alienated the properties of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by the way alleged sale without supported by consideration at the instance of 2nd

Defendant and others.

5. It is further submitted that during the life time of Kondala Rao and 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs are under the care and control of 1st Plaintiff and they were studying Siddardha Convent, Rajahmundry after demises of his wife

Satyavati. The said Kondala Rao sold away an extent of Ac.0-27 cents in

R.S.No. 163/6 the property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs i.e. 'A' schedule property which is the 2nd and 3rd minor Plaintiffs property and which was bequeathed from their mother to the 5th and 6th Defendants without manner of right and title. The 'B' schedule property is the joint self acquired property of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant 1st husband's parents. During their lifetime the parents they obtained pattadar pass books with regard to their respective shares. The original pass books are in the custody of 2nd Defendant. As per will of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother Satyavati, they are entitled to 1/2 share property in B' schedule property. As per will of their father they are entitled to 1/3rd share property each out of remaining 1/2 share property and manse profits i.e. Ac. 1-65 cents. The 1st defendant husband entitled only Ac.0.821/2 cents. Whenever the 1st Defendant married and the Gullinka Krishna Murthy, by left his husband, Srinivas Rao, the status of wife of Srinivas Rao is extinguished. The total annual income A & B schedule property is Rs.70,400/-

7

(seventy thousand and four hundred only) over the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff property and their share 1/3 each in 1/2 share property of B' schedule. The 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs are minors and they are depending on 1st Plaintiff and they have been suffering from starvation and they are came back and studying in

Goverment. School. The 1st Plaintiff has been suffering from disablement. The

Plaintiffs demands for deliver 'A' Plaintiff schedule property and for past profits and future profits and costs other reliefs. All relevant documents are herewith filed for your Honourable perusal.

6.It is further submitted that during pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died intestate on 01-06-2016 leaving behind him plaintiffs 4th and 5th as his next and nearest class-I heirs. The 4th plaintiff is the wife and 5th plaintiff is the minor son of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Except the plaintiffs 4 and 5 there are no other L.Rs to deceased 2nd plaintiff. Hence they are added as L.Rs of deceased 2nd plaintiff in the suit. (Added as per orders in I.A.No. Of 2017, dated. -07-2017). Hence, the suit.

7.On receipt of the summons, D.2, D.3 and D.5 filed a written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. In such a written statement, D.2,

D.3 and D.5 further contended that plaintiff No.1 belongs to Munganda village, when Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavati have established companies at

Mumbai, as well as workshops at Ullas Nagar, Mumbai, the 1st plaintiff had been to Mumbai, to get employment in private company there, but, unfortunately, he joined in the company of the said Kondala Rao, as a worker.

That, Kondala Rao and Satyavati belong to Scheduled caste, the 1st plaintiff belongs to B.(C) Settibalija community. While he joined as a worker in the company, the 2nd defendant is also one of the partner in that company, that 2nd defendant being brother Satyavati.That Satyavati being 2nd wife of Kondala

Rao, that Kondala Rao got two children through 1st wife, by names 1)Kombattula Santosha lakshmi (daughter) 2) Rokkala Srinivasa Rao (son).

That after death of his first wife, Kondala Rao married Satyavati, begot 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs through her they were named as 1)Krishmamraju. 2) Bhagya Sri.

8

While the companies are in progressive state earning profits, Kondallarao fell sick, the Satyavati and 2nd defendant managed the companies and 2nd defendant also brought some amount, purchased lands at Yentrukona in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, much less with the funds of the companies. Any way, the entire plaint A and B schedule properties absolutely belong to Kondala Rao and Satyavati. That, at the time of marriage of daughter of Kondala Rao by name Santosha lakshmi, he gifted Ac.1-00 cents of land towards Pasupukumkuma. Rest of the properties being enjoyed by the

Satyavati and Kondala Rao, but,in the meanwhile has created disputes between wife and husband and also between 2nd defendant. Satyavati died out of mystery, by the acts of 1st plaintiff, and after her death they have created by forging a Will on dated 05-09-1997 as is evident as she died on 22-07- 1997. The will alleged to have been executed was brought up by procuring the

Attestors and scribe, at Machavaram, where as she (testatrix) died at Mumbai.

The alleged Testatrix, Satyvati had no occasion to come over to these parts and visit, that too no occasion to come over. A clear, look at the alleged will speaks volumes of fake things. That, 1st plaintiff had an eye on the property by taking advantage of loneliness of Kondala Rao and that, 1st plaintiff having hatched up plan to become one of members of the family of Kondala Rao with motives behind, succeeded in his mysterious plans, and convinced Kondala

Rao by representing that Kondala Rao became old and became age sickness and by then children of Kondala Rao are minors, with tender ages, gave him with moral support by representing that, don't hesitate because of children and regarding management of companies as he will safeguard and which gave confidence to Kondala Rao, that, though the 2nd defendant was by then at

Mumbai, he returned back to Ventrukona, to cultivate the land purchased by then in the name of Kondala Rao and Plaintiff. Satyavati. Then the 1st plaintiff became sole administrator, to not only to Kondala Rao personal, and to companies. As such the 2nd defendant is managing the properties at Ventru kona used to account for the management of property not only to Kondala

9

Rao and Satyavati, thus having gained confidence in Satyavati and Kondala

Rao in him.

8.It is further contended that While so, the 1st plaintiff, with malice, in order to grab the property of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, has created hurdles and disputes between Kondala Rao and Satyavati, he having gained confidence in his by Kondala Rao and Satyavati, went to the extent of fabricating documents of his choice, like Will dated 09-05-1997, alleged to have done by Satyavati, and to further lend support this plans, he filed A.T.C.No.12 of 2006, and 13 of 2006 of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's court, Amalapuram, but, dismissed for default.

That, afterwards, the 1st plaintiff filed Pauper suit in P.O.P.No.60 of 2006 on the file of this Hon'ble court, for the reliefs prayed for in the suit but, it was negatived. That, after dismissal of above pauper suit, the present suit was filed, for the reliefs- 1. declare the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff's title over and in respect of their property, but, no specific mention of property mentioned for that relief.

2. for the relief of eviction of A schedule property by 5th and 6th defendants and deliver the extent to plaintiff’s possession. But, before evicting the party from property, plaintiffs have to pray for cancellation of document in respect of property of 5th and 6th defendants. 3. decrees like personal, preliminary and final decree, judgment thereto, and further to divide plaint B-schedule properties into 2 equal shares by metes and bounds, and to vacate from such portion property, by 2nd 3rd and 4th defendants, and deliver the same to plaintiffs possession after evicting from the property. In such a case for the relief prayed for, plaintiff's suit for relief of cancellation of sale deed for the property involved. Further sought for relief to grant a decree and judgment to divide the shares among them, and to grant subsequent profits after filing of suit, till delivery of possession of the property, which is not permissible in the form of present suit. The list of documents numbering 1 to 21 are not proper to relying by plaintiffs to support the present suit reliefs as prayed for. That, in the meanwhile, after death of Satyavati, Kondala Rao died in the year 1998, that,

before his death, he has executed a Registered will dt.26-05-1998 that, as per

10

the will, the 1st son of deceased Kondala Rao, (Rokkala Srinivasa Rao), acted as per will and managed the Estate, cleared off the loans and some property was remained, in the meantime, Srinivasa Rao died. Immediately, his wife, 1st defendant in the suit taken possession of the property, managed for some time, she being lady, not able to manage the property, got herself executed a

Power of Attorney, in favour of Sape Vemalarao, document dated.08-10-2009 of Sub Registrar's office, Amalapuram. Since then 2nd defendant, is in possession and enjoyment of the property remained after selling the property.

That, the 1st plaintiff, who is with the Kondala Rao, till death of him, he has sold away the properties at Bombay, like Work shop, and other companies assets, by showing the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in his custody, having funds from to

Munganda. Thus the 1st defendant having funds now he is dealing with speculative litigation by the suits, showing 2nd and 3rd defendants to gain wrongfully out of the properties of 2nd and 3rd defendants. Actually, there is no passing of consideration at all. Thus, there are no merits in the suit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit in limini with costs and to award compensatory costs.

9.The 5th defendant filed separate written statement and further contended that Rokkala Satyavathi has no monies, no capacity to purchase the property. Kondala Rao purchased the said property with his money in her name. He paid the consideration for the said sale. It is for his benefit the property was purchased and kept in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi. Rokkala

Satyavathi is not the owner of the property. In any way Rokkala Satyavathi died and after her death an extent of Ac.0.12 cents in R.S.No.163/6 was sold by all of them for their family necessities and received the entire consideration and delivered possession of the same to this defendant. They executed and registered a sale deed dated 16-07-1998 and it was duly registered as document No.547/1998. The property was delivered to this defendant on the date of execution of sale deed. Since 1998 this defendant is in effective possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. This defendant is

11

nothing to do with the other properties. This defendant is concerned with the said extent of Ac.0.12 cents only. Since the sale in favour of this defendant is for legitimate legal necessities the sale is binding on the plaintiffs. They cannot question the same. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi. After death of Kondala Rao, Satyavathi lived with 1st plaintiff and they maintained illegal contacts. So the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the legitimate children of Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Rokkala Srinivas is having a share in the property since he died and by the time of death of Srinivas, his mother left the home and joined with the 1st plaintiff. So plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot claim any right over the share of Srinivas in the properties. In that way the plaintiff's suit is mischievous, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any right, title and interest over the properties and they cannot claim any share in the properties. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct. The all other allegations which have not been specifically admitted or traversed herein are hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore the 5th defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties are liable for partition?

2) Whether the Items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are joint self acquired properties of parents of plaintiffs 2 and 3?

3) Whether the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased Items 2 and 3 in the name of their mother from out of their own income?

4) Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and legitimate children of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties?

12

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for preliminary decree as prayed for?

7) To what relief?

O.S.No.288 of 2014

11.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 08-08-2014, alleged to have executed by 1st to 3rd defendants in favour of 5th defendant by duly declaring the purported documents as nul and void, abinitio in the eye of law; award costs of the suit and grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

12. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the sister of plaintiff herein by name Rokkala

Satyavati and her husband viz Kondala Rao. After their demise, their son by name Srinivasa Rao, succeeded to the same as of right, and after death of

Srinivasarao, his wife Durga succeeded t the property as of right. That she being lady, not able to took up cultivation, she has executed General power of attorney dt.8-10-2008, (Doct.No. 192 of S.R.O.. Allavarm. Since the plaintiff has been managing the property on her behalf, rendering account of such management to the Attorney. During the life time of Kondala Rao and

Satyavati 1st defendant herein the suit happened to be with them at Mumbai (Bombay) as a worker, where they are running companies of their own. Then the 1st defendant, it seems secured some documents of title, secretly, behind their back, as they could not anticipate the fraud being played by 1st defendant. That, by then 2nd and 3rd defendants are children of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, with tender age, net in a position to assess the conduct and behaviour of 1st defendant since he gained confidence from Rokkala Kondala

Rao and Satyavati, there are 2nd and 3rd defendants it seems went into his fold. It is submitted that Kondala Rao and Satyavati, used to bring 2nd and 3rddefendants to Yentrukona with them, the 1st defendant, used to pick them to

Village Munganda of his native place, believe the public by representing as if

13

the 2nd and 3rd defendant viz. Krishnamraju and Bhagya Sri her progimy much less own children. That 1st defendant gained access in public in so doing every year, whenever Kondala Rao and Satyavati happened to be here to lock after the property and to have contact with plaintiff who was their manager of the property entrusted.

13. It is further submitted that that, to lend support the conspiracy hatched up by 1st defendant, when Rokkala Satyavati died 22-07-1997, immediately, 1st defendant created one unregistered will dt.09-05-1997, of his choice, as if it is instrument by Testatrix, that, on the basis of above alleged will, he filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalpauram, against the plaintiff and his son and Rokkala Durga who is no other than daughter-in-law of Kondala Rao and Satyavati. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and other properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, by claiming imaginary and speculative claim of shares by putting his claim the basis of the fare will. That, after death of both Kondala Rao and Satyavati, the 1st defendant has got chance brought 2nd and 3rd defendants who are infants by then to Munganda, in order to lend support to his conspiracy, has obtained Ration card by including their names as his son and daughter. and that he went up to extent to make believe the public they are his proginy. And out of his best and fraud, the 1st defendant created some false documents of title and on that, he abruptly sold the suit schedule property herein to the 4th defendant under

Registered sale deed 08-08-2014 for Ac.1-12 cents, of R.S.No.147/4, Ac.0-58 cents, 147-5 Ac.0-54 cents, for paltry consideration of Rs.5.60,000/- when compared the then existing rates and values the property. The 1st defendant, in doing fraudulent activities simply treated the property as if wet land even though it is dry land not assessed to revenue tax. That, if it is really wet land with alleged possession by 1st defendant he would have file tax receipts, which spears amount of fraud by 1st defendant, not belong to 1st defendant but, it is with malice, he procured some false documents got registered the present title

14

deed of the suit claim, in the name of 4th defendant to gain wrongfully if possible.

14. It is further submitted to prove the guilt of the 1st defendant the 4th defendant has to verify the document of title so far goes the genuineness regarding possession before getting sale deed for valuable consideration

dated 08-08-2014. So, the sale deed is treated as void, abinitio, illegal, invalid

and un-enfofceable in the eye of law. Therefore, the plaintiff left with no optic except to file the present suit praying the relief of cancellation of alleged sale deed dated 08-08-2014, by 1st defendant in favour of 4th defendant, alleged to have beer by 2nd and 3rd defendant. That, in order to make known the defendants, the plaintiff and 27-09-2014 got issued registered legal notice,but, it is with malice and malafide intention, it is at the instance of 1st defendant who is the spearhead of the litigation got refused the notice anticipating the contents, as the demand by plaintiff was rot heard by defendants. Thus, the plaintiff got cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the suit.

15. On receipt of summons, defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and the same was adopted by the 3rd defendant. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 further contended that the property is the absolute property of Rokkala Satyavathi. Somehow she came into contact with the 1st defendant herein and virtually she lead marital life with him and begot two children who are defendants 2 and 3. Rokkala Satyavathi during her life time in a sound and disposing state of mind out of her free will and violation executed a Will dated 09-05-1997 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and some other properties in favour of defendants 2 and 3 but appointing 1st defendant as a care taker to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties till they became majors. Later she died on 22-07-1997. After her death the Will came into effect and as per the bequeaths there under the beneficiaries came into possession of the property. Later her original husband

Kondala Rao also died. The relations between 1st defendant and Rokkala

Satyavathi virtually became a relation of husband and wife and defendants 2

15

and 3 are their children. So whether Will or no Will the defendants 2 and 3 alone became entitled to the schedule properties and some other properties.

The defendants 2 and 3 for their necessities and to utilize the proceeds for their development sold the schedule properties to the 4th defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- under a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 and since then the 4th defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit is frivolous and vexatious suit without any right or claim over the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff herein illegally and unlawfully tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by the 4th defendant herein claiming under a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 for valuable consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- executed by defendants 1 to 3 and came into possession of the property and enjoying the same, the 4th defendant herein and his vendors 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's court,

Amalapuram and obtained an order of injunction in I.A.No.80 of 2015 wherein the injunction orders were granted till further orders on 18-1-2015. The 3rd vendor when she is not available at the time of filing of the said suit, she was impleaded as 3rd defendant who filed her written statement accepting the claims in the plaint. The said suit is filed against the plaintiff herein and his son

Sape Satyanarayana. In the said suit the plaintiff herein filed his written statement and also filed his counter in 1.A.No.80 of 2015 and after filing of the said counter only the Principal Junior Civil Judge's court extended the orders of injunction till further orders.

16. It is further contended that the copy of the plant in O.S.No.17 of 2015 filed by defendants 1, 2 and 4 is attached to this written statement since the said plaint is the clear and categorical answer to the allegations that are made in the plaint in this suit. The present suit is filed subsequent to the sale deed in favour of 4th defendant who is the 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 2015. Therefore all the allegations that are made in the plaint are false and frivolous allegations and the suit is not sustainable under law. Further the defendants 1 to 3 filed a

16

suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this Hon'ble court against Gurlinka

Durga and plaintiff herein and his son Satyanarayana and some others seeking the relief of possession of plaint A schedule properties therein and for a decree for partition of plaint B schedule properties therein and for other reliefs. The schedule property in the present suit is not the property covered by schedule in the said suit O.S.No.248 of 2011. The plaintiff unsuccessfully brought into existence some fictitious tenancy proceedings against the defendants 1 to 3 but ultimately he failed and withdrawn the said petitions.

There are some other tenancy proceedings are pending against the plaintiff and others with which the present suit is not concerned or the properties covered by sale deed in favour of 4th defendant is not concerned.

17. It is further contended that the wife of Srinivasa Rao after the death of

Srinivasa Rao married again and she is now being called as Gurlinka Durga but not as Rokkala Durga. As far as the knowledge of 1st defendant goes, she maintained contacts with her present husband during the life time of her original husband. Because of those contacts only having vexed, Srinivasa Rao met premature death. So Gurlinka Durga is not entitled to make any claim for any share in the properties of Rokkala Satyavathi as per the provisions of the

Will executed by Satyavathi as stated supra. It is submitted that the properties covered by the schedule in the present suit are the absolute properties of defendants 1 to 3 and they for their necessities sold the same to the 4th defendant herein. The said sale deed is true, validly executed for consideration. The plaintiff or any other body have no right or interest over the said property in any manner. Further the plaintiff is not a party to the said sale deed as such he cannot seek cancellation of the same if at all if he wants to make any claim he has to seek declaration and possession not for a suit for cancellation of sale deed. In that view of the matter also, the suit is not sustainable under law and liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct. The further allegations in the plaint which have not been specifically

17

admitted or traversed herein are hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore the defendants 1,2 and 4 pray that the Hon'ble court be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

18.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant as null and void?

2) Whether the suit is maintainable under law as plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 08-08-2014?

3) To what relief?

O.S.No.2 of 2019

19.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant and against the defendants 1 and 2 granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 their followers, fellowmen from ever in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein; to award costs of the suit and to pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

20. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: The property more fully described in the schedule here to annexed is the absolute stridhana property of one Rokkala Satyavathi, w/o. Kondala Rao. She purchased the same and some other property under registered sale deed dated 26-02-1992 from one

Vithanala Narayanamurty and others for a valuable consideration and she was duly put in possession of the property by her vendor and she during her life time continued in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since it is a coconut garden no taxes were imposed on the said lands since long time. But she was given pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said property. The said passbook and title deed were snatched away by one Gurlinka Durga but

18

Xerox copies are available with plaintiffs. She and her husband Kondala Rao used to reside at Bombay. Her husband being unhealthy somehow she came into contact with the 1st plaintiff herein and virtually she lead marital life with him and begot two children who are 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant herein.

Since the 3rd defendant is residing with her husband at Haryana she was shown as defendant since it became not possible to join her as plaintiff but she is interested in the subject matter of dispute, The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant originally treated with the surname of Rokkala Kondala Rao though 1st plaintiff is their father. While so, Rokkala Satyavathi during her life time in a sound and disposing state of mind out of her free will and violation executed a

Will dt.09-05-1997 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and some other properties in favour of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant but appointing 1st plaintiff as a care taker to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties till they became majors and directing the 1st plaintiff to handover possession of the same to them after they attained majority. Further she also bequeathed an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to her daughter Santhosha lakshmi born through her original husband Rokkala Kondala Rao to be enjoyed by her with full and absolute rights. The said Will was duly executed and attested and it is the last and final Will of Satyavathi. Later she died on 22-07-1997. After her death the

Will came into effect and as per the bequeaths there under the beneficiaries came into possession of the property. Later her original husband Kondala Rao also died. The relations between 1st plaintiff and Rokkala Satyavathi virtually became a relation of husband and wife and 2nd plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are their children. So whether Will or no Will 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant alone became entitled to the schedule properties and some other properties since

Santhosa Lakshmi accepted the Will executed by Satyavathi and she is enjoying the said Ac.1-00 cents of land by leasing out the same to the 1st plaintiff herein and receiving rents thereunder.

21.It is further submitted that they are concerned in this suit with the schedule property alone which is part of the properties covered under the sale

19

deed dt.26-02-1992 which properties were covered under the Will dated 09- 05-1997. It is submitted that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties as full and absolute owners of the property. Originally pattadar pass book and title deed book were issued in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi and after her death they were again issued by the government in the name of 1st plaintiff since he is the care taker of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant and he is in effective possession and enjoyment of schedule properties. The 1st plaintiff on behalf of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant used to cultivate the same and spending the income for the benefit of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant. While so, the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant became majors and became entitled to the properties as per the provisions of the Will dt.09-05- 1997 validly executed by late Rokkala Satyavathi in a sound and disposing state of mind and out of her free will and violation. While so after they became majors they came into possession of the same. The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant for their necessities and to utilize the proceeds for their development offered to sell item 1and 2 of the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd plaintiff herein. So a bargain was settled for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-and 3rd plaintiff obtained a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 from plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant. The 3rd plaintiff was duly put in possession of the property and he attended for plucking in the schedule property two or three times after the property was delivered to him in pursuance of the terms of sale deed dt.08-08-2014 and the 3rd plaintiff is in effective possession and enjoyment of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. The item No.3 of the schedule property still continuing in possession and enjoyment of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant and on their behalf the 1st plaintiff is looking after the same since he was in effective possession of the same as care taker of the interests of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant even after they attained majority. Now the defendants 1 and 2 since they are from privileged class started litigation with regard to other properties of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they are forced to file a suit against them and some others in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil

20

Judge's court, Amalapuram. Further the 1st defendant and one Arigela

Satyanarayana are in possession of some properties which belongs to daughter of late Rokkala Satyavathi by name Santhosi Lakshmi through her first husband as tenants and also some other properties of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant. As they committed default in payment of rents petitions were filed for ejectment of the 1st defendant and Arigela Satyanarayana from the respective lands and they are pending disposal. Now the defendants 1 and 2 by pressing their caste into service are making hectic efforts to cause obstruction to the plaintiffs and defendant in enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties in the best manner suits them. The defendants 1 and 2 are also proclaiming in the village that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant will not be allowed into the properties and they will cause severe and serious objection and they are also targeting the 3rd plaintiff who is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties.

22. It is further submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 have no locus-standee to interfere with possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein. Their attempts are highhanded and illegal.

They are also threatening that they will book the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant by filing atrocity cases or some cases involving ladies of their community. As a matter of fact they issued a false report against 1st plaintiff and others for which F.I.R. is registered the copy of which is also filed along with the plaint.

So by hurling such threats they are trying to fright on the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and also trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein.

It is humbly submitted that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are in absolute, effective and peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 3rd defendant are law abiding citizens, having no influences and on the other hand the defendants are desperate character have no regard or respect for law and they are upto anything and they have

21

serious backing of their caste and they are trying to use the said caste as ground for causing obstruction to the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant in enjoying the plaint schedule properties. They are making open proclamations to that effect in the village. The plaintiffs and 3rd defendants are not a match to the evil mechanisations of the defendants 1 and 2. So the right, title, interest and possession of plaintiffs and 3rd defendant is to be protected by way of granting a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their followers and fellowmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and from illegally entering into the land by threats and violence. The plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are entitled to seek such a decree and the defendants 1 and 2 are bound to suffer for such a decree. It is submitted that during pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died intestate on 01-06-2016 leaving behind him plaintiffs 4 and 5 as his next and nearest class-1 heirs. The 4th plaintiff is the wife and 5th plaintiff is the minor son of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Except the plaintiffs 4 and 5 there are no other LRs to deceased 2nd plaintiff. Hence they are added as LRs of deceased 2nd plaintiff in the suit. (added as per orders in

I.A.No. 1281 of 2016 dated 29-11-2016)

23. On receipt of summons, defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. It is further contended that it is submitted that, in fact, the D-1 is the elder brother of deceased Rokkala satyavati, and her husband Kondala Rao, was married being maternal uncle and defendant is son D-1, 1stplaintiff is the daily wage earner, under the deceased Kondala Rao and Rokkala Satyavati, while they were at Mumbai (Bombay), 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant are the children of Kondala Rao with

Satyavati. 3rd plaintiff is the purchaser of plaint schedule items 1 and 2. As matter stands, Rokkala Satyavati died on 22-07-1997 mysterious cause, by the daily wage earner, much less the so called 1st plaintiff in the suit. Pattadar pass books and title deed books were handed to Tahsildar, Allavaram and obtained pass passbook etc, in the name of Kondala Rao being husband of

22

deceased Satyavati, and are with the D-1. So, the contra allegations as if they are snatched away by one Gurlinka Durga is not true. Rokkala Satyavati and her husband Kondala Rao had been at Mumbai, and her husband being unhealthy, some how she came into the sakásk contact with ist plaintiff herein, virtually lead marital life with him, begot 2 children, who are 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs herein the suit. That, since, the 3rd defendant is residing with her husband at Hariyana, she was also shown as defendant, since not possible to get her as one of the plaintiffs, but, interested to purave the litigation. It is quite absurd and beyond human expectation that the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, originally styling with surname of Rokkala Kondala Rao, though the 1st plaintiff is their father. it is falsehood, and denied by defendant. That Kondala Rao and

Satyavati at Mumbai, and running workshop, Kondala Rao hale and healthy, they at with their best efforts did good and developed financially, and the 1st plaintiff got joined as daily worker, in the hands of Kondala Rao, lived in a separate house along with wife and her 2nd children, far away from the work shop, that, 1st plaintiff, daily used to bring the children to school from house, developed closeness with children, undercurrent, not to the sense of the parents, but, it is not correct, the children are born with 1st plaintiff to Satyavati,

Kondala Rao and Satyavati, have begotten 4 issues, 1.Santoshilakshmi, 2.Srinivasarao, 3.Krishnam Raju, and 4. Bhagya Sri. That after death of

Satyavati, Krishnam Raju and Bhagya sri, were tendered children, that is so, being worker, used to look after the children, as he is doing the same thing regarding their father Kondala Rao. Moreover, Kondala Rao and Satyavati belong to schedule caste, whereas the 1st plaintiff belongs to "Setti balija community". That marriage of Santoshi lakshmi was done by Kondala Rao and Satyavati. After their death marriage of Srinivasarao, was done by 1st defendant, and that D-1 totally looked after the children, that, since then the entire property is in the possession and enjoyment of Srinivasa rao, along with the management of D-1 and D-2. The 1st plaintiff, kidnaped the Srinivasarao at

Mumbai, in the year 1998, and on that, Kondala Rao became up-set with

23

mental agony, he died for nothing. Then the workshop was taken handed over by 1st plaintiff, and he has simply sold away, enjoyed the funds by himself, by then the children of Konddlar Rao 1.Krishnamraju and 2. Bhagya sri, plaintiff

No.2 and D.3. The 1st plaintiff converted the assets into cash and he came over to Munganda along with the minor children. The deceased Kondala Rao has duly executed Registered will in favour of Santoshilakshmi for Ac. 1-00 as well as in the subsequent unregistered will dt.04-07-1998. He has neglected the other children. It is not the fact that Kondala Rao's wife Satyavati has executed any will during his life time, that the unregistered will dated 09-05- 1997 was brought into existence much less by fabrication, set-up and creation by 1st plaintiff. That, the signature on the will of alleged Satyavati, is the handwork of 1st plaintiff. That too, signature of attestor as if her husband (Kondala Rao) is also forged to suit things manipulated by 1st plaintiff. That surnames of 2nd plaintiff and D.3 was changed to Mattaparti from Rokkala got entered in Revenue record and Aadhar card etc. by hand work of 1st plaintiff.

Relationship between 1st plaintiff with Satyavati are Master and servant, but, not as wife and husband as stated in plaint. Plaintiffs and D.3 never had possession and enjoyment of suit property as alleged in plaint.

24. The allegations of para 5 of plaint, that plaintiffs and D.3, are in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owners of the same, and original pattadar pass book and title book were issued in the name of

Rokkala Satyavati, and after her death, they were issued in the name of 1st plaintiff, since he is caretaker of 2nd plaintiff and D.3 and is in effective possession and enjoyment of the property, unused to cultivate the same, spending income to the 2nd plaintiff and D.3, are utter false hood to the knowledge of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs and D.3 never had possession and enjoyment of the suit property, much less as full and absolute owners thereof.

It is true, originally, pattadar pass book and title deed book were issued in the name of Rokkala Satyavati, and after her death, they were surrendered to

Allavaram M.R.O, and in turn issued new passbooks in the name of Rokkala

24

Kondala Rao, in respect of suit property. The 1st plaintiff, when the pattadar pass books are in force he has created the un-registered will dated 09-05- 1997, and with the assistance of will alleged, he influenced, the then M.R.O,

Smt. B.Gajnamba, and got the present pass books in the name of the 1st plaintiff. Then 1st defendant obliged to file application before R.D.O

Amalapuram, for due cancellation of the said books, in C.C.171 of 2012 dt.27- 11-2012. That, as during pendency of the above proceedings, M.R.O,

Allavaram (Tahsildar) enquired into the matter, submitted report to R.D.O. on 24-11-2014, which is pending. Moreover, as a precautionary measure, the

Revenue authorities get the pass book cancelled by office procedure relating to "On line". But, on the alleged pass book basis, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and 3rd defendant sold item-1 and 2 of suit schedule property to 3rd plaintiff as the 3rd plaintiff is belong to Kapu community and a well known rowdy of

Amalapuram, and he got capacity to make entry with his brute force. Even then, it became for impossible to get possession of the property, which the possession and enjoyment by 1st defendant, since 08-10-2008. General Power of Attorney under Doc.No.677/2008 by Rokkala Durga, W/o.Srinivasarao.

25. The 1st plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge's court, Amalapuran, against is 2nd defendant and others, for relief of

injunction, pending. The 1st defendant, filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's court, Amalapuram, against the plaintiffs herein and 3rd defendant, for due cancelation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 in favour of 3rd plaintiff by 1st and 2nd plaintiff along with 3rd defendant. That, without receiving suit summons therein, they engineered the present suit that too for permanent injunction with the help of the invalid things since, the revenue enquiry is on the purported sale deed was executed in favour of 3rd plaintiff, it amounts to criminal activity in the eye law that too against the government, until the enquiry concluded. That, as per allegations of para-6, that 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant majors, and became entitled to get property and per the provision of the will dated 09-05-1997, validly alleged to have executed by Rokkala

25

Satyavati, in a sound and disposing state of mind, and out of her free will and disposing state of mind and out of her free will and is a setup theory by plaintiffs. The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, for their necessities, to appropriate the proceeds for their development, offered items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule to 3rd plaintiff in the suit, bargained for Rs.5,60,000/- and obtained registered sale deed dated 08-08-2014 by the plaintiffs 1st and 2nd plaintiff in favour of 3rd plaintiff. Thus, it seems the 3rd plaintiff came into possession and attended for plucking coconuts, roughly 2 and or 3 times that after the property allegedly delivered, and effective possession of items 1 and 2, the item-3 of suit schedule is in continuous enjoyment and possession of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, and on behalf of 1st plaintiff, is utter falsehood to the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

26.It is further submitted that the facts of the case are the 1st and 2nd defendant are in actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, since, right from 2008, when G.P.A. got by 1st defendant the said Durga. The 1st defendant leased out the entire suit schedule property in the year 2012 to 2014, to one Polamuri Sriramulu S/o Ramamurty of Ventrukona, for the interim crops like plantation of Banana. That on completion, he has duly delivered possession of the property to the 1st defendant. That the property possession is with the 1st and 2nd defendants. That, in fact, the 3rd defendnt not even aware of the topography of the property to say. It is therefore, absolute false hood that, he got plucked the coconuts for 2 or 3 occasions, which falsifies the version, in the text of the plaintiffs alleged. The 1st plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book, that he as if got court order, misrepresented for issue of pattadar pass book, as per O.S.No.74 of 2005 as that suit by Srinivasarao (Rokkala) against 1st plaintiff and others, and the said suit was ended " not pressed" by

Rokkala Durga, who is a party after death of her husband. Actually there are no orders by court, in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as the suit ended as "not pressed".

The 1st plaintiff, it seems has cheated the revenue, obtained Pattadar pass book, under the false pretext. That, the 1st plaintiff filed A.T.C. for the alleged

26

years, 2006, and for the year 2012 seeking to evictionon the ground of alleged arrears. Those were dismissed by the court, since, the party not taken steps.

That, since 1st plaintiff solvent enough. I.P suit, was dismissed. Again the present suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram, for the mere relief of injunction, as if the property alleged to be with him. That suit by 1st plaintiff against Santosh Lakshmi was dismissed, and imposed fine by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Amalapuram to plaintiff therein that suit. The defendants 1 and 2, since they are prevailed Class started litigation, with regard to other properties on plaintiffs 1 and 2, and they are forced to file a suit against them and some others, in O.S.No.248 of 2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram. Further the 1st defendant and one Aregela Satyanarayana, are in possession of some property, which belongs to Rokkala Satyavati's daughter by name Santoshslakshmi, through her 1st husband, as tenants and also some other properties of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, and as they committed default in payment of rents, petitions were filed for ejectment of 1st defendant and Aregela Satyanarayana, from the respective lands, and they are pending disposal, is not true and correct. In fact, the 1 st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of schedule land, since the power of attorney dated 08-10-2008, by Rokkala Durga, and since the plaintiffs are trying to handover the land through the court and on that, the 1st plaintiff filed O.S.No. 248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judges’ court,

Amalapuram, against the defendants 1 and 2 and others, who are not concerned with the property. The 1st defendant gave some property on tenancy to Aregela Satyanarayana and Pitani Suryanarayana and others. On that the 1st plaintiff filed A.T.C.2 of 2011 and 5of 2011 with false allegations and they were dismissed, by the Tenancy tribunal. The outcome of tenancy proceedings are somehow to establish his alleged rights if any, and to lend support in the present suit and Suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 and the present suit

O.S.No.17 of 2015 seems to be collusive in nature, even regarding

27

engagement by one and same counsel for D.5 and plaintiffs in the present suit.

27.It is further contended that in fact causing objections by defendants 1 and 2, does not arise, that the plaintiffs and D.3, have not aware of the suit schedule property, that plaintiffs 1 and 2 the 3rd defendant are residents of

Munganda, and 3rd plaintiff is at Amalapuram, and that because of the agreement between the 3rd plaintiff and the other plaintiffs 1 and 2, to enter into possession of the property with brutal-e force with the heap of local persons, like.1 Moturi Satyamrayana, and 2. Eeti krishnarao, etc. before purchasing the property items 1 and 2 by 3rd plaintiff, the 1st defendant in person explained the history and rights of the property concerned and the alleged executants have no rights to alienate the property as matter stands.

Further, in that course, he also sent one Vasarla Simhadri and Tikkireddy

Satyanarayana, of Ventrukona, but, the 3rd plaintiff came forward with challenge when he got document he can deal with the matter to get the possession of the property, in any manner. It is to be noted that, no passing of consideration as alleged between plaintiffs 1 and 2 by 3rd plaintiff, in respect of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. It is only to make believe that, the schedule property will be handed from 1st defendant by the 3rd plaintiff by use of his brutal force as well as political motives. But, it is not possible for him that, since 7 months, the present suit is instigated. In fact, the suit schedule land is near by the house of the defendants 1 and 2, and they are enjoying the same happily since a long time. That, plaintiffs or the 3rd defendant had no occasion to be in possession of property earlier or even now itself. It is utmost thing to be noted that they are not even aware of the topography of the property to say that alleged possession by plaintiffs or 3rd defendant. That, when D.1 and D.2 are attending before the court on dt.14-03-2012, in

O.S.No.248 of 2014 (2011), the 1st plaintiff along with his counsel by name

K.B. Acharyulu, and one Moturi Satyanarayana of Ventrukoma, have threatened D.1 and D.2. They have also used unparliamentary language

28

against them by neglect of his position by counsel, attributing foul things on caste, even in court premises. On that, the D.W.1 and D.2 filed a complaint

before Amalapuran Town police and it was registered in Cr.No.72 of 2012,

enquiry is pending. It became habit of 1st plaintiff to one way or other to harass the defendants 1 and 2 one way or other with the help of finance, and with the instigation and litigation by persons like 3rd plaintiff.

28. The alleged cause of action since 1992, when Rokkala Satyavati purchased the property, under sale deed dated 26-02-1992, continued in possession and enjoyment, as full and absolute owner thereof, and on 09-05- 1997, when Satyavati's will and on 22-07-1997, when Testatrix died, and will acted upon, and as per terms of will, 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, through 1st plaintiff, came into possession of the same, and on 08-08-2014, the registered purported sale deed, in favour of 3rd plaintiff by 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff as well as 3rd defendant, and when alleged possession by 3rd plaintiff, alleged enjoyment by way of plucking coconuts in the property, and alleged possession and enjoyment of property by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant, of item.3 of plaint schedule, attending getting usufruct plucked, regulały, and whe alleged theory of proclaiming by defendants 1 and 2, in the village that they are going to interfere with the possession and enjoyment plaint schedule property by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant, even by threat and violence, if necessary, and ask is, all cocok and full story and beyond human expectation conduct at a glance the things are scened by evidence, That, when the sale deed in the name of Satyavati dt.26-02-1992 and it was by 1st defendant, being Stridhana, she left to Mumbai, the possession of the property is with the

D.l and D.2 for proper up keep of the property, and regarding the will plaintiff dt.09-05-1997, which is creation by 1st defendant and forged signature of

Stayvati and death of Satyavati on 22-07-1997 that too within 2 months, is highly giving scope to unfair things that too mysterious circumstances as alleged, by 1st plaintiff. That, after her death the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant were in the custody of Rokkala Kondala Rao, and the 1st plaintiff is also with

29

Kondala Rao at Mumbai as a servant. That, subsequently, Kondala Rao died, when 1st plaintiff has kidnapped, his son Rokkalas Srinivasarao, due to shock, because of misdeeds, and when he was rendered possession of work shop, it was sold away by him and collected sale proceeds big haul, some lakhs and lakhs. So, the alleged possession and enjoyment by plaintiffs and D.3 is totally false and without possession and enjoyment, the relief of injunction, and therefore, suit has no basis at all and maintainable.

29.To substantiate ample evidence by the defendants 1 and 2, intend to file documents like G.P.A.holder by Rokkala durga, Pattadar pass books in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao, Enquiry Report of Tahsildar, Allavaram, for cancelation of pattadar pass books in the name of 1st plaintiff. The suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed an limini with costs and award compensatory costs of defendants in view of speculative, litigation by plaintiffs.

30. The 3rd defendant filed separate written statement contending that

Rokkala Satyavathi is the mother of 2nd plaintiff and this defendant and 1st plaintiff is their father. Rokkala Satyavathi executed a Will dated 09-05-1997.

She bequeathed the properties to this defendant and 2nd plaintiff but she kept the 1st plaintiff as care taker since 2nd plaintiff and this defendant are minors by the date of Will. Subsequently 2nd plaintiff and this defendant became majors and they came into possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Since 1st plaintiff is the father he is also managing and looking on behalf of 2nd plaintiff and this defendant. They sold the plaint schedule property to the 3rd plaintiff under registered sale deed dt.08-08-2014 and 3rd plaintiff put in possession of plaint schedule property. This defendant is also entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint against defendants 1 and 2.

31.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

30

32.As per the orders of Honorable Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, in

Tr.O.P.No.164 of 2017, dated 22-10-2018 as per the said orders O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram was withdrawn and transferred to this court to try along with O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.248 of 2011. As per orders in Memo S.R.No.976 of 2019, dated 02-03-2019, the suit in O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 clubbed with O.s.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this court treating the evidence already adduced in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 is the evidence in other two suits and to record further

evidence in O.S.No.248 of 2011.

33.During the trial, the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2011 himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. The plaintiffs in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 also got examined one Kudupudi Satyanarayana, as

P.W.2; one Yenamadala Dhanarajarao, as P.W.3; and one Kadali Veera

Venkata Satyanarayana, Document writer as P.W.4. On completion of plaintiffs’ side evidence, the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.248 of 2011 himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B11. During cross examination of D.W.1, Ex.B.16 is marked. The defendants got examined one Peyyala

Venkatareddy, Eeti Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu, Nakka Satyanarayana, who are 3rd parties to the proceedings as D.W.2 to D.W.4. The defendants also got examined Deputy Tahsildar of Kothapeta as D.W.5 and got marked Exs.B.12 to B.14 (subject to objection). The defendants also got examined one

Vasamsetti Jayalakshmi as D.W.6, one Pulapakuru Srinivasarao as D.W.7 and got examined 3rd plaintiff as D.W.8 and got marked Ex.B.15.

34.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered both submissions, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, coupled with Exs.A1 to A14, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 8, coupled with Exs.B1 to B16, and other material on record.

35.The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that schedule property originally belonging to the Rokkala satyavathi, Kondala Rao, they settled at Mumbai. 1st plaintiff went to the Mumbai. Rokkala satyavathi with consent of the 1st

31

plaintiff lead the family life with the Kondala Rao. 1st plaintiff and Kondala Rao lead their family life blessed with two children they are the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.248 of 2011, they possessed the property Ventrikona village.

Rokkala Satyavathi executed un-registered will sound disposing the state of mine legally justified manner, without suspicious manner. As per will 1st plaintiff is the guardian other plaintiffs are the minors. Part of the property in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 covered the will dated 09-05-1997 rest of property

covered and well wisher will dated 26-05-1998. which is Ex.A7 executed by

Rokkla Kondala rao, Ex.A5 and A7 two wills. Suit filed by the plaintiffs depending on the two documents of will. 1st defendant paid to delivered, exchange of the property of partition, legal notices issued to the 1st defendant is Rokkala durga d/o Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. 1st defendant not contested but case was registered against her. Notice was served. There is no resistance from the D1. 1st defendant is Competent person except file the litigation kept silent. Competent person and legal right not executed and not implemented adverse inference not drawn in the absence of the right , implementation by her to grant the decree.

36.In Suit No.288 of 2014 Sape Vemala Rao contested in the suit who is the D2, he denied Ex.A5 and A7 by his written statement.

37. D2 contention , he grant a same legal right in the schedule property, D2 is legally entitled resist the claim of property in the absence of another claim.

1st defendant executed GPA he look-after everything, litigation of property. D2 is resisting suit claims. Other plaintiffs warn to the Rokkala Satyavathi, 1st plaintiff is Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju have no right to claim they are the legal children. Children born to the Satyavathi through the Kondala Rao.

38.O.S.No.288 of 2014 suit filed 2nd defendant , plaintiff against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed, the schedule property belonging to the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, they have no right to execute the sale deed , seeking the cancellation caused the enquiry not a party to the document, he is a third party to the document has no right to seek the

32

cancellation, only executant have right to seek the cancellation fo sale deed.

What is legal right possessed by the plaintiff without manner of right to seek their relief. Proper person is the 1st person is the Durga, she has not filed the suit she is only competent filed the suit. Basing on GPA filed the suit for cancellation as per GPA holder filed the suit of Rokkala Durga suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.

Who is the owner of the property covered in O.S.No.288 of 2014 . four questions has be decided

Point No.1:- Who is the owner of the property to filed the suit?

Point No.2:- Whether the said person is a party to the suit is competent person?

Point No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is O.S.No.288 of 2014 has got connection with the property?

Point No.4:- if the plaintiff did not have noxiousness with the property can maintain the suit in individual capacity.

Point No.5: Whether the expected person Rokkala Durga have gave a GPA plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 the suit filed by the Sapa Vemala

Rao in individual capacity or G.P.A. capacity

Point No.1: Suit itself is not maintainable no legal right. He made certain allegations to whom the plaint schedule property is not cured , none the property filed in O.S.No.288 of 2014 and another suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 and 5th defendant

O.S.No.2 of 2019

39.Mattaparthi Rama Raju filed the suit against the Sape Vemala Rao is a party to the proceeding holding that he is in a possession of the property seeking the injunction , suit was transferred to this court.

Common Point: in all the suits one and the same on the fact of the suit

Ex.A5 and A7 are wills in sound disposing state of mine evidence connected to the attestation of the suits O.S.No.288 of 2014 said suit injunction may be grant the decree in O.S. No.248 of 2011. O.S.No. 288 of 2014 may be

33

dismiss the suit. Mattaparthi Rama Raju proved the wills. The learned plaintiff counsel argued that plaint schedule property at Yentrikona village and property belongs to the Satyavathi there is no dispute at all B schedule property 10 items are the purchased by the Satyavathi and Kondala Rao in different sale deeds by jointly under Ex.A1 A2 and A3. A1 is the original sale deed custody of Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju who is the 1st plaintiff under the wills of Ex.A5 and A7. Ex.A1 relating to the item No.1, survey No. 191-5B an extent of Ac 1-50 cents 2nd extent is the Ac.1-00 cents in survey No.19106.

It is compressed an extent of Ac 1-50 cents concerned on the item no,.1 of schedule property. Ex.A2 dated 04-01-1991 in favour of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi property covered under Ex.B2 an extent of AC 2-12 cents in survey number 162/5A, Ac 0-29 ½ in survey no 165/5B AC 0-60 cents total 0-89 ½ cents bounded by original boundaries. Item No.3 the 191 cents fallen full extent Ac.0-46 cents no boundaries. Item no 4 is the survey No.191/3 an extent of 0-18 cents. Item No.5 is the Ac.0-05 cents adjoining to the item No1 and 2 . item No6 survey No. 191/4A Ac.0-25 cents,. Item No.7 survey no 191/A Ac 0-25 cents . Item No.8 survey No.191/4 Ac.0-19 cents . 8 items total Ac.2-12 cents. Ex.A2 property item No.2 survey No.162 5A, item no1 is the 165-5B Ac.0-80 ½ cents. Item No.8 of plaint schedule property one and equal to the item No.3. Item No.3, 4, 5 of Ex.A2 equal to item No.4 of plaint schedule property. Item No. 6 is the Ex.A2 is equivalent to the item No.5 of B schedule property. item No.7 of Ex.A2 is equlant to item No.6 of B schedule property/item No.8 of Ex.A2 equal to item No. 7 of B schedule property.

Ex.A2 is also in favour of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Ex.A3 covered an extent of Ac.0-88 cents comprised into the 3 items. First item of Ex.A3 193/1B of Ac.0-42 cents. Item No.8 of B schedule property survey No.193/1C an extent of Ac.0-37 cents, out of equal to item No 9 of B schedule property.

survey No.191/2 an extent of Ac.09-00 cents of Ac.0-36 cents. Which is item

No.10 of plaint schedule property. Item no1 to 3 are relating to the total B schedule property. No cross examination custody of Ex.A1 to A3. B schedule

34

property belonging to the Satyavathi and Kondala rao. Custody of document produced in the hands of plaintiff I.e no dispute, Ex.A4 Rokkala Satyavathi purchased 3 items. Item No.1 and 2 in survey No. 146-4 is not the subject matter. Item No.3 is the extent of Ac 0-02 cents in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi. A schedule property covered by is in the name of Satyavathi, schedule property established property belongs to the Satyavathi and Kondala rao.

40.Item No.5 will executed sound disposing state of mind. Now Rokkala

Satyavathi is a subscribing her signature. She is sign as S.R.RAO, she subscribed signature in English language. Ex.A5 will, wife of Srinivasa Rao who is the Rokkala Durga never disputed either filing the written statement, dispute correctness of Ex.A5. Positive evidence prove to say that qualified person Durga did not dispute the will. Attestors examined as Pw2. 1st attestor of Ex.A5 and 3rd attestor examined as of Ex.A5, husband of Satyavathi is also one of the attestor to the will Ex.A5 what is the with proof, that may be questioned to other side expectation. Any one attesting examined to prove, not examined all the attestors. During the cross examination P.W.2 p.w.3 neither elicited signatures nor the Kondala Rao standard signature of Kondala

Rao shall be produced. Signature not belonging to Kondala Rao, standard signatures of Kondala Rao has to be produced. Signature not belong to the

Kondala Rao , two omission , adversity effect their case to modes adverse signatures of Kondala Rao and recitals of 3 read over. D1 is not contention in the suit. Ex.A5 can be denied, total property bequeathed. Rational description explained. As per will under Ex.A1, plaintiff are in the share in the plaint schedule property. Basing on the Ex.A4 and A5 will sought reliefs delivery under Ex.A5 property. B schedule property within the name of wife and husband who are the Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Satyavathi entitled to half share in B Schedule property, Satyavathi executed in respect of B schedule property, half share stands in the name of suit is entitled for creditor, suit is filed for declaration of A schedule property, partition of the B schedule

35

property half share is Kondala Rao. The plaintiffs are given the property if they are not given, half share of Kondala Rao shall given or not . D2 is not having share. Ex.A1 is in the name of Kondala Rao. Name is mentioned only

Satyavathi Rokkala would so absent as orders No.1 half share of the plaintiff 2 and 3 equal as share. Never saw the he bare the consent to maintain he given the consent to the matter vasaparthi krishna Rama Raju, plaintiffs share 1 and 2 Kondala Rao treated by the Satyavathi through Mattaparthi venkata

Raju. Half share belonging to the Satyavathi. Share of Kondala Rao not denied Ex.A5 by Kondala Rao. Ex.A7 is not containing the Satyavathi, will

Kondala Rao is also legal heir. Recitals of Ex.A7 more particularly omission part of the Kondala Rao regarding to the test of monetary and also non testamentary but she died testamentary. Ex.A1, A4, A5, A7 read over the together intention of the testator called as candidate by other side. Kondala

Rao will for Ac.1-00 cents Krishnam Raju, Bhagyasree, Srinivasa Rao divided into three share. Half share into 1/3 share. Half share + Kondala Rao 1/6 + 10 shares if the relief paid in the plaint to prove the Ex.A6 and A7 got examined by Pw4 Kadali Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. Document was written so the witness have conveyed and relied upon the will to get decree In favour of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit 2nd plaintiff died. Under Ex.A5 will half share of the Rokkala Satyavathi, under Ex.A7 half share of Rokkala

Satyavathi in Ex.A5 and A11. For A schedule for B schedule for partition.

288/2014 filed the cancellation of sale deed. 3rd suit for injunction Ex.A5 and

A7 two documents for the suit. Except 1st defendant other legal heirs having resisting by virtue of Ex.A5 will.

Para No.4 and 5 of chief affidavit of P.W.1 as follows:-

I submit that due to the fact that Satyavathi is very younger than that of

Kondala Rao, reasons known to both of them, at the consent of Kondala Rao and as well as desire of Satyavathi, she used to lead family life with me. Out of our family life, we both of us blessed with plaintiffs 2 and 3. In spite of the

36

above set of things, none of them exhibited any discrimination on our children and all of us continued as one unit. A schedule property was acquired by

Satyavathi under registered sale deed dated 26-02-1992 executed by

Vithanala Narayana Murthy and others. An extent of Ac.1-00 cents in

R.S.No.83/4 and Ac.0-80 cents in R.S.No.106/5 and some other extent was also acquired by her under the said sale deed. Para No.7 of Ex.A5 will , Para

No.8 connected to the property of Agirala Satyanarayana.

41.Written statement not filed by the D5 and D6 not enter into the box to substantiate case failed by the D5 and D6. D5 and D6 written statement filed for assuring to draw the attention of the court. Re-joinder cannot be filed taken on the pleading. Pleading supported by evidence cannot be equated the evidence. D5 and D6 not attack and claim made by the plaintiff not contest for debuting D5 and D6 are only competent to raise the defence other defendants are not having legal right to assume the role of D5 and and D6.

Persons to expect file the litigation. They did not file the document. Sale deeds are in their favours. They did not dispute Ex.A5 and A7. A schedule property does not belonging to Rokkala Kondala rao belonging to Satyavathi.

Sale deeds should over the A schedule property. Rokkala Kondala Rao have no right to alienate the property to grant a decree A schedule property to adjudicate Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will because the property belongs to the Satyavathi. They fails to prove the legal right of Kondala Rao. They did not file the sale deed. Their revenue records to show the possession, all the questions in favour of plaintiffs in positive way. There is no resistance can be granted . When the persons who are alleged resistance fail to enter into the box. Whether it is open to other defendants step into the claim, attach the plaintiffs. Other defendants are legally es-toped in respect of the plaint schedule property. D5 an D6 are claim no hurdles claim the schedule property.

42.B schedule property under Ex.A5 will to prove the fact, P.W.2 Kudupudi

Satyanarayana s/o Veeranna setty.

37

Attestors cross examination are highlighted PW2 evidence will alienate the legal position.

Rokkala Satyavathi informed him that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Styavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. I do not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. I do not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. I do not know reason for non registration of the Will at

Amalapuram.

Rokkala Dhanunjaya and Kondala Rao are the attestors subscribing signatures, disturbance and disbelieve the signatures attestors of Ex.A5 and

A7 contesting , attestation fails to prove the cross examination made by the defendants. During the cross examination of pw2 on 18-09-2020 relationship elicited. Suggestion made to the Pw2 born to the Satyavathi and Kondala

Rao through two children. Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao only children.

Plaintiffs are not the children. Positive suggestion to the Pw1 were blessed with two children only suggestion denied by the P.W.2. Kondala Rao not the father of M.Srinivasa Rao is a father. Satyavathi got the four children.

Kondala Rao two children, P.W.1 got two children ,m pw1 children are not legitimate children invalid marriage of pw1 and Satyavathi. Plaintiffs are the legitimate children of Satyavathi. Kodala Rao not obtain one of the attestors would vitiate, effect legally in question Ex.A5 will belongs to the Satyavathi.

Satyavathi also having half share in the B schedule property. half share of

38

Kondala Rao. Satyavathi executed half share undivided out of plaint schedule property, Kondala Rao is not executed will undivided share kept with him.

Satyavathi subscribe as a testator. Will was also executed total property

Satyavathi, Kondala Rao signature are required were incorporated in the will as a testator. A schedule property is the full extent B schedule property half share of Satyavathi, Kondala Rao attested Ex.A5. Attestor appeal not acquire and contents of the definition of the attestation only limited. There is no law , purpose limited only identification witness signature.

Ex.A5 signatures not denied subscribed in the presence of Pw2 on the other attestors. When the material facts of the attestation of will to make cross examination Pw2. Attestation not disturbed. Cross examination pw2 remains unchallenged. There is cross examination signature does not belonging to

Rokkala Satyavathi is unchallenged. Not questioned, material question of fact and law of attestation, said fact must be accepted by law. legally is 2007 dispute is 2018 safely rely proof of attestation.

Whether the relative of persons can acted as a attestor?

Whether the evidence of P.W.1 to attestation of the document?

A suggestion must be P.W.1 deposing of P.W.3

The court scrutinize the evidence very carefully?

43.P.W.1 and 2 are relatives to the dispute as a 2nd defendant that the motive is also establish. Relative deposed motive not established no material discard one of the attestor of will examined by the plaintiff. PW3 is the another attestor of Ex.A5. P.W.3 deposed in para No.4 of his chief examination affidavit as follows:-

I submit that originally Rokkala Satyavathi is the wife of Kondala Rao.

But however with the permission of Kondala Rao, she married 1st plaintiff and to their wedlock they were blessed with plaintiffs 2 and 3 by name

Krishnamraju and Bhagyasree. Therefore, Rokkala Satyavathi is the wife of 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their children.

39

Rokkala Satyavathi executed un registered Will dated 09-05-1997 in a sound and disposing state of mind. As per the Will she bequeathed her exclusive properties to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and her undivided half from out of the joint properties with Kondala Rao also to them. Therefore, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to the exclusive property and undivided half of Satyavathi as stated above under the unregistered Will dated 09-05-1997.

In the cross examination P.W.2 P.W.3 is relative he is admitted. P.W.3 is not denied and not disputed signatures of Satyavathi. Who are the present at the time of execution of will. Evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 sound disposing state of mind upto remark. Contrary to the evidence particular regard to the attestation. There is no hesitation to believe the will , relationship of pw1 to 3 are not suspect the character. In view of the admission , commission to disbelieve the will. Additional issue framed as Ex.A5 will date is correct 09- 05-1995. out of the three attestors, two attestors examined Rokkala Kondala

Rao is no more. Other side not comment witness of Kondala Rao.

44.Alternative method P.W.1, 3 are the direct witness. What is necessity to examined the other witness, plaintiff examined the proof of will relationship is there. Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavathi raising the objections relatives of attestors, needs to be no conciliation. P.W.2 and 3 evidence is the believe if the Satyavathi executed the will. It is prove the Ex.A5. Property can sold or not. There is no challenge cross examination made in include signature of the

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Ex.A5 will proved. Ex.A7 will suggestions made in cross examination, that two children denied which version is the correct. Four or two children. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st plaintiff and Satyavathi, there is no case of D2. Ex.A10 schedule property partitioned not co-operated. Ex.A12 is issued reply to the Ex.A10.

Un numbered para of Ex.A12 as follows:-

As per Ex.A10, Mattaparthi Krishnam Raju and Bhagyasree. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are born to 1st plaintiff and Satyavathi. Ex.A14 is the reply. Ex.A10 A12 A13 and A14 plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of Satyavathi children. Ex.A5 will

40

referred Ex.A13 and A14 . Ex.A12, A13 last page last paragraphs as follows.

Ex.A5 is fabricated under Ex.A12 and A14. Fabrication and forged not one and the same together. Creation used same is signed paper . Forgery is the signature of one person. If the forgery taken into the consideration it is completely un-known attack making fabrication/ forgery must be specific forgery means duplicate. In what respect Satyavathi is not executed the will there is no foundation attack on behalf of defendants. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of Satyavathi. No proper attack on Ex.A5 on which way fabricated, who signature forged, there is a force in reply. They can not supplement anything other side cannot be contented include all the things.

Ex.A7 will executed by Kondala Rao admitted by the D2. Ex.A7 is the secondary evidence. Without proper foundation can rely upon the secondary evidence. Mode of the question is required primary evidence is the original document. Section 74 of the evidence act registered document is a public document. If it registered, secondary evidence cannot be taken into consideration is in question.

Laid the foundation during the cross examination of Dw1.

D.W.1 page No.21 as follows:-

It is true that in Ex.B.1, it is mentioned that I have to make all affairs on behalf of Durga and account for the income also. I did not maintain any accounts regarding properties of Durga from 2008 till date. No special power of attorney was executed by Durga except Ex.B.1 to give evidence in the suit.

It is true that there is a recital in Ex.B.1 power of attorney that if I did not act as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B.1, she has right to cancel the same. I did not file any other documents that I acted as per Ex.B.1 and any other transactions under Ex.B.1. On the date of execution Ex.B.1 was registered. Srinivasarao died in the year, 2005. Srinivasarao died three years prior to execution of Ex.B.1. From the date of death of Srinivasarao and till

Ex.B.1 came into existence the Rokkala Durga herself look after all her properties affairs. Now Rokkala Durga is residing at Komarigiripatnam. Now

41

the Rokkala Durga is aged approximately 35 years. As on the date of execution of Ex.B.1 the age of Durga is 25 years. Now Durga is hale and healthy. Since the matter O.S.No.74 of 2005 was went to up to Hon’ble High

Court the Durga executed Ex.B.1 as she is unable to look after the case affairs alone. As on the date of Ex.B.1 Durga is healthy. There is no mentioned in Ex.B.1 because the health condition of Durga is not well she is executing

Ex.B.1. Balla Sriramulu and Dorababu is alive. The scribe of Ex.B.1 is

Geddala Laxmanarao of Thurpulanka of Allavaram Mandal. The Sriramulu and

Dorababu is not my relatives. There is no record that I paid taxes on behalf of

Durga or Managed the properties of Durga. The Durga herself not pressed

O.S.No.74 of 2005 in the year, 2010. It is not true to suggest that Rokkala

Durga never executed Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.1 never acted upon. The revenue records are in possession of 1st defendant herein and husband. The Rokkala

Kondala Rao could sign in English or in Telugu. It is true that Ex.B.2 bear the signatures of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The Will dated 26-05-1998 contains the signatures of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The original Will dated 26-05-1998 was filed by Srinivasarao in Court.

Ex.A7 date is 26-09-1998 executed satisfaction evidence to receive the evidence. Secondary evidence, foundation, in the pleading are evidence.

Ex.A7 is not dispute at all. Dw1 admitted year of the execution. Ex.A7 property he made the bequeath in favour of them. They born to him or not.

Basing on the pw1 to 4 evidence as well as exchange of the notice Ex.A12 and A14 proved the Ex.A5 and A7. Pw4 scribe of Ex.A7 Kodali Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana examined through summons.

He deposed that he received witness summons in this matter from the court. I am a document writer. He has been working as document writer since 1993. Whenever he scribed any document I used to make an endorsement to that effect on the said document. If any document contained said endorsement and my signature, it can be said that he scribed the said document. All the documents scribed by me are genuine documents. The name contained on

42

Ex.A.1 as scribe is mine. Ex.A.7 is a registered document. At the time of registration of document, there is no need of presence of the scribe. Ex.A.7 was scribed about 21 years back. By going through the Ex.A.7 He recollected my memory. He does not remember the each and every document which was scribed by me, but by going through the document he can recollect my memory. As per the contents of Ex.A.7 Rokkala Kondala Rao signed as an executant and Katikidala Nageswara Rao and Sape Hemasundararao attested the said document. He came to the court to speak about the said document. Presence of the executant, attestors proved. Admitting the recitals not disputing the recitals. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are the minors Srinivasa Rao act as a guardian not enter into the other material. Ex.A5 admitted by the other side not disputing is there necessary calling for attestation of will not disputed by other. Ex.A7 will. Ex.A5 disputed . Examination of attestors is necessary to examine attestors it is undisputed unanimously facts. Admitted facts need not be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. Evidence of scribe including , evidence of attestation, Sapa Hema Sundara rao replaced to the second defendant. Only evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to believe Ex.A4 by virtue of oral evidence. Cross examination under the light of documentary proved satisfactory of the court. Ex.A5 executed by the Satyavathi and Ex.A7 executed by the Kondala Rao. Positive evidence effort through the evidence not basing on the witness of the other side. Plaintiff evidence proved by the evidence of document. Made a foundation validity executed attested required them. Decree in favour of evidence of the defendants came to the will.

Plaintiff would have extract from the mouth of evidence of the defendant.

whether the evidence of defendant throw away entire case, apart these from who is competent.

45.To appreciate the case of defendants with the D1 Durga who is the wife of Srinivasa rao he is no more. After the death of Srinivasarao Durga married the another person surname is changed. 1st defendant cannot family member of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Gollanka Durga not Rokkala Durga in

43

OS. Nos.248 of 2011, 288 of 2014 and 2 of 2019. 2nd defendant seized the

Rokkala after the married the person, if she is assume entitled the claim her presence must there unconnected proceedings but omitted. 1st defendant not made claim. Outside of the court 2nd thing is the 1st defendant not contesting in the suit not filed the written statement not examined as D2 witness. Basing on the Ex.B1 which is G.P.A. executed in favour of D2 by D1. 2nd defendant perusing the litigation now the G.P.A. used as a D2 to prosecute O.S No.248 of 2011. suit number referred or not. Ex.B1 proved examining the Rokkala

Durga GPA is revoked or not. If the revoked D2 not proceed with the 2nd defendant not revoked in course property in O.S.No. 248 of 2011 is correct or not. From 2011 suit is pending on the G.P.A.

Point No.1 on 8-10-2008 Ex.B1 by then 248 of 2011 suit is not there, there is no scope at all to give the G.P.A. by D1 to the D2 by referring by post litigation. On that ground Ex.B1 is have no value.

Point No.2. Whether the schedule property mentioned Ex.B1 is correct or not.

3. since Ex.B1 schedule property not covered in OS 248/2011 4.Ex.b1 contents read over, present suit, previous suits are not subsequent suits. Previous suits are not pending suits. Ex.B1 is not believed.

In O.S.No.288 of 2014 relating to the filed one defendant. Ex.B1 prior to the 2014. schedule property there is a special power of attorney for the purpose of G.P.A. on behalf of has to file the petition along with accord the suit under the law seeking the prosecute the legal proceedings as a agent to principle. Such procedure adopted or not is in question. It is mandatory procedure. 2nd defendant containing suit is individual capacity no chance. It is a case in pursuance of the case ascertaining fallow the procedure , power is in force. Suits are 2011 that power is in course are also subsequent to the suit. Such evidence is a adduced believe upon on it. Ex.B1 does not disclose delivery of property the general G.P.A. will not give right to look after the proceedings. Property not referred. 2nd defendant cannot prosecute the case for the above reason even otherwise impliedly supposed. All the properties of

44

Kondala Rao under Ex.B1 not the Satyavathi. Why the property of the

Satyavathi under Ex.b1 will is omission in Ex.B1 regarding to the properties and support the Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is in force prosecute on behalf of D1 and D2.

D1 is exparte, D2 filed the vakalath as G.P.A. holder of D1 not in individual capacity. Written statement of D2, vakalth of D2 meticulously, he is prosecuting the suit individual capacity not G.P.A. of D1. Omission on part of the D2 as a G.P.A. , 1st defendant prosecuting the case individual capacity to act upon or not. D2 must be considered GPA holder are not to do so.

Individual capacity what is effect to the suit. It is taken into consideration or not. Is there any legal right to prosecuting the case D1 written statement not filed by the D2 as a rightful owner of the property defending the case. D1 is not there D2 is the individual capacity of G.P.A. Ex.B1 is not legal document

as 2nd defendant not containing the basing on the schedule property, suit is

reflecting there on. Ex.B1 is not right any defendant to make legal right in respect. Ex.B1 is only waste paper through it is register. B2 is not legal competent claim made by the plaintiffs. Ex.B2 is Pattadhar passbook in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao. Title deed item referred in Ex.B2 joint properties purchased part of B schedule property only Ac 2-24 cents.

Endorsement is there. After the death of wife husband name is enter by endorsement Ex.B2 are the wet lands, no land revenue are adangal are not filed. they can not apply application to the revenue authorities for revenue records, whether the property belongs to the Kondala Rao is in question. How to secure from the D2 for lawful custody. Ex.B1 and B2 custody and also extent. Ex.B1 property farm of the property Ex.B2. What is power executed by D2. Kodala Rao executed the will Ex.A5. Ex.B1 and B2 are created for future litigation after death of Satyavathi under Ex.B2 is also . Ex.B3 referred three items covered under EX.B1 and B2. 2nd defendant gave a good bite not for the schedule property covered the suit fileIA 2014. Ex.B2 schedule property is not mentioned. Ex.B4 is the revenue records O.S.No.288 of 2014 suit not considered. Ex.b5 is the tenancy register extract dismissed for

45

default for nonpayment of batta. A.T.C. was dismissed. There is a difference on dismissal of the record. It is binding on the both parties only merits. By filing the file the petition Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. rejection of the plaint deemed to be on merits proper remedy is referred the case on theoretical grounds.

Ex.b5 and B6 on technical grounds schedule is not there. Ex.B5 B6 against the Sape Syamalarao is R.S. No. 83/04 this is not subject matter of suit 2nd defendant cannot rely upon the documents. O.S.No.248 of 2011 suit cannot be reject it is the main suit Ex.B6 and B5 are not relevancy. Ex.B7 is the

A.T.C.No. 1 of 2007 only served copy of schedule , not certify copy, basing on the schedule what is cause of action. Basing on the Ex.b8 served copy

A.T.C.No.2 of 2011 there is no schedule. Ex.B9 S.H.O. compliant letter addressed by the K.Narasimham Murthy letter contains not relating to the schedule property. Ex.B10 is the suit register. O.S. 74 of 2005 online Senior

Civil Judges Court Amalapuram filed the suit. Suit is not pressed under the

dismissed of not relating to the schedule property. Ex.P11 no result Sape

Sayamala Rao filed the suit against Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala rao.

Ex.P11 can gives the relation of Vemala rao. House of spouse Kondala Rao and Satyavathi inimical terms having what is necessity to approach the court.

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and Vemala Rao are the logger-red hatts. If the having amicable relation the any student. Except that under Ex.B11 form 1986 from among them. Ex.B11 sufficient to denied by the client made by the

D2, what happened when they dismissal as passive order. Rokkala satyathi

Venkata rao and others Ex.B12 contests photos copy of will served, number the will file along with Ex.A5. A.T.C. Ex.B12 schedule property not in the will.

Ex.B13 is the delivery Ac. 2-12 cents does not include 2011 suit. Ex.B12 three survey numbers. Ex.B15 in the name of Sudha Ganapathi revenue proceedings number. 2014 document proceeding prior to 2014 revenue proceeding to earlier to the Ex.B15 who are the parties to the proceeding.

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and his son sold the property in the year

46

2014. 2014 suit filed for cancellation of Ex.B14 they can say the revenue proceedings are the two ways one is relating to the 248/2011, Sudha

Ganapathi not party to the revenue proceedings, in valid proceedings no legal proceedings. O.S.No.248 of 2011 can be discard and prevented as said.

Ex.B16 passed in favour of Vemala Rao by the joint collector. Vemala Rao and Venkatapathi rao three survey numbers only not binding in the vendee

Ex.B15 Sudha Ganapathi . It is not binding on the Sudha Ganapathi it is infectious order nobody has taken steps is a necessary party before the joint collector covered under Ex.B4 only confined three survey numbers. How to could secure, discard of Ex.A5 and A7. As the 2nd defendant evidence.

Point No.1 D2 has no right to prosecute the litigation.

Point No.2 Subject matter is not covered in the revenue proceeding

Point No.3 2nd defendant is not in a proceeding, GPA 1st defendant only individual capacity not on the respect or relating to the Kondala Rao in the absence of defence of 1st defendant. written statement contents of D2 over rule.

OS 248 of 2011:

46.Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju is not claimed the relief. 1st plaintiff filed the suit either guardian. 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs relief claimed, plaintiff No.1 acted as a guardian. 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of suit legal representatives came to the record, Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the children of

Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Suit has decree the court believe the children .

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju as per evidence of P.W.1…. In chief affidavit last four lines in para No.2. During the life of they are not raised single rupee in that persons did not choose to question is whether the competent person is silent as a third party entitled the question the plaintiffs 1 and 2. the last

Indian Evidence Act under Section 111 esttop occurred came into the question . Legal persons not question ones the es-toped started question of paternity cannot be looked into. Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao admitted through the 1st plaintiff. Ex.A5 is can be disbelieve. Un disputed

47

signatures of Satyavathi is not produced by the D.W.1. Basing on the signatures are not tallied as Ex.A5 can be discard. Burden of proof is on one person. Onus proof shifts one person to person only. Connected to the will.

Onus is not discharge on the 2nd plaintiff , Ex.A5 can be considered,. He got examined the attestors of will, proved the will nothing was elicited in con-curt in the evidence of P.W.1 for the not suggested. Plaintiffs not discharged. 2nd plaintiff set over the facts to disbelieve Ex.A5 satisfactory evidence to show the signatures of Ex.A5 Not believing to Satyavathi. Further allegations made without admitted signatures making the contention is different substantiate case. D.W.1 chief affidavit filed except stating Ex.A5 signatures do not belongs to the Satyavathi how he can say the signatures belong to the

Satyavathi we disputed or disturb, attestors of Ex.A5 make it clear. Totally in sufficient to consider, D.W.1 chief examination is not sufficient to disbelieve evidence of pw1. If the signatures of Satyavathi denied signatures of

Satyavathi or not to the witness. On account of the omission by not showing, the evidence of pw1 forged the signature brush-aside. Om mission to deny signatures, 1st is the defendant saying G.P.A. holder of Durga, Rokkala Durga is the 1st defendant she is remained exparte, she is not in the suit. Therefore by virtue of the fact D1 not contest, supporting to the suit. G.P.A. must be revoked there is General power of attorney, 1st defendant set exparte. Part of the schedule property sold they did not enter into the box. Actual person is the 1st defendant who gave a set exparte. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled prosecute principles D1 is exparte. G.P.A. D2 is contested in the suit, prosecute the suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 filed for cancellation, partition suit filed.

In the year 2011 there is gap of two years. Three items are there not from the part of O.S.No.288 of 2014 seeking the relief in O.S.No.288 of 2014 property covered. 2nd defendant has no right seeking the cancellation of sale deed of the 2014, viewed in any language because 2nd defendant not claimed making the 1st defendant who is the competent to attach remaining silent D2 is the 3rd 48 party to the document. O.S. No. 288 of 2014 Rokkala Durga not added as party either as a plaintiff and the defendant to straight away grant to decree to dismiss the section 288 of 2014.

Page No.7 last para cross examination of D.W.1 as follows:-

As a General Power of Attorney executed by Rokkala Durga, I am having right over the plaint schedule properties in three suits. I did not mention in all the three suits being a General Power of Attorney Holder, I am claiming right over the plaint schedule property. I have taken a plea in all the three suits that, I got right over the plaint schedule properties as a General Power of

Attorney holder. It is not true to suggest the I have mentioned in my chief examination that Rokkala Durga executed General Power of Attorney in my favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and that I am contesting the suits basing on the General Power of Attorney. I filed General Power of

Attorney before this court. It is not true to suggest that there is no General

Power of Attorney is in existence and I did not file any General Power of

Attorney in my favour in all the three suits. It is not true to suggest that without possessing or filing of the General Power of Attorney, I have no right over the plaint schedule property. The Rokkala Durga might have in existence. Witness adds that Rokkala Durga is in Komaragiripatnam. It is true that the Rokkala

Durga was shown as 1st defendant in O.S.No.248 of 2011 and she did not file any statement in this suit.

Basing on the G.P.A. , the agent can make the claim or interest of the property. G.P.A. create the property right to the D2. Whether D2 can make use as conveyance deed what is meant by the conveyance whether agreement of sale create the interest basing on the Ex.b1 sale is defined under section 54 of transfer of property only previous contract his evidence brushed aside in this regard. Ex.B1 basing on that not claim or resist D.W.1 deposed as G.P.A. agent or legal sanctity. G.P.A. holder not deposed swearing as a G.P.A. holder of 1st defendant completely ignore the G.P.A. and

Ex.B1. Individual capacity permitted to look after or not in question. D.W.1

49

individual capacity, he cannot as a G.P.A. He has not having any right under act, no right to Exhibit marked exhibit because no consideration. Claim of the

Ex.B1 goes to hell. There is the legal contest in O.S.Nos.248 and 288 or 2 of 2019 suits. P.W.1 evidence only look into the proof of the will cannot be taken into account. Account of fact Dw1 evidence has legal capacity.

Regarding to the suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 whether suit decreed by the cancel by the document only two options are there. 1st option 288 suit filed by the plaintiff, individual capacity or G.P.A. act Roakkala Durga, D.W.1 cross examination confronted by the defendants counsel he filed suit of O.S.No.288 of 2014 against Mattaparthi Venkataramaraju and others in his personal capacity He gave instructions to his counsel to prepare his written statement..

issue confronted whether the plaintiff is the suit maintainable, 288 of 2014 filed either individual capacity or G.P.A. The suit is not maintainable in division, 2nd option he is no way concerned to the suit , he is not rightful owner. Plaintiff is 288 of 2014 suit is permitted to file the suit.

Para No. 6 in the 288 of 2014 of the plaint is as follows:

It is submitted that to lend support the conspiracy hatched up by 1st defendant, when Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-07-1997, immediately, 1st defendant created on unregistered Will dated 09-05-1997 of his choice as if it is instrument by testatrix, that on the basis of above alleged Will, he filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram against the plaintiff and his son and Rokkala Durga who is no other than daughter-in-law of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and other properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi by claiming imaginary and speculative claim of shares by putting his claim on the basis of the fake Will.

Nothing was mentioned in the suit no plea of forgery. O.S.No. 288 of 12014 will is admitted not disputed. 1st is the statement can say the forged will believe the Ex.A5 are not 2nd one is the plaint disputed signature can compare in

O.S.Nos 248 of 2011 and 288 of 2014 contention raised by the 2nd plaintiff

50

is the true contention or not for the sake of defence. Part to the suit proceedings can denied cannot maintainable. Two different persons in the suit . To know the conduct of the person in two different persons acted.

Conjunction or combined reading it leads forgery brought into the purpose of court. During cross examination of D.W.1 admitted. D.W.1 cross examination

P1 and P2 are the children of Venkata Rama Raju. Cross examination

Satyavathi children. G.P.A. is last individual capacity deposed Dw1 evidence cannot be considered. In the 12th page evidence A.T.C. proceeding A.T.C.

related to the O.S.No.248 of 2011 or not . There is no usage of evidence, only proceedings dismissed on technical grounds. Ex.A5 will in para No.14 in the cross examination subscribed as RS Rao. What is capacity is in question.

What is legal right or sanctity of the document to look after. Whether he has gone through what are the circumstances to say particular document is. D2 is looking after the litigation but not individual capacity there is no record, D2 added as G.P.A. of 1st defendant. D2 has no right on behalf of D1. D1 can question that D2 not question. Individual capacity he has no right to question letters assume what is argue is not. D2 is entitled the question Ex.A1. It is another option to show the material available with him. D2 has no capacity to right to sure. D2 must have to believe Ex.A5 not executed by Rokkala satyavathi.

D.W.1 evidence cross examination 14 page as follows:-

I have four sisters. I am the only male issue. The mother of 2nd plaintiff

Satyavathi is my younger sister. My remaining sisters are Venkatalakshmi and

Pushpavathi are no more, another sister Nagamma is alive. I never interfered in the property affairs of my remaining sisters. My sister Nagamma is residing at Allavaram. I received documents filed by the plaintiff along with suit summons. I did not personally read the plaint copy. I received copy of unregistered Will, one copy of sale deed and two notices along with the summons. I am contesting the suit against the unregistered Will Ex.A.5. The plaint copy and the copy of Ex.A.5 and other documents were read over to

51

him. I do not remember how many days after I received documents from the court. I narrated to the case to my counsel. I did not make any enquiry prior to filing of my written statement whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are genuine or not. Contents of my plaint are not correct. I gave instructions to my counsel to prepare written statement that the contents of plaint are not correct.

Deceased Satyavathi studied up to 5th class. Satyavathi got married in the year, 1973. As on the date of marriage, the husband of Satyavathi Kondala

Rao was at Mumbai. The native place of Kondala Rao is Ventrukona of

Allavaram. There is 10 years age gap between Kondala Rao and Satyavathi.

As on the date of marriage Satyavathi was aged about 20 years and Kondala

Rao is aged about 35 years. Kondala Rao is older than me. I am 5 years elders than Satyavathi. The marriage of Satyavathi was performed at Mumbai and she lead conjugal life at Mumbai after marriage. Satyavathi is a signatory.

It is not true to suggest that Satyavathi used to sign as R.S.Rao. Witness adds that she used to sign as R.Satyavathi. Now I did not possess the pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of Satyavathi. I witnessed while the

Satyavathi signed in a sale transaction in favour of Satyavathi. The document

Ex.A.4 contains the signature of Satyavathi.

Pattadhar passbook title deed containing the signature with date. Ex.A6 containing the property and other particulars , Dw1 admitted the Ex.A5. Ones to admitted plea of the forgery gone proved the attestation for the suppressed by the Dw1. Whether he was at putting the signature or not. He shall admit the will he has no option. How he stated the signatures of Ex.A5 is similar to

RS Rao. Complete the over the take of the defence over the D2 statements , cross examination made it is clear that is validity executed or attested. There is no contract evidence divided division of the fact. Plaintiff established answer in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A5 will is proved whether in any specific record in favour of the 2nd defendant did not choose take steps to examine the

Rokkala Durga except self statement of D.W.1 no other case to prove the defence or not for the other signatures are available on record to disposes ,

52

there on for comparison. D.W.1 is not expert in hand writing expert evidence is only to the proceeding to the live evidence of expert. Evidence of expert can taken into the consideration or not. Basing on the agriculture who denied come to the R.S.Rao, signatures belongs to the R.S.Rao no incriminating or relevant material by pass standard evidence of the plaintiff with regard to then

Ex.A5. Plaintiffs 3 to 5 proved the Ex.A5 to the satisfaction of the Court to create impressed of the evidence satisfy relied to cause enquiry of Ex.A5.

Santhosha lakshmi d/o satyavathi not examined. Defence evidence plaintiff can create the evidence. Defence evidence was not weak evidence. Ex.A5 proved entitled the relief. Dw1 concerned role of Rokkala Durga w/o Srinivasa

Rao married by name Gollanka person surname. 1st defendant seized the

Rokkala family if the she is entitled authoerize the same body look-after the litigation somebody by the date of Ex.B1 srinivasa Rao not there , if he satisfied the court 1st defendant no longer to continue as a Rokkala people he is married another person, she has no right to Ex.B1 as a family member of

Rokkala. Even by she un-married she can not proceedings. 1st defendant is not Rokkala Durga she is the Gollinka. Ex.A5 sent tot he expert I.A.No 321 of 2022, said petition is dismissed on 12-10-2023 on merits. No documents file admitted signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. Not choose admitted signatures not filed under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act adverse inference can be drawn the forgery is absolute false. I.A.No.321 of 2022 filed on 21-03-2022.

D1 married the Gulianka person, full cause title is not correct 4th respondent name and full cause title proof of the marriage of Gollanka Durga is not filed it is the point for consideration. I.A.No. 57 of 2023 filed under section 45 of

Indian Evidence Act to send the alleged will to ascertain that dismissed fail in that admitted relevant standard signature of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi belongs to the Satyavathi. 2nd defendant failed to prove the forgery.

As per 27 th page in his cross examination:-

Rokkala Durga has no knowledge that I filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014.

Rokkala Durga did not present while I was giving instructions to the counsel at

53

the time of filing suit O.S.No.288 of 2014. It is not true to suggest that I filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 without knowledge of Rokkala Durga and prosecuting the suit as such the suit is not maintainable. I know Veligetla Veerraju. The

Veligetla Veerraju D.5 herein is made exparte without contest. Rokkala

Satyavathi predeceased the Rokkala Srinivasarao. Rokkala Satyavathi died

before Kondala Rao. Rokkala Kondala Rao has a plot and work shop at

Mumbai. The above property was worth of Rs.38,00,000/- as on 1998. The said property was sold by Venkata Ramaraju. I did not inform to the counsel that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju was sold plot and workshop at Mumbai and brought the amount. After the death of Satyavathi, Kondala Rao returned to Ventrukona. By the time Kondala Rao was healthy. I did not inform to my counsel the Kondala Rao fell sick after he left to Mumbai and came to

Ventrukona. Since defendant No.5 is also one of the purchaser, the plaintiffs impleaded them as parties. I did not see the sale deed in the name of 5th defendant. 5th defendant does not belong to my caste and he belongs to

Gowda caste and he is a paddy tapper.

D.W.2 to 4 are the private witnesses. D.W.2 support to the case coming to the cross examination is believe or not. No reference to the schedule property he is the brother of the Satyavathi, in cross examination dated 21.07.2022. Boundaries in the name of Payyala . At boundary no land of

Suda Ganapathi. How the legal scrutiny are made. Dw2 is not possessed the land as deposed by the Dw1 not help to the case of plaintiff. Dw2 evidence basing on the D2, whether the basing on Dw2 can believe case of the defendants their defence. Dw2 not referred the schedule property to believe the affidavit or not for the preparation of affidavit. Chief affidavit must instruct to the counsel Dw2 cross examination and chief examination is different how to the believe two versions of the defendant liable to be discard.

Dw4 evidence is psychopathologist. Dw1 to 4 could elevate substitute in any angel. Dw5 evidence is relevant dispute of the case because of the document sale deed B12 to B14 are marked. Whether Dw5 evidence helpful to the

54

dispose of the case. Ex.B12 containing no contention Ex.B12 to B14 relating to the three documents. Evidence clubbed to the B12 to B14 effect their properties are not there. Suda Ganapathi property and those documents are not binding whom. Suda Ganapathi no one notice. Ex.B12 to B14 are no way helpful to the 2nd defendant. Dw1 deposed that unaware of the O.S.No.288 of 2014. Evidence of Dw5 , Ex.B2 to B14 are required judicious concession.

Dw6 is the Vasamsetty Lakshmi. Dw7 Dw8 were examined to prove the contents of Ex.B4 same evidence of Dw6 and Dw7. Dw6 and 7 deposed that to which property to apply, 2011 or 2014 suits are in question. Ex.B14 statement recorded by the revenue officers. Ex.B14 looked into B12 to B14 what is the statement recorded to came to know that D.W.6, D.W.7 evidence to attach the claim. How it is permissible they are not the binding the Suda

Ganapathi Rao. The case leveled by the plaintiff and partition of the schedule property. Ex.B12 to B14 are not relevant particular involvement. Dw8 is the

Suda Ganapathi Rao nothing was elicited in the cross examination of pw2.

Remaining unchallenged in the cross examination. Now the cancellation, contention non examination of attestors, scribe not proved at all. Sale deed is not at all compulsory attest able document, non examination of attestors not affect the sale deed. D2 himself admitting D15 sale deed, suit filed cancellation unless and until such a legal document cancel by the wholes good. It will not be no be extinguished obtain by the Dw8 on that ground also, except witnesses, dispose of the case quality of the evidence is the vital role.

If the quality of the evidence taken into consideration there is no evidence to discrete the evidence of plaintiff suit is pending. Relied upon by the 2nd defendant is not will not stunt any case or weakness of the case of defendants case. 288 is dismissed no local standards to file the suit. she has right 2 of 2019 proved the possession and enjoyment decree the suit.

issues not framed properly whether plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Satyavathi. Whether the plaint schedule property is the

55

joint property of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are treated as owners.

Dw1 admitted plaintiff 2 and 3 will acted upon or not. 2nd defendant fail to get over the evidence and on other hand similar to the RS rao to send the document to expert to Ex.A5 by wrong the adverse inference , attacking the

Ex.A5 . Ex.A5 declaration and delivery of possession and the half share of the B schedule property and the will late Satyavathi to undivided share of

Ex.A5 will in view of the facts of the plaintiff except 2018 of 2015 as prayed for plaintiffs can connect in-respect of the property guardian discharged , in favur of the D3 D4 and D5.

48.The learned defendant counsel argued that deceased Kondala Rao has established a company at Mumbai, brother in law, mothers brother to the 2nd defendant . Kondala Rao married the sister of D2 who is the Satyavathi. After the marriage they went to the Mumbai lead their marital life. Santhosha lakshmi and srinivasa Rao was born to them after that company and the family management is difficult. D2 went to the Mumbai helped to them. 1st plaintiff settled at Mumbai along with his family working in another company came to the Kondala rao. After his to joined his company. Venkata Rama Raju and

Kondala Rao are belongs to the Konaseema Mungada. He joined with the

Kondala Rao and worked there. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are also born to the

Kondala Rao and satyavathi. 1st plaintiff is very close to the plaintiff No.2 and 3 to look-after his clothes more than the parents with the children. Kondala

Rao who caught company where purchased the land send to the Satyavathi.

Schedule land was register in the name of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao with the supervision of D2 and Syamala Rao. Syamala Rao is only person to look- after the land. 1st plaintiff kidnapped the Srinivasa Rao some where then

Kondala rao and satyavathi sent to the Venkata Rama Raju. Kondala Rao and Satyavathi along with their children went to the Mumbai along with family.

1st plaintiff is the care taker of the children. 1st plaintiff is also lived with the family along with two children faraway to the company and residence of

56

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. 1st plaintiff lived with third wife in Mumbai by name Krishna veni. 1st plaintiff plea is that Satyavthi is 4th wife. He admitted that he is married her consent of Kondala Rao, there are no documents of prove. He does not know already married the women is an offence.

3rd para in cross examination of P.W1 as follows:

It is not true to suggest that I filed guardian O.P before Hon’ble II

Addl.District court for custody of plaintiff No.2 and 3 herein and in the said O.P court was imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- against me as it is a false claim.

49.After death of Kondala Rao company of the 1st plaintiff sold use of rowdy of Mumbai. D2 having information through the somebody at Mumbai and try to go-to the Mumbai there . 1st plaintiff gave a waiving to the D2 . D2 obtain the letter from to the Mumbai Superintendent of police it is also marked as exhibit. Property sold but 1st plaintiff are not own take then returned to

Munganda village along with his children. After death of Satyavathi and

Kondala rao and next person who is the 1st plaintiff to see the welfare of children so called Srinivasa rao acquittance with them on that he reached to the Mungada after the same time went to the Munganda D2 some rowdy brought their document form the house of D2, D2 gave a report to the

Allavaram police. On enquiry of the police he submitted some waste papers unuseful papers kept with him. After some time he filed the suits in EA 2006 paper O.P.No.60 of 2006 and it was dismissed and imposed 10,000/- fine after file made before the court O.P.NO.60 of 2006 on 05-06-2006 with help of open documents and it was numbered as O.S.No.148 of 2011 suit summons received came on contest before the court. 1st plaintiff and 1st counsel K.P

Achari Kothapeta advocate attached the defendant not appear before the

Court then they filed the complaint before the town police station ad registered a crime against the 1st plaintiff and his counsel after that K.Acharyulu kept that the same of plaintiffs are the subsequently forged will that is containing the 5 pages scribe not examined attestors of brother of the 1st plaintiff.

57

Rokkala Satyavathi informed me that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Satyavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram Village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. I do not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. I do not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. I do not know reason for non registration of the Will at

Amalapuram.

PW3 is the Yalamandala , P.W.2 came from Hyderabad acted as attestors Satyavathi name is inserted OS no 46 of 1996 finding is there heard the family was clear. Another person has no right half share except the document consist specifically return the share already sent to the signatures to the expert. Standards signatures for expect accepted and the same to the expert. Will is preparing,. Both Kondala Rao and Satyavathi are there instead of believe executed a will why he executed a registered will on 27-07-1997 from the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the guardian of elder Srinivasarao. After the death of Kondala Rao, children got by the 1st plaintiff because of very close to the children Srinvasarao Kondala Rao threat filed the suit O.S.No. 74 of 2005 by injunction against the 1st plaintiff of the rowdies. After death fo Srinivasa rao he obtained passbook in his name with M.R.O. Baby Gnanamba manage and get the passbook sold away to the Ganapathi. He used to force occupied the land he want to sold the property and get over the property to him. Which they G.P.A., G.P.A. property why the D1 executed in favour of D2 so many loans are there remain creditors are coming to the Durga from the death of her

58

husband Srinivasa Rao. Suit is pending and it was withdrawn , G.P.A.

executed in favour of D2 to the clear the lands for the Srinivasarao died very earlier stage said Durga also small person, 2nd marriage was performed to her that he executed GPA left form the Rokkala family, she did not leave the property to the Rokkala family. Because she personally left the property now suit property in the hands of D2 who purchased the Srinivasarao and Kondala

Rao GPA property with D2 because clear the loans with his names of D2 as guarantor of D1. 1st plaintiff filed the suit ATC cases. Those are dismissed for default. When he obtained the false passbook from MRO, D2 filed the petition

before the RDO Amalapuram RDO dismissed the appeal, filed before the Joint

collector that was allowed marked as Ex.A18. Then the GPA holder not there. When the G.P.A. holder execution of G.P.A. no claim was made by

G.P.A. The G.P.A. holder in the name of D2 remaining schedule property

Ex.A1 to A5 properties are themselves having the properties some of the defendants not appear before the Court.

O.S.No 2 of 2019

50.Ganapathi having the sale deed filed the injunction suit before the principle Junior Civil Judges Court said suit transferred renumbered as 2 2019. but now it self said Ganapathi have no where the property only because of 1st plaintiff rowdisam executed a sale deed in favour of Ganapathi.

Rowdisam at Amalapuram not outside of Amalapuram. D2 filed the petition

before the R.D.O. cancellation of Pattadhar passbook. D2 also filed the

present suit cancellation of sale deed. Passbooks cancel. When the passbooks are not correct the sale is not invalid. D2 filed the suit O.S.No 288 of 2014 cancel the sale deed in favour of Ganapathi. When the 1st plaintiff sold the land to the Ganapathi and the 2nd plaintiff asked the same amount from the 1st plaintiff. S2 get the P.W.2 he was died only for information. Pw1 marriage is love marriage at Haryana never appear before the Court after the death fo p2 wife and children added but she went to the parents house, she got married except 1st plaintiff no persons is there they never appear before

59

the Court there are three suits depending on un-registered will here. When the Ex.A5 correct from the hands of Kondala Rao when the Kondala Rao agreed the signature as attestor Kondala Rao not to execute registered will

dated 22-07-1997. Unregistered will co-inside when the registered will to less

value by the Pw1. With the help of Pw2 and 3 it was created it is the illegal and improper. Whether the 1st plaintiff is having right to file the suit already filed the proper OP it was dismissed in the year 2010 on payment of fine.

Later filed the present suit finally it was numbered as 248 of 2011. they shifted the family from Mumbai to Ullankurru against to get the property at

Yentrikona and Relligadda. Both children in hand because after death of

Kondala Rao, 1st plaintiff is only person doing care taker at Kothapeta Achari filed the suit numbered the suit. The schedule property sold by the Kondala

Rao and Srinivasa Rao to the defendants they are having passbook and sale deed, possession and enjoyment except G.P.A. it was written by the Durga who is the wife of deceased Srinivasa Rao in favour of D2 on shadow of

Ex.A5, suit was filed. D1 and D2 suits while retrieving when they attended

before the court the counsel of P.W.1 with rowdies not attended before the

Court and filed the report at Police station case was registered against the

Acharya and P.W.1. Advocate left the case since then another advocate.

P.W.1 also filed tenancy cases they were dismissed for default. On final warning of the case prepared the written statement and filed in the suit.

Marraige of the Satyavathi she belongs to the SC community. P.W.1 belongs to the Settibalija community P.W.1 is the 5th wife name is Krishnaveni, 4th wife is

Rokkala Satyavathi 3rd wife married in the year 1991 at Mumbai consent of her husband Kondala rao there is no documentary proof to that effect not known the offence. 4th wife . Satyavathi is 5th wife created Ex.A5 is not legal improper created by P.W.1. Ex.A5 false entire suit is the false regarding to the signatures of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao. R.S.Rao is not signature of Satyavathi, Mumbai.It permissible husband name is in the name of wife. It is not permissible A.P, in Maharastra first is the name, 2nd one is the father name, 3rd one is the surname. When the

60

Ex.A5 executed by Satyavathi Kondala Rao signed on that as a attestors and know the contents what is necessity of Kondala Rao executed a registered will in favor of P2 and P3. Ex.A5 Kondala Rao executed a will in favour of P2 and

P3 . Ex.A7 is the right, Ex.A5 is the false now directed to file the suit for their shares but the plaintiff No.2 who is have died. 1st plaintiff sold the property to one Ganapathi rao and asked the same amount to the 1st plaintiff . Who is bet him he was died, his wife and children are added the plaintiffs now the wife was married boy was adopted somebody minor. 3rd plaintiff got married at

Haryana so they are not claim any property absence of the G.P.A. holder let the property who is the having the possession and enjoyment, D2 is the owner of the property. District Collector made enquiry three years and cancel the passbook in the name of Pw1 even not preferred the appeal then order of the

District Collector no schedule property but no partition in the suit 248 is liable to be dismiss. Cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of

Ganapathi , he belongs to the Kapu Community, Konkapalli rowdy, Pw1 thought that said Ganapathi is handed over the plan to the D2 but it is not possible to him his property is in the possession and enjoyment of D2.

Registration based on the passbook . Passbook cancel by the District

Collector in that effect Vemala rao filed the suit to cancel the sale deed.

O.S.No.2 of 2019

On the basis of sale deed the injunction was G.P.A. was not canceled executed and left the Durga possession of D2 injunction not entitled.

Clubbing of suits and common evidence:- on perusal of the record in O.S.No.288 of 2014 docket order dated 02-03-2019 as follows:- as per orders on Memo in S.R.No.967 2019 dated 02-03-2019, the suit in

O.S.No,288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 clubbed with O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this court treating the evidence already adduced in O.S.No.248 of 2011 is the evidence in other two suits and to record further evidence in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 along with O.S.No.248 of 2011 for joint trial posted to 08-

03-2019.

61

P.W.1 Chief affidavit filed. 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1.cheif affidavit treated as cheif exmination of P.W.1 after confrontation by the plaintiffs counsel. he deposed same facts in his evidence in the same facts of their suit in the plaint and written statements. In common suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011.

During cross examination the learned defendant No.2 to 4 counsel confront that he is of resident of Munganda, He is a cycle mechanic. In the year 1974 He went to Bombay along with his family. He resided till 2004 at

Bombai. He used to work in a company at Bombai in Amardal chemicals id at

Sahad, Ullasnagar Municipality. he had own house at Sahad, Ullasnagar

Municipality. he had six children out of them one son died. His first wife

Mahendravati is native of Bombai. His 2nd wife Rama Girija is native,

Bodasakurru through my two wives he begotten four children l.e, two children each-wife.

At present that is on the date of evidence he is living one Krishnaveni, who is my third wife since 2004. Witness adds that that the said Krishnaveni is his fourth wife. One Rokkala Satyavathi is his third wife. He married her in the year 1991 in Bombai. He married her with the consent of her husband by name Kondala Rao. There is no getting momage documentary proof like certificates to that effect. He does not know marring the already married woman is an offence.

The surname of Rokkala Satyavathi was not changed as Mattaparti

Satyavathi after marrying him. He does not know know since her surname was not changed as such, she is not his wife. The children, Santhosa

Lakshmi and Srinivasa Rao begotten by Rokkala Satyavathi through her husband are no way concerned to to him. P.W.1 denied a suggest that one krishnameraju was not blessed with said Rokkala Satyavathi through him.

There is a birth certificate to show that the sald Krishnama Raju born through him said Rokkala Satyavathi at Ullasanagar Municipality. He filed birth certificate to that effect. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he did not file such birth

62

certificate into the court. I P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Krishnamaraju was born to Rokkla Satyvathi and Kondala Rao but not through me. There is a birth certificate to show that he blessed with one Bhagya Sri through Rokkala

Satyvathi and he filed the same into the court. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he did not file the said certificate into the court.

P.W.1 denied a suggest that in the year 1994 I was removed from the company where he worked, then he joined in the company of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. P.W.1 denied a suggest that by that time Bhagya Sri and

Krishnamraju were children by then.

The said Rokkala Satyavathi died in an accident. P.W.1 denied a suggeston that after demise of said Satyavathi he looked after her children as her husband Kondala Rao fell ill, by taking advantage of the said situation in order to grab their property situated at Bombal he hatched a plan. P.W.1 denied a suggest that as a part of my plan he created un registered will said to be executed by Satyavathi dated 9-5-1997 under Ex A5 P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Satyavathi used to sign as R. Satyavathi, but not as

R.S. Rao. P.W.1 denied a suggest that the signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao was forged on Ex A5. P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Rokkala

Satyavathi and her husband and Kondala Rao never visited Pothavaram and there was no necessity to try to visit the said place.

P.W.1 denied a suggest that when the sald kondala Rao fell ill, he took the children of said Kondala Rao to the house of defendant No 2 and assaulted him and taken away the all the documents on 6-7-1998. P.W.1 admitted that a case in Cr.No.6 of 1998 was registered at Allavaram police station against him Under sections 448, 323, 506 I.P.C. and he was arrested in connection with the said crime. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he filed guardian O.P. before Hon'ble II Additional here in on District court for custody of plaintiff No 2 and 3 in the present-suit and in the said O.P. court was imposed fine of Rs 10,000/- against him as it is a false claim.

63

P.W.1 filed all original documents in this case. The said documents were given by Rokkala Satyavathi. she did not hand over the said documents. After demise of said Rokkala Satyavathi, her husband brought the said documents to the house of defendant No 2 at that time, he forcibly taken away the said documents due to which a criminal case was also registered against him.

Witness adds that criminal case was filed with regard to another reason. P.W.1 admitted that the signature of Rokkala Satyavathi contained on Ex A4 on the rear side of third page and the signatures contained on Ex.A5are different.

Ex.A5was executed at Pothavaram of Gannavaram Mandal. Muliganda village is also situated in Gannavaram Mandal. Rokkata Slätyavathi is resident of

Yentrikona of Allavaram Mandal since the said Bkkala Sätyävät Visiting our

House at Pothavaram Village and the scribe was our Village, as such Ex.A5 was also available in our at our village. "It is not was executed at our true to suggest olat he sald Rokkala Satyavathi did not visit our Pothavaram Contents "Village. It is true, as per the contentions of Ex.A5 In the first paragraph of first page the surname Mattaparthi was inserted. he does not know the said word was not Inserted by the scribe of Ex.A5 and it was contained different hand writing. P.W.1 denied a suggetion that Kondala Rao never signed on Ex.A5 and the signature contained on Ex. A5 is not that of Kondala Rao. Attestors of

Ex.A5 are my brother-in-laws. one is resident of Ambajipeta and another is resident of Chirathapudi. It is not true to suggest that the scribe of Ex.A5 is is in the habit of scribing any false 10 document by receiving amount. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that the death certificate filed by him were obtained by the son of Kondala Rao.

It is true, after demise of Rokkala Satyavathi her husband Kondala Rao executed a will by bequeathing his properties to his four children. As per the contents of said will his elder son Rokkala Srinivas was appointed as a guardian plaintiff Nos 2 and 3. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that while he was selling away the properties of Rokkala Kondala Rao situated at Mumbai and by receiving the said information, he came to Mumbai by obtaining police

64

protection from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad on 27-08- 1998. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he sold away the entire material of his shop and he behaved high handedly against him due to which he got shock and died. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that after demise of said Kondala

Rao he brought the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and changed their surnames and joined in the schools by stating that they born through him.

P.W.1 is admitted that Rokkala Srinivasa Rao filed a suit against him in

O.S.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

P.W.1 denied a suggestion that, after demise of said Srinivasarao, his wife not pressed the said suit. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that, after dismissed of the said suit, he misrepresented before concerned Mandal Revenue Officer and obtained pattadar passbook to an extent of Ac.02-21 cents. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that there a specific mention in said pattadar passbook that as per the orders in O.S. No.74 of 2005 pass books were issued. P.W1.admitted that 2 defendant filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer by challenging the said pattadar pass books. P.W.1 admitted that basing on the said pattadar pass book he filed O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram and obtained injunction orders. As per the said orders, Revenue

Divisional Officer, dismissed the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant.

P.W.1 admitted that some part of the above said property was sold away by him. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he also sold the remaining extent to the rowdy persons as he could not enter into the said property as he has no right. all the A.T.C cases filed by me were dismissed for default. It is true, a case in crime No.72 of 2012 was registered against me, one Moturi

Satyanarayana and his pleader K.B.Achary by alleging that they threatened the defendant No.2. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that,since 2010 by taking the advice of said K.B.Achary, advocate of Kothapeta he created entire record filed in this case. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that Kondala Rao never consented to change the surnames of plaintiff No.2 and 3. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that P.W.1 and Plaintiff No.2 and 3 were not entitled for the

65

properties of Kondalar Rao and Rokkala Satyavathi in view of will executed by

Kondala Rao. P.W.1 admitted that Plaintiff No.2 died. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he sold away the property and did not give share to him then he made quarrel with me at that time he beat him and kill him. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he performed the marriage of 3rd plaintiff with the person who was already married. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he performed the said marriage in order to grab the property and to get rid of her. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is not entitled to file the present suit and the suit is not maintainable and he will not get any right over the suit schedule property. D5 not cross examine the P.W.1. Reported Nil.

In Re-Examination plaintiff counsel confronted that:- Satyavathi used to sign as R.S. Rao, Rokkala Satyavathirao and R. Satyavathi.

Re-Cross-Examination by Sri K.S.N.: confronted that he filed documentary proof to show that the Satyavathi signed as R.S. Rao.P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not file any document to that effect and if any document filed said signature was put by him.

P.W.2 Chief affidavit filed. 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1.cheif affidavit treated as chief examination of P.W.2. he deposed same facts deposed by the P.W.1 in his evidence. In commmon suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011. He is third party to the suit. As plaintiffs he is attestor of

will Ex.A5. He is brother in law of the P.W.1. P.W.2 deposed that at this stage witness by going through the Ex.A5 stated that it contains his signature as 1st attester singed on Ex.A5 was executed in his presence and after going through its contents, testator singed on Ex.A5 in his presence. Tester witnessed while attesting Ex/A5 by himself, husband of tester by name

Kondala Rao and one Dhanaanjaya, one Terrapradada prakasa Rao is the scribe of Ex.A.5

During the cross examination D2 toD4 counsel confronted that he is working as mechanic at Ambajipeta. He is the husband of elder sister of 1st plaintiff. 1st plaintiff used to reside in Bombay. P.W.2 admitted that he used to

66

work in small companies at Bombay subsequently, he established a mechanic shop. It is not true to suggest that he never established mechanic shop at

Bombay. He wen5t Bombay previously. He did not work in the mechanic shop of 1st plaintiff. He went to Bombay in the year 1984-85, subsequently he did not visit the said plaice. Yanamadala Dhanajaya Rao (P.W.3) is my co-son-in- law. he know Rokkala Satyavathi from the date of her marriage with the 1st plaintiff. he does not remember the date of said marriage.P.W.1 admitted that the said Rokkala Satyavathi had husband by name Kondala Rao and through him, she got two children. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that they had four children and born at Mumbai.

Rokkala Satyavathi informed him that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Satyavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

51.A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. He does not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. He does not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. He does not know reason for non registration of the Will at Amalapuram.

P.W.2 denied a suggestion that on 09.05.1997 Rokkala Satyavathi did not execute Will on 09.05.1997 at Pothavaram village and her husband

Kondala Rao was also not present at that time. P.W.1 was not present at the time of execution of said Will. The said Rokkala Satyavathi did not bring her daughter Santhosha Lakshmi at the time of execution of Will. He does not know the particulars of the properties owned by the said Satyavathi.

67

He does not know when the 2nd plaintiff was died but he died due to disease. He know the same. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that 1st plaintiff killed him by beating on his ear. By the date of execution of said Will P.W.3 was at

Chiratapudi. It is not true to suggest that Rokkala Satyavathi has no knowledge about Chiratapudi, Pothavaram, Munganda and Ambajipeta villages and myself, 1st plaintiff and others created the said Will. It is not true to suggest that since 1st plaintiff is my brother-in-law, He is deposing false to support his contention. He does not know about filing of criminal case against

P.W.2 and others.

P.W.2 denied a suggestion that P.W.2 had three wives and he used to stay along with his 3rd wife at Bombay.P.W.2 denied a suggestion that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that after demise of Rokkala Satyavathi P.W.2 obtained my signature on the Will and he is deposing false in support of the contention of P.W.2. He does not know while he is staying at Bombay P.W.2 was residing with which wife. He cannot say for how long P.W.2 stayed at Bombay. He does not know with which wife he went to Bombay.

52.During Cross examination by Defendant No.5 counsel confronted that

R. Satyavathi asked him to sign on the Will. Execution of Will was completed by 6.00 p.m. At first he signed on the said Will, then Rokkala Kondala Rao signed. The said Satyavathi signed at five places on the Will. He signed at one place only. The said Satyavathi witnessed when he signed on the said

Will, he also witnessed while Satyavathi signing on the said Will. The said

Satyavathi signed as "R.S.Rao". He has seen the said signature on the said date only as R.S.Rao and he never seen prior to that. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that the said Will is a created one and not genuine document.

P.W.3 Chief affidavit filed. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff , Third party examined as P.W.3. Cheif affidavit treated as cheif examination of P.W.3.

he deposed same facts deposed by the P.W.2 and P.W.3 in his evidence. In common suits after cubed two suits in O.S.No.248 of 2011. on his instructions

68

only in his Chief examination affidavit was prepared and he know its contents and the signatures theree on are him. He is 3rd party in the suit. No exhibits marked. He is 3rd attester oof Ex.A5. Ex.A5 contains his signature The contents of Ex.A5 were read over to him on the date of its execution. Along with him P.W.2, R.Kondala Rao were attested, one Gopala Krishna Murthy was the scribe of Ex.A5, in their presence the testator of Ex.A5 singed after read over its contents to her.

During Cross examination D2 to D4 counsel. On my instructions only my Chief examination affidavit was prepared and he know its contents and the signatures there on are him. I am the 3rd party herein. No exhibits marked.

I am 3rd attester of Ex.A5. Ex.A5 contains my signature. The contents of

Ex.A5 were read over to me on the date of its execution. Along with me P.W.2,

R. Kondala Rao were attested, one Gopala Krishna Murthy was the scribe of

Ex.A5, in our presence the testator of Ex.A5 signed after read over its contents to her.

During Cross examination of P.W.3 Defeendants 2 to 4 counsel confronted that P.W.1 is my brother-in-law, P.W.2 is my co-son-in-law. he has been residing at Tanuku since 2015. he do not know between whom there is a dispute in the suit. P.W.1 informed me that with the permission of Kondala Rao he got married Rokkala Satyavathi. P.W.1 informed me that with the consent of Kondala Rao only he got married Rokkala Satyavathi. P.W.1 did not Invite him for the sald marriage. P.W.1 did not inform him the place of said marriage.

On 09-05-1997 the said Satyavathi executed a Will. He does not know for how long she was alive after execution of said Will. The said Will was executed at Pothavaram village. At the time of execution of said Will, P.W.2,

Kondala Rao, P.W.2 were only present. One Gopalakrishna was the scribe of said Will and it was prepared as per the instructions of Satyavathi. P.W.1 was not present at the time. On the date of execution of said Will only he has seen the said Satyavathi and Kondala Rao.

69

P.W.3 denied a suggestion that no 'Will was executed as stated in my chief examination. P.W.3 denied a suggestion that myself, P.W.1, P.W.2 and others were created the said Will. He know one Krishnam Raju, who is son of

P.W.1, who is no more at present. He does not know the reason for his death.

P.W.3 denied a suggestion that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and he is deposing false.P.W.3 denied a suggestion that only in order to support the case of the 1st plaintiff and I am deposing false.

Cross examination by the D5 counsel confronted that Basing on the documents given by the Satyvathi the scribe of Will was prepared the same. It took two hours time for its preparation. At first P.W.2 signed on the said Will, then Kondalarão and P.W.3 were signed. The said Satyavathi signed as "Rokkala Satyavathi Rao vralu". He witnessed while she was signing on the said Will, likewise she also witnessed while she was attesting the Will. The said Will consisting of five pages and he signed on the last page. On all five pages the said Satyavathi he signed. P.W.3 denied a suggestion that due to the relationship with P.W.1 am deposing false.

To prove case plaintiffs, to support of the plaintiffs case to substantiate document writer examined as P.W.4 he deposed in his chief examination he received witness summons in this matter from the court. I am a document writer. He has been working as document writer since 1993. Whenever he scribed any document he used to make an endorsement to that effect on the said document. If any document contained said endorsement and my signature, it can be said that he scribed the said document. All the documents scribed by him are genuine documents. The name contained on Ex.A7 as scribe is mine. Ex.A7 is a registered document. At the time of registration of document there is no need of presence of the scribe. Ex.A7 was scribed about 21 years back. By going through the Ex.A7 he re-collected my memory. he does not remember the each and every document which was scribed by him, but by going through the document he can re-collect his memory. As per the contents of Ex.A7 Rokkala Kondala Rao signed as an executant and

70

Katikidala Nageswara Rao and Sape Hema Sundara Rao attested the said document. He came to the court to speak about the said document.

During Cross examination of P.W.4 the learned D2 to D4 counsel confronted that Rokkala Kondala Rao who is executant of Ex A7 and attesters came to me on the date of Ex.A7. After scribing Ex A7 1 handed over the document to them to submit the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar but he did not attend before the Sub-Registrar for registration. Except the property in survey No.83/4 Ac.1-00 cents there is no mention about the particulars and extents of remaining properties covered by Ex.A7. As per the recitals of Ex.A7 by the date of enforcement of Ex.A7 if the beneficiary No.2 and 3 were minors, then the beneficiary No.1 has to act as a guardian.

To prove Defendants 2 to 4 case. D.W.1 Chief affidavit filed. 2nd defendant examined as D.W.1. chief affidavit treated as chief examination of

D.W.1. he deposed same facts in his written statement, deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the the D2 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of D.W.1. In common suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011.

During the cross examination of D.W.1, D5 counsel confronted that

One Satyavathi is the wife of Rokkala Kondala Rao, who used to reside at

Bombay. Both are no more at present and they died. One Santhosha Lakshmi and one Srinivasa Rao are the children born through said Satyavathi and

Rokkala Kondala Rao. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the children born to Satyavathi through first plaintiff. The entire suit schedule properties belonging to Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Defendant

No.5 is resident of Yentrukona Village.

D.W.1 admitted that the said Rokkala Kondala Rao and his four children sold Ac.0-12 cents covered by R.S.No.163/6 of Yentrukona village to defendant No.5 under registered sale deed dated 16-07-1998. Witness adds that the said Kondala Rao sold the said property by showing his children as minors. D.W.1 admitted that by the date of said sale transaction marriage of

71

Santhosha Lakshmi was performed. He does not know whether she joined as a party to the said deed. D.W.1 admitted that the said property has been in possession and enjoyment of defendant No.5 till today. Initially on 26-11-2019 cross examination of the plaintiffs treated as nil on absence of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs counsel.

During the cross examination of D.W.1. D5 counsel further cross examined as per orders in I.A.No.64 of 2020 in O.S..No.248 of 2011.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Kondala Rao was used suffering-with illness. D.W.1 admitted that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramanaraju (the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2011 used to reside at Mumbai under Rokkala Kondala Rao.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as Rokkala Kondala Rao used to suffer with illness his wife Satyavathi developed illicit intimacy with P.W.1. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that both P.W.1 and Satyavathi used to behave like wife and husband. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that both P.W.1 and Satyavathi used to maintain illicit intimacy with the permission of Kondala Rao and out of their relationship they have begotten Krishnamraju and Bhagyasri (2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in O.S.No. 248 of 2011).

D.W.1 admitted that O.S.No. 248 of 2011 has been filed by Venkata

Raju and others against him and others seeking partition over plaint schedule property. 1st defendant by name Durga was made set exparte in this suit and she did not file any written statement. Part of the plaint schedule property was sold by deceased Kondala Rao and his son to D.4 to D.6 in O.S.No. 248 of 2011. he cannot say the details of the sale deeds executed by Kondala Rao and his son and extents also. In some of the documents deceased Kondala

Rao subscribed as an executant and some of the documents his son

Srinivasa Rao subscribed the signatures as executant. Witness volunteers that both Kondala Rao and his son executed a document in favour of D.5

Veerraju and D.6 Ramakrishna (in O.S.No.248 of 2011). This suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 was filed by Venkata Raju, Krishnam Raju and Bhagyasri. It is true that the suit is filed was in the year 2010 and registered in the year 2011. I

72

filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Suda

Ganapathi (D.4) in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 in respect of an extent of Ac.0-58 cents out of Ac.1-06 cents in RS No.147/4 and Ac.0-54 cents in R.S.No.147/5.

Since Venkatarama Raju have no right to execute document in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2014 He filed suit for cancellation of sale deed, dated 08-08-2014. He filed the suit for cancellation of document executed by D.1 to D.3 in O.S.No.248 of 2014. Venkata Ramaraju is not having any right over the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 but obtained Pattadar pass book over the property and basing on the said pattadar pass book he has executed sale deed in favour of Ganapathi and

D.W.1 having right over the property under G.P.A. as such He filed suit for cancellation of the document. D.W.1 admitted that he preferred an appeal

before Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in

favour of P.W.1 and the same was dismissed. Witness adds that his appeal was dismissed with a direction to approach before the Collector. D.W.1 admitted that P.W.1 contested the above said appeal before Revenue

Divisional Officer and the same is dismissed on 18-09-2017 that it is not maintainable before Revenue Divisional Officer. It is not true to suggest that he did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order passed by Revenue

Divisional Officer. Witness adds that he filed an application before District

Collector in the year 2017. he is having proof that He filed an application

before District Collector. He did not file any document before this Court to

prove that he filed an application before District Collector. He did not implead the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.248 of 2011 application filed before

District Collector. D.W.1 admitted that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju,

Krishnamraju and Ganapathi filed a Suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court against him and others and the same was

transferred to this Court and renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2019. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as on the date of filing of O.S.No.17 of 2015 the 3rd defendant Bhagyasri is not available, she was shown as defendant in the said

73

suit. D.W.1 admitted that 2nd plaintiff herein is died, leaving 4th and 5th plaintiffs as legal heirs.

As a General Power of Attorney Holder executed by Rokkala Durga, he is having right over the plaint schedule properties in three suits. He did not mention in all the three suits being a General Power of Attorney holder, he is claiming right over the plaint schedule property. He has taken a plea in all the three suits that, He got right over the plaint schedule properties as a General

Power of Attorney holder. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he has mentioned in his chief examination that Rokkala Durga executed General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and that he is contesting the suits basing on the General Power of Attorney. He filed General

Power of Attorney befşore this Court. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there is no General Power of Attorney is in existence and He did not file any General

Power of Attomey in his favour in all the three suits. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that without possessing or filing of the General Power of Attorney, he has no right over the plaint schedule property. The Rokkala Durga might have in existence. Witness adds that Rokkala Durga is in Komaragiripatnam.

D.W.1 admitted that the Rokkala Durga was shown as 1st defendant in

O.S.No. 248 of 2011 and she did not file any statement in this suit.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B1 is not issued by Rokkala Durga.

D.W.1 admitted that It is true that D5 herein I.e Rokkala Durga has attended in the suit in her personal capacity. Except filing Ex.B1 General Power of

Attorney he did not entered into any transactions including court litigations on behalf of Rokkala Durga representing her in pursuance of Ex.B1.D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B1 is not useful for any purpose. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is not claiming any right over the properties in O.S.288 of 2014, 248 of 2011 and 2 of 2019 on my personal capacity except the properties are the properties of Kondala Rao. Durga etc., the learned plaintiffs counsel aruged that he filed suit O.S.288 of 2014 against Mattaparthi

Venkataramaraju and others in my personal capacity. He gave

74

instructions to my counsel to prepare his written statement. D.W.1

admitted that in his personal capacity filed the suit. What is his interest

in the suit schedule property has to be explained by him.

The contents in para No.4 in O.S.No.288 of 2014 are true. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no where claimed in O.S.No.288 of 2014 that he is having having right over the suit schedule property, D.W.1 admitted that Ex B1 pattadar pass book and title deed stands in the name Rokkala Kondala Rao.

Ex.B3 the petition submitted by him to Revenue Divisional Officer.,D.W.1 denied a suggestion that after conducting enquiry in M.C.171 of 2012 rejected his application stating that he has no right over the schedule property. D.W.1 admitted the Tahsildar who has issued Ex.B4 belongs to his caste. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that by influencing the Tahsildar the report was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer., D.W.1 admited that the Revenue

Divisional Officer., did not consider the report submitted by Tahsildar under

Ex.B4. Ex.B5 to Ex.B8 relates to A.T.C. filed by 1st plaintiff against me and some others. Witness volunteers that the 1st plaintiff herein had withdrawn

A.T.C.No.1 of 2011, 2 of 2011, 12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006. He is not a complainant in Ex.B9 and his name is not figured in Ex.B9. The suit

O.S.No.74 of 2005 was not pressed by Rokkala Srinivasarao S/o Kondala

Rao Witness again says that O.S.No.74 of 2005 was not pressed by wife of

Rokkala Srinivasa Rao.

The learned plaintiffs counsel aruged that D.W.1 admited that Ex A1

sale deed dated 04-09-1991 executed in favour of Kondala Rao and his

wife Satyavathi. Witness adds that he purchased the property under

Ex.A1 in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He is am an attestor

or identifying witness of Ex A1. There is no recital in Ex.A1, he provided

consideration or at my instance Ex.Al was executed In favour of Kondala Rao

and Satyavathi. D.W.1 admited that Ex.A1 to A4 stands in the name of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi. He is not an attestor or identifying witness in Ex A1 to A4

or Ex. A1 to A4 do not reflect that he paid consideration or on his instance the documents has been registered in

75

the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion

that Ex.A5 is executed by Rokkala Satyavathi. D.W.1 admitted that

Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-07-1997. At is true that Ex.A7 is

Registered Will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao. As per Ex.A8 Study

certificate plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children of 1 st plaintiff. Witness adds that

Ex A8 got prepared by the plaintiffs. Ex.A9 is death certificate of Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao. A notice under Ex.A10 has been issued by plaintiffs to

him and others. He has issued a reply notice to the above notice. One

Rajeswara Rao, Advocate issued notice on our behalf under EX.A12. She is aware that a paper publication under Ex.A11 has been published by the plaintiffs in Andhra jyothi A notice under Ex.A13 has been issued on behalf of the plaintiffs and a reply notice under EX.A14 was issued by them. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as per EX A4 and A7 wills dated 26-02-1992 and 26-05-1998 the entire property bequeathed to plaintiffs 2 and 3 except Ac.1-00 land bequeathed to Santhosh Lakshmi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that

Ex.A4 and A7 were executed in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 by appointing 1st plaintiff as guardian as plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors by then. On behalf of

Rokkala Durga, myself and Arigela Satyanarayana, Sriramulu,

Venkateswararao, K.Durga Prasad, he gave instructions to prepare notice under Ex.A14. While preparing Ex.A14, he furnished true facts to the counsel.

D.W.1 admitted that Ex A14 notice they have mentioned that due to acquittance with Kondala Rao's family Ist plaintiff (O.S.N0.248 of 2011) developed illicit contact with Satyavathi who is no other than the wife of

Kondala Rao and begot one son and one daughter i.e., plaintiffs 2 and 3 (Bhagyasri and Krishnamraju) in O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no way connected with schedule properties in

O.S.Nos.248 of 2011, 288 of 2014 and O.S.2 of 2019. It is not true to suggest that taking advantage that he belong to S.C. S.T caste threatening them that he will file S.C. S.T Atrocity Case against them and preventing the the plaintiffs

76

2019. D.W.1 admitted that s in O.S.No.248 of 2011 and plaintiffs in O.S.2 of 2019, D.W.1 admitted that 2 of 2019 an injunction order passed by Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Amalapuram (Old Suit No.17 of 2015 against him and the said

injunction order is in force till now. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that though an injunction order was passed against me he is interfering and illegally violating the orders passed by the court from the date of passing of injunction Order

Cross examined by the plaintiffs counsel to the D.W.1 Sape

Satyanarayana is his son. Villa Bhagyasree is his niece. Villa Bhagyasree is claiming that she is the daughter of Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju and

Satyavathi. D.W.1 admitted that 2nd plaintiff Mattaparthi Krishnam Raju died.

He does not know plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of deceased 2nd plaintiff. He does not know plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein filed a suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram against him and another seeking permanent injunction. D.W.1 admitted that an injunction order was passed against him and his son in O.S.No.17 of 2015 and he engaged an advocate in the said suit. The said suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2019 and he is continuing with the same counsel engaged in O.S.No.2 of 2019 and the injunction order is continued. The plaintiffs herein sought injunction in O.S.No.17 of 2015 in respect of the schedule mentioned therein. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that

He am disobeying the orders order passed in O.S.No. 17 of 2015. He know the documents filed by plaintiffs in O.S.No 17 of 2015 (O.S.No. 2 of 2019). He know the plaintiffs herein filed pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of 1st plaintiff herein. He filed one ATC No.10 of 1996 claiming my leasehold rights against Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao, who are the original owners of the property. He does not know the A.T.C. No. 10 of 1996 was dismissed. Ex.B.11 is petition copy in A.T.C.10 of 1996 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's court Amalapuram. (marked during the course of

cross examination by D.5). D.W.1 admitted that as Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi are the owners of the schedule property in A.T,C.10 of 96, he filed

77

A.T.C. against Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He came to know that the plaintiffs herein sold away item Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 to 3rd plaintiff (Suda Ganapathi) in O.S No.2 of 19 vide sale deed dated 08-0-2014. It is true that I filed a suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed dated 08- 08-2014. D.W.1 admitted that the name of 1 plaintiff No.1 herein was mutated in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.248 of 2011. Witness adds that though revenue records are issue they are not genuine. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no way concerned to the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No. 288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 in order to grab the properties, I am making hectic efforts.

The learned plaintiff counsel argued that He has four sisters. He is

the only male issue. The mother of 2 nd plaintiff Satyavathi is his younger

sister. D.W.1 remaining sisters are Venkata Lakshmi and Pushpavathi are

no more, another sister Nagamma is alive. He never interfered in the

property affairs of his remaining sisters. his sister Nagamma is residing

at Allavaram. he received documents filed by the plaintiff along with suit

summons. He did not personally read the plaint copy. He received copy

of unregistered will, one copy of sale deed and two notices along with

the summons. He only contesting the suit against the unregistered will

Ex.A.5. The plaint copy and the copy of Ex.A.5 and other documents

were read over to me. He does after not remember how many days he

received documents from the Court, he narrated to the case to his

counsel. He did not make any enquiry prior to filing of his written

statement whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are genuine or

not. Contents of his plaint are not correct. He gave instructions to his

counsel to prepare written statement that the contents of plaint are not

correct. Deceased Satyavathi studied up to 5 th class. Satyavathi got

married in the year 1973. As on the date of his age, the husband of

Satyavathi Kondala Rao was at Mumbai. The native place of Kondala

Rao is Ventrukona of Allavaram. There is 10 years age gap between

78

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. As on the date of marriage, Satyavathi was

aged about 20 years and Kondala Rao is aged about 35 years. Kondala

Rao is older than me, he is 5 years elder than Satyavathi. The marriage

of Satyavathi was performed at Mumbai and she lead conjugal life at

Mumbai after marriage. Satyavathi is a signatory, D.W.1 denied a suggest

that Satyavathi used to sign as "R.S. Rao". Witness adds that she used to sign as 'R.Satyavathi'. Now he did not possess the pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of Satyavathi. He witnessed while the Satyavathi signed in a sale transaction in favour of Satyavathi. The document Ex.A.4 contains the signature of Satyavathi, he could identify the signature of

Satyayathi on pursuing the document. Ex.A.4 the witness identified the signature of Satyavathi on the 3rd page back side of Ex.A.4 sale deed, dated 26-02-1992. Kondala Rao used to sign in Telugu and English. He do not know the Satyavathi received pass book from revenue authorities by acknowledging the same. D.W.1 admitted that deceased Satyavathi was the owner of AC.0- 58 cents in R.S.NO.147/11, Ac.0-54 cents in R.S.NO.147/5, Ac.0.27 cents in

R.S.NO.163/6, Ac.1.09 cents in R.S.NO.146/4, Ac.0-80cetns in R.S.NO.106/5,

Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.83/4, AC.0-54 cents R.S.No.140/5 and she was in possession of the same properties. D.W.1 admitted that Ac.0-27 cents in

R.S.No.173/6 was shown as plaint 'A' schedule property in O.S.No.248 of 11.

It is true that the plaint 'B' schedule property in O.S.No.248 of 11 were jointly purchased by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He did not possess any documents containing the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. The 1st plaintiff is native of Munganda. He does not know the avocation of 1st plaintiff

Venkatarama Raju. He does not know when the 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju went to Mumbai, but he came to know that he was at Mumbai in the year 1993-94. The 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju had worked under Kondala Rao for 3 years at Mumbai. During the life time of Satyavathi the 1st plaintiff

Venkataramaraju discontinued from service. The deceased Satyavathi died due to fire accident. After the death of Satyavathi the work shop was closed

79

due to fire accident. After discontinuing services, the Kondala Rao came to

Ventrukona. He has own Ac.3-00 cents of land. He was given pattadar pass books and title deeds also. He signed before revenue authorities acknowledging the pattadar pass books and title deeds. Satyavathi was present while execution of Ex.A.4 sale deed. He is not an attestor on Ex.A.4.

Ex.A.4 does not reflect his presence on the date of execution of Ex.A.4. He purchased stamp papers for sale transaction under Ex.A.4 in the name of

Kondala Rao . On the date of execution of Ex.A.4 Kondala Rao is not present. He witnessed her while deceased Satyavathi subscribed his signature on Ex.A.1. He know deceased Satyavathi also sign as 'R.S.Rao'.

D.W.1 admitted that the plaint 'A' properties in O.S.NO.248 of 2011 was in the name of Satyavathi and she was the original owner of plaint 'A' schedule property and Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were joint owners of plaint 'B' schedule property. There are no differences between Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi. He delivered the plaint A and B schedule properties to Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi in the year 1996since then they had been in possession of the suit schedule properties and enjoyed the suit schedule properties. He could identify the signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao. He witness while

Kondala Rao or signing on documents used in regular transactions in company affairs. He never acted as identifying witness for the signature of

Kondala Rao on any documents and there is no such occasion. He witnessed the signature of Kondala Rao lastly in the year 1998. He witnessed the signature of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao in the year 1998. He does not know whether the 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju possess any empty papers containing the signatures of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi as R.S.Rao. He know the meaning of forgery and if the person signs the signature of others it is termed as forged. He does not know forgery means one person must sign the signature of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao, The Santhoshi Lakshmi daughter of

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi might have the documents containing the signatures of Satyavathi.

80

The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that D.W.1 admitted that there are disputes between Sathoshi Lakshmi, Srinivasa Rao and 1st plaintiff herein.

Either Santhoshi Lakshmi or Srinivasarao are not supporting the contest of 1st plaintiff. 1st plaintiff may forged the signature of Satyavathi. He did not mention in his written statement specifically that the 1st plaintiff

Venkataramaraju forged the signature of Satyavathi. 1st plaintiff does not know the name of father of Kondala Rao. My father is Sape Gangayya.

Satyavathi died in June, 1997 while she was aged about 38 or 39 years.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that the Satyavathi was residing along with

Kondala Rao in Mumbai since 22 years prior to her death. D.W.1 admitted that husband of Santhoshi Lakshimi is a Christian. D.W.1 admitted that though the marriage of Santhoshi Lakshimi was performed as per Christian rituals they presented Pasupukumkama usual. Satyavathi was hale and healthy on the date of her death. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are my nephew and niece. D.W.1 denied a suggestion the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born to Satyavathi through 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 admitted fthat he has mentioned that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that in

Ex.A.12 reply notice, he agreed that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein were born to

Satyavathi through 1st plaintiff herein. In Ex.A.5 will it is referred that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born through 1st plaintiff. He know the contents of Ex.A.5 will. D.W.1 admitted that an extent of Ac.1-41 cents in R.S.

No.83/4 stood in the name of Satyavathi. The boundaries regarding the properties in Ex.A.5 is not correct. It is true that Kondala Rao and Satyavathi was jointly purchased Ac.1-09 cents in R.S.No.146/4. The properties mentioned in Ex.A.5 are in existence. D.W.1 admitted that the properties referred in Ex.A.5 will were purchased by Satyavathi and some properties purchased by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. On 09-05-1997 he was at

Ventrukona. He never visited Pothavaram. D.W.1 admitted that he filed

A.T.C. to declare me as a tenant in respect of B schedule property against

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Witness adds that since some persons trying to

81

encroach the property he was advised by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi to file

A.T.C. against them. The 1st plaintiff herein also one of the persons tried to occupy the property. Neither Kondala Rao nor Satyavathi obstructed my enjoyment at any time. The 1 plaintiff Ramaraju is not a party in A.T.C. He does not remember the name of counsel of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi in

A.T.C. No.10 of 97, but my counsel is one Prabhakararao. The A.T.C. is pending till Satyavathi and Kondala Rao arrived to Allavaram. I did not engage the counsel of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi in A.T.C. D.W.1 admitted that the

A.T.C. was compromised and as per the terms he handed over the property to Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He did not reveal that he filed A.T.C against

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi as there is no such occasion arise. D.W.1 denied a suggestionthat in order to grab the property of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi, he filed A.T.C. and the same was contested by them. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there are disputes between D.W.1 and Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and no amicable relations.

The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that He did not go through

Ex.A.5 will personally.As per the document, the signature of the testator

on Ex.A.5 will is 'R.S. Rao'. "The document contains the signature of

testator in all pages. He did not possess any documents containing the

signature of Satyavathi as RS Rao. He does do not know P.W.2

Satyanarayana. He does not know P.W.2 is the co-brother of P.W.1. P.W.3

is also relative of P.W.1 According to him, one advocate Yerrapragada

Gopalakrishna Murty of Gopalapuram got scribed Ex.A.5 will. As per

Ex.A.5 will it was scribed at Pothavaram. he was not present at the time of preparation of Ex.A.5 will. The signature shown to him on Ex.A.5 will is not the signature of Kondala Rao. He filed the registered will in the year 1998 filed

before this court. He does not know who forged the signature of Kondala Rao

in Ex.A.5. The signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao generally like the signature in Ex.A.5. He could file petition to send the document for expert for comparison of signature of Kondala Rao. He has no enmity with P.Ws.2 and 3.

82

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he has enmity with P.W.s.2 and 3, they has no necessity to depose against him, he does not know whether he repudiate the signature of Kondala Rao in Ex.A.5 in his statement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that Satyavathi used to

sign as R.S.Rao similar to the signature on Ex.A.5. It is not true suggest

that after go through the contents of Ex.A.5 will the Satyathi subscribed

her signature on Ex.A.5 will and P.Ws.2 and 3 and Kondala Rao

witnessed the execution of will Ex.A.5 by Satyathi and thereafter they

subscribed their signatures on Ex.A.5 will. he does not know whether his counsel put any questions to P.W.2 and 3 denying the signatures of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi in Ex.A.5 will. The wife of Srinivasarao is 1st defendant/Rokkala Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggestion I has no personal interest over the plaint schedule properties. Witness adds that he purchased

Ac.3-00 out of plaint B schedule property. he possess document evidencing he purchase of Ac.3-00 of land, but did not file before any document to the

Court. He purchased the Ac.3.00 of land from 1st defendant herein prior to suit. D.1 Durga sold Ac.3-00 of land to discharge her debts. He discharged the debts and obtained vouchers from before the creditors, but he did not file any vouchers from the Court. He did not mention in my written statement before filing of suit he purchased AC.3-00 cents. D.1 herein executed General

Power of Attorney in his favour in the year 2008 to manage the properties.

The General Power of Attorney does not reflects the details of the properties, but there is a mention of all properties. The Ac.3-00 of above land was also included in the properties referred in General Power of Attorney. The husband of D.1 Srinivasa Rao died in the year 2008. Balla Sriramulu is father of D.1.

He does not know the Rokkala Durga after the demise of Srinivasarao married another person G.Krishna Murthy. They noticed that name of D.1 is mentioned as G.Durga wife of Krishnamurthy in the plaint. They did not mention in the written statement that the Rokkala Durga till now is the widow of Srinivasarao and she is not the wife of Krishna Murthy.

83

He filed a petition 1.A.No.780 of 2019 to receive Ex.B9 and Ex.B10. He does not remember in I.A.780 of 2019, He referred the Mataparthi Bhagyasri i.e., 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.348 of 2011 as daughter of Venkata Ramaraju (1st plaintiff in O.S.No.348 of 2011). P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he referred the 1st defendant Gullinka Durga as wife of Krishna murthy in the said I.A. after perusal of the petition in I.A.No.782 of 2019 the witness admitted that the

Mataparthi Bhagyasri was shown as daughter of Venkata Ramaraju in Ι.Α.No 782 of 2019 and Gullinka Durga was shown as wife of Krishna murthy. The husband of Gullinka Durga i.e.. Srinivasa Rao has filed a suit for is pending executed Ex.B1 Power of Attorney in respect of the properties shown in on

O.S.No.74 of 2005. As the date of execution of Ex.B1, the suit O.S.No.248 of

2011 is not in existence. One suit O.S.No.60 of 2006 was filed by the 1st plaintiff herein. Witness adds that the suit O.S.No.60 of 2006, it is not original suit. It is oringial petition, initially filed as pauper suit and the same is numbered in the year 2011 as O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.1 admitted the suit

O.S.No.74 of 2005 was filed in respect of the properties situated in

R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.00-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents in total Ac.2-21 cents. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as per Ex.B1 the General Power of Attorney was executed in respect of the above three properties. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as Ex.B1 executed in respect of the property mentioned in O.S.74 of 2005 only and basing on Ex.B1 he has no right to give evidence on behalf of

Rokkala Durga (D1) in this suit. There is no specific mentioned to give evidence in Ex.B1 but in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that the power of attorney was given to all the affairs. From the date of execution of Ex.B1 he has been looking after the property affairs of Rokkala Durga on her behalf. D.W.1 admitted that in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that he has to make all affairs on behalf of Durga and account for the income also. He did not maintain any accounts regarding properties of Durga from 2008 till date. No special power of attorney was executed by Durga except Ex.B1 to give evidence in the suit. It is true

84

that there is a recital in Ex.B1 Power of Attorney that if he did not act as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B1, she has right to cancel the same. I did not file any other documents that he acted as per Ex.B1 and any other transactions under Ex.B1. On the date of execution Ex.B1 was registered. Srinivasa Rao died in the year 2005. Srinivasa Rao died three years prior to execution of Ex.B1. From the date of death of Srinivasa Rao and till Ex.B1 came into existence the Rokkala Durga herself look after all her properties affairs. Now Rokkala Durga is residing at Komarigiripatnam. Now the Rokkala Durga is aged approximately 35 years. As on the date of execution of Ex.B1 the age of Durga is 25 years. Now Durga is hale and healthy. Since the matter O.S.No.74 of 2005 was went to upto Hon'b'le High

Court the Durga executed Ex.B1 as she is unable to look after the case affairs alone. As on the date of Ex.B1 Durga is healthy. There is no mentioned in

Ex.B1 because the health condition of Durga is not well she is executing

Ex.B1. Balla Sriramulu and Dorababu is alive. The scribe of Ex.B1 is Geddala

Laxmanarao of Thurpulanka of Allavaram Mandal. The Sriramulu and

Dorababu is not my relatives. There is no record that he paid taxes on behalf of Durga or managed the properties of Durga. The Durga herself not pressed

O.S.No.74 of 2005 in the year 2010. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Rokkala

Durga never executed Ex.B1 and Ex.B1 never acted upon. The revenue records are in possession of 1st defendant herein and husband. The Rokkala

Kondala Rao could sign in English or in Telugu. It bear original Will dated 26-05-1998 was filed by Srinivasa Rao in Court. Since the original Will

dated 26-05-1998 was misplaced in the Court records the same was not

returned back. He did not possess the original Will dated 26-05-1998. Ex.B3 report was given to Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 24-11-2012. he sought cancellation of revenue records issued in the name of plaintiffs 2 and 3 under

Ex.B3. As on the date of giving report under Ex.B3, the General Power of

Attorney Ex.B1 is in subsistence. The copy of Ex.B1 enclosed to Ex.B3 while giving report. D.W.1 admitted that as per Ex.B3 report, the report was given by

85

me. No enquiry was conducted on my report Ex.B3 as the same was misplaced in the revenue office. Subsequently Ex.B3, he again gave a report to Revenue Divisional Officer. He have given reports to Revenue Divisional

Officer thrice which were misplaced thereupon he gave a report to District

Collector. All three reports were given to Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of revenue records issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 but he cannot say all the facts mentioned in the three reports were same. The report under Ex.B3 was given regarding the properties referred in EX.B1. He filed report before Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of revenue records issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of

Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of

AC.1-09 cents in total Ac.2.21 cents. The properties in R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents are not reflected in plaint schedule property in

O.S.No.248 of 2011. The Tahsildar recommended the Amalapuram to cancel

the pattadar pass book issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of

R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents under Ex.B4. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that the report given under Ex.B3 and Report given by Tahsildar under Ex.B4 are no way connected to the suit. He does not know Arigela

Satyanarayana son of Venkataratnam. Witness again stated that he know the

Satyanarayana resident of Komaragiripatnam. D.W.1 admitted that the said

Mataparthi Venkata Ramaraju on behalf of his minor children A.T.C.No.13 of 2016 for delivery of possession an extent of AC.1-00. He is not a party in

A.T.C.13 of 2006. After receiving summons in A.T.C.No. 13 of 2006 the Arigela

Satyanarayana met him. The Aregila Satyanarayana is his own son in law.

Now residing at Yatrikona. The Arigela Satyanarayna engaged counsel in

A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 by name T.V.Prasada Rao and Mataparthi Venkata

Ramaraju engaged counsel by name K.V.Acharyulu. No enquiry was

86

conducted in A.T.C.No.13 of 2006. D.W.1 admitted that A.T.C.No. 13/2006 was dismissed for default. Arigela Satyanarayana handed over the copy of EX,B5 to me. as the A.T.C.No. 13 of 2006 is not disposed on merits he has no right to seek relief basing on A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 in the suit. The A.T.C.No. 12 of 2006 (Ex.B6) was filed against him by 1st plaintiff herein. He does not remember the extent of the property mentioned in Ex.B6. The property refereed in A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 is wet land. He received notice copy in

A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 and engaged Advocates Sri V.Rajeswara Rao and Sri

N.Mallikarjuna Rao and filed my counter.he did not file the copy of counter in

A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 in the suit. The counter copy in A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 is not filed in the suit. In the counters filed in A.T.C.Nos.12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006 we have mentioned the plaint schedule properties are not correct. It is not true to suggest that we did not take any plea in A.T.C.Nos.12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006 that the plaint schedule and the boundaries are not correct, as such he did not file the counter copies in the suit. A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 was dismissed for default. It is not true to suggest that as A.T.C. 13 of 2006 was dismissed without contesting the petition. He cannot claim any right basing on the A.T.C.13 of 2006. A.T.C.No. 1 of 2011 was filed against Arigela

Satyanarayana. He is not a party in A.T.C No.1 of 2011. He filed the copy

EX.B5 to 88 to show that the 1st plaintiff having a habit of filing cases. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he did not file the petition copy except schedule in EX.B7 the court cannot rely on Ex.B7. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as

Ex.B8 is incomplete document the same cannot be looked into.

The suit O.S.74 of 2005 was filed by Rokkala Srinivasa Rao seeking injunction against 1st plaintiff and others. Since there was no disputes regarding the property for period of two years after the matter was filed before

Hon'ble High Court, the Rokkala Durga not pressed the suit, He did not file the

not press memo filed in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as the record is not traced out

before the Court. The Rokkala Srinivasa Rao engaged one V.R.J.Rao initially

in O.S.No.74 of 2005. She has obtained the certified copy of Ex.B10. He is

87

not a party in O.S.No.74 of 2005. Subsequently the Durga changed the counsel Yelangi Satyanarayana and he not pressed the suit. The plaintiffs herein filed their written statement in O.S.No.74 of 2005. Two properties out of three properties in O.S.No.74 of 2005 was sold away and after getting knowledge he filed suit O.S.No..288 of 2014. An extent of Ac.1-12 cents in

R.S. No.147/4 and 147/5 were sold. The property in R.S.146/4 in an extent of

Ac.1-09 cents is not sold. Neither Rokkala Srinivasa Rao nor Rokkala Durga is ever in possession of the property mentioned in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as such the Rokkala Durga withdrew the suit O.S.No.74 of 2005. The Revenue

Divisional Officer, Amalapuram did not cancel the revenue records in issued in favour of Mataparthi Venkata Ramaraju.

The appeal preferred by him against the orders in M.C.No.171 of 2012 are pending before Collector, Kakinada. It is not true to suggest that as the Ist plaintiff herein is in possession and enjoyment of R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of

Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of

AC.1-09 cents, no action was initiated to cancel the revenue records. Ex.B9 is

Photostat copy but not original. He got Ex.B9 from Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and

Durga. While handover Ex.B9 Srinivasa Rao was alive. They did not mention about Ex.B9 in my written statement. Rokkala Kondala Rao informed to

Deputy Commissioner of Police that Mataparthi Venkataramaraju was harassing Kondala Rao by occupying his properties as such the Deputy

Commissioner addressed a letter to Station House Officer, Tana District. He does not know whether Kondala Rao given a written report to D.C of

Hyderabad. Basing on Ex.B9 case was registered and a case was closed after death of Kondala Rao. He did not file any document to show that a case was registered basing on Ex.B9. D.W.1 that Ex.B9 denied a suggestion that Ex.B9 was issued by influencing the police people and contents of Ex.B9 are not correct.

He did not mention in my chief examination whether any action is taken in pursuance of Ex.B.9. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that after the demise of

88

Kondala Rao They got created Ex.B.9 by influence. As on the date of death,

Kondala Rao is hale and healthy. Kondala Rao died on 25-09-1998. He does not know the sumame of Narsimhamurthy. He never go through the document executed in favour of Suda Ganapathi (3 plaintiff in O.S.No. 2 of 2019). The

Suda Ganapthi obtained sale deed for an extent of Ac.1-12 cents from plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S. No.248 of 2011. Ihe did not obtain the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed in favour of Suda Ganapathi. He filed a suit for cancellation of the document sale deed dated 08-08-2014 in

O.S.No.288 of 2014 against Suda Ganapathi and Venkata Ramaraju. He did

not file any documents in O.S.No. 288 of 2014. Since Suda Ganapathi obtained the sale deed without any right of his vendor, he filed suit

O.S.NO.288 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed. He is not an attestor or

executant of sale deed dated 08.08.2014. D.W.1 admitted that in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 there is a reference of will dated 09-05-1997 (Ex.A.5).

He did not sought for the relief of cancellation of Ex.A.5 will. He was supplied copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 basing on the said document He filed the suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 for cancellation. He does not know whether Rokkala

Durga has obtained the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. He does not remember who has applied to sub registrar office for obtaining the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he has no right to seek cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014, as he not a party to the said document. There is no registered document in his name in respect of the property covered under the sale deed dated 08-08-2014.

Witness adds that he has obtained a power of attorney. Since Ex.B.1 was executed by Rokkala Durga he got filed O.S.No. 288 of 2018. He filed suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 as an agent of Rokkala Durga. they have

mentioned in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 he filed the suit under the capacity of

General Power of Attorney holder of Rokkala Durga. He signed on the

plaint in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 on my personal capacity, but not an agent

of Rokkala Durga. The Rokkala Durga did not issue any affidavit that a

89

General Power of Attorney was executed in his favour which is in

substance in O.S.NO.288 of 2014. It is not true to suggest that as he filed

suit O.S.NO.288 of 2014 on his personal capacity but not on behalf of

Rokkala Durga, O.S.NO.288 of 2014 is not maintainable. D.W.1 admitted that the boundaries in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 and the boundaries referred in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 are same. Witness adds that he referred the land as dry land, but in sale deed dated 08-08-2014 it is wet land. He does not know the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 so also the attestors of the sale deed. He does not know when the sale deed

dated 08-08-2014 was executed. It is not true to suggest that as I am not

having any right over petition schedule property in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 he has no right to file any suit. Rokkala Durga has no knowledge that he filed suit

O.S.NO.288 of 2014. Rokkala Durga did not present while he was giving

instructions to the counsel at the time of filing suit O.S.NO.288 of 2014. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he filed suit Ο.S.ΝΟ.288 of 2014 without knowledge of Rokkala Durga and prosecuting the suit as such the suit is not maintainable. He know Veligetla Veerraju. The Veligetla Veerraju D.5 herein is made exparte without contest. Rokkala Satyavathi predeceased the Rokkala

Srinivasarao. Rokkala Satyavathi died before Kondala Rao. Rokkala Kondala

Rao has a plot and work shop at Mumbai. The above property was worth of

Rs.38,00,000/-as on 1998. The said property was sold by Venkata Ramaraju.

He did not inform to the counsel that Mattaparpthu Venkata Ramaraju was sold plot and workshop at Mumbai and brought the amount. After the death of

Satyavathi, Kondala Rao returned to Ventrukona. By the time Kondala Rao was healthy. He did not inform to my counsel the Kondala Rao fell sick after he left to Mumbai and came to Ventrukona. Since defendant No.5 is also one of the purchaser, the plaintiffs impleaded them as parties. He did not see the sale deed in the name of 5th defendant. 5th defendant does not belong to my caste and he belongs to Gowda caste and he is a paddy tapper. D.W.1 denied a suggestion no document was executed in favour of 5th defendant by

90

Rokkala Kondala Rao. D.W.1 denied a suggestion as the D.5 got created a fake document in his favour he is not contesting this suit with a fear that truth will come out. They did not tally the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi with the signatures in Ex.A.5. He could identify the signatures if any one signs in my presence. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that if any person did not subscribe the signature in his presence, He could not identify the signature. He know in the plaint O.S.NO.248 of 2014 the plaintiffs have taken a plea that the original pattadar pass books and title deed books issue in the name of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi are in my possession. D.W.1 admitted that we did not mention in my written statement that the original pattadar pass books and title deed books issued in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi are not in my possession. D.W.1 admitted that they filed pattadar pass books and title deed issued in the name of Kondalrao (Ex.B.2) in this suit. Since all the properties are in possession of Kondala Rao after the demise of Satyavathi and all the properties are mutated in the name of

Kondala Rao He did not file revenue records and pattadar pass books of

Satyavathi. It is not true to suggest that we suppressed the title books and pattadar pass books issued in the name of Satyavathi as the said revenue records contains the signatures of Satyavathi and if we produce the same, the said signatures will tally the signatures in Ex.A.5. He could file the documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao. He do not know the details of the documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao.

He did not mention the available documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao in petition filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act to send the will

dated 09-05-1997 for comparison to the expert. He does not know the nature

of documents containing the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. He did not file the documents containing the admitted signature of Rokkala Satyavathi along with written statement. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that they did not possess any documents containing the admitted signature and subsequently, They created some documents and making attempts to send the created

91

documents to the expert. He could secure the documents containing the signatures of writings of Satyavathi, but the said documents are not registered documents. At present, he could not say the nature of documents containing the signatures of Satyavathi without verification. Santhosha Lakshmi daughter of Kondala Rao. He is not going to examine Santhosha Lakshmi. The

Bhagyalakshmi daughter of Kondala Rao got married residing at Haryana.

Bhagya Leashmi name is not correct. The 2nd plaintiff Krishnamaraju died in the year 2015 while he was aged 22 years. In Ο.S.ΝΟ.288 of 2014 the defendants 2 and 3 therein were referred as the children of 1st defendant. He came to know that 2nd defendant died as he committed suicide because there was a dispute between D.1 and D.2 with regard to selling of the properties. He informed to my counsel that D.1 Venkataramaraju killed D.2 Krishnamraju.

Eedi Krishnarao and Moturi Satyanarayana, who are residents of Ventrukona and went to They Munganda and informed me that D.1 killed D.2. We did not call me to go to Munganda but on enquiry they informed me that D.1 killed

D.2. Witness again stated that Eedi Krishnarao and Moturi Satyanarayana informed that Krishnamaraju died as he committed suicide. No police case was registered against the 1st plaintiff. He informed to the counsel the dispute between 1st plaintiff and deceased 2nd plaintiff for amount. Munganda is a big village. He never visited the house of plaintiffs, but I know his house, there are houses surrounding the house of 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 denied suggestion that his evidence that D.1 killed D.2 is false. D.W.1 denied suggestion that that though Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will Ex.A 5 we are taking false pleadings that will was created. 3rd defendant is his son. Along with me D.3 also contesting the suit. D.4 purchased some property from Srinivasa Rao.

D.4 died. After he was exparte in this suit he died. We did not refer regarding the land purchased by D.4 in written statement. I did not file the will dated 04.07.1998 before the Court. It is not true to suggest that in view of Ex.A.5 will plaintiffs are entitled 'A' schedule property and half share out of plaint 'B'

92

schedule property. D.W.1 denied suggestion that he is deposing false evidence.

In further chief examination through D.W.1 Ex.B16 is Proceedings of

Revenue Divisional of Joint Collector in Dis No. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema

District, Amalapuram as per orders in I.A.No.546 0f 2024 dated 26-11-2024.

During further Cross-examination by Sri. N.V.S. Advocate on behalf of plaintiffs: he does not remember the R.S. Nos mentioned in the Ex.B16.

Ex.B16 proceedings an extent of Ac 2-21 cents of the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 288 of 2014. Ex.B16 is no way concerned to the O.S. No. 248 of 2011 plaint schedule property. He do not know Joint Collector issue a notice to the Suda Ganapathi for cancellation of pattadhar Passbook under Ex.B16.

He filed the suit before the court against Suda Ganapathi O.S. No. 2 of 2019 for cancellation of sale deed. It is true that basing on the O.S No. 2 of 2019 filed against Suda Ganapathi, Revenue Appeal was preferred under Ex.B16.

He did not mentioned the name of Suda Ganapathi in Appeal before the Joint

Collector in Ex.B16 petition. After passed the Orders by the Tahsildar

Allavaram then I questioned the Tahsildar Subba Rao about issuing the

Pattadhar passbook in favour of Pw1 after transfer of the then Tahsildar of

Allavaram. Subba Rao Tahsildar recommended to R.D.O to cancel the

Pattadhar Passbook issued by the Baby Jnanamba the then Tahsildar of

Allavaram in favour of P.W.1. he has no document in my favour an extent single cent relating to the property under Ex.B16. Vakkala is not correct,

Rokkala Durga issued a General Power of attorney in favour me. In the Power of attorney given by the Rokkala Durga in favour of me to look after the

Revenue proceedings before the R.D.O. He participated in the Revenue proceedings before the Joint Collector basing on the G.P.A. in favour of me executed by the Rokkala Durga. In the all revenue proceedings he put my signature as a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of Rokkala Durga. He produced the General Power of Attorney in the Revenue Proceedings at Joint

Collector Amalapuram and M.R.O. Allavaram.He filed the G.P.A in the present

93

suit. Rokkala Durga is alive. She is resident of Komaragiripatnam. Rokkala

Durga is not accompanied with him to the Revenue Court at any time. In the year 2012 Pattadhar passbook was issued in favour of P.W.1. He saw the photostat copy of Revenue pattadhar passbook of P.W.1. Rokkala Durga is executed General Power of Attorney in favour me for all purpose not for specific purpose. Ex.B16 schedule property is in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi w/o Kondala Rao. Original Sale deed dated 26-02-1992 of Rokkala

Satyavathi is in the custody of P.W.1. plaintiffs 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in favour of Suda Ganapathi of Ex.B15. Rokkala Durga is aged about 35 years.

She is having two children. One male and one female. Rokkala Srinivasa Rao is the husband of Durga. Rokkala Srinivasa Rao is no more, he was died in the year 2005. Rokkala Durga is not having issues through the Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao. Ullintha Krishna Murthy is the 2nd husband of Rokkala Durga.

he does not know Rokkala Durga gave a birth to the two children of through her 2nd husband. Rokkala Durga is not willing to come to the Court to depose as a witness. He did not inform to the Rokkala Durga about the Civil Court litigation, Revenue Court proceedings and pending of cases before the Court.

From the date of proceedings of R.D.O Court and Tahsildar Allavaram Durga is the wife of Ullintha Subba Rao. In the year 2008 Ullintha Durga executed a

Power of attorney in favour of me after the death of her 1st husband. Ullintha

Durga is having brothers and sisters. Present surname of Durga is Ulilntha after she married the Subba Rao. Ullinga durga is not executed power of attorney in favour of me after changed her surname from Rokkala to Ullinga.

On the date of filing of the suits Rokkala Srinivasa Rao was no more. No

General Power of attorney taken by me from the Rokkala Durga @ Ullintha

Durga. He have not filed the permission petition before the R.D.O. Court as power of attorney holder to look-after the R.D.O. court proceedings on behalf of Rokkala Durga. He has not filed the petition before the court and Rule 32

Civil Rules of Practice permission to proceed in the cases on behalf of

Rokkala Durga as a power of attorney holder. He has no documentary

94

evidence to show property covered under Ex.B16 convey to the Rokkala

Durga. He did not inform to the Joint Collector through my counsel Rokkala

Durga her surname was changed as ullintha Durga after she married the 2nd husband, after death of 1st husband. D.W.1 admitted that R.D.O Amalapuram dismissed the Appeal on orders of Tahsildar of Allavaram. D.W.1 admitted that after enquiry by the R.D.O then said appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. He filed the Revision before the Joint collector on dismissal of

R.D.O Appeal. He filed the writ petition No. 10657 of 2022 before the Hon'ble

High Court of A.P. Said writ petition was allowed in favour of him. He gone through the order in the writ petition 10657 of 2022. he know that Hon'ble High

Court gave a direction to dispose of the revision after Issued the notice to all effected parties. Sudha Ganapathi is also one of the effected party because he purchased the under Ex.B16. Joint collector did not issue the notice in the revision petition to the Suda Ganapathi. Suda Ganapathi name is not in the proceedings of Joint Collector under Ex.B16. P.W.1 not purchased the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 248 of 2011 for that he preferred the Appeal

before the R.D.O Amalapuram for cancellation of pattadha passbook in favour

of P.W.1. he made a application to the Tahsildar Allavaram issued the pattadhae passbook in my favour. He did not produce the document to show my right over the plaint schedule property in O.S. No, 248 of 2011. No pattadhar passbook was issued in the name of Rokkala Durga because He is having power of attorney from the Rokkala Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggesion that Ex.B16 proceedings is not valid because of said proceedings issued.

D.W.1 admitted in his individual name. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not prefer the revision as G.P.A. on behalf of Rokkala or Ullintha Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggesttion that he is not the real owner over the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 248 of 2011.D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Rokkala

Durga or Ullintha Durga is not the real owner of plaint schedule property OS 248 of 2011. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he along with Rokkala Ullinka

Durga is not having right over the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 denied a

95

suggestion that P.W.1 and Suda Ganapathi are the real owners, they are having the right over the plaint schedule property. He does not know the

Katha number of pattadhar passbook issued in the name of P.W.1. He can read in Telugu language. Ex.B15 containing the Katha number 923945 relating to Ex.B16 property was delivered to the Suda Ganapathi. D.W.1 admitted that as per Ex.b16 proceedings Joint Collector Amalapuram issued a direction for cancellation of Pattadhar passbook of P.W.1, at R.D.O. office cancellation not made which is still pending at R.D.O for cancellation of pattadhar passbook of

P.W.1. As per Ex.B16 R.D.O not cancelled the pattadhar passbook of P.W.1. it is not shows R.D.O cancel the pattadhar passbook of Ex.B16. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B16 basing on that he is deposing before the court he is in a possession and title in favour of him of Ex.B16 schedule property. D.W.1 admitted that Ex.B16 proceedings not implemented till now it is pending

R.D.O. Amalapuram.

D.W.2 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.2. Chief affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.2. D.W.2, deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.2. In common suits after clubbed two suits in O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.2 deposed in his evidence he is one of boundary holder of plaint schedule property. D.W.1 is brother of Satyavathi. When they are in Bombay and having business Vemala Rao stayed there with them to help in the business.

When they got purchased the properties at Yentrukona they asked Vemala

Rao to see the property. Then returned to his house and developed the property of them and purchased additional properties with the help of Vemala

Rao. Vemala Rao used to purchases properties in the village through his sister and her husband/ The entire property is in the possession and enjoyment of Vemala Rao. Since long time. Kondala Rao is having four children i.e. santosha Lakhimi, Srinivasa Rao, Krisham Raju and

Bhagalakshmi. After the marriage of srinivasa Rao came down Yentukona to see the properties.

96

My age is 65 years. He is doing cultivation. He is having Ac.0-50 cents of dry land and Ac.0-50 cents of wet land at Yentrikona. He has three daughters and one son. three daughters got married and his son is doing cultivation along with him. The property is self acquired property of his father.

D.W.2 and his brother partitioned the property of his father. He does not know his survey number. Due to his old age his remembrance was shorten. He is spending most of his time at his house and cattle due to old age. D.W.2 son is looking after the cultivation. While preparing his chief examination the counsel inquired him. D.W.1 was present while his chief examination was prepared.

He did not ask the D.W.1 from how long back the suit is pending. So also he did not enquire about the parties. he does not know in which suit he is giving evidence out of the three suits.

The boundaries of his wet land East: Pulasiganti Mangamma, West

Peyyala Satyanarayana, South Kummarlamanyam, North Pasarala

Sayanarayana. The boundries of his dry land and wet land and same. D.W.2 wet land and dry land abetting each. He did not enquire about the survey number of the suit schedule property D.W.2 land is situated on the boundary of land purchased by Suda Ganapathi. D.W.2 admitted that his land is one

of the boundary of the property purchased by Suda Danapathi sale deed

dated 08-08-2014. The land covered under sale deed dated 08-08-2014 is

Ac.01-12 cents. The boundaries of the property covered under the sale

deed dated. 08-08-2014 East: Vithanala Srinivasarao, West and North:

Vithanala Baby and Vithanala Krishnadasu, South: Irrigation canal. It is

not true to suggest that am not having any land on any boundary how

the property purchased by Suda Ganapathi. He did not state to the counsel except his land is situated on the boundary of land of Suda Ganapathi D.W.1 and Satyavathi are brother and sister. D.W.1 has another sister who is no more he does not know the name of other sister it might be Mangadevi. He did not state to the counsel the relation between Satyavathi and Vemalarao.

97

He did not state to the counsel that Satyavathi were at Bombay and they purchased the property.

He came to the court to give evidence pertains to the own

properties of D.W.1 but not the properties of Satyavathi. D.W.1 is his

distant relative. He does not know the age of D.W.1. From the date of

filing of suits to till giving my chief affidavit, D.W.1 never informed about

the suit affairs. D.W.1 informed him one week prior to preparation of his

chief examination to give evidence. He does not remember when his

chief affidavit was prepared but he has signed on his chief examination

at Yentrikona. D.W.2 denied a suggestion that he does not know anything about the suit affairs and at the behest of D.W.1 and he is deposing false evidence. D2 to D4 adopted cross examination of D1.

D.W.3 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.3. Cheif affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.3. D.W.3 deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.3. D.W.2 and D.W.3 deposed same evidence with out deviation. That is argued by the plaintiffs counsel.

During Cross examination of D.W.3 confronted by the Plaintiffs counsel that D.W.1 name is Satyanarayana only. he has no other name. He is doing cultivation on his own and lease. D.W.3 land is an ancestral land. They are 5 brothers, except one all are alive. D.W.3 brothers partitioned properties and one acre fallen to his share. D.W.3 land is situated at Rellugadda. D.W.3 properties are situated at Rellugadda. He is approximately 60 years. He does not know English. The 1st defendant instructed the counsel to prepare his chief affidavit and on his instructions his chief affidavit prepared and he signed on it. The contents of his chief affidavit are not read over to him. he does not know the contents of his chief examination.

He has no relation with D.W.1. he used to attend for coolie work under

D.W.1. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he is working under D.W.1 he came to Court today. He does not know the extent of the disputed property. He

98

does not know the names of plaintiffs and defendants in this suit. He does not know the reason for filing of this suit. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that though he is not aware about this case facts, at the behest of the D.1, he came to the Court. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not own any lands and he is only eking livelihood and doing coolie work under D.W.1. He did not state to the counsel that he has own one acre land and he has own one acre on lease.

D.W.3 denied a suggestion that the contents of his chief examination is false.

D5 adopted cross examination of plaintiffs.

D.W.4 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.4. Chief affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.4. D.W.4 deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.4. D.W.2 t0 D.W.4 deposed same evidence with out deviation. That is argued by the plaintiffs counsel.

During cross examination of plaintiff counsel confronted that argued that D.W.4 age is 52. D.W.4 is Chandrarao. One Nakka Satyanarayana Son

of Venkanna is his village. He did not bring my aaddar card today. He

residence is Ventrikona. He is an illiterate. he does not own any lands

and he is living by coolie work, he is having 3 daughters, already

married. Presently he residing as wife is no more. D.W.4 parents are

also no more. He did not give any instructions to his counsel while

giving my chief examination. He is a farm servant of D.W1. D.W1 got

typed my chief examination in the presence of his counsel thereupon he

signed on his chief examination. He was informed that to subscribe his

signature on chief examination stating that nothing was wrong it. He

does not know the contents in his chief examination. D.W.4 denied a

suggestion that by taking money he is deposing false evidence.

Deputy Tahsildar examined as D.W.5. He deposed that on the date of evidence Tashildar allavarm to give evidence. He brought the true copies of enquiry report dated 24-11-2014 EX,B12 is true copy of the enquiry report,

dated 24-11-2014 marked subject to objection.Ex.B13 is true copy of the

99

enquiry report dated 25-01-2020.Ex.B14 is the letter address by Tahsildar to the District Collector dated 03-08-2017 marked subject to objection.

D.W.5 admitted that he has no personal knowledge except evidence on record. P.Subbarao the Tahsildar is retried from service. he does not know on what basis the P.Subbarao Tahsildar recommended, the Revenue Divisional

Officer to the cancel the pattadar pass book, issued in the name of 1st

Plaintiff Venkataramaraju. He did not submit the notice dated 26-08-2014 and 01-10-2014 said to have been issued to the Venkataramaraju referred in Ex

B12. D.W.5 admitted that the then Tahsildar who conducted enquiry issued did not enclose the notices dated 26-08-2014 and 1-10-2014 to the report under Ex.B12.D.W.5 admitted that that the copy of title deed appended to

Ex.B12 it is referred in column No. 12 that a suit O.S.No.74 of 2005 is pending

It is true that in copy of the title deed book appended to Ex.B12 in column No.

5 the nature of the acquisition is court order. D.W.1 did not submit any document before the Revenue Authorities that O.S.No.74 of 2005 is dismissed or any cancellation of court order.A stranger to the property can file any petition to cancel the mutation of the property. There is no reference regarding the relationship between 1st defendant and D.W.1 in the documents. The then

Tahsildar did not issue any notice to 1st defendant Gollinka Durga that D.W.1 filed an application on her behalf to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Venkataramaraju. As per record there is no authorization letter by 1st defendant Gollinka Durga to act D.W.1 on her behalf. He do not know whetherthe General Power of Attorney or Medical record submitted by the

D.W.1 at the time of filing application. He did not submit to the court the

General Power of Attorney or Medical record of Ist defendant. Except Ex.B12,

Ex.B13 and B14 I did not go through the other record. He did not possess any document that any action taken against reports given by Subbarao under

Ex.B12. He does not know the D.W.1 filed appeal before Joint Collector against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., refusal of cancellation of pattadar pass books in the name of Venktaramaraju and the

100

same is pending. It is not true to suggest that the then Tahsildar Sri S.Apparao gave a wrong finding and submitted a report hence basing on the report of Sri

S.Apparao Tahsildar the pattadar pass books were canceled. The pattadar pass books issued in the name of Venkata Rama Raju or in force during the pendency of matter before Joint Collector. As per Ex.B14 the then Tahsildar addressed a letter to District Collector that there was an objection for issuance of possession certificate since suits are pending the application filed by D.W.1.

He know the difference boundary and elders. D.W.1 admitted that under

Ex.B13 the then Tahsildar addressed a letter to the District Collector that they addressed a letter to the Assistant Government Pleader to know the stage or status of the suits pending before court relating to the disputed property.

Statements recorded in the statement appended to Ex.B14 are the mediators but not boundary owners. He does not know whether any notices issued to the persons whose statements were recorded. He does not know how the then

Tahsildar identified the 6 persons as mediators. Witness adds that generally while going to enquiry we called the people presented the location. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there is no reference of survey number or boundaries in the statement. He does not know whether any notice issued to the 1st defendant G.Durga at the time of conducting enquiry. He does not know whether the G.Durga is in the village or left the village. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that generally the statements shall be recorded separately. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that as per Ex.B14 it appears all the elders given a single statement. There is no reference in the statement that the persons who were given the statements are the neighboring ryots. The statement was recorded by R.I. There is no mention in the statement that it was recorded by R.I. As per rule the R.I. should record the statement. Village Revenue Officer has no authority to record statement. As per the statement it was recorded by Village

Revenue Officer., D.W.1 denied a suggestion that D.W,1 influence the Village

Revenue Officer and R.I by showing some people as elders, as the statement was not recorded by authorized person there is no legal sanctity. There is no

101

seal or stamp beneath the signatures of Village Revenue Officer., on statement. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the documents. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that D.W.1 managed the local revenue people and obtained Exs.B12 and B13. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is deposing false. D5 adopted cross examination by y D5 adopted the cross examination of plaintiffs.

During cross examination of D.W.5 admitted suggestion that then

Tahsildar, Amalapuram Baby Gyanambas suspended from service with an allegation that she has Issued a pattadar pass book to a fake person in respect of other property he has no idea the period the then Tahsildar

Gyanambha worked at Amalapuram. D.W.5 and Gyanambha have worked at

Gannavaram together by then she was Tahsildal and she is Junior Assistant.

The Gyanambha suspended just before her retirement. He has no idea the

Gyanambha was retired from service after suspension. The Gyanambha is in service more than 30 years. he has no personal knowledge about the activities of Gyanambha relating her suspension But he came to know through others. D.W.5 being a public servants Tahsildar should sign on the report after thorough verification. It is true that the government employee will be retired while there were in service. The file relating to Gyanambha is in pending. It is not true to suggest that about the activities done by Gyanambha.

A criminal case was filed regarding the issuance of pattadar pass books to some other persons relating to some other property the Gyanambha was arrested and she was suspended from service because she was in jail more than 48 hours. D5 adopted cross examination of plaintiffs.

D.W.6 chief affidavit filed. D.W.6 is third party to the suit. He know the deponent her house is near to the land of sape vemala Rao and his sistr since 20 years is cultivating the land having position and enjoyment several time. The revenue officers came and made enquiring asking about the poition and enjoyment of vemala Rao on 02-08-2017 the revenue inspector and V.R.o was present and collect of the village. the elders peyyala ventata Reddy

102

Nakka ventadeshuly pulapakura sinivasa Rao and bonthi cinna and penumala satyanarayan and others and recorded the statement of them. Who deposed that the land is position and enjoyment of Vemala Rao the same was recorded by them read over to them and obtained their signature. Chief affidavit confronted by the defendants 2 to 4 counsel then treated as chief examination of D.W.6.

During cross examination by the plaintiffs counsel confronted that My age is between 54 and 55. D.W.6 husband did coolie work. She has one daughter and one son. D.W.6 son is mason. D.W.6 son is unmarried.

Daughter is married. She is residing at Siripalli. she used to attend coolie work. she has Ac.0-40 cents of landed property adjacent to the land of

Vemalarao intervening a channel. There is a document to show that she own

Ac.0-40 cents of land but she did not produce the said document today she cannot say the cardinal points of his land but on one side Molleti Anandarao topu, and one side canal is situated.. One another side one person called as

Ramabhadra Rao land is situated. The Ac.0-40 cents land is in his name.

D.W.6 father gifted the said land to him. D.W.6 father gifted the same to me by virtue of a document but it is not registered. No revenue records were issued in my name in respect of Ac.0-40 cents of land he does not know his name is mutated in revenue records in respect of Ac.0-40 cents of land. she does not know in which year his father gifted Ac.0-40 cents of land but it is a about 20 years ago. he does not know when his father died he has no talking terms with his brothers but they are alive. She is a marks woman. she never acted as a elder in the village. There are elderly people in my village but she cannot say their names. She does not know who filed the suit or the reason for filing of the suit so also against whom the suit is filed. she does not know the properties shown in the suit schedule property. She got acquaintance with

D.W.1 Vemalarao since my childhood. He is holder than me. There are amicable relations between D.W.1 and ourselves. There is no need to know the personal affairs of D.W.1 to me so also D.W.1 has no necessity to know

103

my personal affairs. She cannot say in which the revenue people came to my village but they came to village about 13 to 14 years ago. The Village

Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, Superintendent inquired in the village. They came to the village approximately about 20 times. The revenue authorities did not record my statement. She did not show his land records to the revenue people.

Witness voluntaries that the said AC.0-40 cents is in the name of her fathers so far. D.W.6 and my brothers have to partition the land of my father and she does do not know whether they give a any share to me. The land of my father now in the possession of my brothers Since she is an illiterate she cannot say the date the revenue people came to the village. She did not inform to the counsel the date the revenue people arrived to the village. she does not know the names of revenue Inspector. Village Revenue Officer who came to the village. About 14 years back she informed to the counsel that the revenue people came to the village and enquired. She did not state the names of the elders to the counsel. She has not seen the document stands in the name of the Vemalarao in respect of Ac. 2-00 referred in my chief examination. The 1st defendant Rokkala Durga hand over the AC.2-00 of land to D.W.1. Vemalarao she does not know whether any document was executed by Rokkala Durga in favour of D.W.1. Witness adds that but one time she reduced some documents in the name of D.W.1 but she does not know the nature of the document. 1st defendant Rokkala Durga hand over the

Ac. 2-00 of land about 14 or 15 years ago i.e., after Village Revenue Officer made enquiry in the village. She cannot say the period of possession by 1st defendant in respect of Ac. 2-00 of land. She does not know the survey number of the Ac. 2-00 of land. One Vithanala Baby land is situated one side of Ac.2-00 one Krishna Prasad, canal is another side and she does not know the other neighboring land owner name. The Ac.2-00 of land is in two bits. The two bits in an extent of Ac.1-12 and Ac.1-09 .The above two bits is not adjacent to each other or not contiguous. chief affidavit was read over to me.

104

He put my thumb mark in the chief affidavit about 5 or 6 months ago. He did not state to the counsel that the revenue authorities recorded his statement and she subscribed my signature. The Ac.2-00 is a coconut tope he do not know the number of coconuts trees in the Ac.2-00 of land. D.W.1 Vemalarao own some properties in Yentrikona. The lands of Vemalarao are situated far away to the land Ac.0-40 cents which he claiming right. He did not make any enquiry regarding own properties of Sape Vemalarao. It is not true to suggest that he did not own Ac.0-40 cents of land and he never been possession of the said Ac.0-40 cents of land and my evidence that he own and possession

Ac.0-40 cents of land is not correct. she does not know the door number of my house. D.W.6 house is daba house which is in my name situated in Yentrikona

Panchayat. He did not state his counsel that he is cultivating Ac.0-40 cents of land. He did not state to the counsel that the land which is cultivating by

Sape Vemalarao is near to his house. The revenue people came to my house at the time of enquiry. Witness adds that the revenue people came to his house thrice but in the three times, he is not available in the house. The revenue people came to the village about 14 years ago and again visited about one year ago. The revenue people enquired me about 14 years ago so also about one year ago. D.W.1 informed me about 4 or 5 months ago to give evidence. She did not visit the house of the counsel regarding this suit.

Witness voluntaries he engaged the same counsel earlier in respect of the wall dispute about 10 years ago. He did not question the revenue authorities why they are making enquiry. Witness adds that they enquired about the possession of Ac.2-00 of land.

According to me Vemala Rao having right and title over the property. It is not true to suggest that my evidence that Rokkala Durga hand over to the

Ac. 2-00 to D.W.1 Vemala Rao and the same is in possession of Vemala Rao and the revenue people recorded my statement are all incorrect. There might be a dispute regarding Ac. 2-00 of land pending before the court but she do not know the dispute between whom. informed to D.W.1 what happened in

105

the presence of revenue authorities he informed the same to counsel and he prepared my chief examination. It is not true to suggest that though he is not known any suit affairs he is deposing false evidence at the behest of D.W.1.

D.W.7 chief affidavit filed. D.W.7 is third party to the suit. He know the deponent her house is near to the land of sape vemala Rao and his sistr since 20 years is cultivating the land having position and enjoyment several time. The revenue officers came and made enquiring asking about the poition and enjoyment of vemala Rao on 02-08-2017 the revenue inspector and V.R.o was present and collect of the village. the elders peyyala ventata Reddy, nakka ventadesulu, pulapakura sinivasa Rao, Bonthi Cinna and penumala satyanarayana and others and recorded the statement of them. Who deposed that the land is position and enjoyment of Vemala Rao the same was recorded by them read over to them and obtained their signature. Chief affidavit confronted by the defendants 2 to 4 counsel then treated as chief examination of D.W.7.D.W.6 and D.W.7 and deposed in their chief examination affidavits with out deviation.

During the cross examination of D.W.7 the learned plaintiff counsel confronted that D.W.1 Vemala Rao belongs to same caste. D.W.7 is resident of Sapevaripeta of Allavaram. Allavaram and Yentrikona are different panchayat. D.W.7 father is no more about 22 years back by then D.W.7 was aged approximately 25 years. They are four brothers. All of my brothers are coolies work including me. D.W.7 brothers were residing separately and all married. All brothers of D.W.7 are residing at Allavaram. The road situated between Allavaram to Yentrikona leads from east to west. D.W.7 has no landed properties at Allavaram except house sites. He is own AC.0-03 cents of land which was allotted by Government. Abetting to the Road on the southern side the coconut tope Rayudu Ramayya is situated. He constructed house about 10 years ago, prior to that all of them used to reside in one house at Allavaram. After issuance of pattas all his brothers are residing separately. On the two sides of his house houses, one one side road and one

106

Guthula Mallayya is situated. The lands of Vithanala people, Guthula people,

Rayudu people are situated near to his house.

D.W.7 know the contents of my chief examination but He does not know who prepared the same. D.W.7 know the counsel. D.W.7 never visited the house of counsel for the defendant enquired me in the court premises about the enquiry made by the revenue people. The counsel for the defendant had written the statement with his hand writing on a paper and I subscribed my signature on the same. D.W.7 signed on a printed paper prepared by the counsel. D.W.1 introduced me to the counsel and D.W.7 narrated that revenue people visited the village. Mandal Revenue Officer, Village Revenue

Officer, Superintendent present about 4 years ago. By them D.W.7 was pealing the coconuts the revenue people came to the house of Vithanala

Srinivasa Rao which is abetting to the coconut garden. The Mandal Revenue

Officer came to the house of Vithanala Srinivasa Rao along with his office subordinates and they have seen the coconut tope which was shown by DW1 an extent of Ac.1-12 and Ac.1-09 cents. The AC.1-12 and AC.1-09 are not contiguous plots. AC.1-12 cents again divided into two bits. The boundaries of

AC.1-12 cents are Vithanala Krishnamraju, Vithanala Srinivasa Rao,canal and land of Vithanala people. The boundaries of AC.1-09 cents are Guthula

Ramasetti, Vithanala Prasad, and D.W.7 does not know the name of the persons. D.W.1 owns some landed property at Yentrikona some times he also attended for work at the lands of D.W.1. The Ac.2-00 of land referred in my chief examination at a visible distance to his house but he cannot say the exact distance. The revenue authorities came to his house three times. The

Revenue people visited the village about 4 years ago and again visited about 2 years ago.Though they are visited the village subsequently he was not available in the village. Neither D.W.7 nor Vithanala Srinivasa Rao questioned the revenue people whey the Revenue came to the village. Witness adds that they, informed the purpose for their arrival. The revenue people did not record his statement. The revenue Inspector did not inspect the village. The Village

107

Revenue Officer of Yentrikona the name not known has attended. There are elderly people in the village Allavaram and Yentrikona. I am not an elder one in the village. D.W.7 did not inform the date 02-08-2017 to the counsel. On 02- 08-2017, Village Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer were present in the village. informed to the counsel that Village Revenue Officer, Mandal

Revenue Officer, Superintendent attended but D.W.7 do not know whether it is mentioned in my chief examination D.W.7 do not know the survey number of the disputed property along with me 5 or 6 other persons by name Bonthu

Nagababu, Yalla Varaprasad of Samanthkuru, Pecheti Laxmana Rao were also present in the tope of Vithanala Srinivasa Rao when the revenue people came to the village.D.W.7 attended before Revenue authorities on that day as

D.W.7 was called revenue authorities. By then Revenue people do not know my name. When the revenue people came to the village 2nd time D.W.7 was working else where again D.W.7 was called by the revenue authorities and

D.W.7 alone appeared before revenue authorities. On enquiry D.W.7 informed to the Revenue people that the Ac. 2-00 of land belongs to DW1.

D.W.7 did not question the Revenue people why they are again asking me about ownership and possession of Ac. 2-00 of land when D.W.7 revealed 1st time.

D.W.7. know about the suit after 1st visit of revenue authorities. The 2nd plaintiff Krishnam Raju filed the suit D.W.7 does not know whether Krishnam

Raju alive and D.W.7. never seen him. D.W.7. has no lands bounded by the

Ac.2-00 of land. D.W.7.does not know the revenue authorities whether enquired the neighboring land owners or boundary land owners. D.W.7 admitted that there is a difference between village elders and neighboring/boundary land owners. Since D.W.7. was not present in the village by the time of 3rd visit by the revenue authorities D.W.1 does not know what happened on that day. On 02-08-2017 the revenue authorities called me and by that time D.W.7. alone examined. D.W.7. does not know whether any others were examined by the Revenue authorities on 02-08-2017. None were

108

examined in his presence by the Revenue authorities. D.W.7. understood the evidence mentioned in D.W.7. chief examination his age 47 years. D.W.7.

doing cultivation as D.W.7.did not own any land. D.W.7 asked him to give evidence about 5 months ago. In D.W.7. chief examination it is mentioned that

D.W.7.am resident of Allavaram. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that he did not have any house near the disputed property. since he has been attending coolie work in the lands of D. W.1 at the behest of D.W.1 and D.W.7. deposing false evidence I do not know the reason for the dispute. Originally the Ac.2-00 land belong to Rokkala Satyavathi and the title deed in the name of

Satyavathi. D.W.7. was not present at the time of sale transaction or at the time of registration of AC.2.00 of land. My elder brother is no more D.W.2 2nd brother age is 65 years, my brothers who are older than me are alive. D.W.7.

does not know whether it is mentioned in his chief examination in which village the AC 2.00 of land is situated. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that though his elders brothers are available and they refused to give false evidence, the

D.W.1 brought him to court by giving amount. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that on 02-08-2017 the revenue authorities visited the village and recorded his statement are all incorrect. D.W.7 does not know whether Vemalarao shown any document showing his possession. In his presence D.W.1 did not show any document to the revenue people. D.W.7 did not see the documents of

D.W.1. I came to know that AC.2-00 is in the possession of D.W1 through the hearsay of the villagers. It is not true to suggest that the contents of his chief examination false and he is giving false evidence by taking amount. D.W.7 cross examination in three suits of common

Third plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No. 17 of 2015 chief affidavit filed, he deposed same facts in his plaint. After confronted by the plaintiffs counsel chief affidavit then treated as chief examination of D.W.8.

During cross examination 2 to 4 counsel confronted that he purchased the plaint schedule property from 1st plaintiff. He enquired before purchase of plaint schedule property. He is not enquired about cases on the plaint

109

schedule property pending or not. Basing on the will he purchased plaint schedule property. He did not see the Ex.B2. He enquired both the sale prior to purchase of plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is a coconut garden. He verified my sale deed. As per my sale deed plaint schedule property is a wet land and zerioty wet land. he does not remember when he saw the passbook of plaintiff. He is not having knowledge about the documents. He is a retired R.T.C. employee. He does not know 1st plaintiff pattadhar passbook given to Allavaram Tahsildar. Witness says voluntarily pattadhar passbook not given to him case is pending before court. I does not now pattadhar passbook of 1st plaintiff was canceled by the District Collector

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. He does not know who issued the pattadhar passbook to the 1st plaintiff the then Tahsildar Allavaram he was suspended. He does not know the District Collector Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Konaseema District made a enquiry through four Tahsildar Then after plaint schedule property delivered to the D2. Plaint schedule property is in the possession of 1st plaintiff, he is flecking the coconuts till 2014 then after from the date fo purchase by me he flecking the coconuts. It is not true to suggest that my sale deed boundaries are not correct. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that plaint schedule property boundaries are wrong. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he did not goto the plaint schedule property. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he did not bear to go to the plaint schedule property. D.W.8 denied a suggestion he does not know plaint schedule property where is is situated.

D.W.8 denied a suggestion that hd demanded the son of 1st plaintiff. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he does not demanded the 1st plaintiff to deliver the property to him. witness says voluntarily plaintiff came to him. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that my sale deed was in collusion of 1st plaintiff basing on the will because of we are having rowdy elements. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that for grab the plaint schedule property he approached the 1st plaintiff and purchased the plaint schedule property under guise of him.

110

During the Cross-examination by plaintiffs counsel confronted that In the year 2014 he retired as supervisor in A.P.S.R.T.C. Amalpuram. I am residing at Konkapalil Amalapuram. Konkapalli and allavaram are joint villages. I did not see the 2nd defendant. Witness says voluntarily d2 1st time yesterday at the court premises. Weekly twice or thrice I used to goto the plaint schedule property. I do not know initially plaint schedule property is wet land. To my knowledge plaint schedule property is coconut garden. Plaint schedule property southern side is irrigation canal. Vittanala family in other three boundaries of plaint schedule property. After negotiations for purchase of the plaint schedule property then he entered into sale deed.

Plaint schedule property was delivered on the date of sale deed to me.

No one obstructed to me plaint schedule property is in a disputed property which is pending before the court. He made application to the revenue authorities for mutation of my name for issuing of revenue records. Pattadhar passbook was not issued in his name court case is pending. He came to know at the time plaint schedule property is pending before the court. Other properties are also mentioned in the will which is executed by Rokkala

Satyavathi. D.W.8 admitted that 1st plaintiff given to me photostat copy of will of Rokkala Satyavathi. There is no revenue tax to the coconut garden. He does not know personally the revenue records enquired either plaint schedule property or any other properties. The revenue authorities not issued a notice to me. D.W.8 admitted that the revenue authorities also not call for his objections to the plaint schedule property. He does not know about the revenue proceedings between the 1st plaintiff and D2. The beneficiaries under the will arrayed sign in my sale deed. He done my service in A.P.S.R.T.C. 38 years. He did not receive negative remarks in my service. D.W.8 admitted that he is a bona-fide purchaser in possession fo the property my sale deed has to be held valid.

111

‘A’ schedule filed by the above named Petitioner/Plaintiff :-

East Godavari District, Allavaram Mandal, Yentrukona Panchayati,

Allavaram Sub-Registry, Yentrukona Village, an extent of Ac.0-27 cents out of

Ac.0-33 cents Zeroyati Meraka covered by R.S.No.163/6 as bounded by – concerned by Document No.4.

East : The land of Guttala Ramisetty.

South : P.W.D. Irrigation Canal.

West : The land of Kandregula Satyanarayana and Ronthu Sattimma

North : The land of Sapey Tatayya with all easementary rights and fruit bearing trees.

‘B’ schedule filed by the above named Petitioner/Plaintiff :-

East Godavari District, Allavaram Mandal, Allavaram Sub-Registry,

Rellugedda Panchayati Area, Rellugedda Village.

Item No.1:-

An extent of Ac.0-50 cents, out of Ac.1-00 on Western side in

R.S.No.191/5B and an extent of Ac.0-50 out of Ac.1-44 cents on middle in

R.S.No.191/6 Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.1-00 cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.1.

East : The land of Chedalla Adilaxmi subsequently she told away to Rajulu

South : Drinage cannel Bodi

West : 2nd Item

North : The land of Datla Chandravati

Item No.2:-

An extent of full Ac.0-36 cents in R.S.No.191/5A and extent of Ac.0-29 cents out of full extent Ac.0-56 cents on eastern side in R.S.No.163/4 and an extent of Ac.00-29 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.00-58 cents on eastern side in

R.S.No.162/3. Total extent of Ac.00-94 ½ as bounded – concerned by

Document No.4.

East : 1st Item

South: The land of Chedalla Adilaxmi

112

West : The land of Datla Chandravati

North : The land of Nadimpalli Bangara Raju

Item No.3:-

An extent of Ac.00-29 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.00-89 cents on southern side in R.S.No.162/5A and

An extent of Ac.00-60 cents out of full extent Ac.00-85 cents on western side in R.S.No.162/5B Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.0-89 ½ cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Smt. Chedala Annapurna

South : Irrigation canal

West : Irrigation canal

North : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan

Item No.4:-

An extent of Ac.0-23 cents out of full extent Ac.00-46 cents in

R.S.No.191/1 and full extent of Ac.00-18 cents in R.S.No.191/3 and

An extent of Ac.00-12 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.0-44 cents on western side in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.00-53 ½ cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan and the land in R.S.No.191/2

South : The land in R.S.No.191/4B

West : The land of Sri Nadimpalli Bangaru Raju

North : Irrigation Canal

Item No.5:-

An extent of Ac.00-25 cents out of full extent Ac.00-44 cents on

Northernside in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati meraka as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Medicala Padma Raju

South : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan

West : the land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : Irrigation canal

113

Item No.6:-

An extent of Ac.00-25 cents out of full extent Ac.00-44 cents an southern side in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati pallam as bounded by –concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

South : The land of Smt. Chedala Annapurna

West : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

Item No.7:-

Full extent of Ac.00-19 cents in R.S.No.191/4B – concerned by

Document No.2.

Item No.8:-

An extent of Ac.00-42 cents out of full extent Ac.0-86 cents on eastern side, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.193/1B as bounded by – concerned by

Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Manepalli Nelabaludu and others

South : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

West : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

North : The land of Sri Verrinkala Padma Raju

Item No.9:-

An extent of Ac.00-37 cents out of full extent Ac.00-74 cents on westernside, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.193/1C as bounded by – concerned by Document No.3.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

South : Dirnage canal

West : The land of Smt. Nerlla Annapurna

North : The land of Sri Chedala Verra Venkata Satya Sivji

114

Item No.10:-

An extent of Ac.00-09 cents out of full extent Ac.00-36 cents on westernside, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.192/2 as bounded by – concerned by

Document No.3.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

South : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

West : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : The land of Smt. Thanneru Satyavathi

As per EX.A10 legal notice vacant 20-10-2008 issued by the Rokkala

Durga, Balla Sirnivasu, Sape Vemla Rao Arigela Satyanarayana as follows contents That No.1 of you is the wife of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and you are the sister-in-law of No.(2) and (3) of our clients. No.(2) of your is the father of

No.(1) of your and (3) and 4 of you are the tonants of Kombattula Santhosha lakshmi and out No.2 and 3 minor clients. The landed property of Santhosha

Lakshmi leased out by No.1 of our client to No.3 of you as per will, which was executed by Satyavathi in favour of No.2 and 3 of my clients.

The Item No.1 and No.A Notice schedule property absolutely belongs to

NO.2 and 3 our Minor clients and their elder sister Kombattula Santhosha

Lakshmi Item No.2 of notice schedule property is absolutely belongs to No.1 of your’s father in law Kondala Rao which are self acquired property of

Rokkala Kondala Rao under joint to Regd. Sale deed of him and his wife

Satyavathi and item No.3 of notice schedule property absolutely belongs to

Satyavathi which acquired by her under Joint Regd. Sale deed also, Item No.4 of notice schedule property is absolutely belongs to No.1 of your’s husband

Srinivasa Rao who purchased and extent of Ac.0-05 cents from No.3 of you and he constructed R.C.C. building there on and which is self acquired property of No.1 of your’s husband our clients has not title and right over the item No.4 of notice schedule property.

No.2 and 3 of our minor client’s mother Satyavathi executed a will dated 09-05-1997 in favour of them and their elder sister Santhosha Lakshmi and

115

appointed No.1 of your client as a guardian to manage the properties fo No.2 and 3 of our clients has to be attained majority. During the life time of

Satyavathi and Kondalarao, No.3 of you filed A.T.C.10 of 96 against them with false allegations, Subsequently at the intense of No.1 of our client,. No.3 of you compromise with Satyavathi and Kondala Rao and with draw your Petition

ATC.10/96 against them by way of filing a compromise memo before the

Honourable special officer, Amalapuram. In the year of 1996. Ever since No.1

of our client had been in possession and enjoyment of properties Satyavathi and Kondala Rao as a well-wisher of them. Item No.1 of a notice schedule property leased out by No.1 of our client to No.3 of you for yearly rentals of 20

Kata bags paddy of behalf of Santhosha Lakshmi as per will of Satyavathi and

Item No.1 of B notice schedule property leased out by NO.1 of our client to

NO.4 of your, for yearly rentals of 20 kata bags paddy of behalf of Santhosha lakshmi as per will of Satyavathi and Item No.1 of B notice schedule property leased out by NO.1 of our client to NO.4 of you, for yearly rentals of 16 kata bags of paddy on behalf of No.2 and 3 our clients. After demise of the testators Satyavathi and Kondala Rao in the month of January,1999. No.1 of our client leased out the same to you on the request of you and Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao No.1 of our client also leased out an extent of Ac.2-21 cents in

R.S.NO.147/4, 147/5, and 146/4 of Yentrukona village to the Sri Yellamilli

Venkata Ramana in the month January,2005. Since 1990 No.3 and 4 of you has been cultivating the item NO.1 B and A notice schedule properties as tenant respectively and you used to pay the yearly rentals regularly up to

January, 2002. The yearly rentals of Santhosha lakshmi received by No.1of our client from No.3 of you and he issued makkata receipt with regard and he used to pay the same to Santhosha lakshmi. There after No.3 and 4 of you and Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and Santhosha lakshmi colluded together and you committed default to pay the yearly rentals to No.1 of our client, even if a he made several demands but you did not pay anything and you have been postponing the same on one pretext or other and you are colluded together

116

with mala-fied intention, with a view to grab away the landed properties of no.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosah Lakshmi for which you instigated and reduced the Srinivasa Rao and influenced him and you fabricated and forged a un-regd. Will as which was executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao in favour of

Raokkala Srinivasa Rao and Santhosha lakshmi. The said Srinivasa Rao filed suit with the help of your fabricated and forged documents with false allegations against no.1 of our client and his tenant Yellamilli Venkataramana and others before the principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. The said

Rokkala Srinivasa Rao had been suffered incurable, communicable and contact disease and there is not possibility to recover from his ill health. On that knowledge no.1 of you left your matrimonial home and left your husband on his late without obliged as your duties as a Hindu wife, on that knowledge

No.3 and 4 oof your conspired together an you strongly presumed that, No.1 of your husband would be die within soon and you made fraudulent and per- preparations with a view to grab away the landed properties of No.2 and 3 of our clients, Santhosha Lakshmi and no.1 of you. For which you are making factious documents.

No.1 of your’s father-in-law Kondala Rao executed a registered. Will with regard to his properties in favour of No.1 of your’s husband and No.2 and 3 of our clients on 26-5-1998. As per will of Kondala Rao No.1 of your’s husband would be take and care of No.2 and 3 of our clients till they attained majority. Bur No.1 of your husband did not to do so and left them on their fate without love and affection towards. No.2 and 3 of our client as their brother

No.1 of your’s husband not only failed to looked after the care and custody of

No.2 and 3 of our clients but also he tried to grab away the properties of No.2 and 3 of our clients by filing a suit with false allegations and forged documents at the instigation of no.3 and 4 of you. Subsequently No.1 of your husband came to know that the evil acts and fraudulent intention of No.3 and 4 of you and the apprehended damages on your hands and you rest rained and detained No.1 of your’s husband in his house and obtained his signature on

117

empty papers and on non judicial stamps No.3 and 4 of you never allowed anybody to visit him and you physically and mentally harassed No.1 of your’s husband. Sub-sequently when Srinivasa Rao came to matrusri hospital

Amalapuram for a treatment at that time the Srinivasa Rao secretly informed the same, through telephone to no.1 of your client and requested him to protect the rights and interest of No.1 of you and no.2 and 3 of our clients and his sisters santhosa Lakshmi as we wisher of them, in the third week of

August, 2005 immediately our clients visited No.1 of your parents house and convinced the evil acts of No.3 and 4 of you. On that no.1 of you surprised immediately no.1 and 2 of and out clients you visited the house No.1 of your’s husband at least No.3 and 4 of you did not give curtacy and not allowed No.2 and 3 of our clients to see their brother i.e., no.1 of your’s husband and abused No.1 of our client, even if no.1 and 2 of you warrned. Only no.1 and 2 of you allowed to met Srinivasa Rao on 04-09-2005 No.1 of your’s husband died suddenly but all of you not informed the same to our clients and you criminated his dead-body by book (or) crock. There after four days our clients came to know the death of No.1 of your’s husband house at Yentrukona. But

No.3 and 4 of you not allowed them and miss behaved with out clients along with supporters and nocked out them, at that time out clients came to know through neighbours that No.3 and 4 of you instigated and threatened no.1 and 2 of you to colluded with them with a view to defraude no.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosha Lakshmi by offering illegal means and forcefully handed over

Item No.3 to 4 of notice scheduled property without manner of right and title.

Item No.2 of notice schedule property i.e. Joint family property No.1 of you took possession as per fraudulent compromise in between NO.1 of you and

No.3 of you. No.1 of you and No.2 and 3 our client has constructive possession as per will of Kondala Rao. On the account of No.3 and 4 of evil acts no.1 of our client suspected the sudden death of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and the sudden crimination of his dead-body immediately without informing to anybody.

118

Further no.1 of our client came to know that you are making hactic preparations to alienate the notice schedule properties by way of sale. By making false representation by suppressing true facts through No.1 of you with a view to get wrong full again without manner of right and title. For which you are trying to get local political leaders influence and you are trying to in bring the rights interests and title of no.2 and 3 of our minor clients and

Santhosha Lakshmi, who ever purchased the notice schedule property they did not get good title and right ever the said properties. The proposed vendor always stands on the shoes of vendor no.1 of out client that at liberty to publish the same through publication in daily newspaper to awake the proposed vendors. No.3 of you instigated Rokkala Kondala Rao and sold away the landed property of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.NO.163/6of Yentrukona village of No.2 and 3 of our minor clients which is bequeather our clients vendor will of Satyavathi No.3 of you received the sale consideration on behalf

Kondala Rao and committed misappropriation.

As per will of Satyavathi and will of Kondala Rao and relinquish affidavit which was executed by Santhosha Lakshmi on 25-11-1998. The Santhosha

Lakshmi has no manner of right and title to get same in Item No.1 A,B and

No.2 and 3 notice schedule properties. Even if said Santhosha Lakshmi relinquished her share. Our clients leased out Item No.1A notice schedule property to No.3 of you due to love and affection of towards her of she intend to sale her property she has no right, only No.1 of our client to sale the same on behalf of her and received the sale consideration and the same has to pay to her by No.1 of our client as per will of Satyavathi.

It is therefore you are here by called upon to not to colluded together with a view to defraud No.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosha Lakshmi and

No.`1 and 2 of you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and not to joined with your hands with No.3 and 4 of you and not to intend to committee to defraud No.2 and 3 of our

119

clients and Santhosha Lakshmi i.e. your sister-in-law and brother-in-law who are sister and brother of no.1 of your husband. No.1 of you allot partitioned the

Item No.2 notice schedule property into 3 equal sharer by mates and bounds and allot 1/3rd share each to no.2 and 3 of our clients and you have to pay past means profits to the no.2 and 3 of our clients towards their share as 6/9 after demises Kondala Rao No.3 of you to pay 60 khata bags of paddy towards yearly rentals to No.1 of our client and you vacate the item No.1 A notice schedule property and deliver No.1 of our clients possession. NO.4 of you to pay 48 khata bags of paddy No.1 of our client and vacate item No.1 B notice schedule property and deliver the same no.1 of our clients possession with past means profits with int one week form the date of receipt of this notice and no.3 and 4 of you not to committee defraud No.1 of you and not to try grab away the item No.4 of notice schedule property of No.12 of you and you have to pay 500/- towards costs of this notice. Falling which our clients will be constrained to seek redress through court fo law and they will took possession fo notice schedule properties and they will took possession of notice schedule properties and they will recover the arrears of yearly rentals and means profits through procedure of law and they will take all necessary civil and criminal actions against you and they will recover all costs incidental thereto.

NOTICE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

Item No.1A:- East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Yentrukona panchayati, Yentrukona village an extent of Ac.1-00cents out of full extent

Ac.1-11 cents covered by R.S.No.83/4 as bounded by

East : The land of Sri Vittanala Krishna murthi.

South : Chakaly manyam.

West : the land of Smt.Guthula Adilakshmi.

North : Pantabodi and Punta.

120

Item No.1B:-

East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Yentrukona panchayati,

Yentrukona village an extent of Ac.0-80cents out of full extent B4 cents covered by R.S.No.106/5 as bounded by:-

East : Kumara manyam .

South : Punta.

West : the land of Sri Kankipati Gopala swamy

North : the land of Sri N.Pullayya.

Item No.2:- East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Peliganda panchayati,

Relligadda village an extent of Ac.2-47 ½ cents covered by the following.R.S.Nos.

1. R.S.No.162/3, Ac.0-14 cents

2. R.S.No.162/4, Ac.0-14 ½ cents

3. R.S.No.162/5A, Ac.0-15 1/2cents

4. R.S.No.162/5B, Ac.0-30 cents

5. R.S.No.191/1, Ac.0-11 cents

6. R.S.No.191/2, Ac.0-05 cents

7. R.S.No.191/3, Ac.0-09 cents

8. R.S.No.191/4A, Ac.0-31 ½ cents

9. R.S.No.191/4B, Ac.0-09 cents

10. R.S.No.191/5A, Ac.0-18 cents

11. R.S.No.191/5B, Ac.0-25 cents

12. R.S.No.191/6, Ac.0-25 cents

13. R.S.No.193/1B, Ac.0-21 cents

14. R.S.No.193/1C, Ac.0-19 cents

Total : Ac.02-47 ½ cents

Item No.3:-

1. R.S.No.162/3, Ac.0-15 cents

121

2. R.S.No. 162/4, Ac.0-15 cents

3. R.S.No.162/5A, Ac.0-14 cents

4. R.S.No.162/5B, Ac.0-30 cents

5. R.S.No.191/1, Ac.0-12 cents

6. R.S.No.191/2, Ac.0-04 cents

7. R.S.No. 191/3, Ac.0-09 cents

8. R.S.No.91/4A, Ac.0-31cents

9. R.S.No.191/4B, Ac.0-10 cents

10. R.S.No.191/5A, Ac.0-18 cents

11. R.S.No.191/5B, Ac.0-25 cents

12. R.S.No.191/6, Ac.0-25 cents

13. R.S.No.193/1B, Ac.0-21 cents

14. R.S.No.193/1C, Ac.0-18 cents

Total Ac.2-47 cents

Item No.4

East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Allavaram panchayati, Allavaram village an extent of Ac.0-05 cents merka land covered by R.S.No.167/5

R.C.C. building there in bearing unnumbered dear

Initially Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju, who is the plaintiff number .01 issued legal notice dated 05-11-2005 to the Defendants:1 to 7 demanding the that in page number 04 as follows hereby called upon not to committee evil acts against our No.2 and 3 minor clients and not to try to doing transactions with regard to any properties of No.2 and 3 our clients and Srinivasa Rao &

Santosha Laxmi either by sale purchase among of you other. If any sale transaction is took place. With regard to above said properties No.1 of out client take necessary criminal actions. On behalf of No.2 and 3 out mionor clients under section 418, 420, 424 and 406 read with 34 and 109 Indian

Penal Code against all of you and other concerned person and scriber and at testors who ever liable for punishment under law either by give police report by filing criminal complaint before court of Hon’ble Magistrate, Amalapuram.

122

To the Ex.A13, Legal Notice issued by V.Rajeswara Rao and

N.Mallikarjuna Rao Advocates on behalf of Riokkala Durga w/o. Late Srinivasa

Rao, Residence of Komaragiripatnam Sri Sape Vemla Rao, S/o. Gangayya,

R/o. Yentrikona (v) and Sri Arigela Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkataratnam, R/o.

Yentrikona village

The material allegations in your notice isseued on behalf of your clients are all false an untrue

A Schedule is herewith filed. The schedule property is of 2 items. Items 1 of the Schedule property consists of (I)(I) R.S.No.147/4, Dry, Ac.00-58 cents.

(I) R.S.No.163/6, Dry, Ac.00-27 cents.

(I) R.S.No.146/4, Dry, Ac.01-09 cents (I) R.S.No.106/5, Dry, Ac.00-80 cents.

(I) R.S.No.147/5, Dry, Ac.00-54 cents.

And thus a Total extent of Ac.4.29 cents situated Yentrikona Village was purchased by one Rokkala Kondala Rao in the make of his wife Smt.Rokkala

Satyavathi under a Regd. Sale deed dated 26-02-1992 from (1) Vittanala

Narayana Murthy and his sons (2) Satyanarayana (3) Tata rao, (4) Lakshmana

Rao, (6) Krishna Prasad (7) Srinivasa Rao, (8) Prabhakara Rao, and (9) Naga

Siva Prasada Rao and the vendor dilivered the possession to Sri Kondala

Rao.

Item-II of the schedule property consists of (II) (I) R.S.NO.162/3, wet, Ac.00-29 cents.

(Ii) R.S.NO.162/4, wet, Ac.00-29 ½ cents.

(iii) R.S.NO.162/5A, wet, Ac.00-29 ½ cents.

(iv) R.S.NO.162/5B, wet, Ac.00-60 cents .(v) R.S.NO.191/1, wet, Ac.00-23 cents.

(vi) R.S.NO.191/2, wet, Ac.00-09 cents.

(vii) R.S.NO.191/3, wet, Ac.00-18 cents.

123

(viii) R.S.NO.191/4A, wet, Ac.00-62 ½ cents.

(ix) R.S.NO.191/4B, wet, Ac.00-19 cents.

(x) R.S.NO.191/5A, wet, Ac.00-36 cents.

(xi) R.S.NO.191/5B, wet, Ac.00-50 cents.

(xii) R.S.NO.191/6, wet, Ac.00-50 cents.

(xiii) R.S.NO.193/1B, wet, Ac.00.42 cents.

(xiv) R.S.NO.193/1C, wet, Ac.00-37 cents.

And thus total an extent of Ac.4-94 ½ cents of wet land of Rellaguda village was purchased by one Sri Rokkala Kondala Rao in his name and in the name of his wife jointly under Regd. Sale deed s and the vendors delivered the possession.

One Rokkala Satyavathio is the wife of Kondala Rao. One Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao and his sister by name Santhosha lakshmi are the children of

Kondaal rao and his family used to reside at Bombay and he did furniture in the name and style of “Kalpana Furniture Works”. The schedule reports are far face was increased by Kondala Rao was leased out to one Vemala Rao who is no other than the brother of Satyavathi and delivered possession. The said

Vemala Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the property as a tenant by paying rentals as agreed upon.

No.1 of your client originally is native of Munganada village of

Ambajipeta a Mandal and belongs to Settibalija Community. Originally No.1 of your client is a Motor mechanic and he sifted his residence to Bombay. No.1 of your client after some time while wondering on the streets joined as a

Supervisor in the company of Kondala Rao. No.1 of your client originally married (1) Mahendravathi who died leaving behind her two children by name (1) Master Syam Prasad and (2) Nagendra Prasad. After her death of his first wife No.1 of your client re-married one Rama Girija and begot two children by name Mahalakshmi and Maheswari. Thus No.1 of your client used to stay in

Shaheb Kalyan at Bombay. Later No.1 of your client made close acquitance with Kondala Rao’s family, No.1 of your client made illegal connections with

124

Satyavathi who is not other than the wife of Kondala Rao and begot one son and one daughter i.e., 2 and 3 of your notice. The said Kondala Rao had no knowledge of illegal contact of No.1 of you with his wife.

While the matters stood, the said Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-7-97 at

Bombay. After death of his wife the said Kondala Rao reached Yentrukona village along with family during the life time of Rokkala Kondala Rao, after demise of his wife, he executed a Registered will dated 26-5-1998. After execution of the Regd. Will no. of your client approached Kondala Rao and intimated that he begot 2 children one son and one daughter through his wife and demanded for return of the children. The said Kondala Rao after making enquiry, directed No.1 of your client to leave the place immediately along with the two children. As per the demand of No.1 of your client, left the place along with his two children to his native place Munganda. After wards the said

Kondala Rao changed his mind and executed an unregistered will dated 4-7- 98 bequeathing his properties to his son by name Srinivasa Rao and his daughter Santhosha Lakshmi in a sound and disposing state of mind the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed books to Sri

Kondala Rao. Later the said Kondala Rao shifter his residence form

Yentrukona to Bombay and died on 25-9-98 leaving behind his son Srinivasa

Rao and his daughter Santhosha Lakshmi as his legal heirs. During the life time of Kondala Rao sold away an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.No.163/6 dry land of Yentrukona village under a Regd. Sale deed and received the sale consideration and delivered possession. After the death of Kondala Rao, his son Srinivasa Rao and his sister Santhosha Lakshmi sifted the residence to

Yentrukona village. The said Srinivasa Rao performed the marriage of his sister Santhosha Lakshmi with the assistance of the said Vemala Rao. The said Vemala Rao handed over the schedule properties to said Srinivasa Rao,

S/o.Kondala Rao after become major and delivered possession/ The schedule property is alone in possession and enjoyment of the said Rokkala Srinivasa

Rao. The said Srinivasa Rao sold an extent of Ac.0.37 cents in R.S.No.193/1C

125

of Rellugadda village under a Regd. Sale deed and delivered possession. One

Smt.Rokkala Durga is the wife os Srinivasa Rao. The said Rokkala Srinivasa

Raodied on 4-9-2005 leaving behind his wife Smt.Durga as his sole legal heir.

The said Rokkala Durga is absolute owner of the Schedule property. The schedule property is the self acquired property of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The said Rokkla Kondala Rao executed an unregistered will dated 4-7-1998 in a sound and in a disposing state of mind and after he death his son had been in possession and enjoyment till his death and later on devolved on his wife

Durga.

The alleged allegations in your legal notice issued on behalf your client is not legal and valid and the alleged allegations that late Satyavathi executed an unregistered will dated 9-5-97 in favour of her eldest daughter Santhosha lakshmi and 2 and 3 your client and appointed No.1 of your client as guardian and No.2 and 3 of your client till attaining majority is all false and untrue. The alleged will dated 9-5-1997 said to have been executed by late Satyavathi is a fabricated and forged document. Late Satyavathi cannot acquire any right and title or interest in Schedule property as the properties are self acquired properties of Later Kondala Rao. The allegation that ATC 10/96 filed by

Vemala Rao ended in a compromise on the advise of No.1 of your client is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that No.1 of your client had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as a well wisher of

Satyavathi and Kondala Rao is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that

No.1 of you leased out an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.83/4 of Yentrukona village was leased out to said Vemla Rao on yearly rent of 20 bags of paddy on behalf of Santhosha Lakshmi and Ac.0.80 cents of in R.S.No.106/5 was leased out to Arigela Satyanarayana on yearly rent of 16 bags paddy on behalf of No.2 and 3 of your clients and your client leased out an extent of

Ac.2021 cents in R.S.No.147/4, 147/5 and 146/4 of Yentrukona village to Sri

Yellamilli Cenkataramana in moth of January, 2005 and accordingly our client had been in possession and enjoyment of Schedule property as tenant and

126

paid rents up to January, 2002 and later failed to pay the rentals and postponing one pretest or other and intended to grab the landed property of 2 and 3 of your client and Santhosha Lakshmi and instigated the said Srinivasa

Rao and influenced him and fabricated and forged unregistered will which was executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao and file the suits with the fabricated document is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that Durga, W/o.

Srinivasa Rao left the house without obliging her duties as a Hindu wife is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that out clients detained the said

Srinivasa Rao the husband of Durga and obtained his signature on empty paper and non judicial stamp is all false and untrue. That our clients have no need to intimate the ill-health of Kondala Rao and demise of Srinivasa Rao secretly intimated No.1 of your client is all false and untrue.

The alleged allegation that No.1 of your client visited the house of

Srinivasa Rao along with NO.3 and 4 of your clients and our clients misbehaved with your clients and along with supporters and necked out them is all false and untrue and they never turned out. The alleged allegation the

Santhosha Lakshmi executed a relinquish affidavit on 25-11-1998 and as such no manner of right and title in the schedule property and if she intended so

No.1 of your client has got right to sell the property on behalf of Santhosha

Lakshmi and sale consideration passed to him and the same has to pay to her is all false and untrue. Your clients are not entitled to get 1/3rd share and 6/9th share after demise of Kondala Rao and they are not entitled 60 bags of paddy as yearly rent and 48 bags of paddy of yearly rent to your client by No.4 of your notice and your clients have no right to direct our client to vacate the schedule property and delivered the same and also not entitled to mean profits as alleged in your notice.

Your clients 2 and 3 never acquire any right, title or interest in the schedule property as they are illegitimate children of late Satyavathi. Late

Kondala Rao executed a unregistered will dated 4-7-98 bequeathing his properties in sound and disposing state of mind. Your clients have no right to

127

claim any share in the properties. Your clients so chooses to file a suit, our clients will resist the same and your clients are liable to pay the costs incurred thereon. Please advise your client not to resort unnecessary litigation.

As per Exhibit B16, Legal notice issued by Sri Sape Vemala Rao S/o.

Gangayya, Yentrukona(v), Allavaram Mandal has filed Revision Petition u/sec.Act.1971 before the then Revision Authority and Joint Collector East

Godavari District against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority &

Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram in D.Did.H/1361/2016, Dated 15-09- 2017 regarding the cancellation of PPB and Title deed issued in favour of the respondent (Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju) for an extent of Ac.20-21 cents covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and sy.No.146/4 in Yentrukona Village of

Allavaram Mandal.

Report of the Tashildar, Allavaram:

1. An extent of Ac.02-21 cents is covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 of

Yentrukona Village of Allavaram mandal vested to Smt.Rokkala satyavathi vide sale deed No.3405/1992, dated 08-06-1992.

2. Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi was died in the year 1997 and her husband Sro

Rokkala Kondala Rao also died in the year 1998. After their death,. The said property vested to their son Sri Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and after the death of

Srinivasa Rao, the land is vested to his wife Smt.Rokkala Durga here ditarily.

3. Smt.Rokkala Durga executed a G.P.A. in favour of Sri sape Vemala Rao who is brother of her mother-in-law (Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi – Actual land owner) for an extent of Ac.2.21 cents covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 of Yentrukona (v) vide Regd.Doc.No.677/2008, Dated 13.10.2008.

4. The Respondent Sri Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju S/o. Soma Raju maintained living relation with Smt. Sokkala Satyavathi W/o. Konadala Rao and they gave birth two children namely M.Krishnam Raju and M.Bhagya Sri.

5. The Respondent filed O.S.NO.248 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge court, Amalapuram against the Appellant stated that hos two children

are the right full owners of the said land and he was the guardian of the said

128

property. Pending the Civil Suit, he obtained PPB and TDs in the name of his two children from the Tashildar, Allavaram basing on the Un Registered will which is executed by Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi to the said lands in the name of her minor children Krishnam Raju and Bhagya Sri and M.Venkara Rama Raju is to be the guardian in possession of the properties.

6. On that Sri Sape Vemala Rao has filed appeal before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Amalapuram requesting for cancellation of PPB and Tds issued in favour of Sri M.Venkara Rama Raju.

7. After, heard both parties, the Appeal Petition filed by Sri Sape Vemala Rao was rejected by the R.D.O, Amalapuram in the plea that the Appeal filed after expiry of the limitation period and also involved issues in Civil nature in this case.

8. At present the scheduled property is placed in Dispute Register in Webland

Portal.

9. At present the said property is under possession and enjoyment of the appellant Sri Sape Vemala Rao.

10. O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 are pending before the Hon’ble Senior civil Judge, Amalapuram between Sri

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and Sape Vemala Rao, Smt.Rokkala Dirga, etc. Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram:

Basing on the G.P.A. executed by Rokkala Durga, Sri Sape Vemala Rao was filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional

Officer, Amalapuram for cancellation of PPB and TD to the lands in

Sy.No.147/4 measuring Ac.00-58 cents, Sy.No.147/5 measuring Ac.00-54 cents, sy.No.147/5 measuring Ac.00-54 cents, and Sy.No.146/4 measuring

Ac.01-09 cents of Yentrukona Village of Allavaram Mandal issued in favour of

Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju S/o. Somaraju monor guardian to

Mattapat\rthi Krishnam Raju and Bhagya Sri and the Appellate Authority has passed orders issued vide D.Dis/H/136/2016, Dated 15-09-2017 that the

129

appeal petition is rejected as the petition filed after expiry of the limitation period i.e., 60 days and also involved issues in Civil nature in this case.

Sri Sape Vemala Rao field Revision Petition before the then Revision

Authority and Joint Collector,. Wast Godavari District, Kakinada on 09-10-2017 against the orders of the Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer,

Amalapuram.

The revision Petition is taken on file and issued notices to both parties to attend enquiry on 31-08-2019 and posted to 21-11-2020, 31-07-2021, 28- 08-2021, 26-03-2022.

In the meanwhile the Revision Petitioner has field W.P.10657 of 2022

before the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh to direct the district Collector

to dispose of the Revision Petition filed on 10-10-2017 for which the Hon’ble

High Court of AP has passes order that “considering the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 2nd respondent District Collector,

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 10-10-206, after issuing notice to all the effected parties, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Miscellaneous petitioner pending if any, shall stand closed.

Consequent on formation of new districts, Erstwhile East Godavari

District is bifurcated into four district in which Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseemsa

District to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

In obedience to the orders of the Hon’bel High Court the notices have been issued to both parties to attend hearing on 17.09.2022 and both parties attended and the respondent request time to file written arguments. The case is posted for hearing on 15.10.2022, 07.01.2023, 25.02.2023 and 18.03.2023 and both parties attend.

Revision Petitioner Sri Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya submitted written arguments as detailed below

1. Revision Petitioner stated that an extent of Ac.2.21 cents covered by

Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and Sy.no/146/4 is devoled to the appellant sister

130

Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi W/o. Konadal rao vide sale deed no.3405/1992,

Dt.08.06.1992.

2. Revision Petitioner (who is brother of Smt.R.Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao) got General Power of Attorney to the land Ac.2.21 cents, covered by

Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 in Yentrukona Viollage of Allavaram Mandal which is executed by Smt.Rokkala Durga W/o. Srinivasa Rao (who is daughter-in-law of Smt.R.Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao) vide Regd.Document

No.677/2008.

3.The Respondent (Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju) worked as servant under

Rokkala Kondala Rao at Ulhasanager, Mumbai, after the death of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi, The respondent created unregistered will and kidnap and the children Krishnam Raju and bhagya Sri and captured the entire property and also documents situated at Ulhasnagar.

4. The respondent filed a false cased against the Revision Petitioner in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 and O.S.No17 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Civil Court,

Amalapuram on the basis of illegal pass books issued by the Tashildar,

Allavaram (Smt.Baby Gnanamb). Then he filed petition before the R.D.O,

Amalapuram and the same was dismissed on 15-09-2017.

5. While the petition is pending, the Tahsildar, Allavaram made enquire and submitted a report on 24-11-2014 to the R.D.O, Amalapuram and the appellant authority did not consider the report and passed order on the appeal petition on 15-09-2017.

6. Finally, on the order fo the District Collector, E.G.District, the Tahsildar, allavaram (Sri.S.Appa Rao) made enquire and submitted report on 25.01.2020. All reports are in favour to the Appellant.

7. The Appellant prays that the Hon’ble court may be set a side the order of the R.D,O, Amalapuram and to cancel the PPB and TD issued in faovur of the

Respondent.

The respondent No.1 Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju Submitted written argument as follows.

131

1. The schedule property belongs to Rokkala Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao and she developed intimacy with MV Rama Raju and their by she gave birth to the children namely Krishnam Raju and Bhagyavathi. During the life time said

Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will date 09-05-1997 making the lands Ac.02- 21 cents in Sy.No.147/4,147/5,146/4 of Yentrukona Village of Allavaram

Mandal in the name fo their minor children and MV Rama Raju as guardian of the minors of possession and property. As per the will after the demise of

Satyavathi he obtained the PPB and TD in the name of MV Rama Raju.

2. In fact Rokkala Kondala Rao executed registered Will dated 26-05-1998 bequeathing to his eldest daughter Kombattula Santhoshi Lakshmi to an extent of Ac.01-00 cents covered in Sy.No.81/4 and remaining propertied divided equally between Rokkala Srinivasu and Rokkala Krishnam Raju and

Rokkala Bhagya Sri as per the provision of said Will and he filed O.S.No.248 of 2011 for partition and separate possession and also filed O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the Petitioner and not to court granted injunction against the petitioner S.Vemala Rao.

3. Tashildar, Allavaram has categorically submitted a report that the procedure contemplated for issue of PPB/TD was in accordance with rules and after proper verification of documents under rule 9 and 22 under ROR Act including the possession and enjoyment contemplated under ROR act and rules and no illegality was done by the registering authority in this case.

4.the Revenue divisional Officer after through enquiry the appeal filed by the petitioner u/sec.5(5) of the ROR act and Rule 21(1) before the authority which is barred by m limitation and rightly rejected the appeal filed by the Revision

Petitioner observing that the issue fo PPB./TD were issued to his children represented them as guardian is valid under law. Since the Revision Petitioner has no right to seek any relief of cancellation of PPB/TD in also lacks and barred by Limitation and dismissed the Revision.

5.The respondent finally submit that the present Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed confirming the orders of the

132

Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram in Ref.D.Dis.H/1361/2016, Dated 15- 09-2017 on the grounds that this Revision is also lacks and barred by limitation and dismissed the Revision.

Heard the arguments, upon perusing the written arguments other evidences produced by the petition and respondent the following findings are noticed.

1. The M.R.O, Allavaram issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed

NO.923945 on 20-08-2012 to Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Raju S/o. Somaraju basing on un-registered will executed by Rokkala Satyavathi dated 09-05- 1997 in which she stated that the minor sons of respondent No.1 are family members of Rokkala Satyavathi. Sri Rokkala Kondala Rao executed a

Regd.Will dated Dated 26-05-1998 in which he mentioned that the landed property in Yentrukona Village for Sy.No.83/4 measuring Ac.01-00 cents, in favour of his elder daughter Kombattula Sabthioshi and the remaining lands are equally shared to his sons Rokkala Srinivasa Rao, Rokkala Krishnam Raju and Rokkala Bhagya Sri after his life time for which time both are minors and appointed his elder son Rokkala Srinivasa Rao as mionor guardian and also specified that their shares should be handed over to the above monro children after attaining at the age of Major. The then Tashilsar has not taken into consideration the name of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao who is the son of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and deviate the condition of the Registered will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao.

2. As seen form the un-registered and Registered Will executed by

Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao who are the Original land owners declared that the sons and daughters of Rokkala Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and Rokkala Satyavathi and Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and it disclose that there is a Legal Heirs dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 The revision Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 have not disclose the fact that there is a dispute regarding family members of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and the respondent No.1

133

3. Smt.Rokkala Durga W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Daughter in Law of Rokkala

Satyavathi) executed General power of Attorney in favour of the Revision

Petitioner Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya to look after the land issues on her behalf subject cancellation of G.P.A. as and when required.

4. The O.S.No.248/2011 and O.S.No.2/2019 are pending before the Hon’ble

Senior Civil Judge Court, Amalapuram between Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Rama

Raju and Sape Vemala Rao, Smt. Rokkala Durga, etc.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, upon hearing the arguments and the evidence produced by the petitioner and respondents, I opined that there is no valid reasons in the arguments of the Revision

Petitioner to establish his right confirmation with regards to the subject Lands and I find that there is a legal Heirs dispute between the Revision Petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 obtained Pattadar Pass

Book though they know very well that there is a civil dispute pending in the court by misleading the Tahsildar.

As verified the records the Registered will executed by Rokkala Kondala

Rao, the landed property shared among their tow sons and one daughter but they Pattadar Pass book obtained from the Tahsildar, Allavaram for entire extent of Ac.2-21 cents in guardian instead of their elder son Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao and violating the conditions of the Registered Will by misleading the Tahsildar, Allavaram.

Then the Tahsildar, allavaram issued the Pattadar passbook to the

Respondent No.1 is here by cancelled and directed the Revision Petitioner

and Respondent No.1 to obtain the orders form the Civil Court regarding

confirmation to Title over the subject lands and file a fresh application

before the Tahsildar, Allavaram with all connected documents to obtain

Passbooks and on receipt of the application with connected record, the

Tahsildar, Allavaram may take further action as per the provision of

A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act,1971. Accordingly the

Revision Petition is closed. Orders under Revision Shall be final under

134

section 9 and Rule 23(4) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971.

The Appellate Authority 23(4) of the A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar

Passbook and Title Deed to the lands covered in Revision Petition.

The Ex.B15 is the sale deed is in the favour of DW8. Through him sale deed is marked. Property was delivered as per Ex.B13 property is in position of D1 ion three survey numbers in R.S.No.147/4, 147/5, and 146/4 out of three survey numbers to Ex.B15 for two survey numbers 147/4, 147/5. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the suit against the defendants for injunction. Plaintiffs has not filed

Ex.B13 ed any document before that court except transactions took place among the plaintiffs 1 to 3 with the D.W.8. Deliver of position is in question under exhibit D15. Under tenancy act D1 Declared as a tenant under the plaintiff documents under the filed and marked on behalf of plaintiffs it is a sufficient Sape Vemala Rao is a tenant and for the properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. There is no dispute regarding to the relation ship of the plaintiffs and Sape Vemala Rao, Satyavathi and kondala Rao. There is no dispute about the business of kondala Rao and satyavathi. They done the business at Bombay. In that business sape vemala Rao and Mattaparthi krishnma Raju look after the business kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi and their son Srinivasa Rao is no more. Under Ex.B12 two wills executed by the kondala Rao one is registered means which is the exhibit A7. A5 will executed by Rokkla Satyavathi. Under Exhibit A1 to A4 Sale deeds executed in favour of Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao they purchasing the property in their names. There is no dispute under Exhibit

A1 to A4 plaint schedule properties purchased in their names. In the year 1997 Satyavathi was died in the year 1998 Kondala Rao was died. There is no dispute regarding the death of Kondala Rao and his wife Satyavathi. He is one of under Ex.B11 defendants not come to the court with clean hands seeking their relief in the three suits.

135

Ex.B13 is the addressed a letter in favour of district Collector East

Godavari Kakinada 25-01-2020 for the purpose of Joint collector proceeding under Ex.B13 which is, corresponding to the Ex.B16, Under Ex.B16 the Joint

Collector pass the order he obtained the Pattadar Passbook in favour of any one after declaration of the suits.

Exhibit B13 marked through the DW5 who is the revenue inspector. He is as per exhibit B13 Mandal revenue Inspector Allavaram on 20-01-2020, said reports not filed the court Tahsildar is only competent person to give evidence on Ex.B13 is not again into consideration because suits are pending before the court. Dw5 is also not a competent person to mark the Ex.B13.

Ex.B14 is the letter addressed to the District Collector on 03-08-2017 at grievance cell report dt: 03-08-2017 for position certificate issuing in favour of

D1 not issued as per Ex.B14 certificate not issued. Tahsildar Allavaram attested the copies on Ex.B13 and B14. Where about the original documents is kept silent in the evidence of BW5 chief and cross examinations Ex.B12 is the R.D.O. letter addressed by the P.Subba rao Tahsildar allavaram on 24-11- 2014 along with the letter Deputy Tashildar S.V.V. Satyanarayana attend

before the court on summons in I.A.No.517/2022 in O.S.No.248/2011 Sape

Vemala Rao file the revision petition on 04-11-2022 but letter was addressed to the court 04-11-2022 03-11-2022 is not correct. Prior date and revision petition filed on 04-11-2022 is not correct that is the date as per running matter of the letter. Ex.B12 is the scanned copy of the will darted will of the

Satyavathi of Ex.B5, second one is the 8A form notice issued by the revenue

Inspector Pattadar Passbook copy photo start copy enclosed along with the

R.D.O. letter all are the photostat copies not again into consideration attested by the Tahsildar addressed a two letter one is the Ex.B14 second one is the

Ex.B12 both are inconsisting letters. Tahsildar is not attested. Deputy Tahsildar ins not a gezitted rank he is not a competent person to the letters. To Ex.B12 is the certified copy of petition and docket orders in A.T.C.10/1996 filed by the

136

Sape Vemala Rao against the Rokkala Kondala rao and Rokkala satyavathi.

u/sec 16(1) (2) of the A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act 1956 schedule property is the

Total Schedule filed in the A scheduled property items 1 to 6 are shown, in the

B schedule property item No.1 to 5. There is finding declare the petition Sape

Vemala Rao to delcare the petitioner as statutory tenant in respect of the schedule property under the Respondents and grant consequential relief of permanent injunction resdtraining the Respondents and their men and followers and persons claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lease hold (schedule) property and award costs of the petition. Grant such other relief or reliefs are deemed fit and property under the circumstances of the case. Docket order dt:05-09-1996 as follows A.T.C. advanced today, on petition, memo filed to dismiss the A.T.C.

memo recorded and A.T.C. is dismissed without cost. what purpose memo filed reasons for the memo is not stated in the petition on the docket orders under Ex.B11.

Ex.B10 is the ordinary suit No.74 of 2005 Civil suit register No.1 certified copy filed suit filed for permanent injunction by the Rokkala Srinivasa Rao s/o.

Kondayya but actually name is the kondala rao not kondayya he filed the petition against the Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju,, Moturu Sathi babu,

Samsani Venkata Ramana, Bokka Srinu, Ragireddy Rambabu, Yallimilli

Ranga Rao Jakka subbarao for permanent injunction for an extent of one

Acre.20 cents in three survey numbers, said suit was filed on 24-02-2005, on 29-11-2010 suit was not pressed, plaintiff filed memo for not press in the suit, the doth order and decree, dismissed as follows (1) that the suit B and the same by hear by dismissed as not pressed dismissal order photostat copy filed and certified copy of the suit register O.S.No.74/2005 marked as ex B10.

Ex.B9 is the letter dated 27-08-1998 addressed by K.Narasimha Murthy,

Deputy commissioner of police (crimes) Hyderabad city Andhra pradesh to the station house officer Vullhas Nagar-3, Tana District. As per complaint

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju who is belongs to the same village of kondala

137

Rao East Godavarai District joined them to work in the same work shop, gradually he developed illicit relation with the wife of Sri. Kondala Rao and became close to their family. Wife of Sri.Kondala Rao died one year back.

Kondala Rao came to East Godavari district (6) months back closing his shops as he could not keep good health. Meanwhile, the said M.Venkata

Ramana hatched a plant to illegally occupy the property of Kondala Rao situated in Ulhasnagar. Kondala Rao received telephone call from Ulhasnagar that Venkata Rama Raju trespassed into his flat situated in Rajya Lakshmi

Cooperative Housing society and two workshops by name Kalpana furniture shop and Sri Satya Garrage and committed theft of valuables with criminal intention to occupy the property illegally in their absence.

Therefore, necessary help may be extended to Sri.Kondala Rao who is approaching you in person and necessary illegal action may be initiated against Venkata Rama Raju in the interest of justice. Under Ex.B9 marked through Dw1 he is admitting illegal contact of Satyavathi is the first plaintiff

Kondala Rao known about of illegal regulation ship of first plaintiff and

Rokkala Satyavathi.

To Ex.B8 is the affidavit is of Mattaparthi Venkata Ramana Raju in

A.T.C.2/2011 as per affidavit for numbering of petition 2/2011 it was numbered the affidavit as per affidavit of Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju he filed the petition for vacat the petition schedule property hear filing of affidavit is not helped the case of sape vemala Rao he is the D1 in the present suit 248/2011

Ex.B7 in the Schedule property in R.S.No.106/5 an extent of 80 cents out of 84 cents. To Ex.B.7 and B8 not concerned to the same case Ex.B8 schedule not filed along with the affidavit. Ex.B7 in the schedule property but relevant petition not filed for what purpose in the circumstances to the Ex.B7 and 8 not taken into consideration for the case purpose.

To Ex.B6 in the Civil Suit Register certified copy for the A.T.C.12/2006, petition schedule filed by the petitioner R.S.No.83/4 an extent of one acre out

138

of one acre 41 cents A.T.C. filed by the Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju against the Sape Vemala Rao at Principal Junior Civil judges court kothapeta it was dismissed on 22-07-2008 for default to Ex.B6 in the true copy. Petition filed by the delivery by evicting the respondent form the petition schedule property.

Ex.B5 is the true copy of A.T.C.13/2006 file by the Mattaparthi Venkata

Rama Raju against the Arigela Satyanarayana on behalf of minors Mattaparthi krishnam raju and mattaprthi bhagya sri they are minors on the date of filing of the petition. Certification was dismissed on 18-01-2007 for default without cost.

Ex.B4 is the original letter issued by the tahsildar that is the notice enclosed along with letter addressed to the Revenue Division officer

Amalapuram, by the P.Subba Rao, Allavaram dt.24-11-2014 for cancellation report submitted on 24-11-2016 on address a letter by the R.D.O.

Amalapuram dated 12-10-2014.

Ex.B3 is the letter of the photostat copy addressed tot he Revenue

Divisional officer Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya which is the photostat copy marked. For cancellation Pattadar passbook original not filed before the court. On that petition orders copy filed marked as Ex.B16 Ex.

B2 is the Pattadar passbook is in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao which is filed by the DW1. Pattadar passbook and title deed both are filed along with suit those are marked as Ex.B2 title deed is in the name of Kondala

Rao on 15-05-1998 in that Mandal Revenue officer issued a book his wife was died but pattdar passbook is was issued for the survey numbers 147-4 an extent of 58 cents. Suvey No.163-6 an extent of 27 cents, 146-4 an extent of 1 acre 9 cents. R.S.No.106-5 an extent of 80 cents sole on 27-10-2005 under the document NO.1077 of 2005. R.S.No.83-4 an extent of 1 acre was sold in on 09-06-2006 under the doc.No.476/2006. Survey no.147-5 an extent of 54 cents. Total 4 acre 28 cents out of that one acre 80 cents was sold remaining

139

land is 2 acre 24 cents. As per Ex.B2 above survey property belongs to the satyavathi admitted by the kondala Rao the Ex.B1 is the general power of attorney Exhibited by the Rokkala Durga on 08-10-2008 in favour of Sape

Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya for look after the court affairs and court transactions on the date of power of attorney there is no specific number. It is was issued an extent of 2 acre 21 cents only. Out of that two items sold the

D.W.8 ion the Ex.B15. DW1 admitted he is deposed and admitted in his cross examination he deposed to the court for his case only not on behalf of

Rokkala Durga. The Ex.B1 is not taken into consideration because Rokkala

Durga not comes to the court not deposed as a witness before the court in the three suits.

To Ex.A1 is the sale deed is in the name of Kondala Rao and his wife satyavathi that is admitted fact buy the kondala Rao said property belongs to the satyavathi to Ex.A1 schedule property Item No. 1 and 2 an extent of 1 acre, Item No.3 to 5 an extent of 94 and ½ cents total Ac.1-94 cents total 5

Items.

Ex.A2 is the original sale deed is in the name of Satyavathi dated 04- 09-1991 total 5 items shown in the schedule as 8 items an extent of Ac.02-12 cents.

Ex.A3 is the sale deed in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi

dated 04-09-1991 total 3 items 42 cents + 74 cents + 9 cents, Ac.01-25 cents,

three items shown in the plaint schedule.

Ex.A4 is the sale deed dated 26-02-1992 is in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi W/o Yedukondalu, six items shown in the plaint schedule.

` Ex.A5 is the will is in the name of plaintiffs 1 and 2 executed by

Rokkala Satyavathi that was admitted by the Kondala Rao under Ex.A2,

Ex.A5 is not disputed document it is admitted by the Rokkala Kondala Rao in his report and also Pattadar passbook and title deed Under Ex.A2.

140

Ex.A6 is the death certificate of Satyavathi Kondala Rao Rokkala issued by the Ullahnagar Rajya Lakmi society.

Ex.A7 will executed by the kondala Rao. As per legal notice of the

Reply issued by the Sape Vemala Rao, there is a another will that is unregistered will. Said will is not produced on that Ex.A7 original will not produced by the Sape Vemala Rao before the court for proof for acting will on death Kondala Rao. Ex.A7 is not the final will. Admitted facts need not the true as per reply notice issued by the Sape Vemala Rao and others.

Ex.A8 in the study certificate of Venkara Krishnam Raju and

Mattaparthi Bhagya Sri. Mattaparthi Bhagya Sri mother is the Krishnaveni not satyavathi who is the krishna veni to prove her burden on the Mattaparthi

Krishnam Raju who is the mother of Bhagya Sri. Krishnaveni is not the wife of

Mattaparthi venkata Rama Raju.

To Ex.A9 is the death certificate Rokkala Srinivasa Rao issued by the

Panchayat Secretary, Yentrukona village, Allavaram Mandal. There is no dispute regarding the death of Kondala Rao Satyavathi, Srinivasa Rao and second plaintiff. After death of second plaintiff his Lrs came to the record amendment plaint is also for before the court.

I.A.No.57 of 2013 in O.S.No.248 of 2011 filed U/sec.45 of Indian evidence act by the Sape Vemala Rao through his affidavit to send the document will dt.9-51997 and other document signatures to the hand writing experts for the comparison. Said petition was dismissed without cost because it was field at the belated stage.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.248 of 2011 as follows:-

Issues No.1,5 and 6:- Whether the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties are liable for partition, Ex.A7 was not acted upon on death of Kondala Rao hence suit is liable for partition as prayed for In the plaint. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.2:- Whether the Items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are joint self acquired properties of parents of plaintiffs 2 and 3. as per Ex.A1 to A4 are

141

self acquired properties of the satyavathi and Kondala Rao under Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. They purchased thel property in their business income. Ex.A1 to A4 properties are not joint properties. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.3:- Whether the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased Items 2 and 3 in the name of their mother from out of their own income? There is no evidence and Cross examination to prove father plaintiffs purchased property in the name of late satyavathi. But property in the name of Syavathi. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 father is P.W.1, it is admitted by the both parties, Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and legitimate children of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi? Both are illegitimate children of the Kondala Rao and satyavathi. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue.No.7:- To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs 3 to 5.

declare the right, title over the plaint A-Schedule property. Suit is preliminarily decreed in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 5, half share tot he Rokkala Satyavathi and remaining half share of Kondala Rao 1/3 + 1/3 in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 5.

Plaintiffs 3 to 5 shall file the petition for delivery of possession under due process of law.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.288 of 2014 as follows:-

I ssue No. 1. and 2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant as null and void? and Whether the suit is maintainable under law as plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 08-08-2014?

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, empowers individuals to seek a court declaration of their legal character or right to property when that title is denied or there is an interest to deny it. This relief is discretionary and doesn't require the plaintiff to seek further relief, though the court won't grant it if the plaintiff could seek more extensive relief.

142

1. Right to Seek Declaration:

 Section 34 allows any person with a legitimate claim to a legal status or property right to file a suit.

 This suit can be filed against anyone who denies or has an interest in denying that claim.

2. Discretionary Relief:  The court can, in its discretion, declare the plaintiff's entitlement to the legal character or right.  This declaration is meant to resolve uncertainty and prevent future disputes.

3. No Requirement for Further Relief:  The plaintiff doesn't have to seek additional relief in the same lawsuit.

 The declaration alone can be sufficient in cases where the plaintiff's primary goal is to establish their title or status.

4. When Declaration Won't Be Granted:  The court won't grant a declaration if the plaintiff could have sought a more comprehensive remedy but chose not to.

 For example, if a plaintiff could seek possession of property but only seeks a declaration of title, the court may not grant the declaration.

5. Purpose and Scope:  The purpose of Section 34 is to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and to provide a means for establishing legal rights or status.

 A declaratory decree, however, remains non-executable in most cases.

6. Examples:  A person who is the rightful owner of a property can sue to declare their ownership if someone else is claiming it.  A person who has a right to a specific position or status (e.g., a trustee) can sue to declare their right to that position.

7. Limited Scope:  The declaration under Section 34 is only binding on the parties to the suit, and those claiming through them.  It doesn't create any new rights or obligations. Section 31 Specific Relief Act:- When cancellation may be ordered.—(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause

143

him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

Suit is not maintainable to seek cancellation of sale deed as prayed, plaintiff is not party to the document. Instead of declaration suit, he filed suit for cancellation of sale deed. Hence suit is not maintainable. Hence suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly issues 1 and 2 answered.

Issue No.3 To what relief?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.2 of 2019 as follows:-

Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for plaintiffs are failed to prove possession either orally and documentary evidence. Accordingly plaintiffs are not entitled permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly issue No.1 is ansered.

prayed for?

Issue No.2:- To what relief?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2025

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

P.W.1: Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju P.W.2: Kudupudi Satyanarayana P.W.3: Yanadamala Dhanarajarao P.W.4: kadali Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1: Sape Vemalarao D.W.2: Peyyila Venkatareddy D.W.3: Eeti Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu

144

D.W.4: Nakka Satyanarayana D.W.5: S.V.V.Satyanarayana D.W.6: Vasamsetti Jayalakshmi D.W.7: P.Srinivasarao D.W.8: Suda Ganapathi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed executed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A2: Original registered sale deed executed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A3: Original registered sale deed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A4: Original registered sale deed stands in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi,

dated 26-02-1992

Ex.A5: Original Will executed by Rokkala Satyavathi dated 09-05-1997 Ex.A6: Death Certificate of Satyavathi, dated 19-11-2005 Ex.A7: Certified copy of registered Will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao Rao in favour of the 1st defendant’s husband and plaintiff No.2 and 3 plaintiffs

dated 26-05-1998

Ex.A8: Original study certificate of plaintiffs 2 and 3 dated 17-02-2004 Ex.A9: Original death certificate of 1st defendant’s husband dated 10-01-2006 Ex.A10: Copy of registered legal notice issued by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to defendants and others, dated 20-10-2005 Ex.A11: Original daily paper with regard to legal notice published for plaintiffs

dated 23-10-2005

Ex.A12: Copy of reply notice to the notice of plaintiffs dated 24-10-2005 Ex.A13: Copy of legal notice issued by plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 and others dated 05-11-2005 Ex.A14: Copy of reply notice issued by defendant No.1 to 3 and others

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Power of Attorney executed by Rokkala Durga in favour of Sape Vemalarao, dated 08-10-2008 Ex.B2: Pattadar pass book and title deed issued in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao Ex.B3: Office copy of petition in M.C.No.171 of 2012 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, dated 27-11-2012 Ex.B4: Report of Tahsildar submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, dated 24-11-2014 Ex.B5: Certified copy of Registration extract of registrar of A.T.C cases relating to A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

145

Ex.B6: Certified copy of Registration extract of registrar of A.T.C.cases relating to A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B7: Served copy of petition in A.T.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B8: Served copy of affidavit and petition in A.T.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B9: Letter issued by K.Narasimha Murthy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to the Station House Officer, Ulhas Nagar, Thana District,

dated 27-08-1998.

Ex.B10: Certified copy of suit register in O.S.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram.

Ex.B11: Petition copy in A.T.C.No.10 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Amalapuram

Ex.B12: True copy of the enquiry report, dated 24-11-2014 Ex.B13: True copy of the enquiry report, dated 25-01-2020 Ex.B14: Letter addressed by Tahsildar to District Collector, dated 03-08-2017 (True Copy) (marked subject to objection) Ex.B15: Registered sale deed dated 08-08-2014, Doc.No.4188/2014 Ex.B16:Proceedings of Revenue Divisional of Joint Collector of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapuram.

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION):: AMALAPURAM

Present:SaiKumariAkuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Amalapuram

Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019

O.S.No.248 of 2011:-

Between:-

1) Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 53 years, Hindu, Cycle Mechanic, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram mandal.

2) Mattaparthi (rokkala) Krishnam Raju, S/o Venkata Ramaraju, Aged 17 years, Student, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

3) Mattaparthi (Rokkala) Bhagyasri, D/o Venkata Ramaraju, Aged 14 years, Student, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

4) Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Late Krishnamraju, Aged 22 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

5) Mattaparthi Sonu Jai Satyaraj, Being Minor represented by mother guardian 4th petitioner Mattaparthi Kanakamma, Aged 6 months, Hindu, D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal. (Plaintiffs 4 to 5 are added as L,.Rs of deceased 1st plaintiff as per Orders in I.A.No.697 of 2017, dated 29-07-2017) . . . Plaintiffs AND

1) Gollinka Durga, W/o Krishna Murthy, D/o Balla Sriramulu, Aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o Sompalli, Razole.

2) Sapay Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavarm Mandal.

3) Sapay Satyanarayana, S/o Vemala Rao, Aged 34 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal.

4) Pitani Suryanarayana, S/o Mairdi, Aged 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Devaguptham Village, Allavaram Mandal.

5) Velligatla Veeraju, S/o Linga Murthy, Aged 44 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal.

6) Mallety Ramakrishna, S/o Subbarao, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal. . . . Defendants

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri N.V.Suryanarayana, Learned Counsel for plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 6 were set exparte and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for defendants 2 to 4 and Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for 5th defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

2

O.S.No.288 of 2014:-

Between:-

Sape Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal. . . . Plaintiff AND

1) Mattaparti Venkataramaraju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculture, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

2) Mattaparti Krishnamraju, S/o Venkataramaraju, Aged 20 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

3) Mattaparti Bhagya Sri, D/o Venkataramaraju, Aged 19 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

4) Suda Ganapati, S/o Tatayya, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.11- 112, market Area, Konkapalli, Peruru Panchayat. Amalapuram Rural Mandal. . . . Defendants

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for plaintiff and of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

O.S.No.2 of 2019:-

Between:-

1) Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 48 years, R/o D.No.4- 41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

2) Mattaparthi Krishnamraju (died)

3) Suda Ganapathi, S/o Tatayya, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Inam, D.No.11-112, Near Konkapalli Market, Konkapalli, Amalapuram.

4) Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Krishnamraju, Aged 22 years, R/o D.No.4- 41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

5) Mattaparthi Sonu Jayi Satyaraj, being minor reprersented by mother guardian 4th plaintiff Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Krishnamraju, Aged 6 months, Hindu, Minor, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal. . . . Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are added as per orders in I.A.No.1281 of 2016, dated 29- 11-2016) AND

1) Sape Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 62 years, Hindu, Inam, Near Panchayat Building, Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal.

2) Sape Satyanarayana, S/o Vemala Rao, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Inam, Near Panchayat Building, Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal.

3) Illa Bhagyasri, W/o Ramakrishna, Aged 20 years, Hindu, Inam, CISF Unit, IGST PP, Jharli District, Jhajjar, Haryana-124141. . . . Defendants

3

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for plaintiffs and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for defendants 1 and 2 and Sri T.V.Prasada Rao, Learned Counsel for 3rd defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

O.S.No.248 of 2011:-

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to a) declare the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs title over in respect of their properties; b) to grant decree and judgment to vacate the plaint A schedule property by the 5th and 6th defendants and deliver the same to the plaintiffs possession after evicting them; c) to grant personal and preliminary and final decrees and judgment to divide the plaint B schedule property into Two equal portions by metes and bounds and vacate on such portion by the 2nd to 4th defendants and deliver the same to the plaintiffs possession after evicting them and d) to grant decree and judgment to the divided remaining ½ portion of B-schedule into 3 equal portion by metes and bounds and Two portions out of 3 portions to deliver to the plaintiffs separate possession after evicting them; e) to grant past profits for the last three years i.e., prior to filing of P.O.P Rs.2,87,232/- with subsequent interest and to grant subsequent profits from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of delivery of possession as per order XX Rule 18 C.P.C on a separate application defendants in respective ration; f) to award costs of the suit and any other relief, which the Hon’ble court deems to fit and proper under the circumstances of the cause in the interest of justice.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: A Genealogical table are herewith filed and also schedules A and B are here with filed 'A' schedule property is the one item of self acquired property of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs mother

Satyavati and B' schedule property is the Joint self acquired property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother Satyavati and her husband Kondala Rao. The 1st

Petitioner/Plaintiff is the father of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs and 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs

4

are having, elder sister by name Kombathula Santosha Lakshmi and deceased brother Srinivasa Rao, who is the 1st husband of 1st Defendant.

During the life time of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother gave an extent of Ac.1- 00 cents in R.S.No.83/4 of Yentrukona to the Santosha Lakshmi towards pusupukum at the time of her marriage at the intency of 1st Plaintiff. The 1st

Plaintiff settled her marriage. The said property bequeathed from her under will. The testatrix of will appointed the 1st Plaintiff as guardian either to manage the said property or to sale the said property on behalf of Santosha Lakshmi.

To that effect the 1st plaintiff leased out the same to Sapay Vemala Rao for the yearly rentals. Ever since the said Vemala Rao cultivating the same as tenant.

The 1st Plaintiff also gave an extent of Ac.0-80 cents to Arigla Satyanarayana on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiff on lease, but both are committed default to pay yearly rentals. On that the 1st Plaintiff filed tenancy petition before Hon'ble court Special Officer, Amalapuram for eviction, which as A.T.C.Nos. 12 of 16 and 13 of 06 and dismissed on dafault are numbered. Due to financial incapacity the petitioner not filed suit for recovery of arrears of rentals.

Recently the 1st Plaintiff again filed A.T.C.Nos. on behalf of Santosha Lakshmi and 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs as per will of Satyavati, which are yet to be numbered subsequently which are numbered as A.C.T.No. 1 of 2011 and A.C.T.No.2 of 2011.

3. It is further submitted that the 1st Plaintiff met with an accident with Motor vehicle unfortunately. Due to that he bedridden due to financial incapacity he unable to got proper treatment. The 1st Plaintiff leased out Ac.2-21 cents of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs to the Yallamilli Venkata Raman for the period of 10 years and he received Rs.90,000/- to lump-sum from him and expended the same to maintain the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing food. shelters, clothes and education to them and some amount expanded for hint set right his disability and to became normal person to looked after the care and welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, are responsible person. Even though he is not perfectly set right.

The 1st Plaintiff is the sole bread earner of his family and he has looked after

5

the welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing food, shelter, clothes and education as guardian of them. But 'A' and 'schedule properties are in the illegal possession of Defendants and they unauthorizedly enjoying same and got huge profits against the executed wills and and wishes of 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs mother and father Kondala Rao.

4. It is further submitted that during the life time of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother executed a will with regard to her properties of them of 'A' schedule property and other properties and here share in 'B' schedule property in favour of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs on 09-05-1997 and she died on 22-07-1997. After demise of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother, the 1st Plaintiff looked after the care and welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing education and Sidharta

Convent at Rajahmundry. Subsequently he shifted to local school due to financial crisis. Subsequently on 26-05-1998 the Satyavati's husband executed a registered will in favour of his elder son Srinivasa Rao, Krishnam

Raju and daughters Kombhattula Santosha Lakshmi and Bhagyasri. Already

Rokkal Satyavati gave an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to Santosha Lakshmi of herself acquired property through will. Even though her husband Kondala Rao gave some property the self-acquired property of his wife on extent of Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.83/4 to the Santosha Lakshmi and the same was recited in his registered will. After demises of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother, they are care under the control of 1st Plaintiff, but the Kondala Rao used to visit the house 1st

Plaintiff and he was taking care of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs with love and affection.

After demises of Kondala Rao the co-sharer of Srinivas Rao not delivered the shared property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, at least the share of menses profits to them even if the 1st Plaintiff demanded, and 1st Defendant 1st husband and 2nd

Defendant colluded together and they created forged will, which was executed by Kondala Rao with regard to his wife property in favour of his elder son

Srinivas Rao and filed suit with false allegation against 1st Plaintiff and other for permanent injunction with regard to properties of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs

before Honourable Principal Junior Civil Judge as O.S.74 of 2005. While the

6

suit is pending the Plaintiff Srinivas Rao died and the L.R. Petition is pending, which was filed by 1st Defendant as wife of Rokkal Durga W/o late Srinivas

Rao even if she is the wife of Gullinka Krishna Murthy by committing impersonation after time the Plaintiffs did not know the subsequent marriage of 1st Defendant. There after the 1st to 3rd Defendants colluded together and they created factitious Registered Sale Deed with regard to 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs property with a view to grab away the properties of them by false representations and statements even if the 1st Plaintiff issued two legal notices to the 1st to 3rd Defendant and other and public notice published in daily news paper. The 1st Defendant alienated the properties of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by the way alleged sale without supported by consideration at the instance of 2nd

Defendant and others.

5. It is further submitted that during the life time of Kondala Rao and 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs are under the care and control of 1st Plaintiff and they were studying Siddardha Convent, Rajahmundry after demises of his wife

Satyavati. The said Kondala Rao sold away an extent of Ac.0-27 cents in

R.S.No. 163/6 the property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs i.e. 'A' schedule property which is the 2nd and 3rd minor Plaintiffs property and which was bequeathed from their mother to the 5th and 6th Defendants without manner of right and title. The 'B' schedule property is the joint self acquired property of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant 1st husband's parents. During their lifetime the parents they obtained pattadar pass books with regard to their respective shares. The original pass books are in the custody of 2nd Defendant. As per will of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother Satyavati, they are entitled to 1/2 share property in B' schedule property. As per will of their father they are entitled to 1/3rd share property each out of remaining 1/2 share property and manse profits i.e. Ac. 1-65 cents. The 1st defendant husband entitled only Ac.0.821/2 cents. Whenever the 1st Defendant married and the Gullinka Krishna Murthy, by left his husband, Srinivas Rao, the status of wife of Srinivas Rao is extinguished. The total annual income A & B schedule property is Rs.70,400/-

7

(seventy thousand and four hundred only) over the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff property and their share 1/3 each in 1/2 share property of B' schedule. The 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs are minors and they are depending on 1st Plaintiff and they have been suffering from starvation and they are came back and studying in

Goverment. School. The 1st Plaintiff has been suffering from disablement. The

Plaintiffs demands for deliver 'A' Plaintiff schedule property and for past profits and future profits and costs other reliefs. All relevant documents are herewith filed for your Honourable perusal.

6.It is further submitted that during pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died intestate on 01-06-2016 leaving behind him plaintiffs 4th and 5th as his next and nearest class-I heirs. The 4th plaintiff is the wife and 5th plaintiff is the minor son of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Except the plaintiffs 4 and 5 there are no other L.Rs to deceased 2nd plaintiff. Hence they are added as L.Rs of deceased 2nd plaintiff in the suit. (Added as per orders in I.A.No. Of 2017, dated. -07-2017). Hence, the suit.

7.On receipt of the summons, D.2, D.3 and D.5 filed a written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. In such a written statement, D.2,

D.3 and D.5 further contended that plaintiff No.1 belongs to Munganda village, when Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavati have established companies at

Mumbai, as well as workshops at Ullas Nagar, Mumbai, the 1st plaintiff had been to Mumbai, to get employment in private company there, but, unfortunately, he joined in the company of the said Kondala Rao, as a worker.

That, Kondala Rao and Satyavati belong to Scheduled caste, the 1st plaintiff belongs to B.(C) Settibalija community. While he joined as a worker in the company, the 2nd defendant is also one of the partner in that company, that 2nd defendant being brother Satyavati.That Satyavati being 2nd wife of Kondala

Rao, that Kondala Rao got two children through 1st wife, by names 1)Kombattula Santosha lakshmi (daughter) 2) Rokkala Srinivasa Rao (son).

That after death of his first wife, Kondala Rao married Satyavati, begot 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs through her they were named as 1)Krishmamraju. 2) Bhagya Sri.

8

While the companies are in progressive state earning profits, Kondallarao fell sick, the Satyavati and 2nd defendant managed the companies and 2nd defendant also brought some amount, purchased lands at Yentrukona in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, much less with the funds of the companies. Any way, the entire plaint A and B schedule properties absolutely belong to Kondala Rao and Satyavati. That, at the time of marriage of daughter of Kondala Rao by name Santosha lakshmi, he gifted Ac.1-00 cents of land towards Pasupukumkuma. Rest of the properties being enjoyed by the

Satyavati and Kondala Rao, but,in the meanwhile has created disputes between wife and husband and also between 2nd defendant. Satyavati died out of mystery, by the acts of 1st plaintiff, and after her death they have created by forging a Will on dated 05-09-1997 as is evident as she died on 22-07- 1997. The will alleged to have been executed was brought up by procuring the

Attestors and scribe, at Machavaram, where as she (testatrix) died at Mumbai.

The alleged Testatrix, Satyvati had no occasion to come over to these parts and visit, that too no occasion to come over. A clear, look at the alleged will speaks volumes of fake things. That, 1st plaintiff had an eye on the property by taking advantage of loneliness of Kondala Rao and that, 1st plaintiff having hatched up plan to become one of members of the family of Kondala Rao with motives behind, succeeded in his mysterious plans, and convinced Kondala

Rao by representing that Kondala Rao became old and became age sickness and by then children of Kondala Rao are minors, with tender ages, gave him with moral support by representing that, don't hesitate because of children and regarding management of companies as he will safeguard and which gave confidence to Kondala Rao, that, though the 2nd defendant was by then at

Mumbai, he returned back to Ventrukona, to cultivate the land purchased by then in the name of Kondala Rao and Plaintiff. Satyavati. Then the 1st plaintiff became sole administrator, to not only to Kondala Rao personal, and to companies. As such the 2nd defendant is managing the properties at Ventru kona used to account for the management of property not only to Kondala

9

Rao and Satyavati, thus having gained confidence in Satyavati and Kondala

Rao in him.

8.It is further contended that While so, the 1st plaintiff, with malice, in order to grab the property of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, has created hurdles and disputes between Kondala Rao and Satyavati, he having gained confidence in his by Kondala Rao and Satyavati, went to the extent of fabricating documents of his choice, like Will dated 09-05-1997, alleged to have done by Satyavati, and to further lend support this plans, he filed A.T.C.No.12 of 2006, and 13 of 2006 of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's court, Amalapuram, but, dismissed for default.

That, afterwards, the 1st plaintiff filed Pauper suit in P.O.P.No.60 of 2006 on the file of this Hon'ble court, for the reliefs prayed for in the suit but, it was negatived. That, after dismissal of above pauper suit, the present suit was filed, for the reliefs- 1. declare the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff's title over and in respect of their property, but, no specific mention of property mentioned for that relief.

2. for the relief of eviction of A schedule property by 5th and 6th defendants and deliver the extent to plaintiff’s possession. But, before evicting the party from property, plaintiffs have to pray for cancellation of document in respect of property of 5th and 6th defendants. 3. decrees like personal, preliminary and final decree, judgment thereto, and further to divide plaint B-schedule properties into 2 equal shares by metes and bounds, and to vacate from such portion property, by 2nd 3rd and 4th defendants, and deliver the same to plaintiffs possession after evicting from the property. In such a case for the relief prayed for, plaintiff's suit for relief of cancellation of sale deed for the property involved. Further sought for relief to grant a decree and judgment to divide the shares among them, and to grant subsequent profits after filing of suit, till delivery of possession of the property, which is not permissible in the form of present suit. The list of documents numbering 1 to 21 are not proper to relying by plaintiffs to support the present suit reliefs as prayed for. That, in the meanwhile, after death of Satyavati, Kondala Rao died in the year 1998, that,

before his death, he has executed a Registered will dt.26-05-1998 that, as per

10

the will, the 1st son of deceased Kondala Rao, (Rokkala Srinivasa Rao), acted as per will and managed the Estate, cleared off the loans and some property was remained, in the meantime, Srinivasa Rao died. Immediately, his wife, 1st defendant in the suit taken possession of the property, managed for some time, she being lady, not able to manage the property, got herself executed a

Power of Attorney, in favour of Sape Vemalarao, document dated.08-10-2009 of Sub Registrar's office, Amalapuram. Since then 2nd defendant, is in possession and enjoyment of the property remained after selling the property.

That, the 1st plaintiff, who is with the Kondala Rao, till death of him, he has sold away the properties at Bombay, like Work shop, and other companies assets, by showing the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in his custody, having funds from to

Munganda. Thus the 1st defendant having funds now he is dealing with speculative litigation by the suits, showing 2nd and 3rd defendants to gain wrongfully out of the properties of 2nd and 3rd defendants. Actually, there is no passing of consideration at all. Thus, there are no merits in the suit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit in limini with costs and to award compensatory costs.

9.The 5th defendant filed separate written statement and further contended that Rokkala Satyavathi has no monies, no capacity to purchase the property. Kondala Rao purchased the said property with his money in her name. He paid the consideration for the said sale. It is for his benefit the property was purchased and kept in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi. Rokkala

Satyavathi is not the owner of the property. In any way Rokkala Satyavathi died and after her death an extent of Ac.0.12 cents in R.S.No.163/6 was sold by all of them for their family necessities and received the entire consideration and delivered possession of the same to this defendant. They executed and registered a sale deed dated 16-07-1998 and it was duly registered as document No.547/1998. The property was delivered to this defendant on the date of execution of sale deed. Since 1998 this defendant is in effective possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. This defendant is

11

nothing to do with the other properties. This defendant is concerned with the said extent of Ac.0.12 cents only. Since the sale in favour of this defendant is for legitimate legal necessities the sale is binding on the plaintiffs. They cannot question the same. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi. After death of Kondala Rao, Satyavathi lived with 1st plaintiff and they maintained illegal contacts. So the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the legitimate children of Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Rokkala Srinivas is having a share in the property since he died and by the time of death of Srinivas, his mother left the home and joined with the 1st plaintiff. So plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot claim any right over the share of Srinivas in the properties. In that way the plaintiff's suit is mischievous, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any right, title and interest over the properties and they cannot claim any share in the properties. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct. The all other allegations which have not been specifically admitted or traversed herein are hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore the 5th defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties are liable for partition?

2) Whether the Items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are joint self acquired properties of parents of plaintiffs 2 and 3?

3) Whether the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased Items 2 and 3 in the name of their mother from out of their own income?

4) Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and legitimate children of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties?

12

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for preliminary decree as prayed for?

7) To what relief?

O.S.No.288 of 2014

11.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 08-08-2014, alleged to have executed by 1st to 3rd defendants in favour of 5th defendant by duly declaring the purported documents as nul and void, abinitio in the eye of law; award costs of the suit and grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

12. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the sister of plaintiff herein by name Rokkala

Satyavati and her husband viz Kondala Rao. After their demise, their son by name Srinivasa Rao, succeeded to the same as of right, and after death of

Srinivasarao, his wife Durga succeeded t the property as of right. That she being lady, not able to took up cultivation, she has executed General power of attorney dt.8-10-2008, (Doct.No. 192 of S.R.O.. Allavarm. Since the plaintiff has been managing the property on her behalf, rendering account of such management to the Attorney. During the life time of Kondala Rao and

Satyavati 1st defendant herein the suit happened to be with them at Mumbai (Bombay) as a worker, where they are running companies of their own. Then the 1st defendant, it seems secured some documents of title, secretly, behind their back, as they could not anticipate the fraud being played by 1st defendant. That, by then 2nd and 3rd defendants are children of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, with tender age, net in a position to assess the conduct and behaviour of 1st defendant since he gained confidence from Rokkala Kondala

Rao and Satyavati, there are 2nd and 3rd defendants it seems went into his fold. It is submitted that Kondala Rao and Satyavati, used to bring 2nd and 3rddefendants to Yentrukona with them, the 1st defendant, used to pick them to

Village Munganda of his native place, believe the public by representing as if

13

the 2nd and 3rd defendant viz. Krishnamraju and Bhagya Sri her progimy much less own children. That 1st defendant gained access in public in so doing every year, whenever Kondala Rao and Satyavati happened to be here to lock after the property and to have contact with plaintiff who was their manager of the property entrusted.

13. It is further submitted that that, to lend support the conspiracy hatched up by 1st defendant, when Rokkala Satyavati died 22-07-1997, immediately, 1st defendant created one unregistered will dt.09-05-1997, of his choice, as if it is instrument by Testatrix, that, on the basis of above alleged will, he filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalpauram, against the plaintiff and his son and Rokkala Durga who is no other than daughter-in-law of Kondala Rao and Satyavati. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and other properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, by claiming imaginary and speculative claim of shares by putting his claim the basis of the fare will. That, after death of both Kondala Rao and Satyavati, the 1st defendant has got chance brought 2nd and 3rd defendants who are infants by then to Munganda, in order to lend support to his conspiracy, has obtained Ration card by including their names as his son and daughter. and that he went up to extent to make believe the public they are his proginy. And out of his best and fraud, the 1st defendant created some false documents of title and on that, he abruptly sold the suit schedule property herein to the 4th defendant under

Registered sale deed 08-08-2014 for Ac.1-12 cents, of R.S.No.147/4, Ac.0-58 cents, 147-5 Ac.0-54 cents, for paltry consideration of Rs.5.60,000/- when compared the then existing rates and values the property. The 1st defendant, in doing fraudulent activities simply treated the property as if wet land even though it is dry land not assessed to revenue tax. That, if it is really wet land with alleged possession by 1st defendant he would have file tax receipts, which spears amount of fraud by 1st defendant, not belong to 1st defendant but, it is with malice, he procured some false documents got registered the present title

14

deed of the suit claim, in the name of 4th defendant to gain wrongfully if possible.

14. It is further submitted to prove the guilt of the 1st defendant the 4th defendant has to verify the document of title so far goes the genuineness regarding possession before getting sale deed for valuable consideration

dated 08-08-2014. So, the sale deed is treated as void, abinitio, illegal, invalid

and un-enfofceable in the eye of law. Therefore, the plaintiff left with no optic except to file the present suit praying the relief of cancellation of alleged sale deed dated 08-08-2014, by 1st defendant in favour of 4th defendant, alleged to have beer by 2nd and 3rd defendant. That, in order to make known the defendants, the plaintiff and 27-09-2014 got issued registered legal notice,but, it is with malice and malafide intention, it is at the instance of 1st defendant who is the spearhead of the litigation got refused the notice anticipating the contents, as the demand by plaintiff was rot heard by defendants. Thus, the plaintiff got cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the suit.

15. On receipt of summons, defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and the same was adopted by the 3rd defendant. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 further contended that the property is the absolute property of Rokkala Satyavathi. Somehow she came into contact with the 1st defendant herein and virtually she lead marital life with him and begot two children who are defendants 2 and 3. Rokkala Satyavathi during her life time in a sound and disposing state of mind out of her free will and violation executed a Will dated 09-05-1997 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and some other properties in favour of defendants 2 and 3 but appointing 1st defendant as a care taker to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties till they became majors. Later she died on 22-07-1997. After her death the Will came into effect and as per the bequeaths there under the beneficiaries came into possession of the property. Later her original husband

Kondala Rao also died. The relations between 1st defendant and Rokkala

Satyavathi virtually became a relation of husband and wife and defendants 2

15

and 3 are their children. So whether Will or no Will the defendants 2 and 3 alone became entitled to the schedule properties and some other properties.

The defendants 2 and 3 for their necessities and to utilize the proceeds for their development sold the schedule properties to the 4th defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- under a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 and since then the 4th defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit is frivolous and vexatious suit without any right or claim over the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff herein illegally and unlawfully tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by the 4th defendant herein claiming under a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 for valuable consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- executed by defendants 1 to 3 and came into possession of the property and enjoying the same, the 4th defendant herein and his vendors 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's court,

Amalapuram and obtained an order of injunction in I.A.No.80 of 2015 wherein the injunction orders were granted till further orders on 18-1-2015. The 3rd vendor when she is not available at the time of filing of the said suit, she was impleaded as 3rd defendant who filed her written statement accepting the claims in the plaint. The said suit is filed against the plaintiff herein and his son

Sape Satyanarayana. In the said suit the plaintiff herein filed his written statement and also filed his counter in 1.A.No.80 of 2015 and after filing of the said counter only the Principal Junior Civil Judge's court extended the orders of injunction till further orders.

16. It is further contended that the copy of the plant in O.S.No.17 of 2015 filed by defendants 1, 2 and 4 is attached to this written statement since the said plaint is the clear and categorical answer to the allegations that are made in the plaint in this suit. The present suit is filed subsequent to the sale deed in favour of 4th defendant who is the 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 2015. Therefore all the allegations that are made in the plaint are false and frivolous allegations and the suit is not sustainable under law. Further the defendants 1 to 3 filed a

16

suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this Hon'ble court against Gurlinka

Durga and plaintiff herein and his son Satyanarayana and some others seeking the relief of possession of plaint A schedule properties therein and for a decree for partition of plaint B schedule properties therein and for other reliefs. The schedule property in the present suit is not the property covered by schedule in the said suit O.S.No.248 of 2011. The plaintiff unsuccessfully brought into existence some fictitious tenancy proceedings against the defendants 1 to 3 but ultimately he failed and withdrawn the said petitions.

There are some other tenancy proceedings are pending against the plaintiff and others with which the present suit is not concerned or the properties covered by sale deed in favour of 4th defendant is not concerned.

17. It is further contended that the wife of Srinivasa Rao after the death of

Srinivasa Rao married again and she is now being called as Gurlinka Durga but not as Rokkala Durga. As far as the knowledge of 1st defendant goes, she maintained contacts with her present husband during the life time of her original husband. Because of those contacts only having vexed, Srinivasa Rao met premature death. So Gurlinka Durga is not entitled to make any claim for any share in the properties of Rokkala Satyavathi as per the provisions of the

Will executed by Satyavathi as stated supra. It is submitted that the properties covered by the schedule in the present suit are the absolute properties of defendants 1 to 3 and they for their necessities sold the same to the 4th defendant herein. The said sale deed is true, validly executed for consideration. The plaintiff or any other body have no right or interest over the said property in any manner. Further the plaintiff is not a party to the said sale deed as such he cannot seek cancellation of the same if at all if he wants to make any claim he has to seek declaration and possession not for a suit for cancellation of sale deed. In that view of the matter also, the suit is not sustainable under law and liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct. The further allegations in the plaint which have not been specifically

17

admitted or traversed herein are hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore the defendants 1,2 and 4 pray that the Hon'ble court be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

18.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant as null and void?

2) Whether the suit is maintainable under law as plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 08-08-2014?

3) To what relief?

O.S.No.2 of 2019

19.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant and against the defendants 1 and 2 granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 their followers, fellowmen from ever in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein; to award costs of the suit and to pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

20. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: The property more fully described in the schedule here to annexed is the absolute stridhana property of one Rokkala Satyavathi, w/o. Kondala Rao. She purchased the same and some other property under registered sale deed dated 26-02-1992 from one

Vithanala Narayanamurty and others for a valuable consideration and she was duly put in possession of the property by her vendor and she during her life time continued in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since it is a coconut garden no taxes were imposed on the said lands since long time. But she was given pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said property. The said passbook and title deed were snatched away by one Gurlinka Durga but

18

Xerox copies are available with plaintiffs. She and her husband Kondala Rao used to reside at Bombay. Her husband being unhealthy somehow she came into contact with the 1st plaintiff herein and virtually she lead marital life with him and begot two children who are 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant herein.

Since the 3rd defendant is residing with her husband at Haryana she was shown as defendant since it became not possible to join her as plaintiff but she is interested in the subject matter of dispute, The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant originally treated with the surname of Rokkala Kondala Rao though 1st plaintiff is their father. While so, Rokkala Satyavathi during her life time in a sound and disposing state of mind out of her free will and violation executed a

Will dt.09-05-1997 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and some other properties in favour of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant but appointing 1st plaintiff as a care taker to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties till they became majors and directing the 1st plaintiff to handover possession of the same to them after they attained majority. Further she also bequeathed an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to her daughter Santhosha lakshmi born through her original husband Rokkala Kondala Rao to be enjoyed by her with full and absolute rights. The said Will was duly executed and attested and it is the last and final Will of Satyavathi. Later she died on 22-07-1997. After her death the

Will came into effect and as per the bequeaths there under the beneficiaries came into possession of the property. Later her original husband Kondala Rao also died. The relations between 1st plaintiff and Rokkala Satyavathi virtually became a relation of husband and wife and 2nd plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are their children. So whether Will or no Will 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant alone became entitled to the schedule properties and some other properties since

Santhosa Lakshmi accepted the Will executed by Satyavathi and she is enjoying the said Ac.1-00 cents of land by leasing out the same to the 1st plaintiff herein and receiving rents thereunder.

21.It is further submitted that they are concerned in this suit with the schedule property alone which is part of the properties covered under the sale

19

deed dt.26-02-1992 which properties were covered under the Will dated 09- 05-1997. It is submitted that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties as full and absolute owners of the property. Originally pattadar pass book and title deed book were issued in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi and after her death they were again issued by the government in the name of 1st plaintiff since he is the care taker of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant and he is in effective possession and enjoyment of schedule properties. The 1st plaintiff on behalf of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant used to cultivate the same and spending the income for the benefit of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant. While so, the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant became majors and became entitled to the properties as per the provisions of the Will dt.09-05- 1997 validly executed by late Rokkala Satyavathi in a sound and disposing state of mind and out of her free will and violation. While so after they became majors they came into possession of the same. The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant for their necessities and to utilize the proceeds for their development offered to sell item 1and 2 of the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd plaintiff herein. So a bargain was settled for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-and 3rd plaintiff obtained a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 from plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant. The 3rd plaintiff was duly put in possession of the property and he attended for plucking in the schedule property two or three times after the property was delivered to him in pursuance of the terms of sale deed dt.08-08-2014 and the 3rd plaintiff is in effective possession and enjoyment of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. The item No.3 of the schedule property still continuing in possession and enjoyment of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant and on their behalf the 1st plaintiff is looking after the same since he was in effective possession of the same as care taker of the interests of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant even after they attained majority. Now the defendants 1 and 2 since they are from privileged class started litigation with regard to other properties of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they are forced to file a suit against them and some others in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil

20

Judge's court, Amalapuram. Further the 1st defendant and one Arigela

Satyanarayana are in possession of some properties which belongs to daughter of late Rokkala Satyavathi by name Santhosi Lakshmi through her first husband as tenants and also some other properties of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant. As they committed default in payment of rents petitions were filed for ejectment of the 1st defendant and Arigela Satyanarayana from the respective lands and they are pending disposal. Now the defendants 1 and 2 by pressing their caste into service are making hectic efforts to cause obstruction to the plaintiffs and defendant in enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties in the best manner suits them. The defendants 1 and 2 are also proclaiming in the village that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant will not be allowed into the properties and they will cause severe and serious objection and they are also targeting the 3rd plaintiff who is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties.

22. It is further submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 have no locus-standee to interfere with possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein. Their attempts are highhanded and illegal.

They are also threatening that they will book the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant by filing atrocity cases or some cases involving ladies of their community. As a matter of fact they issued a false report against 1st plaintiff and others for which F.I.R. is registered the copy of which is also filed along with the plaint.

So by hurling such threats they are trying to fright on the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and also trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein.

It is humbly submitted that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are in absolute, effective and peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 3rd defendant are law abiding citizens, having no influences and on the other hand the defendants are desperate character have no regard or respect for law and they are upto anything and they have

21

serious backing of their caste and they are trying to use the said caste as ground for causing obstruction to the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant in enjoying the plaint schedule properties. They are making open proclamations to that effect in the village. The plaintiffs and 3rd defendants are not a match to the evil mechanisations of the defendants 1 and 2. So the right, title, interest and possession of plaintiffs and 3rd defendant is to be protected by way of granting a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their followers and fellowmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and from illegally entering into the land by threats and violence. The plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are entitled to seek such a decree and the defendants 1 and 2 are bound to suffer for such a decree. It is submitted that during pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died intestate on 01-06-2016 leaving behind him plaintiffs 4 and 5 as his next and nearest class-1 heirs. The 4th plaintiff is the wife and 5th plaintiff is the minor son of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Except the plaintiffs 4 and 5 there are no other LRs to deceased 2nd plaintiff. Hence they are added as LRs of deceased 2nd plaintiff in the suit. (added as per orders in

I.A.No. 1281 of 2016 dated 29-11-2016)

23. On receipt of summons, defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. It is further contended that it is submitted that, in fact, the D-1 is the elder brother of deceased Rokkala satyavati, and her husband Kondala Rao, was married being maternal uncle and defendant is son D-1, 1stplaintiff is the daily wage earner, under the deceased Kondala Rao and Rokkala Satyavati, while they were at Mumbai (Bombay), 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant are the children of Kondala Rao with

Satyavati. 3rd plaintiff is the purchaser of plaint schedule items 1 and 2. As matter stands, Rokkala Satyavati died on 22-07-1997 mysterious cause, by the daily wage earner, much less the so called 1st plaintiff in the suit. Pattadar pass books and title deed books were handed to Tahsildar, Allavaram and obtained pass passbook etc, in the name of Kondala Rao being husband of

22

deceased Satyavati, and are with the D-1. So, the contra allegations as if they are snatched away by one Gurlinka Durga is not true. Rokkala Satyavati and her husband Kondala Rao had been at Mumbai, and her husband being unhealthy, some how she came into the sakásk contact with ist plaintiff herein, virtually lead marital life with him, begot 2 children, who are 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs herein the suit. That, since, the 3rd defendant is residing with her husband at Hariyana, she was also shown as defendant, since not possible to get her as one of the plaintiffs, but, interested to purave the litigation. It is quite absurd and beyond human expectation that the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, originally styling with surname of Rokkala Kondala Rao, though the 1st plaintiff is their father. it is falsehood, and denied by defendant. That Kondala Rao and

Satyavati at Mumbai, and running workshop, Kondala Rao hale and healthy, they at with their best efforts did good and developed financially, and the 1st plaintiff got joined as daily worker, in the hands of Kondala Rao, lived in a separate house along with wife and her 2nd children, far away from the work shop, that, 1st plaintiff, daily used to bring the children to school from house, developed closeness with children, undercurrent, not to the sense of the parents, but, it is not correct, the children are born with 1st plaintiff to Satyavati,

Kondala Rao and Satyavati, have begotten 4 issues, 1.Santoshilakshmi, 2.Srinivasarao, 3.Krishnam Raju, and 4. Bhagya Sri. That after death of

Satyavati, Krishnam Raju and Bhagya sri, were tendered children, that is so, being worker, used to look after the children, as he is doing the same thing regarding their father Kondala Rao. Moreover, Kondala Rao and Satyavati belong to schedule caste, whereas the 1st plaintiff belongs to "Setti balija community". That marriage of Santoshi lakshmi was done by Kondala Rao and Satyavati. After their death marriage of Srinivasarao, was done by 1st defendant, and that D-1 totally looked after the children, that, since then the entire property is in the possession and enjoyment of Srinivasa rao, along with the management of D-1 and D-2. The 1st plaintiff, kidnaped the Srinivasarao at

Mumbai, in the year 1998, and on that, Kondala Rao became up-set with

23

mental agony, he died for nothing. Then the workshop was taken handed over by 1st plaintiff, and he has simply sold away, enjoyed the funds by himself, by then the children of Konddlar Rao 1.Krishnamraju and 2. Bhagya sri, plaintiff

No.2 and D.3. The 1st plaintiff converted the assets into cash and he came over to Munganda along with the minor children. The deceased Kondala Rao has duly executed Registered will in favour of Santoshilakshmi for Ac. 1-00 as well as in the subsequent unregistered will dt.04-07-1998. He has neglected the other children. It is not the fact that Kondala Rao's wife Satyavati has executed any will during his life time, that the unregistered will dated 09-05- 1997 was brought into existence much less by fabrication, set-up and creation by 1st plaintiff. That, the signature on the will of alleged Satyavati, is the handwork of 1st plaintiff. That too, signature of attestor as if her husband (Kondala Rao) is also forged to suit things manipulated by 1st plaintiff. That surnames of 2nd plaintiff and D.3 was changed to Mattaparti from Rokkala got entered in Revenue record and Aadhar card etc. by hand work of 1st plaintiff.

Relationship between 1st plaintiff with Satyavati are Master and servant, but, not as wife and husband as stated in plaint. Plaintiffs and D.3 never had possession and enjoyment of suit property as alleged in plaint.

24. The allegations of para 5 of plaint, that plaintiffs and D.3, are in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owners of the same, and original pattadar pass book and title book were issued in the name of

Rokkala Satyavati, and after her death, they were issued in the name of 1st plaintiff, since he is caretaker of 2nd plaintiff and D.3 and is in effective possession and enjoyment of the property, unused to cultivate the same, spending income to the 2nd plaintiff and D.3, are utter false hood to the knowledge of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs and D.3 never had possession and enjoyment of the suit property, much less as full and absolute owners thereof.

It is true, originally, pattadar pass book and title deed book were issued in the name of Rokkala Satyavati, and after her death, they were surrendered to

Allavaram M.R.O, and in turn issued new passbooks in the name of Rokkala

24

Kondala Rao, in respect of suit property. The 1st plaintiff, when the pattadar pass books are in force he has created the un-registered will dated 09-05- 1997, and with the assistance of will alleged, he influenced, the then M.R.O,

Smt. B.Gajnamba, and got the present pass books in the name of the 1st plaintiff. Then 1st defendant obliged to file application before R.D.O

Amalapuram, for due cancellation of the said books, in C.C.171 of 2012 dt.27- 11-2012. That, as during pendency of the above proceedings, M.R.O,

Allavaram (Tahsildar) enquired into the matter, submitted report to R.D.O. on 24-11-2014, which is pending. Moreover, as a precautionary measure, the

Revenue authorities get the pass book cancelled by office procedure relating to "On line". But, on the alleged pass book basis, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and 3rd defendant sold item-1 and 2 of suit schedule property to 3rd plaintiff as the 3rd plaintiff is belong to Kapu community and a well known rowdy of

Amalapuram, and he got capacity to make entry with his brute force. Even then, it became for impossible to get possession of the property, which the possession and enjoyment by 1st defendant, since 08-10-2008. General Power of Attorney under Doc.No.677/2008 by Rokkala Durga, W/o.Srinivasarao.

25. The 1st plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge's court, Amalapuran, against is 2nd defendant and others, for relief of

injunction, pending. The 1st defendant, filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's court, Amalapuram, against the plaintiffs herein and 3rd defendant, for due cancelation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 in favour of 3rd plaintiff by 1st and 2nd plaintiff along with 3rd defendant. That, without receiving suit summons therein, they engineered the present suit that too for permanent injunction with the help of the invalid things since, the revenue enquiry is on the purported sale deed was executed in favour of 3rd plaintiff, it amounts to criminal activity in the eye law that too against the government, until the enquiry concluded. That, as per allegations of para-6, that 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant majors, and became entitled to get property and per the provision of the will dated 09-05-1997, validly alleged to have executed by Rokkala

25

Satyavati, in a sound and disposing state of mind, and out of her free will and disposing state of mind and out of her free will and is a setup theory by plaintiffs. The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, for their necessities, to appropriate the proceeds for their development, offered items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule to 3rd plaintiff in the suit, bargained for Rs.5,60,000/- and obtained registered sale deed dated 08-08-2014 by the plaintiffs 1st and 2nd plaintiff in favour of 3rd plaintiff. Thus, it seems the 3rd plaintiff came into possession and attended for plucking coconuts, roughly 2 and or 3 times that after the property allegedly delivered, and effective possession of items 1 and 2, the item-3 of suit schedule is in continuous enjoyment and possession of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, and on behalf of 1st plaintiff, is utter falsehood to the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

26.It is further submitted that the facts of the case are the 1st and 2nd defendant are in actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, since, right from 2008, when G.P.A. got by 1st defendant the said Durga. The 1st defendant leased out the entire suit schedule property in the year 2012 to 2014, to one Polamuri Sriramulu S/o Ramamurty of Ventrukona, for the interim crops like plantation of Banana. That on completion, he has duly delivered possession of the property to the 1st defendant. That the property possession is with the 1st and 2nd defendants. That, in fact, the 3rd defendnt not even aware of the topography of the property to say. It is therefore, absolute false hood that, he got plucked the coconuts for 2 or 3 occasions, which falsifies the version, in the text of the plaintiffs alleged. The 1st plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book, that he as if got court order, misrepresented for issue of pattadar pass book, as per O.S.No.74 of 2005 as that suit by Srinivasarao (Rokkala) against 1st plaintiff and others, and the said suit was ended " not pressed" by

Rokkala Durga, who is a party after death of her husband. Actually there are no orders by court, in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as the suit ended as "not pressed".

The 1st plaintiff, it seems has cheated the revenue, obtained Pattadar pass book, under the false pretext. That, the 1st plaintiff filed A.T.C. for the alleged

26

years, 2006, and for the year 2012 seeking to evictionon the ground of alleged arrears. Those were dismissed by the court, since, the party not taken steps.

That, since 1st plaintiff solvent enough. I.P suit, was dismissed. Again the present suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram, for the mere relief of injunction, as if the property alleged to be with him. That suit by 1st plaintiff against Santosh Lakshmi was dismissed, and imposed fine by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Amalapuram to plaintiff therein that suit. The defendants 1 and 2, since they are prevailed Class started litigation, with regard to other properties on plaintiffs 1 and 2, and they are forced to file a suit against them and some others, in O.S.No.248 of 2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram. Further the 1st defendant and one Aregela Satyanarayana, are in possession of some property, which belongs to Rokkala Satyavati's daughter by name Santoshslakshmi, through her 1st husband, as tenants and also some other properties of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, and as they committed default in payment of rents, petitions were filed for ejectment of 1st defendant and Aregela Satyanarayana, from the respective lands, and they are pending disposal, is not true and correct. In fact, the 1 st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of schedule land, since the power of attorney dated 08-10-2008, by Rokkala Durga, and since the plaintiffs are trying to handover the land through the court and on that, the 1st plaintiff filed O.S.No. 248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judges’ court,

Amalapuram, against the defendants 1 and 2 and others, who are not concerned with the property. The 1st defendant gave some property on tenancy to Aregela Satyanarayana and Pitani Suryanarayana and others. On that the 1st plaintiff filed A.T.C.2 of 2011 and 5of 2011 with false allegations and they were dismissed, by the Tenancy tribunal. The outcome of tenancy proceedings are somehow to establish his alleged rights if any, and to lend support in the present suit and Suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 and the present suit

O.S.No.17 of 2015 seems to be collusive in nature, even regarding

27

engagement by one and same counsel for D.5 and plaintiffs in the present suit.

27.It is further contended that in fact causing objections by defendants 1 and 2, does not arise, that the plaintiffs and D.3, have not aware of the suit schedule property, that plaintiffs 1 and 2 the 3rd defendant are residents of

Munganda, and 3rd plaintiff is at Amalapuram, and that because of the agreement between the 3rd plaintiff and the other plaintiffs 1 and 2, to enter into possession of the property with brutal-e force with the heap of local persons, like.1 Moturi Satyamrayana, and 2. Eeti krishnarao, etc. before purchasing the property items 1 and 2 by 3rd plaintiff, the 1st defendant in person explained the history and rights of the property concerned and the alleged executants have no rights to alienate the property as matter stands.

Further, in that course, he also sent one Vasarla Simhadri and Tikkireddy

Satyanarayana, of Ventrukona, but, the 3rd plaintiff came forward with challenge when he got document he can deal with the matter to get the possession of the property, in any manner. It is to be noted that, no passing of consideration as alleged between plaintiffs 1 and 2 by 3rd plaintiff, in respect of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. It is only to make believe that, the schedule property will be handed from 1st defendant by the 3rd plaintiff by use of his brutal force as well as political motives. But, it is not possible for him that, since 7 months, the present suit is instigated. In fact, the suit schedule land is near by the house of the defendants 1 and 2, and they are enjoying the same happily since a long time. That, plaintiffs or the 3rd defendant had no occasion to be in possession of property earlier or even now itself. It is utmost thing to be noted that they are not even aware of the topography of the property to say that alleged possession by plaintiffs or 3rd defendant. That, when D.1 and D.2 are attending before the court on dt.14-03-2012, in

O.S.No.248 of 2014 (2011), the 1st plaintiff along with his counsel by name

K.B. Acharyulu, and one Moturi Satyanarayana of Ventrukoma, have threatened D.1 and D.2. They have also used unparliamentary language

28

against them by neglect of his position by counsel, attributing foul things on caste, even in court premises. On that, the D.W.1 and D.2 filed a complaint

before Amalapuran Town police and it was registered in Cr.No.72 of 2012,

enquiry is pending. It became habit of 1st plaintiff to one way or other to harass the defendants 1 and 2 one way or other with the help of finance, and with the instigation and litigation by persons like 3rd plaintiff.

28. The alleged cause of action since 1992, when Rokkala Satyavati purchased the property, under sale deed dated 26-02-1992, continued in possession and enjoyment, as full and absolute owner thereof, and on 09-05- 1997, when Satyavati's will and on 22-07-1997, when Testatrix died, and will acted upon, and as per terms of will, 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, through 1st plaintiff, came into possession of the same, and on 08-08-2014, the registered purported sale deed, in favour of 3rd plaintiff by 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff as well as 3rd defendant, and when alleged possession by 3rd plaintiff, alleged enjoyment by way of plucking coconuts in the property, and alleged possession and enjoyment of property by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant, of item.3 of plaint schedule, attending getting usufruct plucked, regulały, and whe alleged theory of proclaiming by defendants 1 and 2, in the village that they are going to interfere with the possession and enjoyment plaint schedule property by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant, even by threat and violence, if necessary, and ask is, all cocok and full story and beyond human expectation conduct at a glance the things are scened by evidence, That, when the sale deed in the name of Satyavati dt.26-02-1992 and it was by 1st defendant, being Stridhana, she left to Mumbai, the possession of the property is with the

D.l and D.2 for proper up keep of the property, and regarding the will plaintiff dt.09-05-1997, which is creation by 1st defendant and forged signature of

Stayvati and death of Satyavati on 22-07-1997 that too within 2 months, is highly giving scope to unfair things that too mysterious circumstances as alleged, by 1st plaintiff. That, after her death the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant were in the custody of Rokkala Kondala Rao, and the 1st plaintiff is also with

29

Kondala Rao at Mumbai as a servant. That, subsequently, Kondala Rao died, when 1st plaintiff has kidnapped, his son Rokkalas Srinivasarao, due to shock, because of misdeeds, and when he was rendered possession of work shop, it was sold away by him and collected sale proceeds big haul, some lakhs and lakhs. So, the alleged possession and enjoyment by plaintiffs and D.3 is totally false and without possession and enjoyment, the relief of injunction, and therefore, suit has no basis at all and maintainable.

29.To substantiate ample evidence by the defendants 1 and 2, intend to file documents like G.P.A.holder by Rokkala durga, Pattadar pass books in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao, Enquiry Report of Tahsildar, Allavaram, for cancelation of pattadar pass books in the name of 1st plaintiff. The suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed an limini with costs and award compensatory costs of defendants in view of speculative, litigation by plaintiffs.

30. The 3rd defendant filed separate written statement contending that

Rokkala Satyavathi is the mother of 2nd plaintiff and this defendant and 1st plaintiff is their father. Rokkala Satyavathi executed a Will dated 09-05-1997.

She bequeathed the properties to this defendant and 2nd plaintiff but she kept the 1st plaintiff as care taker since 2nd plaintiff and this defendant are minors by the date of Will. Subsequently 2nd plaintiff and this defendant became majors and they came into possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Since 1st plaintiff is the father he is also managing and looking on behalf of 2nd plaintiff and this defendant. They sold the plaint schedule property to the 3rd plaintiff under registered sale deed dt.08-08-2014 and 3rd plaintiff put in possession of plaint schedule property. This defendant is also entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint against defendants 1 and 2.

31.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

30

32.As per the orders of Honorable Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, in

Tr.O.P.No.164 of 2017, dated 22-10-2018 as per the said orders O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram was withdrawn and transferred to this court to try along with O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.248 of 2011. As per orders in Memo S.R.No.976 of 2019, dated 02-03-2019, the suit in O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 clubbed with O.s.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this court treating the evidence already adduced in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 is the evidence in other two suits and to record further

evidence in O.S.No.248 of 2011.

33.During the trial, the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2011 himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. The plaintiffs in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 also got examined one Kudupudi Satyanarayana, as

P.W.2; one Yenamadala Dhanarajarao, as P.W.3; and one Kadali Veera

Venkata Satyanarayana, Document writer as P.W.4. On completion of plaintiffs’ side evidence, the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.248 of 2011 himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B11. During cross examination of D.W.1, Ex.B.16 is marked. The defendants got examined one Peyyala

Venkatareddy, Eeti Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu, Nakka Satyanarayana, who are 3rd parties to the proceedings as D.W.2 to D.W.4. The defendants also got examined Deputy Tahsildar of Kothapeta as D.W.5 and got marked Exs.B.12 to B.14 (subject to objection). The defendants also got examined one

Vasamsetti Jayalakshmi as D.W.6, one Pulapakuru Srinivasarao as D.W.7 and got examined 3rd plaintiff as D.W.8 and got marked Ex.B.15.

34.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered both submissions, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, coupled with Exs.A1 to A14, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 8, coupled with Exs.B1 to B16, and other material on record.

35.The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that schedule property originally belonging to the Rokkala satyavathi, Kondala Rao, they settled at Mumbai. 1st plaintiff went to the Mumbai. Rokkala satyavathi with consent of the 1st

31

plaintiff lead the family life with the Kondala Rao. 1st plaintiff and Kondala Rao lead their family life blessed with two children they are the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.248 of 2011, they possessed the property Ventrikona village.

Rokkala Satyavathi executed un-registered will sound disposing the state of mine legally justified manner, without suspicious manner. As per will 1st plaintiff is the guardian other plaintiffs are the minors. Part of the property in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 covered the will dated 09-05-1997 rest of property

covered and well wisher will dated 26-05-1998. which is Ex.A7 executed by

Rokkla Kondala rao, Ex.A5 and A7 two wills. Suit filed by the plaintiffs depending on the two documents of will. 1st defendant paid to delivered, exchange of the property of partition, legal notices issued to the 1st defendant is Rokkala durga d/o Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. 1st defendant not contested but case was registered against her. Notice was served. There is no resistance from the D1. 1st defendant is Competent person except file the litigation kept silent. Competent person and legal right not executed and not implemented adverse inference not drawn in the absence of the right , implementation by her to grant the decree.

36.In Suit No.288 of 2014 Sape Vemala Rao contested in the suit who is the D2, he denied Ex.A5 and A7 by his written statement.

37. D2 contention , he grant a same legal right in the schedule property, D2 is legally entitled resist the claim of property in the absence of another claim.

1st defendant executed GPA he look-after everything, litigation of property. D2 is resisting suit claims. Other plaintiffs warn to the Rokkala Satyavathi, 1st plaintiff is Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju have no right to claim they are the legal children. Children born to the Satyavathi through the Kondala Rao.

38.O.S.No.288 of 2014 suit filed 2nd defendant , plaintiff against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed, the schedule property belonging to the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, they have no right to execute the sale deed , seeking the cancellation caused the enquiry not a party to the document, he is a third party to the document has no right to seek the

32

cancellation, only executant have right to seek the cancellation fo sale deed.

What is legal right possessed by the plaintiff without manner of right to seek their relief. Proper person is the 1st person is the Durga, she has not filed the suit she is only competent filed the suit. Basing on GPA filed the suit for cancellation as per GPA holder filed the suit of Rokkala Durga suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.

Who is the owner of the property covered in O.S.No.288 of 2014 . four questions has be decided

Point No.1:- Who is the owner of the property to filed the suit?

Point No.2:- Whether the said person is a party to the suit is competent person?

Point No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is O.S.No.288 of 2014 has got connection with the property?

Point No.4:- if the plaintiff did not have noxiousness with the property can maintain the suit in individual capacity.

Point No.5: Whether the expected person Rokkala Durga have gave a GPA plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 the suit filed by the Sapa Vemala

Rao in individual capacity or G.P.A. capacity

Point No.1: Suit itself is not maintainable no legal right. He made certain allegations to whom the plaint schedule property is not cured , none the property filed in O.S.No.288 of 2014 and another suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 and 5th defendant

O.S.No.2 of 2019

39.Mattaparthi Rama Raju filed the suit against the Sape Vemala Rao is a party to the proceeding holding that he is in a possession of the property seeking the injunction , suit was transferred to this court.

Common Point: in all the suits one and the same on the fact of the suit

Ex.A5 and A7 are wills in sound disposing state of mine evidence connected to the attestation of the suits O.S.No.288 of 2014 said suit injunction may be grant the decree in O.S. No.248 of 2011. O.S.No. 288 of 2014 may be

33

dismiss the suit. Mattaparthi Rama Raju proved the wills. The learned plaintiff counsel argued that plaint schedule property at Yentrikona village and property belongs to the Satyavathi there is no dispute at all B schedule property 10 items are the purchased by the Satyavathi and Kondala Rao in different sale deeds by jointly under Ex.A1 A2 and A3. A1 is the original sale deed custody of Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju who is the 1st plaintiff under the wills of Ex.A5 and A7. Ex.A1 relating to the item No.1, survey No. 191-5B an extent of Ac 1-50 cents 2nd extent is the Ac.1-00 cents in survey No.19106.

It is compressed an extent of Ac 1-50 cents concerned on the item no,.1 of schedule property. Ex.A2 dated 04-01-1991 in favour of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi property covered under Ex.B2 an extent of AC 2-12 cents in survey number 162/5A, Ac 0-29 ½ in survey no 165/5B AC 0-60 cents total 0-89 ½ cents bounded by original boundaries. Item No.3 the 191 cents fallen full extent Ac.0-46 cents no boundaries. Item no 4 is the survey No.191/3 an extent of 0-18 cents. Item No.5 is the Ac.0-05 cents adjoining to the item No1 and 2 . item No6 survey No. 191/4A Ac.0-25 cents,. Item No.7 survey no 191/A Ac 0-25 cents . Item No.8 survey No.191/4 Ac.0-19 cents . 8 items total Ac.2-12 cents. Ex.A2 property item No.2 survey No.162 5A, item no1 is the 165-5B Ac.0-80 ½ cents. Item No.8 of plaint schedule property one and equal to the item No.3. Item No.3, 4, 5 of Ex.A2 equal to item No.4 of plaint schedule property. Item No. 6 is the Ex.A2 is equivalent to the item No.5 of B schedule property. item No.7 of Ex.A2 is equlant to item No.6 of B schedule property/item No.8 of Ex.A2 equal to item No. 7 of B schedule property.

Ex.A2 is also in favour of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Ex.A3 covered an extent of Ac.0-88 cents comprised into the 3 items. First item of Ex.A3 193/1B of Ac.0-42 cents. Item No.8 of B schedule property survey No.193/1C an extent of Ac.0-37 cents, out of equal to item No 9 of B schedule property.

survey No.191/2 an extent of Ac.09-00 cents of Ac.0-36 cents. Which is item

No.10 of plaint schedule property. Item no1 to 3 are relating to the total B schedule property. No cross examination custody of Ex.A1 to A3. B schedule

34

property belonging to the Satyavathi and Kondala rao. Custody of document produced in the hands of plaintiff I.e no dispute, Ex.A4 Rokkala Satyavathi purchased 3 items. Item No.1 and 2 in survey No. 146-4 is not the subject matter. Item No.3 is the extent of Ac 0-02 cents in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi. A schedule property covered by is in the name of Satyavathi, schedule property established property belongs to the Satyavathi and Kondala rao.

40.Item No.5 will executed sound disposing state of mind. Now Rokkala

Satyavathi is a subscribing her signature. She is sign as S.R.RAO, she subscribed signature in English language. Ex.A5 will, wife of Srinivasa Rao who is the Rokkala Durga never disputed either filing the written statement, dispute correctness of Ex.A5. Positive evidence prove to say that qualified person Durga did not dispute the will. Attestors examined as Pw2. 1st attestor of Ex.A5 and 3rd attestor examined as of Ex.A5, husband of Satyavathi is also one of the attestor to the will Ex.A5 what is the with proof, that may be questioned to other side expectation. Any one attesting examined to prove, not examined all the attestors. During the cross examination P.W.2 p.w.3 neither elicited signatures nor the Kondala Rao standard signature of Kondala

Rao shall be produced. Signature not belonging to Kondala Rao, standard signatures of Kondala Rao has to be produced. Signature not belong to the

Kondala Rao , two omission , adversity effect their case to modes adverse signatures of Kondala Rao and recitals of 3 read over. D1 is not contention in the suit. Ex.A5 can be denied, total property bequeathed. Rational description explained. As per will under Ex.A1, plaintiff are in the share in the plaint schedule property. Basing on the Ex.A4 and A5 will sought reliefs delivery under Ex.A5 property. B schedule property within the name of wife and husband who are the Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Satyavathi entitled to half share in B Schedule property, Satyavathi executed in respect of B schedule property, half share stands in the name of suit is entitled for creditor, suit is filed for declaration of A schedule property, partition of the B schedule

35

property half share is Kondala Rao. The plaintiffs are given the property if they are not given, half share of Kondala Rao shall given or not . D2 is not having share. Ex.A1 is in the name of Kondala Rao. Name is mentioned only

Satyavathi Rokkala would so absent as orders No.1 half share of the plaintiff 2 and 3 equal as share. Never saw the he bare the consent to maintain he given the consent to the matter vasaparthi krishna Rama Raju, plaintiffs share 1 and 2 Kondala Rao treated by the Satyavathi through Mattaparthi venkata

Raju. Half share belonging to the Satyavathi. Share of Kondala Rao not denied Ex.A5 by Kondala Rao. Ex.A7 is not containing the Satyavathi, will

Kondala Rao is also legal heir. Recitals of Ex.A7 more particularly omission part of the Kondala Rao regarding to the test of monetary and also non testamentary but she died testamentary. Ex.A1, A4, A5, A7 read over the together intention of the testator called as candidate by other side. Kondala

Rao will for Ac.1-00 cents Krishnam Raju, Bhagyasree, Srinivasa Rao divided into three share. Half share into 1/3 share. Half share + Kondala Rao 1/6 + 10 shares if the relief paid in the plaint to prove the Ex.A6 and A7 got examined by Pw4 Kadali Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. Document was written so the witness have conveyed and relied upon the will to get decree In favour of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit 2nd plaintiff died. Under Ex.A5 will half share of the Rokkala Satyavathi, under Ex.A7 half share of Rokkala

Satyavathi in Ex.A5 and A11. For A schedule for B schedule for partition.

288/2014 filed the cancellation of sale deed. 3rd suit for injunction Ex.A5 and

A7 two documents for the suit. Except 1st defendant other legal heirs having resisting by virtue of Ex.A5 will.

Para No.4 and 5 of chief affidavit of P.W.1 as follows:-

I submit that due to the fact that Satyavathi is very younger than that of

Kondala Rao, reasons known to both of them, at the consent of Kondala Rao and as well as desire of Satyavathi, she used to lead family life with me. Out of our family life, we both of us blessed with plaintiffs 2 and 3. In spite of the

36

above set of things, none of them exhibited any discrimination on our children and all of us continued as one unit. A schedule property was acquired by

Satyavathi under registered sale deed dated 26-02-1992 executed by

Vithanala Narayana Murthy and others. An extent of Ac.1-00 cents in

R.S.No.83/4 and Ac.0-80 cents in R.S.No.106/5 and some other extent was also acquired by her under the said sale deed. Para No.7 of Ex.A5 will , Para

No.8 connected to the property of Agirala Satyanarayana.

41.Written statement not filed by the D5 and D6 not enter into the box to substantiate case failed by the D5 and D6. D5 and D6 written statement filed for assuring to draw the attention of the court. Re-joinder cannot be filed taken on the pleading. Pleading supported by evidence cannot be equated the evidence. D5 and D6 not attack and claim made by the plaintiff not contest for debuting D5 and D6 are only competent to raise the defence other defendants are not having legal right to assume the role of D5 and and D6.

Persons to expect file the litigation. They did not file the document. Sale deeds are in their favours. They did not dispute Ex.A5 and A7. A schedule property does not belonging to Rokkala Kondala rao belonging to Satyavathi.

Sale deeds should over the A schedule property. Rokkala Kondala Rao have no right to alienate the property to grant a decree A schedule property to adjudicate Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will because the property belongs to the Satyavathi. They fails to prove the legal right of Kondala Rao. They did not file the sale deed. Their revenue records to show the possession, all the questions in favour of plaintiffs in positive way. There is no resistance can be granted . When the persons who are alleged resistance fail to enter into the box. Whether it is open to other defendants step into the claim, attach the plaintiffs. Other defendants are legally es-toped in respect of the plaint schedule property. D5 an D6 are claim no hurdles claim the schedule property.

42.B schedule property under Ex.A5 will to prove the fact, P.W.2 Kudupudi

Satyanarayana s/o Veeranna setty.

37

Attestors cross examination are highlighted PW2 evidence will alienate the legal position.

Rokkala Satyavathi informed him that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Styavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. I do not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. I do not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. I do not know reason for non registration of the Will at

Amalapuram.

Rokkala Dhanunjaya and Kondala Rao are the attestors subscribing signatures, disturbance and disbelieve the signatures attestors of Ex.A5 and

A7 contesting , attestation fails to prove the cross examination made by the defendants. During the cross examination of pw2 on 18-09-2020 relationship elicited. Suggestion made to the Pw2 born to the Satyavathi and Kondala

Rao through two children. Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao only children.

Plaintiffs are not the children. Positive suggestion to the Pw1 were blessed with two children only suggestion denied by the P.W.2. Kondala Rao not the father of M.Srinivasa Rao is a father. Satyavathi got the four children.

Kondala Rao two children, P.W.1 got two children ,m pw1 children are not legitimate children invalid marriage of pw1 and Satyavathi. Plaintiffs are the legitimate children of Satyavathi. Kodala Rao not obtain one of the attestors would vitiate, effect legally in question Ex.A5 will belongs to the Satyavathi.

Satyavathi also having half share in the B schedule property. half share of

38

Kondala Rao. Satyavathi executed half share undivided out of plaint schedule property, Kondala Rao is not executed will undivided share kept with him.

Satyavathi subscribe as a testator. Will was also executed total property

Satyavathi, Kondala Rao signature are required were incorporated in the will as a testator. A schedule property is the full extent B schedule property half share of Satyavathi, Kondala Rao attested Ex.A5. Attestor appeal not acquire and contents of the definition of the attestation only limited. There is no law , purpose limited only identification witness signature.

Ex.A5 signatures not denied subscribed in the presence of Pw2 on the other attestors. When the material facts of the attestation of will to make cross examination Pw2. Attestation not disturbed. Cross examination pw2 remains unchallenged. There is cross examination signature does not belonging to

Rokkala Satyavathi is unchallenged. Not questioned, material question of fact and law of attestation, said fact must be accepted by law. legally is 2007 dispute is 2018 safely rely proof of attestation.

Whether the relative of persons can acted as a attestor?

Whether the evidence of P.W.1 to attestation of the document?

A suggestion must be P.W.1 deposing of P.W.3

The court scrutinize the evidence very carefully?

43.P.W.1 and 2 are relatives to the dispute as a 2nd defendant that the motive is also establish. Relative deposed motive not established no material discard one of the attestor of will examined by the plaintiff. PW3 is the another attestor of Ex.A5. P.W.3 deposed in para No.4 of his chief examination affidavit as follows:-

I submit that originally Rokkala Satyavathi is the wife of Kondala Rao.

But however with the permission of Kondala Rao, she married 1st plaintiff and to their wedlock they were blessed with plaintiffs 2 and 3 by name

Krishnamraju and Bhagyasree. Therefore, Rokkala Satyavathi is the wife of 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their children.

39

Rokkala Satyavathi executed un registered Will dated 09-05-1997 in a sound and disposing state of mind. As per the Will she bequeathed her exclusive properties to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and her undivided half from out of the joint properties with Kondala Rao also to them. Therefore, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to the exclusive property and undivided half of Satyavathi as stated above under the unregistered Will dated 09-05-1997.

In the cross examination P.W.2 P.W.3 is relative he is admitted. P.W.3 is not denied and not disputed signatures of Satyavathi. Who are the present at the time of execution of will. Evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 sound disposing state of mind upto remark. Contrary to the evidence particular regard to the attestation. There is no hesitation to believe the will , relationship of pw1 to 3 are not suspect the character. In view of the admission , commission to disbelieve the will. Additional issue framed as Ex.A5 will date is correct 09- 05-1995. out of the three attestors, two attestors examined Rokkala Kondala

Rao is no more. Other side not comment witness of Kondala Rao.

44.Alternative method P.W.1, 3 are the direct witness. What is necessity to examined the other witness, plaintiff examined the proof of will relationship is there. Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavathi raising the objections relatives of attestors, needs to be no conciliation. P.W.2 and 3 evidence is the believe if the Satyavathi executed the will. It is prove the Ex.A5. Property can sold or not. There is no challenge cross examination made in include signature of the

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Ex.A5 will proved. Ex.A7 will suggestions made in cross examination, that two children denied which version is the correct. Four or two children. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st plaintiff and Satyavathi, there is no case of D2. Ex.A10 schedule property partitioned not co-operated. Ex.A12 is issued reply to the Ex.A10.

Un numbered para of Ex.A12 as follows:-

As per Ex.A10, Mattaparthi Krishnam Raju and Bhagyasree. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are born to 1st plaintiff and Satyavathi. Ex.A14 is the reply. Ex.A10 A12 A13 and A14 plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of Satyavathi children. Ex.A5 will

40

referred Ex.A13 and A14 . Ex.A12, A13 last page last paragraphs as follows.

Ex.A5 is fabricated under Ex.A12 and A14. Fabrication and forged not one and the same together. Creation used same is signed paper . Forgery is the signature of one person. If the forgery taken into the consideration it is completely un-known attack making fabrication/ forgery must be specific forgery means duplicate. In what respect Satyavathi is not executed the will there is no foundation attack on behalf of defendants. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of Satyavathi. No proper attack on Ex.A5 on which way fabricated, who signature forged, there is a force in reply. They can not supplement anything other side cannot be contented include all the things.

Ex.A7 will executed by Kondala Rao admitted by the D2. Ex.A7 is the secondary evidence. Without proper foundation can rely upon the secondary evidence. Mode of the question is required primary evidence is the original document. Section 74 of the evidence act registered document is a public document. If it registered, secondary evidence cannot be taken into consideration is in question.

Laid the foundation during the cross examination of Dw1.

D.W.1 page No.21 as follows:-

It is true that in Ex.B.1, it is mentioned that I have to make all affairs on behalf of Durga and account for the income also. I did not maintain any accounts regarding properties of Durga from 2008 till date. No special power of attorney was executed by Durga except Ex.B.1 to give evidence in the suit.

It is true that there is a recital in Ex.B.1 power of attorney that if I did not act as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B.1, she has right to cancel the same. I did not file any other documents that I acted as per Ex.B.1 and any other transactions under Ex.B.1. On the date of execution Ex.B.1 was registered. Srinivasarao died in the year, 2005. Srinivasarao died three years prior to execution of Ex.B.1. From the date of death of Srinivasarao and till

Ex.B.1 came into existence the Rokkala Durga herself look after all her properties affairs. Now Rokkala Durga is residing at Komarigiripatnam. Now

41

the Rokkala Durga is aged approximately 35 years. As on the date of execution of Ex.B.1 the age of Durga is 25 years. Now Durga is hale and healthy. Since the matter O.S.No.74 of 2005 was went to up to Hon’ble High

Court the Durga executed Ex.B.1 as she is unable to look after the case affairs alone. As on the date of Ex.B.1 Durga is healthy. There is no mentioned in Ex.B.1 because the health condition of Durga is not well she is executing

Ex.B.1. Balla Sriramulu and Dorababu is alive. The scribe of Ex.B.1 is

Geddala Laxmanarao of Thurpulanka of Allavaram Mandal. The Sriramulu and

Dorababu is not my relatives. There is no record that I paid taxes on behalf of

Durga or Managed the properties of Durga. The Durga herself not pressed

O.S.No.74 of 2005 in the year, 2010. It is not true to suggest that Rokkala

Durga never executed Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.1 never acted upon. The revenue records are in possession of 1st defendant herein and husband. The Rokkala

Kondala Rao could sign in English or in Telugu. It is true that Ex.B.2 bear the signatures of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The Will dated 26-05-1998 contains the signatures of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The original Will dated 26-05-1998 was filed by Srinivasarao in Court.

Ex.A7 date is 26-09-1998 executed satisfaction evidence to receive the evidence. Secondary evidence, foundation, in the pleading are evidence.

Ex.A7 is not dispute at all. Dw1 admitted year of the execution. Ex.A7 property he made the bequeath in favour of them. They born to him or not.

Basing on the pw1 to 4 evidence as well as exchange of the notice Ex.A12 and A14 proved the Ex.A5 and A7. Pw4 scribe of Ex.A7 Kodali Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana examined through summons.

He deposed that he received witness summons in this matter from the court. I am a document writer. He has been working as document writer since 1993. Whenever he scribed any document I used to make an endorsement to that effect on the said document. If any document contained said endorsement and my signature, it can be said that he scribed the said document. All the documents scribed by me are genuine documents. The name contained on

42

Ex.A.1 as scribe is mine. Ex.A.7 is a registered document. At the time of registration of document, there is no need of presence of the scribe. Ex.A.7 was scribed about 21 years back. By going through the Ex.A.7 He recollected my memory. He does not remember the each and every document which was scribed by me, but by going through the document he can recollect my memory. As per the contents of Ex.A.7 Rokkala Kondala Rao signed as an executant and Katikidala Nageswara Rao and Sape Hemasundararao attested the said document. He came to the court to speak about the said document. Presence of the executant, attestors proved. Admitting the recitals not disputing the recitals. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are the minors Srinivasa Rao act as a guardian not enter into the other material. Ex.A5 admitted by the other side not disputing is there necessary calling for attestation of will not disputed by other. Ex.A7 will. Ex.A5 disputed . Examination of attestors is necessary to examine attestors it is undisputed unanimously facts. Admitted facts need not be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. Evidence of scribe including , evidence of attestation, Sapa Hema Sundara rao replaced to the second defendant. Only evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to believe Ex.A4 by virtue of oral evidence. Cross examination under the light of documentary proved satisfactory of the court. Ex.A5 executed by the Satyavathi and Ex.A7 executed by the Kondala Rao. Positive evidence effort through the evidence not basing on the witness of the other side. Plaintiff evidence proved by the evidence of document. Made a foundation validity executed attested required them. Decree in favour of evidence of the defendants came to the will.

Plaintiff would have extract from the mouth of evidence of the defendant.

whether the evidence of defendant throw away entire case, apart these from who is competent.

45.To appreciate the case of defendants with the D1 Durga who is the wife of Srinivasa rao he is no more. After the death of Srinivasarao Durga married the another person surname is changed. 1st defendant cannot family member of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Gollanka Durga not Rokkala Durga in

43

OS. Nos.248 of 2011, 288 of 2014 and 2 of 2019. 2nd defendant seized the

Rokkala after the married the person, if she is assume entitled the claim her presence must there unconnected proceedings but omitted. 1st defendant not made claim. Outside of the court 2nd thing is the 1st defendant not contesting in the suit not filed the written statement not examined as D2 witness. Basing on the Ex.B1 which is G.P.A. executed in favour of D2 by D1. 2nd defendant perusing the litigation now the G.P.A. used as a D2 to prosecute O.S No.248 of 2011. suit number referred or not. Ex.B1 proved examining the Rokkala

Durga GPA is revoked or not. If the revoked D2 not proceed with the 2nd defendant not revoked in course property in O.S.No. 248 of 2011 is correct or not. From 2011 suit is pending on the G.P.A.

Point No.1 on 8-10-2008 Ex.B1 by then 248 of 2011 suit is not there, there is no scope at all to give the G.P.A. by D1 to the D2 by referring by post litigation. On that ground Ex.B1 is have no value.

Point No.2. Whether the schedule property mentioned Ex.B1 is correct or not.

3. since Ex.B1 schedule property not covered in OS 248/2011 4.Ex.b1 contents read over, present suit, previous suits are not subsequent suits. Previous suits are not pending suits. Ex.B1 is not believed.

In O.S.No.288 of 2014 relating to the filed one defendant. Ex.B1 prior to the 2014. schedule property there is a special power of attorney for the purpose of G.P.A. on behalf of has to file the petition along with accord the suit under the law seeking the prosecute the legal proceedings as a agent to principle. Such procedure adopted or not is in question. It is mandatory procedure. 2nd defendant containing suit is individual capacity no chance. It is a case in pursuance of the case ascertaining fallow the procedure , power is in force. Suits are 2011 that power is in course are also subsequent to the suit. Such evidence is a adduced believe upon on it. Ex.B1 does not disclose delivery of property the general G.P.A. will not give right to look after the proceedings. Property not referred. 2nd defendant cannot prosecute the case for the above reason even otherwise impliedly supposed. All the properties of

44

Kondala Rao under Ex.B1 not the Satyavathi. Why the property of the

Satyavathi under Ex.b1 will is omission in Ex.B1 regarding to the properties and support the Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is in force prosecute on behalf of D1 and D2.

D1 is exparte, D2 filed the vakalath as G.P.A. holder of D1 not in individual capacity. Written statement of D2, vakalth of D2 meticulously, he is prosecuting the suit individual capacity not G.P.A. of D1. Omission on part of the D2 as a G.P.A. , 1st defendant prosecuting the case individual capacity to act upon or not. D2 must be considered GPA holder are not to do so.

Individual capacity what is effect to the suit. It is taken into consideration or not. Is there any legal right to prosecuting the case D1 written statement not filed by the D2 as a rightful owner of the property defending the case. D1 is not there D2 is the individual capacity of G.P.A. Ex.B1 is not legal document

as 2nd defendant not containing the basing on the schedule property, suit is

reflecting there on. Ex.B1 is not right any defendant to make legal right in respect. Ex.B1 is only waste paper through it is register. B2 is not legal competent claim made by the plaintiffs. Ex.B2 is Pattadhar passbook in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao. Title deed item referred in Ex.B2 joint properties purchased part of B schedule property only Ac 2-24 cents.

Endorsement is there. After the death of wife husband name is enter by endorsement Ex.B2 are the wet lands, no land revenue are adangal are not filed. they can not apply application to the revenue authorities for revenue records, whether the property belongs to the Kondala Rao is in question. How to secure from the D2 for lawful custody. Ex.B1 and B2 custody and also extent. Ex.B1 property farm of the property Ex.B2. What is power executed by D2. Kodala Rao executed the will Ex.A5. Ex.B1 and B2 are created for future litigation after death of Satyavathi under Ex.B2 is also . Ex.B3 referred three items covered under EX.B1 and B2. 2nd defendant gave a good bite not for the schedule property covered the suit fileIA 2014. Ex.B2 schedule property is not mentioned. Ex.B4 is the revenue records O.S.No.288 of 2014 suit not considered. Ex.b5 is the tenancy register extract dismissed for

45

default for nonpayment of batta. A.T.C. was dismissed. There is a difference on dismissal of the record. It is binding on the both parties only merits. By filing the file the petition Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. rejection of the plaint deemed to be on merits proper remedy is referred the case on theoretical grounds.

Ex.b5 and B6 on technical grounds schedule is not there. Ex.B5 B6 against the Sape Syamalarao is R.S. No. 83/04 this is not subject matter of suit 2nd defendant cannot rely upon the documents. O.S.No.248 of 2011 suit cannot be reject it is the main suit Ex.B6 and B5 are not relevancy. Ex.B7 is the

A.T.C.No. 1 of 2007 only served copy of schedule , not certify copy, basing on the schedule what is cause of action. Basing on the Ex.b8 served copy

A.T.C.No.2 of 2011 there is no schedule. Ex.B9 S.H.O. compliant letter addressed by the K.Narasimham Murthy letter contains not relating to the schedule property. Ex.B10 is the suit register. O.S. 74 of 2005 online Senior

Civil Judges Court Amalapuram filed the suit. Suit is not pressed under the

dismissed of not relating to the schedule property. Ex.P11 no result Sape

Sayamala Rao filed the suit against Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala rao.

Ex.P11 can gives the relation of Vemala rao. House of spouse Kondala Rao and Satyavathi inimical terms having what is necessity to approach the court.

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and Vemala Rao are the logger-red hatts. If the having amicable relation the any student. Except that under Ex.B11 form 1986 from among them. Ex.B11 sufficient to denied by the client made by the

D2, what happened when they dismissal as passive order. Rokkala satyathi

Venkata rao and others Ex.B12 contests photos copy of will served, number the will file along with Ex.A5. A.T.C. Ex.B12 schedule property not in the will.

Ex.B13 is the delivery Ac. 2-12 cents does not include 2011 suit. Ex.B12 three survey numbers. Ex.B15 in the name of Sudha Ganapathi revenue proceedings number. 2014 document proceeding prior to 2014 revenue proceeding to earlier to the Ex.B15 who are the parties to the proceeding.

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and his son sold the property in the year

46

2014. 2014 suit filed for cancellation of Ex.B14 they can say the revenue proceedings are the two ways one is relating to the 248/2011, Sudha

Ganapathi not party to the revenue proceedings, in valid proceedings no legal proceedings. O.S.No.248 of 2011 can be discard and prevented as said.

Ex.B16 passed in favour of Vemala Rao by the joint collector. Vemala Rao and Venkatapathi rao three survey numbers only not binding in the vendee

Ex.B15 Sudha Ganapathi . It is not binding on the Sudha Ganapathi it is infectious order nobody has taken steps is a necessary party before the joint collector covered under Ex.B4 only confined three survey numbers. How to could secure, discard of Ex.A5 and A7. As the 2nd defendant evidence.

Point No.1 D2 has no right to prosecute the litigation.

Point No.2 Subject matter is not covered in the revenue proceeding

Point No.3 2nd defendant is not in a proceeding, GPA 1st defendant only individual capacity not on the respect or relating to the Kondala Rao in the absence of defence of 1st defendant. written statement contents of D2 over rule.

OS 248 of 2011:

46.Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju is not claimed the relief. 1st plaintiff filed the suit either guardian. 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs relief claimed, plaintiff No.1 acted as a guardian. 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of suit legal representatives came to the record, Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the children of

Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Suit has decree the court believe the children .

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju as per evidence of P.W.1…. In chief affidavit last four lines in para No.2. During the life of they are not raised single rupee in that persons did not choose to question is whether the competent person is silent as a third party entitled the question the plaintiffs 1 and 2. the last

Indian Evidence Act under Section 111 esttop occurred came into the question . Legal persons not question ones the es-toped started question of paternity cannot be looked into. Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao admitted through the 1st plaintiff. Ex.A5 is can be disbelieve. Un disputed

47

signatures of Satyavathi is not produced by the D.W.1. Basing on the signatures are not tallied as Ex.A5 can be discard. Burden of proof is on one person. Onus proof shifts one person to person only. Connected to the will.

Onus is not discharge on the 2nd plaintiff , Ex.A5 can be considered,. He got examined the attestors of will, proved the will nothing was elicited in con-curt in the evidence of P.W.1 for the not suggested. Plaintiffs not discharged. 2nd plaintiff set over the facts to disbelieve Ex.A5 satisfactory evidence to show the signatures of Ex.A5 Not believing to Satyavathi. Further allegations made without admitted signatures making the contention is different substantiate case. D.W.1 chief affidavit filed except stating Ex.A5 signatures do not belongs to the Satyavathi how he can say the signatures belong to the

Satyavathi we disputed or disturb, attestors of Ex.A5 make it clear. Totally in sufficient to consider, D.W.1 chief examination is not sufficient to disbelieve evidence of pw1. If the signatures of Satyavathi denied signatures of

Satyavathi or not to the witness. On account of the omission by not showing, the evidence of pw1 forged the signature brush-aside. Om mission to deny signatures, 1st is the defendant saying G.P.A. holder of Durga, Rokkala Durga is the 1st defendant she is remained exparte, she is not in the suit. Therefore by virtue of the fact D1 not contest, supporting to the suit. G.P.A. must be revoked there is General power of attorney, 1st defendant set exparte. Part of the schedule property sold they did not enter into the box. Actual person is the 1st defendant who gave a set exparte. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled prosecute principles D1 is exparte. G.P.A. D2 is contested in the suit, prosecute the suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 filed for cancellation, partition suit filed.

In the year 2011 there is gap of two years. Three items are there not from the part of O.S.No.288 of 2014 seeking the relief in O.S.No.288 of 2014 property covered. 2nd defendant has no right seeking the cancellation of sale deed of the 2014, viewed in any language because 2nd defendant not claimed making the 1st defendant who is the competent to attach remaining silent D2 is the 3rd 48 party to the document. O.S. No. 288 of 2014 Rokkala Durga not added as party either as a plaintiff and the defendant to straight away grant to decree to dismiss the section 288 of 2014.

Page No.7 last para cross examination of D.W.1 as follows:-

As a General Power of Attorney executed by Rokkala Durga, I am having right over the plaint schedule properties in three suits. I did not mention in all the three suits being a General Power of Attorney Holder, I am claiming right over the plaint schedule property. I have taken a plea in all the three suits that, I got right over the plaint schedule properties as a General Power of

Attorney holder. It is not true to suggest the I have mentioned in my chief examination that Rokkala Durga executed General Power of Attorney in my favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and that I am contesting the suits basing on the General Power of Attorney. I filed General Power of

Attorney before this court. It is not true to suggest that there is no General

Power of Attorney is in existence and I did not file any General Power of

Attorney in my favour in all the three suits. It is not true to suggest that without possessing or filing of the General Power of Attorney, I have no right over the plaint schedule property. The Rokkala Durga might have in existence. Witness adds that Rokkala Durga is in Komaragiripatnam. It is true that the Rokkala

Durga was shown as 1st defendant in O.S.No.248 of 2011 and she did not file any statement in this suit.

Basing on the G.P.A. , the agent can make the claim or interest of the property. G.P.A. create the property right to the D2. Whether D2 can make use as conveyance deed what is meant by the conveyance whether agreement of sale create the interest basing on the Ex.b1 sale is defined under section 54 of transfer of property only previous contract his evidence brushed aside in this regard. Ex.B1 basing on that not claim or resist D.W.1 deposed as G.P.A. agent or legal sanctity. G.P.A. holder not deposed swearing as a G.P.A. holder of 1st defendant completely ignore the G.P.A. and

Ex.B1. Individual capacity permitted to look after or not in question. D.W.1

49

individual capacity, he cannot as a G.P.A. He has not having any right under act, no right to Exhibit marked exhibit because no consideration. Claim of the

Ex.B1 goes to hell. There is the legal contest in O.S.Nos.248 and 288 or 2 of 2019 suits. P.W.1 evidence only look into the proof of the will cannot be taken into account. Account of fact Dw1 evidence has legal capacity.

Regarding to the suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 whether suit decreed by the cancel by the document only two options are there. 1st option 288 suit filed by the plaintiff, individual capacity or G.P.A. act Roakkala Durga, D.W.1 cross examination confronted by the defendants counsel he filed suit of O.S.No.288 of 2014 against Mattaparthi Venkataramaraju and others in his personal capacity He gave instructions to his counsel to prepare his written statement..

issue confronted whether the plaintiff is the suit maintainable, 288 of 2014 filed either individual capacity or G.P.A. The suit is not maintainable in division, 2nd option he is no way concerned to the suit , he is not rightful owner. Plaintiff is 288 of 2014 suit is permitted to file the suit.

Para No. 6 in the 288 of 2014 of the plaint is as follows:

It is submitted that to lend support the conspiracy hatched up by 1st defendant, when Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-07-1997, immediately, 1st defendant created on unregistered Will dated 09-05-1997 of his choice as if it is instrument by testatrix, that on the basis of above alleged Will, he filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram against the plaintiff and his son and Rokkala Durga who is no other than daughter-in-law of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and other properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi by claiming imaginary and speculative claim of shares by putting his claim on the basis of the fake Will.

Nothing was mentioned in the suit no plea of forgery. O.S.No. 288 of 12014 will is admitted not disputed. 1st is the statement can say the forged will believe the Ex.A5 are not 2nd one is the plaint disputed signature can compare in

O.S.Nos 248 of 2011 and 288 of 2014 contention raised by the 2nd plaintiff

50

is the true contention or not for the sake of defence. Part to the suit proceedings can denied cannot maintainable. Two different persons in the suit . To know the conduct of the person in two different persons acted.

Conjunction or combined reading it leads forgery brought into the purpose of court. During cross examination of D.W.1 admitted. D.W.1 cross examination

P1 and P2 are the children of Venkata Rama Raju. Cross examination

Satyavathi children. G.P.A. is last individual capacity deposed Dw1 evidence cannot be considered. In the 12th page evidence A.T.C. proceeding A.T.C.

related to the O.S.No.248 of 2011 or not . There is no usage of evidence, only proceedings dismissed on technical grounds. Ex.A5 will in para No.14 in the cross examination subscribed as RS Rao. What is capacity is in question.

What is legal right or sanctity of the document to look after. Whether he has gone through what are the circumstances to say particular document is. D2 is looking after the litigation but not individual capacity there is no record, D2 added as G.P.A. of 1st defendant. D2 has no right on behalf of D1. D1 can question that D2 not question. Individual capacity he has no right to question letters assume what is argue is not. D2 is entitled the question Ex.A1. It is another option to show the material available with him. D2 has no capacity to right to sure. D2 must have to believe Ex.A5 not executed by Rokkala satyavathi.

D.W.1 evidence cross examination 14 page as follows:-

I have four sisters. I am the only male issue. The mother of 2nd plaintiff

Satyavathi is my younger sister. My remaining sisters are Venkatalakshmi and

Pushpavathi are no more, another sister Nagamma is alive. I never interfered in the property affairs of my remaining sisters. My sister Nagamma is residing at Allavaram. I received documents filed by the plaintiff along with suit summons. I did not personally read the plaint copy. I received copy of unregistered Will, one copy of sale deed and two notices along with the summons. I am contesting the suit against the unregistered Will Ex.A.5. The plaint copy and the copy of Ex.A.5 and other documents were read over to

51

him. I do not remember how many days after I received documents from the court. I narrated to the case to my counsel. I did not make any enquiry prior to filing of my written statement whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are genuine or not. Contents of my plaint are not correct. I gave instructions to my counsel to prepare written statement that the contents of plaint are not correct.

Deceased Satyavathi studied up to 5th class. Satyavathi got married in the year, 1973. As on the date of marriage, the husband of Satyavathi Kondala

Rao was at Mumbai. The native place of Kondala Rao is Ventrukona of

Allavaram. There is 10 years age gap between Kondala Rao and Satyavathi.

As on the date of marriage Satyavathi was aged about 20 years and Kondala

Rao is aged about 35 years. Kondala Rao is older than me. I am 5 years elders than Satyavathi. The marriage of Satyavathi was performed at Mumbai and she lead conjugal life at Mumbai after marriage. Satyavathi is a signatory.

It is not true to suggest that Satyavathi used to sign as R.S.Rao. Witness adds that she used to sign as R.Satyavathi. Now I did not possess the pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of Satyavathi. I witnessed while the

Satyavathi signed in a sale transaction in favour of Satyavathi. The document

Ex.A.4 contains the signature of Satyavathi.

Pattadhar passbook title deed containing the signature with date. Ex.A6 containing the property and other particulars , Dw1 admitted the Ex.A5. Ones to admitted plea of the forgery gone proved the attestation for the suppressed by the Dw1. Whether he was at putting the signature or not. He shall admit the will he has no option. How he stated the signatures of Ex.A5 is similar to

RS Rao. Complete the over the take of the defence over the D2 statements , cross examination made it is clear that is validity executed or attested. There is no contract evidence divided division of the fact. Plaintiff established answer in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A5 will is proved whether in any specific record in favour of the 2nd defendant did not choose take steps to examine the

Rokkala Durga except self statement of D.W.1 no other case to prove the defence or not for the other signatures are available on record to disposes ,

52

there on for comparison. D.W.1 is not expert in hand writing expert evidence is only to the proceeding to the live evidence of expert. Evidence of expert can taken into the consideration or not. Basing on the agriculture who denied come to the R.S.Rao, signatures belongs to the R.S.Rao no incriminating or relevant material by pass standard evidence of the plaintiff with regard to then

Ex.A5. Plaintiffs 3 to 5 proved the Ex.A5 to the satisfaction of the Court to create impressed of the evidence satisfy relied to cause enquiry of Ex.A5.

Santhosha lakshmi d/o satyavathi not examined. Defence evidence plaintiff can create the evidence. Defence evidence was not weak evidence. Ex.A5 proved entitled the relief. Dw1 concerned role of Rokkala Durga w/o Srinivasa

Rao married by name Gollanka person surname. 1st defendant seized the

Rokkala family if the she is entitled authoerize the same body look-after the litigation somebody by the date of Ex.B1 srinivasa Rao not there , if he satisfied the court 1st defendant no longer to continue as a Rokkala people he is married another person, she has no right to Ex.B1 as a family member of

Rokkala. Even by she un-married she can not proceedings. 1st defendant is not Rokkala Durga she is the Gollinka. Ex.A5 sent tot he expert I.A.No 321 of 2022, said petition is dismissed on 12-10-2023 on merits. No documents file admitted signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. Not choose admitted signatures not filed under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act adverse inference can be drawn the forgery is absolute false. I.A.No.321 of 2022 filed on 21-03-2022.

D1 married the Gulianka person, full cause title is not correct 4th respondent name and full cause title proof of the marriage of Gollanka Durga is not filed it is the point for consideration. I.A.No. 57 of 2023 filed under section 45 of

Indian Evidence Act to send the alleged will to ascertain that dismissed fail in that admitted relevant standard signature of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi belongs to the Satyavathi. 2nd defendant failed to prove the forgery.

As per 27 th page in his cross examination:-

Rokkala Durga has no knowledge that I filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014.

Rokkala Durga did not present while I was giving instructions to the counsel at

53

the time of filing suit O.S.No.288 of 2014. It is not true to suggest that I filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 without knowledge of Rokkala Durga and prosecuting the suit as such the suit is not maintainable. I know Veligetla Veerraju. The

Veligetla Veerraju D.5 herein is made exparte without contest. Rokkala

Satyavathi predeceased the Rokkala Srinivasarao. Rokkala Satyavathi died

before Kondala Rao. Rokkala Kondala Rao has a plot and work shop at

Mumbai. The above property was worth of Rs.38,00,000/- as on 1998. The said property was sold by Venkata Ramaraju. I did not inform to the counsel that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju was sold plot and workshop at Mumbai and brought the amount. After the death of Satyavathi, Kondala Rao returned to Ventrukona. By the time Kondala Rao was healthy. I did not inform to my counsel the Kondala Rao fell sick after he left to Mumbai and came to

Ventrukona. Since defendant No.5 is also one of the purchaser, the plaintiffs impleaded them as parties. I did not see the sale deed in the name of 5th defendant. 5th defendant does not belong to my caste and he belongs to

Gowda caste and he is a paddy tapper.

D.W.2 to 4 are the private witnesses. D.W.2 support to the case coming to the cross examination is believe or not. No reference to the schedule property he is the brother of the Satyavathi, in cross examination dated 21.07.2022. Boundaries in the name of Payyala . At boundary no land of

Suda Ganapathi. How the legal scrutiny are made. Dw2 is not possessed the land as deposed by the Dw1 not help to the case of plaintiff. Dw2 evidence basing on the D2, whether the basing on Dw2 can believe case of the defendants their defence. Dw2 not referred the schedule property to believe the affidavit or not for the preparation of affidavit. Chief affidavit must instruct to the counsel Dw2 cross examination and chief examination is different how to the believe two versions of the defendant liable to be discard.

Dw4 evidence is psychopathologist. Dw1 to 4 could elevate substitute in any angel. Dw5 evidence is relevant dispute of the case because of the document sale deed B12 to B14 are marked. Whether Dw5 evidence helpful to the

54

dispose of the case. Ex.B12 containing no contention Ex.B12 to B14 relating to the three documents. Evidence clubbed to the B12 to B14 effect their properties are not there. Suda Ganapathi property and those documents are not binding whom. Suda Ganapathi no one notice. Ex.B12 to B14 are no way helpful to the 2nd defendant. Dw1 deposed that unaware of the O.S.No.288 of 2014. Evidence of Dw5 , Ex.B2 to B14 are required judicious concession.

Dw6 is the Vasamsetty Lakshmi. Dw7 Dw8 were examined to prove the contents of Ex.B4 same evidence of Dw6 and Dw7. Dw6 and 7 deposed that to which property to apply, 2011 or 2014 suits are in question. Ex.B14 statement recorded by the revenue officers. Ex.B14 looked into B12 to B14 what is the statement recorded to came to know that D.W.6, D.W.7 evidence to attach the claim. How it is permissible they are not the binding the Suda

Ganapathi Rao. The case leveled by the plaintiff and partition of the schedule property. Ex.B12 to B14 are not relevant particular involvement. Dw8 is the

Suda Ganapathi Rao nothing was elicited in the cross examination of pw2.

Remaining unchallenged in the cross examination. Now the cancellation, contention non examination of attestors, scribe not proved at all. Sale deed is not at all compulsory attest able document, non examination of attestors not affect the sale deed. D2 himself admitting D15 sale deed, suit filed cancellation unless and until such a legal document cancel by the wholes good. It will not be no be extinguished obtain by the Dw8 on that ground also, except witnesses, dispose of the case quality of the evidence is the vital role.

If the quality of the evidence taken into consideration there is no evidence to discrete the evidence of plaintiff suit is pending. Relied upon by the 2nd defendant is not will not stunt any case or weakness of the case of defendants case. 288 is dismissed no local standards to file the suit. she has right 2 of 2019 proved the possession and enjoyment decree the suit.

issues not framed properly whether plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Satyavathi. Whether the plaint schedule property is the

55

joint property of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are treated as owners.

Dw1 admitted plaintiff 2 and 3 will acted upon or not. 2nd defendant fail to get over the evidence and on other hand similar to the RS rao to send the document to expert to Ex.A5 by wrong the adverse inference , attacking the

Ex.A5 . Ex.A5 declaration and delivery of possession and the half share of the B schedule property and the will late Satyavathi to undivided share of

Ex.A5 will in view of the facts of the plaintiff except 2018 of 2015 as prayed for plaintiffs can connect in-respect of the property guardian discharged , in favur of the D3 D4 and D5.

48.The learned defendant counsel argued that deceased Kondala Rao has established a company at Mumbai, brother in law, mothers brother to the 2nd defendant . Kondala Rao married the sister of D2 who is the Satyavathi. After the marriage they went to the Mumbai lead their marital life. Santhosha lakshmi and srinivasa Rao was born to them after that company and the family management is difficult. D2 went to the Mumbai helped to them. 1st plaintiff settled at Mumbai along with his family working in another company came to the Kondala rao. After his to joined his company. Venkata Rama Raju and

Kondala Rao are belongs to the Konaseema Mungada. He joined with the

Kondala Rao and worked there. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are also born to the

Kondala Rao and satyavathi. 1st plaintiff is very close to the plaintiff No.2 and 3 to look-after his clothes more than the parents with the children. Kondala

Rao who caught company where purchased the land send to the Satyavathi.

Schedule land was register in the name of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao with the supervision of D2 and Syamala Rao. Syamala Rao is only person to look- after the land. 1st plaintiff kidnapped the Srinivasa Rao some where then

Kondala rao and satyavathi sent to the Venkata Rama Raju. Kondala Rao and Satyavathi along with their children went to the Mumbai along with family.

1st plaintiff is the care taker of the children. 1st plaintiff is also lived with the family along with two children faraway to the company and residence of

56

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. 1st plaintiff lived with third wife in Mumbai by name Krishna veni. 1st plaintiff plea is that Satyavthi is 4th wife. He admitted that he is married her consent of Kondala Rao, there are no documents of prove. He does not know already married the women is an offence.

3rd para in cross examination of P.W1 as follows:

It is not true to suggest that I filed guardian O.P before Hon’ble II

Addl.District court for custody of plaintiff No.2 and 3 herein and in the said O.P court was imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- against me as it is a false claim.

49.After death of Kondala Rao company of the 1st plaintiff sold use of rowdy of Mumbai. D2 having information through the somebody at Mumbai and try to go-to the Mumbai there . 1st plaintiff gave a waiving to the D2 . D2 obtain the letter from to the Mumbai Superintendent of police it is also marked as exhibit. Property sold but 1st plaintiff are not own take then returned to

Munganda village along with his children. After death of Satyavathi and

Kondala rao and next person who is the 1st plaintiff to see the welfare of children so called Srinivasa rao acquittance with them on that he reached to the Mungada after the same time went to the Munganda D2 some rowdy brought their document form the house of D2, D2 gave a report to the

Allavaram police. On enquiry of the police he submitted some waste papers unuseful papers kept with him. After some time he filed the suits in EA 2006 paper O.P.No.60 of 2006 and it was dismissed and imposed 10,000/- fine after file made before the court O.P.NO.60 of 2006 on 05-06-2006 with help of open documents and it was numbered as O.S.No.148 of 2011 suit summons received came on contest before the court. 1st plaintiff and 1st counsel K.P

Achari Kothapeta advocate attached the defendant not appear before the

Court then they filed the complaint before the town police station ad registered a crime against the 1st plaintiff and his counsel after that K.Acharyulu kept that the same of plaintiffs are the subsequently forged will that is containing the 5 pages scribe not examined attestors of brother of the 1st plaintiff.

57

Rokkala Satyavathi informed me that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Satyavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram Village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. I do not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. I do not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. I do not know reason for non registration of the Will at

Amalapuram.

PW3 is the Yalamandala , P.W.2 came from Hyderabad acted as attestors Satyavathi name is inserted OS no 46 of 1996 finding is there heard the family was clear. Another person has no right half share except the document consist specifically return the share already sent to the signatures to the expert. Standards signatures for expect accepted and the same to the expert. Will is preparing,. Both Kondala Rao and Satyavathi are there instead of believe executed a will why he executed a registered will on 27-07-1997 from the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the guardian of elder Srinivasarao. After the death of Kondala Rao, children got by the 1st plaintiff because of very close to the children Srinvasarao Kondala Rao threat filed the suit O.S.No. 74 of 2005 by injunction against the 1st plaintiff of the rowdies. After death fo Srinivasa rao he obtained passbook in his name with M.R.O. Baby Gnanamba manage and get the passbook sold away to the Ganapathi. He used to force occupied the land he want to sold the property and get over the property to him. Which they G.P.A., G.P.A. property why the D1 executed in favour of D2 so many loans are there remain creditors are coming to the Durga from the death of her

58

husband Srinivasa Rao. Suit is pending and it was withdrawn , G.P.A.

executed in favour of D2 to the clear the lands for the Srinivasarao died very earlier stage said Durga also small person, 2nd marriage was performed to her that he executed GPA left form the Rokkala family, she did not leave the property to the Rokkala family. Because she personally left the property now suit property in the hands of D2 who purchased the Srinivasarao and Kondala

Rao GPA property with D2 because clear the loans with his names of D2 as guarantor of D1. 1st plaintiff filed the suit ATC cases. Those are dismissed for default. When he obtained the false passbook from MRO, D2 filed the petition

before the RDO Amalapuram RDO dismissed the appeal, filed before the Joint

collector that was allowed marked as Ex.A18. Then the GPA holder not there. When the G.P.A. holder execution of G.P.A. no claim was made by

G.P.A. The G.P.A. holder in the name of D2 remaining schedule property

Ex.A1 to A5 properties are themselves having the properties some of the defendants not appear before the Court.

O.S.No 2 of 2019

50.Ganapathi having the sale deed filed the injunction suit before the principle Junior Civil Judges Court said suit transferred renumbered as 2 2019. but now it self said Ganapathi have no where the property only because of 1st plaintiff rowdisam executed a sale deed in favour of Ganapathi.

Rowdisam at Amalapuram not outside of Amalapuram. D2 filed the petition

before the R.D.O. cancellation of Pattadhar passbook. D2 also filed the

present suit cancellation of sale deed. Passbooks cancel. When the passbooks are not correct the sale is not invalid. D2 filed the suit O.S.No 288 of 2014 cancel the sale deed in favour of Ganapathi. When the 1st plaintiff sold the land to the Ganapathi and the 2nd plaintiff asked the same amount from the 1st plaintiff. S2 get the P.W.2 he was died only for information. Pw1 marriage is love marriage at Haryana never appear before the Court after the death fo p2 wife and children added but she went to the parents house, she got married except 1st plaintiff no persons is there they never appear before

59

the Court there are three suits depending on un-registered will here. When the Ex.A5 correct from the hands of Kondala Rao when the Kondala Rao agreed the signature as attestor Kondala Rao not to execute registered will

dated 22-07-1997. Unregistered will co-inside when the registered will to less

value by the Pw1. With the help of Pw2 and 3 it was created it is the illegal and improper. Whether the 1st plaintiff is having right to file the suit already filed the proper OP it was dismissed in the year 2010 on payment of fine.

Later filed the present suit finally it was numbered as 248 of 2011. they shifted the family from Mumbai to Ullankurru against to get the property at

Yentrikona and Relligadda. Both children in hand because after death of

Kondala Rao, 1st plaintiff is only person doing care taker at Kothapeta Achari filed the suit numbered the suit. The schedule property sold by the Kondala

Rao and Srinivasa Rao to the defendants they are having passbook and sale deed, possession and enjoyment except G.P.A. it was written by the Durga who is the wife of deceased Srinivasa Rao in favour of D2 on shadow of

Ex.A5, suit was filed. D1 and D2 suits while retrieving when they attended

before the court the counsel of P.W.1 with rowdies not attended before the

Court and filed the report at Police station case was registered against the

Acharya and P.W.1. Advocate left the case since then another advocate.

P.W.1 also filed tenancy cases they were dismissed for default. On final warning of the case prepared the written statement and filed in the suit.

Marraige of the Satyavathi she belongs to the SC community. P.W.1 belongs to the Settibalija community P.W.1 is the 5th wife name is Krishnaveni, 4th wife is

Rokkala Satyavathi 3rd wife married in the year 1991 at Mumbai consent of her husband Kondala rao there is no documentary proof to that effect not known the offence. 4th wife . Satyavathi is 5th wife created Ex.A5 is not legal improper created by P.W.1. Ex.A5 false entire suit is the false regarding to the signatures of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao. R.S.Rao is not signature of Satyavathi, Mumbai.It permissible husband name is in the name of wife. It is not permissible A.P, in Maharastra first is the name, 2nd one is the father name, 3rd one is the surname. When the

60

Ex.A5 executed by Satyavathi Kondala Rao signed on that as a attestors and know the contents what is necessity of Kondala Rao executed a registered will in favor of P2 and P3. Ex.A5 Kondala Rao executed a will in favour of P2 and

P3 . Ex.A7 is the right, Ex.A5 is the false now directed to file the suit for their shares but the plaintiff No.2 who is have died. 1st plaintiff sold the property to one Ganapathi rao and asked the same amount to the 1st plaintiff . Who is bet him he was died, his wife and children are added the plaintiffs now the wife was married boy was adopted somebody minor. 3rd plaintiff got married at

Haryana so they are not claim any property absence of the G.P.A. holder let the property who is the having the possession and enjoyment, D2 is the owner of the property. District Collector made enquiry three years and cancel the passbook in the name of Pw1 even not preferred the appeal then order of the

District Collector no schedule property but no partition in the suit 248 is liable to be dismiss. Cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of

Ganapathi , he belongs to the Kapu Community, Konkapalli rowdy, Pw1 thought that said Ganapathi is handed over the plan to the D2 but it is not possible to him his property is in the possession and enjoyment of D2.

Registration based on the passbook . Passbook cancel by the District

Collector in that effect Vemala rao filed the suit to cancel the sale deed.

O.S.No.2 of 2019

On the basis of sale deed the injunction was G.P.A. was not canceled executed and left the Durga possession of D2 injunction not entitled.

Clubbing of suits and common evidence:- on perusal of the record in O.S.No.288 of 2014 docket order dated 02-03-2019 as follows:- as per orders on Memo in S.R.No.967 2019 dated 02-03-2019, the suit in

O.S.No,288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 clubbed with O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this court treating the evidence already adduced in O.S.No.248 of 2011 is the evidence in other two suits and to record further evidence in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 along with O.S.No.248 of 2011 for joint trial posted to 08-

03-2019.

61

P.W.1 Chief affidavit filed. 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1.cheif affidavit treated as cheif exmination of P.W.1 after confrontation by the plaintiffs counsel. he deposed same facts in his evidence in the same facts of their suit in the plaint and written statements. In common suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011.

During cross examination the learned defendant No.2 to 4 counsel confront that he is of resident of Munganda, He is a cycle mechanic. In the year 1974 He went to Bombay along with his family. He resided till 2004 at

Bombai. He used to work in a company at Bombai in Amardal chemicals id at

Sahad, Ullasnagar Municipality. he had own house at Sahad, Ullasnagar

Municipality. he had six children out of them one son died. His first wife

Mahendravati is native of Bombai. His 2nd wife Rama Girija is native,

Bodasakurru through my two wives he begotten four children l.e, two children each-wife.

At present that is on the date of evidence he is living one Krishnaveni, who is my third wife since 2004. Witness adds that that the said Krishnaveni is his fourth wife. One Rokkala Satyavathi is his third wife. He married her in the year 1991 in Bombai. He married her with the consent of her husband by name Kondala Rao. There is no getting momage documentary proof like certificates to that effect. He does not know marring the already married woman is an offence.

The surname of Rokkala Satyavathi was not changed as Mattaparti

Satyavathi after marrying him. He does not know know since her surname was not changed as such, she is not his wife. The children, Santhosa

Lakshmi and Srinivasa Rao begotten by Rokkala Satyavathi through her husband are no way concerned to to him. P.W.1 denied a suggest that one krishnameraju was not blessed with said Rokkala Satyavathi through him.

There is a birth certificate to show that the sald Krishnama Raju born through him said Rokkala Satyavathi at Ullasanagar Municipality. He filed birth certificate to that effect. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he did not file such birth

62

certificate into the court. I P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Krishnamaraju was born to Rokkla Satyvathi and Kondala Rao but not through me. There is a birth certificate to show that he blessed with one Bhagya Sri through Rokkala

Satyvathi and he filed the same into the court. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he did not file the said certificate into the court.

P.W.1 denied a suggest that in the year 1994 I was removed from the company where he worked, then he joined in the company of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. P.W.1 denied a suggest that by that time Bhagya Sri and

Krishnamraju were children by then.

The said Rokkala Satyavathi died in an accident. P.W.1 denied a suggeston that after demise of said Satyavathi he looked after her children as her husband Kondala Rao fell ill, by taking advantage of the said situation in order to grab their property situated at Bombal he hatched a plan. P.W.1 denied a suggest that as a part of my plan he created un registered will said to be executed by Satyavathi dated 9-5-1997 under Ex A5 P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Satyavathi used to sign as R. Satyavathi, but not as

R.S. Rao. P.W.1 denied a suggest that the signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao was forged on Ex A5. P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Rokkala

Satyavathi and her husband and Kondala Rao never visited Pothavaram and there was no necessity to try to visit the said place.

P.W.1 denied a suggest that when the sald kondala Rao fell ill, he took the children of said Kondala Rao to the house of defendant No 2 and assaulted him and taken away the all the documents on 6-7-1998. P.W.1 admitted that a case in Cr.No.6 of 1998 was registered at Allavaram police station against him Under sections 448, 323, 506 I.P.C. and he was arrested in connection with the said crime. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he filed guardian O.P. before Hon'ble II Additional here in on District court for custody of plaintiff No 2 and 3 in the present-suit and in the said O.P. court was imposed fine of Rs 10,000/- against him as it is a false claim.

63

P.W.1 filed all original documents in this case. The said documents were given by Rokkala Satyavathi. she did not hand over the said documents. After demise of said Rokkala Satyavathi, her husband brought the said documents to the house of defendant No 2 at that time, he forcibly taken away the said documents due to which a criminal case was also registered against him.

Witness adds that criminal case was filed with regard to another reason. P.W.1 admitted that the signature of Rokkala Satyavathi contained on Ex A4 on the rear side of third page and the signatures contained on Ex.A5are different.

Ex.A5was executed at Pothavaram of Gannavaram Mandal. Muliganda village is also situated in Gannavaram Mandal. Rokkata Slätyavathi is resident of

Yentrikona of Allavaram Mandal since the said Bkkala Sätyävät Visiting our

House at Pothavaram Village and the scribe was our Village, as such Ex.A5 was also available in our at our village. "It is not was executed at our true to suggest olat he sald Rokkala Satyavathi did not visit our Pothavaram Contents "Village. It is true, as per the contentions of Ex.A5 In the first paragraph of first page the surname Mattaparthi was inserted. he does not know the said word was not Inserted by the scribe of Ex.A5 and it was contained different hand writing. P.W.1 denied a suggetion that Kondala Rao never signed on Ex.A5 and the signature contained on Ex. A5 is not that of Kondala Rao. Attestors of

Ex.A5 are my brother-in-laws. one is resident of Ambajipeta and another is resident of Chirathapudi. It is not true to suggest that the scribe of Ex.A5 is is in the habit of scribing any false 10 document by receiving amount. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that the death certificate filed by him were obtained by the son of Kondala Rao.

It is true, after demise of Rokkala Satyavathi her husband Kondala Rao executed a will by bequeathing his properties to his four children. As per the contents of said will his elder son Rokkala Srinivas was appointed as a guardian plaintiff Nos 2 and 3. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that while he was selling away the properties of Rokkala Kondala Rao situated at Mumbai and by receiving the said information, he came to Mumbai by obtaining police

64

protection from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad on 27-08- 1998. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he sold away the entire material of his shop and he behaved high handedly against him due to which he got shock and died. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that after demise of said Kondala

Rao he brought the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and changed their surnames and joined in the schools by stating that they born through him.

P.W.1 is admitted that Rokkala Srinivasa Rao filed a suit against him in

O.S.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

P.W.1 denied a suggestion that, after demise of said Srinivasarao, his wife not pressed the said suit. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that, after dismissed of the said suit, he misrepresented before concerned Mandal Revenue Officer and obtained pattadar passbook to an extent of Ac.02-21 cents. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that there a specific mention in said pattadar passbook that as per the orders in O.S. No.74 of 2005 pass books were issued. P.W1.admitted that 2 defendant filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer by challenging the said pattadar pass books. P.W.1 admitted that basing on the said pattadar pass book he filed O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram and obtained injunction orders. As per the said orders, Revenue

Divisional Officer, dismissed the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant.

P.W.1 admitted that some part of the above said property was sold away by him. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he also sold the remaining extent to the rowdy persons as he could not enter into the said property as he has no right. all the A.T.C cases filed by me were dismissed for default. It is true, a case in crime No.72 of 2012 was registered against me, one Moturi

Satyanarayana and his pleader K.B.Achary by alleging that they threatened the defendant No.2. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that,since 2010 by taking the advice of said K.B.Achary, advocate of Kothapeta he created entire record filed in this case. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that Kondala Rao never consented to change the surnames of plaintiff No.2 and 3. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that P.W.1 and Plaintiff No.2 and 3 were not entitled for the

65

properties of Kondalar Rao and Rokkala Satyavathi in view of will executed by

Kondala Rao. P.W.1 admitted that Plaintiff No.2 died. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he sold away the property and did not give share to him then he made quarrel with me at that time he beat him and kill him. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he performed the marriage of 3rd plaintiff with the person who was already married. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he performed the said marriage in order to grab the property and to get rid of her. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is not entitled to file the present suit and the suit is not maintainable and he will not get any right over the suit schedule property. D5 not cross examine the P.W.1. Reported Nil.

In Re-Examination plaintiff counsel confronted that:- Satyavathi used to sign as R.S. Rao, Rokkala Satyavathirao and R. Satyavathi.

Re-Cross-Examination by Sri K.S.N.: confronted that he filed documentary proof to show that the Satyavathi signed as R.S. Rao.P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not file any document to that effect and if any document filed said signature was put by him.

P.W.2 Chief affidavit filed. 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1.cheif affidavit treated as chief examination of P.W.2. he deposed same facts deposed by the P.W.1 in his evidence. In commmon suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011. He is third party to the suit. As plaintiffs he is attestor of

will Ex.A5. He is brother in law of the P.W.1. P.W.2 deposed that at this stage witness by going through the Ex.A5 stated that it contains his signature as 1st attester singed on Ex.A5 was executed in his presence and after going through its contents, testator singed on Ex.A5 in his presence. Tester witnessed while attesting Ex/A5 by himself, husband of tester by name

Kondala Rao and one Dhanaanjaya, one Terrapradada prakasa Rao is the scribe of Ex.A.5

During the cross examination D2 toD4 counsel confronted that he is working as mechanic at Ambajipeta. He is the husband of elder sister of 1st plaintiff. 1st plaintiff used to reside in Bombay. P.W.2 admitted that he used to

66

work in small companies at Bombay subsequently, he established a mechanic shop. It is not true to suggest that he never established mechanic shop at

Bombay. He wen5t Bombay previously. He did not work in the mechanic shop of 1st plaintiff. He went to Bombay in the year 1984-85, subsequently he did not visit the said plaice. Yanamadala Dhanajaya Rao (P.W.3) is my co-son-in- law. he know Rokkala Satyavathi from the date of her marriage with the 1st plaintiff. he does not remember the date of said marriage.P.W.1 admitted that the said Rokkala Satyavathi had husband by name Kondala Rao and through him, she got two children. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that they had four children and born at Mumbai.

Rokkala Satyavathi informed him that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Satyavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

51.A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. He does not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. He does not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. He does not know reason for non registration of the Will at Amalapuram.

P.W.2 denied a suggestion that on 09.05.1997 Rokkala Satyavathi did not execute Will on 09.05.1997 at Pothavaram village and her husband

Kondala Rao was also not present at that time. P.W.1 was not present at the time of execution of said Will. The said Rokkala Satyavathi did not bring her daughter Santhosha Lakshmi at the time of execution of Will. He does not know the particulars of the properties owned by the said Satyavathi.

67

He does not know when the 2nd plaintiff was died but he died due to disease. He know the same. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that 1st plaintiff killed him by beating on his ear. By the date of execution of said Will P.W.3 was at

Chiratapudi. It is not true to suggest that Rokkala Satyavathi has no knowledge about Chiratapudi, Pothavaram, Munganda and Ambajipeta villages and myself, 1st plaintiff and others created the said Will. It is not true to suggest that since 1st plaintiff is my brother-in-law, He is deposing false to support his contention. He does not know about filing of criminal case against

P.W.2 and others.

P.W.2 denied a suggestion that P.W.2 had three wives and he used to stay along with his 3rd wife at Bombay.P.W.2 denied a suggestion that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that after demise of Rokkala Satyavathi P.W.2 obtained my signature on the Will and he is deposing false in support of the contention of P.W.2. He does not know while he is staying at Bombay P.W.2 was residing with which wife. He cannot say for how long P.W.2 stayed at Bombay. He does not know with which wife he went to Bombay.

52.During Cross examination by Defendant No.5 counsel confronted that

R. Satyavathi asked him to sign on the Will. Execution of Will was completed by 6.00 p.m. At first he signed on the said Will, then Rokkala Kondala Rao signed. The said Satyavathi signed at five places on the Will. He signed at one place only. The said Satyavathi witnessed when he signed on the said

Will, he also witnessed while Satyavathi signing on the said Will. The said

Satyavathi signed as "R.S.Rao". He has seen the said signature on the said date only as R.S.Rao and he never seen prior to that. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that the said Will is a created one and not genuine document.

P.W.3 Chief affidavit filed. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff , Third party examined as P.W.3. Cheif affidavit treated as cheif examination of P.W.3.

he deposed same facts deposed by the P.W.2 and P.W.3 in his evidence. In common suits after cubed two suits in O.S.No.248 of 2011. on his instructions

68

only in his Chief examination affidavit was prepared and he know its contents and the signatures theree on are him. He is 3rd party in the suit. No exhibits marked. He is 3rd attester oof Ex.A5. Ex.A5 contains his signature The contents of Ex.A5 were read over to him on the date of its execution. Along with him P.W.2, R.Kondala Rao were attested, one Gopala Krishna Murthy was the scribe of Ex.A5, in their presence the testator of Ex.A5 singed after read over its contents to her.

During Cross examination D2 to D4 counsel. On my instructions only my Chief examination affidavit was prepared and he know its contents and the signatures there on are him. I am the 3rd party herein. No exhibits marked.

I am 3rd attester of Ex.A5. Ex.A5 contains my signature. The contents of

Ex.A5 were read over to me on the date of its execution. Along with me P.W.2,

R. Kondala Rao were attested, one Gopala Krishna Murthy was the scribe of

Ex.A5, in our presence the testator of Ex.A5 signed after read over its contents to her.

During Cross examination of P.W.3 Defeendants 2 to 4 counsel confronted that P.W.1 is my brother-in-law, P.W.2 is my co-son-in-law. he has been residing at Tanuku since 2015. he do not know between whom there is a dispute in the suit. P.W.1 informed me that with the permission of Kondala Rao he got married Rokkala Satyavathi. P.W.1 informed me that with the consent of Kondala Rao only he got married Rokkala Satyavathi. P.W.1 did not Invite him for the sald marriage. P.W.1 did not inform him the place of said marriage.

On 09-05-1997 the said Satyavathi executed a Will. He does not know for how long she was alive after execution of said Will. The said Will was executed at Pothavaram village. At the time of execution of said Will, P.W.2,

Kondala Rao, P.W.2 were only present. One Gopalakrishna was the scribe of said Will and it was prepared as per the instructions of Satyavathi. P.W.1 was not present at the time. On the date of execution of said Will only he has seen the said Satyavathi and Kondala Rao.

69

P.W.3 denied a suggestion that no 'Will was executed as stated in my chief examination. P.W.3 denied a suggestion that myself, P.W.1, P.W.2 and others were created the said Will. He know one Krishnam Raju, who is son of

P.W.1, who is no more at present. He does not know the reason for his death.

P.W.3 denied a suggestion that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and he is deposing false.P.W.3 denied a suggestion that only in order to support the case of the 1st plaintiff and I am deposing false.

Cross examination by the D5 counsel confronted that Basing on the documents given by the Satyvathi the scribe of Will was prepared the same. It took two hours time for its preparation. At first P.W.2 signed on the said Will, then Kondalarão and P.W.3 were signed. The said Satyavathi signed as "Rokkala Satyavathi Rao vralu". He witnessed while she was signing on the said Will, likewise she also witnessed while she was attesting the Will. The said Will consisting of five pages and he signed on the last page. On all five pages the said Satyavathi he signed. P.W.3 denied a suggestion that due to the relationship with P.W.1 am deposing false.

To prove case plaintiffs, to support of the plaintiffs case to substantiate document writer examined as P.W.4 he deposed in his chief examination he received witness summons in this matter from the court. I am a document writer. He has been working as document writer since 1993. Whenever he scribed any document he used to make an endorsement to that effect on the said document. If any document contained said endorsement and my signature, it can be said that he scribed the said document. All the documents scribed by him are genuine documents. The name contained on Ex.A7 as scribe is mine. Ex.A7 is a registered document. At the time of registration of document there is no need of presence of the scribe. Ex.A7 was scribed about 21 years back. By going through the Ex.A7 he re-collected my memory. he does not remember the each and every document which was scribed by him, but by going through the document he can re-collect his memory. As per the contents of Ex.A7 Rokkala Kondala Rao signed as an executant and

70

Katikidala Nageswara Rao and Sape Hema Sundara Rao attested the said document. He came to the court to speak about the said document.

During Cross examination of P.W.4 the learned D2 to D4 counsel confronted that Rokkala Kondala Rao who is executant of Ex A7 and attesters came to me on the date of Ex.A7. After scribing Ex A7 1 handed over the document to them to submit the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar but he did not attend before the Sub-Registrar for registration. Except the property in survey No.83/4 Ac.1-00 cents there is no mention about the particulars and extents of remaining properties covered by Ex.A7. As per the recitals of Ex.A7 by the date of enforcement of Ex.A7 if the beneficiary No.2 and 3 were minors, then the beneficiary No.1 has to act as a guardian.

To prove Defendants 2 to 4 case. D.W.1 Chief affidavit filed. 2nd defendant examined as D.W.1. chief affidavit treated as chief examination of

D.W.1. he deposed same facts in his written statement, deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the the D2 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of D.W.1. In common suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011.

During the cross examination of D.W.1, D5 counsel confronted that

One Satyavathi is the wife of Rokkala Kondala Rao, who used to reside at

Bombay. Both are no more at present and they died. One Santhosha Lakshmi and one Srinivasa Rao are the children born through said Satyavathi and

Rokkala Kondala Rao. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the children born to Satyavathi through first plaintiff. The entire suit schedule properties belonging to Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Defendant

No.5 is resident of Yentrukona Village.

D.W.1 admitted that the said Rokkala Kondala Rao and his four children sold Ac.0-12 cents covered by R.S.No.163/6 of Yentrukona village to defendant No.5 under registered sale deed dated 16-07-1998. Witness adds that the said Kondala Rao sold the said property by showing his children as minors. D.W.1 admitted that by the date of said sale transaction marriage of

71

Santhosha Lakshmi was performed. He does not know whether she joined as a party to the said deed. D.W.1 admitted that the said property has been in possession and enjoyment of defendant No.5 till today. Initially on 26-11-2019 cross examination of the plaintiffs treated as nil on absence of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs counsel.

During the cross examination of D.W.1. D5 counsel further cross examined as per orders in I.A.No.64 of 2020 in O.S..No.248 of 2011.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Kondala Rao was used suffering-with illness. D.W.1 admitted that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramanaraju (the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2011 used to reside at Mumbai under Rokkala Kondala Rao.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as Rokkala Kondala Rao used to suffer with illness his wife Satyavathi developed illicit intimacy with P.W.1. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that both P.W.1 and Satyavathi used to behave like wife and husband. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that both P.W.1 and Satyavathi used to maintain illicit intimacy with the permission of Kondala Rao and out of their relationship they have begotten Krishnamraju and Bhagyasri (2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in O.S.No. 248 of 2011).

D.W.1 admitted that O.S.No. 248 of 2011 has been filed by Venkata

Raju and others against him and others seeking partition over plaint schedule property. 1st defendant by name Durga was made set exparte in this suit and she did not file any written statement. Part of the plaint schedule property was sold by deceased Kondala Rao and his son to D.4 to D.6 in O.S.No. 248 of 2011. he cannot say the details of the sale deeds executed by Kondala Rao and his son and extents also. In some of the documents deceased Kondala

Rao subscribed as an executant and some of the documents his son

Srinivasa Rao subscribed the signatures as executant. Witness volunteers that both Kondala Rao and his son executed a document in favour of D.5

Veerraju and D.6 Ramakrishna (in O.S.No.248 of 2011). This suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 was filed by Venkata Raju, Krishnam Raju and Bhagyasri. It is true that the suit is filed was in the year 2010 and registered in the year 2011. I

72

filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Suda

Ganapathi (D.4) in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 in respect of an extent of Ac.0-58 cents out of Ac.1-06 cents in RS No.147/4 and Ac.0-54 cents in R.S.No.147/5.

Since Venkatarama Raju have no right to execute document in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2014 He filed suit for cancellation of sale deed, dated 08-08-2014. He filed the suit for cancellation of document executed by D.1 to D.3 in O.S.No.248 of 2014. Venkata Ramaraju is not having any right over the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 but obtained Pattadar pass book over the property and basing on the said pattadar pass book he has executed sale deed in favour of Ganapathi and

D.W.1 having right over the property under G.P.A. as such He filed suit for cancellation of the document. D.W.1 admitted that he preferred an appeal

before Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in

favour of P.W.1 and the same was dismissed. Witness adds that his appeal was dismissed with a direction to approach before the Collector. D.W.1 admitted that P.W.1 contested the above said appeal before Revenue

Divisional Officer and the same is dismissed on 18-09-2017 that it is not maintainable before Revenue Divisional Officer. It is not true to suggest that he did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order passed by Revenue

Divisional Officer. Witness adds that he filed an application before District

Collector in the year 2017. he is having proof that He filed an application

before District Collector. He did not file any document before this Court to

prove that he filed an application before District Collector. He did not implead the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.248 of 2011 application filed before

District Collector. D.W.1 admitted that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju,

Krishnamraju and Ganapathi filed a Suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court against him and others and the same was

transferred to this Court and renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2019. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as on the date of filing of O.S.No.17 of 2015 the 3rd defendant Bhagyasri is not available, she was shown as defendant in the said

73

suit. D.W.1 admitted that 2nd plaintiff herein is died, leaving 4th and 5th plaintiffs as legal heirs.

As a General Power of Attorney Holder executed by Rokkala Durga, he is having right over the plaint schedule properties in three suits. He did not mention in all the three suits being a General Power of Attorney holder, he is claiming right over the plaint schedule property. He has taken a plea in all the three suits that, He got right over the plaint schedule properties as a General

Power of Attorney holder. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he has mentioned in his chief examination that Rokkala Durga executed General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and that he is contesting the suits basing on the General Power of Attorney. He filed General

Power of Attorney befşore this Court. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there is no General Power of Attorney is in existence and He did not file any General

Power of Attomey in his favour in all the three suits. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that without possessing or filing of the General Power of Attorney, he has no right over the plaint schedule property. The Rokkala Durga might have in existence. Witness adds that Rokkala Durga is in Komaragiripatnam.

D.W.1 admitted that the Rokkala Durga was shown as 1st defendant in

O.S.No. 248 of 2011 and she did not file any statement in this suit.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B1 is not issued by Rokkala Durga.

D.W.1 admitted that It is true that D5 herein I.e Rokkala Durga has attended in the suit in her personal capacity. Except filing Ex.B1 General Power of

Attorney he did not entered into any transactions including court litigations on behalf of Rokkala Durga representing her in pursuance of Ex.B1.D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B1 is not useful for any purpose. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is not claiming any right over the properties in O.S.288 of 2014, 248 of 2011 and 2 of 2019 on my personal capacity except the properties are the properties of Kondala Rao. Durga etc., the learned plaintiffs counsel aruged that he filed suit O.S.288 of 2014 against Mattaparthi

Venkataramaraju and others in my personal capacity. He gave

74

instructions to my counsel to prepare his written statement. D.W.1

admitted that in his personal capacity filed the suit. What is his interest

in the suit schedule property has to be explained by him.

The contents in para No.4 in O.S.No.288 of 2014 are true. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no where claimed in O.S.No.288 of 2014 that he is having having right over the suit schedule property, D.W.1 admitted that Ex B1 pattadar pass book and title deed stands in the name Rokkala Kondala Rao.

Ex.B3 the petition submitted by him to Revenue Divisional Officer.,D.W.1 denied a suggestion that after conducting enquiry in M.C.171 of 2012 rejected his application stating that he has no right over the schedule property. D.W.1 admitted the Tahsildar who has issued Ex.B4 belongs to his caste. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that by influencing the Tahsildar the report was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer., D.W.1 admited that the Revenue

Divisional Officer., did not consider the report submitted by Tahsildar under

Ex.B4. Ex.B5 to Ex.B8 relates to A.T.C. filed by 1st plaintiff against me and some others. Witness volunteers that the 1st plaintiff herein had withdrawn

A.T.C.No.1 of 2011, 2 of 2011, 12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006. He is not a complainant in Ex.B9 and his name is not figured in Ex.B9. The suit

O.S.No.74 of 2005 was not pressed by Rokkala Srinivasarao S/o Kondala

Rao Witness again says that O.S.No.74 of 2005 was not pressed by wife of

Rokkala Srinivasa Rao.

The learned plaintiffs counsel aruged that D.W.1 admited that Ex A1

sale deed dated 04-09-1991 executed in favour of Kondala Rao and his

wife Satyavathi. Witness adds that he purchased the property under

Ex.A1 in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He is am an attestor

or identifying witness of Ex A1. There is no recital in Ex.A1, he provided

consideration or at my instance Ex.Al was executed In favour of Kondala Rao

and Satyavathi. D.W.1 admited that Ex.A1 to A4 stands in the name of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi. He is not an attestor or identifying witness in Ex A1 to A4

or Ex. A1 to A4 do not reflect that he paid consideration or on his instance the documents has been registered in

75

the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion

that Ex.A5 is executed by Rokkala Satyavathi. D.W.1 admitted that

Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-07-1997. At is true that Ex.A7 is

Registered Will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao. As per Ex.A8 Study

certificate plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children of 1 st plaintiff. Witness adds that

Ex A8 got prepared by the plaintiffs. Ex.A9 is death certificate of Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao. A notice under Ex.A10 has been issued by plaintiffs to

him and others. He has issued a reply notice to the above notice. One

Rajeswara Rao, Advocate issued notice on our behalf under EX.A12. She is aware that a paper publication under Ex.A11 has been published by the plaintiffs in Andhra jyothi A notice under Ex.A13 has been issued on behalf of the plaintiffs and a reply notice under EX.A14 was issued by them. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as per EX A4 and A7 wills dated 26-02-1992 and 26-05-1998 the entire property bequeathed to plaintiffs 2 and 3 except Ac.1-00 land bequeathed to Santhosh Lakshmi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that

Ex.A4 and A7 were executed in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 by appointing 1st plaintiff as guardian as plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors by then. On behalf of

Rokkala Durga, myself and Arigela Satyanarayana, Sriramulu,

Venkateswararao, K.Durga Prasad, he gave instructions to prepare notice under Ex.A14. While preparing Ex.A14, he furnished true facts to the counsel.

D.W.1 admitted that Ex A14 notice they have mentioned that due to acquittance with Kondala Rao's family Ist plaintiff (O.S.N0.248 of 2011) developed illicit contact with Satyavathi who is no other than the wife of

Kondala Rao and begot one son and one daughter i.e., plaintiffs 2 and 3 (Bhagyasri and Krishnamraju) in O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no way connected with schedule properties in

O.S.Nos.248 of 2011, 288 of 2014 and O.S.2 of 2019. It is not true to suggest that taking advantage that he belong to S.C. S.T caste threatening them that he will file S.C. S.T Atrocity Case against them and preventing the the plaintiffs

76

2019. D.W.1 admitted that s in O.S.No.248 of 2011 and plaintiffs in O.S.2 of 2019, D.W.1 admitted that 2 of 2019 an injunction order passed by Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Amalapuram (Old Suit No.17 of 2015 against him and the said

injunction order is in force till now. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that though an injunction order was passed against me he is interfering and illegally violating the orders passed by the court from the date of passing of injunction Order

Cross examined by the plaintiffs counsel to the D.W.1 Sape

Satyanarayana is his son. Villa Bhagyasree is his niece. Villa Bhagyasree is claiming that she is the daughter of Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju and

Satyavathi. D.W.1 admitted that 2nd plaintiff Mattaparthi Krishnam Raju died.

He does not know plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of deceased 2nd plaintiff. He does not know plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein filed a suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram against him and another seeking permanent injunction. D.W.1 admitted that an injunction order was passed against him and his son in O.S.No.17 of 2015 and he engaged an advocate in the said suit. The said suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2019 and he is continuing with the same counsel engaged in O.S.No.2 of 2019 and the injunction order is continued. The plaintiffs herein sought injunction in O.S.No.17 of 2015 in respect of the schedule mentioned therein. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that

He am disobeying the orders order passed in O.S.No. 17 of 2015. He know the documents filed by plaintiffs in O.S.No 17 of 2015 (O.S.No. 2 of 2019). He know the plaintiffs herein filed pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of 1st plaintiff herein. He filed one ATC No.10 of 1996 claiming my leasehold rights against Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao, who are the original owners of the property. He does not know the A.T.C. No. 10 of 1996 was dismissed. Ex.B.11 is petition copy in A.T.C.10 of 1996 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's court Amalapuram. (marked during the course of

cross examination by D.5). D.W.1 admitted that as Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi are the owners of the schedule property in A.T,C.10 of 96, he filed

77

A.T.C. against Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He came to know that the plaintiffs herein sold away item Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 to 3rd plaintiff (Suda Ganapathi) in O.S No.2 of 19 vide sale deed dated 08-0-2014. It is true that I filed a suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed dated 08- 08-2014. D.W.1 admitted that the name of 1 plaintiff No.1 herein was mutated in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.248 of 2011. Witness adds that though revenue records are issue they are not genuine. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no way concerned to the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No. 288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 in order to grab the properties, I am making hectic efforts.

The learned plaintiff counsel argued that He has four sisters. He is

the only male issue. The mother of 2 nd plaintiff Satyavathi is his younger

sister. D.W.1 remaining sisters are Venkata Lakshmi and Pushpavathi are

no more, another sister Nagamma is alive. He never interfered in the

property affairs of his remaining sisters. his sister Nagamma is residing

at Allavaram. he received documents filed by the plaintiff along with suit

summons. He did not personally read the plaint copy. He received copy

of unregistered will, one copy of sale deed and two notices along with

the summons. He only contesting the suit against the unregistered will

Ex.A.5. The plaint copy and the copy of Ex.A.5 and other documents

were read over to me. He does after not remember how many days he

received documents from the Court, he narrated to the case to his

counsel. He did not make any enquiry prior to filing of his written

statement whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are genuine or

not. Contents of his plaint are not correct. He gave instructions to his

counsel to prepare written statement that the contents of plaint are not

correct. Deceased Satyavathi studied up to 5 th class. Satyavathi got

married in the year 1973. As on the date of his age, the husband of

Satyavathi Kondala Rao was at Mumbai. The native place of Kondala

Rao is Ventrukona of Allavaram. There is 10 years age gap between

78

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. As on the date of marriage, Satyavathi was

aged about 20 years and Kondala Rao is aged about 35 years. Kondala

Rao is older than me, he is 5 years elder than Satyavathi. The marriage

of Satyavathi was performed at Mumbai and she lead conjugal life at

Mumbai after marriage. Satyavathi is a signatory, D.W.1 denied a suggest

that Satyavathi used to sign as "R.S. Rao". Witness adds that she used to sign as 'R.Satyavathi'. Now he did not possess the pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of Satyavathi. He witnessed while the Satyavathi signed in a sale transaction in favour of Satyavathi. The document Ex.A.4 contains the signature of Satyavathi, he could identify the signature of

Satyayathi on pursuing the document. Ex.A.4 the witness identified the signature of Satyavathi on the 3rd page back side of Ex.A.4 sale deed, dated 26-02-1992. Kondala Rao used to sign in Telugu and English. He do not know the Satyavathi received pass book from revenue authorities by acknowledging the same. D.W.1 admitted that deceased Satyavathi was the owner of AC.0- 58 cents in R.S.NO.147/11, Ac.0-54 cents in R.S.NO.147/5, Ac.0.27 cents in

R.S.NO.163/6, Ac.1.09 cents in R.S.NO.146/4, Ac.0-80cetns in R.S.NO.106/5,

Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.83/4, AC.0-54 cents R.S.No.140/5 and she was in possession of the same properties. D.W.1 admitted that Ac.0-27 cents in

R.S.No.173/6 was shown as plaint 'A' schedule property in O.S.No.248 of 11.

It is true that the plaint 'B' schedule property in O.S.No.248 of 11 were jointly purchased by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He did not possess any documents containing the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. The 1st plaintiff is native of Munganda. He does not know the avocation of 1st plaintiff

Venkatarama Raju. He does not know when the 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju went to Mumbai, but he came to know that he was at Mumbai in the year 1993-94. The 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju had worked under Kondala Rao for 3 years at Mumbai. During the life time of Satyavathi the 1st plaintiff

Venkataramaraju discontinued from service. The deceased Satyavathi died due to fire accident. After the death of Satyavathi the work shop was closed

79

due to fire accident. After discontinuing services, the Kondala Rao came to

Ventrukona. He has own Ac.3-00 cents of land. He was given pattadar pass books and title deeds also. He signed before revenue authorities acknowledging the pattadar pass books and title deeds. Satyavathi was present while execution of Ex.A.4 sale deed. He is not an attestor on Ex.A.4.

Ex.A.4 does not reflect his presence on the date of execution of Ex.A.4. He purchased stamp papers for sale transaction under Ex.A.4 in the name of

Kondala Rao . On the date of execution of Ex.A.4 Kondala Rao is not present. He witnessed her while deceased Satyavathi subscribed his signature on Ex.A.1. He know deceased Satyavathi also sign as 'R.S.Rao'.

D.W.1 admitted that the plaint 'A' properties in O.S.NO.248 of 2011 was in the name of Satyavathi and she was the original owner of plaint 'A' schedule property and Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were joint owners of plaint 'B' schedule property. There are no differences between Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi. He delivered the plaint A and B schedule properties to Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi in the year 1996since then they had been in possession of the suit schedule properties and enjoyed the suit schedule properties. He could identify the signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao. He witness while

Kondala Rao or signing on documents used in regular transactions in company affairs. He never acted as identifying witness for the signature of

Kondala Rao on any documents and there is no such occasion. He witnessed the signature of Kondala Rao lastly in the year 1998. He witnessed the signature of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao in the year 1998. He does not know whether the 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju possess any empty papers containing the signatures of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi as R.S.Rao. He know the meaning of forgery and if the person signs the signature of others it is termed as forged. He does not know forgery means one person must sign the signature of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao, The Santhoshi Lakshmi daughter of

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi might have the documents containing the signatures of Satyavathi.

80

The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that D.W.1 admitted that there are disputes between Sathoshi Lakshmi, Srinivasa Rao and 1st plaintiff herein.

Either Santhoshi Lakshmi or Srinivasarao are not supporting the contest of 1st plaintiff. 1st plaintiff may forged the signature of Satyavathi. He did not mention in his written statement specifically that the 1st plaintiff

Venkataramaraju forged the signature of Satyavathi. 1st plaintiff does not know the name of father of Kondala Rao. My father is Sape Gangayya.

Satyavathi died in June, 1997 while she was aged about 38 or 39 years.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that the Satyavathi was residing along with

Kondala Rao in Mumbai since 22 years prior to her death. D.W.1 admitted that husband of Santhoshi Lakshimi is a Christian. D.W.1 admitted that though the marriage of Santhoshi Lakshimi was performed as per Christian rituals they presented Pasupukumkama usual. Satyavathi was hale and healthy on the date of her death. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are my nephew and niece. D.W.1 denied a suggestion the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born to Satyavathi through 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 admitted fthat he has mentioned that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that in

Ex.A.12 reply notice, he agreed that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein were born to

Satyavathi through 1st plaintiff herein. In Ex.A.5 will it is referred that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born through 1st plaintiff. He know the contents of Ex.A.5 will. D.W.1 admitted that an extent of Ac.1-41 cents in R.S.

No.83/4 stood in the name of Satyavathi. The boundaries regarding the properties in Ex.A.5 is not correct. It is true that Kondala Rao and Satyavathi was jointly purchased Ac.1-09 cents in R.S.No.146/4. The properties mentioned in Ex.A.5 are in existence. D.W.1 admitted that the properties referred in Ex.A.5 will were purchased by Satyavathi and some properties purchased by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. On 09-05-1997 he was at

Ventrukona. He never visited Pothavaram. D.W.1 admitted that he filed

A.T.C. to declare me as a tenant in respect of B schedule property against

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Witness adds that since some persons trying to

81

encroach the property he was advised by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi to file

A.T.C. against them. The 1st plaintiff herein also one of the persons tried to occupy the property. Neither Kondala Rao nor Satyavathi obstructed my enjoyment at any time. The 1 plaintiff Ramaraju is not a party in A.T.C. He does not remember the name of counsel of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi in

A.T.C. No.10 of 97, but my counsel is one Prabhakararao. The A.T.C. is pending till Satyavathi and Kondala Rao arrived to Allavaram. I did not engage the counsel of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi in A.T.C. D.W.1 admitted that the

A.T.C. was compromised and as per the terms he handed over the property to Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He did not reveal that he filed A.T.C against

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi as there is no such occasion arise. D.W.1 denied a suggestionthat in order to grab the property of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi, he filed A.T.C. and the same was contested by them. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there are disputes between D.W.1 and Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and no amicable relations.

The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that He did not go through

Ex.A.5 will personally.As per the document, the signature of the testator

on Ex.A.5 will is 'R.S. Rao'. "The document contains the signature of

testator in all pages. He did not possess any documents containing the

signature of Satyavathi as RS Rao. He does do not know P.W.2

Satyanarayana. He does not know P.W.2 is the co-brother of P.W.1. P.W.3

is also relative of P.W.1 According to him, one advocate Yerrapragada

Gopalakrishna Murty of Gopalapuram got scribed Ex.A.5 will. As per

Ex.A.5 will it was scribed at Pothavaram. he was not present at the time of preparation of Ex.A.5 will. The signature shown to him on Ex.A.5 will is not the signature of Kondala Rao. He filed the registered will in the year 1998 filed

before this court. He does not know who forged the signature of Kondala Rao

in Ex.A.5. The signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao generally like the signature in Ex.A.5. He could file petition to send the document for expert for comparison of signature of Kondala Rao. He has no enmity with P.Ws.2 and 3.

82

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he has enmity with P.W.s.2 and 3, they has no necessity to depose against him, he does not know whether he repudiate the signature of Kondala Rao in Ex.A.5 in his statement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that Satyavathi used to

sign as R.S.Rao similar to the signature on Ex.A.5. It is not true suggest

that after go through the contents of Ex.A.5 will the Satyathi subscribed

her signature on Ex.A.5 will and P.Ws.2 and 3 and Kondala Rao

witnessed the execution of will Ex.A.5 by Satyathi and thereafter they

subscribed their signatures on Ex.A.5 will. he does not know whether his counsel put any questions to P.W.2 and 3 denying the signatures of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi in Ex.A.5 will. The wife of Srinivasarao is 1st defendant/Rokkala Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggestion I has no personal interest over the plaint schedule properties. Witness adds that he purchased

Ac.3-00 out of plaint B schedule property. he possess document evidencing he purchase of Ac.3-00 of land, but did not file before any document to the

Court. He purchased the Ac.3.00 of land from 1st defendant herein prior to suit. D.1 Durga sold Ac.3-00 of land to discharge her debts. He discharged the debts and obtained vouchers from before the creditors, but he did not file any vouchers from the Court. He did not mention in my written statement before filing of suit he purchased AC.3-00 cents. D.1 herein executed General

Power of Attorney in his favour in the year 2008 to manage the properties.

The General Power of Attorney does not reflects the details of the properties, but there is a mention of all properties. The Ac.3-00 of above land was also included in the properties referred in General Power of Attorney. The husband of D.1 Srinivasa Rao died in the year 2008. Balla Sriramulu is father of D.1.

He does not know the Rokkala Durga after the demise of Srinivasarao married another person G.Krishna Murthy. They noticed that name of D.1 is mentioned as G.Durga wife of Krishnamurthy in the plaint. They did not mention in the written statement that the Rokkala Durga till now is the widow of Srinivasarao and she is not the wife of Krishna Murthy.

83

He filed a petition 1.A.No.780 of 2019 to receive Ex.B9 and Ex.B10. He does not remember in I.A.780 of 2019, He referred the Mataparthi Bhagyasri i.e., 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.348 of 2011 as daughter of Venkata Ramaraju (1st plaintiff in O.S.No.348 of 2011). P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he referred the 1st defendant Gullinka Durga as wife of Krishna murthy in the said I.A. after perusal of the petition in I.A.No.782 of 2019 the witness admitted that the

Mataparthi Bhagyasri was shown as daughter of Venkata Ramaraju in Ι.Α.No 782 of 2019 and Gullinka Durga was shown as wife of Krishna murthy. The husband of Gullinka Durga i.e.. Srinivasa Rao has filed a suit for is pending executed Ex.B1 Power of Attorney in respect of the properties shown in on

O.S.No.74 of 2005. As the date of execution of Ex.B1, the suit O.S.No.248 of

2011 is not in existence. One suit O.S.No.60 of 2006 was filed by the 1st plaintiff herein. Witness adds that the suit O.S.No.60 of 2006, it is not original suit. It is oringial petition, initially filed as pauper suit and the same is numbered in the year 2011 as O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.1 admitted the suit

O.S.No.74 of 2005 was filed in respect of the properties situated in

R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.00-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents in total Ac.2-21 cents. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as per Ex.B1 the General Power of Attorney was executed in respect of the above three properties. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as Ex.B1 executed in respect of the property mentioned in O.S.74 of 2005 only and basing on Ex.B1 he has no right to give evidence on behalf of

Rokkala Durga (D1) in this suit. There is no specific mentioned to give evidence in Ex.B1 but in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that the power of attorney was given to all the affairs. From the date of execution of Ex.B1 he has been looking after the property affairs of Rokkala Durga on her behalf. D.W.1 admitted that in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that he has to make all affairs on behalf of Durga and account for the income also. He did not maintain any accounts regarding properties of Durga from 2008 till date. No special power of attorney was executed by Durga except Ex.B1 to give evidence in the suit. It is true

84

that there is a recital in Ex.B1 Power of Attorney that if he did not act as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B1, she has right to cancel the same. I did not file any other documents that he acted as per Ex.B1 and any other transactions under Ex.B1. On the date of execution Ex.B1 was registered. Srinivasa Rao died in the year 2005. Srinivasa Rao died three years prior to execution of Ex.B1. From the date of death of Srinivasa Rao and till Ex.B1 came into existence the Rokkala Durga herself look after all her properties affairs. Now Rokkala Durga is residing at Komarigiripatnam. Now the Rokkala Durga is aged approximately 35 years. As on the date of execution of Ex.B1 the age of Durga is 25 years. Now Durga is hale and healthy. Since the matter O.S.No.74 of 2005 was went to upto Hon'b'le High

Court the Durga executed Ex.B1 as she is unable to look after the case affairs alone. As on the date of Ex.B1 Durga is healthy. There is no mentioned in

Ex.B1 because the health condition of Durga is not well she is executing

Ex.B1. Balla Sriramulu and Dorababu is alive. The scribe of Ex.B1 is Geddala

Laxmanarao of Thurpulanka of Allavaram Mandal. The Sriramulu and

Dorababu is not my relatives. There is no record that he paid taxes on behalf of Durga or managed the properties of Durga. The Durga herself not pressed

O.S.No.74 of 2005 in the year 2010. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Rokkala

Durga never executed Ex.B1 and Ex.B1 never acted upon. The revenue records are in possession of 1st defendant herein and husband. The Rokkala

Kondala Rao could sign in English or in Telugu. It bear original Will dated 26-05-1998 was filed by Srinivasa Rao in Court. Since the original Will

dated 26-05-1998 was misplaced in the Court records the same was not

returned back. He did not possess the original Will dated 26-05-1998. Ex.B3 report was given to Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 24-11-2012. he sought cancellation of revenue records issued in the name of plaintiffs 2 and 3 under

Ex.B3. As on the date of giving report under Ex.B3, the General Power of

Attorney Ex.B1 is in subsistence. The copy of Ex.B1 enclosed to Ex.B3 while giving report. D.W.1 admitted that as per Ex.B3 report, the report was given by

85

me. No enquiry was conducted on my report Ex.B3 as the same was misplaced in the revenue office. Subsequently Ex.B3, he again gave a report to Revenue Divisional Officer. He have given reports to Revenue Divisional

Officer thrice which were misplaced thereupon he gave a report to District

Collector. All three reports were given to Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of revenue records issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 but he cannot say all the facts mentioned in the three reports were same. The report under Ex.B3 was given regarding the properties referred in EX.B1. He filed report before Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of revenue records issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of

Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of

AC.1-09 cents in total Ac.2.21 cents. The properties in R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents are not reflected in plaint schedule property in

O.S.No.248 of 2011. The Tahsildar recommended the Amalapuram to cancel

the pattadar pass book issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of

R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents under Ex.B4. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that the report given under Ex.B3 and Report given by Tahsildar under Ex.B4 are no way connected to the suit. He does not know Arigela

Satyanarayana son of Venkataratnam. Witness again stated that he know the

Satyanarayana resident of Komaragiripatnam. D.W.1 admitted that the said

Mataparthi Venkata Ramaraju on behalf of his minor children A.T.C.No.13 of 2016 for delivery of possession an extent of AC.1-00. He is not a party in

A.T.C.13 of 2006. After receiving summons in A.T.C.No. 13 of 2006 the Arigela

Satyanarayana met him. The Aregila Satyanarayana is his own son in law.

Now residing at Yatrikona. The Arigela Satyanarayna engaged counsel in

A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 by name T.V.Prasada Rao and Mataparthi Venkata

Ramaraju engaged counsel by name K.V.Acharyulu. No enquiry was

86

conducted in A.T.C.No.13 of 2006. D.W.1 admitted that A.T.C.No. 13/2006 was dismissed for default. Arigela Satyanarayana handed over the copy of EX,B5 to me. as the A.T.C.No. 13 of 2006 is not disposed on merits he has no right to seek relief basing on A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 in the suit. The A.T.C.No. 12 of 2006 (Ex.B6) was filed against him by 1st plaintiff herein. He does not remember the extent of the property mentioned in Ex.B6. The property refereed in A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 is wet land. He received notice copy in

A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 and engaged Advocates Sri V.Rajeswara Rao and Sri

N.Mallikarjuna Rao and filed my counter.he did not file the copy of counter in

A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 in the suit. The counter copy in A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 is not filed in the suit. In the counters filed in A.T.C.Nos.12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006 we have mentioned the plaint schedule properties are not correct. It is not true to suggest that we did not take any plea in A.T.C.Nos.12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006 that the plaint schedule and the boundaries are not correct, as such he did not file the counter copies in the suit. A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 was dismissed for default. It is not true to suggest that as A.T.C. 13 of 2006 was dismissed without contesting the petition. He cannot claim any right basing on the A.T.C.13 of 2006. A.T.C.No. 1 of 2011 was filed against Arigela

Satyanarayana. He is not a party in A.T.C No.1 of 2011. He filed the copy

EX.B5 to 88 to show that the 1st plaintiff having a habit of filing cases. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he did not file the petition copy except schedule in EX.B7 the court cannot rely on Ex.B7. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as

Ex.B8 is incomplete document the same cannot be looked into.

The suit O.S.74 of 2005 was filed by Rokkala Srinivasa Rao seeking injunction against 1st plaintiff and others. Since there was no disputes regarding the property for period of two years after the matter was filed before

Hon'ble High Court, the Rokkala Durga not pressed the suit, He did not file the

not press memo filed in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as the record is not traced out

before the Court. The Rokkala Srinivasa Rao engaged one V.R.J.Rao initially

in O.S.No.74 of 2005. She has obtained the certified copy of Ex.B10. He is

87

not a party in O.S.No.74 of 2005. Subsequently the Durga changed the counsel Yelangi Satyanarayana and he not pressed the suit. The plaintiffs herein filed their written statement in O.S.No.74 of 2005. Two properties out of three properties in O.S.No.74 of 2005 was sold away and after getting knowledge he filed suit O.S.No..288 of 2014. An extent of Ac.1-12 cents in

R.S. No.147/4 and 147/5 were sold. The property in R.S.146/4 in an extent of

Ac.1-09 cents is not sold. Neither Rokkala Srinivasa Rao nor Rokkala Durga is ever in possession of the property mentioned in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as such the Rokkala Durga withdrew the suit O.S.No.74 of 2005. The Revenue

Divisional Officer, Amalapuram did not cancel the revenue records in issued in favour of Mataparthi Venkata Ramaraju.

The appeal preferred by him against the orders in M.C.No.171 of 2012 are pending before Collector, Kakinada. It is not true to suggest that as the Ist plaintiff herein is in possession and enjoyment of R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of

Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of

AC.1-09 cents, no action was initiated to cancel the revenue records. Ex.B9 is

Photostat copy but not original. He got Ex.B9 from Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and

Durga. While handover Ex.B9 Srinivasa Rao was alive. They did not mention about Ex.B9 in my written statement. Rokkala Kondala Rao informed to

Deputy Commissioner of Police that Mataparthi Venkataramaraju was harassing Kondala Rao by occupying his properties as such the Deputy

Commissioner addressed a letter to Station House Officer, Tana District. He does not know whether Kondala Rao given a written report to D.C of

Hyderabad. Basing on Ex.B9 case was registered and a case was closed after death of Kondala Rao. He did not file any document to show that a case was registered basing on Ex.B9. D.W.1 that Ex.B9 denied a suggestion that Ex.B9 was issued by influencing the police people and contents of Ex.B9 are not correct.

He did not mention in my chief examination whether any action is taken in pursuance of Ex.B.9. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that after the demise of

88

Kondala Rao They got created Ex.B.9 by influence. As on the date of death,

Kondala Rao is hale and healthy. Kondala Rao died on 25-09-1998. He does not know the sumame of Narsimhamurthy. He never go through the document executed in favour of Suda Ganapathi (3 plaintiff in O.S.No. 2 of 2019). The

Suda Ganapthi obtained sale deed for an extent of Ac.1-12 cents from plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S. No.248 of 2011. Ihe did not obtain the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed in favour of Suda Ganapathi. He filed a suit for cancellation of the document sale deed dated 08-08-2014 in

O.S.No.288 of 2014 against Suda Ganapathi and Venkata Ramaraju. He did

not file any documents in O.S.No. 288 of 2014. Since Suda Ganapathi obtained the sale deed without any right of his vendor, he filed suit

O.S.NO.288 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed. He is not an attestor or

executant of sale deed dated 08.08.2014. D.W.1 admitted that in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 there is a reference of will dated 09-05-1997 (Ex.A.5).

He did not sought for the relief of cancellation of Ex.A.5 will. He was supplied copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 basing on the said document He filed the suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 for cancellation. He does not know whether Rokkala

Durga has obtained the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. He does not remember who has applied to sub registrar office for obtaining the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he has no right to seek cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014, as he not a party to the said document. There is no registered document in his name in respect of the property covered under the sale deed dated 08-08-2014.

Witness adds that he has obtained a power of attorney. Since Ex.B.1 was executed by Rokkala Durga he got filed O.S.No. 288 of 2018. He filed suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 as an agent of Rokkala Durga. they have

mentioned in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 he filed the suit under the capacity of

General Power of Attorney holder of Rokkala Durga. He signed on the

plaint in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 on my personal capacity, but not an agent

of Rokkala Durga. The Rokkala Durga did not issue any affidavit that a

89

General Power of Attorney was executed in his favour which is in

substance in O.S.NO.288 of 2014. It is not true to suggest that as he filed

suit O.S.NO.288 of 2014 on his personal capacity but not on behalf of

Rokkala Durga, O.S.NO.288 of 2014 is not maintainable. D.W.1 admitted that the boundaries in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 and the boundaries referred in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 are same. Witness adds that he referred the land as dry land, but in sale deed dated 08-08-2014 it is wet land. He does not know the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 so also the attestors of the sale deed. He does not know when the sale deed

dated 08-08-2014 was executed. It is not true to suggest that as I am not

having any right over petition schedule property in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 he has no right to file any suit. Rokkala Durga has no knowledge that he filed suit

O.S.NO.288 of 2014. Rokkala Durga did not present while he was giving

instructions to the counsel at the time of filing suit O.S.NO.288 of 2014. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he filed suit Ο.S.ΝΟ.288 of 2014 without knowledge of Rokkala Durga and prosecuting the suit as such the suit is not maintainable. He know Veligetla Veerraju. The Veligetla Veerraju D.5 herein is made exparte without contest. Rokkala Satyavathi predeceased the Rokkala

Srinivasarao. Rokkala Satyavathi died before Kondala Rao. Rokkala Kondala

Rao has a plot and work shop at Mumbai. The above property was worth of

Rs.38,00,000/-as on 1998. The said property was sold by Venkata Ramaraju.

He did not inform to the counsel that Mattaparpthu Venkata Ramaraju was sold plot and workshop at Mumbai and brought the amount. After the death of

Satyavathi, Kondala Rao returned to Ventrukona. By the time Kondala Rao was healthy. He did not inform to my counsel the Kondala Rao fell sick after he left to Mumbai and came to Ventrukona. Since defendant No.5 is also one of the purchaser, the plaintiffs impleaded them as parties. He did not see the sale deed in the name of 5th defendant. 5th defendant does not belong to my caste and he belongs to Gowda caste and he is a paddy tapper. D.W.1 denied a suggestion no document was executed in favour of 5th defendant by

90

Rokkala Kondala Rao. D.W.1 denied a suggestion as the D.5 got created a fake document in his favour he is not contesting this suit with a fear that truth will come out. They did not tally the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi with the signatures in Ex.A.5. He could identify the signatures if any one signs in my presence. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that if any person did not subscribe the signature in his presence, He could not identify the signature. He know in the plaint O.S.NO.248 of 2014 the plaintiffs have taken a plea that the original pattadar pass books and title deed books issue in the name of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi are in my possession. D.W.1 admitted that we did not mention in my written statement that the original pattadar pass books and title deed books issued in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi are not in my possession. D.W.1 admitted that they filed pattadar pass books and title deed issued in the name of Kondalrao (Ex.B.2) in this suit. Since all the properties are in possession of Kondala Rao after the demise of Satyavathi and all the properties are mutated in the name of

Kondala Rao He did not file revenue records and pattadar pass books of

Satyavathi. It is not true to suggest that we suppressed the title books and pattadar pass books issued in the name of Satyavathi as the said revenue records contains the signatures of Satyavathi and if we produce the same, the said signatures will tally the signatures in Ex.A.5. He could file the documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao. He do not know the details of the documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao.

He did not mention the available documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao in petition filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act to send the will

dated 09-05-1997 for comparison to the expert. He does not know the nature

of documents containing the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. He did not file the documents containing the admitted signature of Rokkala Satyavathi along with written statement. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that they did not possess any documents containing the admitted signature and subsequently, They created some documents and making attempts to send the created

91

documents to the expert. He could secure the documents containing the signatures of writings of Satyavathi, but the said documents are not registered documents. At present, he could not say the nature of documents containing the signatures of Satyavathi without verification. Santhosha Lakshmi daughter of Kondala Rao. He is not going to examine Santhosha Lakshmi. The

Bhagyalakshmi daughter of Kondala Rao got married residing at Haryana.

Bhagya Leashmi name is not correct. The 2nd plaintiff Krishnamaraju died in the year 2015 while he was aged 22 years. In Ο.S.ΝΟ.288 of 2014 the defendants 2 and 3 therein were referred as the children of 1st defendant. He came to know that 2nd defendant died as he committed suicide because there was a dispute between D.1 and D.2 with regard to selling of the properties. He informed to my counsel that D.1 Venkataramaraju killed D.2 Krishnamraju.

Eedi Krishnarao and Moturi Satyanarayana, who are residents of Ventrukona and went to They Munganda and informed me that D.1 killed D.2. We did not call me to go to Munganda but on enquiry they informed me that D.1 killed

D.2. Witness again stated that Eedi Krishnarao and Moturi Satyanarayana informed that Krishnamaraju died as he committed suicide. No police case was registered against the 1st plaintiff. He informed to the counsel the dispute between 1st plaintiff and deceased 2nd plaintiff for amount. Munganda is a big village. He never visited the house of plaintiffs, but I know his house, there are houses surrounding the house of 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 denied suggestion that his evidence that D.1 killed D.2 is false. D.W.1 denied suggestion that that though Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will Ex.A 5 we are taking false pleadings that will was created. 3rd defendant is his son. Along with me D.3 also contesting the suit. D.4 purchased some property from Srinivasa Rao.

D.4 died. After he was exparte in this suit he died. We did not refer regarding the land purchased by D.4 in written statement. I did not file the will dated 04.07.1998 before the Court. It is not true to suggest that in view of Ex.A.5 will plaintiffs are entitled 'A' schedule property and half share out of plaint 'B'

92

schedule property. D.W.1 denied suggestion that he is deposing false evidence.

In further chief examination through D.W.1 Ex.B16 is Proceedings of

Revenue Divisional of Joint Collector in Dis No. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema

District, Amalapuram as per orders in I.A.No.546 0f 2024 dated 26-11-2024.

During further Cross-examination by Sri. N.V.S. Advocate on behalf of plaintiffs: he does not remember the R.S. Nos mentioned in the Ex.B16.

Ex.B16 proceedings an extent of Ac 2-21 cents of the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 288 of 2014. Ex.B16 is no way concerned to the O.S. No. 248 of 2011 plaint schedule property. He do not know Joint Collector issue a notice to the Suda Ganapathi for cancellation of pattadhar Passbook under Ex.B16.

He filed the suit before the court against Suda Ganapathi O.S. No. 2 of 2019 for cancellation of sale deed. It is true that basing on the O.S No. 2 of 2019 filed against Suda Ganapathi, Revenue Appeal was preferred under Ex.B16.

He did not mentioned the name of Suda Ganapathi in Appeal before the Joint

Collector in Ex.B16 petition. After passed the Orders by the Tahsildar

Allavaram then I questioned the Tahsildar Subba Rao about issuing the

Pattadhar passbook in favour of Pw1 after transfer of the then Tahsildar of

Allavaram. Subba Rao Tahsildar recommended to R.D.O to cancel the

Pattadhar Passbook issued by the Baby Jnanamba the then Tahsildar of

Allavaram in favour of P.W.1. he has no document in my favour an extent single cent relating to the property under Ex.B16. Vakkala is not correct,

Rokkala Durga issued a General Power of attorney in favour me. In the Power of attorney given by the Rokkala Durga in favour of me to look after the

Revenue proceedings before the R.D.O. He participated in the Revenue proceedings before the Joint Collector basing on the G.P.A. in favour of me executed by the Rokkala Durga. In the all revenue proceedings he put my signature as a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of Rokkala Durga. He produced the General Power of Attorney in the Revenue Proceedings at Joint

Collector Amalapuram and M.R.O. Allavaram.He filed the G.P.A in the present

93

suit. Rokkala Durga is alive. She is resident of Komaragiripatnam. Rokkala

Durga is not accompanied with him to the Revenue Court at any time. In the year 2012 Pattadhar passbook was issued in favour of P.W.1. He saw the photostat copy of Revenue pattadhar passbook of P.W.1. Rokkala Durga is executed General Power of Attorney in favour me for all purpose not for specific purpose. Ex.B16 schedule property is in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi w/o Kondala Rao. Original Sale deed dated 26-02-1992 of Rokkala

Satyavathi is in the custody of P.W.1. plaintiffs 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in favour of Suda Ganapathi of Ex.B15. Rokkala Durga is aged about 35 years.

She is having two children. One male and one female. Rokkala Srinivasa Rao is the husband of Durga. Rokkala Srinivasa Rao is no more, he was died in the year 2005. Rokkala Durga is not having issues through the Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao. Ullintha Krishna Murthy is the 2nd husband of Rokkala Durga.

he does not know Rokkala Durga gave a birth to the two children of through her 2nd husband. Rokkala Durga is not willing to come to the Court to depose as a witness. He did not inform to the Rokkala Durga about the Civil Court litigation, Revenue Court proceedings and pending of cases before the Court.

From the date of proceedings of R.D.O Court and Tahsildar Allavaram Durga is the wife of Ullintha Subba Rao. In the year 2008 Ullintha Durga executed a

Power of attorney in favour of me after the death of her 1st husband. Ullintha

Durga is having brothers and sisters. Present surname of Durga is Ulilntha after she married the Subba Rao. Ullinga durga is not executed power of attorney in favour of me after changed her surname from Rokkala to Ullinga.

On the date of filing of the suits Rokkala Srinivasa Rao was no more. No

General Power of attorney taken by me from the Rokkala Durga @ Ullintha

Durga. He have not filed the permission petition before the R.D.O. Court as power of attorney holder to look-after the R.D.O. court proceedings on behalf of Rokkala Durga. He has not filed the petition before the court and Rule 32

Civil Rules of Practice permission to proceed in the cases on behalf of

Rokkala Durga as a power of attorney holder. He has no documentary

94

evidence to show property covered under Ex.B16 convey to the Rokkala

Durga. He did not inform to the Joint Collector through my counsel Rokkala

Durga her surname was changed as ullintha Durga after she married the 2nd husband, after death of 1st husband. D.W.1 admitted that R.D.O Amalapuram dismissed the Appeal on orders of Tahsildar of Allavaram. D.W.1 admitted that after enquiry by the R.D.O then said appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. He filed the Revision before the Joint collector on dismissal of

R.D.O Appeal. He filed the writ petition No. 10657 of 2022 before the Hon'ble

High Court of A.P. Said writ petition was allowed in favour of him. He gone through the order in the writ petition 10657 of 2022. he know that Hon'ble High

Court gave a direction to dispose of the revision after Issued the notice to all effected parties. Sudha Ganapathi is also one of the effected party because he purchased the under Ex.B16. Joint collector did not issue the notice in the revision petition to the Suda Ganapathi. Suda Ganapathi name is not in the proceedings of Joint Collector under Ex.B16. P.W.1 not purchased the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 248 of 2011 for that he preferred the Appeal

before the R.D.O Amalapuram for cancellation of pattadha passbook in favour

of P.W.1. he made a application to the Tahsildar Allavaram issued the pattadhae passbook in my favour. He did not produce the document to show my right over the plaint schedule property in O.S. No, 248 of 2011. No pattadhar passbook was issued in the name of Rokkala Durga because He is having power of attorney from the Rokkala Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggesion that Ex.B16 proceedings is not valid because of said proceedings issued.

D.W.1 admitted in his individual name. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not prefer the revision as G.P.A. on behalf of Rokkala or Ullintha Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggesttion that he is not the real owner over the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 248 of 2011.D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Rokkala

Durga or Ullintha Durga is not the real owner of plaint schedule property OS 248 of 2011. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he along with Rokkala Ullinka

Durga is not having right over the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 denied a

95

suggestion that P.W.1 and Suda Ganapathi are the real owners, they are having the right over the plaint schedule property. He does not know the

Katha number of pattadhar passbook issued in the name of P.W.1. He can read in Telugu language. Ex.B15 containing the Katha number 923945 relating to Ex.B16 property was delivered to the Suda Ganapathi. D.W.1 admitted that as per Ex.b16 proceedings Joint Collector Amalapuram issued a direction for cancellation of Pattadhar passbook of P.W.1, at R.D.O. office cancellation not made which is still pending at R.D.O for cancellation of pattadhar passbook of

P.W.1. As per Ex.B16 R.D.O not cancelled the pattadhar passbook of P.W.1. it is not shows R.D.O cancel the pattadhar passbook of Ex.B16. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B16 basing on that he is deposing before the court he is in a possession and title in favour of him of Ex.B16 schedule property. D.W.1 admitted that Ex.B16 proceedings not implemented till now it is pending

R.D.O. Amalapuram.

D.W.2 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.2. Chief affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.2. D.W.2, deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.2. In common suits after clubbed two suits in O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.2 deposed in his evidence he is one of boundary holder of plaint schedule property. D.W.1 is brother of Satyavathi. When they are in Bombay and having business Vemala Rao stayed there with them to help in the business.

When they got purchased the properties at Yentrukona they asked Vemala

Rao to see the property. Then returned to his house and developed the property of them and purchased additional properties with the help of Vemala

Rao. Vemala Rao used to purchases properties in the village through his sister and her husband/ The entire property is in the possession and enjoyment of Vemala Rao. Since long time. Kondala Rao is having four children i.e. santosha Lakhimi, Srinivasa Rao, Krisham Raju and

Bhagalakshmi. After the marriage of srinivasa Rao came down Yentukona to see the properties.

96

My age is 65 years. He is doing cultivation. He is having Ac.0-50 cents of dry land and Ac.0-50 cents of wet land at Yentrikona. He has three daughters and one son. three daughters got married and his son is doing cultivation along with him. The property is self acquired property of his father.

D.W.2 and his brother partitioned the property of his father. He does not know his survey number. Due to his old age his remembrance was shorten. He is spending most of his time at his house and cattle due to old age. D.W.2 son is looking after the cultivation. While preparing his chief examination the counsel inquired him. D.W.1 was present while his chief examination was prepared.

He did not ask the D.W.1 from how long back the suit is pending. So also he did not enquire about the parties. he does not know in which suit he is giving evidence out of the three suits.

The boundaries of his wet land East: Pulasiganti Mangamma, West

Peyyala Satyanarayana, South Kummarlamanyam, North Pasarala

Sayanarayana. The boundries of his dry land and wet land and same. D.W.2 wet land and dry land abetting each. He did not enquire about the survey number of the suit schedule property D.W.2 land is situated on the boundary of land purchased by Suda Ganapathi. D.W.2 admitted that his land is one

of the boundary of the property purchased by Suda Danapathi sale deed

dated 08-08-2014. The land covered under sale deed dated 08-08-2014 is

Ac.01-12 cents. The boundaries of the property covered under the sale

deed dated. 08-08-2014 East: Vithanala Srinivasarao, West and North:

Vithanala Baby and Vithanala Krishnadasu, South: Irrigation canal. It is

not true to suggest that am not having any land on any boundary how

the property purchased by Suda Ganapathi. He did not state to the counsel except his land is situated on the boundary of land of Suda Ganapathi D.W.1 and Satyavathi are brother and sister. D.W.1 has another sister who is no more he does not know the name of other sister it might be Mangadevi. He did not state to the counsel the relation between Satyavathi and Vemalarao.

97

He did not state to the counsel that Satyavathi were at Bombay and they purchased the property.

He came to the court to give evidence pertains to the own

properties of D.W.1 but not the properties of Satyavathi. D.W.1 is his

distant relative. He does not know the age of D.W.1. From the date of

filing of suits to till giving my chief affidavit, D.W.1 never informed about

the suit affairs. D.W.1 informed him one week prior to preparation of his

chief examination to give evidence. He does not remember when his

chief affidavit was prepared but he has signed on his chief examination

at Yentrikona. D.W.2 denied a suggestion that he does not know anything about the suit affairs and at the behest of D.W.1 and he is deposing false evidence. D2 to D4 adopted cross examination of D1.

D.W.3 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.3. Cheif affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.3. D.W.3 deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.3. D.W.2 and D.W.3 deposed same evidence with out deviation. That is argued by the plaintiffs counsel.

During Cross examination of D.W.3 confronted by the Plaintiffs counsel that D.W.1 name is Satyanarayana only. he has no other name. He is doing cultivation on his own and lease. D.W.3 land is an ancestral land. They are 5 brothers, except one all are alive. D.W.3 brothers partitioned properties and one acre fallen to his share. D.W.3 land is situated at Rellugadda. D.W.3 properties are situated at Rellugadda. He is approximately 60 years. He does not know English. The 1st defendant instructed the counsel to prepare his chief affidavit and on his instructions his chief affidavit prepared and he signed on it. The contents of his chief affidavit are not read over to him. he does not know the contents of his chief examination.

He has no relation with D.W.1. he used to attend for coolie work under

D.W.1. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he is working under D.W.1 he came to Court today. He does not know the extent of the disputed property. He

98

does not know the names of plaintiffs and defendants in this suit. He does not know the reason for filing of this suit. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that though he is not aware about this case facts, at the behest of the D.1, he came to the Court. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not own any lands and he is only eking livelihood and doing coolie work under D.W.1. He did not state to the counsel that he has own one acre land and he has own one acre on lease.

D.W.3 denied a suggestion that the contents of his chief examination is false.

D5 adopted cross examination of plaintiffs.

D.W.4 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.4. Chief affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.4. D.W.4 deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.4. D.W.2 t0 D.W.4 deposed same evidence with out deviation. That is argued by the plaintiffs counsel.

During cross examination of plaintiff counsel confronted that argued that D.W.4 age is 52. D.W.4 is Chandrarao. One Nakka Satyanarayana Son

of Venkanna is his village. He did not bring my aaddar card today. He

residence is Ventrikona. He is an illiterate. he does not own any lands

and he is living by coolie work, he is having 3 daughters, already

married. Presently he residing as wife is no more. D.W.4 parents are

also no more. He did not give any instructions to his counsel while

giving my chief examination. He is a farm servant of D.W1. D.W1 got

typed my chief examination in the presence of his counsel thereupon he

signed on his chief examination. He was informed that to subscribe his

signature on chief examination stating that nothing was wrong it. He

does not know the contents in his chief examination. D.W.4 denied a

suggestion that by taking money he is deposing false evidence.

Deputy Tahsildar examined as D.W.5. He deposed that on the date of evidence Tashildar allavarm to give evidence. He brought the true copies of enquiry report dated 24-11-2014 EX,B12 is true copy of the enquiry report,

dated 24-11-2014 marked subject to objection.Ex.B13 is true copy of the

99

enquiry report dated 25-01-2020.Ex.B14 is the letter address by Tahsildar to the District Collector dated 03-08-2017 marked subject to objection.

D.W.5 admitted that he has no personal knowledge except evidence on record. P.Subbarao the Tahsildar is retried from service. he does not know on what basis the P.Subbarao Tahsildar recommended, the Revenue Divisional

Officer to the cancel the pattadar pass book, issued in the name of 1st

Plaintiff Venkataramaraju. He did not submit the notice dated 26-08-2014 and 01-10-2014 said to have been issued to the Venkataramaraju referred in Ex

B12. D.W.5 admitted that the then Tahsildar who conducted enquiry issued did not enclose the notices dated 26-08-2014 and 1-10-2014 to the report under Ex.B12.D.W.5 admitted that that the copy of title deed appended to

Ex.B12 it is referred in column No. 12 that a suit O.S.No.74 of 2005 is pending

It is true that in copy of the title deed book appended to Ex.B12 in column No.

5 the nature of the acquisition is court order. D.W.1 did not submit any document before the Revenue Authorities that O.S.No.74 of 2005 is dismissed or any cancellation of court order.A stranger to the property can file any petition to cancel the mutation of the property. There is no reference regarding the relationship between 1st defendant and D.W.1 in the documents. The then

Tahsildar did not issue any notice to 1st defendant Gollinka Durga that D.W.1 filed an application on her behalf to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Venkataramaraju. As per record there is no authorization letter by 1st defendant Gollinka Durga to act D.W.1 on her behalf. He do not know whetherthe General Power of Attorney or Medical record submitted by the

D.W.1 at the time of filing application. He did not submit to the court the

General Power of Attorney or Medical record of Ist defendant. Except Ex.B12,

Ex.B13 and B14 I did not go through the other record. He did not possess any document that any action taken against reports given by Subbarao under

Ex.B12. He does not know the D.W.1 filed appeal before Joint Collector against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., refusal of cancellation of pattadar pass books in the name of Venktaramaraju and the

100

same is pending. It is not true to suggest that the then Tahsildar Sri S.Apparao gave a wrong finding and submitted a report hence basing on the report of Sri

S.Apparao Tahsildar the pattadar pass books were canceled. The pattadar pass books issued in the name of Venkata Rama Raju or in force during the pendency of matter before Joint Collector. As per Ex.B14 the then Tahsildar addressed a letter to District Collector that there was an objection for issuance of possession certificate since suits are pending the application filed by D.W.1.

He know the difference boundary and elders. D.W.1 admitted that under

Ex.B13 the then Tahsildar addressed a letter to the District Collector that they addressed a letter to the Assistant Government Pleader to know the stage or status of the suits pending before court relating to the disputed property.

Statements recorded in the statement appended to Ex.B14 are the mediators but not boundary owners. He does not know whether any notices issued to the persons whose statements were recorded. He does not know how the then

Tahsildar identified the 6 persons as mediators. Witness adds that generally while going to enquiry we called the people presented the location. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there is no reference of survey number or boundaries in the statement. He does not know whether any notice issued to the 1st defendant G.Durga at the time of conducting enquiry. He does not know whether the G.Durga is in the village or left the village. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that generally the statements shall be recorded separately. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that as per Ex.B14 it appears all the elders given a single statement. There is no reference in the statement that the persons who were given the statements are the neighboring ryots. The statement was recorded by R.I. There is no mention in the statement that it was recorded by R.I. As per rule the R.I. should record the statement. Village Revenue Officer has no authority to record statement. As per the statement it was recorded by Village

Revenue Officer., D.W.1 denied a suggestion that D.W,1 influence the Village

Revenue Officer and R.I by showing some people as elders, as the statement was not recorded by authorized person there is no legal sanctity. There is no

101

seal or stamp beneath the signatures of Village Revenue Officer., on statement. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the documents. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that D.W.1 managed the local revenue people and obtained Exs.B12 and B13. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is deposing false. D5 adopted cross examination by y D5 adopted the cross examination of plaintiffs.

During cross examination of D.W.5 admitted suggestion that then

Tahsildar, Amalapuram Baby Gyanambas suspended from service with an allegation that she has Issued a pattadar pass book to a fake person in respect of other property he has no idea the period the then Tahsildar

Gyanambha worked at Amalapuram. D.W.5 and Gyanambha have worked at

Gannavaram together by then she was Tahsildal and she is Junior Assistant.

The Gyanambha suspended just before her retirement. He has no idea the

Gyanambha was retired from service after suspension. The Gyanambha is in service more than 30 years. he has no personal knowledge about the activities of Gyanambha relating her suspension But he came to know through others. D.W.5 being a public servants Tahsildar should sign on the report after thorough verification. It is true that the government employee will be retired while there were in service. The file relating to Gyanambha is in pending. It is not true to suggest that about the activities done by Gyanambha.

A criminal case was filed regarding the issuance of pattadar pass books to some other persons relating to some other property the Gyanambha was arrested and she was suspended from service because she was in jail more than 48 hours. D5 adopted cross examination of plaintiffs.

D.W.6 chief affidavit filed. D.W.6 is third party to the suit. He know the deponent her house is near to the land of sape vemala Rao and his sistr since 20 years is cultivating the land having position and enjoyment several time. The revenue officers came and made enquiring asking about the poition and enjoyment of vemala Rao on 02-08-2017 the revenue inspector and V.R.o was present and collect of the village. the elders peyyala ventata Reddy

102

Nakka ventadeshuly pulapakura sinivasa Rao and bonthi cinna and penumala satyanarayan and others and recorded the statement of them. Who deposed that the land is position and enjoyment of Vemala Rao the same was recorded by them read over to them and obtained their signature. Chief affidavit confronted by the defendants 2 to 4 counsel then treated as chief examination of D.W.6.

During cross examination by the plaintiffs counsel confronted that My age is between 54 and 55. D.W.6 husband did coolie work. She has one daughter and one son. D.W.6 son is mason. D.W.6 son is unmarried.

Daughter is married. She is residing at Siripalli. she used to attend coolie work. she has Ac.0-40 cents of landed property adjacent to the land of

Vemalarao intervening a channel. There is a document to show that she own

Ac.0-40 cents of land but she did not produce the said document today she cannot say the cardinal points of his land but on one side Molleti Anandarao topu, and one side canal is situated.. One another side one person called as

Ramabhadra Rao land is situated. The Ac.0-40 cents land is in his name.

D.W.6 father gifted the said land to him. D.W.6 father gifted the same to me by virtue of a document but it is not registered. No revenue records were issued in my name in respect of Ac.0-40 cents of land he does not know his name is mutated in revenue records in respect of Ac.0-40 cents of land. she does not know in which year his father gifted Ac.0-40 cents of land but it is a about 20 years ago. he does not know when his father died he has no talking terms with his brothers but they are alive. She is a marks woman. she never acted as a elder in the village. There are elderly people in my village but she cannot say their names. She does not know who filed the suit or the reason for filing of the suit so also against whom the suit is filed. she does not know the properties shown in the suit schedule property. She got acquaintance with

D.W.1 Vemalarao since my childhood. He is holder than me. There are amicable relations between D.W.1 and ourselves. There is no need to know the personal affairs of D.W.1 to me so also D.W.1 has no necessity to know

103

my personal affairs. She cannot say in which the revenue people came to my village but they came to village about 13 to 14 years ago. The Village

Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, Superintendent inquired in the village. They came to the village approximately about 20 times. The revenue authorities did not record my statement. She did not show his land records to the revenue people.

Witness voluntaries that the said AC.0-40 cents is in the name of her fathers so far. D.W.6 and my brothers have to partition the land of my father and she does do not know whether they give a any share to me. The land of my father now in the possession of my brothers Since she is an illiterate she cannot say the date the revenue people came to the village. She did not inform to the counsel the date the revenue people arrived to the village. she does not know the names of revenue Inspector. Village Revenue Officer who came to the village. About 14 years back she informed to the counsel that the revenue people came to the village and enquired. She did not state the names of the elders to the counsel. She has not seen the document stands in the name of the Vemalarao in respect of Ac. 2-00 referred in my chief examination. The 1st defendant Rokkala Durga hand over the AC.2-00 of land to D.W.1. Vemalarao she does not know whether any document was executed by Rokkala Durga in favour of D.W.1. Witness adds that but one time she reduced some documents in the name of D.W.1 but she does not know the nature of the document. 1st defendant Rokkala Durga hand over the

Ac. 2-00 of land about 14 or 15 years ago i.e., after Village Revenue Officer made enquiry in the village. She cannot say the period of possession by 1st defendant in respect of Ac. 2-00 of land. She does not know the survey number of the Ac. 2-00 of land. One Vithanala Baby land is situated one side of Ac.2-00 one Krishna Prasad, canal is another side and she does not know the other neighboring land owner name. The Ac.2-00 of land is in two bits. The two bits in an extent of Ac.1-12 and Ac.1-09 .The above two bits is not adjacent to each other or not contiguous. chief affidavit was read over to me.

104

He put my thumb mark in the chief affidavit about 5 or 6 months ago. He did not state to the counsel that the revenue authorities recorded his statement and she subscribed my signature. The Ac.2-00 is a coconut tope he do not know the number of coconuts trees in the Ac.2-00 of land. D.W.1 Vemalarao own some properties in Yentrikona. The lands of Vemalarao are situated far away to the land Ac.0-40 cents which he claiming right. He did not make any enquiry regarding own properties of Sape Vemalarao. It is not true to suggest that he did not own Ac.0-40 cents of land and he never been possession of the said Ac.0-40 cents of land and my evidence that he own and possession

Ac.0-40 cents of land is not correct. she does not know the door number of my house. D.W.6 house is daba house which is in my name situated in Yentrikona

Panchayat. He did not state his counsel that he is cultivating Ac.0-40 cents of land. He did not state to the counsel that the land which is cultivating by

Sape Vemalarao is near to his house. The revenue people came to my house at the time of enquiry. Witness adds that the revenue people came to his house thrice but in the three times, he is not available in the house. The revenue people came to the village about 14 years ago and again visited about one year ago. The revenue people enquired me about 14 years ago so also about one year ago. D.W.1 informed me about 4 or 5 months ago to give evidence. She did not visit the house of the counsel regarding this suit.

Witness voluntaries he engaged the same counsel earlier in respect of the wall dispute about 10 years ago. He did not question the revenue authorities why they are making enquiry. Witness adds that they enquired about the possession of Ac.2-00 of land.

According to me Vemala Rao having right and title over the property. It is not true to suggest that my evidence that Rokkala Durga hand over to the

Ac. 2-00 to D.W.1 Vemala Rao and the same is in possession of Vemala Rao and the revenue people recorded my statement are all incorrect. There might be a dispute regarding Ac. 2-00 of land pending before the court but she do not know the dispute between whom. informed to D.W.1 what happened in

105

the presence of revenue authorities he informed the same to counsel and he prepared my chief examination. It is not true to suggest that though he is not known any suit affairs he is deposing false evidence at the behest of D.W.1.

D.W.7 chief affidavit filed. D.W.7 is third party to the suit. He know the deponent her house is near to the land of sape vemala Rao and his sistr since 20 years is cultivating the land having position and enjoyment several time. The revenue officers came and made enquiring asking about the poition and enjoyment of vemala Rao on 02-08-2017 the revenue inspector and V.R.o was present and collect of the village. the elders peyyala ventata Reddy, nakka ventadesulu, pulapakura sinivasa Rao, Bonthi Cinna and penumala satyanarayana and others and recorded the statement of them. Who deposed that the land is position and enjoyment of Vemala Rao the same was recorded by them read over to them and obtained their signature. Chief affidavit confronted by the defendants 2 to 4 counsel then treated as chief examination of D.W.7.D.W.6 and D.W.7 and deposed in their chief examination affidavits with out deviation.

During the cross examination of D.W.7 the learned plaintiff counsel confronted that D.W.1 Vemala Rao belongs to same caste. D.W.7 is resident of Sapevaripeta of Allavaram. Allavaram and Yentrikona are different panchayat. D.W.7 father is no more about 22 years back by then D.W.7 was aged approximately 25 years. They are four brothers. All of my brothers are coolies work including me. D.W.7 brothers were residing separately and all married. All brothers of D.W.7 are residing at Allavaram. The road situated between Allavaram to Yentrikona leads from east to west. D.W.7 has no landed properties at Allavaram except house sites. He is own AC.0-03 cents of land which was allotted by Government. Abetting to the Road on the southern side the coconut tope Rayudu Ramayya is situated. He constructed house about 10 years ago, prior to that all of them used to reside in one house at Allavaram. After issuance of pattas all his brothers are residing separately. On the two sides of his house houses, one one side road and one

106

Guthula Mallayya is situated. The lands of Vithanala people, Guthula people,

Rayudu people are situated near to his house.

D.W.7 know the contents of my chief examination but He does not know who prepared the same. D.W.7 know the counsel. D.W.7 never visited the house of counsel for the defendant enquired me in the court premises about the enquiry made by the revenue people. The counsel for the defendant had written the statement with his hand writing on a paper and I subscribed my signature on the same. D.W.7 signed on a printed paper prepared by the counsel. D.W.1 introduced me to the counsel and D.W.7 narrated that revenue people visited the village. Mandal Revenue Officer, Village Revenue

Officer, Superintendent present about 4 years ago. By them D.W.7 was pealing the coconuts the revenue people came to the house of Vithanala

Srinivasa Rao which is abetting to the coconut garden. The Mandal Revenue

Officer came to the house of Vithanala Srinivasa Rao along with his office subordinates and they have seen the coconut tope which was shown by DW1 an extent of Ac.1-12 and Ac.1-09 cents. The AC.1-12 and AC.1-09 are not contiguous plots. AC.1-12 cents again divided into two bits. The boundaries of

AC.1-12 cents are Vithanala Krishnamraju, Vithanala Srinivasa Rao,canal and land of Vithanala people. The boundaries of AC.1-09 cents are Guthula

Ramasetti, Vithanala Prasad, and D.W.7 does not know the name of the persons. D.W.1 owns some landed property at Yentrikona some times he also attended for work at the lands of D.W.1. The Ac.2-00 of land referred in my chief examination at a visible distance to his house but he cannot say the exact distance. The revenue authorities came to his house three times. The

Revenue people visited the village about 4 years ago and again visited about 2 years ago.Though they are visited the village subsequently he was not available in the village. Neither D.W.7 nor Vithanala Srinivasa Rao questioned the revenue people whey the Revenue came to the village. Witness adds that they, informed the purpose for their arrival. The revenue people did not record his statement. The revenue Inspector did not inspect the village. The Village

107

Revenue Officer of Yentrikona the name not known has attended. There are elderly people in the village Allavaram and Yentrikona. I am not an elder one in the village. D.W.7 did not inform the date 02-08-2017 to the counsel. On 02- 08-2017, Village Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer were present in the village. informed to the counsel that Village Revenue Officer, Mandal

Revenue Officer, Superintendent attended but D.W.7 do not know whether it is mentioned in my chief examination D.W.7 do not know the survey number of the disputed property along with me 5 or 6 other persons by name Bonthu

Nagababu, Yalla Varaprasad of Samanthkuru, Pecheti Laxmana Rao were also present in the tope of Vithanala Srinivasa Rao when the revenue people came to the village.D.W.7 attended before Revenue authorities on that day as

D.W.7 was called revenue authorities. By then Revenue people do not know my name. When the revenue people came to the village 2nd time D.W.7 was working else where again D.W.7 was called by the revenue authorities and

D.W.7 alone appeared before revenue authorities. On enquiry D.W.7 informed to the Revenue people that the Ac. 2-00 of land belongs to DW1.

D.W.7 did not question the Revenue people why they are again asking me about ownership and possession of Ac. 2-00 of land when D.W.7 revealed 1st time.

D.W.7. know about the suit after 1st visit of revenue authorities. The 2nd plaintiff Krishnam Raju filed the suit D.W.7 does not know whether Krishnam

Raju alive and D.W.7. never seen him. D.W.7. has no lands bounded by the

Ac.2-00 of land. D.W.7.does not know the revenue authorities whether enquired the neighboring land owners or boundary land owners. D.W.7 admitted that there is a difference between village elders and neighboring/boundary land owners. Since D.W.7. was not present in the village by the time of 3rd visit by the revenue authorities D.W.1 does not know what happened on that day. On 02-08-2017 the revenue authorities called me and by that time D.W.7. alone examined. D.W.7. does not know whether any others were examined by the Revenue authorities on 02-08-2017. None were

108

examined in his presence by the Revenue authorities. D.W.7. understood the evidence mentioned in D.W.7. chief examination his age 47 years. D.W.7.

doing cultivation as D.W.7.did not own any land. D.W.7 asked him to give evidence about 5 months ago. In D.W.7. chief examination it is mentioned that

D.W.7.am resident of Allavaram. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that he did not have any house near the disputed property. since he has been attending coolie work in the lands of D. W.1 at the behest of D.W.1 and D.W.7. deposing false evidence I do not know the reason for the dispute. Originally the Ac.2-00 land belong to Rokkala Satyavathi and the title deed in the name of

Satyavathi. D.W.7. was not present at the time of sale transaction or at the time of registration of AC.2.00 of land. My elder brother is no more D.W.2 2nd brother age is 65 years, my brothers who are older than me are alive. D.W.7.

does not know whether it is mentioned in his chief examination in which village the AC 2.00 of land is situated. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that though his elders brothers are available and they refused to give false evidence, the

D.W.1 brought him to court by giving amount. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that on 02-08-2017 the revenue authorities visited the village and recorded his statement are all incorrect. D.W.7 does not know whether Vemalarao shown any document showing his possession. In his presence D.W.1 did not show any document to the revenue people. D.W.7 did not see the documents of

D.W.1. I came to know that AC.2-00 is in the possession of D.W1 through the hearsay of the villagers. It is not true to suggest that the contents of his chief examination false and he is giving false evidence by taking amount. D.W.7 cross examination in three suits of common

Third plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No. 17 of 2015 chief affidavit filed, he deposed same facts in his plaint. After confronted by the plaintiffs counsel chief affidavit then treated as chief examination of D.W.8.

During cross examination 2 to 4 counsel confronted that he purchased the plaint schedule property from 1st plaintiff. He enquired before purchase of plaint schedule property. He is not enquired about cases on the plaint

109

schedule property pending or not. Basing on the will he purchased plaint schedule property. He did not see the Ex.B2. He enquired both the sale prior to purchase of plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is a coconut garden. He verified my sale deed. As per my sale deed plaint schedule property is a wet land and zerioty wet land. he does not remember when he saw the passbook of plaintiff. He is not having knowledge about the documents. He is a retired R.T.C. employee. He does not know 1st plaintiff pattadhar passbook given to Allavaram Tahsildar. Witness says voluntarily pattadhar passbook not given to him case is pending before court. I does not now pattadhar passbook of 1st plaintiff was canceled by the District Collector

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. He does not know who issued the pattadhar passbook to the 1st plaintiff the then Tahsildar Allavaram he was suspended. He does not know the District Collector Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Konaseema District made a enquiry through four Tahsildar Then after plaint schedule property delivered to the D2. Plaint schedule property is in the possession of 1st plaintiff, he is flecking the coconuts till 2014 then after from the date fo purchase by me he flecking the coconuts. It is not true to suggest that my sale deed boundaries are not correct. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that plaint schedule property boundaries are wrong. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he did not goto the plaint schedule property. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he did not bear to go to the plaint schedule property. D.W.8 denied a suggestion he does not know plaint schedule property where is is situated.

D.W.8 denied a suggestion that hd demanded the son of 1st plaintiff. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he does not demanded the 1st plaintiff to deliver the property to him. witness says voluntarily plaintiff came to him. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that my sale deed was in collusion of 1st plaintiff basing on the will because of we are having rowdy elements. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that for grab the plaint schedule property he approached the 1st plaintiff and purchased the plaint schedule property under guise of him.

110

During the Cross-examination by plaintiffs counsel confronted that In the year 2014 he retired as supervisor in A.P.S.R.T.C. Amalpuram. I am residing at Konkapalil Amalapuram. Konkapalli and allavaram are joint villages. I did not see the 2nd defendant. Witness says voluntarily d2 1st time yesterday at the court premises. Weekly twice or thrice I used to goto the plaint schedule property. I do not know initially plaint schedule property is wet land. To my knowledge plaint schedule property is coconut garden. Plaint schedule property southern side is irrigation canal. Vittanala family in other three boundaries of plaint schedule property. After negotiations for purchase of the plaint schedule property then he entered into sale deed.

Plaint schedule property was delivered on the date of sale deed to me.

No one obstructed to me plaint schedule property is in a disputed property which is pending before the court. He made application to the revenue authorities for mutation of my name for issuing of revenue records. Pattadhar passbook was not issued in his name court case is pending. He came to know at the time plaint schedule property is pending before the court. Other properties are also mentioned in the will which is executed by Rokkala

Satyavathi. D.W.8 admitted that 1st plaintiff given to me photostat copy of will of Rokkala Satyavathi. There is no revenue tax to the coconut garden. He does not know personally the revenue records enquired either plaint schedule property or any other properties. The revenue authorities not issued a notice to me. D.W.8 admitted that the revenue authorities also not call for his objections to the plaint schedule property. He does not know about the revenue proceedings between the 1st plaintiff and D2. The beneficiaries under the will arrayed sign in my sale deed. He done my service in A.P.S.R.T.C. 38 years. He did not receive negative remarks in my service. D.W.8 admitted that he is a bona-fide purchaser in possession fo the property my sale deed has to be held valid.

111

‘A’ schedule filed by the above named Petitioner/Plaintiff :-

East Godavari District, Allavaram Mandal, Yentrukona Panchayati,

Allavaram Sub-Registry, Yentrukona Village, an extent of Ac.0-27 cents out of

Ac.0-33 cents Zeroyati Meraka covered by R.S.No.163/6 as bounded by – concerned by Document No.4.

East : The land of Guttala Ramisetty.

South : P.W.D. Irrigation Canal.

West : The land of Kandregula Satyanarayana and Ronthu Sattimma

North : The land of Sapey Tatayya with all easementary rights and fruit bearing trees.

‘B’ schedule filed by the above named Petitioner/Plaintiff :-

East Godavari District, Allavaram Mandal, Allavaram Sub-Registry,

Rellugedda Panchayati Area, Rellugedda Village.

Item No.1:-

An extent of Ac.0-50 cents, out of Ac.1-00 on Western side in

R.S.No.191/5B and an extent of Ac.0-50 out of Ac.1-44 cents on middle in

R.S.No.191/6 Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.1-00 cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.1.

East : The land of Chedalla Adilaxmi subsequently she told away to Rajulu

South : Drinage cannel Bodi

West : 2nd Item

North : The land of Datla Chandravati

Item No.2:-

An extent of full Ac.0-36 cents in R.S.No.191/5A and extent of Ac.0-29 cents out of full extent Ac.0-56 cents on eastern side in R.S.No.163/4 and an extent of Ac.00-29 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.00-58 cents on eastern side in

R.S.No.162/3. Total extent of Ac.00-94 ½ as bounded – concerned by

Document No.4.

East : 1st Item

South: The land of Chedalla Adilaxmi

112

West : The land of Datla Chandravati

North : The land of Nadimpalli Bangara Raju

Item No.3:-

An extent of Ac.00-29 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.00-89 cents on southern side in R.S.No.162/5A and

An extent of Ac.00-60 cents out of full extent Ac.00-85 cents on western side in R.S.No.162/5B Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.0-89 ½ cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Smt. Chedala Annapurna

South : Irrigation canal

West : Irrigation canal

North : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan

Item No.4:-

An extent of Ac.0-23 cents out of full extent Ac.00-46 cents in

R.S.No.191/1 and full extent of Ac.00-18 cents in R.S.No.191/3 and

An extent of Ac.00-12 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.0-44 cents on western side in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.00-53 ½ cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan and the land in R.S.No.191/2

South : The land in R.S.No.191/4B

West : The land of Sri Nadimpalli Bangaru Raju

North : Irrigation Canal

Item No.5:-

An extent of Ac.00-25 cents out of full extent Ac.00-44 cents on

Northernside in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati meraka as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Medicala Padma Raju

South : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan

West : the land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : Irrigation canal

113

Item No.6:-

An extent of Ac.00-25 cents out of full extent Ac.00-44 cents an southern side in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati pallam as bounded by –concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

South : The land of Smt. Chedala Annapurna

West : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

Item No.7:-

Full extent of Ac.00-19 cents in R.S.No.191/4B – concerned by

Document No.2.

Item No.8:-

An extent of Ac.00-42 cents out of full extent Ac.0-86 cents on eastern side, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.193/1B as bounded by – concerned by

Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Manepalli Nelabaludu and others

South : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

West : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

North : The land of Sri Verrinkala Padma Raju

Item No.9:-

An extent of Ac.00-37 cents out of full extent Ac.00-74 cents on westernside, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.193/1C as bounded by – concerned by Document No.3.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

South : Dirnage canal

West : The land of Smt. Nerlla Annapurna

North : The land of Sri Chedala Verra Venkata Satya Sivji

114

Item No.10:-

An extent of Ac.00-09 cents out of full extent Ac.00-36 cents on westernside, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.192/2 as bounded by – concerned by

Document No.3.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

South : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

West : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : The land of Smt. Thanneru Satyavathi

As per EX.A10 legal notice vacant 20-10-2008 issued by the Rokkala

Durga, Balla Sirnivasu, Sape Vemla Rao Arigela Satyanarayana as follows contents That No.1 of you is the wife of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and you are the sister-in-law of No.(2) and (3) of our clients. No.(2) of your is the father of

No.(1) of your and (3) and 4 of you are the tonants of Kombattula Santhosha lakshmi and out No.2 and 3 minor clients. The landed property of Santhosha

Lakshmi leased out by No.1 of our client to No.3 of you as per will, which was executed by Satyavathi in favour of No.2 and 3 of my clients.

The Item No.1 and No.A Notice schedule property absolutely belongs to

NO.2 and 3 our Minor clients and their elder sister Kombattula Santhosha

Lakshmi Item No.2 of notice schedule property is absolutely belongs to No.1 of your’s father in law Kondala Rao which are self acquired property of

Rokkala Kondala Rao under joint to Regd. Sale deed of him and his wife

Satyavathi and item No.3 of notice schedule property absolutely belongs to

Satyavathi which acquired by her under Joint Regd. Sale deed also, Item No.4 of notice schedule property is absolutely belongs to No.1 of your’s husband

Srinivasa Rao who purchased and extent of Ac.0-05 cents from No.3 of you and he constructed R.C.C. building there on and which is self acquired property of No.1 of your’s husband our clients has not title and right over the item No.4 of notice schedule property.

No.2 and 3 of our minor client’s mother Satyavathi executed a will dated 09-05-1997 in favour of them and their elder sister Santhosha Lakshmi and

115

appointed No.1 of your client as a guardian to manage the properties fo No.2 and 3 of our clients has to be attained majority. During the life time of

Satyavathi and Kondalarao, No.3 of you filed A.T.C.10 of 96 against them with false allegations, Subsequently at the intense of No.1 of our client,. No.3 of you compromise with Satyavathi and Kondala Rao and with draw your Petition

ATC.10/96 against them by way of filing a compromise memo before the

Honourable special officer, Amalapuram. In the year of 1996. Ever since No.1

of our client had been in possession and enjoyment of properties Satyavathi and Kondala Rao as a well-wisher of them. Item No.1 of a notice schedule property leased out by No.1 of our client to No.3 of you for yearly rentals of 20

Kata bags paddy of behalf of Santhosha Lakshmi as per will of Satyavathi and

Item No.1 of B notice schedule property leased out by NO.1 of our client to

NO.4 of your, for yearly rentals of 20 kata bags paddy of behalf of Santhosha lakshmi as per will of Satyavathi and Item No.1 of B notice schedule property leased out by NO.1 of our client to NO.4 of you, for yearly rentals of 16 kata bags of paddy on behalf of No.2 and 3 our clients. After demise of the testators Satyavathi and Kondala Rao in the month of January,1999. No.1 of our client leased out the same to you on the request of you and Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao No.1 of our client also leased out an extent of Ac.2-21 cents in

R.S.NO.147/4, 147/5, and 146/4 of Yentrukona village to the Sri Yellamilli

Venkata Ramana in the month January,2005. Since 1990 No.3 and 4 of you has been cultivating the item NO.1 B and A notice schedule properties as tenant respectively and you used to pay the yearly rentals regularly up to

January, 2002. The yearly rentals of Santhosha lakshmi received by No.1of our client from No.3 of you and he issued makkata receipt with regard and he used to pay the same to Santhosha lakshmi. There after No.3 and 4 of you and Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and Santhosha lakshmi colluded together and you committed default to pay the yearly rentals to No.1 of our client, even if a he made several demands but you did not pay anything and you have been postponing the same on one pretext or other and you are colluded together

116

with mala-fied intention, with a view to grab away the landed properties of no.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosah Lakshmi for which you instigated and reduced the Srinivasa Rao and influenced him and you fabricated and forged a un-regd. Will as which was executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao in favour of

Raokkala Srinivasa Rao and Santhosha lakshmi. The said Srinivasa Rao filed suit with the help of your fabricated and forged documents with false allegations against no.1 of our client and his tenant Yellamilli Venkataramana and others before the principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. The said

Rokkala Srinivasa Rao had been suffered incurable, communicable and contact disease and there is not possibility to recover from his ill health. On that knowledge no.1 of you left your matrimonial home and left your husband on his late without obliged as your duties as a Hindu wife, on that knowledge

No.3 and 4 oof your conspired together an you strongly presumed that, No.1 of your husband would be die within soon and you made fraudulent and per- preparations with a view to grab away the landed properties of No.2 and 3 of our clients, Santhosha Lakshmi and no.1 of you. For which you are making factious documents.

No.1 of your’s father-in-law Kondala Rao executed a registered. Will with regard to his properties in favour of No.1 of your’s husband and No.2 and 3 of our clients on 26-5-1998. As per will of Kondala Rao No.1 of your’s husband would be take and care of No.2 and 3 of our clients till they attained majority. Bur No.1 of your husband did not to do so and left them on their fate without love and affection towards. No.2 and 3 of our client as their brother

No.1 of your’s husband not only failed to looked after the care and custody of

No.2 and 3 of our clients but also he tried to grab away the properties of No.2 and 3 of our clients by filing a suit with false allegations and forged documents at the instigation of no.3 and 4 of you. Subsequently No.1 of your husband came to know that the evil acts and fraudulent intention of No.3 and 4 of you and the apprehended damages on your hands and you rest rained and detained No.1 of your’s husband in his house and obtained his signature on

117

empty papers and on non judicial stamps No.3 and 4 of you never allowed anybody to visit him and you physically and mentally harassed No.1 of your’s husband. Sub-sequently when Srinivasa Rao came to matrusri hospital

Amalapuram for a treatment at that time the Srinivasa Rao secretly informed the same, through telephone to no.1 of your client and requested him to protect the rights and interest of No.1 of you and no.2 and 3 of our clients and his sisters santhosa Lakshmi as we wisher of them, in the third week of

August, 2005 immediately our clients visited No.1 of your parents house and convinced the evil acts of No.3 and 4 of you. On that no.1 of you surprised immediately no.1 and 2 of and out clients you visited the house No.1 of your’s husband at least No.3 and 4 of you did not give curtacy and not allowed No.2 and 3 of our clients to see their brother i.e., no.1 of your’s husband and abused No.1 of our client, even if no.1 and 2 of you warrned. Only no.1 and 2 of you allowed to met Srinivasa Rao on 04-09-2005 No.1 of your’s husband died suddenly but all of you not informed the same to our clients and you criminated his dead-body by book (or) crock. There after four days our clients came to know the death of No.1 of your’s husband house at Yentrukona. But

No.3 and 4 of you not allowed them and miss behaved with out clients along with supporters and nocked out them, at that time out clients came to know through neighbours that No.3 and 4 of you instigated and threatened no.1 and 2 of you to colluded with them with a view to defraude no.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosha Lakshmi by offering illegal means and forcefully handed over

Item No.3 to 4 of notice scheduled property without manner of right and title.

Item No.2 of notice schedule property i.e. Joint family property No.1 of you took possession as per fraudulent compromise in between NO.1 of you and

No.3 of you. No.1 of you and No.2 and 3 our client has constructive possession as per will of Kondala Rao. On the account of No.3 and 4 of evil acts no.1 of our client suspected the sudden death of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and the sudden crimination of his dead-body immediately without informing to anybody.

118

Further no.1 of our client came to know that you are making hactic preparations to alienate the notice schedule properties by way of sale. By making false representation by suppressing true facts through No.1 of you with a view to get wrong full again without manner of right and title. For which you are trying to get local political leaders influence and you are trying to in bring the rights interests and title of no.2 and 3 of our minor clients and

Santhosha Lakshmi, who ever purchased the notice schedule property they did not get good title and right ever the said properties. The proposed vendor always stands on the shoes of vendor no.1 of out client that at liberty to publish the same through publication in daily newspaper to awake the proposed vendors. No.3 of you instigated Rokkala Kondala Rao and sold away the landed property of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.NO.163/6of Yentrukona village of No.2 and 3 of our minor clients which is bequeather our clients vendor will of Satyavathi No.3 of you received the sale consideration on behalf

Kondala Rao and committed misappropriation.

As per will of Satyavathi and will of Kondala Rao and relinquish affidavit which was executed by Santhosha Lakshmi on 25-11-1998. The Santhosha

Lakshmi has no manner of right and title to get same in Item No.1 A,B and

No.2 and 3 notice schedule properties. Even if said Santhosha Lakshmi relinquished her share. Our clients leased out Item No.1A notice schedule property to No.3 of you due to love and affection of towards her of she intend to sale her property she has no right, only No.1 of our client to sale the same on behalf of her and received the sale consideration and the same has to pay to her by No.1 of our client as per will of Satyavathi.

It is therefore you are here by called upon to not to colluded together with a view to defraud No.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosha Lakshmi and

No.`1 and 2 of you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and not to joined with your hands with No.3 and 4 of you and not to intend to committee to defraud No.2 and 3 of our

119

clients and Santhosha Lakshmi i.e. your sister-in-law and brother-in-law who are sister and brother of no.1 of your husband. No.1 of you allot partitioned the

Item No.2 notice schedule property into 3 equal sharer by mates and bounds and allot 1/3rd share each to no.2 and 3 of our clients and you have to pay past means profits to the no.2 and 3 of our clients towards their share as 6/9 after demises Kondala Rao No.3 of you to pay 60 khata bags of paddy towards yearly rentals to No.1 of our client and you vacate the item No.1 A notice schedule property and deliver No.1 of our clients possession. NO.4 of you to pay 48 khata bags of paddy No.1 of our client and vacate item No.1 B notice schedule property and deliver the same no.1 of our clients possession with past means profits with int one week form the date of receipt of this notice and no.3 and 4 of you not to committee defraud No.1 of you and not to try grab away the item No.4 of notice schedule property of No.12 of you and you have to pay 500/- towards costs of this notice. Falling which our clients will be constrained to seek redress through court fo law and they will took possession fo notice schedule properties and they will took possession of notice schedule properties and they will recover the arrears of yearly rentals and means profits through procedure of law and they will take all necessary civil and criminal actions against you and they will recover all costs incidental thereto.

NOTICE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

Item No.1A:- East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Yentrukona panchayati, Yentrukona village an extent of Ac.1-00cents out of full extent

Ac.1-11 cents covered by R.S.No.83/4 as bounded by

East : The land of Sri Vittanala Krishna murthi.

South : Chakaly manyam.

West : the land of Smt.Guthula Adilakshmi.

North : Pantabodi and Punta.

120

Item No.1B:-

East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Yentrukona panchayati,

Yentrukona village an extent of Ac.0-80cents out of full extent B4 cents covered by R.S.No.106/5 as bounded by:-

East : Kumara manyam .

South : Punta.

West : the land of Sri Kankipati Gopala swamy

North : the land of Sri N.Pullayya.

Item No.2:- East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Peliganda panchayati,

Relligadda village an extent of Ac.2-47 ½ cents covered by the following.R.S.Nos.

1. R.S.No.162/3, Ac.0-14 cents

2. R.S.No.162/4, Ac.0-14 ½ cents

3. R.S.No.162/5A, Ac.0-15 1/2cents

4. R.S.No.162/5B, Ac.0-30 cents

5. R.S.No.191/1, Ac.0-11 cents

6. R.S.No.191/2, Ac.0-05 cents

7. R.S.No.191/3, Ac.0-09 cents

8. R.S.No.191/4A, Ac.0-31 ½ cents

9. R.S.No.191/4B, Ac.0-09 cents

10. R.S.No.191/5A, Ac.0-18 cents

11. R.S.No.191/5B, Ac.0-25 cents

12. R.S.No.191/6, Ac.0-25 cents

13. R.S.No.193/1B, Ac.0-21 cents

14. R.S.No.193/1C, Ac.0-19 cents

Total : Ac.02-47 ½ cents

Item No.3:-

1. R.S.No.162/3, Ac.0-15 cents

121

2. R.S.No. 162/4, Ac.0-15 cents

3. R.S.No.162/5A, Ac.0-14 cents

4. R.S.No.162/5B, Ac.0-30 cents

5. R.S.No.191/1, Ac.0-12 cents

6. R.S.No.191/2, Ac.0-04 cents

7. R.S.No. 191/3, Ac.0-09 cents

8. R.S.No.91/4A, Ac.0-31cents

9. R.S.No.191/4B, Ac.0-10 cents

10. R.S.No.191/5A, Ac.0-18 cents

11. R.S.No.191/5B, Ac.0-25 cents

12. R.S.No.191/6, Ac.0-25 cents

13. R.S.No.193/1B, Ac.0-21 cents

14. R.S.No.193/1C, Ac.0-18 cents

Total Ac.2-47 cents

Item No.4

East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Allavaram panchayati, Allavaram village an extent of Ac.0-05 cents merka land covered by R.S.No.167/5

R.C.C. building there in bearing unnumbered dear

Initially Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju, who is the plaintiff number .01 issued legal notice dated 05-11-2005 to the Defendants:1 to 7 demanding the that in page number 04 as follows hereby called upon not to committee evil acts against our No.2 and 3 minor clients and not to try to doing transactions with regard to any properties of No.2 and 3 our clients and Srinivasa Rao &

Santosha Laxmi either by sale purchase among of you other. If any sale transaction is took place. With regard to above said properties No.1 of out client take necessary criminal actions. On behalf of No.2 and 3 out mionor clients under section 418, 420, 424 and 406 read with 34 and 109 Indian

Penal Code against all of you and other concerned person and scriber and at testors who ever liable for punishment under law either by give police report by filing criminal complaint before court of Hon’ble Magistrate, Amalapuram.

122

To the Ex.A13, Legal Notice issued by V.Rajeswara Rao and

N.Mallikarjuna Rao Advocates on behalf of Riokkala Durga w/o. Late Srinivasa

Rao, Residence of Komaragiripatnam Sri Sape Vemla Rao, S/o. Gangayya,

R/o. Yentrikona (v) and Sri Arigela Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkataratnam, R/o.

Yentrikona village

The material allegations in your notice isseued on behalf of your clients are all false an untrue

A Schedule is herewith filed. The schedule property is of 2 items. Items 1 of the Schedule property consists of (I)(I) R.S.No.147/4, Dry, Ac.00-58 cents.

(I) R.S.No.163/6, Dry, Ac.00-27 cents.

(I) R.S.No.146/4, Dry, Ac.01-09 cents (I) R.S.No.106/5, Dry, Ac.00-80 cents.

(I) R.S.No.147/5, Dry, Ac.00-54 cents.

And thus a Total extent of Ac.4.29 cents situated Yentrikona Village was purchased by one Rokkala Kondala Rao in the make of his wife Smt.Rokkala

Satyavathi under a Regd. Sale deed dated 26-02-1992 from (1) Vittanala

Narayana Murthy and his sons (2) Satyanarayana (3) Tata rao, (4) Lakshmana

Rao, (6) Krishna Prasad (7) Srinivasa Rao, (8) Prabhakara Rao, and (9) Naga

Siva Prasada Rao and the vendor dilivered the possession to Sri Kondala

Rao.

Item-II of the schedule property consists of (II) (I) R.S.NO.162/3, wet, Ac.00-29 cents.

(Ii) R.S.NO.162/4, wet, Ac.00-29 ½ cents.

(iii) R.S.NO.162/5A, wet, Ac.00-29 ½ cents.

(iv) R.S.NO.162/5B, wet, Ac.00-60 cents .(v) R.S.NO.191/1, wet, Ac.00-23 cents.

(vi) R.S.NO.191/2, wet, Ac.00-09 cents.

(vii) R.S.NO.191/3, wet, Ac.00-18 cents.

123

(viii) R.S.NO.191/4A, wet, Ac.00-62 ½ cents.

(ix) R.S.NO.191/4B, wet, Ac.00-19 cents.

(x) R.S.NO.191/5A, wet, Ac.00-36 cents.

(xi) R.S.NO.191/5B, wet, Ac.00-50 cents.

(xii) R.S.NO.191/6, wet, Ac.00-50 cents.

(xiii) R.S.NO.193/1B, wet, Ac.00.42 cents.

(xiv) R.S.NO.193/1C, wet, Ac.00-37 cents.

And thus total an extent of Ac.4-94 ½ cents of wet land of Rellaguda village was purchased by one Sri Rokkala Kondala Rao in his name and in the name of his wife jointly under Regd. Sale deed s and the vendors delivered the possession.

One Rokkala Satyavathio is the wife of Kondala Rao. One Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao and his sister by name Santhosha lakshmi are the children of

Kondaal rao and his family used to reside at Bombay and he did furniture in the name and style of “Kalpana Furniture Works”. The schedule reports are far face was increased by Kondala Rao was leased out to one Vemala Rao who is no other than the brother of Satyavathi and delivered possession. The said

Vemala Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the property as a tenant by paying rentals as agreed upon.

No.1 of your client originally is native of Munganada village of

Ambajipeta a Mandal and belongs to Settibalija Community. Originally No.1 of your client is a Motor mechanic and he sifted his residence to Bombay. No.1 of your client after some time while wondering on the streets joined as a

Supervisor in the company of Kondala Rao. No.1 of your client originally married (1) Mahendravathi who died leaving behind her two children by name (1) Master Syam Prasad and (2) Nagendra Prasad. After her death of his first wife No.1 of your client re-married one Rama Girija and begot two children by name Mahalakshmi and Maheswari. Thus No.1 of your client used to stay in

Shaheb Kalyan at Bombay. Later No.1 of your client made close acquitance with Kondala Rao’s family, No.1 of your client made illegal connections with

124

Satyavathi who is not other than the wife of Kondala Rao and begot one son and one daughter i.e., 2 and 3 of your notice. The said Kondala Rao had no knowledge of illegal contact of No.1 of you with his wife.

While the matters stood, the said Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-7-97 at

Bombay. After death of his wife the said Kondala Rao reached Yentrukona village along with family during the life time of Rokkala Kondala Rao, after demise of his wife, he executed a Registered will dated 26-5-1998. After execution of the Regd. Will no. of your client approached Kondala Rao and intimated that he begot 2 children one son and one daughter through his wife and demanded for return of the children. The said Kondala Rao after making enquiry, directed No.1 of your client to leave the place immediately along with the two children. As per the demand of No.1 of your client, left the place along with his two children to his native place Munganda. After wards the said

Kondala Rao changed his mind and executed an unregistered will dated 4-7- 98 bequeathing his properties to his son by name Srinivasa Rao and his daughter Santhosha Lakshmi in a sound and disposing state of mind the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed books to Sri

Kondala Rao. Later the said Kondala Rao shifter his residence form

Yentrukona to Bombay and died on 25-9-98 leaving behind his son Srinivasa

Rao and his daughter Santhosha Lakshmi as his legal heirs. During the life time of Kondala Rao sold away an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.No.163/6 dry land of Yentrukona village under a Regd. Sale deed and received the sale consideration and delivered possession. After the death of Kondala Rao, his son Srinivasa Rao and his sister Santhosha Lakshmi sifted the residence to

Yentrukona village. The said Srinivasa Rao performed the marriage of his sister Santhosha Lakshmi with the assistance of the said Vemala Rao. The said Vemala Rao handed over the schedule properties to said Srinivasa Rao,

S/o.Kondala Rao after become major and delivered possession/ The schedule property is alone in possession and enjoyment of the said Rokkala Srinivasa

Rao. The said Srinivasa Rao sold an extent of Ac.0.37 cents in R.S.No.193/1C

125

of Rellugadda village under a Regd. Sale deed and delivered possession. One

Smt.Rokkala Durga is the wife os Srinivasa Rao. The said Rokkala Srinivasa

Raodied on 4-9-2005 leaving behind his wife Smt.Durga as his sole legal heir.

The said Rokkala Durga is absolute owner of the Schedule property. The schedule property is the self acquired property of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The said Rokkla Kondala Rao executed an unregistered will dated 4-7-1998 in a sound and in a disposing state of mind and after he death his son had been in possession and enjoyment till his death and later on devolved on his wife

Durga.

The alleged allegations in your legal notice issued on behalf your client is not legal and valid and the alleged allegations that late Satyavathi executed an unregistered will dated 9-5-97 in favour of her eldest daughter Santhosha lakshmi and 2 and 3 your client and appointed No.1 of your client as guardian and No.2 and 3 of your client till attaining majority is all false and untrue. The alleged will dated 9-5-1997 said to have been executed by late Satyavathi is a fabricated and forged document. Late Satyavathi cannot acquire any right and title or interest in Schedule property as the properties are self acquired properties of Later Kondala Rao. The allegation that ATC 10/96 filed by

Vemala Rao ended in a compromise on the advise of No.1 of your client is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that No.1 of your client had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as a well wisher of

Satyavathi and Kondala Rao is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that

No.1 of you leased out an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.83/4 of Yentrukona village was leased out to said Vemla Rao on yearly rent of 20 bags of paddy on behalf of Santhosha Lakshmi and Ac.0.80 cents of in R.S.No.106/5 was leased out to Arigela Satyanarayana on yearly rent of 16 bags paddy on behalf of No.2 and 3 of your clients and your client leased out an extent of

Ac.2021 cents in R.S.No.147/4, 147/5 and 146/4 of Yentrukona village to Sri

Yellamilli Cenkataramana in moth of January, 2005 and accordingly our client had been in possession and enjoyment of Schedule property as tenant and

126

paid rents up to January, 2002 and later failed to pay the rentals and postponing one pretest or other and intended to grab the landed property of 2 and 3 of your client and Santhosha Lakshmi and instigated the said Srinivasa

Rao and influenced him and fabricated and forged unregistered will which was executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao and file the suits with the fabricated document is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that Durga, W/o.

Srinivasa Rao left the house without obliging her duties as a Hindu wife is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that out clients detained the said

Srinivasa Rao the husband of Durga and obtained his signature on empty paper and non judicial stamp is all false and untrue. That our clients have no need to intimate the ill-health of Kondala Rao and demise of Srinivasa Rao secretly intimated No.1 of your client is all false and untrue.

The alleged allegation that No.1 of your client visited the house of

Srinivasa Rao along with NO.3 and 4 of your clients and our clients misbehaved with your clients and along with supporters and necked out them is all false and untrue and they never turned out. The alleged allegation the

Santhosha Lakshmi executed a relinquish affidavit on 25-11-1998 and as such no manner of right and title in the schedule property and if she intended so

No.1 of your client has got right to sell the property on behalf of Santhosha

Lakshmi and sale consideration passed to him and the same has to pay to her is all false and untrue. Your clients are not entitled to get 1/3rd share and 6/9th share after demise of Kondala Rao and they are not entitled 60 bags of paddy as yearly rent and 48 bags of paddy of yearly rent to your client by No.4 of your notice and your clients have no right to direct our client to vacate the schedule property and delivered the same and also not entitled to mean profits as alleged in your notice.

Your clients 2 and 3 never acquire any right, title or interest in the schedule property as they are illegitimate children of late Satyavathi. Late

Kondala Rao executed a unregistered will dated 4-7-98 bequeathing his properties in sound and disposing state of mind. Your clients have no right to

127

claim any share in the properties. Your clients so chooses to file a suit, our clients will resist the same and your clients are liable to pay the costs incurred thereon. Please advise your client not to resort unnecessary litigation.

As per Exhibit B16, Legal notice issued by Sri Sape Vemala Rao S/o.

Gangayya, Yentrukona(v), Allavaram Mandal has filed Revision Petition u/sec.Act.1971 before the then Revision Authority and Joint Collector East

Godavari District against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority &

Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram in D.Did.H/1361/2016, Dated 15-09- 2017 regarding the cancellation of PPB and Title deed issued in favour of the respondent (Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju) for an extent of Ac.20-21 cents covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and sy.No.146/4 in Yentrukona Village of

Allavaram Mandal.

Report of the Tashildar, Allavaram:

1. An extent of Ac.02-21 cents is covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 of

Yentrukona Village of Allavaram mandal vested to Smt.Rokkala satyavathi vide sale deed No.3405/1992, dated 08-06-1992.

2. Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi was died in the year 1997 and her husband Sro

Rokkala Kondala Rao also died in the year 1998. After their death,. The said property vested to their son Sri Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and after the death of

Srinivasa Rao, the land is vested to his wife Smt.Rokkala Durga here ditarily.

3. Smt.Rokkala Durga executed a G.P.A. in favour of Sri sape Vemala Rao who is brother of her mother-in-law (Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi – Actual land owner) for an extent of Ac.2.21 cents covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 of Yentrukona (v) vide Regd.Doc.No.677/2008, Dated 13.10.2008.

4. The Respondent Sri Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju S/o. Soma Raju maintained living relation with Smt. Sokkala Satyavathi W/o. Konadala Rao and they gave birth two children namely M.Krishnam Raju and M.Bhagya Sri.

5. The Respondent filed O.S.NO.248 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge court, Amalapuram against the Appellant stated that hos two children

are the right full owners of the said land and he was the guardian of the said

128

property. Pending the Civil Suit, he obtained PPB and TDs in the name of his two children from the Tashildar, Allavaram basing on the Un Registered will which is executed by Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi to the said lands in the name of her minor children Krishnam Raju and Bhagya Sri and M.Venkara Rama Raju is to be the guardian in possession of the properties.

6. On that Sri Sape Vemala Rao has filed appeal before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Amalapuram requesting for cancellation of PPB and Tds issued in favour of Sri M.Venkara Rama Raju.

7. After, heard both parties, the Appeal Petition filed by Sri Sape Vemala Rao was rejected by the R.D.O, Amalapuram in the plea that the Appeal filed after expiry of the limitation period and also involved issues in Civil nature in this case.

8. At present the scheduled property is placed in Dispute Register in Webland

Portal.

9. At present the said property is under possession and enjoyment of the appellant Sri Sape Vemala Rao.

10. O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 are pending before the Hon’ble Senior civil Judge, Amalapuram between Sri

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and Sape Vemala Rao, Smt.Rokkala Dirga, etc. Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram:

Basing on the G.P.A. executed by Rokkala Durga, Sri Sape Vemala Rao was filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional

Officer, Amalapuram for cancellation of PPB and TD to the lands in

Sy.No.147/4 measuring Ac.00-58 cents, Sy.No.147/5 measuring Ac.00-54 cents, sy.No.147/5 measuring Ac.00-54 cents, and Sy.No.146/4 measuring

Ac.01-09 cents of Yentrukona Village of Allavaram Mandal issued in favour of

Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju S/o. Somaraju monor guardian to

Mattapat\rthi Krishnam Raju and Bhagya Sri and the Appellate Authority has passed orders issued vide D.Dis/H/136/2016, Dated 15-09-2017 that the

129

appeal petition is rejected as the petition filed after expiry of the limitation period i.e., 60 days and also involved issues in Civil nature in this case.

Sri Sape Vemala Rao field Revision Petition before the then Revision

Authority and Joint Collector,. Wast Godavari District, Kakinada on 09-10-2017 against the orders of the Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer,

Amalapuram.

The revision Petition is taken on file and issued notices to both parties to attend enquiry on 31-08-2019 and posted to 21-11-2020, 31-07-2021, 28- 08-2021, 26-03-2022.

In the meanwhile the Revision Petitioner has field W.P.10657 of 2022

before the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh to direct the district Collector

to dispose of the Revision Petition filed on 10-10-2017 for which the Hon’ble

High Court of AP has passes order that “considering the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 2nd respondent District Collector,

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 10-10-206, after issuing notice to all the effected parties, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Miscellaneous petitioner pending if any, shall stand closed.

Consequent on formation of new districts, Erstwhile East Godavari

District is bifurcated into four district in which Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseemsa

District to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

In obedience to the orders of the Hon’bel High Court the notices have been issued to both parties to attend hearing on 17.09.2022 and both parties attended and the respondent request time to file written arguments. The case is posted for hearing on 15.10.2022, 07.01.2023, 25.02.2023 and 18.03.2023 and both parties attend.

Revision Petitioner Sri Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya submitted written arguments as detailed below

1. Revision Petitioner stated that an extent of Ac.2.21 cents covered by

Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and Sy.no/146/4 is devoled to the appellant sister

130

Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi W/o. Konadal rao vide sale deed no.3405/1992,

Dt.08.06.1992.

2. Revision Petitioner (who is brother of Smt.R.Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao) got General Power of Attorney to the land Ac.2.21 cents, covered by

Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 in Yentrukona Viollage of Allavaram Mandal which is executed by Smt.Rokkala Durga W/o. Srinivasa Rao (who is daughter-in-law of Smt.R.Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao) vide Regd.Document

No.677/2008.

3.The Respondent (Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju) worked as servant under

Rokkala Kondala Rao at Ulhasanager, Mumbai, after the death of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi, The respondent created unregistered will and kidnap and the children Krishnam Raju and bhagya Sri and captured the entire property and also documents situated at Ulhasnagar.

4. The respondent filed a false cased against the Revision Petitioner in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 and O.S.No17 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Civil Court,

Amalapuram on the basis of illegal pass books issued by the Tashildar,

Allavaram (Smt.Baby Gnanamb). Then he filed petition before the R.D.O,

Amalapuram and the same was dismissed on 15-09-2017.

5. While the petition is pending, the Tahsildar, Allavaram made enquire and submitted a report on 24-11-2014 to the R.D.O, Amalapuram and the appellant authority did not consider the report and passed order on the appeal petition on 15-09-2017.

6. Finally, on the order fo the District Collector, E.G.District, the Tahsildar, allavaram (Sri.S.Appa Rao) made enquire and submitted report on 25.01.2020. All reports are in favour to the Appellant.

7. The Appellant prays that the Hon’ble court may be set a side the order of the R.D,O, Amalapuram and to cancel the PPB and TD issued in faovur of the

Respondent.

The respondent No.1 Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju Submitted written argument as follows.

131

1. The schedule property belongs to Rokkala Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao and she developed intimacy with MV Rama Raju and their by she gave birth to the children namely Krishnam Raju and Bhagyavathi. During the life time said

Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will date 09-05-1997 making the lands Ac.02- 21 cents in Sy.No.147/4,147/5,146/4 of Yentrukona Village of Allavaram

Mandal in the name fo their minor children and MV Rama Raju as guardian of the minors of possession and property. As per the will after the demise of

Satyavathi he obtained the PPB and TD in the name of MV Rama Raju.

2. In fact Rokkala Kondala Rao executed registered Will dated 26-05-1998 bequeathing to his eldest daughter Kombattula Santhoshi Lakshmi to an extent of Ac.01-00 cents covered in Sy.No.81/4 and remaining propertied divided equally between Rokkala Srinivasu and Rokkala Krishnam Raju and

Rokkala Bhagya Sri as per the provision of said Will and he filed O.S.No.248 of 2011 for partition and separate possession and also filed O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the Petitioner and not to court granted injunction against the petitioner S.Vemala Rao.

3. Tashildar, Allavaram has categorically submitted a report that the procedure contemplated for issue of PPB/TD was in accordance with rules and after proper verification of documents under rule 9 and 22 under ROR Act including the possession and enjoyment contemplated under ROR act and rules and no illegality was done by the registering authority in this case.

4.the Revenue divisional Officer after through enquiry the appeal filed by the petitioner u/sec.5(5) of the ROR act and Rule 21(1) before the authority which is barred by m limitation and rightly rejected the appeal filed by the Revision

Petitioner observing that the issue fo PPB./TD were issued to his children represented them as guardian is valid under law. Since the Revision Petitioner has no right to seek any relief of cancellation of PPB/TD in also lacks and barred by Limitation and dismissed the Revision.

5.The respondent finally submit that the present Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed confirming the orders of the

132

Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram in Ref.D.Dis.H/1361/2016, Dated 15- 09-2017 on the grounds that this Revision is also lacks and barred by limitation and dismissed the Revision.

Heard the arguments, upon perusing the written arguments other evidences produced by the petition and respondent the following findings are noticed.

1. The M.R.O, Allavaram issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed

NO.923945 on 20-08-2012 to Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Raju S/o. Somaraju basing on un-registered will executed by Rokkala Satyavathi dated 09-05- 1997 in which she stated that the minor sons of respondent No.1 are family members of Rokkala Satyavathi. Sri Rokkala Kondala Rao executed a

Regd.Will dated Dated 26-05-1998 in which he mentioned that the landed property in Yentrukona Village for Sy.No.83/4 measuring Ac.01-00 cents, in favour of his elder daughter Kombattula Sabthioshi and the remaining lands are equally shared to his sons Rokkala Srinivasa Rao, Rokkala Krishnam Raju and Rokkala Bhagya Sri after his life time for which time both are minors and appointed his elder son Rokkala Srinivasa Rao as mionor guardian and also specified that their shares should be handed over to the above monro children after attaining at the age of Major. The then Tashilsar has not taken into consideration the name of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao who is the son of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and deviate the condition of the Registered will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao.

2. As seen form the un-registered and Registered Will executed by

Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao who are the Original land owners declared that the sons and daughters of Rokkala Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and Rokkala Satyavathi and Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and it disclose that there is a Legal Heirs dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 The revision Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 have not disclose the fact that there is a dispute regarding family members of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and the respondent No.1

133

3. Smt.Rokkala Durga W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Daughter in Law of Rokkala

Satyavathi) executed General power of Attorney in favour of the Revision

Petitioner Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya to look after the land issues on her behalf subject cancellation of G.P.A. as and when required.

4. The O.S.No.248/2011 and O.S.No.2/2019 are pending before the Hon’ble

Senior Civil Judge Court, Amalapuram between Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Rama

Raju and Sape Vemala Rao, Smt. Rokkala Durga, etc.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, upon hearing the arguments and the evidence produced by the petitioner and respondents, I opined that there is no valid reasons in the arguments of the Revision

Petitioner to establish his right confirmation with regards to the subject Lands and I find that there is a legal Heirs dispute between the Revision Petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 obtained Pattadar Pass

Book though they know very well that there is a civil dispute pending in the court by misleading the Tahsildar.

As verified the records the Registered will executed by Rokkala Kondala

Rao, the landed property shared among their tow sons and one daughter but they Pattadar Pass book obtained from the Tahsildar, Allavaram for entire extent of Ac.2-21 cents in guardian instead of their elder son Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao and violating the conditions of the Registered Will by misleading the Tahsildar, Allavaram.

Then the Tahsildar, allavaram issued the Pattadar passbook to the

Respondent No.1 is here by cancelled and directed the Revision Petitioner

and Respondent No.1 to obtain the orders form the Civil Court regarding

confirmation to Title over the subject lands and file a fresh application

before the Tahsildar, Allavaram with all connected documents to obtain

Passbooks and on receipt of the application with connected record, the

Tahsildar, Allavaram may take further action as per the provision of

A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act,1971. Accordingly the

Revision Petition is closed. Orders under Revision Shall be final under

134

section 9 and Rule 23(4) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971.

The Appellate Authority 23(4) of the A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar

Passbook and Title Deed to the lands covered in Revision Petition.

The Ex.B15 is the sale deed is in the favour of DW8. Through him sale deed is marked. Property was delivered as per Ex.B13 property is in position of D1 ion three survey numbers in R.S.No.147/4, 147/5, and 146/4 out of three survey numbers to Ex.B15 for two survey numbers 147/4, 147/5. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the suit against the defendants for injunction. Plaintiffs has not filed

Ex.B13 ed any document before that court except transactions took place among the plaintiffs 1 to 3 with the D.W.8. Deliver of position is in question under exhibit D15. Under tenancy act D1 Declared as a tenant under the plaintiff documents under the filed and marked on behalf of plaintiffs it is a sufficient Sape Vemala Rao is a tenant and for the properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. There is no dispute regarding to the relation ship of the plaintiffs and Sape Vemala Rao, Satyavathi and kondala Rao. There is no dispute about the business of kondala Rao and satyavathi. They done the business at Bombay. In that business sape vemala Rao and Mattaparthi krishnma Raju look after the business kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi and their son Srinivasa Rao is no more. Under Ex.B12 two wills executed by the kondala Rao one is registered means which is the exhibit A7. A5 will executed by Rokkla Satyavathi. Under Exhibit A1 to A4 Sale deeds executed in favour of Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao they purchasing the property in their names. There is no dispute under Exhibit

A1 to A4 plaint schedule properties purchased in their names. In the year 1997 Satyavathi was died in the year 1998 Kondala Rao was died. There is no dispute regarding the death of Kondala Rao and his wife Satyavathi. He is one of under Ex.B11 defendants not come to the court with clean hands seeking their relief in the three suits.

135

Ex.B13 is the addressed a letter in favour of district Collector East

Godavari Kakinada 25-01-2020 for the purpose of Joint collector proceeding under Ex.B13 which is, corresponding to the Ex.B16, Under Ex.B16 the Joint

Collector pass the order he obtained the Pattadar Passbook in favour of any one after declaration of the suits.

Exhibit B13 marked through the DW5 who is the revenue inspector. He is as per exhibit B13 Mandal revenue Inspector Allavaram on 20-01-2020, said reports not filed the court Tahsildar is only competent person to give evidence on Ex.B13 is not again into consideration because suits are pending before the court. Dw5 is also not a competent person to mark the Ex.B13.

Ex.B14 is the letter addressed to the District Collector on 03-08-2017 at grievance cell report dt: 03-08-2017 for position certificate issuing in favour of

D1 not issued as per Ex.B14 certificate not issued. Tahsildar Allavaram attested the copies on Ex.B13 and B14. Where about the original documents is kept silent in the evidence of BW5 chief and cross examinations Ex.B12 is the R.D.O. letter addressed by the P.Subba rao Tahsildar allavaram on 24-11- 2014 along with the letter Deputy Tashildar S.V.V. Satyanarayana attend

before the court on summons in I.A.No.517/2022 in O.S.No.248/2011 Sape

Vemala Rao file the revision petition on 04-11-2022 but letter was addressed to the court 04-11-2022 03-11-2022 is not correct. Prior date and revision petition filed on 04-11-2022 is not correct that is the date as per running matter of the letter. Ex.B12 is the scanned copy of the will darted will of the

Satyavathi of Ex.B5, second one is the 8A form notice issued by the revenue

Inspector Pattadar Passbook copy photo start copy enclosed along with the

R.D.O. letter all are the photostat copies not again into consideration attested by the Tahsildar addressed a two letter one is the Ex.B14 second one is the

Ex.B12 both are inconsisting letters. Tahsildar is not attested. Deputy Tahsildar ins not a gezitted rank he is not a competent person to the letters. To Ex.B12 is the certified copy of petition and docket orders in A.T.C.10/1996 filed by the

136

Sape Vemala Rao against the Rokkala Kondala rao and Rokkala satyavathi.

u/sec 16(1) (2) of the A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act 1956 schedule property is the

Total Schedule filed in the A scheduled property items 1 to 6 are shown, in the

B schedule property item No.1 to 5. There is finding declare the petition Sape

Vemala Rao to delcare the petitioner as statutory tenant in respect of the schedule property under the Respondents and grant consequential relief of permanent injunction resdtraining the Respondents and their men and followers and persons claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lease hold (schedule) property and award costs of the petition. Grant such other relief or reliefs are deemed fit and property under the circumstances of the case. Docket order dt:05-09-1996 as follows A.T.C. advanced today, on petition, memo filed to dismiss the A.T.C.

memo recorded and A.T.C. is dismissed without cost. what purpose memo filed reasons for the memo is not stated in the petition on the docket orders under Ex.B11.

Ex.B10 is the ordinary suit No.74 of 2005 Civil suit register No.1 certified copy filed suit filed for permanent injunction by the Rokkala Srinivasa Rao s/o.

Kondayya but actually name is the kondala rao not kondayya he filed the petition against the Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju,, Moturu Sathi babu,

Samsani Venkata Ramana, Bokka Srinu, Ragireddy Rambabu, Yallimilli

Ranga Rao Jakka subbarao for permanent injunction for an extent of one

Acre.20 cents in three survey numbers, said suit was filed on 24-02-2005, on 29-11-2010 suit was not pressed, plaintiff filed memo for not press in the suit, the doth order and decree, dismissed as follows (1) that the suit B and the same by hear by dismissed as not pressed dismissal order photostat copy filed and certified copy of the suit register O.S.No.74/2005 marked as ex B10.

Ex.B9 is the letter dated 27-08-1998 addressed by K.Narasimha Murthy,

Deputy commissioner of police (crimes) Hyderabad city Andhra pradesh to the station house officer Vullhas Nagar-3, Tana District. As per complaint

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju who is belongs to the same village of kondala

137

Rao East Godavarai District joined them to work in the same work shop, gradually he developed illicit relation with the wife of Sri. Kondala Rao and became close to their family. Wife of Sri.Kondala Rao died one year back.

Kondala Rao came to East Godavari district (6) months back closing his shops as he could not keep good health. Meanwhile, the said M.Venkata

Ramana hatched a plant to illegally occupy the property of Kondala Rao situated in Ulhasnagar. Kondala Rao received telephone call from Ulhasnagar that Venkata Rama Raju trespassed into his flat situated in Rajya Lakshmi

Cooperative Housing society and two workshops by name Kalpana furniture shop and Sri Satya Garrage and committed theft of valuables with criminal intention to occupy the property illegally in their absence.

Therefore, necessary help may be extended to Sri.Kondala Rao who is approaching you in person and necessary illegal action may be initiated against Venkata Rama Raju in the interest of justice. Under Ex.B9 marked through Dw1 he is admitting illegal contact of Satyavathi is the first plaintiff

Kondala Rao known about of illegal regulation ship of first plaintiff and

Rokkala Satyavathi.

To Ex.B8 is the affidavit is of Mattaparthi Venkata Ramana Raju in

A.T.C.2/2011 as per affidavit for numbering of petition 2/2011 it was numbered the affidavit as per affidavit of Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju he filed the petition for vacat the petition schedule property hear filing of affidavit is not helped the case of sape vemala Rao he is the D1 in the present suit 248/2011

Ex.B7 in the Schedule property in R.S.No.106/5 an extent of 80 cents out of 84 cents. To Ex.B.7 and B8 not concerned to the same case Ex.B8 schedule not filed along with the affidavit. Ex.B7 in the schedule property but relevant petition not filed for what purpose in the circumstances to the Ex.B7 and 8 not taken into consideration for the case purpose.

To Ex.B6 in the Civil Suit Register certified copy for the A.T.C.12/2006, petition schedule filed by the petitioner R.S.No.83/4 an extent of one acre out

138

of one acre 41 cents A.T.C. filed by the Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju against the Sape Vemala Rao at Principal Junior Civil judges court kothapeta it was dismissed on 22-07-2008 for default to Ex.B6 in the true copy. Petition filed by the delivery by evicting the respondent form the petition schedule property.

Ex.B5 is the true copy of A.T.C.13/2006 file by the Mattaparthi Venkata

Rama Raju against the Arigela Satyanarayana on behalf of minors Mattaparthi krishnam raju and mattaprthi bhagya sri they are minors on the date of filing of the petition. Certification was dismissed on 18-01-2007 for default without cost.

Ex.B4 is the original letter issued by the tahsildar that is the notice enclosed along with letter addressed to the Revenue Division officer

Amalapuram, by the P.Subba Rao, Allavaram dt.24-11-2014 for cancellation report submitted on 24-11-2016 on address a letter by the R.D.O.

Amalapuram dated 12-10-2014.

Ex.B3 is the letter of the photostat copy addressed tot he Revenue

Divisional officer Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya which is the photostat copy marked. For cancellation Pattadar passbook original not filed before the court. On that petition orders copy filed marked as Ex.B16 Ex.

B2 is the Pattadar passbook is in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao which is filed by the DW1. Pattadar passbook and title deed both are filed along with suit those are marked as Ex.B2 title deed is in the name of Kondala

Rao on 15-05-1998 in that Mandal Revenue officer issued a book his wife was died but pattdar passbook is was issued for the survey numbers 147-4 an extent of 58 cents. Suvey No.163-6 an extent of 27 cents, 146-4 an extent of 1 acre 9 cents. R.S.No.106-5 an extent of 80 cents sole on 27-10-2005 under the document NO.1077 of 2005. R.S.No.83-4 an extent of 1 acre was sold in on 09-06-2006 under the doc.No.476/2006. Survey no.147-5 an extent of 54 cents. Total 4 acre 28 cents out of that one acre 80 cents was sold remaining

139

land is 2 acre 24 cents. As per Ex.B2 above survey property belongs to the satyavathi admitted by the kondala Rao the Ex.B1 is the general power of attorney Exhibited by the Rokkala Durga on 08-10-2008 in favour of Sape

Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya for look after the court affairs and court transactions on the date of power of attorney there is no specific number. It is was issued an extent of 2 acre 21 cents only. Out of that two items sold the

D.W.8 ion the Ex.B15. DW1 admitted he is deposed and admitted in his cross examination he deposed to the court for his case only not on behalf of

Rokkala Durga. The Ex.B1 is not taken into consideration because Rokkala

Durga not comes to the court not deposed as a witness before the court in the three suits.

To Ex.A1 is the sale deed is in the name of Kondala Rao and his wife satyavathi that is admitted fact buy the kondala Rao said property belongs to the satyavathi to Ex.A1 schedule property Item No. 1 and 2 an extent of 1 acre, Item No.3 to 5 an extent of 94 and ½ cents total Ac.1-94 cents total 5

Items.

Ex.A2 is the original sale deed is in the name of Satyavathi dated 04- 09-1991 total 5 items shown in the schedule as 8 items an extent of Ac.02-12 cents.

Ex.A3 is the sale deed in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi

dated 04-09-1991 total 3 items 42 cents + 74 cents + 9 cents, Ac.01-25 cents,

three items shown in the plaint schedule.

Ex.A4 is the sale deed dated 26-02-1992 is in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi W/o Yedukondalu, six items shown in the plaint schedule.

` Ex.A5 is the will is in the name of plaintiffs 1 and 2 executed by

Rokkala Satyavathi that was admitted by the Kondala Rao under Ex.A2,

Ex.A5 is not disputed document it is admitted by the Rokkala Kondala Rao in his report and also Pattadar passbook and title deed Under Ex.A2.

140

Ex.A6 is the death certificate of Satyavathi Kondala Rao Rokkala issued by the Ullahnagar Rajya Lakmi society.

Ex.A7 will executed by the kondala Rao. As per legal notice of the

Reply issued by the Sape Vemala Rao, there is a another will that is unregistered will. Said will is not produced on that Ex.A7 original will not produced by the Sape Vemala Rao before the court for proof for acting will on death Kondala Rao. Ex.A7 is not the final will. Admitted facts need not the true as per reply notice issued by the Sape Vemala Rao and others.

Ex.A8 in the study certificate of Venkara Krishnam Raju and

Mattaparthi Bhagya Sri. Mattaparthi Bhagya Sri mother is the Krishnaveni not satyavathi who is the krishna veni to prove her burden on the Mattaparthi

Krishnam Raju who is the mother of Bhagya Sri. Krishnaveni is not the wife of

Mattaparthi venkata Rama Raju.

To Ex.A9 is the death certificate Rokkala Srinivasa Rao issued by the

Panchayat Secretary, Yentrukona village, Allavaram Mandal. There is no dispute regarding the death of Kondala Rao Satyavathi, Srinivasa Rao and second plaintiff. After death of second plaintiff his Lrs came to the record amendment plaint is also for before the court.

I.A.No.57 of 2013 in O.S.No.248 of 2011 filed U/sec.45 of Indian evidence act by the Sape Vemala Rao through his affidavit to send the document will dt.9-51997 and other document signatures to the hand writing experts for the comparison. Said petition was dismissed without cost because it was field at the belated stage.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.248 of 2011 as follows:-

Issues No.1,5 and 6:- Whether the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties are liable for partition, Ex.A7 was not acted upon on death of Kondala Rao hence suit is liable for partition as prayed for In the plaint. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.2:- Whether the Items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are joint self acquired properties of parents of plaintiffs 2 and 3. as per Ex.A1 to A4 are

141

self acquired properties of the satyavathi and Kondala Rao under Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. They purchased thel property in their business income. Ex.A1 to A4 properties are not joint properties. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.3:- Whether the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased Items 2 and 3 in the name of their mother from out of their own income? There is no evidence and Cross examination to prove father plaintiffs purchased property in the name of late satyavathi. But property in the name of Syavathi. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 father is P.W.1, it is admitted by the both parties, Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and legitimate children of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi? Both are illegitimate children of the Kondala Rao and satyavathi. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue.No.7:- To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs 3 to 5.

declare the right, title over the plaint A-Schedule property. Suit is preliminarily decreed in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 5, half share tot he Rokkala Satyavathi and remaining half share of Kondala Rao 1/3 + 1/3 in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 5.

Plaintiffs 3 to 5 shall file the petition for delivery of possession under due process of law.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.288 of 2014 as follows:-

I ssue No. 1. and 2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant as null and void? and Whether the suit is maintainable under law as plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 08-08-2014?

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, empowers individuals to seek a court declaration of their legal character or right to property when that title is denied or there is an interest to deny it. This relief is discretionary and doesn't require the plaintiff to seek further relief, though the court won't grant it if the plaintiff could seek more extensive relief.

142

1. Right to Seek Declaration:

 Section 34 allows any person with a legitimate claim to a legal status or property right to file a suit.

 This suit can be filed against anyone who denies or has an interest in denying that claim.

2. Discretionary Relief:  The court can, in its discretion, declare the plaintiff's entitlement to the legal character or right.  This declaration is meant to resolve uncertainty and prevent future disputes.

3. No Requirement for Further Relief:  The plaintiff doesn't have to seek additional relief in the same lawsuit.

 The declaration alone can be sufficient in cases where the plaintiff's primary goal is to establish their title or status.

4. When Declaration Won't Be Granted:  The court won't grant a declaration if the plaintiff could have sought a more comprehensive remedy but chose not to.

 For example, if a plaintiff could seek possession of property but only seeks a declaration of title, the court may not grant the declaration.

5. Purpose and Scope:  The purpose of Section 34 is to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and to provide a means for establishing legal rights or status.

 A declaratory decree, however, remains non-executable in most cases.

6. Examples:  A person who is the rightful owner of a property can sue to declare their ownership if someone else is claiming it.  A person who has a right to a specific position or status (e.g., a trustee) can sue to declare their right to that position.

7. Limited Scope:  The declaration under Section 34 is only binding on the parties to the suit, and those claiming through them.  It doesn't create any new rights or obligations. Section 31 Specific Relief Act:- When cancellation may be ordered.—(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause

143

him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

Suit is not maintainable to seek cancellation of sale deed as prayed, plaintiff is not party to the document. Instead of declaration suit, he filed suit for cancellation of sale deed. Hence suit is not maintainable. Hence suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly issues 1 and 2 answered.

Issue No.3 To what relief?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.2 of 2019 as follows:-

Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for plaintiffs are failed to prove possession either orally and documentary evidence. Accordingly plaintiffs are not entitled permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly issue No.1 is ansered.

prayed for?

Issue No.2:- To what relief?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2025

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

P.W.1: Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju P.W.2: Kudupudi Satyanarayana P.W.3: Yanadamala Dhanarajarao P.W.4: kadali Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1: Sape Vemalarao D.W.2: Peyyila Venkatareddy D.W.3: Eeti Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu

144

D.W.4: Nakka Satyanarayana D.W.5: S.V.V.Satyanarayana D.W.6: Vasamsetti Jayalakshmi D.W.7: P.Srinivasarao D.W.8: Suda Ganapathi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed executed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A2: Original registered sale deed executed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A3: Original registered sale deed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A4: Original registered sale deed stands in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi,

dated 26-02-1992

Ex.A5: Original Will executed by Rokkala Satyavathi dated 09-05-1997 Ex.A6: Death Certificate of Satyavathi, dated 19-11-2005 Ex.A7: Certified copy of registered Will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao Rao in favour of the 1st defendant’s husband and plaintiff No.2 and 3 plaintiffs

dated 26-05-1998

Ex.A8: Original study certificate of plaintiffs 2 and 3 dated 17-02-2004 Ex.A9: Original death certificate of 1st defendant’s husband dated 10-01-2006 Ex.A10: Copy of registered legal notice issued by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to defendants and others, dated 20-10-2005 Ex.A11: Original daily paper with regard to legal notice published for plaintiffs

dated 23-10-2005

Ex.A12: Copy of reply notice to the notice of plaintiffs dated 24-10-2005 Ex.A13: Copy of legal notice issued by plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 and others dated 05-11-2005 Ex.A14: Copy of reply notice issued by defendant No.1 to 3 and others

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Power of Attorney executed by Rokkala Durga in favour of Sape Vemalarao, dated 08-10-2008 Ex.B2: Pattadar pass book and title deed issued in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao Ex.B3: Office copy of petition in M.C.No.171 of 2012 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, dated 27-11-2012 Ex.B4: Report of Tahsildar submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, dated 24-11-2014 Ex.B5: Certified copy of Registration extract of registrar of A.T.C cases relating to A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

145

Ex.B6: Certified copy of Registration extract of registrar of A.T.C.cases relating to A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B7: Served copy of petition in A.T.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B8: Served copy of affidavit and petition in A.T.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B9: Letter issued by K.Narasimha Murthy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to the Station House Officer, Ulhas Nagar, Thana District,

dated 27-08-1998.

Ex.B10: Certified copy of suit register in O.S.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram.

Ex.B11: Petition copy in A.T.C.No.10 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Amalapuram

Ex.B12: True copy of the enquiry report, dated 24-11-2014 Ex.B13: True copy of the enquiry report, dated 25-01-2020 Ex.B14: Letter addressed by Tahsildar to District Collector, dated 03-08-2017 (True Copy) (marked subject to objection) Ex.B15: Registered sale deed dated 08-08-2014, Doc.No.4188/2014 Ex.B16:Proceedings of Revenue Divisional of Joint Collector of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapuram.

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION):: AMALAPURAM

Present:SaiKumariAkuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Amalapuram

Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019

O.S.No.248 of 2011:-

Between:-

1) Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 53 years, Hindu, Cycle Mechanic, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram mandal.

2) Mattaparthi (rokkala) Krishnam Raju, S/o Venkata Ramaraju, Aged 17 years, Student, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

3) Mattaparthi (Rokkala) Bhagyasri, D/o Venkata Ramaraju, Aged 14 years, Student, R/o Munganda Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

4) Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Late Krishnamraju, Aged 22 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

5) Mattaparthi Sonu Jai Satyaraj, Being Minor represented by mother guardian 4th petitioner Mattaparthi Kanakamma, Aged 6 months, Hindu, D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal. (Plaintiffs 4 to 5 are added as L,.Rs of deceased 1st plaintiff as per Orders in I.A.No.697 of 2017, dated 29-07-2017) . . . Plaintiffs AND

1) Gollinka Durga, W/o Krishna Murthy, D/o Balla Sriramulu, Aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o Sompalli, Razole.

2) Sapay Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavarm Mandal.

3) Sapay Satyanarayana, S/o Vemala Rao, Aged 34 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal.

4) Pitani Suryanarayana, S/o Mairdi, Aged 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Devaguptham Village, Allavaram Mandal.

5) Velligatla Veeraju, S/o Linga Murthy, Aged 44 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal.

6) Mallety Ramakrishna, S/o Subbarao, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Yentrukona Village, Allavaram Mandal. . . . Defendants

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri N.V.Suryanarayana, Learned Counsel for plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 6 were set exparte and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for defendants 2 to 4 and Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for 5th defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

2

O.S.No.288 of 2014:-

Between:-

Sape Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal. . . . Plaintiff AND

1) Mattaparti Venkataramaraju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculture, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

2) Mattaparti Krishnamraju, S/o Venkataramaraju, Aged 20 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

3) Mattaparti Bhagya Sri, D/o Venkataramaraju, Aged 19 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

4) Suda Ganapati, S/o Tatayya, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.11- 112, market Area, Konkapalli, Peruru Panchayat. Amalapuram Rural Mandal. . . . Defendants

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for plaintiff and of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

O.S.No.2 of 2019:-

Between:-

1) Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju, S/o Somaraju, Aged 48 years, R/o D.No.4- 41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

2) Mattaparthi Krishnamraju (died)

3) Suda Ganapathi, S/o Tatayya, Aged 59 years, Hindu, Inam, D.No.11-112, Near Konkapalli Market, Konkapalli, Amalapuram.

4) Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Krishnamraju, Aged 22 years, R/o D.No.4- 41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

5) Mattaparthi Sonu Jayi Satyaraj, being minor reprersented by mother guardian 4th plaintiff Mattaparthi Kanakamma, W/o Krishnamraju, Aged 6 months, Hindu, Minor, R/o D.No.4-41/3, Munganda, P.Gannavaram Mandal. . . . Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are added as per orders in I.A.No.1281 of 2016, dated 29- 11-2016) AND

1) Sape Vemala Rao, S/o Gangayya, Aged 62 years, Hindu, Inam, Near Panchayat Building, Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal.

2) Sape Satyanarayana, S/o Vemala Rao, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Inam, Near Panchayat Building, Yentrukona, Allavaram Mandal.

3) Illa Bhagyasri, W/o Ramakrishna, Aged 20 years, Hindu, Inam, CISF Unit, IGST PP, Jharli District, Jhajjar, Haryana-124141. . . . Defendants

3

This suit came on 22-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for plaintiffs and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for defendants 1 and 2 and Sri T.V.Prasada Rao, Learned Counsel for 3rd defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

O.S.No.248 of 2011:-

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to a) declare the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs title over in respect of their properties; b) to grant decree and judgment to vacate the plaint A schedule property by the 5th and 6th defendants and deliver the same to the plaintiffs possession after evicting them; c) to grant personal and preliminary and final decrees and judgment to divide the plaint B schedule property into Two equal portions by metes and bounds and vacate on such portion by the 2nd to 4th defendants and deliver the same to the plaintiffs possession after evicting them and d) to grant decree and judgment to the divided remaining ½ portion of B-schedule into 3 equal portion by metes and bounds and Two portions out of 3 portions to deliver to the plaintiffs separate possession after evicting them; e) to grant past profits for the last three years i.e., prior to filing of P.O.P Rs.2,87,232/- with subsequent interest and to grant subsequent profits from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of delivery of possession as per order XX Rule 18 C.P.C on a separate application defendants in respective ration; f) to award costs of the suit and any other relief, which the Hon’ble court deems to fit and proper under the circumstances of the cause in the interest of justice.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: A Genealogical table are herewith filed and also schedules A and B are here with filed 'A' schedule property is the one item of self acquired property of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs mother

Satyavati and B' schedule property is the Joint self acquired property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother Satyavati and her husband Kondala Rao. The 1st

Petitioner/Plaintiff is the father of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs and 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs

4

are having, elder sister by name Kombathula Santosha Lakshmi and deceased brother Srinivasa Rao, who is the 1st husband of 1st Defendant.

During the life time of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother gave an extent of Ac.1- 00 cents in R.S.No.83/4 of Yentrukona to the Santosha Lakshmi towards pusupukum at the time of her marriage at the intency of 1st Plaintiff. The 1st

Plaintiff settled her marriage. The said property bequeathed from her under will. The testatrix of will appointed the 1st Plaintiff as guardian either to manage the said property or to sale the said property on behalf of Santosha Lakshmi.

To that effect the 1st plaintiff leased out the same to Sapay Vemala Rao for the yearly rentals. Ever since the said Vemala Rao cultivating the same as tenant.

The 1st Plaintiff also gave an extent of Ac.0-80 cents to Arigla Satyanarayana on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiff on lease, but both are committed default to pay yearly rentals. On that the 1st Plaintiff filed tenancy petition before Hon'ble court Special Officer, Amalapuram for eviction, which as A.T.C.Nos. 12 of 16 and 13 of 06 and dismissed on dafault are numbered. Due to financial incapacity the petitioner not filed suit for recovery of arrears of rentals.

Recently the 1st Plaintiff again filed A.T.C.Nos. on behalf of Santosha Lakshmi and 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs as per will of Satyavati, which are yet to be numbered subsequently which are numbered as A.C.T.No. 1 of 2011 and A.C.T.No.2 of 2011.

3. It is further submitted that the 1st Plaintiff met with an accident with Motor vehicle unfortunately. Due to that he bedridden due to financial incapacity he unable to got proper treatment. The 1st Plaintiff leased out Ac.2-21 cents of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs to the Yallamilli Venkata Raman for the period of 10 years and he received Rs.90,000/- to lump-sum from him and expended the same to maintain the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing food. shelters, clothes and education to them and some amount expanded for hint set right his disability and to became normal person to looked after the care and welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, are responsible person. Even though he is not perfectly set right.

The 1st Plaintiff is the sole bread earner of his family and he has looked after

5

the welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing food, shelter, clothes and education as guardian of them. But 'A' and 'schedule properties are in the illegal possession of Defendants and they unauthorizedly enjoying same and got huge profits against the executed wills and and wishes of 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs mother and father Kondala Rao.

4. It is further submitted that during the life time of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother executed a will with regard to her properties of them of 'A' schedule property and other properties and here share in 'B' schedule property in favour of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs on 09-05-1997 and she died on 22-07-1997. After demise of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother, the 1st Plaintiff looked after the care and welfare of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by providing education and Sidharta

Convent at Rajahmundry. Subsequently he shifted to local school due to financial crisis. Subsequently on 26-05-1998 the Satyavati's husband executed a registered will in favour of his elder son Srinivasa Rao, Krishnam

Raju and daughters Kombhattula Santosha Lakshmi and Bhagyasri. Already

Rokkal Satyavati gave an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to Santosha Lakshmi of herself acquired property through will. Even though her husband Kondala Rao gave some property the self-acquired property of his wife on extent of Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.83/4 to the Santosha Lakshmi and the same was recited in his registered will. After demises of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother, they are care under the control of 1st Plaintiff, but the Kondala Rao used to visit the house 1st

Plaintiff and he was taking care of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs with love and affection.

After demises of Kondala Rao the co-sharer of Srinivas Rao not delivered the shared property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, at least the share of menses profits to them even if the 1st Plaintiff demanded, and 1st Defendant 1st husband and 2nd

Defendant colluded together and they created forged will, which was executed by Kondala Rao with regard to his wife property in favour of his elder son

Srinivas Rao and filed suit with false allegation against 1st Plaintiff and other for permanent injunction with regard to properties of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs

before Honourable Principal Junior Civil Judge as O.S.74 of 2005. While the

6

suit is pending the Plaintiff Srinivas Rao died and the L.R. Petition is pending, which was filed by 1st Defendant as wife of Rokkal Durga W/o late Srinivas

Rao even if she is the wife of Gullinka Krishna Murthy by committing impersonation after time the Plaintiffs did not know the subsequent marriage of 1st Defendant. There after the 1st to 3rd Defendants colluded together and they created factitious Registered Sale Deed with regard to 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs property with a view to grab away the properties of them by false representations and statements even if the 1st Plaintiff issued two legal notices to the 1st to 3rd Defendant and other and public notice published in daily news paper. The 1st Defendant alienated the properties of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs by the way alleged sale without supported by consideration at the instance of 2nd

Defendant and others.

5. It is further submitted that during the life time of Kondala Rao and 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs are under the care and control of 1st Plaintiff and they were studying Siddardha Convent, Rajahmundry after demises of his wife

Satyavati. The said Kondala Rao sold away an extent of Ac.0-27 cents in

R.S.No. 163/6 the property of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs i.e. 'A' schedule property which is the 2nd and 3rd minor Plaintiffs property and which was bequeathed from their mother to the 5th and 6th Defendants without manner of right and title. The 'B' schedule property is the joint self acquired property of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant 1st husband's parents. During their lifetime the parents they obtained pattadar pass books with regard to their respective shares. The original pass books are in the custody of 2nd Defendant. As per will of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs mother Satyavati, they are entitled to 1/2 share property in B' schedule property. As per will of their father they are entitled to 1/3rd share property each out of remaining 1/2 share property and manse profits i.e. Ac. 1-65 cents. The 1st defendant husband entitled only Ac.0.821/2 cents. Whenever the 1st Defendant married and the Gullinka Krishna Murthy, by left his husband, Srinivas Rao, the status of wife of Srinivas Rao is extinguished. The total annual income A & B schedule property is Rs.70,400/-

7

(seventy thousand and four hundred only) over the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff property and their share 1/3 each in 1/2 share property of B' schedule. The 2nd and 3rd

Plaintiffs are minors and they are depending on 1st Plaintiff and they have been suffering from starvation and they are came back and studying in

Goverment. School. The 1st Plaintiff has been suffering from disablement. The

Plaintiffs demands for deliver 'A' Plaintiff schedule property and for past profits and future profits and costs other reliefs. All relevant documents are herewith filed for your Honourable perusal.

6.It is further submitted that during pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died intestate on 01-06-2016 leaving behind him plaintiffs 4th and 5th as his next and nearest class-I heirs. The 4th plaintiff is the wife and 5th plaintiff is the minor son of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Except the plaintiffs 4 and 5 there are no other L.Rs to deceased 2nd plaintiff. Hence they are added as L.Rs of deceased 2nd plaintiff in the suit. (Added as per orders in I.A.No. Of 2017, dated. -07-2017). Hence, the suit.

7.On receipt of the summons, D.2, D.3 and D.5 filed a written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. In such a written statement, D.2,

D.3 and D.5 further contended that plaintiff No.1 belongs to Munganda village, when Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavati have established companies at

Mumbai, as well as workshops at Ullas Nagar, Mumbai, the 1st plaintiff had been to Mumbai, to get employment in private company there, but, unfortunately, he joined in the company of the said Kondala Rao, as a worker.

That, Kondala Rao and Satyavati belong to Scheduled caste, the 1st plaintiff belongs to B.(C) Settibalija community. While he joined as a worker in the company, the 2nd defendant is also one of the partner in that company, that 2nd defendant being brother Satyavati.That Satyavati being 2nd wife of Kondala

Rao, that Kondala Rao got two children through 1st wife, by names 1)Kombattula Santosha lakshmi (daughter) 2) Rokkala Srinivasa Rao (son).

That after death of his first wife, Kondala Rao married Satyavati, begot 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs through her they were named as 1)Krishmamraju. 2) Bhagya Sri.

8

While the companies are in progressive state earning profits, Kondallarao fell sick, the Satyavati and 2nd defendant managed the companies and 2nd defendant also brought some amount, purchased lands at Yentrukona in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, much less with the funds of the companies. Any way, the entire plaint A and B schedule properties absolutely belong to Kondala Rao and Satyavati. That, at the time of marriage of daughter of Kondala Rao by name Santosha lakshmi, he gifted Ac.1-00 cents of land towards Pasupukumkuma. Rest of the properties being enjoyed by the

Satyavati and Kondala Rao, but,in the meanwhile has created disputes between wife and husband and also between 2nd defendant. Satyavati died out of mystery, by the acts of 1st plaintiff, and after her death they have created by forging a Will on dated 05-09-1997 as is evident as she died on 22-07- 1997. The will alleged to have been executed was brought up by procuring the

Attestors and scribe, at Machavaram, where as she (testatrix) died at Mumbai.

The alleged Testatrix, Satyvati had no occasion to come over to these parts and visit, that too no occasion to come over. A clear, look at the alleged will speaks volumes of fake things. That, 1st plaintiff had an eye on the property by taking advantage of loneliness of Kondala Rao and that, 1st plaintiff having hatched up plan to become one of members of the family of Kondala Rao with motives behind, succeeded in his mysterious plans, and convinced Kondala

Rao by representing that Kondala Rao became old and became age sickness and by then children of Kondala Rao are minors, with tender ages, gave him with moral support by representing that, don't hesitate because of children and regarding management of companies as he will safeguard and which gave confidence to Kondala Rao, that, though the 2nd defendant was by then at

Mumbai, he returned back to Ventrukona, to cultivate the land purchased by then in the name of Kondala Rao and Plaintiff. Satyavati. Then the 1st plaintiff became sole administrator, to not only to Kondala Rao personal, and to companies. As such the 2nd defendant is managing the properties at Ventru kona used to account for the management of property not only to Kondala

9

Rao and Satyavati, thus having gained confidence in Satyavati and Kondala

Rao in him.

8.It is further contended that While so, the 1st plaintiff, with malice, in order to grab the property of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, has created hurdles and disputes between Kondala Rao and Satyavati, he having gained confidence in his by Kondala Rao and Satyavati, went to the extent of fabricating documents of his choice, like Will dated 09-05-1997, alleged to have done by Satyavati, and to further lend support this plans, he filed A.T.C.No.12 of 2006, and 13 of 2006 of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's court, Amalapuram, but, dismissed for default.

That, afterwards, the 1st plaintiff filed Pauper suit in P.O.P.No.60 of 2006 on the file of this Hon'ble court, for the reliefs prayed for in the suit but, it was negatived. That, after dismissal of above pauper suit, the present suit was filed, for the reliefs- 1. declare the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff's title over and in respect of their property, but, no specific mention of property mentioned for that relief.

2. for the relief of eviction of A schedule property by 5th and 6th defendants and deliver the extent to plaintiff’s possession. But, before evicting the party from property, plaintiffs have to pray for cancellation of document in respect of property of 5th and 6th defendants. 3. decrees like personal, preliminary and final decree, judgment thereto, and further to divide plaint B-schedule properties into 2 equal shares by metes and bounds, and to vacate from such portion property, by 2nd 3rd and 4th defendants, and deliver the same to plaintiffs possession after evicting from the property. In such a case for the relief prayed for, plaintiff's suit for relief of cancellation of sale deed for the property involved. Further sought for relief to grant a decree and judgment to divide the shares among them, and to grant subsequent profits after filing of suit, till delivery of possession of the property, which is not permissible in the form of present suit. The list of documents numbering 1 to 21 are not proper to relying by plaintiffs to support the present suit reliefs as prayed for. That, in the meanwhile, after death of Satyavati, Kondala Rao died in the year 1998, that,

before his death, he has executed a Registered will dt.26-05-1998 that, as per

10

the will, the 1st son of deceased Kondala Rao, (Rokkala Srinivasa Rao), acted as per will and managed the Estate, cleared off the loans and some property was remained, in the meantime, Srinivasa Rao died. Immediately, his wife, 1st defendant in the suit taken possession of the property, managed for some time, she being lady, not able to manage the property, got herself executed a

Power of Attorney, in favour of Sape Vemalarao, document dated.08-10-2009 of Sub Registrar's office, Amalapuram. Since then 2nd defendant, is in possession and enjoyment of the property remained after selling the property.

That, the 1st plaintiff, who is with the Kondala Rao, till death of him, he has sold away the properties at Bombay, like Work shop, and other companies assets, by showing the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in his custody, having funds from to

Munganda. Thus the 1st defendant having funds now he is dealing with speculative litigation by the suits, showing 2nd and 3rd defendants to gain wrongfully out of the properties of 2nd and 3rd defendants. Actually, there is no passing of consideration at all. Thus, there are no merits in the suit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit in limini with costs and to award compensatory costs.

9.The 5th defendant filed separate written statement and further contended that Rokkala Satyavathi has no monies, no capacity to purchase the property. Kondala Rao purchased the said property with his money in her name. He paid the consideration for the said sale. It is for his benefit the property was purchased and kept in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi. Rokkala

Satyavathi is not the owner of the property. In any way Rokkala Satyavathi died and after her death an extent of Ac.0.12 cents in R.S.No.163/6 was sold by all of them for their family necessities and received the entire consideration and delivered possession of the same to this defendant. They executed and registered a sale deed dated 16-07-1998 and it was duly registered as document No.547/1998. The property was delivered to this defendant on the date of execution of sale deed. Since 1998 this defendant is in effective possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. This defendant is

11

nothing to do with the other properties. This defendant is concerned with the said extent of Ac.0.12 cents only. Since the sale in favour of this defendant is for legitimate legal necessities the sale is binding on the plaintiffs. They cannot question the same. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi. After death of Kondala Rao, Satyavathi lived with 1st plaintiff and they maintained illegal contacts. So the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the legitimate children of Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Rokkala Srinivas is having a share in the property since he died and by the time of death of Srinivas, his mother left the home and joined with the 1st plaintiff. So plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot claim any right over the share of Srinivas in the properties. In that way the plaintiff's suit is mischievous, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any right, title and interest over the properties and they cannot claim any share in the properties. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct. The all other allegations which have not been specifically admitted or traversed herein are hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore the 5th defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties are liable for partition?

2) Whether the Items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are joint self acquired properties of parents of plaintiffs 2 and 3?

3) Whether the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased Items 2 and 3 in the name of their mother from out of their own income?

4) Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and legitimate children of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties?

12

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for preliminary decree as prayed for?

7) To what relief?

O.S.No.288 of 2014

11.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 08-08-2014, alleged to have executed by 1st to 3rd defendants in favour of 5th defendant by duly declaring the purported documents as nul and void, abinitio in the eye of law; award costs of the suit and grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

12. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the sister of plaintiff herein by name Rokkala

Satyavati and her husband viz Kondala Rao. After their demise, their son by name Srinivasa Rao, succeeded to the same as of right, and after death of

Srinivasarao, his wife Durga succeeded t the property as of right. That she being lady, not able to took up cultivation, she has executed General power of attorney dt.8-10-2008, (Doct.No. 192 of S.R.O.. Allavarm. Since the plaintiff has been managing the property on her behalf, rendering account of such management to the Attorney. During the life time of Kondala Rao and

Satyavati 1st defendant herein the suit happened to be with them at Mumbai (Bombay) as a worker, where they are running companies of their own. Then the 1st defendant, it seems secured some documents of title, secretly, behind their back, as they could not anticipate the fraud being played by 1st defendant. That, by then 2nd and 3rd defendants are children of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, with tender age, net in a position to assess the conduct and behaviour of 1st defendant since he gained confidence from Rokkala Kondala

Rao and Satyavati, there are 2nd and 3rd defendants it seems went into his fold. It is submitted that Kondala Rao and Satyavati, used to bring 2nd and 3rddefendants to Yentrukona with them, the 1st defendant, used to pick them to

Village Munganda of his native place, believe the public by representing as if

13

the 2nd and 3rd defendant viz. Krishnamraju and Bhagya Sri her progimy much less own children. That 1st defendant gained access in public in so doing every year, whenever Kondala Rao and Satyavati happened to be here to lock after the property and to have contact with plaintiff who was their manager of the property entrusted.

13. It is further submitted that that, to lend support the conspiracy hatched up by 1st defendant, when Rokkala Satyavati died 22-07-1997, immediately, 1st defendant created one unregistered will dt.09-05-1997, of his choice, as if it is instrument by Testatrix, that, on the basis of above alleged will, he filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalpauram, against the plaintiff and his son and Rokkala Durga who is no other than daughter-in-law of Kondala Rao and Satyavati. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and other properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavati, by claiming imaginary and speculative claim of shares by putting his claim the basis of the fare will. That, after death of both Kondala Rao and Satyavati, the 1st defendant has got chance brought 2nd and 3rd defendants who are infants by then to Munganda, in order to lend support to his conspiracy, has obtained Ration card by including their names as his son and daughter. and that he went up to extent to make believe the public they are his proginy. And out of his best and fraud, the 1st defendant created some false documents of title and on that, he abruptly sold the suit schedule property herein to the 4th defendant under

Registered sale deed 08-08-2014 for Ac.1-12 cents, of R.S.No.147/4, Ac.0-58 cents, 147-5 Ac.0-54 cents, for paltry consideration of Rs.5.60,000/- when compared the then existing rates and values the property. The 1st defendant, in doing fraudulent activities simply treated the property as if wet land even though it is dry land not assessed to revenue tax. That, if it is really wet land with alleged possession by 1st defendant he would have file tax receipts, which spears amount of fraud by 1st defendant, not belong to 1st defendant but, it is with malice, he procured some false documents got registered the present title

14

deed of the suit claim, in the name of 4th defendant to gain wrongfully if possible.

14. It is further submitted to prove the guilt of the 1st defendant the 4th defendant has to verify the document of title so far goes the genuineness regarding possession before getting sale deed for valuable consideration

dated 08-08-2014. So, the sale deed is treated as void, abinitio, illegal, invalid

and un-enfofceable in the eye of law. Therefore, the plaintiff left with no optic except to file the present suit praying the relief of cancellation of alleged sale deed dated 08-08-2014, by 1st defendant in favour of 4th defendant, alleged to have beer by 2nd and 3rd defendant. That, in order to make known the defendants, the plaintiff and 27-09-2014 got issued registered legal notice,but, it is with malice and malafide intention, it is at the instance of 1st defendant who is the spearhead of the litigation got refused the notice anticipating the contents, as the demand by plaintiff was rot heard by defendants. Thus, the plaintiff got cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the suit.

15. On receipt of summons, defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and the same was adopted by the 3rd defendant. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 further contended that the property is the absolute property of Rokkala Satyavathi. Somehow she came into contact with the 1st defendant herein and virtually she lead marital life with him and begot two children who are defendants 2 and 3. Rokkala Satyavathi during her life time in a sound and disposing state of mind out of her free will and violation executed a Will dated 09-05-1997 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and some other properties in favour of defendants 2 and 3 but appointing 1st defendant as a care taker to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties till they became majors. Later she died on 22-07-1997. After her death the Will came into effect and as per the bequeaths there under the beneficiaries came into possession of the property. Later her original husband

Kondala Rao also died. The relations between 1st defendant and Rokkala

Satyavathi virtually became a relation of husband and wife and defendants 2

15

and 3 are their children. So whether Will or no Will the defendants 2 and 3 alone became entitled to the schedule properties and some other properties.

The defendants 2 and 3 for their necessities and to utilize the proceeds for their development sold the schedule properties to the 4th defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- under a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 and since then the 4th defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit is frivolous and vexatious suit without any right or claim over the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff herein illegally and unlawfully tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by the 4th defendant herein claiming under a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 for valuable consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- executed by defendants 1 to 3 and came into possession of the property and enjoying the same, the 4th defendant herein and his vendors 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's court,

Amalapuram and obtained an order of injunction in I.A.No.80 of 2015 wherein the injunction orders were granted till further orders on 18-1-2015. The 3rd vendor when she is not available at the time of filing of the said suit, she was impleaded as 3rd defendant who filed her written statement accepting the claims in the plaint. The said suit is filed against the plaintiff herein and his son

Sape Satyanarayana. In the said suit the plaintiff herein filed his written statement and also filed his counter in 1.A.No.80 of 2015 and after filing of the said counter only the Principal Junior Civil Judge's court extended the orders of injunction till further orders.

16. It is further contended that the copy of the plant in O.S.No.17 of 2015 filed by defendants 1, 2 and 4 is attached to this written statement since the said plaint is the clear and categorical answer to the allegations that are made in the plaint in this suit. The present suit is filed subsequent to the sale deed in favour of 4th defendant who is the 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 2015. Therefore all the allegations that are made in the plaint are false and frivolous allegations and the suit is not sustainable under law. Further the defendants 1 to 3 filed a

16

suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this Hon'ble court against Gurlinka

Durga and plaintiff herein and his son Satyanarayana and some others seeking the relief of possession of plaint A schedule properties therein and for a decree for partition of plaint B schedule properties therein and for other reliefs. The schedule property in the present suit is not the property covered by schedule in the said suit O.S.No.248 of 2011. The plaintiff unsuccessfully brought into existence some fictitious tenancy proceedings against the defendants 1 to 3 but ultimately he failed and withdrawn the said petitions.

There are some other tenancy proceedings are pending against the plaintiff and others with which the present suit is not concerned or the properties covered by sale deed in favour of 4th defendant is not concerned.

17. It is further contended that the wife of Srinivasa Rao after the death of

Srinivasa Rao married again and she is now being called as Gurlinka Durga but not as Rokkala Durga. As far as the knowledge of 1st defendant goes, she maintained contacts with her present husband during the life time of her original husband. Because of those contacts only having vexed, Srinivasa Rao met premature death. So Gurlinka Durga is not entitled to make any claim for any share in the properties of Rokkala Satyavathi as per the provisions of the

Will executed by Satyavathi as stated supra. It is submitted that the properties covered by the schedule in the present suit are the absolute properties of defendants 1 to 3 and they for their necessities sold the same to the 4th defendant herein. The said sale deed is true, validly executed for consideration. The plaintiff or any other body have no right or interest over the said property in any manner. Further the plaintiff is not a party to the said sale deed as such he cannot seek cancellation of the same if at all if he wants to make any claim he has to seek declaration and possession not for a suit for cancellation of sale deed. In that view of the matter also, the suit is not sustainable under law and liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct. The further allegations in the plaint which have not been specifically

17

admitted or traversed herein are hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore the defendants 1,2 and 4 pray that the Hon'ble court be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

18.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant as null and void?

2) Whether the suit is maintainable under law as plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 08-08-2014?

3) To what relief?

O.S.No.2 of 2019

19.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant and against the defendants 1 and 2 granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 their followers, fellowmen from ever in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein; to award costs of the suit and to pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

20. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: The property more fully described in the schedule here to annexed is the absolute stridhana property of one Rokkala Satyavathi, w/o. Kondala Rao. She purchased the same and some other property under registered sale deed dated 26-02-1992 from one

Vithanala Narayanamurty and others for a valuable consideration and she was duly put in possession of the property by her vendor and she during her life time continued in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since it is a coconut garden no taxes were imposed on the said lands since long time. But she was given pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said property. The said passbook and title deed were snatched away by one Gurlinka Durga but

18

Xerox copies are available with plaintiffs. She and her husband Kondala Rao used to reside at Bombay. Her husband being unhealthy somehow she came into contact with the 1st plaintiff herein and virtually she lead marital life with him and begot two children who are 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant herein.

Since the 3rd defendant is residing with her husband at Haryana she was shown as defendant since it became not possible to join her as plaintiff but she is interested in the subject matter of dispute, The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant originally treated with the surname of Rokkala Kondala Rao though 1st plaintiff is their father. While so, Rokkala Satyavathi during her life time in a sound and disposing state of mind out of her free will and violation executed a

Will dt.09-05-1997 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and some other properties in favour of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant but appointing 1st plaintiff as a care taker to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties till they became majors and directing the 1st plaintiff to handover possession of the same to them after they attained majority. Further she also bequeathed an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to her daughter Santhosha lakshmi born through her original husband Rokkala Kondala Rao to be enjoyed by her with full and absolute rights. The said Will was duly executed and attested and it is the last and final Will of Satyavathi. Later she died on 22-07-1997. After her death the

Will came into effect and as per the bequeaths there under the beneficiaries came into possession of the property. Later her original husband Kondala Rao also died. The relations between 1st plaintiff and Rokkala Satyavathi virtually became a relation of husband and wife and 2nd plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are their children. So whether Will or no Will 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant alone became entitled to the schedule properties and some other properties since

Santhosa Lakshmi accepted the Will executed by Satyavathi and she is enjoying the said Ac.1-00 cents of land by leasing out the same to the 1st plaintiff herein and receiving rents thereunder.

21.It is further submitted that they are concerned in this suit with the schedule property alone which is part of the properties covered under the sale

19

deed dt.26-02-1992 which properties were covered under the Will dated 09- 05-1997. It is submitted that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties as full and absolute owners of the property. Originally pattadar pass book and title deed book were issued in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi and after her death they were again issued by the government in the name of 1st plaintiff since he is the care taker of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant and he is in effective possession and enjoyment of schedule properties. The 1st plaintiff on behalf of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant used to cultivate the same and spending the income for the benefit of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant. While so, the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant became majors and became entitled to the properties as per the provisions of the Will dt.09-05- 1997 validly executed by late Rokkala Satyavathi in a sound and disposing state of mind and out of her free will and violation. While so after they became majors they came into possession of the same. The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant for their necessities and to utilize the proceeds for their development offered to sell item 1and 2 of the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd plaintiff herein. So a bargain was settled for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-and 3rd plaintiff obtained a registered sale deed dt.08.08.2014 from plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant. The 3rd plaintiff was duly put in possession of the property and he attended for plucking in the schedule property two or three times after the property was delivered to him in pursuance of the terms of sale deed dt.08-08-2014 and the 3rd plaintiff is in effective possession and enjoyment of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. The item No.3 of the schedule property still continuing in possession and enjoyment of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant and on their behalf the 1st plaintiff is looking after the same since he was in effective possession of the same as care taker of the interests of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant even after they attained majority. Now the defendants 1 and 2 since they are from privileged class started litigation with regard to other properties of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they are forced to file a suit against them and some others in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil

20

Judge's court, Amalapuram. Further the 1st defendant and one Arigela

Satyanarayana are in possession of some properties which belongs to daughter of late Rokkala Satyavathi by name Santhosi Lakshmi through her first husband as tenants and also some other properties of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant. As they committed default in payment of rents petitions were filed for ejectment of the 1st defendant and Arigela Satyanarayana from the respective lands and they are pending disposal. Now the defendants 1 and 2 by pressing their caste into service are making hectic efforts to cause obstruction to the plaintiffs and defendant in enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties in the best manner suits them. The defendants 1 and 2 are also proclaiming in the village that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant will not be allowed into the properties and they will cause severe and serious objection and they are also targeting the 3rd plaintiff who is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties.

22. It is further submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 have no locus-standee to interfere with possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein. Their attempts are highhanded and illegal.

They are also threatening that they will book the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant by filing atrocity cases or some cases involving ladies of their community. As a matter of fact they issued a false report against 1st plaintiff and others for which F.I.R. is registered the copy of which is also filed along with the plaint.

So by hurling such threats they are trying to fright on the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and also trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant herein.

It is humbly submitted that the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are in absolute, effective and peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 3rd defendant are law abiding citizens, having no influences and on the other hand the defendants are desperate character have no regard or respect for law and they are upto anything and they have

21

serious backing of their caste and they are trying to use the said caste as ground for causing obstruction to the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant in enjoying the plaint schedule properties. They are making open proclamations to that effect in the village. The plaintiffs and 3rd defendants are not a match to the evil mechanisations of the defendants 1 and 2. So the right, title, interest and possession of plaintiffs and 3rd defendant is to be protected by way of granting a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their followers and fellowmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and from illegally entering into the land by threats and violence. The plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are entitled to seek such a decree and the defendants 1 and 2 are bound to suffer for such a decree. It is submitted that during pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died intestate on 01-06-2016 leaving behind him plaintiffs 4 and 5 as his next and nearest class-1 heirs. The 4th plaintiff is the wife and 5th plaintiff is the minor son of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Except the plaintiffs 4 and 5 there are no other LRs to deceased 2nd plaintiff. Hence they are added as LRs of deceased 2nd plaintiff in the suit. (added as per orders in

I.A.No. 1281 of 2016 dated 29-11-2016)

23. On receipt of summons, defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. It is further contended that it is submitted that, in fact, the D-1 is the elder brother of deceased Rokkala satyavati, and her husband Kondala Rao, was married being maternal uncle and defendant is son D-1, 1stplaintiff is the daily wage earner, under the deceased Kondala Rao and Rokkala Satyavati, while they were at Mumbai (Bombay), 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant are the children of Kondala Rao with

Satyavati. 3rd plaintiff is the purchaser of plaint schedule items 1 and 2. As matter stands, Rokkala Satyavati died on 22-07-1997 mysterious cause, by the daily wage earner, much less the so called 1st plaintiff in the suit. Pattadar pass books and title deed books were handed to Tahsildar, Allavaram and obtained pass passbook etc, in the name of Kondala Rao being husband of

22

deceased Satyavati, and are with the D-1. So, the contra allegations as if they are snatched away by one Gurlinka Durga is not true. Rokkala Satyavati and her husband Kondala Rao had been at Mumbai, and her husband being unhealthy, some how she came into the sakásk contact with ist plaintiff herein, virtually lead marital life with him, begot 2 children, who are 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs herein the suit. That, since, the 3rd defendant is residing with her husband at Hariyana, she was also shown as defendant, since not possible to get her as one of the plaintiffs, but, interested to purave the litigation. It is quite absurd and beyond human expectation that the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, originally styling with surname of Rokkala Kondala Rao, though the 1st plaintiff is their father. it is falsehood, and denied by defendant. That Kondala Rao and

Satyavati at Mumbai, and running workshop, Kondala Rao hale and healthy, they at with their best efforts did good and developed financially, and the 1st plaintiff got joined as daily worker, in the hands of Kondala Rao, lived in a separate house along with wife and her 2nd children, far away from the work shop, that, 1st plaintiff, daily used to bring the children to school from house, developed closeness with children, undercurrent, not to the sense of the parents, but, it is not correct, the children are born with 1st plaintiff to Satyavati,

Kondala Rao and Satyavati, have begotten 4 issues, 1.Santoshilakshmi, 2.Srinivasarao, 3.Krishnam Raju, and 4. Bhagya Sri. That after death of

Satyavati, Krishnam Raju and Bhagya sri, were tendered children, that is so, being worker, used to look after the children, as he is doing the same thing regarding their father Kondala Rao. Moreover, Kondala Rao and Satyavati belong to schedule caste, whereas the 1st plaintiff belongs to "Setti balija community". That marriage of Santoshi lakshmi was done by Kondala Rao and Satyavati. After their death marriage of Srinivasarao, was done by 1st defendant, and that D-1 totally looked after the children, that, since then the entire property is in the possession and enjoyment of Srinivasa rao, along with the management of D-1 and D-2. The 1st plaintiff, kidnaped the Srinivasarao at

Mumbai, in the year 1998, and on that, Kondala Rao became up-set with

23

mental agony, he died for nothing. Then the workshop was taken handed over by 1st plaintiff, and he has simply sold away, enjoyed the funds by himself, by then the children of Konddlar Rao 1.Krishnamraju and 2. Bhagya sri, plaintiff

No.2 and D.3. The 1st plaintiff converted the assets into cash and he came over to Munganda along with the minor children. The deceased Kondala Rao has duly executed Registered will in favour of Santoshilakshmi for Ac. 1-00 as well as in the subsequent unregistered will dt.04-07-1998. He has neglected the other children. It is not the fact that Kondala Rao's wife Satyavati has executed any will during his life time, that the unregistered will dated 09-05- 1997 was brought into existence much less by fabrication, set-up and creation by 1st plaintiff. That, the signature on the will of alleged Satyavati, is the handwork of 1st plaintiff. That too, signature of attestor as if her husband (Kondala Rao) is also forged to suit things manipulated by 1st plaintiff. That surnames of 2nd plaintiff and D.3 was changed to Mattaparti from Rokkala got entered in Revenue record and Aadhar card etc. by hand work of 1st plaintiff.

Relationship between 1st plaintiff with Satyavati are Master and servant, but, not as wife and husband as stated in plaint. Plaintiffs and D.3 never had possession and enjoyment of suit property as alleged in plaint.

24. The allegations of para 5 of plaint, that plaintiffs and D.3, are in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owners of the same, and original pattadar pass book and title book were issued in the name of

Rokkala Satyavati, and after her death, they were issued in the name of 1st plaintiff, since he is caretaker of 2nd plaintiff and D.3 and is in effective possession and enjoyment of the property, unused to cultivate the same, spending income to the 2nd plaintiff and D.3, are utter false hood to the knowledge of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs and D.3 never had possession and enjoyment of the suit property, much less as full and absolute owners thereof.

It is true, originally, pattadar pass book and title deed book were issued in the name of Rokkala Satyavati, and after her death, they were surrendered to

Allavaram M.R.O, and in turn issued new passbooks in the name of Rokkala

24

Kondala Rao, in respect of suit property. The 1st plaintiff, when the pattadar pass books are in force he has created the un-registered will dated 09-05- 1997, and with the assistance of will alleged, he influenced, the then M.R.O,

Smt. B.Gajnamba, and got the present pass books in the name of the 1st plaintiff. Then 1st defendant obliged to file application before R.D.O

Amalapuram, for due cancellation of the said books, in C.C.171 of 2012 dt.27- 11-2012. That, as during pendency of the above proceedings, M.R.O,

Allavaram (Tahsildar) enquired into the matter, submitted report to R.D.O. on 24-11-2014, which is pending. Moreover, as a precautionary measure, the

Revenue authorities get the pass book cancelled by office procedure relating to "On line". But, on the alleged pass book basis, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and 3rd defendant sold item-1 and 2 of suit schedule property to 3rd plaintiff as the 3rd plaintiff is belong to Kapu community and a well known rowdy of

Amalapuram, and he got capacity to make entry with his brute force. Even then, it became for impossible to get possession of the property, which the possession and enjoyment by 1st defendant, since 08-10-2008. General Power of Attorney under Doc.No.677/2008 by Rokkala Durga, W/o.Srinivasarao.

25. The 1st plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge's court, Amalapuran, against is 2nd defendant and others, for relief of

injunction, pending. The 1st defendant, filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's court, Amalapuram, against the plaintiffs herein and 3rd defendant, for due cancelation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 in favour of 3rd plaintiff by 1st and 2nd plaintiff along with 3rd defendant. That, without receiving suit summons therein, they engineered the present suit that too for permanent injunction with the help of the invalid things since, the revenue enquiry is on the purported sale deed was executed in favour of 3rd plaintiff, it amounts to criminal activity in the eye law that too against the government, until the enquiry concluded. That, as per allegations of para-6, that 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant majors, and became entitled to get property and per the provision of the will dated 09-05-1997, validly alleged to have executed by Rokkala

25

Satyavati, in a sound and disposing state of mind, and out of her free will and disposing state of mind and out of her free will and is a setup theory by plaintiffs. The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, for their necessities, to appropriate the proceeds for their development, offered items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule to 3rd plaintiff in the suit, bargained for Rs.5,60,000/- and obtained registered sale deed dated 08-08-2014 by the plaintiffs 1st and 2nd plaintiff in favour of 3rd plaintiff. Thus, it seems the 3rd plaintiff came into possession and attended for plucking coconuts, roughly 2 and or 3 times that after the property allegedly delivered, and effective possession of items 1 and 2, the item-3 of suit schedule is in continuous enjoyment and possession of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, and on behalf of 1st plaintiff, is utter falsehood to the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

26.It is further submitted that the facts of the case are the 1st and 2nd defendant are in actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, since, right from 2008, when G.P.A. got by 1st defendant the said Durga. The 1st defendant leased out the entire suit schedule property in the year 2012 to 2014, to one Polamuri Sriramulu S/o Ramamurty of Ventrukona, for the interim crops like plantation of Banana. That on completion, he has duly delivered possession of the property to the 1st defendant. That the property possession is with the 1st and 2nd defendants. That, in fact, the 3rd defendnt not even aware of the topography of the property to say. It is therefore, absolute false hood that, he got plucked the coconuts for 2 or 3 occasions, which falsifies the version, in the text of the plaintiffs alleged. The 1st plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book, that he as if got court order, misrepresented for issue of pattadar pass book, as per O.S.No.74 of 2005 as that suit by Srinivasarao (Rokkala) against 1st plaintiff and others, and the said suit was ended " not pressed" by

Rokkala Durga, who is a party after death of her husband. Actually there are no orders by court, in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as the suit ended as "not pressed".

The 1st plaintiff, it seems has cheated the revenue, obtained Pattadar pass book, under the false pretext. That, the 1st plaintiff filed A.T.C. for the alleged

26

years, 2006, and for the year 2012 seeking to evictionon the ground of alleged arrears. Those were dismissed by the court, since, the party not taken steps.

That, since 1st plaintiff solvent enough. I.P suit, was dismissed. Again the present suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram, for the mere relief of injunction, as if the property alleged to be with him. That suit by 1st plaintiff against Santosh Lakshmi was dismissed, and imposed fine by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Amalapuram to plaintiff therein that suit. The defendants 1 and 2, since they are prevailed Class started litigation, with regard to other properties on plaintiffs 1 and 2, and they are forced to file a suit against them and some others, in O.S.No.248 of 2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram. Further the 1st defendant and one Aregela Satyanarayana, are in possession of some property, which belongs to Rokkala Satyavati's daughter by name Santoshslakshmi, through her 1st husband, as tenants and also some other properties of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, and as they committed default in payment of rents, petitions were filed for ejectment of 1st defendant and Aregela Satyanarayana, from the respective lands, and they are pending disposal, is not true and correct. In fact, the 1 st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of schedule land, since the power of attorney dated 08-10-2008, by Rokkala Durga, and since the plaintiffs are trying to handover the land through the court and on that, the 1st plaintiff filed O.S.No. 248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judges’ court,

Amalapuram, against the defendants 1 and 2 and others, who are not concerned with the property. The 1st defendant gave some property on tenancy to Aregela Satyanarayana and Pitani Suryanarayana and others. On that the 1st plaintiff filed A.T.C.2 of 2011 and 5of 2011 with false allegations and they were dismissed, by the Tenancy tribunal. The outcome of tenancy proceedings are somehow to establish his alleged rights if any, and to lend support in the present suit and Suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 and the present suit

O.S.No.17 of 2015 seems to be collusive in nature, even regarding

27

engagement by one and same counsel for D.5 and plaintiffs in the present suit.

27.It is further contended that in fact causing objections by defendants 1 and 2, does not arise, that the plaintiffs and D.3, have not aware of the suit schedule property, that plaintiffs 1 and 2 the 3rd defendant are residents of

Munganda, and 3rd plaintiff is at Amalapuram, and that because of the agreement between the 3rd plaintiff and the other plaintiffs 1 and 2, to enter into possession of the property with brutal-e force with the heap of local persons, like.1 Moturi Satyamrayana, and 2. Eeti krishnarao, etc. before purchasing the property items 1 and 2 by 3rd plaintiff, the 1st defendant in person explained the history and rights of the property concerned and the alleged executants have no rights to alienate the property as matter stands.

Further, in that course, he also sent one Vasarla Simhadri and Tikkireddy

Satyanarayana, of Ventrukona, but, the 3rd plaintiff came forward with challenge when he got document he can deal with the matter to get the possession of the property, in any manner. It is to be noted that, no passing of consideration as alleged between plaintiffs 1 and 2 by 3rd plaintiff, in respect of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. It is only to make believe that, the schedule property will be handed from 1st defendant by the 3rd plaintiff by use of his brutal force as well as political motives. But, it is not possible for him that, since 7 months, the present suit is instigated. In fact, the suit schedule land is near by the house of the defendants 1 and 2, and they are enjoying the same happily since a long time. That, plaintiffs or the 3rd defendant had no occasion to be in possession of property earlier or even now itself. It is utmost thing to be noted that they are not even aware of the topography of the property to say that alleged possession by plaintiffs or 3rd defendant. That, when D.1 and D.2 are attending before the court on dt.14-03-2012, in

O.S.No.248 of 2014 (2011), the 1st plaintiff along with his counsel by name

K.B. Acharyulu, and one Moturi Satyanarayana of Ventrukoma, have threatened D.1 and D.2. They have also used unparliamentary language

28

against them by neglect of his position by counsel, attributing foul things on caste, even in court premises. On that, the D.W.1 and D.2 filed a complaint

before Amalapuran Town police and it was registered in Cr.No.72 of 2012,

enquiry is pending. It became habit of 1st plaintiff to one way or other to harass the defendants 1 and 2 one way or other with the help of finance, and with the instigation and litigation by persons like 3rd plaintiff.

28. The alleged cause of action since 1992, when Rokkala Satyavati purchased the property, under sale deed dated 26-02-1992, continued in possession and enjoyment, as full and absolute owner thereof, and on 09-05- 1997, when Satyavati's will and on 22-07-1997, when Testatrix died, and will acted upon, and as per terms of will, 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant, through 1st plaintiff, came into possession of the same, and on 08-08-2014, the registered purported sale deed, in favour of 3rd plaintiff by 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff as well as 3rd defendant, and when alleged possession by 3rd plaintiff, alleged enjoyment by way of plucking coconuts in the property, and alleged possession and enjoyment of property by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant, of item.3 of plaint schedule, attending getting usufruct plucked, regulały, and whe alleged theory of proclaiming by defendants 1 and 2, in the village that they are going to interfere with the possession and enjoyment plaint schedule property by plaintiffs and 3rd defendant, even by threat and violence, if necessary, and ask is, all cocok and full story and beyond human expectation conduct at a glance the things are scened by evidence, That, when the sale deed in the name of Satyavati dt.26-02-1992 and it was by 1st defendant, being Stridhana, she left to Mumbai, the possession of the property is with the

D.l and D.2 for proper up keep of the property, and regarding the will plaintiff dt.09-05-1997, which is creation by 1st defendant and forged signature of

Stayvati and death of Satyavati on 22-07-1997 that too within 2 months, is highly giving scope to unfair things that too mysterious circumstances as alleged, by 1st plaintiff. That, after her death the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant were in the custody of Rokkala Kondala Rao, and the 1st plaintiff is also with

29

Kondala Rao at Mumbai as a servant. That, subsequently, Kondala Rao died, when 1st plaintiff has kidnapped, his son Rokkalas Srinivasarao, due to shock, because of misdeeds, and when he was rendered possession of work shop, it was sold away by him and collected sale proceeds big haul, some lakhs and lakhs. So, the alleged possession and enjoyment by plaintiffs and D.3 is totally false and without possession and enjoyment, the relief of injunction, and therefore, suit has no basis at all and maintainable.

29.To substantiate ample evidence by the defendants 1 and 2, intend to file documents like G.P.A.holder by Rokkala durga, Pattadar pass books in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao, Enquiry Report of Tahsildar, Allavaram, for cancelation of pattadar pass books in the name of 1st plaintiff. The suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed an limini with costs and award compensatory costs of defendants in view of speculative, litigation by plaintiffs.

30. The 3rd defendant filed separate written statement contending that

Rokkala Satyavathi is the mother of 2nd plaintiff and this defendant and 1st plaintiff is their father. Rokkala Satyavathi executed a Will dated 09-05-1997.

She bequeathed the properties to this defendant and 2nd plaintiff but she kept the 1st plaintiff as care taker since 2nd plaintiff and this defendant are minors by the date of Will. Subsequently 2nd plaintiff and this defendant became majors and they came into possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Since 1st plaintiff is the father he is also managing and looking on behalf of 2nd plaintiff and this defendant. They sold the plaint schedule property to the 3rd plaintiff under registered sale deed dt.08-08-2014 and 3rd plaintiff put in possession of plaint schedule property. This defendant is also entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint against defendants 1 and 2.

31.Basing on the pleadings on both sides in the suit, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

30

32.As per the orders of Honorable Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, in

Tr.O.P.No.164 of 2017, dated 22-10-2018 as per the said orders O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram was withdrawn and transferred to this court to try along with O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.248 of 2011. As per orders in Memo S.R.No.976 of 2019, dated 02-03-2019, the suit in O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 clubbed with O.s.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this court treating the evidence already adduced in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 is the evidence in other two suits and to record further

evidence in O.S.No.248 of 2011.

33.During the trial, the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2011 himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. The plaintiffs in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 also got examined one Kudupudi Satyanarayana, as

P.W.2; one Yenamadala Dhanarajarao, as P.W.3; and one Kadali Veera

Venkata Satyanarayana, Document writer as P.W.4. On completion of plaintiffs’ side evidence, the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.248 of 2011 himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B11. During cross examination of D.W.1, Ex.B.16 is marked. The defendants got examined one Peyyala

Venkatareddy, Eeti Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu, Nakka Satyanarayana, who are 3rd parties to the proceedings as D.W.2 to D.W.4. The defendants also got examined Deputy Tahsildar of Kothapeta as D.W.5 and got marked Exs.B.12 to B.14 (subject to objection). The defendants also got examined one

Vasamsetti Jayalakshmi as D.W.6, one Pulapakuru Srinivasarao as D.W.7 and got examined 3rd plaintiff as D.W.8 and got marked Ex.B.15.

34.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered both submissions, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, coupled with Exs.A1 to A14, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 8, coupled with Exs.B1 to B16, and other material on record.

35.The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that schedule property originally belonging to the Rokkala satyavathi, Kondala Rao, they settled at Mumbai. 1st plaintiff went to the Mumbai. Rokkala satyavathi with consent of the 1st

31

plaintiff lead the family life with the Kondala Rao. 1st plaintiff and Kondala Rao lead their family life blessed with two children they are the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.248 of 2011, they possessed the property Ventrikona village.

Rokkala Satyavathi executed un-registered will sound disposing the state of mine legally justified manner, without suspicious manner. As per will 1st plaintiff is the guardian other plaintiffs are the minors. Part of the property in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 covered the will dated 09-05-1997 rest of property

covered and well wisher will dated 26-05-1998. which is Ex.A7 executed by

Rokkla Kondala rao, Ex.A5 and A7 two wills. Suit filed by the plaintiffs depending on the two documents of will. 1st defendant paid to delivered, exchange of the property of partition, legal notices issued to the 1st defendant is Rokkala durga d/o Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. 1st defendant not contested but case was registered against her. Notice was served. There is no resistance from the D1. 1st defendant is Competent person except file the litigation kept silent. Competent person and legal right not executed and not implemented adverse inference not drawn in the absence of the right , implementation by her to grant the decree.

36.In Suit No.288 of 2014 Sape Vemala Rao contested in the suit who is the D2, he denied Ex.A5 and A7 by his written statement.

37. D2 contention , he grant a same legal right in the schedule property, D2 is legally entitled resist the claim of property in the absence of another claim.

1st defendant executed GPA he look-after everything, litigation of property. D2 is resisting suit claims. Other plaintiffs warn to the Rokkala Satyavathi, 1st plaintiff is Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju have no right to claim they are the legal children. Children born to the Satyavathi through the Kondala Rao.

38.O.S.No.288 of 2014 suit filed 2nd defendant , plaintiff against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed, the schedule property belonging to the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, they have no right to execute the sale deed , seeking the cancellation caused the enquiry not a party to the document, he is a third party to the document has no right to seek the

32

cancellation, only executant have right to seek the cancellation fo sale deed.

What is legal right possessed by the plaintiff without manner of right to seek their relief. Proper person is the 1st person is the Durga, she has not filed the suit she is only competent filed the suit. Basing on GPA filed the suit for cancellation as per GPA holder filed the suit of Rokkala Durga suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.

Who is the owner of the property covered in O.S.No.288 of 2014 . four questions has be decided

Point No.1:- Who is the owner of the property to filed the suit?

Point No.2:- Whether the said person is a party to the suit is competent person?

Point No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is O.S.No.288 of 2014 has got connection with the property?

Point No.4:- if the plaintiff did not have noxiousness with the property can maintain the suit in individual capacity.

Point No.5: Whether the expected person Rokkala Durga have gave a GPA plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 the suit filed by the Sapa Vemala

Rao in individual capacity or G.P.A. capacity

Point No.1: Suit itself is not maintainable no legal right. He made certain allegations to whom the plaint schedule property is not cured , none the property filed in O.S.No.288 of 2014 and another suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 and 5th defendant

O.S.No.2 of 2019

39.Mattaparthi Rama Raju filed the suit against the Sape Vemala Rao is a party to the proceeding holding that he is in a possession of the property seeking the injunction , suit was transferred to this court.

Common Point: in all the suits one and the same on the fact of the suit

Ex.A5 and A7 are wills in sound disposing state of mine evidence connected to the attestation of the suits O.S.No.288 of 2014 said suit injunction may be grant the decree in O.S. No.248 of 2011. O.S.No. 288 of 2014 may be

33

dismiss the suit. Mattaparthi Rama Raju proved the wills. The learned plaintiff counsel argued that plaint schedule property at Yentrikona village and property belongs to the Satyavathi there is no dispute at all B schedule property 10 items are the purchased by the Satyavathi and Kondala Rao in different sale deeds by jointly under Ex.A1 A2 and A3. A1 is the original sale deed custody of Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju who is the 1st plaintiff under the wills of Ex.A5 and A7. Ex.A1 relating to the item No.1, survey No. 191-5B an extent of Ac 1-50 cents 2nd extent is the Ac.1-00 cents in survey No.19106.

It is compressed an extent of Ac 1-50 cents concerned on the item no,.1 of schedule property. Ex.A2 dated 04-01-1991 in favour of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi property covered under Ex.B2 an extent of AC 2-12 cents in survey number 162/5A, Ac 0-29 ½ in survey no 165/5B AC 0-60 cents total 0-89 ½ cents bounded by original boundaries. Item No.3 the 191 cents fallen full extent Ac.0-46 cents no boundaries. Item no 4 is the survey No.191/3 an extent of 0-18 cents. Item No.5 is the Ac.0-05 cents adjoining to the item No1 and 2 . item No6 survey No. 191/4A Ac.0-25 cents,. Item No.7 survey no 191/A Ac 0-25 cents . Item No.8 survey No.191/4 Ac.0-19 cents . 8 items total Ac.2-12 cents. Ex.A2 property item No.2 survey No.162 5A, item no1 is the 165-5B Ac.0-80 ½ cents. Item No.8 of plaint schedule property one and equal to the item No.3. Item No.3, 4, 5 of Ex.A2 equal to item No.4 of plaint schedule property. Item No. 6 is the Ex.A2 is equivalent to the item No.5 of B schedule property. item No.7 of Ex.A2 is equlant to item No.6 of B schedule property/item No.8 of Ex.A2 equal to item No. 7 of B schedule property.

Ex.A2 is also in favour of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Ex.A3 covered an extent of Ac.0-88 cents comprised into the 3 items. First item of Ex.A3 193/1B of Ac.0-42 cents. Item No.8 of B schedule property survey No.193/1C an extent of Ac.0-37 cents, out of equal to item No 9 of B schedule property.

survey No.191/2 an extent of Ac.09-00 cents of Ac.0-36 cents. Which is item

No.10 of plaint schedule property. Item no1 to 3 are relating to the total B schedule property. No cross examination custody of Ex.A1 to A3. B schedule

34

property belonging to the Satyavathi and Kondala rao. Custody of document produced in the hands of plaintiff I.e no dispute, Ex.A4 Rokkala Satyavathi purchased 3 items. Item No.1 and 2 in survey No. 146-4 is not the subject matter. Item No.3 is the extent of Ac 0-02 cents in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi. A schedule property covered by is in the name of Satyavathi, schedule property established property belongs to the Satyavathi and Kondala rao.

40.Item No.5 will executed sound disposing state of mind. Now Rokkala

Satyavathi is a subscribing her signature. She is sign as S.R.RAO, she subscribed signature in English language. Ex.A5 will, wife of Srinivasa Rao who is the Rokkala Durga never disputed either filing the written statement, dispute correctness of Ex.A5. Positive evidence prove to say that qualified person Durga did not dispute the will. Attestors examined as Pw2. 1st attestor of Ex.A5 and 3rd attestor examined as of Ex.A5, husband of Satyavathi is also one of the attestor to the will Ex.A5 what is the with proof, that may be questioned to other side expectation. Any one attesting examined to prove, not examined all the attestors. During the cross examination P.W.2 p.w.3 neither elicited signatures nor the Kondala Rao standard signature of Kondala

Rao shall be produced. Signature not belonging to Kondala Rao, standard signatures of Kondala Rao has to be produced. Signature not belong to the

Kondala Rao , two omission , adversity effect their case to modes adverse signatures of Kondala Rao and recitals of 3 read over. D1 is not contention in the suit. Ex.A5 can be denied, total property bequeathed. Rational description explained. As per will under Ex.A1, plaintiff are in the share in the plaint schedule property. Basing on the Ex.A4 and A5 will sought reliefs delivery under Ex.A5 property. B schedule property within the name of wife and husband who are the Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Satyavathi entitled to half share in B Schedule property, Satyavathi executed in respect of B schedule property, half share stands in the name of suit is entitled for creditor, suit is filed for declaration of A schedule property, partition of the B schedule

35

property half share is Kondala Rao. The plaintiffs are given the property if they are not given, half share of Kondala Rao shall given or not . D2 is not having share. Ex.A1 is in the name of Kondala Rao. Name is mentioned only

Satyavathi Rokkala would so absent as orders No.1 half share of the plaintiff 2 and 3 equal as share. Never saw the he bare the consent to maintain he given the consent to the matter vasaparthi krishna Rama Raju, plaintiffs share 1 and 2 Kondala Rao treated by the Satyavathi through Mattaparthi venkata

Raju. Half share belonging to the Satyavathi. Share of Kondala Rao not denied Ex.A5 by Kondala Rao. Ex.A7 is not containing the Satyavathi, will

Kondala Rao is also legal heir. Recitals of Ex.A7 more particularly omission part of the Kondala Rao regarding to the test of monetary and also non testamentary but she died testamentary. Ex.A1, A4, A5, A7 read over the together intention of the testator called as candidate by other side. Kondala

Rao will for Ac.1-00 cents Krishnam Raju, Bhagyasree, Srinivasa Rao divided into three share. Half share into 1/3 share. Half share + Kondala Rao 1/6 + 10 shares if the relief paid in the plaint to prove the Ex.A6 and A7 got examined by Pw4 Kadali Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. Document was written so the witness have conveyed and relied upon the will to get decree In favour of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit 2nd plaintiff died. Under Ex.A5 will half share of the Rokkala Satyavathi, under Ex.A7 half share of Rokkala

Satyavathi in Ex.A5 and A11. For A schedule for B schedule for partition.

288/2014 filed the cancellation of sale deed. 3rd suit for injunction Ex.A5 and

A7 two documents for the suit. Except 1st defendant other legal heirs having resisting by virtue of Ex.A5 will.

Para No.4 and 5 of chief affidavit of P.W.1 as follows:-

I submit that due to the fact that Satyavathi is very younger than that of

Kondala Rao, reasons known to both of them, at the consent of Kondala Rao and as well as desire of Satyavathi, she used to lead family life with me. Out of our family life, we both of us blessed with plaintiffs 2 and 3. In spite of the

36

above set of things, none of them exhibited any discrimination on our children and all of us continued as one unit. A schedule property was acquired by

Satyavathi under registered sale deed dated 26-02-1992 executed by

Vithanala Narayana Murthy and others. An extent of Ac.1-00 cents in

R.S.No.83/4 and Ac.0-80 cents in R.S.No.106/5 and some other extent was also acquired by her under the said sale deed. Para No.7 of Ex.A5 will , Para

No.8 connected to the property of Agirala Satyanarayana.

41.Written statement not filed by the D5 and D6 not enter into the box to substantiate case failed by the D5 and D6. D5 and D6 written statement filed for assuring to draw the attention of the court. Re-joinder cannot be filed taken on the pleading. Pleading supported by evidence cannot be equated the evidence. D5 and D6 not attack and claim made by the plaintiff not contest for debuting D5 and D6 are only competent to raise the defence other defendants are not having legal right to assume the role of D5 and and D6.

Persons to expect file the litigation. They did not file the document. Sale deeds are in their favours. They did not dispute Ex.A5 and A7. A schedule property does not belonging to Rokkala Kondala rao belonging to Satyavathi.

Sale deeds should over the A schedule property. Rokkala Kondala Rao have no right to alienate the property to grant a decree A schedule property to adjudicate Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will because the property belongs to the Satyavathi. They fails to prove the legal right of Kondala Rao. They did not file the sale deed. Their revenue records to show the possession, all the questions in favour of plaintiffs in positive way. There is no resistance can be granted . When the persons who are alleged resistance fail to enter into the box. Whether it is open to other defendants step into the claim, attach the plaintiffs. Other defendants are legally es-toped in respect of the plaint schedule property. D5 an D6 are claim no hurdles claim the schedule property.

42.B schedule property under Ex.A5 will to prove the fact, P.W.2 Kudupudi

Satyanarayana s/o Veeranna setty.

37

Attestors cross examination are highlighted PW2 evidence will alienate the legal position.

Rokkala Satyavathi informed him that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Styavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. I do not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. I do not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. I do not know reason for non registration of the Will at

Amalapuram.

Rokkala Dhanunjaya and Kondala Rao are the attestors subscribing signatures, disturbance and disbelieve the signatures attestors of Ex.A5 and

A7 contesting , attestation fails to prove the cross examination made by the defendants. During the cross examination of pw2 on 18-09-2020 relationship elicited. Suggestion made to the Pw2 born to the Satyavathi and Kondala

Rao through two children. Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao only children.

Plaintiffs are not the children. Positive suggestion to the Pw1 were blessed with two children only suggestion denied by the P.W.2. Kondala Rao not the father of M.Srinivasa Rao is a father. Satyavathi got the four children.

Kondala Rao two children, P.W.1 got two children ,m pw1 children are not legitimate children invalid marriage of pw1 and Satyavathi. Plaintiffs are the legitimate children of Satyavathi. Kodala Rao not obtain one of the attestors would vitiate, effect legally in question Ex.A5 will belongs to the Satyavathi.

Satyavathi also having half share in the B schedule property. half share of

38

Kondala Rao. Satyavathi executed half share undivided out of plaint schedule property, Kondala Rao is not executed will undivided share kept with him.

Satyavathi subscribe as a testator. Will was also executed total property

Satyavathi, Kondala Rao signature are required were incorporated in the will as a testator. A schedule property is the full extent B schedule property half share of Satyavathi, Kondala Rao attested Ex.A5. Attestor appeal not acquire and contents of the definition of the attestation only limited. There is no law , purpose limited only identification witness signature.

Ex.A5 signatures not denied subscribed in the presence of Pw2 on the other attestors. When the material facts of the attestation of will to make cross examination Pw2. Attestation not disturbed. Cross examination pw2 remains unchallenged. There is cross examination signature does not belonging to

Rokkala Satyavathi is unchallenged. Not questioned, material question of fact and law of attestation, said fact must be accepted by law. legally is 2007 dispute is 2018 safely rely proof of attestation.

Whether the relative of persons can acted as a attestor?

Whether the evidence of P.W.1 to attestation of the document?

A suggestion must be P.W.1 deposing of P.W.3

The court scrutinize the evidence very carefully?

43.P.W.1 and 2 are relatives to the dispute as a 2nd defendant that the motive is also establish. Relative deposed motive not established no material discard one of the attestor of will examined by the plaintiff. PW3 is the another attestor of Ex.A5. P.W.3 deposed in para No.4 of his chief examination affidavit as follows:-

I submit that originally Rokkala Satyavathi is the wife of Kondala Rao.

But however with the permission of Kondala Rao, she married 1st plaintiff and to their wedlock they were blessed with plaintiffs 2 and 3 by name

Krishnamraju and Bhagyasree. Therefore, Rokkala Satyavathi is the wife of 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their children.

39

Rokkala Satyavathi executed un registered Will dated 09-05-1997 in a sound and disposing state of mind. As per the Will she bequeathed her exclusive properties to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and her undivided half from out of the joint properties with Kondala Rao also to them. Therefore, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to the exclusive property and undivided half of Satyavathi as stated above under the unregistered Will dated 09-05-1997.

In the cross examination P.W.2 P.W.3 is relative he is admitted. P.W.3 is not denied and not disputed signatures of Satyavathi. Who are the present at the time of execution of will. Evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 sound disposing state of mind upto remark. Contrary to the evidence particular regard to the attestation. There is no hesitation to believe the will , relationship of pw1 to 3 are not suspect the character. In view of the admission , commission to disbelieve the will. Additional issue framed as Ex.A5 will date is correct 09- 05-1995. out of the three attestors, two attestors examined Rokkala Kondala

Rao is no more. Other side not comment witness of Kondala Rao.

44.Alternative method P.W.1, 3 are the direct witness. What is necessity to examined the other witness, plaintiff examined the proof of will relationship is there. Rokkala Kondala Rao and Satyavathi raising the objections relatives of attestors, needs to be no conciliation. P.W.2 and 3 evidence is the believe if the Satyavathi executed the will. It is prove the Ex.A5. Property can sold or not. There is no challenge cross examination made in include signature of the

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Ex.A5 will proved. Ex.A7 will suggestions made in cross examination, that two children denied which version is the correct. Four or two children. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st plaintiff and Satyavathi, there is no case of D2. Ex.A10 schedule property partitioned not co-operated. Ex.A12 is issued reply to the Ex.A10.

Un numbered para of Ex.A12 as follows:-

As per Ex.A10, Mattaparthi Krishnam Raju and Bhagyasree. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are born to 1st plaintiff and Satyavathi. Ex.A14 is the reply. Ex.A10 A12 A13 and A14 plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of Satyavathi children. Ex.A5 will

40

referred Ex.A13 and A14 . Ex.A12, A13 last page last paragraphs as follows.

Ex.A5 is fabricated under Ex.A12 and A14. Fabrication and forged not one and the same together. Creation used same is signed paper . Forgery is the signature of one person. If the forgery taken into the consideration it is completely un-known attack making fabrication/ forgery must be specific forgery means duplicate. In what respect Satyavathi is not executed the will there is no foundation attack on behalf of defendants. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of Satyavathi. No proper attack on Ex.A5 on which way fabricated, who signature forged, there is a force in reply. They can not supplement anything other side cannot be contented include all the things.

Ex.A7 will executed by Kondala Rao admitted by the D2. Ex.A7 is the secondary evidence. Without proper foundation can rely upon the secondary evidence. Mode of the question is required primary evidence is the original document. Section 74 of the evidence act registered document is a public document. If it registered, secondary evidence cannot be taken into consideration is in question.

Laid the foundation during the cross examination of Dw1.

D.W.1 page No.21 as follows:-

It is true that in Ex.B.1, it is mentioned that I have to make all affairs on behalf of Durga and account for the income also. I did not maintain any accounts regarding properties of Durga from 2008 till date. No special power of attorney was executed by Durga except Ex.B.1 to give evidence in the suit.

It is true that there is a recital in Ex.B.1 power of attorney that if I did not act as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B.1, she has right to cancel the same. I did not file any other documents that I acted as per Ex.B.1 and any other transactions under Ex.B.1. On the date of execution Ex.B.1 was registered. Srinivasarao died in the year, 2005. Srinivasarao died three years prior to execution of Ex.B.1. From the date of death of Srinivasarao and till

Ex.B.1 came into existence the Rokkala Durga herself look after all her properties affairs. Now Rokkala Durga is residing at Komarigiripatnam. Now

41

the Rokkala Durga is aged approximately 35 years. As on the date of execution of Ex.B.1 the age of Durga is 25 years. Now Durga is hale and healthy. Since the matter O.S.No.74 of 2005 was went to up to Hon’ble High

Court the Durga executed Ex.B.1 as she is unable to look after the case affairs alone. As on the date of Ex.B.1 Durga is healthy. There is no mentioned in Ex.B.1 because the health condition of Durga is not well she is executing

Ex.B.1. Balla Sriramulu and Dorababu is alive. The scribe of Ex.B.1 is

Geddala Laxmanarao of Thurpulanka of Allavaram Mandal. The Sriramulu and

Dorababu is not my relatives. There is no record that I paid taxes on behalf of

Durga or Managed the properties of Durga. The Durga herself not pressed

O.S.No.74 of 2005 in the year, 2010. It is not true to suggest that Rokkala

Durga never executed Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.1 never acted upon. The revenue records are in possession of 1st defendant herein and husband. The Rokkala

Kondala Rao could sign in English or in Telugu. It is true that Ex.B.2 bear the signatures of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The Will dated 26-05-1998 contains the signatures of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The original Will dated 26-05-1998 was filed by Srinivasarao in Court.

Ex.A7 date is 26-09-1998 executed satisfaction evidence to receive the evidence. Secondary evidence, foundation, in the pleading are evidence.

Ex.A7 is not dispute at all. Dw1 admitted year of the execution. Ex.A7 property he made the bequeath in favour of them. They born to him or not.

Basing on the pw1 to 4 evidence as well as exchange of the notice Ex.A12 and A14 proved the Ex.A5 and A7. Pw4 scribe of Ex.A7 Kodali Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana examined through summons.

He deposed that he received witness summons in this matter from the court. I am a document writer. He has been working as document writer since 1993. Whenever he scribed any document I used to make an endorsement to that effect on the said document. If any document contained said endorsement and my signature, it can be said that he scribed the said document. All the documents scribed by me are genuine documents. The name contained on

42

Ex.A.1 as scribe is mine. Ex.A.7 is a registered document. At the time of registration of document, there is no need of presence of the scribe. Ex.A.7 was scribed about 21 years back. By going through the Ex.A.7 He recollected my memory. He does not remember the each and every document which was scribed by me, but by going through the document he can recollect my memory. As per the contents of Ex.A.7 Rokkala Kondala Rao signed as an executant and Katikidala Nageswara Rao and Sape Hemasundararao attested the said document. He came to the court to speak about the said document. Presence of the executant, attestors proved. Admitting the recitals not disputing the recitals. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are the minors Srinivasa Rao act as a guardian not enter into the other material. Ex.A5 admitted by the other side not disputing is there necessary calling for attestation of will not disputed by other. Ex.A7 will. Ex.A5 disputed . Examination of attestors is necessary to examine attestors it is undisputed unanimously facts. Admitted facts need not be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. Evidence of scribe including , evidence of attestation, Sapa Hema Sundara rao replaced to the second defendant. Only evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to believe Ex.A4 by virtue of oral evidence. Cross examination under the light of documentary proved satisfactory of the court. Ex.A5 executed by the Satyavathi and Ex.A7 executed by the Kondala Rao. Positive evidence effort through the evidence not basing on the witness of the other side. Plaintiff evidence proved by the evidence of document. Made a foundation validity executed attested required them. Decree in favour of evidence of the defendants came to the will.

Plaintiff would have extract from the mouth of evidence of the defendant.

whether the evidence of defendant throw away entire case, apart these from who is competent.

45.To appreciate the case of defendants with the D1 Durga who is the wife of Srinivasa rao he is no more. After the death of Srinivasarao Durga married the another person surname is changed. 1st defendant cannot family member of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Gollanka Durga not Rokkala Durga in

43

OS. Nos.248 of 2011, 288 of 2014 and 2 of 2019. 2nd defendant seized the

Rokkala after the married the person, if she is assume entitled the claim her presence must there unconnected proceedings but omitted. 1st defendant not made claim. Outside of the court 2nd thing is the 1st defendant not contesting in the suit not filed the written statement not examined as D2 witness. Basing on the Ex.B1 which is G.P.A. executed in favour of D2 by D1. 2nd defendant perusing the litigation now the G.P.A. used as a D2 to prosecute O.S No.248 of 2011. suit number referred or not. Ex.B1 proved examining the Rokkala

Durga GPA is revoked or not. If the revoked D2 not proceed with the 2nd defendant not revoked in course property in O.S.No. 248 of 2011 is correct or not. From 2011 suit is pending on the G.P.A.

Point No.1 on 8-10-2008 Ex.B1 by then 248 of 2011 suit is not there, there is no scope at all to give the G.P.A. by D1 to the D2 by referring by post litigation. On that ground Ex.B1 is have no value.

Point No.2. Whether the schedule property mentioned Ex.B1 is correct or not.

3. since Ex.B1 schedule property not covered in OS 248/2011 4.Ex.b1 contents read over, present suit, previous suits are not subsequent suits. Previous suits are not pending suits. Ex.B1 is not believed.

In O.S.No.288 of 2014 relating to the filed one defendant. Ex.B1 prior to the 2014. schedule property there is a special power of attorney for the purpose of G.P.A. on behalf of has to file the petition along with accord the suit under the law seeking the prosecute the legal proceedings as a agent to principle. Such procedure adopted or not is in question. It is mandatory procedure. 2nd defendant containing suit is individual capacity no chance. It is a case in pursuance of the case ascertaining fallow the procedure , power is in force. Suits are 2011 that power is in course are also subsequent to the suit. Such evidence is a adduced believe upon on it. Ex.B1 does not disclose delivery of property the general G.P.A. will not give right to look after the proceedings. Property not referred. 2nd defendant cannot prosecute the case for the above reason even otherwise impliedly supposed. All the properties of

44

Kondala Rao under Ex.B1 not the Satyavathi. Why the property of the

Satyavathi under Ex.b1 will is omission in Ex.B1 regarding to the properties and support the Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is in force prosecute on behalf of D1 and D2.

D1 is exparte, D2 filed the vakalath as G.P.A. holder of D1 not in individual capacity. Written statement of D2, vakalth of D2 meticulously, he is prosecuting the suit individual capacity not G.P.A. of D1. Omission on part of the D2 as a G.P.A. , 1st defendant prosecuting the case individual capacity to act upon or not. D2 must be considered GPA holder are not to do so.

Individual capacity what is effect to the suit. It is taken into consideration or not. Is there any legal right to prosecuting the case D1 written statement not filed by the D2 as a rightful owner of the property defending the case. D1 is not there D2 is the individual capacity of G.P.A. Ex.B1 is not legal document

as 2nd defendant not containing the basing on the schedule property, suit is

reflecting there on. Ex.B1 is not right any defendant to make legal right in respect. Ex.B1 is only waste paper through it is register. B2 is not legal competent claim made by the plaintiffs. Ex.B2 is Pattadhar passbook in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao. Title deed item referred in Ex.B2 joint properties purchased part of B schedule property only Ac 2-24 cents.

Endorsement is there. After the death of wife husband name is enter by endorsement Ex.B2 are the wet lands, no land revenue are adangal are not filed. they can not apply application to the revenue authorities for revenue records, whether the property belongs to the Kondala Rao is in question. How to secure from the D2 for lawful custody. Ex.B1 and B2 custody and also extent. Ex.B1 property farm of the property Ex.B2. What is power executed by D2. Kodala Rao executed the will Ex.A5. Ex.B1 and B2 are created for future litigation after death of Satyavathi under Ex.B2 is also . Ex.B3 referred three items covered under EX.B1 and B2. 2nd defendant gave a good bite not for the schedule property covered the suit fileIA 2014. Ex.B2 schedule property is not mentioned. Ex.B4 is the revenue records O.S.No.288 of 2014 suit not considered. Ex.b5 is the tenancy register extract dismissed for

45

default for nonpayment of batta. A.T.C. was dismissed. There is a difference on dismissal of the record. It is binding on the both parties only merits. By filing the file the petition Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. rejection of the plaint deemed to be on merits proper remedy is referred the case on theoretical grounds.

Ex.b5 and B6 on technical grounds schedule is not there. Ex.B5 B6 against the Sape Syamalarao is R.S. No. 83/04 this is not subject matter of suit 2nd defendant cannot rely upon the documents. O.S.No.248 of 2011 suit cannot be reject it is the main suit Ex.B6 and B5 are not relevancy. Ex.B7 is the

A.T.C.No. 1 of 2007 only served copy of schedule , not certify copy, basing on the schedule what is cause of action. Basing on the Ex.b8 served copy

A.T.C.No.2 of 2011 there is no schedule. Ex.B9 S.H.O. compliant letter addressed by the K.Narasimham Murthy letter contains not relating to the schedule property. Ex.B10 is the suit register. O.S. 74 of 2005 online Senior

Civil Judges Court Amalapuram filed the suit. Suit is not pressed under the

dismissed of not relating to the schedule property. Ex.P11 no result Sape

Sayamala Rao filed the suit against Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala rao.

Ex.P11 can gives the relation of Vemala rao. House of spouse Kondala Rao and Satyavathi inimical terms having what is necessity to approach the court.

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and Vemala Rao are the logger-red hatts. If the having amicable relation the any student. Except that under Ex.B11 form 1986 from among them. Ex.B11 sufficient to denied by the client made by the

D2, what happened when they dismissal as passive order. Rokkala satyathi

Venkata rao and others Ex.B12 contests photos copy of will served, number the will file along with Ex.A5. A.T.C. Ex.B12 schedule property not in the will.

Ex.B13 is the delivery Ac. 2-12 cents does not include 2011 suit. Ex.B12 three survey numbers. Ex.B15 in the name of Sudha Ganapathi revenue proceedings number. 2014 document proceeding prior to 2014 revenue proceeding to earlier to the Ex.B15 who are the parties to the proceeding.

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and his son sold the property in the year

46

2014. 2014 suit filed for cancellation of Ex.B14 they can say the revenue proceedings are the two ways one is relating to the 248/2011, Sudha

Ganapathi not party to the revenue proceedings, in valid proceedings no legal proceedings. O.S.No.248 of 2011 can be discard and prevented as said.

Ex.B16 passed in favour of Vemala Rao by the joint collector. Vemala Rao and Venkatapathi rao three survey numbers only not binding in the vendee

Ex.B15 Sudha Ganapathi . It is not binding on the Sudha Ganapathi it is infectious order nobody has taken steps is a necessary party before the joint collector covered under Ex.B4 only confined three survey numbers. How to could secure, discard of Ex.A5 and A7. As the 2nd defendant evidence.

Point No.1 D2 has no right to prosecute the litigation.

Point No.2 Subject matter is not covered in the revenue proceeding

Point No.3 2nd defendant is not in a proceeding, GPA 1st defendant only individual capacity not on the respect or relating to the Kondala Rao in the absence of defence of 1st defendant. written statement contents of D2 over rule.

OS 248 of 2011:

46.Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju is not claimed the relief. 1st plaintiff filed the suit either guardian. 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs relief claimed, plaintiff No.1 acted as a guardian. 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of suit legal representatives came to the record, Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the children of

Satyavathi and Kondala Rao. Suit has decree the court believe the children .

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju as per evidence of P.W.1…. In chief affidavit last four lines in para No.2. During the life of they are not raised single rupee in that persons did not choose to question is whether the competent person is silent as a third party entitled the question the plaintiffs 1 and 2. the last

Indian Evidence Act under Section 111 esttop occurred came into the question . Legal persons not question ones the es-toped started question of paternity cannot be looked into. Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao admitted through the 1st plaintiff. Ex.A5 is can be disbelieve. Un disputed

47

signatures of Satyavathi is not produced by the D.W.1. Basing on the signatures are not tallied as Ex.A5 can be discard. Burden of proof is on one person. Onus proof shifts one person to person only. Connected to the will.

Onus is not discharge on the 2nd plaintiff , Ex.A5 can be considered,. He got examined the attestors of will, proved the will nothing was elicited in con-curt in the evidence of P.W.1 for the not suggested. Plaintiffs not discharged. 2nd plaintiff set over the facts to disbelieve Ex.A5 satisfactory evidence to show the signatures of Ex.A5 Not believing to Satyavathi. Further allegations made without admitted signatures making the contention is different substantiate case. D.W.1 chief affidavit filed except stating Ex.A5 signatures do not belongs to the Satyavathi how he can say the signatures belong to the

Satyavathi we disputed or disturb, attestors of Ex.A5 make it clear. Totally in sufficient to consider, D.W.1 chief examination is not sufficient to disbelieve evidence of pw1. If the signatures of Satyavathi denied signatures of

Satyavathi or not to the witness. On account of the omission by not showing, the evidence of pw1 forged the signature brush-aside. Om mission to deny signatures, 1st is the defendant saying G.P.A. holder of Durga, Rokkala Durga is the 1st defendant she is remained exparte, she is not in the suit. Therefore by virtue of the fact D1 not contest, supporting to the suit. G.P.A. must be revoked there is General power of attorney, 1st defendant set exparte. Part of the schedule property sold they did not enter into the box. Actual person is the 1st defendant who gave a set exparte. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled prosecute principles D1 is exparte. G.P.A. D2 is contested in the suit, prosecute the suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 filed for cancellation, partition suit filed.

In the year 2011 there is gap of two years. Three items are there not from the part of O.S.No.288 of 2014 seeking the relief in O.S.No.288 of 2014 property covered. 2nd defendant has no right seeking the cancellation of sale deed of the 2014, viewed in any language because 2nd defendant not claimed making the 1st defendant who is the competent to attach remaining silent D2 is the 3rd 48 party to the document. O.S. No. 288 of 2014 Rokkala Durga not added as party either as a plaintiff and the defendant to straight away grant to decree to dismiss the section 288 of 2014.

Page No.7 last para cross examination of D.W.1 as follows:-

As a General Power of Attorney executed by Rokkala Durga, I am having right over the plaint schedule properties in three suits. I did not mention in all the three suits being a General Power of Attorney Holder, I am claiming right over the plaint schedule property. I have taken a plea in all the three suits that, I got right over the plaint schedule properties as a General Power of

Attorney holder. It is not true to suggest the I have mentioned in my chief examination that Rokkala Durga executed General Power of Attorney in my favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and that I am contesting the suits basing on the General Power of Attorney. I filed General Power of

Attorney before this court. It is not true to suggest that there is no General

Power of Attorney is in existence and I did not file any General Power of

Attorney in my favour in all the three suits. It is not true to suggest that without possessing or filing of the General Power of Attorney, I have no right over the plaint schedule property. The Rokkala Durga might have in existence. Witness adds that Rokkala Durga is in Komaragiripatnam. It is true that the Rokkala

Durga was shown as 1st defendant in O.S.No.248 of 2011 and she did not file any statement in this suit.

Basing on the G.P.A. , the agent can make the claim or interest of the property. G.P.A. create the property right to the D2. Whether D2 can make use as conveyance deed what is meant by the conveyance whether agreement of sale create the interest basing on the Ex.b1 sale is defined under section 54 of transfer of property only previous contract his evidence brushed aside in this regard. Ex.B1 basing on that not claim or resist D.W.1 deposed as G.P.A. agent or legal sanctity. G.P.A. holder not deposed swearing as a G.P.A. holder of 1st defendant completely ignore the G.P.A. and

Ex.B1. Individual capacity permitted to look after or not in question. D.W.1

49

individual capacity, he cannot as a G.P.A. He has not having any right under act, no right to Exhibit marked exhibit because no consideration. Claim of the

Ex.B1 goes to hell. There is the legal contest in O.S.Nos.248 and 288 or 2 of 2019 suits. P.W.1 evidence only look into the proof of the will cannot be taken into account. Account of fact Dw1 evidence has legal capacity.

Regarding to the suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 whether suit decreed by the cancel by the document only two options are there. 1st option 288 suit filed by the plaintiff, individual capacity or G.P.A. act Roakkala Durga, D.W.1 cross examination confronted by the defendants counsel he filed suit of O.S.No.288 of 2014 against Mattaparthi Venkataramaraju and others in his personal capacity He gave instructions to his counsel to prepare his written statement..

issue confronted whether the plaintiff is the suit maintainable, 288 of 2014 filed either individual capacity or G.P.A. The suit is not maintainable in division, 2nd option he is no way concerned to the suit , he is not rightful owner. Plaintiff is 288 of 2014 suit is permitted to file the suit.

Para No. 6 in the 288 of 2014 of the plaint is as follows:

It is submitted that to lend support the conspiracy hatched up by 1st defendant, when Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-07-1997, immediately, 1st defendant created on unregistered Will dated 09-05-1997 of his choice as if it is instrument by testatrix, that on the basis of above alleged Will, he filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram against the plaintiff and his son and Rokkala Durga who is no other than daughter-in-law of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property and other properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi by claiming imaginary and speculative claim of shares by putting his claim on the basis of the fake Will.

Nothing was mentioned in the suit no plea of forgery. O.S.No. 288 of 12014 will is admitted not disputed. 1st is the statement can say the forged will believe the Ex.A5 are not 2nd one is the plaint disputed signature can compare in

O.S.Nos 248 of 2011 and 288 of 2014 contention raised by the 2nd plaintiff

50

is the true contention or not for the sake of defence. Part to the suit proceedings can denied cannot maintainable. Two different persons in the suit . To know the conduct of the person in two different persons acted.

Conjunction or combined reading it leads forgery brought into the purpose of court. During cross examination of D.W.1 admitted. D.W.1 cross examination

P1 and P2 are the children of Venkata Rama Raju. Cross examination

Satyavathi children. G.P.A. is last individual capacity deposed Dw1 evidence cannot be considered. In the 12th page evidence A.T.C. proceeding A.T.C.

related to the O.S.No.248 of 2011 or not . There is no usage of evidence, only proceedings dismissed on technical grounds. Ex.A5 will in para No.14 in the cross examination subscribed as RS Rao. What is capacity is in question.

What is legal right or sanctity of the document to look after. Whether he has gone through what are the circumstances to say particular document is. D2 is looking after the litigation but not individual capacity there is no record, D2 added as G.P.A. of 1st defendant. D2 has no right on behalf of D1. D1 can question that D2 not question. Individual capacity he has no right to question letters assume what is argue is not. D2 is entitled the question Ex.A1. It is another option to show the material available with him. D2 has no capacity to right to sure. D2 must have to believe Ex.A5 not executed by Rokkala satyavathi.

D.W.1 evidence cross examination 14 page as follows:-

I have four sisters. I am the only male issue. The mother of 2nd plaintiff

Satyavathi is my younger sister. My remaining sisters are Venkatalakshmi and

Pushpavathi are no more, another sister Nagamma is alive. I never interfered in the property affairs of my remaining sisters. My sister Nagamma is residing at Allavaram. I received documents filed by the plaintiff along with suit summons. I did not personally read the plaint copy. I received copy of unregistered Will, one copy of sale deed and two notices along with the summons. I am contesting the suit against the unregistered Will Ex.A.5. The plaint copy and the copy of Ex.A.5 and other documents were read over to

51

him. I do not remember how many days after I received documents from the court. I narrated to the case to my counsel. I did not make any enquiry prior to filing of my written statement whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are genuine or not. Contents of my plaint are not correct. I gave instructions to my counsel to prepare written statement that the contents of plaint are not correct.

Deceased Satyavathi studied up to 5th class. Satyavathi got married in the year, 1973. As on the date of marriage, the husband of Satyavathi Kondala

Rao was at Mumbai. The native place of Kondala Rao is Ventrukona of

Allavaram. There is 10 years age gap between Kondala Rao and Satyavathi.

As on the date of marriage Satyavathi was aged about 20 years and Kondala

Rao is aged about 35 years. Kondala Rao is older than me. I am 5 years elders than Satyavathi. The marriage of Satyavathi was performed at Mumbai and she lead conjugal life at Mumbai after marriage. Satyavathi is a signatory.

It is not true to suggest that Satyavathi used to sign as R.S.Rao. Witness adds that she used to sign as R.Satyavathi. Now I did not possess the pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of Satyavathi. I witnessed while the

Satyavathi signed in a sale transaction in favour of Satyavathi. The document

Ex.A.4 contains the signature of Satyavathi.

Pattadhar passbook title deed containing the signature with date. Ex.A6 containing the property and other particulars , Dw1 admitted the Ex.A5. Ones to admitted plea of the forgery gone proved the attestation for the suppressed by the Dw1. Whether he was at putting the signature or not. He shall admit the will he has no option. How he stated the signatures of Ex.A5 is similar to

RS Rao. Complete the over the take of the defence over the D2 statements , cross examination made it is clear that is validity executed or attested. There is no contract evidence divided division of the fact. Plaintiff established answer in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A5 will is proved whether in any specific record in favour of the 2nd defendant did not choose take steps to examine the

Rokkala Durga except self statement of D.W.1 no other case to prove the defence or not for the other signatures are available on record to disposes ,

52

there on for comparison. D.W.1 is not expert in hand writing expert evidence is only to the proceeding to the live evidence of expert. Evidence of expert can taken into the consideration or not. Basing on the agriculture who denied come to the R.S.Rao, signatures belongs to the R.S.Rao no incriminating or relevant material by pass standard evidence of the plaintiff with regard to then

Ex.A5. Plaintiffs 3 to 5 proved the Ex.A5 to the satisfaction of the Court to create impressed of the evidence satisfy relied to cause enquiry of Ex.A5.

Santhosha lakshmi d/o satyavathi not examined. Defence evidence plaintiff can create the evidence. Defence evidence was not weak evidence. Ex.A5 proved entitled the relief. Dw1 concerned role of Rokkala Durga w/o Srinivasa

Rao married by name Gollanka person surname. 1st defendant seized the

Rokkala family if the she is entitled authoerize the same body look-after the litigation somebody by the date of Ex.B1 srinivasa Rao not there , if he satisfied the court 1st defendant no longer to continue as a Rokkala people he is married another person, she has no right to Ex.B1 as a family member of

Rokkala. Even by she un-married she can not proceedings. 1st defendant is not Rokkala Durga she is the Gollinka. Ex.A5 sent tot he expert I.A.No 321 of 2022, said petition is dismissed on 12-10-2023 on merits. No documents file admitted signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. Not choose admitted signatures not filed under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act adverse inference can be drawn the forgery is absolute false. I.A.No.321 of 2022 filed on 21-03-2022.

D1 married the Gulianka person, full cause title is not correct 4th respondent name and full cause title proof of the marriage of Gollanka Durga is not filed it is the point for consideration. I.A.No. 57 of 2023 filed under section 45 of

Indian Evidence Act to send the alleged will to ascertain that dismissed fail in that admitted relevant standard signature of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi belongs to the Satyavathi. 2nd defendant failed to prove the forgery.

As per 27 th page in his cross examination:-

Rokkala Durga has no knowledge that I filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014.

Rokkala Durga did not present while I was giving instructions to the counsel at

53

the time of filing suit O.S.No.288 of 2014. It is not true to suggest that I filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2014 without knowledge of Rokkala Durga and prosecuting the suit as such the suit is not maintainable. I know Veligetla Veerraju. The

Veligetla Veerraju D.5 herein is made exparte without contest. Rokkala

Satyavathi predeceased the Rokkala Srinivasarao. Rokkala Satyavathi died

before Kondala Rao. Rokkala Kondala Rao has a plot and work shop at

Mumbai. The above property was worth of Rs.38,00,000/- as on 1998. The said property was sold by Venkata Ramaraju. I did not inform to the counsel that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju was sold plot and workshop at Mumbai and brought the amount. After the death of Satyavathi, Kondala Rao returned to Ventrukona. By the time Kondala Rao was healthy. I did not inform to my counsel the Kondala Rao fell sick after he left to Mumbai and came to

Ventrukona. Since defendant No.5 is also one of the purchaser, the plaintiffs impleaded them as parties. I did not see the sale deed in the name of 5th defendant. 5th defendant does not belong to my caste and he belongs to

Gowda caste and he is a paddy tapper.

D.W.2 to 4 are the private witnesses. D.W.2 support to the case coming to the cross examination is believe or not. No reference to the schedule property he is the brother of the Satyavathi, in cross examination dated 21.07.2022. Boundaries in the name of Payyala . At boundary no land of

Suda Ganapathi. How the legal scrutiny are made. Dw2 is not possessed the land as deposed by the Dw1 not help to the case of plaintiff. Dw2 evidence basing on the D2, whether the basing on Dw2 can believe case of the defendants their defence. Dw2 not referred the schedule property to believe the affidavit or not for the preparation of affidavit. Chief affidavit must instruct to the counsel Dw2 cross examination and chief examination is different how to the believe two versions of the defendant liable to be discard.

Dw4 evidence is psychopathologist. Dw1 to 4 could elevate substitute in any angel. Dw5 evidence is relevant dispute of the case because of the document sale deed B12 to B14 are marked. Whether Dw5 evidence helpful to the

54

dispose of the case. Ex.B12 containing no contention Ex.B12 to B14 relating to the three documents. Evidence clubbed to the B12 to B14 effect their properties are not there. Suda Ganapathi property and those documents are not binding whom. Suda Ganapathi no one notice. Ex.B12 to B14 are no way helpful to the 2nd defendant. Dw1 deposed that unaware of the O.S.No.288 of 2014. Evidence of Dw5 , Ex.B2 to B14 are required judicious concession.

Dw6 is the Vasamsetty Lakshmi. Dw7 Dw8 were examined to prove the contents of Ex.B4 same evidence of Dw6 and Dw7. Dw6 and 7 deposed that to which property to apply, 2011 or 2014 suits are in question. Ex.B14 statement recorded by the revenue officers. Ex.B14 looked into B12 to B14 what is the statement recorded to came to know that D.W.6, D.W.7 evidence to attach the claim. How it is permissible they are not the binding the Suda

Ganapathi Rao. The case leveled by the plaintiff and partition of the schedule property. Ex.B12 to B14 are not relevant particular involvement. Dw8 is the

Suda Ganapathi Rao nothing was elicited in the cross examination of pw2.

Remaining unchallenged in the cross examination. Now the cancellation, contention non examination of attestors, scribe not proved at all. Sale deed is not at all compulsory attest able document, non examination of attestors not affect the sale deed. D2 himself admitting D15 sale deed, suit filed cancellation unless and until such a legal document cancel by the wholes good. It will not be no be extinguished obtain by the Dw8 on that ground also, except witnesses, dispose of the case quality of the evidence is the vital role.

If the quality of the evidence taken into consideration there is no evidence to discrete the evidence of plaintiff suit is pending. Relied upon by the 2nd defendant is not will not stunt any case or weakness of the case of defendants case. 288 is dismissed no local standards to file the suit. she has right 2 of 2019 proved the possession and enjoyment decree the suit.

issues not framed properly whether plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Satyavathi. Whether the plaint schedule property is the

55

joint property of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Plaintiff 2 and 3 are treated as owners.

Dw1 admitted plaintiff 2 and 3 will acted upon or not. 2nd defendant fail to get over the evidence and on other hand similar to the RS rao to send the document to expert to Ex.A5 by wrong the adverse inference , attacking the

Ex.A5 . Ex.A5 declaration and delivery of possession and the half share of the B schedule property and the will late Satyavathi to undivided share of

Ex.A5 will in view of the facts of the plaintiff except 2018 of 2015 as prayed for plaintiffs can connect in-respect of the property guardian discharged , in favur of the D3 D4 and D5.

48.The learned defendant counsel argued that deceased Kondala Rao has established a company at Mumbai, brother in law, mothers brother to the 2nd defendant . Kondala Rao married the sister of D2 who is the Satyavathi. After the marriage they went to the Mumbai lead their marital life. Santhosha lakshmi and srinivasa Rao was born to them after that company and the family management is difficult. D2 went to the Mumbai helped to them. 1st plaintiff settled at Mumbai along with his family working in another company came to the Kondala rao. After his to joined his company. Venkata Rama Raju and

Kondala Rao are belongs to the Konaseema Mungada. He joined with the

Kondala Rao and worked there. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are also born to the

Kondala Rao and satyavathi. 1st plaintiff is very close to the plaintiff No.2 and 3 to look-after his clothes more than the parents with the children. Kondala

Rao who caught company where purchased the land send to the Satyavathi.

Schedule land was register in the name of Satyavathi and Kondala Rao with the supervision of D2 and Syamala Rao. Syamala Rao is only person to look- after the land. 1st plaintiff kidnapped the Srinivasa Rao some where then

Kondala rao and satyavathi sent to the Venkata Rama Raju. Kondala Rao and Satyavathi along with their children went to the Mumbai along with family.

1st plaintiff is the care taker of the children. 1st plaintiff is also lived with the family along with two children faraway to the company and residence of

56

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. 1st plaintiff lived with third wife in Mumbai by name Krishna veni. 1st plaintiff plea is that Satyavthi is 4th wife. He admitted that he is married her consent of Kondala Rao, there are no documents of prove. He does not know already married the women is an offence.

3rd para in cross examination of P.W1 as follows:

It is not true to suggest that I filed guardian O.P before Hon’ble II

Addl.District court for custody of plaintiff No.2 and 3 herein and in the said O.P court was imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- against me as it is a false claim.

49.After death of Kondala Rao company of the 1st plaintiff sold use of rowdy of Mumbai. D2 having information through the somebody at Mumbai and try to go-to the Mumbai there . 1st plaintiff gave a waiving to the D2 . D2 obtain the letter from to the Mumbai Superintendent of police it is also marked as exhibit. Property sold but 1st plaintiff are not own take then returned to

Munganda village along with his children. After death of Satyavathi and

Kondala rao and next person who is the 1st plaintiff to see the welfare of children so called Srinivasa rao acquittance with them on that he reached to the Mungada after the same time went to the Munganda D2 some rowdy brought their document form the house of D2, D2 gave a report to the

Allavaram police. On enquiry of the police he submitted some waste papers unuseful papers kept with him. After some time he filed the suits in EA 2006 paper O.P.No.60 of 2006 and it was dismissed and imposed 10,000/- fine after file made before the court O.P.NO.60 of 2006 on 05-06-2006 with help of open documents and it was numbered as O.S.No.148 of 2011 suit summons received came on contest before the court. 1st plaintiff and 1st counsel K.P

Achari Kothapeta advocate attached the defendant not appear before the

Court then they filed the complaint before the town police station ad registered a crime against the 1st plaintiff and his counsel after that K.Acharyulu kept that the same of plaintiffs are the subsequently forged will that is containing the 5 pages scribe not examined attestors of brother of the 1st plaintiff.

57

Rokkala Satyavathi informed me that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Satyavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram Village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. I do not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. I do not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. I do not know reason for non registration of the Will at

Amalapuram.

PW3 is the Yalamandala , P.W.2 came from Hyderabad acted as attestors Satyavathi name is inserted OS no 46 of 1996 finding is there heard the family was clear. Another person has no right half share except the document consist specifically return the share already sent to the signatures to the expert. Standards signatures for expect accepted and the same to the expert. Will is preparing,. Both Kondala Rao and Satyavathi are there instead of believe executed a will why he executed a registered will on 27-07-1997 from the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the guardian of elder Srinivasarao. After the death of Kondala Rao, children got by the 1st plaintiff because of very close to the children Srinvasarao Kondala Rao threat filed the suit O.S.No. 74 of 2005 by injunction against the 1st plaintiff of the rowdies. After death fo Srinivasa rao he obtained passbook in his name with M.R.O. Baby Gnanamba manage and get the passbook sold away to the Ganapathi. He used to force occupied the land he want to sold the property and get over the property to him. Which they G.P.A., G.P.A. property why the D1 executed in favour of D2 so many loans are there remain creditors are coming to the Durga from the death of her

58

husband Srinivasa Rao. Suit is pending and it was withdrawn , G.P.A.

executed in favour of D2 to the clear the lands for the Srinivasarao died very earlier stage said Durga also small person, 2nd marriage was performed to her that he executed GPA left form the Rokkala family, she did not leave the property to the Rokkala family. Because she personally left the property now suit property in the hands of D2 who purchased the Srinivasarao and Kondala

Rao GPA property with D2 because clear the loans with his names of D2 as guarantor of D1. 1st plaintiff filed the suit ATC cases. Those are dismissed for default. When he obtained the false passbook from MRO, D2 filed the petition

before the RDO Amalapuram RDO dismissed the appeal, filed before the Joint

collector that was allowed marked as Ex.A18. Then the GPA holder not there. When the G.P.A. holder execution of G.P.A. no claim was made by

G.P.A. The G.P.A. holder in the name of D2 remaining schedule property

Ex.A1 to A5 properties are themselves having the properties some of the defendants not appear before the Court.

O.S.No 2 of 2019

50.Ganapathi having the sale deed filed the injunction suit before the principle Junior Civil Judges Court said suit transferred renumbered as 2 2019. but now it self said Ganapathi have no where the property only because of 1st plaintiff rowdisam executed a sale deed in favour of Ganapathi.

Rowdisam at Amalapuram not outside of Amalapuram. D2 filed the petition

before the R.D.O. cancellation of Pattadhar passbook. D2 also filed the

present suit cancellation of sale deed. Passbooks cancel. When the passbooks are not correct the sale is not invalid. D2 filed the suit O.S.No 288 of 2014 cancel the sale deed in favour of Ganapathi. When the 1st plaintiff sold the land to the Ganapathi and the 2nd plaintiff asked the same amount from the 1st plaintiff. S2 get the P.W.2 he was died only for information. Pw1 marriage is love marriage at Haryana never appear before the Court after the death fo p2 wife and children added but she went to the parents house, she got married except 1st plaintiff no persons is there they never appear before

59

the Court there are three suits depending on un-registered will here. When the Ex.A5 correct from the hands of Kondala Rao when the Kondala Rao agreed the signature as attestor Kondala Rao not to execute registered will

dated 22-07-1997. Unregistered will co-inside when the registered will to less

value by the Pw1. With the help of Pw2 and 3 it was created it is the illegal and improper. Whether the 1st plaintiff is having right to file the suit already filed the proper OP it was dismissed in the year 2010 on payment of fine.

Later filed the present suit finally it was numbered as 248 of 2011. they shifted the family from Mumbai to Ullankurru against to get the property at

Yentrikona and Relligadda. Both children in hand because after death of

Kondala Rao, 1st plaintiff is only person doing care taker at Kothapeta Achari filed the suit numbered the suit. The schedule property sold by the Kondala

Rao and Srinivasa Rao to the defendants they are having passbook and sale deed, possession and enjoyment except G.P.A. it was written by the Durga who is the wife of deceased Srinivasa Rao in favour of D2 on shadow of

Ex.A5, suit was filed. D1 and D2 suits while retrieving when they attended

before the court the counsel of P.W.1 with rowdies not attended before the

Court and filed the report at Police station case was registered against the

Acharya and P.W.1. Advocate left the case since then another advocate.

P.W.1 also filed tenancy cases they were dismissed for default. On final warning of the case prepared the written statement and filed in the suit.

Marraige of the Satyavathi she belongs to the SC community. P.W.1 belongs to the Settibalija community P.W.1 is the 5th wife name is Krishnaveni, 4th wife is

Rokkala Satyavathi 3rd wife married in the year 1991 at Mumbai consent of her husband Kondala rao there is no documentary proof to that effect not known the offence. 4th wife . Satyavathi is 5th wife created Ex.A5 is not legal improper created by P.W.1. Ex.A5 false entire suit is the false regarding to the signatures of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao. R.S.Rao is not signature of Satyavathi, Mumbai.It permissible husband name is in the name of wife. It is not permissible A.P, in Maharastra first is the name, 2nd one is the father name, 3rd one is the surname. When the

60

Ex.A5 executed by Satyavathi Kondala Rao signed on that as a attestors and know the contents what is necessity of Kondala Rao executed a registered will in favor of P2 and P3. Ex.A5 Kondala Rao executed a will in favour of P2 and

P3 . Ex.A7 is the right, Ex.A5 is the false now directed to file the suit for their shares but the plaintiff No.2 who is have died. 1st plaintiff sold the property to one Ganapathi rao and asked the same amount to the 1st plaintiff . Who is bet him he was died, his wife and children are added the plaintiffs now the wife was married boy was adopted somebody minor. 3rd plaintiff got married at

Haryana so they are not claim any property absence of the G.P.A. holder let the property who is the having the possession and enjoyment, D2 is the owner of the property. District Collector made enquiry three years and cancel the passbook in the name of Pw1 even not preferred the appeal then order of the

District Collector no schedule property but no partition in the suit 248 is liable to be dismiss. Cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of

Ganapathi , he belongs to the Kapu Community, Konkapalli rowdy, Pw1 thought that said Ganapathi is handed over the plan to the D2 but it is not possible to him his property is in the possession and enjoyment of D2.

Registration based on the passbook . Passbook cancel by the District

Collector in that effect Vemala rao filed the suit to cancel the sale deed.

O.S.No.2 of 2019

On the basis of sale deed the injunction was G.P.A. was not canceled executed and left the Durga possession of D2 injunction not entitled.

Clubbing of suits and common evidence:- on perusal of the record in O.S.No.288 of 2014 docket order dated 02-03-2019 as follows:- as per orders on Memo in S.R.No.967 2019 dated 02-03-2019, the suit in

O.S.No,288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 clubbed with O.S.No.248 of 2011 on the file of this court treating the evidence already adduced in O.S.No.248 of 2011 is the evidence in other two suits and to record further evidence in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 along with O.S.No.248 of 2011 for joint trial posted to 08-

03-2019.

61

P.W.1 Chief affidavit filed. 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1.cheif affidavit treated as cheif exmination of P.W.1 after confrontation by the plaintiffs counsel. he deposed same facts in his evidence in the same facts of their suit in the plaint and written statements. In common suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011.

During cross examination the learned defendant No.2 to 4 counsel confront that he is of resident of Munganda, He is a cycle mechanic. In the year 1974 He went to Bombay along with his family. He resided till 2004 at

Bombai. He used to work in a company at Bombai in Amardal chemicals id at

Sahad, Ullasnagar Municipality. he had own house at Sahad, Ullasnagar

Municipality. he had six children out of them one son died. His first wife

Mahendravati is native of Bombai. His 2nd wife Rama Girija is native,

Bodasakurru through my two wives he begotten four children l.e, two children each-wife.

At present that is on the date of evidence he is living one Krishnaveni, who is my third wife since 2004. Witness adds that that the said Krishnaveni is his fourth wife. One Rokkala Satyavathi is his third wife. He married her in the year 1991 in Bombai. He married her with the consent of her husband by name Kondala Rao. There is no getting momage documentary proof like certificates to that effect. He does not know marring the already married woman is an offence.

The surname of Rokkala Satyavathi was not changed as Mattaparti

Satyavathi after marrying him. He does not know know since her surname was not changed as such, she is not his wife. The children, Santhosa

Lakshmi and Srinivasa Rao begotten by Rokkala Satyavathi through her husband are no way concerned to to him. P.W.1 denied a suggest that one krishnameraju was not blessed with said Rokkala Satyavathi through him.

There is a birth certificate to show that the sald Krishnama Raju born through him said Rokkala Satyavathi at Ullasanagar Municipality. He filed birth certificate to that effect. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he did not file such birth

62

certificate into the court. I P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Krishnamaraju was born to Rokkla Satyvathi and Kondala Rao but not through me. There is a birth certificate to show that he blessed with one Bhagya Sri through Rokkala

Satyvathi and he filed the same into the court. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he did not file the said certificate into the court.

P.W.1 denied a suggest that in the year 1994 I was removed from the company where he worked, then he joined in the company of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. P.W.1 denied a suggest that by that time Bhagya Sri and

Krishnamraju were children by then.

The said Rokkala Satyavathi died in an accident. P.W.1 denied a suggeston that after demise of said Satyavathi he looked after her children as her husband Kondala Rao fell ill, by taking advantage of the said situation in order to grab their property situated at Bombal he hatched a plan. P.W.1 denied a suggest that as a part of my plan he created un registered will said to be executed by Satyavathi dated 9-5-1997 under Ex A5 P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Satyavathi used to sign as R. Satyavathi, but not as

R.S. Rao. P.W.1 denied a suggest that the signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao was forged on Ex A5. P.W.1 denied a suggest that the said Rokkala

Satyavathi and her husband and Kondala Rao never visited Pothavaram and there was no necessity to try to visit the said place.

P.W.1 denied a suggest that when the sald kondala Rao fell ill, he took the children of said Kondala Rao to the house of defendant No 2 and assaulted him and taken away the all the documents on 6-7-1998. P.W.1 admitted that a case in Cr.No.6 of 1998 was registered at Allavaram police station against him Under sections 448, 323, 506 I.P.C. and he was arrested in connection with the said crime. P.W.1 denied a suggest that he filed guardian O.P. before Hon'ble II Additional here in on District court for custody of plaintiff No 2 and 3 in the present-suit and in the said O.P. court was imposed fine of Rs 10,000/- against him as it is a false claim.

63

P.W.1 filed all original documents in this case. The said documents were given by Rokkala Satyavathi. she did not hand over the said documents. After demise of said Rokkala Satyavathi, her husband brought the said documents to the house of defendant No 2 at that time, he forcibly taken away the said documents due to which a criminal case was also registered against him.

Witness adds that criminal case was filed with regard to another reason. P.W.1 admitted that the signature of Rokkala Satyavathi contained on Ex A4 on the rear side of third page and the signatures contained on Ex.A5are different.

Ex.A5was executed at Pothavaram of Gannavaram Mandal. Muliganda village is also situated in Gannavaram Mandal. Rokkata Slätyavathi is resident of

Yentrikona of Allavaram Mandal since the said Bkkala Sätyävät Visiting our

House at Pothavaram Village and the scribe was our Village, as such Ex.A5 was also available in our at our village. "It is not was executed at our true to suggest olat he sald Rokkala Satyavathi did not visit our Pothavaram Contents "Village. It is true, as per the contentions of Ex.A5 In the first paragraph of first page the surname Mattaparthi was inserted. he does not know the said word was not Inserted by the scribe of Ex.A5 and it was contained different hand writing. P.W.1 denied a suggetion that Kondala Rao never signed on Ex.A5 and the signature contained on Ex. A5 is not that of Kondala Rao. Attestors of

Ex.A5 are my brother-in-laws. one is resident of Ambajipeta and another is resident of Chirathapudi. It is not true to suggest that the scribe of Ex.A5 is is in the habit of scribing any false 10 document by receiving amount. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that the death certificate filed by him were obtained by the son of Kondala Rao.

It is true, after demise of Rokkala Satyavathi her husband Kondala Rao executed a will by bequeathing his properties to his four children. As per the contents of said will his elder son Rokkala Srinivas was appointed as a guardian plaintiff Nos 2 and 3. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that while he was selling away the properties of Rokkala Kondala Rao situated at Mumbai and by receiving the said information, he came to Mumbai by obtaining police

64

protection from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad on 27-08- 1998. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he sold away the entire material of his shop and he behaved high handedly against him due to which he got shock and died. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that after demise of said Kondala

Rao he brought the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and changed their surnames and joined in the schools by stating that they born through him.

P.W.1 is admitted that Rokkala Srinivasa Rao filed a suit against him in

O.S.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

P.W.1 denied a suggestion that, after demise of said Srinivasarao, his wife not pressed the said suit. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that, after dismissed of the said suit, he misrepresented before concerned Mandal Revenue Officer and obtained pattadar passbook to an extent of Ac.02-21 cents. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that there a specific mention in said pattadar passbook that as per the orders in O.S. No.74 of 2005 pass books were issued. P.W1.admitted that 2 defendant filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer by challenging the said pattadar pass books. P.W.1 admitted that basing on the said pattadar pass book he filed O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram and obtained injunction orders. As per the said orders, Revenue

Divisional Officer, dismissed the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant.

P.W.1 admitted that some part of the above said property was sold away by him. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he also sold the remaining extent to the rowdy persons as he could not enter into the said property as he has no right. all the A.T.C cases filed by me were dismissed for default. It is true, a case in crime No.72 of 2012 was registered against me, one Moturi

Satyanarayana and his pleader K.B.Achary by alleging that they threatened the defendant No.2. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that,since 2010 by taking the advice of said K.B.Achary, advocate of Kothapeta he created entire record filed in this case. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that Kondala Rao never consented to change the surnames of plaintiff No.2 and 3. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that P.W.1 and Plaintiff No.2 and 3 were not entitled for the

65

properties of Kondalar Rao and Rokkala Satyavathi in view of will executed by

Kondala Rao. P.W.1 admitted that Plaintiff No.2 died. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he sold away the property and did not give share to him then he made quarrel with me at that time he beat him and kill him. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he performed the marriage of 3rd plaintiff with the person who was already married. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he performed the said marriage in order to grab the property and to get rid of her. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is not entitled to file the present suit and the suit is not maintainable and he will not get any right over the suit schedule property. D5 not cross examine the P.W.1. Reported Nil.

In Re-Examination plaintiff counsel confronted that:- Satyavathi used to sign as R.S. Rao, Rokkala Satyavathirao and R. Satyavathi.

Re-Cross-Examination by Sri K.S.N.: confronted that he filed documentary proof to show that the Satyavathi signed as R.S. Rao.P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not file any document to that effect and if any document filed said signature was put by him.

P.W.2 Chief affidavit filed. 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1.cheif affidavit treated as chief examination of P.W.2. he deposed same facts deposed by the P.W.1 in his evidence. In commmon suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011. He is third party to the suit. As plaintiffs he is attestor of

will Ex.A5. He is brother in law of the P.W.1. P.W.2 deposed that at this stage witness by going through the Ex.A5 stated that it contains his signature as 1st attester singed on Ex.A5 was executed in his presence and after going through its contents, testator singed on Ex.A5 in his presence. Tester witnessed while attesting Ex/A5 by himself, husband of tester by name

Kondala Rao and one Dhanaanjaya, one Terrapradada prakasa Rao is the scribe of Ex.A.5

During the cross examination D2 toD4 counsel confronted that he is working as mechanic at Ambajipeta. He is the husband of elder sister of 1st plaintiff. 1st plaintiff used to reside in Bombay. P.W.2 admitted that he used to

66

work in small companies at Bombay subsequently, he established a mechanic shop. It is not true to suggest that he never established mechanic shop at

Bombay. He wen5t Bombay previously. He did not work in the mechanic shop of 1st plaintiff. He went to Bombay in the year 1984-85, subsequently he did not visit the said plaice. Yanamadala Dhanajaya Rao (P.W.3) is my co-son-in- law. he know Rokkala Satyavathi from the date of her marriage with the 1st plaintiff. he does not remember the date of said marriage.P.W.1 admitted that the said Rokkala Satyavathi had husband by name Kondala Rao and through him, she got two children. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that they had four children and born at Mumbai.

Rokkala Satyavathi informed him that her 1st husband given permission to marry the plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Rokkala

Satyavathi took place at Mumbai. I did not attend to the said marriage. I came to know about the said marriage through 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that the 1st husband of Rokkala Satyavathi did not give any permission to marry the 1st plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were born to the Rokkala Satyavathi through her 1st husband Kondala Rao.

51.A Will was executed on 09-05-1997 at Pothavaram village. At that time, myself, 1st plaintiff, Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were present. The said Will was prepared as per the instructions of said Rokkala Satyavathi. He does not know when the said Satyavathi died after execution of said Will. He does not know the reason why the signature of Kondala Rao was not obtained as one of the testator. He does not know reason for non registration of the Will at Amalapuram.

P.W.2 denied a suggestion that on 09.05.1997 Rokkala Satyavathi did not execute Will on 09.05.1997 at Pothavaram village and her husband

Kondala Rao was also not present at that time. P.W.1 was not present at the time of execution of said Will. The said Rokkala Satyavathi did not bring her daughter Santhosha Lakshmi at the time of execution of Will. He does not know the particulars of the properties owned by the said Satyavathi.

67

He does not know when the 2nd plaintiff was died but he died due to disease. He know the same. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that 1st plaintiff killed him by beating on his ear. By the date of execution of said Will P.W.3 was at

Chiratapudi. It is not true to suggest that Rokkala Satyavathi has no knowledge about Chiratapudi, Pothavaram, Munganda and Ambajipeta villages and myself, 1st plaintiff and others created the said Will. It is not true to suggest that since 1st plaintiff is my brother-in-law, He is deposing false to support his contention. He does not know about filing of criminal case against

P.W.2 and others.

P.W.2 denied a suggestion that P.W.2 had three wives and he used to stay along with his 3rd wife at Bombay.P.W.2 denied a suggestion that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. P.W.2 denied a suggestion that after demise of Rokkala Satyavathi P.W.2 obtained my signature on the Will and he is deposing false in support of the contention of P.W.2. He does not know while he is staying at Bombay P.W.2 was residing with which wife. He cannot say for how long P.W.2 stayed at Bombay. He does not know with which wife he went to Bombay.

52.During Cross examination by Defendant No.5 counsel confronted that

R. Satyavathi asked him to sign on the Will. Execution of Will was completed by 6.00 p.m. At first he signed on the said Will, then Rokkala Kondala Rao signed. The said Satyavathi signed at five places on the Will. He signed at one place only. The said Satyavathi witnessed when he signed on the said

Will, he also witnessed while Satyavathi signing on the said Will. The said

Satyavathi signed as "R.S.Rao". He has seen the said signature on the said date only as R.S.Rao and he never seen prior to that. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that the said Will is a created one and not genuine document.

P.W.3 Chief affidavit filed. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff , Third party examined as P.W.3. Cheif affidavit treated as cheif examination of P.W.3.

he deposed same facts deposed by the P.W.2 and P.W.3 in his evidence. In common suits after cubed two suits in O.S.No.248 of 2011. on his instructions

68

only in his Chief examination affidavit was prepared and he know its contents and the signatures theree on are him. He is 3rd party in the suit. No exhibits marked. He is 3rd attester oof Ex.A5. Ex.A5 contains his signature The contents of Ex.A5 were read over to him on the date of its execution. Along with him P.W.2, R.Kondala Rao were attested, one Gopala Krishna Murthy was the scribe of Ex.A5, in their presence the testator of Ex.A5 singed after read over its contents to her.

During Cross examination D2 to D4 counsel. On my instructions only my Chief examination affidavit was prepared and he know its contents and the signatures there on are him. I am the 3rd party herein. No exhibits marked.

I am 3rd attester of Ex.A5. Ex.A5 contains my signature. The contents of

Ex.A5 were read over to me on the date of its execution. Along with me P.W.2,

R. Kondala Rao were attested, one Gopala Krishna Murthy was the scribe of

Ex.A5, in our presence the testator of Ex.A5 signed after read over its contents to her.

During Cross examination of P.W.3 Defeendants 2 to 4 counsel confronted that P.W.1 is my brother-in-law, P.W.2 is my co-son-in-law. he has been residing at Tanuku since 2015. he do not know between whom there is a dispute in the suit. P.W.1 informed me that with the permission of Kondala Rao he got married Rokkala Satyavathi. P.W.1 informed me that with the consent of Kondala Rao only he got married Rokkala Satyavathi. P.W.1 did not Invite him for the sald marriage. P.W.1 did not inform him the place of said marriage.

On 09-05-1997 the said Satyavathi executed a Will. He does not know for how long she was alive after execution of said Will. The said Will was executed at Pothavaram village. At the time of execution of said Will, P.W.2,

Kondala Rao, P.W.2 were only present. One Gopalakrishna was the scribe of said Will and it was prepared as per the instructions of Satyavathi. P.W.1 was not present at the time. On the date of execution of said Will only he has seen the said Satyavathi and Kondala Rao.

69

P.W.3 denied a suggestion that no 'Will was executed as stated in my chief examination. P.W.3 denied a suggestion that myself, P.W.1, P.W.2 and others were created the said Will. He know one Krishnam Raju, who is son of

P.W.1, who is no more at present. He does not know the reason for his death.

P.W.3 denied a suggestion that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and he is deposing false.P.W.3 denied a suggestion that only in order to support the case of the 1st plaintiff and I am deposing false.

Cross examination by the D5 counsel confronted that Basing on the documents given by the Satyvathi the scribe of Will was prepared the same. It took two hours time for its preparation. At first P.W.2 signed on the said Will, then Kondalarão and P.W.3 were signed. The said Satyavathi signed as "Rokkala Satyavathi Rao vralu". He witnessed while she was signing on the said Will, likewise she also witnessed while she was attesting the Will. The said Will consisting of five pages and he signed on the last page. On all five pages the said Satyavathi he signed. P.W.3 denied a suggestion that due to the relationship with P.W.1 am deposing false.

To prove case plaintiffs, to support of the plaintiffs case to substantiate document writer examined as P.W.4 he deposed in his chief examination he received witness summons in this matter from the court. I am a document writer. He has been working as document writer since 1993. Whenever he scribed any document he used to make an endorsement to that effect on the said document. If any document contained said endorsement and my signature, it can be said that he scribed the said document. All the documents scribed by him are genuine documents. The name contained on Ex.A7 as scribe is mine. Ex.A7 is a registered document. At the time of registration of document there is no need of presence of the scribe. Ex.A7 was scribed about 21 years back. By going through the Ex.A7 he re-collected my memory. he does not remember the each and every document which was scribed by him, but by going through the document he can re-collect his memory. As per the contents of Ex.A7 Rokkala Kondala Rao signed as an executant and

70

Katikidala Nageswara Rao and Sape Hema Sundara Rao attested the said document. He came to the court to speak about the said document.

During Cross examination of P.W.4 the learned D2 to D4 counsel confronted that Rokkala Kondala Rao who is executant of Ex A7 and attesters came to me on the date of Ex.A7. After scribing Ex A7 1 handed over the document to them to submit the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar but he did not attend before the Sub-Registrar for registration. Except the property in survey No.83/4 Ac.1-00 cents there is no mention about the particulars and extents of remaining properties covered by Ex.A7. As per the recitals of Ex.A7 by the date of enforcement of Ex.A7 if the beneficiary No.2 and 3 were minors, then the beneficiary No.1 has to act as a guardian.

To prove Defendants 2 to 4 case. D.W.1 Chief affidavit filed. 2nd defendant examined as D.W.1. chief affidavit treated as chief examination of

D.W.1. he deposed same facts in his written statement, deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the the D2 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of D.W.1. In common suits after clubbed two suits in

O.S.No.248 of 2011.

During the cross examination of D.W.1, D5 counsel confronted that

One Satyavathi is the wife of Rokkala Kondala Rao, who used to reside at

Bombay. Both are no more at present and they died. One Santhosha Lakshmi and one Srinivasa Rao are the children born through said Satyavathi and

Rokkala Kondala Rao. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the children born to Satyavathi through first plaintiff. The entire suit schedule properties belonging to Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Defendant

No.5 is resident of Yentrukona Village.

D.W.1 admitted that the said Rokkala Kondala Rao and his four children sold Ac.0-12 cents covered by R.S.No.163/6 of Yentrukona village to defendant No.5 under registered sale deed dated 16-07-1998. Witness adds that the said Kondala Rao sold the said property by showing his children as minors. D.W.1 admitted that by the date of said sale transaction marriage of

71

Santhosha Lakshmi was performed. He does not know whether she joined as a party to the said deed. D.W.1 admitted that the said property has been in possession and enjoyment of defendant No.5 till today. Initially on 26-11-2019 cross examination of the plaintiffs treated as nil on absence of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs counsel.

During the cross examination of D.W.1. D5 counsel further cross examined as per orders in I.A.No.64 of 2020 in O.S..No.248 of 2011.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Kondala Rao was used suffering-with illness. D.W.1 admitted that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramanaraju (the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2011 used to reside at Mumbai under Rokkala Kondala Rao.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as Rokkala Kondala Rao used to suffer with illness his wife Satyavathi developed illicit intimacy with P.W.1. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that both P.W.1 and Satyavathi used to behave like wife and husband. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that both P.W.1 and Satyavathi used to maintain illicit intimacy with the permission of Kondala Rao and out of their relationship they have begotten Krishnamraju and Bhagyasri (2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in O.S.No. 248 of 2011).

D.W.1 admitted that O.S.No. 248 of 2011 has been filed by Venkata

Raju and others against him and others seeking partition over plaint schedule property. 1st defendant by name Durga was made set exparte in this suit and she did not file any written statement. Part of the plaint schedule property was sold by deceased Kondala Rao and his son to D.4 to D.6 in O.S.No. 248 of 2011. he cannot say the details of the sale deeds executed by Kondala Rao and his son and extents also. In some of the documents deceased Kondala

Rao subscribed as an executant and some of the documents his son

Srinivasa Rao subscribed the signatures as executant. Witness volunteers that both Kondala Rao and his son executed a document in favour of D.5

Veerraju and D.6 Ramakrishna (in O.S.No.248 of 2011). This suit O.S.No.248 of 2011 was filed by Venkata Raju, Krishnam Raju and Bhagyasri. It is true that the suit is filed was in the year 2010 and registered in the year 2011. I

72

filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Suda

Ganapathi (D.4) in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 in respect of an extent of Ac.0-58 cents out of Ac.1-06 cents in RS No.147/4 and Ac.0-54 cents in R.S.No.147/5.

Since Venkatarama Raju have no right to execute document in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2014 He filed suit for cancellation of sale deed, dated 08-08-2014. He filed the suit for cancellation of document executed by D.1 to D.3 in O.S.No.248 of 2014. Venkata Ramaraju is not having any right over the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 but obtained Pattadar pass book over the property and basing on the said pattadar pass book he has executed sale deed in favour of Ganapathi and

D.W.1 having right over the property under G.P.A. as such He filed suit for cancellation of the document. D.W.1 admitted that he preferred an appeal

before Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in

favour of P.W.1 and the same was dismissed. Witness adds that his appeal was dismissed with a direction to approach before the Collector. D.W.1 admitted that P.W.1 contested the above said appeal before Revenue

Divisional Officer and the same is dismissed on 18-09-2017 that it is not maintainable before Revenue Divisional Officer. It is not true to suggest that he did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order passed by Revenue

Divisional Officer. Witness adds that he filed an application before District

Collector in the year 2017. he is having proof that He filed an application

before District Collector. He did not file any document before this Court to

prove that he filed an application before District Collector. He did not implead the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.248 of 2011 application filed before

District Collector. D.W.1 admitted that Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju,

Krishnamraju and Ganapathi filed a Suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court against him and others and the same was

transferred to this Court and renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2019. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as on the date of filing of O.S.No.17 of 2015 the 3rd defendant Bhagyasri is not available, she was shown as defendant in the said

73

suit. D.W.1 admitted that 2nd plaintiff herein is died, leaving 4th and 5th plaintiffs as legal heirs.

As a General Power of Attorney Holder executed by Rokkala Durga, he is having right over the plaint schedule properties in three suits. He did not mention in all the three suits being a General Power of Attorney holder, he is claiming right over the plaint schedule property. He has taken a plea in all the three suits that, He got right over the plaint schedule properties as a General

Power of Attorney holder. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he has mentioned in his chief examination that Rokkala Durga executed General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and that he is contesting the suits basing on the General Power of Attorney. He filed General

Power of Attorney befşore this Court. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there is no General Power of Attorney is in existence and He did not file any General

Power of Attomey in his favour in all the three suits. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that without possessing or filing of the General Power of Attorney, he has no right over the plaint schedule property. The Rokkala Durga might have in existence. Witness adds that Rokkala Durga is in Komaragiripatnam.

D.W.1 admitted that the Rokkala Durga was shown as 1st defendant in

O.S.No. 248 of 2011 and she did not file any statement in this suit.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B1 is not issued by Rokkala Durga.

D.W.1 admitted that It is true that D5 herein I.e Rokkala Durga has attended in the suit in her personal capacity. Except filing Ex.B1 General Power of

Attorney he did not entered into any transactions including court litigations on behalf of Rokkala Durga representing her in pursuance of Ex.B1.D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B1 is not useful for any purpose. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is not claiming any right over the properties in O.S.288 of 2014, 248 of 2011 and 2 of 2019 on my personal capacity except the properties are the properties of Kondala Rao. Durga etc., the learned plaintiffs counsel aruged that he filed suit O.S.288 of 2014 against Mattaparthi

Venkataramaraju and others in my personal capacity. He gave

74

instructions to my counsel to prepare his written statement. D.W.1

admitted that in his personal capacity filed the suit. What is his interest

in the suit schedule property has to be explained by him.

The contents in para No.4 in O.S.No.288 of 2014 are true. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no where claimed in O.S.No.288 of 2014 that he is having having right over the suit schedule property, D.W.1 admitted that Ex B1 pattadar pass book and title deed stands in the name Rokkala Kondala Rao.

Ex.B3 the petition submitted by him to Revenue Divisional Officer.,D.W.1 denied a suggestion that after conducting enquiry in M.C.171 of 2012 rejected his application stating that he has no right over the schedule property. D.W.1 admitted the Tahsildar who has issued Ex.B4 belongs to his caste. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that by influencing the Tahsildar the report was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer., D.W.1 admited that the Revenue

Divisional Officer., did not consider the report submitted by Tahsildar under

Ex.B4. Ex.B5 to Ex.B8 relates to A.T.C. filed by 1st plaintiff against me and some others. Witness volunteers that the 1st plaintiff herein had withdrawn

A.T.C.No.1 of 2011, 2 of 2011, 12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006. He is not a complainant in Ex.B9 and his name is not figured in Ex.B9. The suit

O.S.No.74 of 2005 was not pressed by Rokkala Srinivasarao S/o Kondala

Rao Witness again says that O.S.No.74 of 2005 was not pressed by wife of

Rokkala Srinivasa Rao.

The learned plaintiffs counsel aruged that D.W.1 admited that Ex A1

sale deed dated 04-09-1991 executed in favour of Kondala Rao and his

wife Satyavathi. Witness adds that he purchased the property under

Ex.A1 in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He is am an attestor

or identifying witness of Ex A1. There is no recital in Ex.A1, he provided

consideration or at my instance Ex.Al was executed In favour of Kondala Rao

and Satyavathi. D.W.1 admited that Ex.A1 to A4 stands in the name of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi. He is not an attestor or identifying witness in Ex A1 to A4

or Ex. A1 to A4 do not reflect that he paid consideration or on his instance the documents has been registered in

75

the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion

that Ex.A5 is executed by Rokkala Satyavathi. D.W.1 admitted that

Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-07-1997. At is true that Ex.A7 is

Registered Will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao. As per Ex.A8 Study

certificate plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children of 1 st plaintiff. Witness adds that

Ex A8 got prepared by the plaintiffs. Ex.A9 is death certificate of Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao. A notice under Ex.A10 has been issued by plaintiffs to

him and others. He has issued a reply notice to the above notice. One

Rajeswara Rao, Advocate issued notice on our behalf under EX.A12. She is aware that a paper publication under Ex.A11 has been published by the plaintiffs in Andhra jyothi A notice under Ex.A13 has been issued on behalf of the plaintiffs and a reply notice under EX.A14 was issued by them. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as per EX A4 and A7 wills dated 26-02-1992 and 26-05-1998 the entire property bequeathed to plaintiffs 2 and 3 except Ac.1-00 land bequeathed to Santhosh Lakshmi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that

Ex.A4 and A7 were executed in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 by appointing 1st plaintiff as guardian as plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors by then. On behalf of

Rokkala Durga, myself and Arigela Satyanarayana, Sriramulu,

Venkateswararao, K.Durga Prasad, he gave instructions to prepare notice under Ex.A14. While preparing Ex.A14, he furnished true facts to the counsel.

D.W.1 admitted that Ex A14 notice they have mentioned that due to acquittance with Kondala Rao's family Ist plaintiff (O.S.N0.248 of 2011) developed illicit contact with Satyavathi who is no other than the wife of

Kondala Rao and begot one son and one daughter i.e., plaintiffs 2 and 3 (Bhagyasri and Krishnamraju) in O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no way connected with schedule properties in

O.S.Nos.248 of 2011, 288 of 2014 and O.S.2 of 2019. It is not true to suggest that taking advantage that he belong to S.C. S.T caste threatening them that he will file S.C. S.T Atrocity Case against them and preventing the the plaintiffs

76

2019. D.W.1 admitted that s in O.S.No.248 of 2011 and plaintiffs in O.S.2 of 2019, D.W.1 admitted that 2 of 2019 an injunction order passed by Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Amalapuram (Old Suit No.17 of 2015 against him and the said

injunction order is in force till now. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that though an injunction order was passed against me he is interfering and illegally violating the orders passed by the court from the date of passing of injunction Order

Cross examined by the plaintiffs counsel to the D.W.1 Sape

Satyanarayana is his son. Villa Bhagyasree is his niece. Villa Bhagyasree is claiming that she is the daughter of Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju and

Satyavathi. D.W.1 admitted that 2nd plaintiff Mattaparthi Krishnam Raju died.

He does not know plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of deceased 2nd plaintiff. He does not know plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein filed a suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram against him and another seeking permanent injunction. D.W.1 admitted that an injunction order was passed against him and his son in O.S.No.17 of 2015 and he engaged an advocate in the said suit. The said suit O.S.No.17 of 2015 was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2019 and he is continuing with the same counsel engaged in O.S.No.2 of 2019 and the injunction order is continued. The plaintiffs herein sought injunction in O.S.No.17 of 2015 in respect of the schedule mentioned therein. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that

He am disobeying the orders order passed in O.S.No. 17 of 2015. He know the documents filed by plaintiffs in O.S.No 17 of 2015 (O.S.No. 2 of 2019). He know the plaintiffs herein filed pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of 1st plaintiff herein. He filed one ATC No.10 of 1996 claiming my leasehold rights against Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao, who are the original owners of the property. He does not know the A.T.C. No. 10 of 1996 was dismissed. Ex.B.11 is petition copy in A.T.C.10 of 1996 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's court Amalapuram. (marked during the course of

cross examination by D.5). D.W.1 admitted that as Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi are the owners of the schedule property in A.T,C.10 of 96, he filed

77

A.T.C. against Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He came to know that the plaintiffs herein sold away item Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 to 3rd plaintiff (Suda Ganapathi) in O.S No.2 of 19 vide sale deed dated 08-0-2014. It is true that I filed a suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed dated 08- 08-2014. D.W.1 admitted that the name of 1 plaintiff No.1 herein was mutated in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.248 of 2011. Witness adds that though revenue records are issue they are not genuine. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is no way concerned to the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No. 288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 in order to grab the properties, I am making hectic efforts.

The learned plaintiff counsel argued that He has four sisters. He is

the only male issue. The mother of 2 nd plaintiff Satyavathi is his younger

sister. D.W.1 remaining sisters are Venkata Lakshmi and Pushpavathi are

no more, another sister Nagamma is alive. He never interfered in the

property affairs of his remaining sisters. his sister Nagamma is residing

at Allavaram. he received documents filed by the plaintiff along with suit

summons. He did not personally read the plaint copy. He received copy

of unregistered will, one copy of sale deed and two notices along with

the summons. He only contesting the suit against the unregistered will

Ex.A.5. The plaint copy and the copy of Ex.A.5 and other documents

were read over to me. He does after not remember how many days he

received documents from the Court, he narrated to the case to his

counsel. He did not make any enquiry prior to filing of his written

statement whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are genuine or

not. Contents of his plaint are not correct. He gave instructions to his

counsel to prepare written statement that the contents of plaint are not

correct. Deceased Satyavathi studied up to 5 th class. Satyavathi got

married in the year 1973. As on the date of his age, the husband of

Satyavathi Kondala Rao was at Mumbai. The native place of Kondala

Rao is Ventrukona of Allavaram. There is 10 years age gap between

78

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. As on the date of marriage, Satyavathi was

aged about 20 years and Kondala Rao is aged about 35 years. Kondala

Rao is older than me, he is 5 years elder than Satyavathi. The marriage

of Satyavathi was performed at Mumbai and she lead conjugal life at

Mumbai after marriage. Satyavathi is a signatory, D.W.1 denied a suggest

that Satyavathi used to sign as "R.S. Rao". Witness adds that she used to sign as 'R.Satyavathi'. Now he did not possess the pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of Satyavathi. He witnessed while the Satyavathi signed in a sale transaction in favour of Satyavathi. The document Ex.A.4 contains the signature of Satyavathi, he could identify the signature of

Satyayathi on pursuing the document. Ex.A.4 the witness identified the signature of Satyavathi on the 3rd page back side of Ex.A.4 sale deed, dated 26-02-1992. Kondala Rao used to sign in Telugu and English. He do not know the Satyavathi received pass book from revenue authorities by acknowledging the same. D.W.1 admitted that deceased Satyavathi was the owner of AC.0- 58 cents in R.S.NO.147/11, Ac.0-54 cents in R.S.NO.147/5, Ac.0.27 cents in

R.S.NO.163/6, Ac.1.09 cents in R.S.NO.146/4, Ac.0-80cetns in R.S.NO.106/5,

Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.83/4, AC.0-54 cents R.S.No.140/5 and she was in possession of the same properties. D.W.1 admitted that Ac.0-27 cents in

R.S.No.173/6 was shown as plaint 'A' schedule property in O.S.No.248 of 11.

It is true that the plaint 'B' schedule property in O.S.No.248 of 11 were jointly purchased by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He did not possess any documents containing the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. The 1st plaintiff is native of Munganda. He does not know the avocation of 1st plaintiff

Venkatarama Raju. He does not know when the 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju went to Mumbai, but he came to know that he was at Mumbai in the year 1993-94. The 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju had worked under Kondala Rao for 3 years at Mumbai. During the life time of Satyavathi the 1st plaintiff

Venkataramaraju discontinued from service. The deceased Satyavathi died due to fire accident. After the death of Satyavathi the work shop was closed

79

due to fire accident. After discontinuing services, the Kondala Rao came to

Ventrukona. He has own Ac.3-00 cents of land. He was given pattadar pass books and title deeds also. He signed before revenue authorities acknowledging the pattadar pass books and title deeds. Satyavathi was present while execution of Ex.A.4 sale deed. He is not an attestor on Ex.A.4.

Ex.A.4 does not reflect his presence on the date of execution of Ex.A.4. He purchased stamp papers for sale transaction under Ex.A.4 in the name of

Kondala Rao . On the date of execution of Ex.A.4 Kondala Rao is not present. He witnessed her while deceased Satyavathi subscribed his signature on Ex.A.1. He know deceased Satyavathi also sign as 'R.S.Rao'.

D.W.1 admitted that the plaint 'A' properties in O.S.NO.248 of 2011 was in the name of Satyavathi and she was the original owner of plaint 'A' schedule property and Satyavathi and Kondala Rao were joint owners of plaint 'B' schedule property. There are no differences between Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi. He delivered the plaint A and B schedule properties to Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi in the year 1996since then they had been in possession of the suit schedule properties and enjoyed the suit schedule properties. He could identify the signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao. He witness while

Kondala Rao or signing on documents used in regular transactions in company affairs. He never acted as identifying witness for the signature of

Kondala Rao on any documents and there is no such occasion. He witnessed the signature of Kondala Rao lastly in the year 1998. He witnessed the signature of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao in the year 1998. He does not know whether the 1st plaintiff Venkataramaraju possess any empty papers containing the signatures of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi as R.S.Rao. He know the meaning of forgery and if the person signs the signature of others it is termed as forged. He does not know forgery means one person must sign the signature of Satyavathi as R.S.Rao, The Santhoshi Lakshmi daughter of

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi might have the documents containing the signatures of Satyavathi.

80

The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that D.W.1 admitted that there are disputes between Sathoshi Lakshmi, Srinivasa Rao and 1st plaintiff herein.

Either Santhoshi Lakshmi or Srinivasarao are not supporting the contest of 1st plaintiff. 1st plaintiff may forged the signature of Satyavathi. He did not mention in his written statement specifically that the 1st plaintiff

Venkataramaraju forged the signature of Satyavathi. 1st plaintiff does not know the name of father of Kondala Rao. My father is Sape Gangayya.

Satyavathi died in June, 1997 while she was aged about 38 or 39 years.

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that the Satyavathi was residing along with

Kondala Rao in Mumbai since 22 years prior to her death. D.W.1 admitted that husband of Santhoshi Lakshimi is a Christian. D.W.1 admitted that though the marriage of Santhoshi Lakshimi was performed as per Christian rituals they presented Pasupukumkama usual. Satyavathi was hale and healthy on the date of her death. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are my nephew and niece. D.W.1 denied a suggestion the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born to Satyavathi through 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 admitted fthat he has mentioned that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that in

Ex.A.12 reply notice, he agreed that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein were born to

Satyavathi through 1st plaintiff herein. In Ex.A.5 will it is referred that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born through 1st plaintiff. He know the contents of Ex.A.5 will. D.W.1 admitted that an extent of Ac.1-41 cents in R.S.

No.83/4 stood in the name of Satyavathi. The boundaries regarding the properties in Ex.A.5 is not correct. It is true that Kondala Rao and Satyavathi was jointly purchased Ac.1-09 cents in R.S.No.146/4. The properties mentioned in Ex.A.5 are in existence. D.W.1 admitted that the properties referred in Ex.A.5 will were purchased by Satyavathi and some properties purchased by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. On 09-05-1997 he was at

Ventrukona. He never visited Pothavaram. D.W.1 admitted that he filed

A.T.C. to declare me as a tenant in respect of B schedule property against

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Witness adds that since some persons trying to

81

encroach the property he was advised by Kondala Rao and Satyavathi to file

A.T.C. against them. The 1st plaintiff herein also one of the persons tried to occupy the property. Neither Kondala Rao nor Satyavathi obstructed my enjoyment at any time. The 1 plaintiff Ramaraju is not a party in A.T.C. He does not remember the name of counsel of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi in

A.T.C. No.10 of 97, but my counsel is one Prabhakararao. The A.T.C. is pending till Satyavathi and Kondala Rao arrived to Allavaram. I did not engage the counsel of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi in A.T.C. D.W.1 admitted that the

A.T.C. was compromised and as per the terms he handed over the property to Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. He did not reveal that he filed A.T.C against

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi as there is no such occasion arise. D.W.1 denied a suggestionthat in order to grab the property of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi, he filed A.T.C. and the same was contested by them. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there are disputes between D.W.1 and Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and no amicable relations.

The learned plaintiffs counsel argued that He did not go through

Ex.A.5 will personally.As per the document, the signature of the testator

on Ex.A.5 will is 'R.S. Rao'. "The document contains the signature of

testator in all pages. He did not possess any documents containing the

signature of Satyavathi as RS Rao. He does do not know P.W.2

Satyanarayana. He does not know P.W.2 is the co-brother of P.W.1. P.W.3

is also relative of P.W.1 According to him, one advocate Yerrapragada

Gopalakrishna Murty of Gopalapuram got scribed Ex.A.5 will. As per

Ex.A.5 will it was scribed at Pothavaram. he was not present at the time of preparation of Ex.A.5 will. The signature shown to him on Ex.A.5 will is not the signature of Kondala Rao. He filed the registered will in the year 1998 filed

before this court. He does not know who forged the signature of Kondala Rao

in Ex.A.5. The signature of Rokkala Kondala Rao generally like the signature in Ex.A.5. He could file petition to send the document for expert for comparison of signature of Kondala Rao. He has no enmity with P.Ws.2 and 3.

82

D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he has enmity with P.W.s.2 and 3, they has no necessity to depose against him, he does not know whether he repudiate the signature of Kondala Rao in Ex.A.5 in his statement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that Satyavathi used to

sign as R.S.Rao similar to the signature on Ex.A.5. It is not true suggest

that after go through the contents of Ex.A.5 will the Satyathi subscribed

her signature on Ex.A.5 will and P.Ws.2 and 3 and Kondala Rao

witnessed the execution of will Ex.A.5 by Satyathi and thereafter they

subscribed their signatures on Ex.A.5 will. he does not know whether his counsel put any questions to P.W.2 and 3 denying the signatures of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi in Ex.A.5 will. The wife of Srinivasarao is 1st defendant/Rokkala Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggestion I has no personal interest over the plaint schedule properties. Witness adds that he purchased

Ac.3-00 out of plaint B schedule property. he possess document evidencing he purchase of Ac.3-00 of land, but did not file before any document to the

Court. He purchased the Ac.3.00 of land from 1st defendant herein prior to suit. D.1 Durga sold Ac.3-00 of land to discharge her debts. He discharged the debts and obtained vouchers from before the creditors, but he did not file any vouchers from the Court. He did not mention in my written statement before filing of suit he purchased AC.3-00 cents. D.1 herein executed General

Power of Attorney in his favour in the year 2008 to manage the properties.

The General Power of Attorney does not reflects the details of the properties, but there is a mention of all properties. The Ac.3-00 of above land was also included in the properties referred in General Power of Attorney. The husband of D.1 Srinivasa Rao died in the year 2008. Balla Sriramulu is father of D.1.

He does not know the Rokkala Durga after the demise of Srinivasarao married another person G.Krishna Murthy. They noticed that name of D.1 is mentioned as G.Durga wife of Krishnamurthy in the plaint. They did not mention in the written statement that the Rokkala Durga till now is the widow of Srinivasarao and she is not the wife of Krishna Murthy.

83

He filed a petition 1.A.No.780 of 2019 to receive Ex.B9 and Ex.B10. He does not remember in I.A.780 of 2019, He referred the Mataparthi Bhagyasri i.e., 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.348 of 2011 as daughter of Venkata Ramaraju (1st plaintiff in O.S.No.348 of 2011). P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he referred the 1st defendant Gullinka Durga as wife of Krishna murthy in the said I.A. after perusal of the petition in I.A.No.782 of 2019 the witness admitted that the

Mataparthi Bhagyasri was shown as daughter of Venkata Ramaraju in Ι.Α.No 782 of 2019 and Gullinka Durga was shown as wife of Krishna murthy. The husband of Gullinka Durga i.e.. Srinivasa Rao has filed a suit for is pending executed Ex.B1 Power of Attorney in respect of the properties shown in on

O.S.No.74 of 2005. As the date of execution of Ex.B1, the suit O.S.No.248 of

2011 is not in existence. One suit O.S.No.60 of 2006 was filed by the 1st plaintiff herein. Witness adds that the suit O.S.No.60 of 2006, it is not original suit. It is oringial petition, initially filed as pauper suit and the same is numbered in the year 2011 as O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.1 admitted the suit

O.S.No.74 of 2005 was filed in respect of the properties situated in

R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.00-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents in total Ac.2-21 cents. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as per Ex.B1 the General Power of Attorney was executed in respect of the above three properties. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as Ex.B1 executed in respect of the property mentioned in O.S.74 of 2005 only and basing on Ex.B1 he has no right to give evidence on behalf of

Rokkala Durga (D1) in this suit. There is no specific mentioned to give evidence in Ex.B1 but in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that the power of attorney was given to all the affairs. From the date of execution of Ex.B1 he has been looking after the property affairs of Rokkala Durga on her behalf. D.W.1 admitted that in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that he has to make all affairs on behalf of Durga and account for the income also. He did not maintain any accounts regarding properties of Durga from 2008 till date. No special power of attorney was executed by Durga except Ex.B1 to give evidence in the suit. It is true

84

that there is a recital in Ex.B1 Power of Attorney that if he did not act as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B1, she has right to cancel the same. I did not file any other documents that he acted as per Ex.B1 and any other transactions under Ex.B1. On the date of execution Ex.B1 was registered. Srinivasa Rao died in the year 2005. Srinivasa Rao died three years prior to execution of Ex.B1. From the date of death of Srinivasa Rao and till Ex.B1 came into existence the Rokkala Durga herself look after all her properties affairs. Now Rokkala Durga is residing at Komarigiripatnam. Now the Rokkala Durga is aged approximately 35 years. As on the date of execution of Ex.B1 the age of Durga is 25 years. Now Durga is hale and healthy. Since the matter O.S.No.74 of 2005 was went to upto Hon'b'le High

Court the Durga executed Ex.B1 as she is unable to look after the case affairs alone. As on the date of Ex.B1 Durga is healthy. There is no mentioned in

Ex.B1 because the health condition of Durga is not well she is executing

Ex.B1. Balla Sriramulu and Dorababu is alive. The scribe of Ex.B1 is Geddala

Laxmanarao of Thurpulanka of Allavaram Mandal. The Sriramulu and

Dorababu is not my relatives. There is no record that he paid taxes on behalf of Durga or managed the properties of Durga. The Durga herself not pressed

O.S.No.74 of 2005 in the year 2010. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Rokkala

Durga never executed Ex.B1 and Ex.B1 never acted upon. The revenue records are in possession of 1st defendant herein and husband. The Rokkala

Kondala Rao could sign in English or in Telugu. It bear original Will dated 26-05-1998 was filed by Srinivasa Rao in Court. Since the original Will

dated 26-05-1998 was misplaced in the Court records the same was not

returned back. He did not possess the original Will dated 26-05-1998. Ex.B3 report was given to Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 24-11-2012. he sought cancellation of revenue records issued in the name of plaintiffs 2 and 3 under

Ex.B3. As on the date of giving report under Ex.B3, the General Power of

Attorney Ex.B1 is in subsistence. The copy of Ex.B1 enclosed to Ex.B3 while giving report. D.W.1 admitted that as per Ex.B3 report, the report was given by

85

me. No enquiry was conducted on my report Ex.B3 as the same was misplaced in the revenue office. Subsequently Ex.B3, he again gave a report to Revenue Divisional Officer. He have given reports to Revenue Divisional

Officer thrice which were misplaced thereupon he gave a report to District

Collector. All three reports were given to Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of revenue records issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 but he cannot say all the facts mentioned in the three reports were same. The report under Ex.B3 was given regarding the properties referred in EX.B1. He filed report before Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of revenue records issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of

Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of

AC.1-09 cents in total Ac.2.21 cents. The properties in R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents are not reflected in plaint schedule property in

O.S.No.248 of 2011. The Tahsildar recommended the Amalapuram to cancel

the pattadar pass book issued in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of

R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of AC.1-09 cents under Ex.B4. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that the report given under Ex.B3 and Report given by Tahsildar under Ex.B4 are no way connected to the suit. He does not know Arigela

Satyanarayana son of Venkataratnam. Witness again stated that he know the

Satyanarayana resident of Komaragiripatnam. D.W.1 admitted that the said

Mataparthi Venkata Ramaraju on behalf of his minor children A.T.C.No.13 of 2016 for delivery of possession an extent of AC.1-00. He is not a party in

A.T.C.13 of 2006. After receiving summons in A.T.C.No. 13 of 2006 the Arigela

Satyanarayana met him. The Aregila Satyanarayana is his own son in law.

Now residing at Yatrikona. The Arigela Satyanarayna engaged counsel in

A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 by name T.V.Prasada Rao and Mataparthi Venkata

Ramaraju engaged counsel by name K.V.Acharyulu. No enquiry was

86

conducted in A.T.C.No.13 of 2006. D.W.1 admitted that A.T.C.No. 13/2006 was dismissed for default. Arigela Satyanarayana handed over the copy of EX,B5 to me. as the A.T.C.No. 13 of 2006 is not disposed on merits he has no right to seek relief basing on A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 in the suit. The A.T.C.No. 12 of 2006 (Ex.B6) was filed against him by 1st plaintiff herein. He does not remember the extent of the property mentioned in Ex.B6. The property refereed in A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 is wet land. He received notice copy in

A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 and engaged Advocates Sri V.Rajeswara Rao and Sri

N.Mallikarjuna Rao and filed my counter.he did not file the copy of counter in

A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 in the suit. The counter copy in A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 is not filed in the suit. In the counters filed in A.T.C.Nos.12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006 we have mentioned the plaint schedule properties are not correct. It is not true to suggest that we did not take any plea in A.T.C.Nos.12 of 2006 and 13 of 2006 that the plaint schedule and the boundaries are not correct, as such he did not file the counter copies in the suit. A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 was dismissed for default. It is not true to suggest that as A.T.C. 13 of 2006 was dismissed without contesting the petition. He cannot claim any right basing on the A.T.C.13 of 2006. A.T.C.No. 1 of 2011 was filed against Arigela

Satyanarayana. He is not a party in A.T.C No.1 of 2011. He filed the copy

EX.B5 to 88 to show that the 1st plaintiff having a habit of filing cases. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he did not file the petition copy except schedule in EX.B7 the court cannot rely on Ex.B7. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as

Ex.B8 is incomplete document the same cannot be looked into.

The suit O.S.74 of 2005 was filed by Rokkala Srinivasa Rao seeking injunction against 1st plaintiff and others. Since there was no disputes regarding the property for period of two years after the matter was filed before

Hon'ble High Court, the Rokkala Durga not pressed the suit, He did not file the

not press memo filed in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as the record is not traced out

before the Court. The Rokkala Srinivasa Rao engaged one V.R.J.Rao initially

in O.S.No.74 of 2005. She has obtained the certified copy of Ex.B10. He is

87

not a party in O.S.No.74 of 2005. Subsequently the Durga changed the counsel Yelangi Satyanarayana and he not pressed the suit. The plaintiffs herein filed their written statement in O.S.No.74 of 2005. Two properties out of three properties in O.S.No.74 of 2005 was sold away and after getting knowledge he filed suit O.S.No..288 of 2014. An extent of Ac.1-12 cents in

R.S. No.147/4 and 147/5 were sold. The property in R.S.146/4 in an extent of

Ac.1-09 cents is not sold. Neither Rokkala Srinivasa Rao nor Rokkala Durga is ever in possession of the property mentioned in O.S.No.74 of 2005 as such the Rokkala Durga withdrew the suit O.S.No.74 of 2005. The Revenue

Divisional Officer, Amalapuram did not cancel the revenue records in issued in favour of Mataparthi Venkata Ramaraju.

The appeal preferred by him against the orders in M.C.No.171 of 2012 are pending before Collector, Kakinada. It is not true to suggest that as the Ist plaintiff herein is in possession and enjoyment of R.S.No.147/4 in an extent of

Ac.0-58 cents, 147/5 in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents and in 146/4 in an extent of

AC.1-09 cents, no action was initiated to cancel the revenue records. Ex.B9 is

Photostat copy but not original. He got Ex.B9 from Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and

Durga. While handover Ex.B9 Srinivasa Rao was alive. They did not mention about Ex.B9 in my written statement. Rokkala Kondala Rao informed to

Deputy Commissioner of Police that Mataparthi Venkataramaraju was harassing Kondala Rao by occupying his properties as such the Deputy

Commissioner addressed a letter to Station House Officer, Tana District. He does not know whether Kondala Rao given a written report to D.C of

Hyderabad. Basing on Ex.B9 case was registered and a case was closed after death of Kondala Rao. He did not file any document to show that a case was registered basing on Ex.B9. D.W.1 that Ex.B9 denied a suggestion that Ex.B9 was issued by influencing the police people and contents of Ex.B9 are not correct.

He did not mention in my chief examination whether any action is taken in pursuance of Ex.B.9. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that after the demise of

88

Kondala Rao They got created Ex.B.9 by influence. As on the date of death,

Kondala Rao is hale and healthy. Kondala Rao died on 25-09-1998. He does not know the sumame of Narsimhamurthy. He never go through the document executed in favour of Suda Ganapathi (3 plaintiff in O.S.No. 2 of 2019). The

Suda Ganapthi obtained sale deed for an extent of Ac.1-12 cents from plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S. No.248 of 2011. Ihe did not obtain the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed in favour of Suda Ganapathi. He filed a suit for cancellation of the document sale deed dated 08-08-2014 in

O.S.No.288 of 2014 against Suda Ganapathi and Venkata Ramaraju. He did

not file any documents in O.S.No. 288 of 2014. Since Suda Ganapathi obtained the sale deed without any right of his vendor, he filed suit

O.S.NO.288 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed. He is not an attestor or

executant of sale deed dated 08.08.2014. D.W.1 admitted that in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 there is a reference of will dated 09-05-1997 (Ex.A.5).

He did not sought for the relief of cancellation of Ex.A.5 will. He was supplied copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 basing on the said document He filed the suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 for cancellation. He does not know whether Rokkala

Durga has obtained the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. He does not remember who has applied to sub registrar office for obtaining the certified copy of sale deed dated 08-08-2014. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he has no right to seek cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014, as he not a party to the said document. There is no registered document in his name in respect of the property covered under the sale deed dated 08-08-2014.

Witness adds that he has obtained a power of attorney. Since Ex.B.1 was executed by Rokkala Durga he got filed O.S.No. 288 of 2018. He filed suit O.S.No. 288 of 2014 as an agent of Rokkala Durga. they have

mentioned in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 he filed the suit under the capacity of

General Power of Attorney holder of Rokkala Durga. He signed on the

plaint in O.S.No. 288 of 2014 on my personal capacity, but not an agent

of Rokkala Durga. The Rokkala Durga did not issue any affidavit that a

89

General Power of Attorney was executed in his favour which is in

substance in O.S.NO.288 of 2014. It is not true to suggest that as he filed

suit O.S.NO.288 of 2014 on his personal capacity but not on behalf of

Rokkala Durga, O.S.NO.288 of 2014 is not maintainable. D.W.1 admitted that the boundaries in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 and the boundaries referred in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 are same. Witness adds that he referred the land as dry land, but in sale deed dated 08-08-2014 it is wet land. He does not know the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 08-08-2014 so also the attestors of the sale deed. He does not know when the sale deed

dated 08-08-2014 was executed. It is not true to suggest that as I am not

having any right over petition schedule property in O.S.NO.288 of 2014 he has no right to file any suit. Rokkala Durga has no knowledge that he filed suit

O.S.NO.288 of 2014. Rokkala Durga did not present while he was giving

instructions to the counsel at the time of filing suit O.S.NO.288 of 2014. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he filed suit Ο.S.ΝΟ.288 of 2014 without knowledge of Rokkala Durga and prosecuting the suit as such the suit is not maintainable. He know Veligetla Veerraju. The Veligetla Veerraju D.5 herein is made exparte without contest. Rokkala Satyavathi predeceased the Rokkala

Srinivasarao. Rokkala Satyavathi died before Kondala Rao. Rokkala Kondala

Rao has a plot and work shop at Mumbai. The above property was worth of

Rs.38,00,000/-as on 1998. The said property was sold by Venkata Ramaraju.

He did not inform to the counsel that Mattaparpthu Venkata Ramaraju was sold plot and workshop at Mumbai and brought the amount. After the death of

Satyavathi, Kondala Rao returned to Ventrukona. By the time Kondala Rao was healthy. He did not inform to my counsel the Kondala Rao fell sick after he left to Mumbai and came to Ventrukona. Since defendant No.5 is also one of the purchaser, the plaintiffs impleaded them as parties. He did not see the sale deed in the name of 5th defendant. 5th defendant does not belong to my caste and he belongs to Gowda caste and he is a paddy tapper. D.W.1 denied a suggestion no document was executed in favour of 5th defendant by

90

Rokkala Kondala Rao. D.W.1 denied a suggestion as the D.5 got created a fake document in his favour he is not contesting this suit with a fear that truth will come out. They did not tally the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi with the signatures in Ex.A.5. He could identify the signatures if any one signs in my presence. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that if any person did not subscribe the signature in his presence, He could not identify the signature. He know in the plaint O.S.NO.248 of 2014 the plaintiffs have taken a plea that the original pattadar pass books and title deed books issue in the name of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi are in my possession. D.W.1 admitted that we did not mention in my written statement that the original pattadar pass books and title deed books issued in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi are not in my possession. D.W.1 admitted that they filed pattadar pass books and title deed issued in the name of Kondalrao (Ex.B.2) in this suit. Since all the properties are in possession of Kondala Rao after the demise of Satyavathi and all the properties are mutated in the name of

Kondala Rao He did not file revenue records and pattadar pass books of

Satyavathi. It is not true to suggest that we suppressed the title books and pattadar pass books issued in the name of Satyavathi as the said revenue records contains the signatures of Satyavathi and if we produce the same, the said signatures will tally the signatures in Ex.A.5. He could file the documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao. He do not know the details of the documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao.

He did not mention the available documents containing the signatures of R.S.Rao in petition filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act to send the will

dated 09-05-1997 for comparison to the expert. He does not know the nature

of documents containing the signatures of Rokkala Satyavathi. He did not file the documents containing the admitted signature of Rokkala Satyavathi along with written statement. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that they did not possess any documents containing the admitted signature and subsequently, They created some documents and making attempts to send the created

91

documents to the expert. He could secure the documents containing the signatures of writings of Satyavathi, but the said documents are not registered documents. At present, he could not say the nature of documents containing the signatures of Satyavathi without verification. Santhosha Lakshmi daughter of Kondala Rao. He is not going to examine Santhosha Lakshmi. The

Bhagyalakshmi daughter of Kondala Rao got married residing at Haryana.

Bhagya Leashmi name is not correct. The 2nd plaintiff Krishnamaraju died in the year 2015 while he was aged 22 years. In Ο.S.ΝΟ.288 of 2014 the defendants 2 and 3 therein were referred as the children of 1st defendant. He came to know that 2nd defendant died as he committed suicide because there was a dispute between D.1 and D.2 with regard to selling of the properties. He informed to my counsel that D.1 Venkataramaraju killed D.2 Krishnamraju.

Eedi Krishnarao and Moturi Satyanarayana, who are residents of Ventrukona and went to They Munganda and informed me that D.1 killed D.2. We did not call me to go to Munganda but on enquiry they informed me that D.1 killed

D.2. Witness again stated that Eedi Krishnarao and Moturi Satyanarayana informed that Krishnamaraju died as he committed suicide. No police case was registered against the 1st plaintiff. He informed to the counsel the dispute between 1st plaintiff and deceased 2nd plaintiff for amount. Munganda is a big village. He never visited the house of plaintiffs, but I know his house, there are houses surrounding the house of 1st plaintiff. D.W.1 denied suggestion that his evidence that D.1 killed D.2 is false. D.W.1 denied suggestion that that though Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will Ex.A 5 we are taking false pleadings that will was created. 3rd defendant is his son. Along with me D.3 also contesting the suit. D.4 purchased some property from Srinivasa Rao.

D.4 died. After he was exparte in this suit he died. We did not refer regarding the land purchased by D.4 in written statement. I did not file the will dated 04.07.1998 before the Court. It is not true to suggest that in view of Ex.A.5 will plaintiffs are entitled 'A' schedule property and half share out of plaint 'B'

92

schedule property. D.W.1 denied suggestion that he is deposing false evidence.

In further chief examination through D.W.1 Ex.B16 is Proceedings of

Revenue Divisional of Joint Collector in Dis No. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema

District, Amalapuram as per orders in I.A.No.546 0f 2024 dated 26-11-2024.

During further Cross-examination by Sri. N.V.S. Advocate on behalf of plaintiffs: he does not remember the R.S. Nos mentioned in the Ex.B16.

Ex.B16 proceedings an extent of Ac 2-21 cents of the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 288 of 2014. Ex.B16 is no way concerned to the O.S. No. 248 of 2011 plaint schedule property. He do not know Joint Collector issue a notice to the Suda Ganapathi for cancellation of pattadhar Passbook under Ex.B16.

He filed the suit before the court against Suda Ganapathi O.S. No. 2 of 2019 for cancellation of sale deed. It is true that basing on the O.S No. 2 of 2019 filed against Suda Ganapathi, Revenue Appeal was preferred under Ex.B16.

He did not mentioned the name of Suda Ganapathi in Appeal before the Joint

Collector in Ex.B16 petition. After passed the Orders by the Tahsildar

Allavaram then I questioned the Tahsildar Subba Rao about issuing the

Pattadhar passbook in favour of Pw1 after transfer of the then Tahsildar of

Allavaram. Subba Rao Tahsildar recommended to R.D.O to cancel the

Pattadhar Passbook issued by the Baby Jnanamba the then Tahsildar of

Allavaram in favour of P.W.1. he has no document in my favour an extent single cent relating to the property under Ex.B16. Vakkala is not correct,

Rokkala Durga issued a General Power of attorney in favour me. In the Power of attorney given by the Rokkala Durga in favour of me to look after the

Revenue proceedings before the R.D.O. He participated in the Revenue proceedings before the Joint Collector basing on the G.P.A. in favour of me executed by the Rokkala Durga. In the all revenue proceedings he put my signature as a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of Rokkala Durga. He produced the General Power of Attorney in the Revenue Proceedings at Joint

Collector Amalapuram and M.R.O. Allavaram.He filed the G.P.A in the present

93

suit. Rokkala Durga is alive. She is resident of Komaragiripatnam. Rokkala

Durga is not accompanied with him to the Revenue Court at any time. In the year 2012 Pattadhar passbook was issued in favour of P.W.1. He saw the photostat copy of Revenue pattadhar passbook of P.W.1. Rokkala Durga is executed General Power of Attorney in favour me for all purpose not for specific purpose. Ex.B16 schedule property is in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi w/o Kondala Rao. Original Sale deed dated 26-02-1992 of Rokkala

Satyavathi is in the custody of P.W.1. plaintiffs 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in favour of Suda Ganapathi of Ex.B15. Rokkala Durga is aged about 35 years.

She is having two children. One male and one female. Rokkala Srinivasa Rao is the husband of Durga. Rokkala Srinivasa Rao is no more, he was died in the year 2005. Rokkala Durga is not having issues through the Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao. Ullintha Krishna Murthy is the 2nd husband of Rokkala Durga.

he does not know Rokkala Durga gave a birth to the two children of through her 2nd husband. Rokkala Durga is not willing to come to the Court to depose as a witness. He did not inform to the Rokkala Durga about the Civil Court litigation, Revenue Court proceedings and pending of cases before the Court.

From the date of proceedings of R.D.O Court and Tahsildar Allavaram Durga is the wife of Ullintha Subba Rao. In the year 2008 Ullintha Durga executed a

Power of attorney in favour of me after the death of her 1st husband. Ullintha

Durga is having brothers and sisters. Present surname of Durga is Ulilntha after she married the Subba Rao. Ullinga durga is not executed power of attorney in favour of me after changed her surname from Rokkala to Ullinga.

On the date of filing of the suits Rokkala Srinivasa Rao was no more. No

General Power of attorney taken by me from the Rokkala Durga @ Ullintha

Durga. He have not filed the permission petition before the R.D.O. Court as power of attorney holder to look-after the R.D.O. court proceedings on behalf of Rokkala Durga. He has not filed the petition before the court and Rule 32

Civil Rules of Practice permission to proceed in the cases on behalf of

Rokkala Durga as a power of attorney holder. He has no documentary

94

evidence to show property covered under Ex.B16 convey to the Rokkala

Durga. He did not inform to the Joint Collector through my counsel Rokkala

Durga her surname was changed as ullintha Durga after she married the 2nd husband, after death of 1st husband. D.W.1 admitted that R.D.O Amalapuram dismissed the Appeal on orders of Tahsildar of Allavaram. D.W.1 admitted that after enquiry by the R.D.O then said appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. He filed the Revision before the Joint collector on dismissal of

R.D.O Appeal. He filed the writ petition No. 10657 of 2022 before the Hon'ble

High Court of A.P. Said writ petition was allowed in favour of him. He gone through the order in the writ petition 10657 of 2022. he know that Hon'ble High

Court gave a direction to dispose of the revision after Issued the notice to all effected parties. Sudha Ganapathi is also one of the effected party because he purchased the under Ex.B16. Joint collector did not issue the notice in the revision petition to the Suda Ganapathi. Suda Ganapathi name is not in the proceedings of Joint Collector under Ex.B16. P.W.1 not purchased the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 248 of 2011 for that he preferred the Appeal

before the R.D.O Amalapuram for cancellation of pattadha passbook in favour

of P.W.1. he made a application to the Tahsildar Allavaram issued the pattadhae passbook in my favour. He did not produce the document to show my right over the plaint schedule property in O.S. No, 248 of 2011. No pattadhar passbook was issued in the name of Rokkala Durga because He is having power of attorney from the Rokkala Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggesion that Ex.B16 proceedings is not valid because of said proceedings issued.

D.W.1 admitted in his individual name. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not prefer the revision as G.P.A. on behalf of Rokkala or Ullintha Durga. D.W.1 denied a suggesttion that he is not the real owner over the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 248 of 2011.D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Rokkala

Durga or Ullintha Durga is not the real owner of plaint schedule property OS 248 of 2011. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he along with Rokkala Ullinka

Durga is not having right over the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 denied a

95

suggestion that P.W.1 and Suda Ganapathi are the real owners, they are having the right over the plaint schedule property. He does not know the

Katha number of pattadhar passbook issued in the name of P.W.1. He can read in Telugu language. Ex.B15 containing the Katha number 923945 relating to Ex.B16 property was delivered to the Suda Ganapathi. D.W.1 admitted that as per Ex.b16 proceedings Joint Collector Amalapuram issued a direction for cancellation of Pattadhar passbook of P.W.1, at R.D.O. office cancellation not made which is still pending at R.D.O for cancellation of pattadhar passbook of

P.W.1. As per Ex.B16 R.D.O not cancelled the pattadhar passbook of P.W.1. it is not shows R.D.O cancel the pattadhar passbook of Ex.B16. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that Ex.B16 basing on that he is deposing before the court he is in a possession and title in favour of him of Ex.B16 schedule property. D.W.1 admitted that Ex.B16 proceedings not implemented till now it is pending

R.D.O. Amalapuram.

D.W.2 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.2. Chief affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.2. D.W.2, deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.2. In common suits after clubbed two suits in O.S.No.248 of 2011. D.W.2 deposed in his evidence he is one of boundary holder of plaint schedule property. D.W.1 is brother of Satyavathi. When they are in Bombay and having business Vemala Rao stayed there with them to help in the business.

When they got purchased the properties at Yentrukona they asked Vemala

Rao to see the property. Then returned to his house and developed the property of them and purchased additional properties with the help of Vemala

Rao. Vemala Rao used to purchases properties in the village through his sister and her husband/ The entire property is in the possession and enjoyment of Vemala Rao. Since long time. Kondala Rao is having four children i.e. santosha Lakhimi, Srinivasa Rao, Krisham Raju and

Bhagalakshmi. After the marriage of srinivasa Rao came down Yentukona to see the properties.

96

My age is 65 years. He is doing cultivation. He is having Ac.0-50 cents of dry land and Ac.0-50 cents of wet land at Yentrikona. He has three daughters and one son. three daughters got married and his son is doing cultivation along with him. The property is self acquired property of his father.

D.W.2 and his brother partitioned the property of his father. He does not know his survey number. Due to his old age his remembrance was shorten. He is spending most of his time at his house and cattle due to old age. D.W.2 son is looking after the cultivation. While preparing his chief examination the counsel inquired him. D.W.1 was present while his chief examination was prepared.

He did not ask the D.W.1 from how long back the suit is pending. So also he did not enquire about the parties. he does not know in which suit he is giving evidence out of the three suits.

The boundaries of his wet land East: Pulasiganti Mangamma, West

Peyyala Satyanarayana, South Kummarlamanyam, North Pasarala

Sayanarayana. The boundries of his dry land and wet land and same. D.W.2 wet land and dry land abetting each. He did not enquire about the survey number of the suit schedule property D.W.2 land is situated on the boundary of land purchased by Suda Ganapathi. D.W.2 admitted that his land is one

of the boundary of the property purchased by Suda Danapathi sale deed

dated 08-08-2014. The land covered under sale deed dated 08-08-2014 is

Ac.01-12 cents. The boundaries of the property covered under the sale

deed dated. 08-08-2014 East: Vithanala Srinivasarao, West and North:

Vithanala Baby and Vithanala Krishnadasu, South: Irrigation canal. It is

not true to suggest that am not having any land on any boundary how

the property purchased by Suda Ganapathi. He did not state to the counsel except his land is situated on the boundary of land of Suda Ganapathi D.W.1 and Satyavathi are brother and sister. D.W.1 has another sister who is no more he does not know the name of other sister it might be Mangadevi. He did not state to the counsel the relation between Satyavathi and Vemalarao.

97

He did not state to the counsel that Satyavathi were at Bombay and they purchased the property.

He came to the court to give evidence pertains to the own

properties of D.W.1 but not the properties of Satyavathi. D.W.1 is his

distant relative. He does not know the age of D.W.1. From the date of

filing of suits to till giving my chief affidavit, D.W.1 never informed about

the suit affairs. D.W.1 informed him one week prior to preparation of his

chief examination to give evidence. He does not remember when his

chief affidavit was prepared but he has signed on his chief examination

at Yentrikona. D.W.2 denied a suggestion that he does not know anything about the suit affairs and at the behest of D.W.1 and he is deposing false evidence. D2 to D4 adopted cross examination of D1.

D.W.3 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.3. Cheif affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.3. D.W.3 deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.3. D.W.2 and D.W.3 deposed same evidence with out deviation. That is argued by the plaintiffs counsel.

During Cross examination of D.W.3 confronted by the Plaintiffs counsel that D.W.1 name is Satyanarayana only. he has no other name. He is doing cultivation on his own and lease. D.W.3 land is an ancestral land. They are 5 brothers, except one all are alive. D.W.3 brothers partitioned properties and one acre fallen to his share. D.W.3 land is situated at Rellugadda. D.W.3 properties are situated at Rellugadda. He is approximately 60 years. He does not know English. The 1st defendant instructed the counsel to prepare his chief affidavit and on his instructions his chief affidavit prepared and he signed on it. The contents of his chief affidavit are not read over to him. he does not know the contents of his chief examination.

He has no relation with D.W.1. he used to attend for coolie work under

D.W.1. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that as he is working under D.W.1 he came to Court today. He does not know the extent of the disputed property. He

98

does not know the names of plaintiffs and defendants in this suit. He does not know the reason for filing of this suit. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that though he is not aware about this case facts, at the behest of the D.1, he came to the Court. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he did not own any lands and he is only eking livelihood and doing coolie work under D.W.1. He did not state to the counsel that he has own one acre land and he has own one acre on lease.

D.W.3 denied a suggestion that the contents of his chief examination is false.

D5 adopted cross examination of plaintiffs.

D.W.4 Chief affidavit filed. 3rd party examined as D.W.4. Chief affidavit treated as chief examination of D.W.4. D.W.4 deposed as his evidence that was confronted by the D1 to D4 counsel, then treated as chief examination of

D.W.4. D.W.2 t0 D.W.4 deposed same evidence with out deviation. That is argued by the plaintiffs counsel.

During cross examination of plaintiff counsel confronted that argued that D.W.4 age is 52. D.W.4 is Chandrarao. One Nakka Satyanarayana Son

of Venkanna is his village. He did not bring my aaddar card today. He

residence is Ventrikona. He is an illiterate. he does not own any lands

and he is living by coolie work, he is having 3 daughters, already

married. Presently he residing as wife is no more. D.W.4 parents are

also no more. He did not give any instructions to his counsel while

giving my chief examination. He is a farm servant of D.W1. D.W1 got

typed my chief examination in the presence of his counsel thereupon he

signed on his chief examination. He was informed that to subscribe his

signature on chief examination stating that nothing was wrong it. He

does not know the contents in his chief examination. D.W.4 denied a

suggestion that by taking money he is deposing false evidence.

Deputy Tahsildar examined as D.W.5. He deposed that on the date of evidence Tashildar allavarm to give evidence. He brought the true copies of enquiry report dated 24-11-2014 EX,B12 is true copy of the enquiry report,

dated 24-11-2014 marked subject to objection.Ex.B13 is true copy of the

99

enquiry report dated 25-01-2020.Ex.B14 is the letter address by Tahsildar to the District Collector dated 03-08-2017 marked subject to objection.

D.W.5 admitted that he has no personal knowledge except evidence on record. P.Subbarao the Tahsildar is retried from service. he does not know on what basis the P.Subbarao Tahsildar recommended, the Revenue Divisional

Officer to the cancel the pattadar pass book, issued in the name of 1st

Plaintiff Venkataramaraju. He did not submit the notice dated 26-08-2014 and 01-10-2014 said to have been issued to the Venkataramaraju referred in Ex

B12. D.W.5 admitted that the then Tahsildar who conducted enquiry issued did not enclose the notices dated 26-08-2014 and 1-10-2014 to the report under Ex.B12.D.W.5 admitted that that the copy of title deed appended to

Ex.B12 it is referred in column No. 12 that a suit O.S.No.74 of 2005 is pending

It is true that in copy of the title deed book appended to Ex.B12 in column No.

5 the nature of the acquisition is court order. D.W.1 did not submit any document before the Revenue Authorities that O.S.No.74 of 2005 is dismissed or any cancellation of court order.A stranger to the property can file any petition to cancel the mutation of the property. There is no reference regarding the relationship between 1st defendant and D.W.1 in the documents. The then

Tahsildar did not issue any notice to 1st defendant Gollinka Durga that D.W.1 filed an application on her behalf to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Venkataramaraju. As per record there is no authorization letter by 1st defendant Gollinka Durga to act D.W.1 on her behalf. He do not know whetherthe General Power of Attorney or Medical record submitted by the

D.W.1 at the time of filing application. He did not submit to the court the

General Power of Attorney or Medical record of Ist defendant. Except Ex.B12,

Ex.B13 and B14 I did not go through the other record. He did not possess any document that any action taken against reports given by Subbarao under

Ex.B12. He does not know the D.W.1 filed appeal before Joint Collector against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., refusal of cancellation of pattadar pass books in the name of Venktaramaraju and the

100

same is pending. It is not true to suggest that the then Tahsildar Sri S.Apparao gave a wrong finding and submitted a report hence basing on the report of Sri

S.Apparao Tahsildar the pattadar pass books were canceled. The pattadar pass books issued in the name of Venkata Rama Raju or in force during the pendency of matter before Joint Collector. As per Ex.B14 the then Tahsildar addressed a letter to District Collector that there was an objection for issuance of possession certificate since suits are pending the application filed by D.W.1.

He know the difference boundary and elders. D.W.1 admitted that under

Ex.B13 the then Tahsildar addressed a letter to the District Collector that they addressed a letter to the Assistant Government Pleader to know the stage or status of the suits pending before court relating to the disputed property.

Statements recorded in the statement appended to Ex.B14 are the mediators but not boundary owners. He does not know whether any notices issued to the persons whose statements were recorded. He does not know how the then

Tahsildar identified the 6 persons as mediators. Witness adds that generally while going to enquiry we called the people presented the location. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that there is no reference of survey number or boundaries in the statement. He does not know whether any notice issued to the 1st defendant G.Durga at the time of conducting enquiry. He does not know whether the G.Durga is in the village or left the village. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that generally the statements shall be recorded separately. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that as per Ex.B14 it appears all the elders given a single statement. There is no reference in the statement that the persons who were given the statements are the neighboring ryots. The statement was recorded by R.I. There is no mention in the statement that it was recorded by R.I. As per rule the R.I. should record the statement. Village Revenue Officer has no authority to record statement. As per the statement it was recorded by Village

Revenue Officer., D.W.1 denied a suggestion that D.W,1 influence the Village

Revenue Officer and R.I by showing some people as elders, as the statement was not recorded by authorized person there is no legal sanctity. There is no

101

seal or stamp beneath the signatures of Village Revenue Officer., on statement. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the documents. D.W.5 denied a suggestion that D.W.1 managed the local revenue people and obtained Exs.B12 and B13. D.W.1 denied a suggestion that he is deposing false. D5 adopted cross examination by y D5 adopted the cross examination of plaintiffs.

During cross examination of D.W.5 admitted suggestion that then

Tahsildar, Amalapuram Baby Gyanambas suspended from service with an allegation that she has Issued a pattadar pass book to a fake person in respect of other property he has no idea the period the then Tahsildar

Gyanambha worked at Amalapuram. D.W.5 and Gyanambha have worked at

Gannavaram together by then she was Tahsildal and she is Junior Assistant.

The Gyanambha suspended just before her retirement. He has no idea the

Gyanambha was retired from service after suspension. The Gyanambha is in service more than 30 years. he has no personal knowledge about the activities of Gyanambha relating her suspension But he came to know through others. D.W.5 being a public servants Tahsildar should sign on the report after thorough verification. It is true that the government employee will be retired while there were in service. The file relating to Gyanambha is in pending. It is not true to suggest that about the activities done by Gyanambha.

A criminal case was filed regarding the issuance of pattadar pass books to some other persons relating to some other property the Gyanambha was arrested and she was suspended from service because she was in jail more than 48 hours. D5 adopted cross examination of plaintiffs.

D.W.6 chief affidavit filed. D.W.6 is third party to the suit. He know the deponent her house is near to the land of sape vemala Rao and his sistr since 20 years is cultivating the land having position and enjoyment several time. The revenue officers came and made enquiring asking about the poition and enjoyment of vemala Rao on 02-08-2017 the revenue inspector and V.R.o was present and collect of the village. the elders peyyala ventata Reddy

102

Nakka ventadeshuly pulapakura sinivasa Rao and bonthi cinna and penumala satyanarayan and others and recorded the statement of them. Who deposed that the land is position and enjoyment of Vemala Rao the same was recorded by them read over to them and obtained their signature. Chief affidavit confronted by the defendants 2 to 4 counsel then treated as chief examination of D.W.6.

During cross examination by the plaintiffs counsel confronted that My age is between 54 and 55. D.W.6 husband did coolie work. She has one daughter and one son. D.W.6 son is mason. D.W.6 son is unmarried.

Daughter is married. She is residing at Siripalli. she used to attend coolie work. she has Ac.0-40 cents of landed property adjacent to the land of

Vemalarao intervening a channel. There is a document to show that she own

Ac.0-40 cents of land but she did not produce the said document today she cannot say the cardinal points of his land but on one side Molleti Anandarao topu, and one side canal is situated.. One another side one person called as

Ramabhadra Rao land is situated. The Ac.0-40 cents land is in his name.

D.W.6 father gifted the said land to him. D.W.6 father gifted the same to me by virtue of a document but it is not registered. No revenue records were issued in my name in respect of Ac.0-40 cents of land he does not know his name is mutated in revenue records in respect of Ac.0-40 cents of land. she does not know in which year his father gifted Ac.0-40 cents of land but it is a about 20 years ago. he does not know when his father died he has no talking terms with his brothers but they are alive. She is a marks woman. she never acted as a elder in the village. There are elderly people in my village but she cannot say their names. She does not know who filed the suit or the reason for filing of the suit so also against whom the suit is filed. she does not know the properties shown in the suit schedule property. She got acquaintance with

D.W.1 Vemalarao since my childhood. He is holder than me. There are amicable relations between D.W.1 and ourselves. There is no need to know the personal affairs of D.W.1 to me so also D.W.1 has no necessity to know

103

my personal affairs. She cannot say in which the revenue people came to my village but they came to village about 13 to 14 years ago. The Village

Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, Superintendent inquired in the village. They came to the village approximately about 20 times. The revenue authorities did not record my statement. She did not show his land records to the revenue people.

Witness voluntaries that the said AC.0-40 cents is in the name of her fathers so far. D.W.6 and my brothers have to partition the land of my father and she does do not know whether they give a any share to me. The land of my father now in the possession of my brothers Since she is an illiterate she cannot say the date the revenue people came to the village. She did not inform to the counsel the date the revenue people arrived to the village. she does not know the names of revenue Inspector. Village Revenue Officer who came to the village. About 14 years back she informed to the counsel that the revenue people came to the village and enquired. She did not state the names of the elders to the counsel. She has not seen the document stands in the name of the Vemalarao in respect of Ac. 2-00 referred in my chief examination. The 1st defendant Rokkala Durga hand over the AC.2-00 of land to D.W.1. Vemalarao she does not know whether any document was executed by Rokkala Durga in favour of D.W.1. Witness adds that but one time she reduced some documents in the name of D.W.1 but she does not know the nature of the document. 1st defendant Rokkala Durga hand over the

Ac. 2-00 of land about 14 or 15 years ago i.e., after Village Revenue Officer made enquiry in the village. She cannot say the period of possession by 1st defendant in respect of Ac. 2-00 of land. She does not know the survey number of the Ac. 2-00 of land. One Vithanala Baby land is situated one side of Ac.2-00 one Krishna Prasad, canal is another side and she does not know the other neighboring land owner name. The Ac.2-00 of land is in two bits. The two bits in an extent of Ac.1-12 and Ac.1-09 .The above two bits is not adjacent to each other or not contiguous. chief affidavit was read over to me.

104

He put my thumb mark in the chief affidavit about 5 or 6 months ago. He did not state to the counsel that the revenue authorities recorded his statement and she subscribed my signature. The Ac.2-00 is a coconut tope he do not know the number of coconuts trees in the Ac.2-00 of land. D.W.1 Vemalarao own some properties in Yentrikona. The lands of Vemalarao are situated far away to the land Ac.0-40 cents which he claiming right. He did not make any enquiry regarding own properties of Sape Vemalarao. It is not true to suggest that he did not own Ac.0-40 cents of land and he never been possession of the said Ac.0-40 cents of land and my evidence that he own and possession

Ac.0-40 cents of land is not correct. she does not know the door number of my house. D.W.6 house is daba house which is in my name situated in Yentrikona

Panchayat. He did not state his counsel that he is cultivating Ac.0-40 cents of land. He did not state to the counsel that the land which is cultivating by

Sape Vemalarao is near to his house. The revenue people came to my house at the time of enquiry. Witness adds that the revenue people came to his house thrice but in the three times, he is not available in the house. The revenue people came to the village about 14 years ago and again visited about one year ago. The revenue people enquired me about 14 years ago so also about one year ago. D.W.1 informed me about 4 or 5 months ago to give evidence. She did not visit the house of the counsel regarding this suit.

Witness voluntaries he engaged the same counsel earlier in respect of the wall dispute about 10 years ago. He did not question the revenue authorities why they are making enquiry. Witness adds that they enquired about the possession of Ac.2-00 of land.

According to me Vemala Rao having right and title over the property. It is not true to suggest that my evidence that Rokkala Durga hand over to the

Ac. 2-00 to D.W.1 Vemala Rao and the same is in possession of Vemala Rao and the revenue people recorded my statement are all incorrect. There might be a dispute regarding Ac. 2-00 of land pending before the court but she do not know the dispute between whom. informed to D.W.1 what happened in

105

the presence of revenue authorities he informed the same to counsel and he prepared my chief examination. It is not true to suggest that though he is not known any suit affairs he is deposing false evidence at the behest of D.W.1.

D.W.7 chief affidavit filed. D.W.7 is third party to the suit. He know the deponent her house is near to the land of sape vemala Rao and his sistr since 20 years is cultivating the land having position and enjoyment several time. The revenue officers came and made enquiring asking about the poition and enjoyment of vemala Rao on 02-08-2017 the revenue inspector and V.R.o was present and collect of the village. the elders peyyala ventata Reddy, nakka ventadesulu, pulapakura sinivasa Rao, Bonthi Cinna and penumala satyanarayana and others and recorded the statement of them. Who deposed that the land is position and enjoyment of Vemala Rao the same was recorded by them read over to them and obtained their signature. Chief affidavit confronted by the defendants 2 to 4 counsel then treated as chief examination of D.W.7.D.W.6 and D.W.7 and deposed in their chief examination affidavits with out deviation.

During the cross examination of D.W.7 the learned plaintiff counsel confronted that D.W.1 Vemala Rao belongs to same caste. D.W.7 is resident of Sapevaripeta of Allavaram. Allavaram and Yentrikona are different panchayat. D.W.7 father is no more about 22 years back by then D.W.7 was aged approximately 25 years. They are four brothers. All of my brothers are coolies work including me. D.W.7 brothers were residing separately and all married. All brothers of D.W.7 are residing at Allavaram. The road situated between Allavaram to Yentrikona leads from east to west. D.W.7 has no landed properties at Allavaram except house sites. He is own AC.0-03 cents of land which was allotted by Government. Abetting to the Road on the southern side the coconut tope Rayudu Ramayya is situated. He constructed house about 10 years ago, prior to that all of them used to reside in one house at Allavaram. After issuance of pattas all his brothers are residing separately. On the two sides of his house houses, one one side road and one

106

Guthula Mallayya is situated. The lands of Vithanala people, Guthula people,

Rayudu people are situated near to his house.

D.W.7 know the contents of my chief examination but He does not know who prepared the same. D.W.7 know the counsel. D.W.7 never visited the house of counsel for the defendant enquired me in the court premises about the enquiry made by the revenue people. The counsel for the defendant had written the statement with his hand writing on a paper and I subscribed my signature on the same. D.W.7 signed on a printed paper prepared by the counsel. D.W.1 introduced me to the counsel and D.W.7 narrated that revenue people visited the village. Mandal Revenue Officer, Village Revenue

Officer, Superintendent present about 4 years ago. By them D.W.7 was pealing the coconuts the revenue people came to the house of Vithanala

Srinivasa Rao which is abetting to the coconut garden. The Mandal Revenue

Officer came to the house of Vithanala Srinivasa Rao along with his office subordinates and they have seen the coconut tope which was shown by DW1 an extent of Ac.1-12 and Ac.1-09 cents. The AC.1-12 and AC.1-09 are not contiguous plots. AC.1-12 cents again divided into two bits. The boundaries of

AC.1-12 cents are Vithanala Krishnamraju, Vithanala Srinivasa Rao,canal and land of Vithanala people. The boundaries of AC.1-09 cents are Guthula

Ramasetti, Vithanala Prasad, and D.W.7 does not know the name of the persons. D.W.1 owns some landed property at Yentrikona some times he also attended for work at the lands of D.W.1. The Ac.2-00 of land referred in my chief examination at a visible distance to his house but he cannot say the exact distance. The revenue authorities came to his house three times. The

Revenue people visited the village about 4 years ago and again visited about 2 years ago.Though they are visited the village subsequently he was not available in the village. Neither D.W.7 nor Vithanala Srinivasa Rao questioned the revenue people whey the Revenue came to the village. Witness adds that they, informed the purpose for their arrival. The revenue people did not record his statement. The revenue Inspector did not inspect the village. The Village

107

Revenue Officer of Yentrikona the name not known has attended. There are elderly people in the village Allavaram and Yentrikona. I am not an elder one in the village. D.W.7 did not inform the date 02-08-2017 to the counsel. On 02- 08-2017, Village Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer were present in the village. informed to the counsel that Village Revenue Officer, Mandal

Revenue Officer, Superintendent attended but D.W.7 do not know whether it is mentioned in my chief examination D.W.7 do not know the survey number of the disputed property along with me 5 or 6 other persons by name Bonthu

Nagababu, Yalla Varaprasad of Samanthkuru, Pecheti Laxmana Rao were also present in the tope of Vithanala Srinivasa Rao when the revenue people came to the village.D.W.7 attended before Revenue authorities on that day as

D.W.7 was called revenue authorities. By then Revenue people do not know my name. When the revenue people came to the village 2nd time D.W.7 was working else where again D.W.7 was called by the revenue authorities and

D.W.7 alone appeared before revenue authorities. On enquiry D.W.7 informed to the Revenue people that the Ac. 2-00 of land belongs to DW1.

D.W.7 did not question the Revenue people why they are again asking me about ownership and possession of Ac. 2-00 of land when D.W.7 revealed 1st time.

D.W.7. know about the suit after 1st visit of revenue authorities. The 2nd plaintiff Krishnam Raju filed the suit D.W.7 does not know whether Krishnam

Raju alive and D.W.7. never seen him. D.W.7. has no lands bounded by the

Ac.2-00 of land. D.W.7.does not know the revenue authorities whether enquired the neighboring land owners or boundary land owners. D.W.7 admitted that there is a difference between village elders and neighboring/boundary land owners. Since D.W.7. was not present in the village by the time of 3rd visit by the revenue authorities D.W.1 does not know what happened on that day. On 02-08-2017 the revenue authorities called me and by that time D.W.7. alone examined. D.W.7. does not know whether any others were examined by the Revenue authorities on 02-08-2017. None were

108

examined in his presence by the Revenue authorities. D.W.7. understood the evidence mentioned in D.W.7. chief examination his age 47 years. D.W.7.

doing cultivation as D.W.7.did not own any land. D.W.7 asked him to give evidence about 5 months ago. In D.W.7. chief examination it is mentioned that

D.W.7.am resident of Allavaram. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that he did not have any house near the disputed property. since he has been attending coolie work in the lands of D. W.1 at the behest of D.W.1 and D.W.7. deposing false evidence I do not know the reason for the dispute. Originally the Ac.2-00 land belong to Rokkala Satyavathi and the title deed in the name of

Satyavathi. D.W.7. was not present at the time of sale transaction or at the time of registration of AC.2.00 of land. My elder brother is no more D.W.2 2nd brother age is 65 years, my brothers who are older than me are alive. D.W.7.

does not know whether it is mentioned in his chief examination in which village the AC 2.00 of land is situated. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that though his elders brothers are available and they refused to give false evidence, the

D.W.1 brought him to court by giving amount. D.W.7 denied a suggestion that on 02-08-2017 the revenue authorities visited the village and recorded his statement are all incorrect. D.W.7 does not know whether Vemalarao shown any document showing his possession. In his presence D.W.1 did not show any document to the revenue people. D.W.7 did not see the documents of

D.W.1. I came to know that AC.2-00 is in the possession of D.W1 through the hearsay of the villagers. It is not true to suggest that the contents of his chief examination false and he is giving false evidence by taking amount. D.W.7 cross examination in three suits of common

Third plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No. 17 of 2015 chief affidavit filed, he deposed same facts in his plaint. After confronted by the plaintiffs counsel chief affidavit then treated as chief examination of D.W.8.

During cross examination 2 to 4 counsel confronted that he purchased the plaint schedule property from 1st plaintiff. He enquired before purchase of plaint schedule property. He is not enquired about cases on the plaint

109

schedule property pending or not. Basing on the will he purchased plaint schedule property. He did not see the Ex.B2. He enquired both the sale prior to purchase of plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is a coconut garden. He verified my sale deed. As per my sale deed plaint schedule property is a wet land and zerioty wet land. he does not remember when he saw the passbook of plaintiff. He is not having knowledge about the documents. He is a retired R.T.C. employee. He does not know 1st plaintiff pattadhar passbook given to Allavaram Tahsildar. Witness says voluntarily pattadhar passbook not given to him case is pending before court. I does not now pattadhar passbook of 1st plaintiff was canceled by the District Collector

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. He does not know who issued the pattadhar passbook to the 1st plaintiff the then Tahsildar Allavaram he was suspended. He does not know the District Collector Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Konaseema District made a enquiry through four Tahsildar Then after plaint schedule property delivered to the D2. Plaint schedule property is in the possession of 1st plaintiff, he is flecking the coconuts till 2014 then after from the date fo purchase by me he flecking the coconuts. It is not true to suggest that my sale deed boundaries are not correct. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that plaint schedule property boundaries are wrong. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he did not goto the plaint schedule property. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he did not bear to go to the plaint schedule property. D.W.8 denied a suggestion he does not know plaint schedule property where is is situated.

D.W.8 denied a suggestion that hd demanded the son of 1st plaintiff. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that he does not demanded the 1st plaintiff to deliver the property to him. witness says voluntarily plaintiff came to him. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that my sale deed was in collusion of 1st plaintiff basing on the will because of we are having rowdy elements. D.W.8 denied a suggestion that for grab the plaint schedule property he approached the 1st plaintiff and purchased the plaint schedule property under guise of him.

110

During the Cross-examination by plaintiffs counsel confronted that In the year 2014 he retired as supervisor in A.P.S.R.T.C. Amalpuram. I am residing at Konkapalil Amalapuram. Konkapalli and allavaram are joint villages. I did not see the 2nd defendant. Witness says voluntarily d2 1st time yesterday at the court premises. Weekly twice or thrice I used to goto the plaint schedule property. I do not know initially plaint schedule property is wet land. To my knowledge plaint schedule property is coconut garden. Plaint schedule property southern side is irrigation canal. Vittanala family in other three boundaries of plaint schedule property. After negotiations for purchase of the plaint schedule property then he entered into sale deed.

Plaint schedule property was delivered on the date of sale deed to me.

No one obstructed to me plaint schedule property is in a disputed property which is pending before the court. He made application to the revenue authorities for mutation of my name for issuing of revenue records. Pattadhar passbook was not issued in his name court case is pending. He came to know at the time plaint schedule property is pending before the court. Other properties are also mentioned in the will which is executed by Rokkala

Satyavathi. D.W.8 admitted that 1st plaintiff given to me photostat copy of will of Rokkala Satyavathi. There is no revenue tax to the coconut garden. He does not know personally the revenue records enquired either plaint schedule property or any other properties. The revenue authorities not issued a notice to me. D.W.8 admitted that the revenue authorities also not call for his objections to the plaint schedule property. He does not know about the revenue proceedings between the 1st plaintiff and D2. The beneficiaries under the will arrayed sign in my sale deed. He done my service in A.P.S.R.T.C. 38 years. He did not receive negative remarks in my service. D.W.8 admitted that he is a bona-fide purchaser in possession fo the property my sale deed has to be held valid.

111

‘A’ schedule filed by the above named Petitioner/Plaintiff :-

East Godavari District, Allavaram Mandal, Yentrukona Panchayati,

Allavaram Sub-Registry, Yentrukona Village, an extent of Ac.0-27 cents out of

Ac.0-33 cents Zeroyati Meraka covered by R.S.No.163/6 as bounded by – concerned by Document No.4.

East : The land of Guttala Ramisetty.

South : P.W.D. Irrigation Canal.

West : The land of Kandregula Satyanarayana and Ronthu Sattimma

North : The land of Sapey Tatayya with all easementary rights and fruit bearing trees.

‘B’ schedule filed by the above named Petitioner/Plaintiff :-

East Godavari District, Allavaram Mandal, Allavaram Sub-Registry,

Rellugedda Panchayati Area, Rellugedda Village.

Item No.1:-

An extent of Ac.0-50 cents, out of Ac.1-00 on Western side in

R.S.No.191/5B and an extent of Ac.0-50 out of Ac.1-44 cents on middle in

R.S.No.191/6 Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.1-00 cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.1.

East : The land of Chedalla Adilaxmi subsequently she told away to Rajulu

South : Drinage cannel Bodi

West : 2nd Item

North : The land of Datla Chandravati

Item No.2:-

An extent of full Ac.0-36 cents in R.S.No.191/5A and extent of Ac.0-29 cents out of full extent Ac.0-56 cents on eastern side in R.S.No.163/4 and an extent of Ac.00-29 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.00-58 cents on eastern side in

R.S.No.162/3. Total extent of Ac.00-94 ½ as bounded – concerned by

Document No.4.

East : 1st Item

South: The land of Chedalla Adilaxmi

112

West : The land of Datla Chandravati

North : The land of Nadimpalli Bangara Raju

Item No.3:-

An extent of Ac.00-29 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.00-89 cents on southern side in R.S.No.162/5A and

An extent of Ac.00-60 cents out of full extent Ac.00-85 cents on western side in R.S.No.162/5B Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.0-89 ½ cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Smt. Chedala Annapurna

South : Irrigation canal

West : Irrigation canal

North : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan

Item No.4:-

An extent of Ac.0-23 cents out of full extent Ac.00-46 cents in

R.S.No.191/1 and full extent of Ac.00-18 cents in R.S.No.191/3 and

An extent of Ac.00-12 ½ cents out of full extent Ac.0-44 cents on western side in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati pallam Total extent of Ac.00-53 ½ cents as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan and the land in R.S.No.191/2

South : The land in R.S.No.191/4B

West : The land of Sri Nadimpalli Bangaru Raju

North : Irrigation Canal

Item No.5:-

An extent of Ac.00-25 cents out of full extent Ac.00-44 cents on

Northernside in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati meraka as bounded by – concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Medicala Padma Raju

South : The land of Sri Chedala Purushothan

West : the land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : Irrigation canal

113

Item No.6:-

An extent of Ac.00-25 cents out of full extent Ac.00-44 cents an southern side in R.S.No.191/4A Zeroyati pallam as bounded by –concerned by Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

South : The land of Smt. Chedala Annapurna

West : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

Item No.7:-

Full extent of Ac.00-19 cents in R.S.No.191/4B – concerned by

Document No.2.

Item No.8:-

An extent of Ac.00-42 cents out of full extent Ac.0-86 cents on eastern side, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.193/1B as bounded by – concerned by

Document No.2.

East : The land of Sri Manepalli Nelabaludu and others

South : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

West : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

North : The land of Sri Verrinkala Padma Raju

Item No.9:-

An extent of Ac.00-37 cents out of full extent Ac.00-74 cents on westernside, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.193/1C as bounded by – concerned by Document No.3.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Veera Venkata Satya Sivaji

South : Dirnage canal

West : The land of Smt. Nerlla Annapurna

North : The land of Sri Chedala Verra Venkata Satya Sivji

114

Item No.10:-

An extent of Ac.00-09 cents out of full extent Ac.00-36 cents on westernside, Zeroyati pallam in R.S.No.192/2 as bounded by – concerned by

Document No.3.

East : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

South : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

West : The land of Sri Chedala Purushotham

North : The land of Smt. Thanneru Satyavathi

As per EX.A10 legal notice vacant 20-10-2008 issued by the Rokkala

Durga, Balla Sirnivasu, Sape Vemla Rao Arigela Satyanarayana as follows contents That No.1 of you is the wife of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and you are the sister-in-law of No.(2) and (3) of our clients. No.(2) of your is the father of

No.(1) of your and (3) and 4 of you are the tonants of Kombattula Santhosha lakshmi and out No.2 and 3 minor clients. The landed property of Santhosha

Lakshmi leased out by No.1 of our client to No.3 of you as per will, which was executed by Satyavathi in favour of No.2 and 3 of my clients.

The Item No.1 and No.A Notice schedule property absolutely belongs to

NO.2 and 3 our Minor clients and their elder sister Kombattula Santhosha

Lakshmi Item No.2 of notice schedule property is absolutely belongs to No.1 of your’s father in law Kondala Rao which are self acquired property of

Rokkala Kondala Rao under joint to Regd. Sale deed of him and his wife

Satyavathi and item No.3 of notice schedule property absolutely belongs to

Satyavathi which acquired by her under Joint Regd. Sale deed also, Item No.4 of notice schedule property is absolutely belongs to No.1 of your’s husband

Srinivasa Rao who purchased and extent of Ac.0-05 cents from No.3 of you and he constructed R.C.C. building there on and which is self acquired property of No.1 of your’s husband our clients has not title and right over the item No.4 of notice schedule property.

No.2 and 3 of our minor client’s mother Satyavathi executed a will dated 09-05-1997 in favour of them and their elder sister Santhosha Lakshmi and

115

appointed No.1 of your client as a guardian to manage the properties fo No.2 and 3 of our clients has to be attained majority. During the life time of

Satyavathi and Kondalarao, No.3 of you filed A.T.C.10 of 96 against them with false allegations, Subsequently at the intense of No.1 of our client,. No.3 of you compromise with Satyavathi and Kondala Rao and with draw your Petition

ATC.10/96 against them by way of filing a compromise memo before the

Honourable special officer, Amalapuram. In the year of 1996. Ever since No.1

of our client had been in possession and enjoyment of properties Satyavathi and Kondala Rao as a well-wisher of them. Item No.1 of a notice schedule property leased out by No.1 of our client to No.3 of you for yearly rentals of 20

Kata bags paddy of behalf of Santhosha Lakshmi as per will of Satyavathi and

Item No.1 of B notice schedule property leased out by NO.1 of our client to

NO.4 of your, for yearly rentals of 20 kata bags paddy of behalf of Santhosha lakshmi as per will of Satyavathi and Item No.1 of B notice schedule property leased out by NO.1 of our client to NO.4 of you, for yearly rentals of 16 kata bags of paddy on behalf of No.2 and 3 our clients. After demise of the testators Satyavathi and Kondala Rao in the month of January,1999. No.1 of our client leased out the same to you on the request of you and Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao No.1 of our client also leased out an extent of Ac.2-21 cents in

R.S.NO.147/4, 147/5, and 146/4 of Yentrukona village to the Sri Yellamilli

Venkata Ramana in the month January,2005. Since 1990 No.3 and 4 of you has been cultivating the item NO.1 B and A notice schedule properties as tenant respectively and you used to pay the yearly rentals regularly up to

January, 2002. The yearly rentals of Santhosha lakshmi received by No.1of our client from No.3 of you and he issued makkata receipt with regard and he used to pay the same to Santhosha lakshmi. There after No.3 and 4 of you and Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and Santhosha lakshmi colluded together and you committed default to pay the yearly rentals to No.1 of our client, even if a he made several demands but you did not pay anything and you have been postponing the same on one pretext or other and you are colluded together

116

with mala-fied intention, with a view to grab away the landed properties of no.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosah Lakshmi for which you instigated and reduced the Srinivasa Rao and influenced him and you fabricated and forged a un-regd. Will as which was executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao in favour of

Raokkala Srinivasa Rao and Santhosha lakshmi. The said Srinivasa Rao filed suit with the help of your fabricated and forged documents with false allegations against no.1 of our client and his tenant Yellamilli Venkataramana and others before the principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. The said

Rokkala Srinivasa Rao had been suffered incurable, communicable and contact disease and there is not possibility to recover from his ill health. On that knowledge no.1 of you left your matrimonial home and left your husband on his late without obliged as your duties as a Hindu wife, on that knowledge

No.3 and 4 oof your conspired together an you strongly presumed that, No.1 of your husband would be die within soon and you made fraudulent and per- preparations with a view to grab away the landed properties of No.2 and 3 of our clients, Santhosha Lakshmi and no.1 of you. For which you are making factious documents.

No.1 of your’s father-in-law Kondala Rao executed a registered. Will with regard to his properties in favour of No.1 of your’s husband and No.2 and 3 of our clients on 26-5-1998. As per will of Kondala Rao No.1 of your’s husband would be take and care of No.2 and 3 of our clients till they attained majority. Bur No.1 of your husband did not to do so and left them on their fate without love and affection towards. No.2 and 3 of our client as their brother

No.1 of your’s husband not only failed to looked after the care and custody of

No.2 and 3 of our clients but also he tried to grab away the properties of No.2 and 3 of our clients by filing a suit with false allegations and forged documents at the instigation of no.3 and 4 of you. Subsequently No.1 of your husband came to know that the evil acts and fraudulent intention of No.3 and 4 of you and the apprehended damages on your hands and you rest rained and detained No.1 of your’s husband in his house and obtained his signature on

117

empty papers and on non judicial stamps No.3 and 4 of you never allowed anybody to visit him and you physically and mentally harassed No.1 of your’s husband. Sub-sequently when Srinivasa Rao came to matrusri hospital

Amalapuram for a treatment at that time the Srinivasa Rao secretly informed the same, through telephone to no.1 of your client and requested him to protect the rights and interest of No.1 of you and no.2 and 3 of our clients and his sisters santhosa Lakshmi as we wisher of them, in the third week of

August, 2005 immediately our clients visited No.1 of your parents house and convinced the evil acts of No.3 and 4 of you. On that no.1 of you surprised immediately no.1 and 2 of and out clients you visited the house No.1 of your’s husband at least No.3 and 4 of you did not give curtacy and not allowed No.2 and 3 of our clients to see their brother i.e., no.1 of your’s husband and abused No.1 of our client, even if no.1 and 2 of you warrned. Only no.1 and 2 of you allowed to met Srinivasa Rao on 04-09-2005 No.1 of your’s husband died suddenly but all of you not informed the same to our clients and you criminated his dead-body by book (or) crock. There after four days our clients came to know the death of No.1 of your’s husband house at Yentrukona. But

No.3 and 4 of you not allowed them and miss behaved with out clients along with supporters and nocked out them, at that time out clients came to know through neighbours that No.3 and 4 of you instigated and threatened no.1 and 2 of you to colluded with them with a view to defraude no.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosha Lakshmi by offering illegal means and forcefully handed over

Item No.3 to 4 of notice scheduled property without manner of right and title.

Item No.2 of notice schedule property i.e. Joint family property No.1 of you took possession as per fraudulent compromise in between NO.1 of you and

No.3 of you. No.1 of you and No.2 and 3 our client has constructive possession as per will of Kondala Rao. On the account of No.3 and 4 of evil acts no.1 of our client suspected the sudden death of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and the sudden crimination of his dead-body immediately without informing to anybody.

118

Further no.1 of our client came to know that you are making hactic preparations to alienate the notice schedule properties by way of sale. By making false representation by suppressing true facts through No.1 of you with a view to get wrong full again without manner of right and title. For which you are trying to get local political leaders influence and you are trying to in bring the rights interests and title of no.2 and 3 of our minor clients and

Santhosha Lakshmi, who ever purchased the notice schedule property they did not get good title and right ever the said properties. The proposed vendor always stands on the shoes of vendor no.1 of out client that at liberty to publish the same through publication in daily newspaper to awake the proposed vendors. No.3 of you instigated Rokkala Kondala Rao and sold away the landed property of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.NO.163/6of Yentrukona village of No.2 and 3 of our minor clients which is bequeather our clients vendor will of Satyavathi No.3 of you received the sale consideration on behalf

Kondala Rao and committed misappropriation.

As per will of Satyavathi and will of Kondala Rao and relinquish affidavit which was executed by Santhosha Lakshmi on 25-11-1998. The Santhosha

Lakshmi has no manner of right and title to get same in Item No.1 A,B and

No.2 and 3 notice schedule properties. Even if said Santhosha Lakshmi relinquished her share. Our clients leased out Item No.1A notice schedule property to No.3 of you due to love and affection of towards her of she intend to sale her property she has no right, only No.1 of our client to sale the same on behalf of her and received the sale consideration and the same has to pay to her by No.1 of our client as per will of Satyavathi.

It is therefore you are here by called upon to not to colluded together with a view to defraud No.2 and 3 of our clients and Santhosha Lakshmi and

No.`1 and 2 of you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and you not to deceived by the words of No.3 and 4 of you and not to joined with your hands with No.3 and 4 of you and not to intend to committee to defraud No.2 and 3 of our

119

clients and Santhosha Lakshmi i.e. your sister-in-law and brother-in-law who are sister and brother of no.1 of your husband. No.1 of you allot partitioned the

Item No.2 notice schedule property into 3 equal sharer by mates and bounds and allot 1/3rd share each to no.2 and 3 of our clients and you have to pay past means profits to the no.2 and 3 of our clients towards their share as 6/9 after demises Kondala Rao No.3 of you to pay 60 khata bags of paddy towards yearly rentals to No.1 of our client and you vacate the item No.1 A notice schedule property and deliver No.1 of our clients possession. NO.4 of you to pay 48 khata bags of paddy No.1 of our client and vacate item No.1 B notice schedule property and deliver the same no.1 of our clients possession with past means profits with int one week form the date of receipt of this notice and no.3 and 4 of you not to committee defraud No.1 of you and not to try grab away the item No.4 of notice schedule property of No.12 of you and you have to pay 500/- towards costs of this notice. Falling which our clients will be constrained to seek redress through court fo law and they will took possession fo notice schedule properties and they will took possession of notice schedule properties and they will recover the arrears of yearly rentals and means profits through procedure of law and they will take all necessary civil and criminal actions against you and they will recover all costs incidental thereto.

NOTICE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

Item No.1A:- East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Yentrukona panchayati, Yentrukona village an extent of Ac.1-00cents out of full extent

Ac.1-11 cents covered by R.S.No.83/4 as bounded by

East : The land of Sri Vittanala Krishna murthi.

South : Chakaly manyam.

West : the land of Smt.Guthula Adilakshmi.

North : Pantabodi and Punta.

120

Item No.1B:-

East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Yentrukona panchayati,

Yentrukona village an extent of Ac.0-80cents out of full extent B4 cents covered by R.S.No.106/5 as bounded by:-

East : Kumara manyam .

South : Punta.

West : the land of Sri Kankipati Gopala swamy

North : the land of Sri N.Pullayya.

Item No.2:- East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Peliganda panchayati,

Relligadda village an extent of Ac.2-47 ½ cents covered by the following.R.S.Nos.

1. R.S.No.162/3, Ac.0-14 cents

2. R.S.No.162/4, Ac.0-14 ½ cents

3. R.S.No.162/5A, Ac.0-15 1/2cents

4. R.S.No.162/5B, Ac.0-30 cents

5. R.S.No.191/1, Ac.0-11 cents

6. R.S.No.191/2, Ac.0-05 cents

7. R.S.No.191/3, Ac.0-09 cents

8. R.S.No.191/4A, Ac.0-31 ½ cents

9. R.S.No.191/4B, Ac.0-09 cents

10. R.S.No.191/5A, Ac.0-18 cents

11. R.S.No.191/5B, Ac.0-25 cents

12. R.S.No.191/6, Ac.0-25 cents

13. R.S.No.193/1B, Ac.0-21 cents

14. R.S.No.193/1C, Ac.0-19 cents

Total : Ac.02-47 ½ cents

Item No.3:-

1. R.S.No.162/3, Ac.0-15 cents

121

2. R.S.No. 162/4, Ac.0-15 cents

3. R.S.No.162/5A, Ac.0-14 cents

4. R.S.No.162/5B, Ac.0-30 cents

5. R.S.No.191/1, Ac.0-12 cents

6. R.S.No.191/2, Ac.0-04 cents

7. R.S.No. 191/3, Ac.0-09 cents

8. R.S.No.91/4A, Ac.0-31cents

9. R.S.No.191/4B, Ac.0-10 cents

10. R.S.No.191/5A, Ac.0-18 cents

11. R.S.No.191/5B, Ac.0-25 cents

12. R.S.No.191/6, Ac.0-25 cents

13. R.S.No.193/1B, Ac.0-21 cents

14. R.S.No.193/1C, Ac.0-18 cents

Total Ac.2-47 cents

Item No.4

East Godavari district Allavaram mandal, Allavaram panchayati, Allavaram village an extent of Ac.0-05 cents merka land covered by R.S.No.167/5

R.C.C. building there in bearing unnumbered dear

Initially Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju, who is the plaintiff number .01 issued legal notice dated 05-11-2005 to the Defendants:1 to 7 demanding the that in page number 04 as follows hereby called upon not to committee evil acts against our No.2 and 3 minor clients and not to try to doing transactions with regard to any properties of No.2 and 3 our clients and Srinivasa Rao &

Santosha Laxmi either by sale purchase among of you other. If any sale transaction is took place. With regard to above said properties No.1 of out client take necessary criminal actions. On behalf of No.2 and 3 out mionor clients under section 418, 420, 424 and 406 read with 34 and 109 Indian

Penal Code against all of you and other concerned person and scriber and at testors who ever liable for punishment under law either by give police report by filing criminal complaint before court of Hon’ble Magistrate, Amalapuram.

122

To the Ex.A13, Legal Notice issued by V.Rajeswara Rao and

N.Mallikarjuna Rao Advocates on behalf of Riokkala Durga w/o. Late Srinivasa

Rao, Residence of Komaragiripatnam Sri Sape Vemla Rao, S/o. Gangayya,

R/o. Yentrikona (v) and Sri Arigela Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkataratnam, R/o.

Yentrikona village

The material allegations in your notice isseued on behalf of your clients are all false an untrue

A Schedule is herewith filed. The schedule property is of 2 items. Items 1 of the Schedule property consists of (I)(I) R.S.No.147/4, Dry, Ac.00-58 cents.

(I) R.S.No.163/6, Dry, Ac.00-27 cents.

(I) R.S.No.146/4, Dry, Ac.01-09 cents (I) R.S.No.106/5, Dry, Ac.00-80 cents.

(I) R.S.No.147/5, Dry, Ac.00-54 cents.

And thus a Total extent of Ac.4.29 cents situated Yentrikona Village was purchased by one Rokkala Kondala Rao in the make of his wife Smt.Rokkala

Satyavathi under a Regd. Sale deed dated 26-02-1992 from (1) Vittanala

Narayana Murthy and his sons (2) Satyanarayana (3) Tata rao, (4) Lakshmana

Rao, (6) Krishna Prasad (7) Srinivasa Rao, (8) Prabhakara Rao, and (9) Naga

Siva Prasada Rao and the vendor dilivered the possession to Sri Kondala

Rao.

Item-II of the schedule property consists of (II) (I) R.S.NO.162/3, wet, Ac.00-29 cents.

(Ii) R.S.NO.162/4, wet, Ac.00-29 ½ cents.

(iii) R.S.NO.162/5A, wet, Ac.00-29 ½ cents.

(iv) R.S.NO.162/5B, wet, Ac.00-60 cents .(v) R.S.NO.191/1, wet, Ac.00-23 cents.

(vi) R.S.NO.191/2, wet, Ac.00-09 cents.

(vii) R.S.NO.191/3, wet, Ac.00-18 cents.

123

(viii) R.S.NO.191/4A, wet, Ac.00-62 ½ cents.

(ix) R.S.NO.191/4B, wet, Ac.00-19 cents.

(x) R.S.NO.191/5A, wet, Ac.00-36 cents.

(xi) R.S.NO.191/5B, wet, Ac.00-50 cents.

(xii) R.S.NO.191/6, wet, Ac.00-50 cents.

(xiii) R.S.NO.193/1B, wet, Ac.00.42 cents.

(xiv) R.S.NO.193/1C, wet, Ac.00-37 cents.

And thus total an extent of Ac.4-94 ½ cents of wet land of Rellaguda village was purchased by one Sri Rokkala Kondala Rao in his name and in the name of his wife jointly under Regd. Sale deed s and the vendors delivered the possession.

One Rokkala Satyavathio is the wife of Kondala Rao. One Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao and his sister by name Santhosha lakshmi are the children of

Kondaal rao and his family used to reside at Bombay and he did furniture in the name and style of “Kalpana Furniture Works”. The schedule reports are far face was increased by Kondala Rao was leased out to one Vemala Rao who is no other than the brother of Satyavathi and delivered possession. The said

Vemala Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the property as a tenant by paying rentals as agreed upon.

No.1 of your client originally is native of Munganada village of

Ambajipeta a Mandal and belongs to Settibalija Community. Originally No.1 of your client is a Motor mechanic and he sifted his residence to Bombay. No.1 of your client after some time while wondering on the streets joined as a

Supervisor in the company of Kondala Rao. No.1 of your client originally married (1) Mahendravathi who died leaving behind her two children by name (1) Master Syam Prasad and (2) Nagendra Prasad. After her death of his first wife No.1 of your client re-married one Rama Girija and begot two children by name Mahalakshmi and Maheswari. Thus No.1 of your client used to stay in

Shaheb Kalyan at Bombay. Later No.1 of your client made close acquitance with Kondala Rao’s family, No.1 of your client made illegal connections with

124

Satyavathi who is not other than the wife of Kondala Rao and begot one son and one daughter i.e., 2 and 3 of your notice. The said Kondala Rao had no knowledge of illegal contact of No.1 of you with his wife.

While the matters stood, the said Rokkala Satyavathi died on 22-7-97 at

Bombay. After death of his wife the said Kondala Rao reached Yentrukona village along with family during the life time of Rokkala Kondala Rao, after demise of his wife, he executed a Registered will dated 26-5-1998. After execution of the Regd. Will no. of your client approached Kondala Rao and intimated that he begot 2 children one son and one daughter through his wife and demanded for return of the children. The said Kondala Rao after making enquiry, directed No.1 of your client to leave the place immediately along with the two children. As per the demand of No.1 of your client, left the place along with his two children to his native place Munganda. After wards the said

Kondala Rao changed his mind and executed an unregistered will dated 4-7- 98 bequeathing his properties to his son by name Srinivasa Rao and his daughter Santhosha Lakshmi in a sound and disposing state of mind the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed books to Sri

Kondala Rao. Later the said Kondala Rao shifter his residence form

Yentrukona to Bombay and died on 25-9-98 leaving behind his son Srinivasa

Rao and his daughter Santhosha Lakshmi as his legal heirs. During the life time of Kondala Rao sold away an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.No.163/6 dry land of Yentrukona village under a Regd. Sale deed and received the sale consideration and delivered possession. After the death of Kondala Rao, his son Srinivasa Rao and his sister Santhosha Lakshmi sifted the residence to

Yentrukona village. The said Srinivasa Rao performed the marriage of his sister Santhosha Lakshmi with the assistance of the said Vemala Rao. The said Vemala Rao handed over the schedule properties to said Srinivasa Rao,

S/o.Kondala Rao after become major and delivered possession/ The schedule property is alone in possession and enjoyment of the said Rokkala Srinivasa

Rao. The said Srinivasa Rao sold an extent of Ac.0.37 cents in R.S.No.193/1C

125

of Rellugadda village under a Regd. Sale deed and delivered possession. One

Smt.Rokkala Durga is the wife os Srinivasa Rao. The said Rokkala Srinivasa

Raodied on 4-9-2005 leaving behind his wife Smt.Durga as his sole legal heir.

The said Rokkala Durga is absolute owner of the Schedule property. The schedule property is the self acquired property of Rokkala Kondala Rao. The said Rokkla Kondala Rao executed an unregistered will dated 4-7-1998 in a sound and in a disposing state of mind and after he death his son had been in possession and enjoyment till his death and later on devolved on his wife

Durga.

The alleged allegations in your legal notice issued on behalf your client is not legal and valid and the alleged allegations that late Satyavathi executed an unregistered will dated 9-5-97 in favour of her eldest daughter Santhosha lakshmi and 2 and 3 your client and appointed No.1 of your client as guardian and No.2 and 3 of your client till attaining majority is all false and untrue. The alleged will dated 9-5-1997 said to have been executed by late Satyavathi is a fabricated and forged document. Late Satyavathi cannot acquire any right and title or interest in Schedule property as the properties are self acquired properties of Later Kondala Rao. The allegation that ATC 10/96 filed by

Vemala Rao ended in a compromise on the advise of No.1 of your client is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that No.1 of your client had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as a well wisher of

Satyavathi and Kondala Rao is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that

No.1 of you leased out an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.83/4 of Yentrukona village was leased out to said Vemla Rao on yearly rent of 20 bags of paddy on behalf of Santhosha Lakshmi and Ac.0.80 cents of in R.S.No.106/5 was leased out to Arigela Satyanarayana on yearly rent of 16 bags paddy on behalf of No.2 and 3 of your clients and your client leased out an extent of

Ac.2021 cents in R.S.No.147/4, 147/5 and 146/4 of Yentrukona village to Sri

Yellamilli Cenkataramana in moth of January, 2005 and accordingly our client had been in possession and enjoyment of Schedule property as tenant and

126

paid rents up to January, 2002 and later failed to pay the rentals and postponing one pretest or other and intended to grab the landed property of 2 and 3 of your client and Santhosha Lakshmi and instigated the said Srinivasa

Rao and influenced him and fabricated and forged unregistered will which was executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao and file the suits with the fabricated document is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that Durga, W/o.

Srinivasa Rao left the house without obliging her duties as a Hindu wife is all false and untrue. The alleged allegation that out clients detained the said

Srinivasa Rao the husband of Durga and obtained his signature on empty paper and non judicial stamp is all false and untrue. That our clients have no need to intimate the ill-health of Kondala Rao and demise of Srinivasa Rao secretly intimated No.1 of your client is all false and untrue.

The alleged allegation that No.1 of your client visited the house of

Srinivasa Rao along with NO.3 and 4 of your clients and our clients misbehaved with your clients and along with supporters and necked out them is all false and untrue and they never turned out. The alleged allegation the

Santhosha Lakshmi executed a relinquish affidavit on 25-11-1998 and as such no manner of right and title in the schedule property and if she intended so

No.1 of your client has got right to sell the property on behalf of Santhosha

Lakshmi and sale consideration passed to him and the same has to pay to her is all false and untrue. Your clients are not entitled to get 1/3rd share and 6/9th share after demise of Kondala Rao and they are not entitled 60 bags of paddy as yearly rent and 48 bags of paddy of yearly rent to your client by No.4 of your notice and your clients have no right to direct our client to vacate the schedule property and delivered the same and also not entitled to mean profits as alleged in your notice.

Your clients 2 and 3 never acquire any right, title or interest in the schedule property as they are illegitimate children of late Satyavathi. Late

Kondala Rao executed a unregistered will dated 4-7-98 bequeathing his properties in sound and disposing state of mind. Your clients have no right to

127

claim any share in the properties. Your clients so chooses to file a suit, our clients will resist the same and your clients are liable to pay the costs incurred thereon. Please advise your client not to resort unnecessary litigation.

As per Exhibit B16, Legal notice issued by Sri Sape Vemala Rao S/o.

Gangayya, Yentrukona(v), Allavaram Mandal has filed Revision Petition u/sec.Act.1971 before the then Revision Authority and Joint Collector East

Godavari District against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority &

Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram in D.Did.H/1361/2016, Dated 15-09- 2017 regarding the cancellation of PPB and Title deed issued in favour of the respondent (Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju) for an extent of Ac.20-21 cents covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and sy.No.146/4 in Yentrukona Village of

Allavaram Mandal.

Report of the Tashildar, Allavaram:

1. An extent of Ac.02-21 cents is covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 of

Yentrukona Village of Allavaram mandal vested to Smt.Rokkala satyavathi vide sale deed No.3405/1992, dated 08-06-1992.

2. Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi was died in the year 1997 and her husband Sro

Rokkala Kondala Rao also died in the year 1998. After their death,. The said property vested to their son Sri Rokkala Srinivasa Rao and after the death of

Srinivasa Rao, the land is vested to his wife Smt.Rokkala Durga here ditarily.

3. Smt.Rokkala Durga executed a G.P.A. in favour of Sri sape Vemala Rao who is brother of her mother-in-law (Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi – Actual land owner) for an extent of Ac.2.21 cents covered by Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 of Yentrukona (v) vide Regd.Doc.No.677/2008, Dated 13.10.2008.

4. The Respondent Sri Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju S/o. Soma Raju maintained living relation with Smt. Sokkala Satyavathi W/o. Konadala Rao and they gave birth two children namely M.Krishnam Raju and M.Bhagya Sri.

5. The Respondent filed O.S.NO.248 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge court, Amalapuram against the Appellant stated that hos two children

are the right full owners of the said land and he was the guardian of the said

128

property. Pending the Civil Suit, he obtained PPB and TDs in the name of his two children from the Tashildar, Allavaram basing on the Un Registered will which is executed by Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi to the said lands in the name of her minor children Krishnam Raju and Bhagya Sri and M.Venkara Rama Raju is to be the guardian in possession of the properties.

6. On that Sri Sape Vemala Rao has filed appeal before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Amalapuram requesting for cancellation of PPB and Tds issued in favour of Sri M.Venkara Rama Raju.

7. After, heard both parties, the Appeal Petition filed by Sri Sape Vemala Rao was rejected by the R.D.O, Amalapuram in the plea that the Appeal filed after expiry of the limitation period and also involved issues in Civil nature in this case.

8. At present the scheduled property is placed in Dispute Register in Webland

Portal.

9. At present the said property is under possession and enjoyment of the appellant Sri Sape Vemala Rao.

10. O.S.No.248 of 2011, O.S.No.288 of 2014 and O.S.No.2 of 2019 are pending before the Hon’ble Senior civil Judge, Amalapuram between Sri

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and Sape Vemala Rao, Smt.Rokkala Dirga, etc. Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram:

Basing on the G.P.A. executed by Rokkala Durga, Sri Sape Vemala Rao was filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional

Officer, Amalapuram for cancellation of PPB and TD to the lands in

Sy.No.147/4 measuring Ac.00-58 cents, Sy.No.147/5 measuring Ac.00-54 cents, sy.No.147/5 measuring Ac.00-54 cents, and Sy.No.146/4 measuring

Ac.01-09 cents of Yentrukona Village of Allavaram Mandal issued in favour of

Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju S/o. Somaraju monor guardian to

Mattapat\rthi Krishnam Raju and Bhagya Sri and the Appellate Authority has passed orders issued vide D.Dis/H/136/2016, Dated 15-09-2017 that the

129

appeal petition is rejected as the petition filed after expiry of the limitation period i.e., 60 days and also involved issues in Civil nature in this case.

Sri Sape Vemala Rao field Revision Petition before the then Revision

Authority and Joint Collector,. Wast Godavari District, Kakinada on 09-10-2017 against the orders of the Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer,

Amalapuram.

The revision Petition is taken on file and issued notices to both parties to attend enquiry on 31-08-2019 and posted to 21-11-2020, 31-07-2021, 28- 08-2021, 26-03-2022.

In the meanwhile the Revision Petitioner has field W.P.10657 of 2022

before the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh to direct the district Collector

to dispose of the Revision Petition filed on 10-10-2017 for which the Hon’ble

High Court of AP has passes order that “considering the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 2nd respondent District Collector,

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 10-10-206, after issuing notice to all the effected parties, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Miscellaneous petitioner pending if any, shall stand closed.

Consequent on formation of new districts, Erstwhile East Godavari

District is bifurcated into four district in which Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseemsa

District to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

In obedience to the orders of the Hon’bel High Court the notices have been issued to both parties to attend hearing on 17.09.2022 and both parties attended and the respondent request time to file written arguments. The case is posted for hearing on 15.10.2022, 07.01.2023, 25.02.2023 and 18.03.2023 and both parties attend.

Revision Petitioner Sri Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya submitted written arguments as detailed below

1. Revision Petitioner stated that an extent of Ac.2.21 cents covered by

Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and Sy.no/146/4 is devoled to the appellant sister

130

Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi W/o. Konadal rao vide sale deed no.3405/1992,

Dt.08.06.1992.

2. Revision Petitioner (who is brother of Smt.R.Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao) got General Power of Attorney to the land Ac.2.21 cents, covered by

Sy.No.147/4,147/5 and 146/4 in Yentrukona Viollage of Allavaram Mandal which is executed by Smt.Rokkala Durga W/o. Srinivasa Rao (who is daughter-in-law of Smt.R.Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao) vide Regd.Document

No.677/2008.

3.The Respondent (Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju) worked as servant under

Rokkala Kondala Rao at Ulhasanager, Mumbai, after the death of Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi, The respondent created unregistered will and kidnap and the children Krishnam Raju and bhagya Sri and captured the entire property and also documents situated at Ulhasnagar.

4. The respondent filed a false cased against the Revision Petitioner in

O.S.No.248 of 2011 and O.S.No17 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Civil Court,

Amalapuram on the basis of illegal pass books issued by the Tashildar,

Allavaram (Smt.Baby Gnanamb). Then he filed petition before the R.D.O,

Amalapuram and the same was dismissed on 15-09-2017.

5. While the petition is pending, the Tahsildar, Allavaram made enquire and submitted a report on 24-11-2014 to the R.D.O, Amalapuram and the appellant authority did not consider the report and passed order on the appeal petition on 15-09-2017.

6. Finally, on the order fo the District Collector, E.G.District, the Tahsildar, allavaram (Sri.S.Appa Rao) made enquire and submitted report on 25.01.2020. All reports are in favour to the Appellant.

7. The Appellant prays that the Hon’ble court may be set a side the order of the R.D,O, Amalapuram and to cancel the PPB and TD issued in faovur of the

Respondent.

The respondent No.1 Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Rama Raju Submitted written argument as follows.

131

1. The schedule property belongs to Rokkala Satyavathi W/o. Kondala Rao and she developed intimacy with MV Rama Raju and their by she gave birth to the children namely Krishnam Raju and Bhagyavathi. During the life time said

Rokkala Satyavathi executed a will date 09-05-1997 making the lands Ac.02- 21 cents in Sy.No.147/4,147/5,146/4 of Yentrukona Village of Allavaram

Mandal in the name fo their minor children and MV Rama Raju as guardian of the minors of possession and property. As per the will after the demise of

Satyavathi he obtained the PPB and TD in the name of MV Rama Raju.

2. In fact Rokkala Kondala Rao executed registered Will dated 26-05-1998 bequeathing to his eldest daughter Kombattula Santhoshi Lakshmi to an extent of Ac.01-00 cents covered in Sy.No.81/4 and remaining propertied divided equally between Rokkala Srinivasu and Rokkala Krishnam Raju and

Rokkala Bhagya Sri as per the provision of said Will and he filed O.S.No.248 of 2011 for partition and separate possession and also filed O.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the Petitioner and not to court granted injunction against the petitioner S.Vemala Rao.

3. Tashildar, Allavaram has categorically submitted a report that the procedure contemplated for issue of PPB/TD was in accordance with rules and after proper verification of documents under rule 9 and 22 under ROR Act including the possession and enjoyment contemplated under ROR act and rules and no illegality was done by the registering authority in this case.

4.the Revenue divisional Officer after through enquiry the appeal filed by the petitioner u/sec.5(5) of the ROR act and Rule 21(1) before the authority which is barred by m limitation and rightly rejected the appeal filed by the Revision

Petitioner observing that the issue fo PPB./TD were issued to his children represented them as guardian is valid under law. Since the Revision Petitioner has no right to seek any relief of cancellation of PPB/TD in also lacks and barred by Limitation and dismissed the Revision.

5.The respondent finally submit that the present Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed confirming the orders of the

132

Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram in Ref.D.Dis.H/1361/2016, Dated 15- 09-2017 on the grounds that this Revision is also lacks and barred by limitation and dismissed the Revision.

Heard the arguments, upon perusing the written arguments other evidences produced by the petition and respondent the following findings are noticed.

1. The M.R.O, Allavaram issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed

NO.923945 on 20-08-2012 to Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Raju S/o. Somaraju basing on un-registered will executed by Rokkala Satyavathi dated 09-05- 1997 in which she stated that the minor sons of respondent No.1 are family members of Rokkala Satyavathi. Sri Rokkala Kondala Rao executed a

Regd.Will dated Dated 26-05-1998 in which he mentioned that the landed property in Yentrukona Village for Sy.No.83/4 measuring Ac.01-00 cents, in favour of his elder daughter Kombattula Sabthioshi and the remaining lands are equally shared to his sons Rokkala Srinivasa Rao, Rokkala Krishnam Raju and Rokkala Bhagya Sri after his life time for which time both are minors and appointed his elder son Rokkala Srinivasa Rao as mionor guardian and also specified that their shares should be handed over to the above monro children after attaining at the age of Major. The then Tashilsar has not taken into consideration the name of Rokkala Srinivasa Rao who is the son of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and deviate the condition of the Registered will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao.

2. As seen form the un-registered and Registered Will executed by

Smt.Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao who are the Original land owners declared that the sons and daughters of Rokkala Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and Rokkala Satyavathi and Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju and it disclose that there is a Legal Heirs dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 The revision Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 have not disclose the fact that there is a dispute regarding family members of Rokkala

Kondala Rao and Satyavathi and the respondent No.1

133

3. Smt.Rokkala Durga W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Daughter in Law of Rokkala

Satyavathi) executed General power of Attorney in favour of the Revision

Petitioner Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya to look after the land issues on her behalf subject cancellation of G.P.A. as and when required.

4. The O.S.No.248/2011 and O.S.No.2/2019 are pending before the Hon’ble

Senior Civil Judge Court, Amalapuram between Sri Mattaparthi Venkara Rama

Raju and Sape Vemala Rao, Smt. Rokkala Durga, etc.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, upon hearing the arguments and the evidence produced by the petitioner and respondents, I opined that there is no valid reasons in the arguments of the Revision

Petitioner to establish his right confirmation with regards to the subject Lands and I find that there is a legal Heirs dispute between the Revision Petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 obtained Pattadar Pass

Book though they know very well that there is a civil dispute pending in the court by misleading the Tahsildar.

As verified the records the Registered will executed by Rokkala Kondala

Rao, the landed property shared among their tow sons and one daughter but they Pattadar Pass book obtained from the Tahsildar, Allavaram for entire extent of Ac.2-21 cents in guardian instead of their elder son Rokkala

Srinivasa Rao and violating the conditions of the Registered Will by misleading the Tahsildar, Allavaram.

Then the Tahsildar, allavaram issued the Pattadar passbook to the

Respondent No.1 is here by cancelled and directed the Revision Petitioner

and Respondent No.1 to obtain the orders form the Civil Court regarding

confirmation to Title over the subject lands and file a fresh application

before the Tahsildar, Allavaram with all connected documents to obtain

Passbooks and on receipt of the application with connected record, the

Tahsildar, Allavaram may take further action as per the provision of

A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act,1971. Accordingly the

Revision Petition is closed. Orders under Revision Shall be final under

134

section 9 and Rule 23(4) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971.

The Appellate Authority 23(4) of the A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar

Passbook and Title Deed to the lands covered in Revision Petition.

The Ex.B15 is the sale deed is in the favour of DW8. Through him sale deed is marked. Property was delivered as per Ex.B13 property is in position of D1 ion three survey numbers in R.S.No.147/4, 147/5, and 146/4 out of three survey numbers to Ex.B15 for two survey numbers 147/4, 147/5. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the suit against the defendants for injunction. Plaintiffs has not filed

Ex.B13 ed any document before that court except transactions took place among the plaintiffs 1 to 3 with the D.W.8. Deliver of position is in question under exhibit D15. Under tenancy act D1 Declared as a tenant under the plaintiff documents under the filed and marked on behalf of plaintiffs it is a sufficient Sape Vemala Rao is a tenant and for the properties of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi. There is no dispute regarding to the relation ship of the plaintiffs and Sape Vemala Rao, Satyavathi and kondala Rao. There is no dispute about the business of kondala Rao and satyavathi. They done the business at Bombay. In that business sape vemala Rao and Mattaparthi krishnma Raju look after the business kondala Rao and Satyavathi. Kondala

Rao and Satyavathi and their son Srinivasa Rao is no more. Under Ex.B12 two wills executed by the kondala Rao one is registered means which is the exhibit A7. A5 will executed by Rokkla Satyavathi. Under Exhibit A1 to A4 Sale deeds executed in favour of Rokkala Satyavathi and Rokkala Kondala Rao they purchasing the property in their names. There is no dispute under Exhibit

A1 to A4 plaint schedule properties purchased in their names. In the year 1997 Satyavathi was died in the year 1998 Kondala Rao was died. There is no dispute regarding the death of Kondala Rao and his wife Satyavathi. He is one of under Ex.B11 defendants not come to the court with clean hands seeking their relief in the three suits.

135

Ex.B13 is the addressed a letter in favour of district Collector East

Godavari Kakinada 25-01-2020 for the purpose of Joint collector proceeding under Ex.B13 which is, corresponding to the Ex.B16, Under Ex.B16 the Joint

Collector pass the order he obtained the Pattadar Passbook in favour of any one after declaration of the suits.

Exhibit B13 marked through the DW5 who is the revenue inspector. He is as per exhibit B13 Mandal revenue Inspector Allavaram on 20-01-2020, said reports not filed the court Tahsildar is only competent person to give evidence on Ex.B13 is not again into consideration because suits are pending before the court. Dw5 is also not a competent person to mark the Ex.B13.

Ex.B14 is the letter addressed to the District Collector on 03-08-2017 at grievance cell report dt: 03-08-2017 for position certificate issuing in favour of

D1 not issued as per Ex.B14 certificate not issued. Tahsildar Allavaram attested the copies on Ex.B13 and B14. Where about the original documents is kept silent in the evidence of BW5 chief and cross examinations Ex.B12 is the R.D.O. letter addressed by the P.Subba rao Tahsildar allavaram on 24-11- 2014 along with the letter Deputy Tashildar S.V.V. Satyanarayana attend

before the court on summons in I.A.No.517/2022 in O.S.No.248/2011 Sape

Vemala Rao file the revision petition on 04-11-2022 but letter was addressed to the court 04-11-2022 03-11-2022 is not correct. Prior date and revision petition filed on 04-11-2022 is not correct that is the date as per running matter of the letter. Ex.B12 is the scanned copy of the will darted will of the

Satyavathi of Ex.B5, second one is the 8A form notice issued by the revenue

Inspector Pattadar Passbook copy photo start copy enclosed along with the

R.D.O. letter all are the photostat copies not again into consideration attested by the Tahsildar addressed a two letter one is the Ex.B14 second one is the

Ex.B12 both are inconsisting letters. Tahsildar is not attested. Deputy Tahsildar ins not a gezitted rank he is not a competent person to the letters. To Ex.B12 is the certified copy of petition and docket orders in A.T.C.10/1996 filed by the

136

Sape Vemala Rao against the Rokkala Kondala rao and Rokkala satyavathi.

u/sec 16(1) (2) of the A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act 1956 schedule property is the

Total Schedule filed in the A scheduled property items 1 to 6 are shown, in the

B schedule property item No.1 to 5. There is finding declare the petition Sape

Vemala Rao to delcare the petitioner as statutory tenant in respect of the schedule property under the Respondents and grant consequential relief of permanent injunction resdtraining the Respondents and their men and followers and persons claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lease hold (schedule) property and award costs of the petition. Grant such other relief or reliefs are deemed fit and property under the circumstances of the case. Docket order dt:05-09-1996 as follows A.T.C. advanced today, on petition, memo filed to dismiss the A.T.C.

memo recorded and A.T.C. is dismissed without cost. what purpose memo filed reasons for the memo is not stated in the petition on the docket orders under Ex.B11.

Ex.B10 is the ordinary suit No.74 of 2005 Civil suit register No.1 certified copy filed suit filed for permanent injunction by the Rokkala Srinivasa Rao s/o.

Kondayya but actually name is the kondala rao not kondayya he filed the petition against the Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju,, Moturu Sathi babu,

Samsani Venkata Ramana, Bokka Srinu, Ragireddy Rambabu, Yallimilli

Ranga Rao Jakka subbarao for permanent injunction for an extent of one

Acre.20 cents in three survey numbers, said suit was filed on 24-02-2005, on 29-11-2010 suit was not pressed, plaintiff filed memo for not press in the suit, the doth order and decree, dismissed as follows (1) that the suit B and the same by hear by dismissed as not pressed dismissal order photostat copy filed and certified copy of the suit register O.S.No.74/2005 marked as ex B10.

Ex.B9 is the letter dated 27-08-1998 addressed by K.Narasimha Murthy,

Deputy commissioner of police (crimes) Hyderabad city Andhra pradesh to the station house officer Vullhas Nagar-3, Tana District. As per complaint

Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju who is belongs to the same village of kondala

137

Rao East Godavarai District joined them to work in the same work shop, gradually he developed illicit relation with the wife of Sri. Kondala Rao and became close to their family. Wife of Sri.Kondala Rao died one year back.

Kondala Rao came to East Godavari district (6) months back closing his shops as he could not keep good health. Meanwhile, the said M.Venkata

Ramana hatched a plant to illegally occupy the property of Kondala Rao situated in Ulhasnagar. Kondala Rao received telephone call from Ulhasnagar that Venkata Rama Raju trespassed into his flat situated in Rajya Lakshmi

Cooperative Housing society and two workshops by name Kalpana furniture shop and Sri Satya Garrage and committed theft of valuables with criminal intention to occupy the property illegally in their absence.

Therefore, necessary help may be extended to Sri.Kondala Rao who is approaching you in person and necessary illegal action may be initiated against Venkata Rama Raju in the interest of justice. Under Ex.B9 marked through Dw1 he is admitting illegal contact of Satyavathi is the first plaintiff

Kondala Rao known about of illegal regulation ship of first plaintiff and

Rokkala Satyavathi.

To Ex.B8 is the affidavit is of Mattaparthi Venkata Ramana Raju in

A.T.C.2/2011 as per affidavit for numbering of petition 2/2011 it was numbered the affidavit as per affidavit of Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju he filed the petition for vacat the petition schedule property hear filing of affidavit is not helped the case of sape vemala Rao he is the D1 in the present suit 248/2011

Ex.B7 in the Schedule property in R.S.No.106/5 an extent of 80 cents out of 84 cents. To Ex.B.7 and B8 not concerned to the same case Ex.B8 schedule not filed along with the affidavit. Ex.B7 in the schedule property but relevant petition not filed for what purpose in the circumstances to the Ex.B7 and 8 not taken into consideration for the case purpose.

To Ex.B6 in the Civil Suit Register certified copy for the A.T.C.12/2006, petition schedule filed by the petitioner R.S.No.83/4 an extent of one acre out

138

of one acre 41 cents A.T.C. filed by the Mattaparthi Venkata Rama Raju against the Sape Vemala Rao at Principal Junior Civil judges court kothapeta it was dismissed on 22-07-2008 for default to Ex.B6 in the true copy. Petition filed by the delivery by evicting the respondent form the petition schedule property.

Ex.B5 is the true copy of A.T.C.13/2006 file by the Mattaparthi Venkata

Rama Raju against the Arigela Satyanarayana on behalf of minors Mattaparthi krishnam raju and mattaprthi bhagya sri they are minors on the date of filing of the petition. Certification was dismissed on 18-01-2007 for default without cost.

Ex.B4 is the original letter issued by the tahsildar that is the notice enclosed along with letter addressed to the Revenue Division officer

Amalapuram, by the P.Subba Rao, Allavaram dt.24-11-2014 for cancellation report submitted on 24-11-2016 on address a letter by the R.D.O.

Amalapuram dated 12-10-2014.

Ex.B3 is the letter of the photostat copy addressed tot he Revenue

Divisional officer Sape Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya which is the photostat copy marked. For cancellation Pattadar passbook original not filed before the court. On that petition orders copy filed marked as Ex.B16 Ex.

B2 is the Pattadar passbook is in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao which is filed by the DW1. Pattadar passbook and title deed both are filed along with suit those are marked as Ex.B2 title deed is in the name of Kondala

Rao on 15-05-1998 in that Mandal Revenue officer issued a book his wife was died but pattdar passbook is was issued for the survey numbers 147-4 an extent of 58 cents. Suvey No.163-6 an extent of 27 cents, 146-4 an extent of 1 acre 9 cents. R.S.No.106-5 an extent of 80 cents sole on 27-10-2005 under the document NO.1077 of 2005. R.S.No.83-4 an extent of 1 acre was sold in on 09-06-2006 under the doc.No.476/2006. Survey no.147-5 an extent of 54 cents. Total 4 acre 28 cents out of that one acre 80 cents was sold remaining

139

land is 2 acre 24 cents. As per Ex.B2 above survey property belongs to the satyavathi admitted by the kondala Rao the Ex.B1 is the general power of attorney Exhibited by the Rokkala Durga on 08-10-2008 in favour of Sape

Vemala Rao S/o. Gangayya for look after the court affairs and court transactions on the date of power of attorney there is no specific number. It is was issued an extent of 2 acre 21 cents only. Out of that two items sold the

D.W.8 ion the Ex.B15. DW1 admitted he is deposed and admitted in his cross examination he deposed to the court for his case only not on behalf of

Rokkala Durga. The Ex.B1 is not taken into consideration because Rokkala

Durga not comes to the court not deposed as a witness before the court in the three suits.

To Ex.A1 is the sale deed is in the name of Kondala Rao and his wife satyavathi that is admitted fact buy the kondala Rao said property belongs to the satyavathi to Ex.A1 schedule property Item No. 1 and 2 an extent of 1 acre, Item No.3 to 5 an extent of 94 and ½ cents total Ac.1-94 cents total 5

Items.

Ex.A2 is the original sale deed is in the name of Satyavathi dated 04- 09-1991 total 5 items shown in the schedule as 8 items an extent of Ac.02-12 cents.

Ex.A3 is the sale deed in the name of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi

dated 04-09-1991 total 3 items 42 cents + 74 cents + 9 cents, Ac.01-25 cents,

three items shown in the plaint schedule.

Ex.A4 is the sale deed dated 26-02-1992 is in the name of Rokkala

Satyavathi W/o Yedukondalu, six items shown in the plaint schedule.

` Ex.A5 is the will is in the name of plaintiffs 1 and 2 executed by

Rokkala Satyavathi that was admitted by the Kondala Rao under Ex.A2,

Ex.A5 is not disputed document it is admitted by the Rokkala Kondala Rao in his report and also Pattadar passbook and title deed Under Ex.A2.

140

Ex.A6 is the death certificate of Satyavathi Kondala Rao Rokkala issued by the Ullahnagar Rajya Lakmi society.

Ex.A7 will executed by the kondala Rao. As per legal notice of the

Reply issued by the Sape Vemala Rao, there is a another will that is unregistered will. Said will is not produced on that Ex.A7 original will not produced by the Sape Vemala Rao before the court for proof for acting will on death Kondala Rao. Ex.A7 is not the final will. Admitted facts need not the true as per reply notice issued by the Sape Vemala Rao and others.

Ex.A8 in the study certificate of Venkara Krishnam Raju and

Mattaparthi Bhagya Sri. Mattaparthi Bhagya Sri mother is the Krishnaveni not satyavathi who is the krishna veni to prove her burden on the Mattaparthi

Krishnam Raju who is the mother of Bhagya Sri. Krishnaveni is not the wife of

Mattaparthi venkata Rama Raju.

To Ex.A9 is the death certificate Rokkala Srinivasa Rao issued by the

Panchayat Secretary, Yentrukona village, Allavaram Mandal. There is no dispute regarding the death of Kondala Rao Satyavathi, Srinivasa Rao and second plaintiff. After death of second plaintiff his Lrs came to the record amendment plaint is also for before the court.

I.A.No.57 of 2013 in O.S.No.248 of 2011 filed U/sec.45 of Indian evidence act by the Sape Vemala Rao through his affidavit to send the document will dt.9-51997 and other document signatures to the hand writing experts for the comparison. Said petition was dismissed without cost because it was field at the belated stage.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.248 of 2011 as follows:-

Issues No.1,5 and 6:- Whether the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties are liable for partition, Ex.A7 was not acted upon on death of Kondala Rao hence suit is liable for partition as prayed for In the plaint. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.2:- Whether the Items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are joint self acquired properties of parents of plaintiffs 2 and 3. as per Ex.A1 to A4 are

141

self acquired properties of the satyavathi and Kondala Rao under Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. They purchased thel property in their business income. Ex.A1 to A4 properties are not joint properties. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.3:- Whether the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased Items 2 and 3 in the name of their mother from out of their own income? There is no evidence and Cross examination to prove father plaintiffs purchased property in the name of late satyavathi. But property in the name of Syavathi. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 father is P.W.1, it is admitted by the both parties, Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Kondala Rao and

Satyavathi and legitimate children of Kondala Rao and Satyavathi? Both are illegitimate children of the Kondala Rao and satyavathi. Accordingly issue is answered.

Issue.No.7:- To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs 3 to 5.

declare the right, title over the plaint A-Schedule property. Suit is preliminarily decreed in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 5, half share tot he Rokkala Satyavathi and remaining half share of Kondala Rao 1/3 + 1/3 in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 5.

Plaintiffs 3 to 5 shall file the petition for delivery of possession under due process of law.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.288 of 2014 as follows:-

I ssue No. 1. and 2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 08-08-2014 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant as null and void? and Whether the suit is maintainable under law as plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 08-08-2014?

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, empowers individuals to seek a court declaration of their legal character or right to property when that title is denied or there is an interest to deny it. This relief is discretionary and doesn't require the plaintiff to seek further relief, though the court won't grant it if the plaintiff could seek more extensive relief.

142

1. Right to Seek Declaration:

 Section 34 allows any person with a legitimate claim to a legal status or property right to file a suit.

 This suit can be filed against anyone who denies or has an interest in denying that claim.

2. Discretionary Relief:  The court can, in its discretion, declare the plaintiff's entitlement to the legal character or right.  This declaration is meant to resolve uncertainty and prevent future disputes.

3. No Requirement for Further Relief:  The plaintiff doesn't have to seek additional relief in the same lawsuit.

 The declaration alone can be sufficient in cases where the plaintiff's primary goal is to establish their title or status.

4. When Declaration Won't Be Granted:  The court won't grant a declaration if the plaintiff could have sought a more comprehensive remedy but chose not to.

 For example, if a plaintiff could seek possession of property but only seeks a declaration of title, the court may not grant the declaration.

5. Purpose and Scope:  The purpose of Section 34 is to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and to provide a means for establishing legal rights or status.

 A declaratory decree, however, remains non-executable in most cases.

6. Examples:  A person who is the rightful owner of a property can sue to declare their ownership if someone else is claiming it.  A person who has a right to a specific position or status (e.g., a trustee) can sue to declare their right to that position.

7. Limited Scope:  The declaration under Section 34 is only binding on the parties to the suit, and those claiming through them.  It doesn't create any new rights or obligations. Section 31 Specific Relief Act:- When cancellation may be ordered.—(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause

143

him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

Suit is not maintainable to seek cancellation of sale deed as prayed, plaintiff is not party to the document. Instead of declaration suit, he filed suit for cancellation of sale deed. Hence suit is not maintainable. Hence suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly issues 1 and 2 answered.

Issue No.3 To what relief?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Issues and finding in O.S.No.2 of 2019 as follows:-

Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for plaintiffs are failed to prove possession either orally and documentary evidence. Accordingly plaintiffs are not entitled permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly issue No.1 is ansered.

prayed for?

Issue No.2:- To what relief?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2025

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

P.W.1: Mattaparthi Venkata Ramaraju P.W.2: Kudupudi Satyanarayana P.W.3: Yanadamala Dhanarajarao P.W.4: kadali Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1: Sape Vemalarao D.W.2: Peyyila Venkatareddy D.W.3: Eeti Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu

144

D.W.4: Nakka Satyanarayana D.W.5: S.V.V.Satyanarayana D.W.6: Vasamsetti Jayalakshmi D.W.7: P.Srinivasarao D.W.8: Suda Ganapathi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed executed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A2: Original registered sale deed executed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A3: Original registered sale deed in favour of the Rokkala Satyavathi and Kondala Rao, dated 04-09-1991 Ex.A4: Original registered sale deed stands in the name of Rokkala Satyavathi,

dated 26-02-1992

Ex.A5: Original Will executed by Rokkala Satyavathi dated 09-05-1997 Ex.A6: Death Certificate of Satyavathi, dated 19-11-2005 Ex.A7: Certified copy of registered Will executed by Rokkala Kondala Rao Rao in favour of the 1st defendant’s husband and plaintiff No.2 and 3 plaintiffs

dated 26-05-1998

Ex.A8: Original study certificate of plaintiffs 2 and 3 dated 17-02-2004 Ex.A9: Original death certificate of 1st defendant’s husband dated 10-01-2006 Ex.A10: Copy of registered legal notice issued by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to defendants and others, dated 20-10-2005 Ex.A11: Original daily paper with regard to legal notice published for plaintiffs

dated 23-10-2005

Ex.A12: Copy of reply notice to the notice of plaintiffs dated 24-10-2005 Ex.A13: Copy of legal notice issued by plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 and others dated 05-11-2005 Ex.A14: Copy of reply notice issued by defendant No.1 to 3 and others

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Power of Attorney executed by Rokkala Durga in favour of Sape Vemalarao, dated 08-10-2008 Ex.B2: Pattadar pass book and title deed issued in the name of Rokkala Kondala Rao Ex.B3: Office copy of petition in M.C.No.171 of 2012 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, dated 27-11-2012 Ex.B4: Report of Tahsildar submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, dated 24-11-2014 Ex.B5: Certified copy of Registration extract of registrar of A.T.C cases relating to A.T.C.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

145

Ex.B6: Certified copy of Registration extract of registrar of A.T.C.cases relating to A.T.C.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B7: Served copy of petition in A.T.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B8: Served copy of affidavit and petition in A.T.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Ex.B9: Letter issued by K.Narasimha Murthy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to the Station House Officer, Ulhas Nagar, Thana District,

dated 27-08-1998.

Ex.B10: Certified copy of suit register in O.S.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram.

Ex.B11: Petition copy in A.T.C.No.10 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Amalapuram

Ex.B12: True copy of the enquiry report, dated 24-11-2014 Ex.B13: True copy of the enquiry report, dated 25-01-2020 Ex.B14: Letter addressed by Tahsildar to District Collector, dated 03-08-2017 (True Copy) (marked subject to objection) Ex.B15: Registered sale deed dated 08-08-2014, Doc.No.4188/2014 Ex.B16:Proceedings of Revenue Divisional of Joint Collector of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapuram.

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION):: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Amalapuram Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025

I.P.No.11 of 2021

Between:

Sunkara Krishnarao, S/o Venkateswararao, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Ina, D.No.6-1-2, Cotton Street, Near Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Amalapuram. . . . Petitioner.

And

1) Gade Lingeswara Gupta, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy, Aged, 40 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.3-2-37/1, State Bank Street, K.Agraharam, Amalapuram.

2) Karella Ganeshbabu, S/o Mallikarjunarao, Aged 46 years, Hindu, Inam, D.No.4-130/1, Vinayaka Temple Street, Rangapuram, H/o Samanasa, Amalapuram Mandal.

3) Karella Sandhya Devi, W/o Ganeshbabu, Aged 36 years, Hindu, House wife, D.No.4-130/1, Vinayaka Temple Street, Rangapuram, H./o Samanasa, Amalapuram Mandal.

4) Gade Lakshmi Padma, D/o Lingeswara Gupta, Hindu, Inam, Aged 24 years, D.No.3-2-37/1, State Bank Street, K.Agraharam, Amalauram.

5) Gade Sai Naga Bhavana, D/o Lingeswara Gupta, Hindu, Inam, Aged 22 years, D.No.3-2-37/1, State Bank Street, K.Agraharam, Amalauram.

.. Respondents.

This petition is coming on 11-04-2025 for consideration in the presence of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Md.Azam, Learned Counsel for R.1,R4 and R.5 and R.2 and R.3 are remain set ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of the

Provincial Insolvency Act prays the Hon’ble court to adjudicate the 1st respondent as an insolvent; to annul the registered sale deed dated 01-07- 2021, Doc.No.4673/2021 of S.R.O., Amalapuram alleged to have been executed by respondents, 1, 4 and 5 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 in respect of

2

1st respondents 1/3rd share out of the petition schedule property so as to bring the same to the common pool for distribution among general body of creditors of 1st respondent; to appoint a receiver to make possession of 1/3rd share out of schedule mentioned property so as to manage the same and to realize the incomes thereon and to sell the same in public auction and realize the considerations so as to distribute the same among the creditors of 1st respondent and to grant costs of the petition and other reliefs as the Hon’ble

Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice under facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that:- The 1st respondent for his necessities for family necessities, business expenses and to discharge sundry debts borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner on 11-07-2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the petitioner or to his order on demand and executed the suit promissory note on the same day i.e., on 11-07-2019 in favour of the petitioner at Amalapuram. The 1st respondent received the full consideration under the said pro-note in the presence of attestors and scribe. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent failed to discharge the said pro-note debt. The 1st respondent made vain promises to discharge the said pro-note debt but postponed the same on one pretext or other. Then the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 24-07-2021 demanding the 1st respondent to discharge the suit pro-note debt with accrued interest thereon. The 1st respondent received the notice on 26-07-2021 but kept quiet.

3.The property mentioned in the schedule annexed here wtih is the property of 1st respondent which he got under a registered partition deed

dated 07-11-2014, Doc.No.5935/2014 executed among himself, his mother

and brothers. The respondents 4 and 5 are the daughters of 1st respondent.

They are having 2/3rd shares out of the petition schedule property. As the amounts borrowed by the 1st respondent from the petitioner are for the benefit of the family, to

3

discharge family sundry debts and business purpose, the debt is binding on respondents 4 and 5 also.

4.In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the respondents 1, 4 and 5 in collusion with respondents 2 and 3 brought into existence a fictitious document styling it as a registered sale deed dated 01-07-2021,

Doc.No.4673/2021 of SRO, Amalapuram alleged to have been executed by respondents 1, 4 and 5 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 for an alleged consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. The transaction under the said sale deed is not true and correct. No transaction took place between the respondents.

There is no passing of consideration through the said sale deed. It is brought into existence only to keep the property beyond the reach of legitimate creditors like the petitioner and to deprive defeat and delay the legitimate debts due to the petitioner. The said registered sale deed dated 01-07-2021,

Doc.No.4673/2021 is fraudulent, nominal and sham document. All the recitals in the said sale deed are false. The respondents 2 to 5 fully well knew that there is a debt due by 1st respondent to the petitioner. But they intentionally in collusion with each other brother into existence the false and fictitious document. So, the respondents 2 and 3 are not entitled to claim that they are bona-fide purchasers in respect of 1st respondent’s 1/3rd share in the property.

So, the respondents 2 and 3 are bound to suffer for the reliefs claimed by the petitioner herein. The respondents 4 and 5 are made as proforma parties to the petition so as to get a decree in this presence also.

5.Thus the 1st respondent committed the acts of insolvency and as such he is to be adjudged as insolvent by declaring the transaction covered by the document brought into existence by respondents 1, 4 and 5 in the name of respondents 2 and 3 is fraudulent nominal and sham in respect of 1st respondents 1/3rd share is concerned and to declare the registered sale deed

dated 01-07-2021, Doc.No.4673/2021 of S.R.O, Amalapuram as null and void

so as to bring the property to a common pool for the benefit of general body of

4

creditors of 1st respondent so as to proceed and realize the legitimate dues of the creditors like the petitioner herein. Hence, the petition.

6.On receipt of notice, 1st Respondent filed counter and the same was adopted by respondents 4 and 5. R.2 and R.3 were set exparte for non filing of counters. In such a counter, the 1st respondent further contended that the 1st respondent along with his daughters respondents 4 and 5 sold away the property to the respondents 2 and 3, being an absolute owners to discharge the debts were due under registered mortgage deeds dated 28-01-2019 and 27-05-2020 in favour of Nalla Satyanarayana and Nalla Yesubabu while so the 1st respondent along with respondent 4 and 5 were paid entire sale consideration for discharge of the mortgage debts due under the deeds dated 28-01-2019 and 27-05-2020 and some of the creditors who were filed suits against the 1st respondent on the file of Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate in

O.S.No.234 of 2020 and O.S.No.191 of 2020 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil

Judge Court, Amalapuram against 1st respondent they along with Nalla

Satyanarayana and Yesubabu are only the creditors of the 1st respondent the debts due under mortgage bonds were discharged on the date of execution of sale deed and the suits were settled before Lok Adalath on 10-07-2021 and entire sale consideration paid to the original creditors referred above and the property delivered to the respondents 2 and 3 being a bona-fide purchasers and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same since purchased the petition schedule property. The respondents 2 and 3 are exclusively enjoyment of the property by paying the property tax to the concerned authority and the petitioner who is nothing to do with this transaction come with a false petition and put the respondents in fear only to extract money. It is further submitted that the persons who having a properties abutting to this property i.e., schedule property are knows that the respondents 2 and 3 are alone is in possession and enjoyment of the property and the tax receipts speaks the volumes of the truth that the respondents 2 and 3 are alone is in possession and enjoyment of the property since purchase.

5

7.It is further contended that the 1st respondent alleged to have borrowed the amount on 11-07-2019, but the petitioner did not choose to prefer the suit so far against the 1st respondent within time that itself shows the falsity of the transaction among the petitioner with the 1st respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not issue any notice prior to the sale deed dated 01-07-2021, though the alleged borrow-al is on 11-07-2019 that transaction pertaining to pro-note itself not a genuine one, if any borrow-al is made it should be issued a notice at lease prior to the date of sale deed. The petitioner never lends the amount and there is no, at least a facial acquaintance among the petitioner with the 1st respondent. The pro-note in question might have prepared subsequent to the execution sale deed only with an intention to get the respondents in their way to get wrongful at the instance of enemies of the 1st respondent through the petitioner. There is no cause of action for the petition and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct and the petition itself is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs, in the interest of justice.

8.The petitioner herself got examined as PW.1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A.3. The 1st respondent got examined as R.W.1. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is :-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to adjudicate as insolvent ?

2. To what relief ?

POINT No.1:

11.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner examined as

P.W.1. His chief examination affidavit filed. Chief affidavit confronted by the petitioner counsel then treated as a chief examination of P.W.1. As per evidence of

P.W.1, 1st respondent borrowed sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner on

6

11-07-2019 for his family necessities and business expenses from the petitioner, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% p.a., either the petitioner or his order on demand and executed the suit promissory note on the same day i.e., 11-07-2019 in his favour at Amalapuram. 1st respondent received full consideration and said pro-note in the presence of attestors and scribe M.Pullayyanaidu, V.Jayaprakash and scribed by Srinivasarao.

Repeated demands made by P.W.1, 1st respondent failed to discharge the said pro-note debt. 1st respondent made vain promises to discharge the said pro-note debt but postponed the same on one pretext or other. Legal notice

dated 24-07-2021 demanding the 1st respondent to discharge the suit pro-note

debt with accrued interest. 1st respondent received the notice on 26-07-2021, but kept quiet. The schedule property annexed is the property of 1st respondent, he got under the partition deed dated 07-11-2014 executed among himself his mother and brothers. Respondents 4 and 5 are the daughters of 1st respondent. They are having 2/3rd shares out of the petition schedule property. As the amounts borrowed by the 1st respondent from him or the benefit of family to discharge family sundry debts and business purpose, the debt is binding on the respondents 4 and 5. He came to know that respondents, 1,4,5 in collusion with the respondents 2 and 3 brought into the existence a fictitious document styling it as registered sale deed dated 01- 07-2021 of S.R.O., Amalapuram alleged to have been executed by the respondents 1, 4 and 5 in his favour of the respondents 2 and 3 for an alleged consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. The transaction under the sale is not true and correct. No transaction took place between the respondents. There is no passing consideration through the said sale deed. It is brought into existence only to keep the property beyond the reach of legitimate creditors like him to deprive, defeat and delay the legitimate debts due to him.Said registered sale deed dated 01-07-2021, Doc.No.4673/2021 if fraudulent, nominal and sham document.

12.To prove the case of P.W.1 to support of oral evidence substantiate the case of petitioner, Exs.A.1 to A.3 are marked. On 24-07-2021, legal notice

7

was issued. Petition was filed within the 3 months from the date of transaction and also notice was issued.

13.During the cross examination the learned respondent counsel cross examined P.W.1, he did not file the suit basing on the promissory note. Suit is within 3 years till now. Promissory note alleged have been executed by the 1st respondent is barred by limitation. He sent the legal notice to the 1st respondent, already sold the petition schedule property. In every transaction in respect of sale, it should be passed sale consideration either on demand. He does not know how the transfer the sale deed consideration from R.2 and R.3 to the R.1. He does not know R.1 filed the counter for contesting the his case.

He received documents. He does not know R.1 and some other creditors filed

Judl.First Class Magistrate Court in O.S.No.34 of 2020 and O.S.No.191 of 2020. He does not know above said two suits settled before Lok Adalat on execution of sale deed. He does not know the date of purchase of property under Ex.A.1 delivered to the R.2 and R.3 in a bona- fide purchasers. He does not know the Ex.A.1 schedule property is in the possession of R.2 and R.3 from the date of purchase under Ex.A.1. Petition A-schedule property consist of G+2. R.1 father sold A-schedule property. He does not know the disputed particulars of petition A-schedule property. He does not know the measurements ground floor of A-schedule property of the petitioner.

14.P.W.1 denied a suggestion on 11-07-2019 P.W.1 did not borrowed the amount. Said promissory note not filed before the court. To-day said promissory note barred by Limitation. Basic document of the petition not filed, debtor and creditor relationship not proved by the petitioner through his oral evidence not supported by the documentary evidence.

15.R.1 examined as R.W.1 to prove his case, chief affidavit filed that was confronted by the respondent counsel. She deposed the contents of counter. He is admitting about the borrowed amount from the Nalla Satyanarayana,

Nalla Yesubabu under execution of mortgage deeds.Said amount was paid and settled before Lok Adalath on 10-07-2021. Purchase of the respondents 2 and 3

8

are the exclusively enjoying the schedule property by paying property tax to the concerned authority. During the cross examination by the learned counsel, photostat copy dated 11-07-2019 shown to the witness. Witness identified said signature of him. Previously he done the business paints and hardware.

He sustained the loss in the business. He is a worker in the shop. He sold the shop to the another person. R.W.1 admitted about the transactions, but suit promissory note barred by the limitation. Regarding to the debts of the promissory note not filed before the court. It is barred by limitation under

Limitation Act. Regarding to the transaction there is a cross examination that evidence cannot be taken into consideration for the A-schedule property he sold under Ex.A.1. After redemption of the mortgage property, the property was registered in his name from Nalla Satyanarayana and Yesubabu under

Ex.A.1, he is having white amount in his account. He sold the gold 200 grams worth of Rs.10,00,000/-. Remaining debts discharged from gold consideration.

He intentionally not discharge the debt of petitioner is denied. R.W.1 denied a suggestion he is liable to pay the amount under the promissory note not discharged for that Ex.A.1 sale deed is not valid it is null and void then after he is liable to pay the debt of promissory note dated 11-07-2019 sum of

Rs.4,00,000/-.

Ramasubba Sastry And Ors. vs Official Receiver Mysore And Anr. on 30

October, 1962

Equivalent citations: AIR1963MYS257, AIR 1963 MYSORE 257

1. These are connected revision petitions. They arise from Insolvency Case No. 16 of 1943-44 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mysore. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 809 and 954 of 1960 arise from the Order in I. A. No. 3 in that Insolvency Case which was an application filed by the Official Receiver under Section 54 of the Mysore Insolvency Act, to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act" to set aside the alienations in favour of the respondents therein who are the petitioners in this Court. That application was allowed and the alienations were set aside. Civil Revision Petition No. 963 of 1960 arise from I. A. No. 4 which was an application filed under Section 35 of the "Act" by some of the alienees. That application was dismissed. The Orders of the Insolvency Court in I. A. Nos. 3 and 4 were affirmed by the learned Additional District

9

Judge, Mysore in Regular Appeals Nos. 47, 48 and 56 of 1958 on his file.

Regular Appeal No. 48 of 1958 was filed against the order in I. A. No. 4. Regular Appeals Nos. 47 and 56 of 1958 were filed by the alienees against the order in I. A. No. 3.

2. Though in the Courts below several contentions had been urged on behalf of the petitioners, in this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged only two grounds, i.e., (i) on A true interpretation of Section 9(I)(c) of the "Act" the Courts below should have held that the Insolvency Petition was filed beyond the time mentioned in that provision and therefore the same is not sustainable; and (ii) the alienation under Ex. P-4 which was made the basis of adjudication is no alienation in the eye of the law and therefore the same could not have afforded a ground for adjudication.

3. To properly appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to set out in brief the material facts. Insolvent K. C. D. Boriah was the owner of the properties involved in these proceedings. He was heavily indebted. To defraud his creditors, he sold all his properties to one Srikantiah on 25-3-1936 as per the sale deed Ex. P-I. One of his creditors viz., Venkatachar filed O. S. No. 32/1 1937-38 on the file of the learned subordinate Judge, Mysore, praying for a declaration that the alienation in question is void as it was effected to defeat or delay the creditors of Boriah. That suit was dismissed in the trial Court, but in appeal (R. A. No. 83/41-42) (Mys) the High Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and granted the declaration prayed for. There after the other creditors of Boriah also obtained decrees against him. Venkatachar realised a portion of the amount decreed in his favour, in execution of his decree. At that time, Srikantiah purported to take another sale deed from Boriah on 20-9-1943 (Ex. P-4). The said sale deed was registered on 8-4- 1944. Under that sale deed, the very properties which had been previously sold to Srikantiah under Ex. P-I were again sold to him. Soon thereafter, two creditors of Boriah viz., Ningamma and Thimmegowda filed an Insolvency Petition on 15-5-1944 praying for adjudicating Boriah as an insolvent. Boriah was adjudged as an insolvent. Thereafter the Official Receiver filed I. A. No. 3 to set aside the alienation in favour of Srikantiah as well as alienations effected by Sri kantiah to other subsequent to the execution of Ex. P-4. The petitioners in C. R. P. No. 809/60 are the alienees from Srikantiah. The other facts are not material for our present purpose.

4. The first contention urged by Sri V. Krishnamurthy, the learned Counsel for some of the petitioners which contention was supported by Sri K. Swamy Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the other petitioners is that the Insolvency Petition having been filed more than 90 days after Ex. P-4 was executed, the same cannot be validly entertained. Section 9 (I) (c) of the "Act" reads: "A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition."

10

It has been uniformly held by Courts that the condition that a petition for adjudging a person insolvent should be filed within three months from the date the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred is a condition precedent. Thus far there is no difficulty. But the real controversy in this case is as to when exactly the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded took place. Is the execution of Ex. P-4, the act of insolvency or its completion by registration? Admittedly, the properties sold were worth very much more than Rs. 100/-. The alienation was effected by means of a deed which is required to be registered. The application to ad-judge Boriah an insolvent was filed well with in three months from the date of the registration of Ex. P-4, but beyond the period of three months from the date of its execution.

It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the relevant date is the date of execution and not the date of registration. On this question, the arguments on behalf of the petitioners (in this Court) proceeded thus: though the value of the property sold under Ex. P-4 was more than Rs. 100/- at the time of the execution of Ex. P-4 and therefore the sale deed had to be registered, yet under Section 47 of the Registration Act, once a document is registered, the registration of the document becomes operative from the date of its execution, and hence Ex. P-4 became effective from the date of its execution; therefore the relevant date is the date of execution of Ex. P-4 and not in registration. It was further urged that once a document is executed then the executant need not do anything more; the registration of the document can be done even without his co-operation and therefore the transaction of sale is complete so far as he is concerned on the date he executes the sale deed.

In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners read to me the decision of the former High Court of Mysore in R. A. No. 34 of 1939-40 (Mys). Therein, a Bench of that High Court presided by Reilly, C. J., following the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Rama Nanda Paul v. Pankaj Kumar, ILR 1938 (2) Cal 275 : (AIR 1938 Cal 417) held that the relevant date for the purpose of Section 9 is the date of the execution of the document and not its registration. This decision was neither reported nor followed in subsequent cases. At present all the High Courts in India are unanimous in their view that the relevant date is the date of the registration, if the document in question is required to be registered and not the date of its execution. But

before proceeding to examine the decided cases, we may deal with the merits

of the contention advanced on the basis of Section 47 of the Registration Act. In doing so, it will be useful to quote a passage from the judgment of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in District Board, Bijnor v. Mohammad Abdul Salam, AIR 1947 All 383 at p. 385 with which I respectfully concur. The Judgment of the Bench was delivered by Wali Ullah, J., and the passage with which we are concerned is found at paragraphs 6 and 7 of that judgment.

This is what the learned Judge says:

11

"With regard to the first question it is obvious that the terminus a quo from which the limitation of three months begins to run is the time when the act of insolvency occurs. "The crucial question, therefore, is to determine when exactly the act of insolvency occurs in a particular case. The act of insolvency alleged in the present case is a transfer of property by the debtor with a certain intent. The question at issue, therefore, resolves itself into the question when exactly the transfer of property took place. Here a written deed of sale was executed on 3-7-1942, but as the property involved was worth more than Rs. 100/-., the deed could operate as an effective sale deed only when it was registered. Till registration it could not have any legal effect as a sale deed. This is clear from the provisions of Section 49 , Registration Act read with Section 54 T. P. Act. It follows that title to the property does not pass so long as registration is not effected. T he 'transfer of property' therefore occurs only when -- and not till then -- registration is effected. The crucial event I on which the transfer of property hinges is therefore the fact of registration. Admittedly the registration in the present case was effected on 13-8-1942. In our judgment, therefore, the point of time when the transfer took effect is the point of time when the event of registration occurred which caused the transferee to become the owner of the property. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 47 , Registration Act. That section provides:

"47--A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration."

7. Learned Counsel contends that in view of the provisions of this section, as soon as registration was effected on 19-8-1942, the sale deed executed on 3-7-1942 became operative and legally effective from 3-7-1942. There is no doubt that this proposition is well founded, but in the present case, we are not concerned with the question of the 'operation' of the deed of sale; but with the point of time when the event happened which made the deed of sale legally effective. Care has to be taken to keep the question of the operation of the deed distinct from the question of the point of time when the event which gives it legal effect takes place. That event alone must, in our judgment, determine the commencement of the limitation of three months provided for in Section 9 , Provincial Insolvency Act ........."

5. Now turning to decided cases, the decision in R. A. No. 34739-40 (Mys) referred to above, was mainly if not solely influenced by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rama Nanda Paul's case, ILR (1938) 2 Cal 275 : (AIR 1938 Cal 417). The ratio of the decision in Rama Nanda Paul's case, ILR (1938)

12

2 Cal 275 : (AIR 1938 Cal 417) did not commend itself to another Bench of the Calcutta High Court. See: Indo Burmah Traders Bank Ltd. v. Barada Charan , AIR 1944 Cal 370. Therein their Lordships held that for purposes of Section 9 Sub-section (I) Clause (c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 , which is same as Section 9 (I) (c) of the "Act", time is to be reckoned from the date of the registration of the transfer deed, where the Transfer of Property Act requires a registered instrument for the transfer which is alleged to constitute the act of insolvency. Their Lordships distinguished Rama Nanda Paul's case, ILR (1938) 2 Cal 275 : (AIR 1938 Cal 417 on the ground that it was a decision rendered under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, which distinction appears to me to be a distinction without difference. But their Lordships made it clear that they do not express their concurrence with the reasons given in Rama Nanda Paul's case, ILR (1938) 2 Cal 275 : (AIR 1938 Cal 417). No subsequent decision of the Calcutta High Courts following the decision in Rama Nanda Paul's case, ILR (1938) 2 Cal 275 : (AIR 1938 Cal 417) was brought to my notice.

Even in the former High Court of Mysore, the decision in R. A. No. 34 of 1939- 40 (Mys) as mentioned earlier was not followed. In M.P. Basappa v. P. Channappagowda , AIR 1954 Mys 189. Vasudevamurthy, J., held that for an application by a creditor under Section 9 , where the act of insolvency alleged against the debtor is the execution of a sale deed or other alienation which required registration, the period of three months for presenting the petition for adjudication should be computed from the date of registration of the sale deed and not from the date of its execution. His Lordship also observed that if it is held that the period of three months provided under Section 9 begins to run from the date of execution and not from the date of registration of a sale deed, that section can be easily rendered nugatory by the insolvent or the alience merely deferring presentation of the document for registration till the last day of the four months within which the document may normally be registered or to the eight months available under some special circumstances referred to in Section 24 of the Registration Act. In this decision there is no reference whatsoever to the decision in R. A. No. 34 of 1939-40 (Mys).

6. The Madras High Court has consistently taken the view that when an alienation effected by means of a deed which is required to be registered, is made the basis for an insolvency petition, the relevant date under Section 9 (I)

(c) is the date of registration and not its execution. In Muthiah Chettiar v. Official Receiver of Thinnevelly , 64 Mad LJ 382 : (AIR 1933 Mad 185), Madhavan Nair, J., held that the period of three months specified in Section 9 should be calculated not from the date of the execution of the document of transfer but from the date of its registration in cases where a registered deed is necessary to effect a valid transfer of property. This decision was cited with approval by a Division Bench of that Court in S. Iswarayya v. Kurubasubbanna, ILR 58 Mad 166 : (AIR 1934 Mad 637). The decision in Muthiah Chettiar 's case, 64 Mad LJ 382 : (AIR 1933 Mad

185) was again followed by another Bench of the Madras

13

High Court in Venkadari Somappa v. The Official Receiver of Hillary , 1938-2 Mad LJ 362 : (AIR 1938 Mad 801).

7. A Full Bench of the Lahore High Court, in Lakhmi Chand v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1935 Lah 565 (FB), overruling the decision of Dalip Singh, J., in Ratan Chand v. Small, AIR 1933 Lah 821, held that when a petition is presented alleging that a debtor has committed an act of insolvency by a deed registered, the period of limitation prescribed by Sub-section (I) (c) to Section 9 of the Act runs from the date of its registration and not from the date of its execution.

8. As seen earlier, the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1947 AH 383 has held that the relevant date is the date of registration.

9. The Nagpur High Court has also taken the view that the limitation for presentation of an application by a creditor for adjudging a debtor insolvent on his committing an act of insolvency by effecting a transfer of his property, begins to run from the date of the registration of the deed of transfer and not from the date of its execution. See: G. W. Godbole v. Marotisa Balusa, AIR 1937 Nag 197 and Balkisan v. Bhanu Prasad, ILR (1939) Nag 377 : (AIR 1938 Nag 454).

10. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has agreed with the view taken by Madras, Lahore, Allahabad and Nagpur High Courts. See: N. Ramarao v. Srikrishnamurthi , .

11. From the foregoing, it is clear that the contention of Sri V. Krishnarnurthy cannot be accepted either in principle or on authority. The point in controversy is concluded by stare decisis. Hence I will not be justified in acceding to the request of Sri V. Krishnarnurthy to refer that question to a Bench.

12. This takes us to the question as to what is the effect of a decision that an alienation is void against the creditors of the alienor. Does the alienation in question become void for all purposes or is it only void against the creditors of the alienor vet continuing to be valid for all other purposes? Section 53(I) of the Transfer of Property Act, the provision under which the alienation under Ex. P-I was declared to be void against the creditors of Boriah reads:

"Every transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed."

Under this provision, the choice is left to the creditor or creditors to avoid a transfer of immoveable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor. There is no doubt that a relief given under Section 53 T. P. Act ensures to the benefit of all the creditors of the transferor whether those creditors are parties to the suit wherein the alienation is challenged or not. But it does not go further. It does not wipe out the transaction. It keeps the transfer intact but destroys its effect on the creditors of the transferor whose debts were intended to be defeated or delayed, At this stage, I may usefully refer to the language of Section 64 C. P. C. which says:

14

"Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment."

A transfer coming within the mischief of Section 64 C. P. C. is only void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment previously made. Section 64 , C. P. C. deals with alienations of properties attached while Section 53 T. P. Act deals with alienations effected with the intention to defeat or delay the creditors. In the former case the alienation becomes void as against the claims arising under the attachment while in the latter case, it is void as against the creditors of the transferor. Neither under Section 64 C. P. C. nor under Section 53 T. P. Act, the transaction as such can be set aside. A transaction coming under Section 53 T. P. Act is not a sham transaction. It is real but is effected with a view to delay or defeat the creditors of the transferor. Therefore, if it is avoided under Section 53 the effect is merely to wipe out the fraud intended to be perpetrated while retaining the validity of the transaction in question in other respects.

13. As regards the true effect of a decision under Section 53 T. P. Act, judicial opinion is unanimous. As early as in the year 1921, a Bench of the Lahore High Court held in Abdul Razak v. Fazal Ilahi, AIR 1921 Lah 333 that a transaction avoided under Section 53 is ineffectual as against the creditors of the transferor but it is otherwise good. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Sellakumara , AIR 1941 Mad 903 (FB) held that where property has been transferred by a deed which falls within the mischief of Section 53 and the transferor becomes insolvent, the property does not form part of the insolvent's estate; a suit under Section 53 is not a suit in respect of the property of the insolvent, but is a suit in respect of property which had been the property of the insolvent and which he had transferred in fraud of his creditors; such a suit does not fall within the prohibition of the Insolvency Act . Once a declaration under Section 53 T. P. Act is obtained, the property does not become the property of the insolvent and automatically vests in the Official Assignee or Official Receiver as the case may be. This view was reiterated by that High Court in Kallubandi Nanjamma v. Kethe Rangappa , . Therein Venkata-rama Ayyar, J., (as he then was) held that when a transfer is void as against the creditors under Section 53 T. P. Act, the result is not to annul it altogether but only to render it inoperative as against creditors and that too only to the extent necessary to satisfy their claims, but subject to their claims the transaction is valid and 'enforceable.

Similar is the view taken by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Anantha Raman Pillai v. Arunachalam, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 105. The Bombay High Court took the same view in Abdullakhan v. Purshottam, AIR 1948 Bom 265. Similar is the view taken by the Nagpur High Court in Narayan v. Maruti Nago, AIR 1936

15

Nag 207 and the Punjab High Court in Ronaqmal Chinnamal v. Kasturimal, .

14. From the above discussion, it is clear that the decision in R. A. No. 83 of 1940-41 (Mys) cannot be considered as having set aside the alienation under Ex. P-I. The effect of that decision is that Ex. P-I became ineffective as against the claims of the creditors of the transferor.

15. But it is urged by Sri M. A. Gopalasvvamy lyengar, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, that rightly or wrongly, the High Court in R. A. No. 83 of 1940-41 in fact set aside the transaction; that decision is binding on the appellants and therefore it is not now open to them to contend that Ex.P-I continued to be valid to any extent. I do not think that there is any basis for this contention. We have already noticed the legal effect of a decision under Section 53 T. P. Act. In that case, the High Court merely purported to act under Section 53 T. P. Act. It is seen from the judgment that the learned Counsel for the creditors in that case tried to persuade the High Court to hold that the impugned transaction was a sham transaction. But the High Court did not hold that it was a sham transaction. On the other hand, Reilly, C. J., who spoke for the Bench observed as follows:

"In my opinion, the plaintiff ought to succeed in this suit, the appeal should be allowed and a decree should now be made declaring that the sale under Ex. V (Ex. B-I in this case) is void as against the creditors of defendants 2, 3 and 4 other than Srikantiah (alienee under Ex. P-I) and that the plaintiff is entitled to exercise his decree in G. S. No. 146 on the file of the First Munsif of Mysore against the property attached by him but that on items I to 6 defendant-I, Srikantiah, will have a charge for Rs. 4450/-. He cannot have a charge for the whole of his mortgage amount, because his own case shows that he has been satisfied in effect to the extend of Rs. 1550/-, otherwise under the sale deed, Ex. VIII."

The above passage makes it clear that the High Court did not purport to set aside the impugned transaction. It merely declared that it is void as against the creditors of defendants 2, 3 and 4, excepting Srikantiah. It is true that it gave a charge on some of the suit properties to Srikantiah the transferor under Ex. P-I for the amount found due to him. This relief no doubt is somewhat incongruous as Srikantiah continued to be the owner of the property over which the charge is created. Despite this confusion there cannot be any doubt about the true nature of the relief granted.

16. But the difficulties of the petitioners in those proceedings do not stop there. As noticed earlier, the vendor and the vendee under Ex. P-I have entered into a new transaction of sale on 20-9-1943, as per Ex. P-4. The very properties sold under Ex. P-I were again sold under Ex. P-4 From this it follows that the vendor and the vendee had by mutual agreement cancelled the transaction under Ex. P-T and had entered into a fresh transaction. This document (Ex. P-4) was

16

evidently executed with a view to defeat the claims of the creditors of Boriah. But for this document there was no difficulty for the creditors of Boriah. The execution of Ex. P-4 is certainly an act of insolvency affording a cause of action to file a petition under Section 9 of the "Act". It is also an alienation coming within the mischief of Section 54 . It may be that Ex. P-4 was executed as a result of some misconception as to the effect of the decision in R. A. No. 83 of 1940-41. But that does not change the legal position. The parties to it intended the same to be a new alienation.

17. No other contention was urged before me.

18. In the result, the above petitions fail and they are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 25/- in each

16.As per above judgment, date of the promissory note is 11-07-2019.

Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 01-07-2021. Suit was decreed on 13-03-2017. Petition was filed on 02-09-2021. Petition was returned on 15-09-2021, On 15-09-2021 it was returned with objections, finally it was numbered. Ex.A.1 transaction took place on 01-07-2021. Petition was filed on 13-03-2021. On 01th July, 2021 document was registered. Date of execution of document is 19-07-2021 on the same day it was registered. As per Ex.A.1 sale consideration

Rs.50,00,000/- To commit the defraud by the R.1 is not proved to intention to evade the debt of petitioner. He sold the property for discharge of debts. In the suit, schedule property why not attached by the petitioner is kept silent. If the property was attached in the schedule property that sale is void.

Section 53 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 is as follows:-

53. Avoidance of voluntary transfer

Any transfer of property not being a transfer made before and in consideration of marriage or made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration shall, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent [on a petition presented] [Inserted by Act 10 of 1930, Section 6.] within two years after the date of the transfer, be voidable as against the receiver and may be annulled by the Court.

Andhra Pradesh High Court: While exercising its civil revision jurisdiction, the single judge bench of Bandaru Syamsunder J., held that the Insolvency Court cannot adjudicate upon the validity of Sale Deed and directs the Official Receiver to cancel the same without the application under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (‘1920 Act’). In the matter at hand, the petitioner/creditors challenged the Order passed by the Additional District

17

Judge, Tirupati under Section 9 of the 1920 Act which had confirmed the

Orders passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati wherein respondents were declared insolvents and the Official Receiver were directed to take over the charge of the scheduled property for proper administration by cancelling the Sale Deeds dated 16-09-2002 and 19-09-2002 executed by respondents, in favour of the petitioners to allegedly evade the debt due to them, which amounted to the act of insolvency. The Court navigated through Section 53 and 54 of the 1920 Act which made it clear that when a transferor is adjudged as insolvent on a petition presented within two years after the date of the transfer, it would be held as voidable against the Receiver and may be annulled by the Court, which indicated that a separate petition had to be filed by the Official Receiver before the Insolvency Court for annulling the sale. Only then the Insolvency Court could pass an Order annulling the Sale Deed and accordingly the Official Receiver could further take action, addressing letter to the concerned authorities for cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Court however, noted that in the present case the Insolvency Court had directed the Official Receiver to take steps to cancel the Sale Deeds in the name of the petitioners without a separate application for annulment which was against the provisions of Section 53 of the 1920 Act. The Court stated that the Orders passed by the Insolvency Court ordering the Official Receiver to take steps to cancel the Sale Deeds, which were not in conformity with Section 53 of the 1920 Act was neither sustainable in law nor in facts. The Court observed that the Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the facts and erroneously confirmed the Orders passed by the Insolvency Court which were liable to be set aside. With the above observation, the Court set aside the Order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, which was confirmed by the Additional

District Judge, Tirupati. According to the powers conferred under Section 68 of

the 1920 Act, the Court set aside the Order passed by the Official Receiver cancelling the Sale Deed. Further directed that the petitioners were at liberty to file an appropriate petition before the Insolvency Court to revive the cancelled Sale Deed. [R. Asalatha v Manikonda Kuppaswamy Naidu, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 447, decided on 28-02-2023]...

17.As per above judgment, the petitioner seeking the relief in the petition annulment of the sale deed executed by the 1st and 2nd respondents along with the 3rd respondent in the petition schedule property. Said petition not filed before the official receiver. As per petition, consequently annal the sale deed, appoint the official receiver to take over the charge petition schedule to pass all necessary and consequential orders in favour of the petitioner.

Point No.2:

when the first respondent possessed sufficient means to discharge

18

the debt due, the first respondent cannot be adjudged as insolvent in view of

Section 25 of the Act. No doubt when the debtor possessed sufficient means, the petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 25 of the Act, if such plea is raised by the debtor. In the present case, the transferee of the debtor raised such plea and it is not legally permissible in view of the judgment reported in

Vemulla Rosaiah v. P.Subrahmanyam, AIR 1989 AP 204, following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Yenumula Malludora v. Peruri

Seetharathnam, AIR 1966 SC 918, wherein the Apex Court held that Section 25 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is in wide terms but it means to give effect to those wide terms so as to consider the jurisdiction to ignore the act of insolvency at least in cases where the debtor continues to be heavily indebted and there is no proof that he is able to pay the debts. Similar view is expressed by this Court in Vemulla Rosaiah (3 supra). Hence, by applying the principle laid down in the above judgments, it is difficult to accept the contention of the second respondent as the said plea is not open to her for the first time in the appeal and before this Court in the Second Appeal. Hence, I find that the second respondent-transferee of the debtor is incompetent to raise such contention.

(2015) 10 AP CK 0043 In The Andhra Pradesh High Court Case No : C.M.S.A. No.2 of 2014

28. In the judgment reported in Dandamudi Chakradhararao (1 supra), Section 25(1) of the Act was discussed but not Section 25(3) of the Act. Similarly, in the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court Section 25(1) of the act was discussed but not Section 25(3) of the Act. Section 25(1) of the Act deals with the satisfaction of the Court that the debtor is in a position to pay his debts or for any other reason sufficient cause, the Court may decline to pass an order adjudging the debtor insolvent. But here, the first respondent-debtor did not contest the matter and did not raise any plea that he is able to discharge the debt due to the petitioners-creditors. Therefore, by applying the principle enunciated in Vemulla Rosaiah’s case (3 supra), I am not inclined to accept the contention of the second respondent. Hence, I find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent.

29. Turning to annulment of the transaction covered by Ex.A5, the order passed by the trial Court is ex facie erroneous for the reason that while adjudging the debtor as insolvent, the transaction cannot be annulled. The trial Court, while

19

adjudging the first respondent as insolvent, annulled the transaction covered by Ex.A5. The same was set aside by the appellate Court but on different grounds.

30. Similar question came up before this Court in Tadikamalla Venkata Ramana Kishore & Anr. v. Padarthi Santhakumari & Ors, 2015(2) L.S. 361. To decide the real controversy between the parties, I feel paragraph Nos.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in the above judgment have to be gone through.

"18. To decide real controversy between the parties, I feel that it is relevant to advert to the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Sections 53, 54, 4 and 54-A of the Act. Section 53 of the Act, says that, any voluntary transfer made by the debtor if the transferor is adjudged as insolvent can be avoided and at the same time, Section 54 of the Act says that, every transfer of property, every payment made, every obligation incurred, and every judicial proceeding taken or suffered by any person unable to pay his debts as he become due from his own money in favour of any creditor, and giving preference over the other creditors, and if such person is adjudged insolvent on a petition presented, shall be deemed to be fraudulent and void against the receiver, and shall be annulled by Court saving transaction entered into in good faith and for valuable consideration.

19. A fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Act and transaction to give fraudulent preference under Section 54 of the Act are void against the receiver and they shall be annulled on the petition filed within specific time. Section 54-A of the Act specifies procedure for annulment of any transfer under Sections 53 or 54 of the Act. According to it, for annulment of any transfer under Sections 53 or 54 of the Act, a petition may be presented by a receiver, with the leave of the Court, by any creditor who has proved his debt and who satisfies the Court that the receiver has been requested and has refused to make such petition.

20. In view of the language used in Sections 53 and 54 of the Act, more particularly, the words if the transferor is adjudged insolvent under Section 53 of the Act and if the person is adjudged insolvent under Section 54 of the Act indicates that for annulling transaction of transfer, the debtor must be an adjudged insolvent. So, to annul a transaction of transfer, a pre-condition is adjudging the debtor as an insolvent. But, here the petition was filed by the creditor seeking two reliefs both under Sections 9 and 53, 54 of the Act avoiding a fraudulent preference and annul the transactions covered by sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 vide document Nos.2605 of 2004 and 2606 of 2004. Thus, he sought for two reliefs simultaneously and the relief claimed by the petitioner/creditor is against the spirit of language used under Sections 53, 54 and 54-A of the Act.

21. Section 54-A of the Act, it is clear that, before moving Court for annulment of transfer, more particularly, covered by the sale deeds dated 10.03.2004, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove her debts before the Official Receiver as required under Section 49 of the Act and then move Court exercising insolvency jurisdiction for annulling transfer, if receiver refuses to make such petition for

20

annulment on the request made by the creditor. So, even according to Section 54-A of the Act, it is the duty of the creditors to prove the debt before the Official Receiver.

22. Section 49 of the Act specifies procedure to be followed for proof of debt. According to it, a debt may be proved under this Act by delivering, or sending by post in a registered letter, to the Court an affidavit verifying the debt. The affidavit shall contain or refer to a statement of account showing particulars of the debt, and shall specify the vouchers by which the same can be substantiated by the Court at any time and call for production of vouchers.

23. Therefore, the debt shall be proved by following necessary procedure contemplated under Section 49 of the Act, after entrusting the matter to Official Receiver duly adjudging the debtor as insolvent.

24. Part-III of the Act from Sections 45 to 50 laid down procedure for proof of debts. Following of such procedure under Sections 45 to 50 of the Act would arise only after adjudging the debtor as insolvent. But here, the relief under Sections 53, 54 of the Act was claimed simultaneously with the relief of adjudging the debtor as insolvent. The conditions laid down under Section 54- A of the Act, were not complied by the petitioner to get the transaction covered by sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 annulled. A perusal of language used under Sections 53, 54 and 54-A of the Act and the mode of proof of debt under Part- III of the Act (From Sections 45 to 50), it is clear that before moving an insolvency Court to annul transfer of property, a creditor has to satisfy the following conditions:

1) The debtor must be adjudged as insolvent.

2) The creditor should prove his debt by following the procedure contemplated under Part-III of the Act.

3) He should have made a request to the Official Receiver for moving insolvency Court for annulling fraudulent transaction and that the Official Receiver refused to move such petition for annulment.

25. In the instant case, by the date of filing the petition, seeking annulment under Section 53 or 54 of the Act, the petitioner was not even adjudged as insolvent. So, the first condition was not satisfied. The petitioner did not approach the Official Receiver and proved his debt as contemplated under Part-III of the Act and complied Section 54-A of the Act.

Thereby, the order annulling the sale transaction covered by sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 vide document Nos.2605 of 2004 and 2606 of 2004 passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court, is erroneous ex facie and contrary to provisions of Act. Hence, the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court to the extent of annulling the sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 vide document Nos.2605 of 2004 and 2606 of 2004, is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

21

However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application after compliance of Sections 45 to 50 and 54-A of the Act to annul the transfer of immovable property under Sections 53, 54 or 4 of the Act."

31. This Court held that the transaction covered by any registered document amounts to an act of insolvency under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act. It cannot be annulled except on an application filed under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act after compliance of procedure prescribed under Sections 45 to 50 and 54-A of the Act.

32. The similar principle is applicable to the present facts of the case. I hold that the annulment of the transaction covered by Ex.A5 by the trial Court is erroneous and illegal and the same is set aside while allowing the appeal in part restoring the order of the trial Court to the extent of adjudging the first respondent-debtor as insolvent. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application for annulment of the transaction covered by original of Ex.A5 subject to compliance of various provisions referred in the earlier paragraphs. Accordingly, the point is decided.

33. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part restoring the order of the Additional

Senior Civil Judge at Eluru in I.P.No.46 of 2005 to the extent of adjudging the first

respondent-debtor as insolvent while setting aside the order of annulment of the transaction covered by original of Ex.A5. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

5. Conditions on which creditor may petition.-(1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless- (a) the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor, or, if two or more creditors join in the petition, the aggregate amount of debts owing to such creditors, amounts to five hundred rupees,

and

(b) the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time, and

(c) the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition:

Provided that where the said period of three months referred to in clause (c) expires on a day when the court is closed, the insolvency petition may be presented on the day on which the court re-opens.

[Section 9(1), P.A.] [Cf. section 12(1), P.T.A.]

Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (c), where the act of insolvency is constituted by a transaction which is required to be made by a registered instrument under any law for the time being in force, and the transaction is made by such registered instrument, the date of registration of the instrument shall be deemed to be the date on which the act of insolvency has occurred. [New] (2) If the petitioning creditor is a secured creditor, he shall in his petition either state that he is willing to relinquish his security for the benefit of the creditors in the event of

22

the debtor being adjudged insolvent, or give an estimate of the value of the security; in the latter case, he may be admitted as a petitioning creditor to the extent of the balance of the debt due to him after deducting the value so estimated in the same way as if he were an unsecured creditor. [Section 9(2), P.A.] [Cf. section 12(2), P.T.A.] (3) In computing the period of three months referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1), the time during which the petitioner has been prosecuting with due diligence another insolvency proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the debtor shall be excluded, where the proceeding is based on the same act of insolvency and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction, is unable to entertain it.

[Cf. section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)]

Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-section (3)

(a) in excluding the time during which a former insolvency proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

(b) a petitioner resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;

(c) "petitioner" includes any person from or through whom the petitioner derives his right to present the petition; [Cf. section 2(a), Limitation Act, 1963]

(d) nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. [Cf. section 2(h), Limitation Act, 1963]

18.As per above judgment, the petitioner not approached to the Official

Receiver not followed due process of law, directly approached to the court, without compliance of statutory provision, at the stage, petition is not maintainable, the petitioner is not entitled the relief as prayed in the petition, for cancellation of sale and declare the R.1 as an insolvent.

During hearing learned counsel for the appellants placed on record the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Yenumula Mallu Dora v. Peruri

Seetharatnam and Others,” wherein it was held as follows:

Under S.7, a creditor is entitled to present a petition in the Insolvency Court against a debtor if he has committed an act of insolvency provided as laid down in S.9(i)(e) the petition is made within three months of the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded. In this case both these conditions are fulfilled. There is thus no doubt that the petitioning creditors' application under S. 7 complied with S. 6 (e) and S. 9 ( 1 ) (c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioning creditors alleged that the appellant was indebted to the extent of Rs. two lakhs and this was not denied by the appellant. In the trial of one of the execution petitions filed against him by a decree- holder the appellant admitted

23

that he had "no means to pay the decree debt" because "all his properties" were "under attachment and were being brought to sale". He also stated that he was not "in a position to discharge the debts". It is, therefore, clear that the appellant who was in more than embarrassed pecuniary circumstances was unable to pay his debts. It was also clear from the evidence, which the District Court and the Subordinate Judge have concurrently accepted, that he had made some transfers to screen his properties from his creditors and had suffered a decree for maintenance in a suit by his wife. In view of these facts, which the appellant cannot now deny, he is driven to support his case by argument on law. The argument, as we have seen, is two-fold. We, are not inclined to accept either leg of the argument An act of insolvency once, committed cannot be explained or purged by subsequent events. The insolvent cannot claim to wipe it off by paying some of his creditors. This is because the same act of insolvency is available to all his creditors. By satisfying one of the creditors the act of insolvency is not erased unless all creditors are satisfied because till all creditors are paid the debtor must prove his ability to meet his liabilities. In this case the petitioning creditors had their own decrees. It was in the decree of another creditor that the payment was made but only after the act of insolvency was committed. Besides the petitioning creditors there were several other creditors to whom the appellant owed large sum of money and his total debts aggregated to Rs. two lakhs. It is plain that any of the remaining creditors, including the petitioning creditors, could rely upon the act of insolvency even though one or more creditors might have been paid in full. The act of insolvency which the appellant had committed thus remained and was not purged by payment of decretal amount after the sale in execution of the money decree.

In Vemula Rosaiah and Another v. P.Subramanyam and Another”, wherein the learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

An analysis of Section 25(1) shows that there are three circumstances in which the petition made by the creditor must be dismissed, viz., (1) absence of right of creditor to make application; (2) failure to serve debtor with notice of admission of petition, and (3) ability of debtor to pay his debts. In addition to these circumstances, the Court has been given a discretion to dismiss the petition if it is satisfied that there is other sufficient cause for not making the order against the debtor. But one important aspect that has to be noted is, whether such a plea can be taken only by the debtor. Learned counsel for the appellants have painstakingly taken this court through records of the case and presented his respective points of view very ably. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants discharged their burden by placing cogent evidence. Further the 1 st respondent having remained exparte and no cogent evidence is placed by the respondents to disprove the governments and evidence available on record qua the debts. The suit in O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the court of IV Addl.District Judge, Kakinada filed by the 2 nd appellant against the 1 st respondent, which is

24

Ex.A.7 and filed C.C.No.980 of 2008 on the file of V Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada i.e., Ex.A.8. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have proved their case and filed the copies of the judgments to substantiate their claim, but the same was not looked into by the court below is the respective contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.

The 1 st respondent remained exparte and the court below in its judgment held that the 2 nd respondent in cross examination is able to establish that the 1 st petitioner for the reasons best known to him failea to prosecute his suit for recovery of amounts against the 1 st respondent and the 2 nd petitioner in another proceeding has clearly stated that the amount was not advanced on 27-01-2006, But the petitioners except pleading about the pronote transaction, failed to explain the cross examination elicited situations are giving raise to doubting circumstances on the claim of the petitioners. Howsoever, as the petitioners are not adjudicated creditors, in the light of the above authority, their claim seeking adjudication against the 1 st respondent found not tenable”.

Further the court below opined that as per evidence of P.W.3 there are other properties to the 1 st respondent and 1 st appellant knows about the same. Therefore, the 1 st respondent is having other properties, the appellants claim that the petition A-schedule property is not the only property, as such, the contention that the only property sold away and it is an act of insolvency cannot be accepted.

In Yenumula Mallu Dor’s case (cited supra-1) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “An act of insolvency once committed cannot be explained or purged by subsequent events. The insolvent cannot claim to wipe it off by paying some of his creditors. This is because the same act of insolvency is available to all his creditors. By satisfying one of the creditors the act of insolvency is not erased unless all creditors are satisfied because till all creditors are paid the debtor must prove his ability to meet his liabilities. In this case the petitioning creditors had their own decrees. It was in the decree of another creditor that the payment was made but only after the act of insolvency was committed.

In the instance case, admittedly there was a decree and judgment in favour of the appellants. Therefore, the court below ought to have considered the same, but the same is not reflected in its order. Since there is sufficient proof and evidence is available on record, the court below ought to have considered the same and decide the issue on merits. Therefore, the impugned order is cryptic and bereft of any reasons and is therefore liable to be set aside. Following the decisions cited supra and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, this court is setting aside the impugned order dated 23- 02-2016 with a direction to the court below to conduct de novo enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties and pass

25

appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law.

With the above direction, the C.M.A is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

(2015) 10 AP CK 0043 In The Andhra Pradesh High Court

Sri M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - The petitioner before the Additional Senior

Civil Judge Court, Eluru, in I.P.No.46 of 2005 preferred this appeal against the

decree and judgment dated 17.04.2013 in A.S.No.71 of 2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, where under the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, dated 30.04.2009 in I.P.No.46 of 2005 was set aside.

2. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed I.P.No.46 of 2005 under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 ("the Act" for brevity) to adjudge the first respondent as an insolvent, annul the alienation made by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent as transfer is intended to defeat and delay the claim of creditors and to appoint Official Receiver for general administration.

4. The first respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 05.09.2002 from the first petitioner under a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum as and when demanded by the first petitioner. The first respondent also borrowed an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- from the first petitioner on 15.03.2003 and executed a promissory note on even date agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 20% per annum as and when demanded by the first petitioner. The first respondent borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the second petitioner on 15.04.2004 under a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum as and when demanded. Subsequently, the first respondent made part payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- and endorsed the same on the reverse of the promissory note executed in favour of the second petitioner.

5. The first respondent borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the third petitioner on 10.09.2003 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 21% per annum as and when demanded.

6. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that the first respondent invested the amount borrowed from the petitioners in Shriram Chits and also for payment of chit instalments. The first and second respondents used to purchase bonds in Shriram Chits and used to participate in chit auctions. Both the respondents are having financial dealings since long time. The first respondent is a Financial Advisor to the second respondent. The second respondent used to oblige and set whatever the first respondent advised her. The first respondent was indebted to some other creditors and to avoid the payment of amount due to the

26

petitioners and with a view to delay and defeat the claim of the petitioners, the first respondent executed a gift deed in favour of her son on 08.07.2004 donating the schedule property with a view to defeat and delay the genuine creditors and it is collusive work.

7. The first respondent executed a sale deed dated 20.08.2004 in favour of the second respondent with an intention to delay and defeat the claim of the petitioners 1 to 3 and the said sale deed is sham, nominal and collusive. Thus, the transfer of whole or part of property in favour of the second respondent amounts to an act of insolvency under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act. Hence, the petitioners sought adjudging the first respondent as insolvent and to anull the transfer covered by sale deed dated 20.08.2004 executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent.

8. The first respondent remained ex parte.

9. The second respondent filed counter denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that the petition is not maintainable as the second respondent is not aware about the transaction between the petitioners and the first respondent, called upon the petitioners to put the same to strict proof. She also denied the financial dealings between the first and second respondents while contending that originally, the property belongs to G.V. Ramana Murthy from whom the son of the first respondent purchased under registered sale deed dated 28.03.2003 and later by registered settlement deed dated 08.07.2004 executed by the son of the first respondent, the first respondent became owner of the property and that the first respondent sold the same to the second respondent by executing a registered sale deed for valuable consideration and thereby, the transaction cannot be said to be sham and nominal, intending to defeat and delay the claim of the genuine creditors.

10. It is further contended that the first respondent was having debentures worth Rs.10,00,000/- in Shriram Chits as on 20.11.2002 and that the first respondent has got sufficient means to discharge the debts due to the petitioners and thereby, they never committed any act of insolvency and the question of adjudging the first respondent as insolvent and to anull the transfer covered by sale deed dated 20.08.2004 executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent does not arise and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

11. During the enquiry before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, she herself was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.

12. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel and considering oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru allowed the Insolvency Petition with costs adjudging the first respondent as insolvent while vesting the petition schedule property on the Official Receiver

27

for administration and to take possession of the schedule property granting one year time for discharge.

13. Aggrieved by the order and decretal order passed by the Additional Senior

Civil Judge at Eluru dated 30.04.2009, the second respondent, B. Nirmala

Devi, the transferee of the debtor filed appeal in A.S.No.71 of 2010 on various grounds.

14. Upon hearing argument, the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, allowed the appeal on 17.04.2013, setting aside the order and decretal order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil

Judge at Eluru and dismissed I.P.No.46 of 2005.

15. Aggrieved by the order and decretal order passed by the I Additional

District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, the petitioners (creditors) in I.P.No.46

of 2004 filed the present appeal challenging the order and decretal order

dated 17.04.2013 on various grounds.

16. The only substantial question of law raised in the grounds of appeal is "Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, filing of the suit for recovery of debts is a condition precedent under the provisions of the Insolvency Act for the creditors against the debtor under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act?"

17. During the hearing, Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that dismissal of insolvency petition by the I

Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, in appeal A.S.No.71

of 2010 is erroneous for the reason that Section 9 of the Act does not contemplate filing of a suit and obtaining a decree to file an insolvency petition

before a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act. In the absence of any

such precondition, dismissal of the insolvency petition by the appellate Court is erroneous. However, the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru does not warrant interference by the I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, since there is no error or perversity in the decretal order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru but on erroneous appreciation of the facts and law, the appellate Court dismissed the insolvency petition setting aside the order and decretal order passed by the trial Court and prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.71 of 2010 and confirm the order passed by the trial Court in I.P.No.46 of 2005.

18. Sri Hari Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that C.M.S.A.No.2 of 2004 is not maintainable under Section 75 of the Insolvency Act. It is further contended that when the debtor own and possessed sufficient means to discharge the debt due to the petitioners, the order passed by the trial Court adjudging the debtor as insolvent is erroneous. On this ground also, the order is liable to be set aside. Finally, it is contended that when the first respondent own and possessed sufficient means, the Court cannot adjudge the first respondent as insolvent and prayed to confirm the judgment and decree

28

passed by the appellate Court while setting aside the order and decretal order passed by the trial Court in I.P.No.46 of 2005.

19. Considering the rival contentions and oral and documentary evidence on record, including the order and decretal order dated 30.04.2009 in I.P.No.46 of 2005 and judgment and decree dated 17.04.2003 in A.S.No.71 of 2010, the points that arises for consideration are "(1) whether obtaining a decree for recovery of the amount based on the promissory note is a precondition to file a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency Act and (2) Whether possessing means to discharge the debt by the first respondent /debtor is a ground to dismiss the Insolvency Petition, if so, whether such a plea is open to the second respondent-transferee of the debtor?

20. Point No.1: The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Hari Sridhar, is that the appeal itself is not maintainable in view of first proviso of Section 75 of the Act. Section 75 deals with appeals but clause (2) of Section 75 says that "any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a District Court as is specified in Schedule I, come to or made otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court, may appeal to the High Court or any other ground mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 100 CPC. Similarly, sub-Section (2) provides a right of appeal to an aggrieved person against the decision or order of the District Court as is specified in Schedule I. Thus, sub-Section (2) permits a person aggrieved to file an appeal against the order of the District Judge as specified in Schedule I. According to Schedule II read with Section 75(2) of the Act, an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 75(2) against the decision of question of title, property etc., arising in insolvency provision under Section 4, order of dismissing the petition under Section 25 and other provisions. But in the present case, the trial Court adjudged the first respondent as insolvent but the appellate Court dismissed the Insolvency Petition on the ground that the petitioners did not obtain a decree based on promissory note, which is a precondition to file an Insolvency Petition under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, in view of Section 75(2) read with Schedule I of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the CMSA is maintainable against the decree and judgment passed by the I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any substance and the same is, accordingly, rejected.

21. The only ground on which the appellate Court dismissed the Insolvency Petition is that the petitioners did not file any suit and obtained a decree and it is a condition precedent to file a petition under Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act prescribes the preconditions to file insolvency petition, which are as under:-

Conditions on which creditor may petition:- (1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless

29

(a) the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor, or, if two or more creditors join in the petition, the aggregate amount of debts owing to such creditors, amounts to five hundred rupees; and

(b) the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time, and

(c) the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition:

Provided that where the said period of three months referred to in Clause (c) expires on a day when the Court is closed, the insolvency petition may be presented on the day on which the Court re-opens.

(2) If the petitioning creditor is a secured creditor, he shall in his petition either state that he is willing to relinquish his security for the benefit of the creditors in the event of the debtor being adjudged insolvent, or give an estimate of the value of the security. In the latter case, he may be admitted as a petitioning creditor to the extent of the balance of the debt due to him after deducting the value so estimated in the same way as if he were an unsecured creditor.

22. None of the conditions under Section 9 speaks about filing of a suit and obtaining a decree for filing an insolvency petition and at the same time, Section 2 Clause (1)(a) defines the creditor as "it includes a decree-holder, debt includes a judgment-debt, and debtor includes a judgment-debtor". In view of the definition of the creditor, a person, who lent amount, is also a creditor as defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. The word creditor much wider than a mere decree-holder and when I turn to Section 9, it is clear and it is not disputed that for the purposes of Section 9(a) to (h) the expression "Creditor" used in that section is used in its wider connotation and would include not only a decree-holder but also an assignee of a decree-holder. Therefore, the person, who advanced money to the first respondent, the petitioners are entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Act since obtaining decree against the debtor is not a precondition to adjudge the first respondent as insolvent. Therefore, dismissal of the application on the ground that the petitioners are not the judgment-debtors and failed to obtain any decree by filing a suit is not a ground to dismiss the Insolvency Petition but the first appellate Court on erroneous appreciation of law dismissed the Insolvency Petition, setting aside the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru.

23. Learned counsel for the respondents specifically contended that unless the petitioners proved that the transfer of whole or part of the property was with an intention to defeat and delay the creditors, the debtor cannot be adjudged in support of it he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dandamudi Chakradhararao And Another v. Pidikiti Koteswararao And Another, 1996(3) ALT 34, wherein this Court held that there must be an existing debt in favour of the petitioner/creditor, which is a precondition to adjudge a person as insolvent besides proof of intention of the debtor to delay and defeat the claims of the

30

creditor. He also placed reliance on the judgment reported in Modadugula Sreeramulu v. Perakam Singayya, Andhra Weekly Reporter 1967-2-329, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under.

"In this case, the house of Sreeramulu, even according to the value put or it by the first petitioner as P.W.1 is worth much more than the debt on Exhibit A-1 which has been proved and the other debts which had been admitted by Sreeramulu as his genuine debts. The mortgage (Exhibit A-3) is only on a vested remainder of property in which Sreeramulus sister has a life interest namely, within a right to enjoy so long as she is alive. The petitioners have failed to prove that the transfer by Exhibit A-3 is calculated to defeat or delay the creditors.

The relevant sections of the Provincial Insolvency Act in the matter are section 6, section 9, section 24 and section 25. Section 6 deals with acts of insolvency. Under section 6(5), if the debtor makes a transfer of his property or of any part thereof with intent to defeat or delay his creditor, he commits an act of insolvency. Under section 6(g), if the debtor given notice to any of his creditors that he has suspended, or that he is about to suspend, payment of his debts, he also commits an act of insolvency. Section 9(1)(a) is in the following terms:- "Section 9(1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless (a) the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor, or if two or more creditors join in the petition, the aggregate amount of debts owing to such creditors, amounts to five hundred rupees.

"Section 24(1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the petition the Court shall require proof of the following matters, namely :- (a) that the creditor or the debtor, as the case may be, is entitled to present the petition : (Section o). (c) that the debtor has committed the act of insolvency alleged against him (section 6)." Section 25 deals with dismissal of insolvency petition. According to Clause (1)of the section, in the case of a petition presented by a creditor, where the Court is satisfied by the debtor that he is able to pay his debts, or that for any other sufficient cause no order ought to be made, the Court shall dismiss the petition. In this case, the condition required in section 9(1)(a) of the Act has been proved on the basis of finding by the learned Additional

District Judge. This and other features in the evidence show that the requirement of

section 24(1)(a) is fulfilled. The act of insolvency alleged against Sreeramulu by the petitioners came under section 6(b) and section 6(g). Section 6(g) has not been found by the learned Judge to be proved. We also agree with him and find that the requirement of section 6(g) has not been proved. The act of insolvency required under section 6 is also not proved as shown by us above. Therefore, the condition required in section 24(1)(c) has not been fulfilled."

24. The creditor has to prove the act of insolvency so as to enable the Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Insolvency Act to adjudge the debtor as insolvent. In the absence of proof of intention of the debtor, the debtor cannot be adjudged as insolvent and mere transfer of property is not sufficient. There is no

31

quarrel about the law declared by the Division Bench and Single Judge of this Court.

25. Learned counsel for the second respondent has drawn attention of this Court to various admissions in the evidence of P.W.4, the Manager of Shriram Chits to substantiate the contentions of the second respondent that the debtor has means to pay the debt due to the petitioners and that he had no intention to defeat and delay the creditors. However, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made in paragraph No.40 of the judgment of the I Additional District Judge at West Godavari, Eluru, wherein the District Judge referred, the evidence of P.W.4, the Executive Director of Shriram Chits. On consideration of the testimony of P.W.4, it is evident that the first respondent invested a sum of Rs.27,84,000/- on various dates during 2001-2002 in the form of debentures with Shriram Chits and he joined as a subscriber in 31 chits of Shriram Chits Company and in all chits, participated in the auction and became prised subscriber and received prise amount from Shriram Chits, on furnishing bonds as collateral security. As the first respondent became defaulter in payment of subsequent instalments of chits, the bonds were adjusted towards chits amount. Even after adjusting the bonds, the first respondent was still due Rs.19,31,580/-. In view of these admitted facts, the first respondent-debtor was unable to pay the chit instalments after receiving prise amount from Shriram Chits. Mere possessing debentures worth Rs.27,84,000/- is not sufficient to deny the relief of adjudging the first respondent as insolvent in view of the voluminous evidence available on record.

26. The only contention of the first respondent is that the deposit of debentures is not borne out in the pleadings and it is a subsequent event. Even if it is a subsequent event, unless the plea of the respondent is supported by any pleading, the same cannot be looked into. Similarly, the second respondent also did not raise any contention specifically about possessing debentures worth Rs.27,84,000/- except alleging that he possessed debentures worth Rs.19,00,000/- and odd. In any view of the matter, transfer of movable or immovable property in favour of third parties with a view to delay and defeat the claim of the creditors itself amounts to an act of insolvency. Hence, transfer under the original of Ex.A5 is sufficient to hold that the first respondent-debtor committed an act of insolvency since the circumstances of the case established that the transfer was with an intention to delay and defeat the claim of the creditors but the appellate Court, on erroneous appreciation of facts and law, dismissed the Insolvency Petition. Hence, the finding of the appellate Court is hereby set aside while confirming the order passed by the trial Court.

27. Point No.2: The major contention of the second respondent is that she is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and that when the first respondent possessed sufficient means to discharge the debt due, the first respondent cannot be adjudged as insolvent in view of Section 25 of the Act. No

32

doubt when the debtor possessed sufficient means, the petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 25 of the Act, if such plea is raised by the debtor. In the present case, the transferee of the debtor raised such plea and it is not legally permissible in view of the judgment reported in Vemulla Rosaiah v. P. Subrahmanyam, AIR 1989 AP 204, following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Yenumula Malludora v. Peruri Seetharathnam, AIR 1966 SC 918, wherein the Apex Court held that Section 25 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is in wide terms but it means to give effect to those wide terms so as to consider the jurisdiction to ignore the act of insolvency at least in cases where the debtor continues to be heavily indebted and there is no proof that he is able to pay the debts. Similar view is expressed by this Court in Vemulla Rosaiah (3 supra). Hence, by applying the principle laid down in the above judgments, it is difficult to accept the contention of the second respondent as the said plea is not open to her for the first time in the appeal and before this Court in the Second Appeal. Hence, I find that the second respondent- transferee of the debtor is incompetent to raise such contention.

28. In the judgment reported in Dandamudi Chakradhararao (1 supra), Section 25(1) of the Act was discussed but not Section 25(3) of the Act. Similarly, in the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court Section 25(1) of the act was discussed but not Section 25(3) of the Act. Section 25(1) of the Act deals with the satisfaction of the Court that the debtor is in a position to pay his debts or for any other reason sufficient cause, the Court may decline to pass an order adjudging the debtor insolvent. But here, the first respondent- debtor did not contest the matter and did not raise any plea that he is able to discharge the debt due to the petitioners-creditors. Therefore, by applying the principle enunciated in Vemulla Rosaiahs case (3 supra), I am not inclined to accept the contention of the second respondent. Hence, I find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent.

29. Turning to annulment of the transaction covered by Ex.A5, the order passed by the trial Court is ex facie erroneous for the reason that while adjudging the debtor as insolvent, the transaction cannot be annulled. The trial Court, while adjudging the first respondent as insolvent, annulled the transaction covered by Ex.A5. The same was set aside by the appellate Court but on different grounds.

30. Similar question came up before this Court in Tadikamalla Venkata Ramana Kishore & Anr. v. Padarthi Santhakumari & Ors, 2015(2) L.S. 361. To decide the real controversy between the parties, I feel paragraph Nos.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in the above judgment have to be gone through.

"18. To decide real controversy between the parties, I feel that it is relevant to advert to the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Sections 53, 54, 4 and 54-A of the Act. Section 53 of the Act, says that, any voluntary transfer made by the debtor if the transferor is adjudged as insolvent can be avoided and at the same time, Section 54 of the Act says that, every transfer of property, every payment made, every obligation incurred, and every judicial proceeding taken or suffered

33

by any person unable to pay his debts as he become due from his own money in favour of any creditor, and giving preference over the other creditors, and if such person is adjudged insolvent on a petition presented, shall be deemed to be fraudulent and void against the receiver, and shall be annulled by Court saving transaction entered into in good faith and for valuable consideration.

19. A fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Act and transaction to give fraudulent preference under Section 54 of the Act are void against the receiver and they shall be annulled on the petition filed within specific time. Section 54- A of the Act specifies procedure for annulment of any transfer under Sections 53 or 54 of the Act. According to it, for annulment of any transfer under Sections 53 or 54 of the Act, a petition may be presented by a receiver, with the leave of the Court, by any creditor who has proved his debt and who satisfies the Court that the receiver has been requested and has refused to make such petition.

20. In view of the language used in Sections 53 and 54 of the Act, more particularly, the words if the transferor is adjudged insolvent under Section 53 of the Act and if the person is adjudged insolvent under Section 54 of the Act indicates that for annulling transaction of transfer, the debtor must be an adjudged insolvent. So, to annul a transaction of transfer, a pre-condition is adjudging the debtor as an insolvent. But, here the petition was filed by the creditor seeking two reliefs both under Sections 9 and 53, 54 of the Act avoiding a fraudulent preference and annul the transactions covered by sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 vide document Nos.2605 of 2004 and 2606 of 2004. Thus, he sought for two reliefs simultaneously and the relief claimed by the petitioner/creditor is against the spirit of language used under Sections 53, 54 and 54-A of the Act.

21. Section 54-A of the Act, it is clear that, before moving Court for annulment of transfer, more particularly, covered by the sale deeds dated 10.03.2004, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove her debts before the Official Receiver as required under Section 49 of the Act and then move Court exercising insolvency jurisdiction for annulling transfer, if receiver refuses to make such petition for annulment on the request made by the creditor. So, even according to Section 54-A of the Act, it is the duty of the creditors to prove the debt before the Official Receiver.

22. Section 49 of the Act specifies procedure to be followed for proof of debt. According to it, a debt may be proved under this Act by delivering, or sending by post in a registered letter, to the Court an affidavit verifying the debt. The affidavit shall contain or refer to a statement of account showing particulars of the debt, and shall specify the vouchers by which the same can be substantiated by the Court at any time and call for production of vouchers.

23. Therefore, the debt shall be proved by following necessary procedure contemplated under Section 49 of the Act, after entrusting the matter to Official Receiver duly adjudging the debtor as insolvent.

34

24. Part-III of the Act from Sections 45 to 50 laid down procedure for proof of debts. Following of such procedure under Sections 45 to 50 of the Act would arise only after adjudging the debtor as insolvent. But here, the relief under Sections 53, 54 of the Act was claimed simultaneously with the relief of adjudging the debtor as insolvent. The conditions laid down under Section 54- A of the Act, were not complied by the petitioner to get the transaction covered by sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 annulled. A perusal of language used under Sections 53, 54 and 54-A of the Act and the mode of proof of debt under Part- III of the Act (From Sections 45 to 50), it is clear that before moving an insolvency Court to annul transfer of property, a creditor has to satisfy the following conditions:

1) The debtor must be adjudged as insolvent.

2) The creditor should prove his debt by following the procedure contemplated under Part-III of the Act.

3) He should have made a request to the Official Receiver for moving insolvency Court for annulling fraudulent transaction and that the Official Receiver refused to move such petition for annulment.

25. In the instant case, by the date of filing the petition, seeking annulment under Section 53 or 54 of the Act, the petitioner was not even adjudged as insolvent. So, the first condition was not satisfied. The petitioner did not approach the Official Receiver and proved his debt as contemplated under Part-III of the Act and complied Section 54-A of the Act.

Thereby, the order annulling the sale transaction covered by sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 vide document Nos.2605 of 2004 and 2606 of 2004 passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court, is erroneous ex facie and contrary to provisions of Act. Hence, the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court to the extent of annulling the sale deeds dated 10.03.2004 vide document Nos.2605 of 2004 and 2606 of 2004, is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application after compliance of Sections 45 to 50 and 54-A of the Act to annul the transfer of immovable property under Sections 53, 54 or 4 of the Act."

31. This Court held that the transaction covered by any registered document amounts to an act of insolvency under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act. It cannot be annulled except on an application filed under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act after compliance of procedure prescribed under Sections 45 to 50 and 54-A of the Act.

32. The similar principle is applicable to the present facts of the case. I hold that the annulment of the transaction covered by Ex.A5 by the trial Court is erroneous and illegal and the same is set aside while allowing the appeal in part

35

restoring the order of the trial Court to the extent of adjudging the first respondent-debtor as insolvent. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application for annulment of the transaction covered by original of Ex.A5 subject to compliance of various provisions referred in the earlier paragraphs. Accordingly, the point is decided.

33. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part restoring the order of the

Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru in I.P.No.46 of 2005 to the extent of

adjudging the first respondent-debtor as insolvent while setting aside the order of annulment of the transaction covered by original of Ex.A5. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

Creditor and debtor relation ship not proved, debt not proved promissory not filed before the court. As per evidence of P.W.1 Promissory note already expired. petitioner is not having ready seek relief of declaration R1 as insolvent.

As per above the above discussion petition has no merits to allow the petition. Accordingly, point is answered.

In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:

P.W.1: Sunkara Krishna Rao

For Respondents:

R.W.1: Gade Lingeswara Gupta

Documents Marked

For Petitioner: Nil

For Respondents:

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of registered sale deed dated 01-07-2021 Ex.A.2; Attested copy of partition deed dated 07-11-2014 Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice dated 24-07-2021

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

CJ(SD), AMP

Petition filed on 06-09-2021 Registered on 15-11-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION):: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Amalapuram Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025

I.P.No.11 of 2021

Between:

Sunkara Krishnarao, S/o Venkateswararao, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Ina, D.No.6-1-2, Cotton Street, Near Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Amalapuram.

.. Petitioner

And

1) Gade Lingeswara Gupta, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy, Aged, 40 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.3-2-37/1, State Bank Street, K.Agraharam, Amalapuram.

2) Karella Ganeshbabu, S/o Mallikarjunarao, Aged 46 years, Hindu, Inam, D.No.4-130/1, Vinayaka Temple Street, Rangapuram, H/o Samanasa, Amalapuram Mandal.

3) Karella Sandhya Devi, W/o Ganeshbabu, Aged 36 years, Hindu, House wife, D.No.4-130/1, Vinayaka Temple Street, Rangapuram, H./o Samanasa, Amalapuram Mandal.

4) Gade Lakshmi Padma, D/o Lingeswara Gupta, Hindu, Inam, Aged 24 years, D.No.3-2-37/1, State Bank Street, K.Agraharam, Amalauram.

5) Gade Sai Naga Bhavana, D/o Lingeswara Gupta, Hindu, Inam, Aged 22 years, D.No.3-2-37/1, State Bank Street, K.Agraharam, Amalauram.

.. Respondents.

This is an application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act prays the Hon’ble court to adjudicate the 1st respondent as an insolvent; to annul the registered sale deed dated 01-07- 2021, Doc.No.4673/2021 of S.R.O., Amalapuram alleged to have been executed by respondents, 1, 4 and 5 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 in respect of 1st respondents 1/3rd share out of the petition schedule property so as to bring the same to the common pool for distribution among general body of creditors of 1st respondent; to appoint a receiver to make possession of 1/3rd share out of schedule mentioned property so as to manage the same and to realize the incomes thereon and to sell the same in public auction and realize the considerations so as to distribute the same among the creditors of 1st respondent and to grant costs of the petition and other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice under facts and circumstances of the case.

A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Sch-II, Art.II(g) of APCF Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose on 11-07-2019 at Amalapuram village, when the 1st respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner and later did not repay the same and after repeated demands and when the 1st respondent in collusion with respondents 4 and 5 brought into existence the fictitious registered sale deed, dated 01-07-2021 alleged to have executed by respondents 1, 4 and 5 in favour of respondents 2 and 3, where the schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. This petition is coming on 11-04-2025 for consideration in the presence of Sri K.Mallaparaju, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Md.Azam, Learned Counsel for R.1,R4 and R.5 and R.2 and R.3 are remain set ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs ii) that each party do bear their own costs

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Amalapuram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No memo of costs filed on either side

Sd/- Sai Kumari Akuri,

CJ(SD), AMP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

PRESENT: A. SAI KUMARI,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), KOTHAPETA

THURSDAY, THE 7 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

I.P..No. 04 of 2024

Between:-

Gamidi Kasi Vishalakshi, W/o Suryanarayana Murthy, Age 39 Years, Calling Nil R/o

D.No.19-167, Yenugu Mahal Village, H/o kothapeta, Kothapeta Mandal. East

Godavari District. . .Petitioner

And

1. Bochchu Satyanarayana, S/o Pullamraju, Age 41 Years, R/o D.No.2-22, Main

Road, Kothapeta Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Addanki Rukmini, W/o Bala Murali Krishna, Age 45 years, R/o D.No.3-25

Mandapalli Village, Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari District.

3. Bokka Gowramma, W/o Yedukondalu, Age 46 years, R/o D.No.19-55

Yenugumahal Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

4. Bollisetti Venkateswara Rao, S/o Appa Rao, Age 48 Years, R/o D.No.19-60,

Yenugumahal Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

5. Saladi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Buli Venkanna, Age 60 years, R/o D.No.19-65

Yenugumahal Village, kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

6. Kudupudi Satyanarayana, S/o Gani Raju, Age 50 years, R/o D.NO.19-70

Yenugumahal Village, kothapeta mandal, East Godavari District.

7. Kovvuri Suresh Reddy, S/o Ganiraju, R/o D.No. 10-150, Paalli Village, Attili

Mandal, East Godavari District.

8.Bayye Ammanna, W/o Buli Satyam, Age 60 Years, R/o D.No.19-80,

Gopalapuram, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

9.Gubbala Pallamma, W/o Veera swamy, Age 48 years, R/o D.No. 19-99,

Yenugumahal village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

10. Kudupudi Nagaraju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 45 Years, R/o D.No. 19-71, 2

Yenugumhal Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Respondents

This suit is coming on 15-04-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.N.

Prasad, Advocate for petitioner, Sri K.R.Raja Rao Advocate, for R3, R10, R11, set- exparte R1,2,4 to R8 having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

ORDER

Therefore, the petitioner prays that the Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents:

a) by adjudicate the petitioner as insolvent and discharge from the debts of her creditors

b) and pass such other reliefs as the court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

1. Brief averment of petition:- It is submitted that the petitioner is permanent resident of Yenugumahal. She had been running kirana Business name and styled as Vishalakshi Kirana Stores, since 2010.

It is alleged that the petitioner invested more than 10 Lakhs on the kirana

Business and run the business. During the process of her business, she used to obtained amounts from the respondents and discharge the same from time to time It is prevailing as regular transactions and between petitioner and respondents.

1.1. It is further alleged that from the the year 2020 due to Corona pandemic situation. The petitioner sustained heavy loss in her business. Any was in order to run the business she invested huge amounts on her business to that effect, the petitioner obtained amounts from the respondents. The details of debts stated in schedule “ B” of the petition. But, Even after investing amount, she couldn’t fetch up her business and gradually getting down of her business. But the amounts borrowed by the petitioner became higher amounts and the petitioner is liable to the pay to the respondents. But, she could’t discharge the debt due to loss in her business. On the other hand since 6 months the respondents started pressure for 3 their amounts against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner is unable to discharge the debts. And completely wind up her business. All the respondent obtained signature of the petitioner on empty pronotes. The petitioner completely stopped her business and she has no source of income and stood on the verge of bank ruptcy. Under the above circumstances the petitioner cannot discharge the debts of the respondents. Hence the petitioner is constrained to file the petition with a prayer to adjudicate her as insolvent and for such other appropriate reliefs.

2. COUNTER FILED BY THE 3 rd 10 th and R11 th RESPONDENTS:- 2.1. The allegations mentioned in the 2nd para of this petition the petitioner invested more than 10 lakhs on the Kirana Business and run the business and that during the process of her business, she used to obtain amounts from the respondents and discharge the same from time to time it is prevailing as regular transactions and between petitioner and respondents are not true and correct 2.2. The allegations mentioned in the 3rd para of this petition that in the year 2020 due to Corona pandemic situation the petitioner sustained heavy loss in her business and that any way in order to run the business she invested huge amounts on her business to that effect, the petitioner obtained amounts from the respondents and that the details of debts stated in schedule "B" of the petition and that but even after investing amount she couldn't fatch up her business and gradually getting down of her business are not true and correct but the borrowed by the petitioner became higher amounts and the petitioner is liable to the pay to the respondents but she couldn't discharge the debt due to loss in her business and that on the other hand since 6 months the respondents started pressure for their amounts against the petitioner and that even though the petitioner is unable to discharge the debts and completely wind up her business and that all the respondents obtained signature of the petitioner on empty pronotes and that the petitioner completely stopped her business and she has no source of income and stood on the verge of bank ruptcy and that under the above circumstances the petitioner cannot discharge the debts of the respondents are not true and correct for the purpose of invented the case.

4 2.3. The 3rd, 10th and 11th respondents contended that the respondents were innocent and that they were not aware of this kind of situation due to that Innocence situation of the respondents, the petitioner deceived the respondents, actually the respondents hided the amount at the petitioner.

2.4. It is true that the petitioner running a Kirana store business now and still now, and she also have a purified water plant for selling water, and also has a seasonal business and the petitioner sells puja materials to the devotees every day. The petitioner is a well-known person, wealth person and influential parson around two

Villages namely Mandapalli and Yenugulamahal, who has got inherited house and vacant site from her parents. Long ago the petitioner's father died due to a fire accident caused by Diwali crackers. By that time the government officials had sanctioned some amount from their welfare, and sanctioned a loan and also got

Insurances amount, she is wealth person in her community so that the petitioner need not necessarily borrowed that amount for the respondents. the respondents were around the petitioner's house, the above-mentioned respondents hided the amount with the petitioner. But they did not give the amount as a debt to the petitioner and she did not execute any promissory note in-favour of the above respondents. The petitioner also doing money laundering business and further the petitioner also running private chits and fund business. The petitioner earnings all these on business and she has filed the present petition to hide the amount at her relatives and avoid the repay the amount to the respondents.

2.6. The respondents contended that the 3rd, 10th and 11th respondents were agricultural coolie and were the livelihood of their families. The petitioner requested the respondents to keep the amount for herself so that, the respondent keep their amounts to her. In the past, the petitioner used to give whenever the respondents wanted. The respondents thought it would be given in the same way. But the petitioner done cheated the respondents. The petitioner has both movable and immovable assets but she has not disclosed the details of her assets to this petition so that, the court may not be consider the present petition so the Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismissed the petition in the interest of justice.

5 2.7. There is no any reasonable cause of action and this respondent is nothing to do with the allegations made by the petitioner as such all maintainable under law and the petitioner is not entitled for reef as prayed for in the petition, the petitioner have no right to declare her as Insolvent The petition as framed is not legally enforceable under law and the petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

2.8. such of the allegation which are not specifically traversed herein are deemed to have been denied by this respondent and the petition must be strict proof of the same .

2.9. Therefore, the respondent prays that the Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

3.During enquiry in order to establish her claim the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1, P.W.2 3rd 10th, 11th Respondent examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3 examined, No documents marked on behalf of Respondents.

4.Heard the Arguments of both counsels Perused the record.

5.Now points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the petitioner is to be declared as insolvent as prayed for?

(2) To what relief?

Point No.1 In order to prove case of petitioner, P.W.1 chief affidavit filed. P.W.1 chief Affidavit confronted by the petitioner, then P.W.1 chief affidavit treated as chief examination of P.W.1 6. P.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 permanent resident of Yenugumahal. P.W.1 had been running kirana Business name and styled as Vishalakshi Kirana Stores, since , 2010.

6.1. P.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 invested more that 10 lakhs on the Kirana

Business and run the business, During the process of P.W.1 business, P.W.1 used to obtained amounts form the respondents and discharge the same from time to. It is prevailing as regular transactions and between P.W.1 and respondents.

6 6.2. P.W.1 deposed that form the year 2020 due to Corona Pandemic situation,

P.W.1 sustained heavy loss in P.W.1 business. Any way in order to run the business P.W.1 invested huge amounts on P.W.1 business to that effect, P.W.1 obtained amounts from the respondents. The details of debts state in schedule”B” of the petition. But, even after investing amount, P.W.1 couldn’t fetch up P.W.1 business and gradually getting down of P.W.1 business. But the amounts borrowed by P.W.1 became higher amount and P.W.1 liable to the pay to the respondents.

But P.W.1 couldn’t discharge the debt due to loss in P.W.1 business. On the other hand since 6 months the respondents started pressure for their amounts against

P.W.1 Even though P.W.1 unable to discharge the debts, and completely wind up

P.W.1 business and P.W.1 have no source of income and stood on the verge of bankruptcy. Under the above circumstances P.W.1 cannot discharge the debts of the respondents. Hence P.W.1 constrained to file the petition with a prayer to adjudicate P.W.1 as insolvent and for such other appropriate reliefs.

6.3. Therefore P.W.1 humbly pray that the court may be pleased to pass a decree in P.W.1 favour by adjudicate P.W.1 as insolvent and discharge them from the debts of their creditors and pass such other reliefs as the Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case as P.W.1 untilled to .

7. During that cross examination by the learned counsel K.R.R. Advocate for R.3,

R10 and R.11 counsel.:- P.W.1 studied upto 7th class. P.W.1 residing at

Yenugumahal it is P.W.1 parents village P.W.1 in laws village is Vanapalli. P.W1.

Admitted that Mandapalli and Yenugumahal village are side by side. In above said two villages their visya community running to shops and doing Kirana business. R.2 and R.10 are residing near their shop at Yenugumahal.R.11 doing the chicken business. P.W.1 admitted that at Yenugumahal theirs shop in as Kasi vishalakshi business very famous. Any item is available in that shop of kasi vishalakshi, it is the branded shop at Yenugumahal village. In P.W.1 shop P.W.1 is running the water plant. Puja samagri and xerox shop. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that R.10, R.11 saved with P.W.1 amount. P.W.1denied a suggestion that P.W.1 did not borrowed the money R.3.R.10.R.11 P.W.1 denied a suggestions that P.W.1 deposing falsely 7

P.W.1admitted except R.3, R.10, R.11 no other respondents not constituting,P.W.1 denied a suggestion that for avoiding their creditors debts R.3, R.10.R.11 shown as a parties in the present petition for intentionally wrong full fain. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that during covid-19 period by running P.W.1 denied a suggestion that

P.W.1 deposing the falsely is sustained by the covid period by closing shop. P.W.1 admitted that R.3.R 10,R 11 are the lower case people. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that R.3, R10, R.11 not harassed tome P.W.1 deposed P.W.1 in the chief examination affidavit. Kesavarpu Satyanarayana P.W.1 father, Kesavarapu

Satyavathi P.W.1 mother, Kesavarapu venkateswara rao is P.W.1 younger brother

On 30-11-2021 P.W.1 mother executed a document gift settlement deed in favour an extent of 139.51 sq yards vacant site is in registered in P.W.1 name. P.W.1 admitted that above said site is not shown in the present schedule petition. Witness said voluntarily said site is in bank loan. P.W.1 petition is not containing above said property about loan. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that P.W.1 petition is not maintainable by surprising the property by out side of P.W.1. P.W.1 suggestion that

P.W.1 surprised the P.W.1 property with out shown the petition it is not maintainable P.W.1 denied a suggestions that.

8. P.W.2 chief affidavit filed. Third party examined as P.W.2.On P.W.2 instructions petitioner counsel prepared P.W.1 chief examination affidavit. Witness identified his signatures in the chief affidavit, P.W.1 know contents of P.W.2 chief affidavit.

Then chief affidavit treated as chief examination of P.W.2 after confrontation by the

B.R.K. Advocate.

8.1. P.W.2 deposed that the petitioner is permanent resident of Yenugumahal.

She had been running Kirana Business name and styled as Vishalakshi Kirana

Stores, since 2010.

8.2. P.W.2 deposed that the petitioner invested more than 10 lakhs on the kirana

Business and run the business. During the process of her business, she used to obtained amounts from the respondents and discharge the same from time to time.

It is prevailing as regular transactions and between petitioner and respondents.

8 8.3. P.W.3 deposed that from the year, 2020 due to corona pandemic situation.

The petitioner sustained heavy loss in her business. Any way in order to run the business she invested huge amounts on her business to that effect, the petitioner obtained amounts from the respondents. The details of debts stated in schedule “B” of the petition. But even after investing amount, she couldn’t fetch up her business and gradually getting down of her business. But, the amounts borrowed by the petitioner became higher amounts and the petitioner is liable to the pay to the respondents. But she couldn’t discharge the debt due to loss in her business.

On the other hand since 6 months the respondents started pressure for their amounts against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner is unable to discharge the debts. And completely wind up her business. All the respondents obtained signature of the petitioner on empty pronotes. The petitioner completely stopped her business and she has no source of income and stood on the verge of bank ruptcy. Under the above circumstances the petitioner cannot discharge the debts of the respondent. Hence,the petitioner is constrained to file this petition with a prayer to adjudicated her as insolvent and for such other appropriate reliefs. P.W.1 know the above facts.

9. During the cross-examination the learned respondent counsel P.W.2 admitted that having ROR water plant, P.W.2 also doing the coconut business(selling of the coconut). Mandapalli and Yenugumahal are by the side, by the side, Visya community people doing the Kirana business in the above said both villagers. R.3 and R.10 are resident are behind P.W.2 house. R.11 is residing at Canal back in the road. R3, R10, and R11 are belonging to the lower caste people. Petitioner is

P.W.1 own sister. P.W.1 denied a suggestion that P.W.1 deposing falsely R.3, R10 and R11. witness say voluntarily Rs.5/- interest money lent by the petitioner. P.W.1 did not give complaint against the R3, R10, and R.11. They forced against the petitioner Kesavarapu Nagalakshmi and Satyanrayana P.W.1 parents. P.W.2 admitted that P.W.1 parents executed a settlement deed in favour of P.W.2.

witness says voluntarily said settlement deed belonging their ancestoral property.

P.W.2 and P.W.1 residing in the same house. P.W.2 admitted that as per 9 settlement deed eastern side vacant site toward their house, it is belonging to the

P.W.1, P.W.2 denied a suggestion that P.W.2 filed the falsely petition before the court. P.W.1 admitted that P.W.1 is not shown the property which is settlement deed property.

9.1 R.W.1 chief affidavit filed. 3rd respondent examined as R.W.1.On P.W.1 instructions Respondent counsel prepared R.W.1 chief examination affidavit.

Witness identified his signatures in the chief affidavit, R.W.1 know contents of

R.W.1 chief affidavit. Then chief affidavit treated as chief examination of R.W.1 after confrontation by the K.R.R. Advocate.

9.2.R.W.1 deposed that R.W.1 innocent and R.W.1 not aware of this kind of situation because of R.W.1 innocence, the petitioner received R.W.1 in fact R.W.1 hided the amount at the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner running kirana store.

Business still now and she also have a purified water plant for selling water, and also has a seasonal business and the petitioner sells puja materials to the devotees every day. The petitioner is a well known person, wealth person and influential parson around two villages namely mandapalli and yenugulamhal, who has to inerited house and vacant site from her parent. Long ago the petitioners father died due to a fire accident caused by Diwali Crackers. By that time the government officials had sanctioned some amount from their welfare,and sanctioned a loan and also got insurance amount, she is wealth person in her community so that the petitioner need not necessary borrowed that amount from

R.W.1. R.W.1 house is situated near the petitioner house. R.W.1 and 10th ,11th respondent hided the amount with the petitioner But they did not give the amount as a debt to the petitioner and she did not execute any promissory note in favour of

R.W.1 The petitioner also doing money laundering business and further the petitioner also running private chits and fund business. The petitioner earnings all these on business and she has filed the present petition to hide the amount at her relatives and avoid the repay the amount to R.W.1.

9.3. R.W.1 deposed that R.W.1 agricultural coolie and R.W.1 having children.

The petitioner requested R.W.1 to keep the amount to her, so that R.W.1 used to 10 take money from the petitioner for R.W.1 necessities, this happen is going on .

R.W.1 thought it would be given in the same way. But the petitioner done cheated

R.W.1. The petitioner has both movable and immovable assets but the petitioner has not disclosed the details of her assets in the petition so that the Court may not be consider the present petition so, the court may be pleased to dismissed the petition in the interest of justice.

9.4. Therefore R.W.1 pray that the court may pleased dismiss the petition and recover R.W.1 amount from the petitioner in the interest of Justice.

10. During the cross examination by the learned petitioner counsel by B.R.K.

Advocate contended that R.W.1 chief examination containing R.W.1 name is

Bokka Gowramma. R.W.1 know the R.W.1 chief examination contents. R.6 is

R.W.1 Nephew. R.10 is also R.W.1 Nephew. R.W.1 having two children one is

Male and another one is Female. R.W.1 does not know interest business. R.W.1 son name is Bokka Ganapathi From the last 2 to 3 years R.W.1 son not business doing by the R. 10. denied a suggestion that R.W.1 son doing the interest doing the interest business. R.W.1 does not know petitioner father died in fire accident.

Petitioner get the death benefits life insurance, welfare fund. R.W.1 does not know the total amount secure by the petitioner, from her father death. R.W.1 was not residing in the village Yenugumahal village, R.W.1 residing in Hyderabad for R.W.1 livelihood. R.W.1 does not know the date of death of the father of the petitioner.

R.W.1 does not know the age of the petitioner on the date of death of petitioner father. Vishalakshi house is situated in front of school of Yenugumahal. They are having house behind the house at Yenugumahal. There is a school of primary school at Yenugumahal village. Totally they are the 10 families from the same i.e.,

R.W.1 brothers and relatives. R.W.1 does not know the year we are in Hyderabad for lively hood. Petitioner is having one brother. Vishalakshi acquired the properties from his ancestors. Petitioner grand father name is Venkateswara Rao. From the last 4 years R.W.1 doing the financial help prior to the filing of the petition. R.W.1 admitted that one Kirana Shop is opened on the Main Road at Yenugumahal from towards Kothapeta to Ravulapalem, Said Kirana Shop name is Vishalakshi stores.

11

R.W.1 admitted Kirana Shop is rented shop. R.W.1 admitted a shop owner name is

Seelam Anantha Rao. Expected rent more than Rs.20,000/- per month for Kirana

Shop. R.W.1 does not know the monthly electricity bill Rs.5,000/-. R.W.1 admitted a

Korati Poshi Devi worked, in the shop of petitioner as a worker along with the petitioner. R.W.1 admitted a petitioner look after the family of her worker Poshi

Devi. Petitioner family consists of four members along with the petitioner, her husband and two children. Petitioner having one brother and his wife and two children. Petitioner mother is also residing along with the petitioner. R.W.1 admitted that water plant run at the house of petitioner. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that petitioner family expenses Rs.30,000/- per month. Witness says votarily petitioner family expenses per monthly Rs.10.000 to 15,000. Poshi Devi having two children.

R.W.1 denied a suggestion that Poshi Devi family monthly expenses. Witness says voluntarily Poshi Devi expenses family Rs.25,000/- R.W.1 admitted a Poshi Devi children studying in Convent. R.W.1 admitted a suggestion that petitioner children are students and they are studying, Witness says voluntarily elder daughter of the petitioner doing job. Petitioner advised to R.W.1 10,th 11th respondents kept in the money to the custody of petitioner 10th and 11th respondent known to seep their money for the petitioner for safe custody. Bharathi Sruinu who is the 11th

Respondent belongs to the Erekule community. 11 Respondent doing the chicken business. R.W.1 admitted that petitioner and his family doing the Crackers business every year, on occasion of Deepavali festival. In the business petitioner and his family invest Rs.1 to 2 lakhs. On the festival occasion some of the persons purchased the Crackers on credit basis. Witness says voluntarily they collected amount from them. In the Kirana Business, also some of the customers purchased on credit basis. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that the petitioner sustained the loss in the Crackers business and Kirana Business. R.W.1 know that in the year 2020

Kirana business closed by the petitioner. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that they harassed the petitioner to return the repayment to the petitioner R.W.1 denied a suggestion that they are not kept the money with the petitioner. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that R.W.1 deposing falsely they kept the money with the petitioner 12

R.W.1 denied a suggestion that Rs.3,00,000/- gave to the petitioner as debt and interest of Rs.5/- per month for Rs.100/-. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that the petitioner discharged the debt of Rs.5,00,000/- in order debts. R.W.1 does not know how much amount borrowed from petitioner to R.11.

21. During continuation cross examination by the learned petitioner counsel by

Cross examination by B.R.K. Advocate R.W.1 does not know the age of the petitioner for on the death of her father met with an accident. On the date of met with an acc lens of petitioner father she was married On the date of death petitioner father petitioner age is 25 years, more than 18 years R.W.1 does not know petitioner father died in the year 2002. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that water plant done by the petitioner and her family members. Witness says voluntarily water plant belongs to the brother of petitioner. R.W.1 denied a suggest that water plant house belongs to the brother of petitioner. Witness says voluntarily water plant house belongs to the petitions Per day 50 water tins sale by the petitioner from water plant. R.W.1 know that water tin costs of Rs.5/- R.W.1 admitted that approximately 100 persons selling the coconuts and pooja samagri near the Temple of

Mandapalli. Witness says voluntarily petitioner family four members selling the coconuts at Mandapali Temple Only Saturdays is having the business. R.W.1 admitted that out of 100 persons different caste persons i.e,, Kapu Settbalija,

Vysyas, Yerukala and S.C community doing the business at Mandapalli temple.

Seelam Talayya belongs to the Settibalija Community, R.W.1 community Settibalija.

R.W.1` admitted that in their village their families belonging to the Settibalija community. R.W1 denied a suggestion that R.W.1 deposing falsely the petitioner doing the money lending business. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that R.W.1 chief examination affidavit containg the petitioner running private chits business. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that the petitioner is not having immovable property in her name. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that R.W.1 along with Surampudi Govind went to the house of petitioner and threatened the petitioner to discharge their debt.

R.W.1 demanded the petitioner to discharge the debt. R.W.1 admitted the elders demanded the petitioner to discharge the debt on behalf of P.W.1. R.W.1 admitted 13 that on 23-11-2023 the petitioner left her house on fear and threatening them.

R.W.1 admitted that the petitioner gave a report to the at Kothapeta police station for missing of the petitioner R.W.1 admitted that petitioner. rote a letter to commit a suicide note a name one is R.W.1. S.I made enquiry at R.W.1 house and R.W.1.

R.W.1 admitted that petitioner was present at Rajahmundry her husband take back to her home. R.W.1 admitted that feeling on us the petitioner filed the petition of the insolvency against them, kudipudi Chandra Rao is R.W.1 own brother and son-in-law P.W.1 does not know at the instance of the R.W.1 younger brother kudipudi Chandra Rao filed a suit against the petitioner O.S.No.306 of 2024 at

Junior Civil judge Court, Kothapeta. R.W.1 denied a suggestion that the petitioner is not having property in her name Mudipudi Chandra Rao is not a party to the present I.P.

11. R.W.2 chief affidavit filed. 11th respondent examined as R.W.1.On R.W.1 instructions Respondent counsel prepared R.W.2 chief examination affidavit.

Witness identified his signatures in the chief affidavit, R.W.2 know contents of

R.W.2 chief affidavit. Then chief affidavit treated as chief examination of R.W.2 after confrontation by the K.R.R. Advocate.

12. R.W.2 deposed that R.W.2 innocent and R.W.2 not aware of this kind of situation because of R.W.2 innocence, the petitioner deceived, R.W.2 in fact R.W.2 hided the amount at the petitioner. R.W.2 admitted that the petitioner running a kriana store business still now and she also have a purified water plant for selling water, and also has a seasonal business and the petitioner sells puja materials to the devotees every day. The petitioner is a well-known person, wealth person and influential person around two Villages namely Mandapalli and Yenugulamahal,who has got inherited house and vacant site from her parents. Long ago the petitioners father died due to a fire accident caused by Diwali crackers. By that time the

Government officials had sanctioned some amount for their welfare, and sanctioned a loan and also got insurances amount, she is wealth person in her community so that the petitioner need not necessarily borrowed that amount from R.W.2 . R.W.2 house is situated near the petitioner house. R.W.2 and 3rd and 10 the respondents 14 hide the amount with the petitioner. But they did not give the amount as a debt to the petitioner and she did not executed any promissory note in-R.W.2 favour the petitioner also doing money laundering business and further the petitioner also running private chits fund business. The petitioner earnings all these on business and she has filed the present petition to hide the amount at her relatives and avoid the repay the amount to R.W.2.

13. R.W.2 deposed that R.W.2 agricultural coolie and R.W.2 having children.

The petitioner request R.W.2 to keep the amount to her, so that, R.W.2 used to hide the amounts at the petitioner and R.W.2 used to take money from the petitioner for R.W.2 necessities,. This happen is going on R.W.2, R.W.2 thought it would be given in the same way. But the petitioner done cheated R.W.2 the petitioner has both movable and immovable assets but the petitioner has not disclosed the details of her assets in the petition so that, the hon’ble court may not be consider the present petition so the Court may be pleased to dismissed the petition in the interest of justice.

Therefore, R.W.2 pray that the Court May please dismiss the petition and recover R.W.2 amount from the petitioner in the interest of justice.

14.. During the cross examination by the learned petitioner counsel by Cross examination by B.R.K. Advocate R.W.2 age is 40 years, R.W.2 does not know the

R.W.2 correct age. R.W.2 doing the chicken business. R.W.2 know the R.3 since

R.W.2 childhood. R.W.2 know the R6. R.W.2 know the R.10, R.W.2 admitted that

R3, R6, R10 are belonging of the same family persons. Petitioner father name is

Venkateswara Rao, he is died in fire accident. R.W.2 does not know the date of death of petitioner father. On the date of death of petitioner father his children were small kids. Petitioner and her brother doing the small business for their livelihood, after death of their father. R.W.2 does not know petitioner residential house is ancestral property her grand father. R.W.2 admitted that the petitioner doing the kirana and fancy store business at yenugumahal main Road. R.W.2 admitted that the petitioner sustained the loss on credits of the customers of the shop.

Petitioner closed her business at yenugumahal, The petitioner borrowed sum of 15

Rs.30,000/- from R.W.2 denied a suggestion that the petitioner discharge R.W.2 debt along with the interest of Rs.600/- per hundred. R.W.2 does not know the petitioner borrowed how much amount from the R3, R6, R10. The petitioner house situated in front of school at Yenugumahal R.W.2 admitted that R3, R6, R10, are resident of behind the school at Yenugumahal. R.W.2 did not inform to the R3, R6,

R10 about the debt of the petitioner from R.W.2. R.W.2 admitted that 50 persons selling the pooja samagri at the mandapalli main bridge Main Road. All the caste persons selling the pooja samagri at mandapalli bridge Main Road. R.W.1 does not know attack committed by R.3 and R.3 family members against the petitioner house. R.W.2 does not know the petitioner left the village on pressure of the R.3 and her family members. R.W.2 admitted that petitioner, petitioner husband, petitioner younger brother selling the pooja samagri at yenugumahal main bridge.

R.W.2 denied a suggestion that at the instance of R.3, R.W.2 came to the court

R.W.2 deposed as a witness R.W.2 help the R.3.(R.W.1)

15. R.W.3 chief affidavit filed. 10th respondent examined as R.W.3.On P.W.3 instructions Respondent counsel prepared R.W.3 chief examination affidavit.

Witness identified his signatures in the chief affidavit, R.W.3 know contents of

R.W.3 chief affidavit. Then chief affidavit treated as chief examination of R.W.3 after confrontation by the K.R.R. Advocate.

16. R.W.3 deposed that R.W.3 innocent and unaware of the alleged transaction.

Taking advantage of R.W.3 innocence, the petitioner deceived R.W.3 in Fact,

R.W.3 had only kept R.W.3 own amount with the petitioner for safe custody. R.W.3 admitted that a the petitioner is still running a kirana store business, a purified water plat for selling water, and also a seasonal business of selling pooja material to devotees every day. The petitioner is a well-known,. Wealthy, and influential person in and around two villages, namely mandapalli and Yenugulamahal. She has inherited a house and vacant site from her parents. Long ago, the petitioners father died due to a fire accident caused by Diwalli crackers, and at that time the

Government sanctioned certain welfare amounts a loan and insurance benefits to the petitioners family. Thus the petitioner is financially sound in her community and 16 was not in any necessity to borrowed any amount from R.W.3. R.W.3 house is situated near the petitioner house, R.W.3 along with the 3rd and 11th respondents only kept their amounts with petitioner for safe custody. They never gave any amount to the petitioner as a loan, and the petitioner never executed any promissory note in R.W.3 favour. The petitioner is also conducting money leading , private chits and fund business with with all earings from all these activities, the petitioner is financially well settled. Still she has filed the present petition only to divert and misappropriate the amounts kept with her by her relatives and to avoid repayment of the same.

17. R.W.3 deposed that R.W.3 an agricultural coolie and R.W.3 have children to maintain. The petitioner herself requested R.W.3 to keep R.W.3 amount with her and accordingly R.W.3 used to deposit R.W.3 amounts with petitioner from time to time. Whenever R.W.3 was in need, R.W.3 used to take back money from her. This practice was continuing for a long time, and R.W.3 believed that the same arrangement would continue. However, the petitioner cheated R.W.3

Though the petitioner is having both movable and immovable properties, she has deliberately suppressed the details of her assets in the present petition. Therefore the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, R.W.3 humbly pray that the Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition and direct recovery of R.W.3 amount from the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.

18. During the cross examination by the learned petitioner counsel by Cross examination by B.R.K. Advocate R.W.3 is admitted that R3 paternal aunt, R6 is junior paternal uncle. R.W.3 chief examination affidavit is not containing about the amount sum of Rs.50,000/- figures. R.W.3 studied 10th class fail. R.W.3 chief examination affidavit is not containing how much amount is saved at the petitioner.

R.3 and R11 saved money at the petitioner, such amount is not containing R.W.3 chief examination affidavit. R.W.3 denied a suggestion that R.W.3 that R.W.3 doing the interest business. Witness says voluntarily R.W.3 is a driver, weekly once

R.W.3 having driving work. Since R.W.3 childhood R.W.3 know the petitioner.

17

R.W.3 admitted that R.W.3 house is behind to the house of petitioner. R.W.3 admitted that the petitioner carried the kirana business prior to the 2010. R.W.3 admitted that petitioner done a business at Yenugumahal main road near bridge.

R.W.3 admitted that the petitioner was closed her business beside the main Road at Yenugumahal. Witness says voluntarily the petitioner doing the business at her house. R.W.3 denied a suggestion that the petitioner borrowed the money form them for business purpose. Witness says voluntarily. R.W.3 gave the money to the petitioner hand loan in another version he is saying R.W.3 saved the money at the petitioner. R.W.3 admitted that the petitioner borrowed the money from R.W.3

Rs.6/- interest. R.W.3 admitted that R.W.3 chief examination affidavit is not containing R.W.3 savings dates at the petitioner. R.W.3 does not know the petitioner for credit purpose, she sold the grocery to the customers of her shop.

R.W.3 denied a suggestion that the petitioner unable to discharge the interest then after the petitioner closed her shop. R.W.3 denied a suggestion that R.3 son and

R3 sister son went to the house of petitioner and demanded and to discharge the debts. R.W.3 denied a suggestion that the petitioner afraid of the above said incident, she left the village. Witness says voluntarily the petitioner resided in her house now and then she went and came to the house. R.W.3 does not know the petitioner husband and his younger brother gave a Report, the petitioner was missing. R.W.3 does not know S.I. of police kothapeta conducts a inquiry on report of the petitioner husband and petitioner brother. R.W.3 denied a suggestion that the petitioner unable to bear harassment and filed the petition.

19. On verification record, petition filed the petitioner against respondent 1 to 11 on in S.R.No.367 dated 02-05-2024, same was returned was objections on 09-05- 2024. on 24-06-2024 petition re-submitted by representation as follows:-All objections, complied with delay condoned petition. 1.Respondents particulars and

Door Number. 2.Petitioner affidavit filed. 3. Complied. Condoned delay application is S.R.No.425 dated 24-06-2024, said not petition put not up note, there is the no orders on the petition, O.P.S.R.No. Number Rounded with pencil mark. condone delay Petition was not disposed, of kept in the record. The then superintendent of 18 the court not bring to the notice of the than presiding officer of the court. Without disposal of I.A.S.R.No. 425 of dated 24-06-2024. The then superintendent put up the note in insolvency petition in R.S.No.367 on 05-09-2024 and also note about the challan dated 05-09-2024 Deposited administrative charge of Rs.5500/- vide

S.B.I Challan C.F.M.S Transaction I.D. 80099168182024 on 20-08-2024 for R1 to

R11. Petition registered as I.P. and issue notice to the respondents, and paper publication in prajashakathi, or is official receiver appointed. Posted to 18-10-2024.

on 08-10-2024 paper publication filed, respondent No.3, 10 and 11 are contesting in the petition. R3, R10 and R11 engaged counsel filed their counter. Condon delay application not allowed till today kept in the record, the then superintendent not bring the notice of the then proceeding officer. The petition is not with limitation because of condon delay application not allowed. It is the office defect. Petitioner counsel is also not verified about condoned delay application, Without disposal condoned delay application petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismiss. Till to day I.A. numbered was also not allotted number in I.A.S.R.No.425 dated 24-06- 2024. The then superintendent not discharge responsibility. on the same day on 05- 09-2024 petition registered as I.P. if otherwise any order. Before the then presiding officer. Within time not put up the note in IA.S.R.425 dated 24-06-2024.

as per Judgments of Hon’ble Hight Court of in Two Civil Revision petition. C.R.P.

No.448 of 2025. Civil Revision petitions No.1015 of 2026 dated 28-01-2026. gave a direction numbering as of the suits and placing before the officer/Court defects not bring to the notice of the officer it show not discharge the duties with responsibilities and sent a report to the Hon’ble District Court not proper verification, numbered as

I.P. other wise, in order, petitioner will suffer irreparable loss by the mistake of the office to proceed in the case.

20. The then superintendent not discharge responsibility who is the then C.M.O.

of the court. The court relied legal position as follows High Court of Andhara

Pradesh in C.R.P.No.448/2025 dated 5-06-2025 between k.Mohammed Arif,

and K. Mhammaed Fairoz and other the Honourable Sri Justice Gannamaneni

Ramakrishna Prasad held that 19 page No.5 on held on that para No.6. For the disposal of the present C.R.P. it is not necessary for this Court to consider the fact even though this Court has minutely gone through all the relevant facts emerging form the Plaint and material documents filed along with the Plaint. For the present purpose, it is relevant to place reliance on the contents from a book titled as “A Guide for the Ministerial

Officers of Subordinate Courts working under the control of the High Court fo

Andhra Pradesh” (the Guidelines), which is published by the Andhra Pradesh judicial Academy. Relevant portion of the Guidelines is extracted herein below:

INSTRUCTION TOT HE CHIEF MINISTERIAL OFFICERS:

1) A plaint has to be either numbered or within 3 days.

2) All objections which may be relevant shall be taken at one

Taking of piece meal objections shall be avoided.

3) The plaint shall be returned for more than three times. If still

The objections remained unanswered, the plaint shall be placed at bench for hearing the advocate and for passing necessarily orders.

4. It is the responsibility of the C.M.O. to bring it to the notice of the Presiding Judge as to whether the plaint contains any unnecessary, Scandalous,frivolous, Vexatious matters or if it is an abuse of the process of the Court in order to strike out the same by court as per Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C.

5. xxx”

As per the said Guidelines, when the defects are notified for three times by the office(Filing Section) and in the opinion of the Office/Court, the plaintiff/plaintiffs( through their Counsel) have not cured the defects, which are pointed out to the satisfaction of the Office( Filing section), It is mandatory for the

Office to post the matter for hearing in the open court as regards the uncured

Objections.

This apart Rule No.22( New) of the Andhara Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice empowers the L.d Jude to hear on the uncured objections raised by the Office 20 ( Filing Section) in the open court and Rule on the same. Upon hearing of the objections, if the Ld. Judge is satisfied,Ld Judge may reject the plaint under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908( C.P.C.) if the Ld. Judge is not satisfied with the submissions made by the Ld counsel for the plaintiff/Plaintiffs.

Rule 22(new) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, 1990 is usefully extracted hereunder.

“22(New) Procedure on presentation:- (1)On presentation of every plaint the same shall be entered in Register NO.17 in Appendix II, Part-II

Volume II and examined by the Chief Ministerial

Officer of the Court.

(2) If he finds that the plaint complies with all the requirements, he shall make an endorsement on the plaint ‘Examined and may be registered’ with the dated and his signature and placed before the

Judge,The Chief Ministerial Officer shall also

endorse on the plaint or proceedings if any caveat has been filed. If he thinks that the plaint shall be returned for presentation to the proper court of be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 or for any other person, he shall place the matter before the Judge for order.

(3) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) any non- compliance with these rules or any clerical mistake may be required by the Chief Ministerial officer to be rectified. Any rectification so effected, shall be initialled and, dated by the party or his advocatemakingthesame and the Chief Ministerial Officer shall note the numbered of corrections in the margin and shall 21 initial and dated the same.

In the event of such rectification not being made within the time specified, the Chief Ministerial Officer shall place the matter before the Judge for Order” r

A learned Single Judge of this Court had a occasion to deal with this aspect in

Gorripati Veera Vankata Rao and others Vs. Ethalapaka Vanaja and others

( C.R.P. No.1841 of 2024, decided on 10-01-2025.): 2025 SCC online AP 50.

The learned Singal judge, having dealt with various Authorities and the provisions of law had held as under.

“42. The maintainability of a suit is always a question which is to be decided by the Court. The present stage is the registration of the plaint. After registration and placing of the plaint before the Court for consideration, such question of maintainability may be considered and answered. It is not the stage to raise the question of maintainability, unless the maintainability of the suit ont eh face of it is barred, by some statute, or the jurisdiction of the Civil court is ousted on the face of the legal provision. In such a case, also, the Registry can raise the objection, note down the objection about maintainability, but it cannot insist to explain before the Registry, and satisfy about the suit maintainability. The registry has no power to decide such objection. After raising the objection on Maintainability of the suit, the matter is to be placed before the court, where the plaintiff has to satisfy the Court about the maintainability. Deciding the ministerial function. Consequently, even if there be a valid objection to the maintainability of a suit, the plaint is not to be refused registration nor is to be returned by the Registry but is to be placed before the court, pointing out such objection” Emphasis supplied)

The facts in this case would indicate that the Office (Filing Section) has already returned the plaint, nearly about four times in order to enable the learned counsel fo the plaintiff to cure defects and answer the Objection on the maintainability. First time the plaint was returned on 07-05-2024 pointing out about seven (07) defects (extracted supra). The second time ,the plaint was once again 22 returned by the Registry on 28-06-2024 with a direction to the plaintiff to comply with Office objection No.2 and 3 dated 07-05-2024.

The third time, the plaint was returned on 09-09-2024 with a direction “ to sate as to how the suit is maintainable for Relief of Specific Performance” For the 4th time, the plaint was once again written statement returned with offece objection on 03-10-2024 indicating that “ objection dated 09-09-2024 shall be complied property” The facts would indicate that the plaint was returned for want of curing deficiencies/defects on 07-05-2024, 28-06-2024, 09-09-2024 and 03-10-2024.

since the trial court has already returned the plaint more than three times, exercising its power under Rule-22 ( new) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of

Practice, the trial Court ought to have listed the matter for hearing in the open

Court and decided accordingly as per law. As stated earlier, this court has considered the facts involved in the plaint. Having done so, This Court is of the opinion that the objections raised therein are completely justified in law and a burden is cast on the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff to satisfy the learned Presiding Officer as regards the maintainability.

The then superintendent not discharge responsibility who is C.M.O. of the court.

The court relied the legal position as Follows:- In the High court of Andhara

pradesh At Amaravati, Held that in C.R.P.No.1015/2026 dated 10-04-2026

between Chinta Prasuna and Dharmana Ganapathirao, and other the

Honourable Sri Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

The law is well settled as to hos the Court should proceed in situations of this nature, where the office of the Presiding Officer is not convinced with the

Explanation rendered by the respective counsel for the purpose of numbering an interlocutory Application.

This Court, by an Order dated 05.06.2025 in C.R.P.No 448 of 2025, has laid down the Procedure required to be followed in such instances as described hereinabove. While doing so, this Court has placed reliance on the Manual published by the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Academy titled as "A Guide for the

Ministerial Officers of Subordinate Courts working under the control of the High 23

Court of Andhra Pradesh" (hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines"). The relevant portion of the Guidelines is extracted hereunder.

"INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CHIEF MINISTERIAL OFFICERS,

1) A plaint has to be either numbered or returned within 3 days

1) All objections which may be relevant shall be taken at one time.

Taking of piece meal objections shall be avoided

2) The plaint shall be returned for more than three times. If still the objections remained unanswered, the plaint shall be placed at bench for hearing the advocate and for passing necessary orders.

3) It is the responsibility of the C.M.O to bring it to the notice of the Presiding

Judge as to whether the plaint contains any unnecessary, scandalous,

frivolous, vexatious matters or if a is an abuse of the process of the court in order to strike out the same by court as per Order 6 Rule 16 C.PC

Although the above said Guideines deal with the numbering of the claim, nevertheless, the Analogy as well as the Principle of Law applies even with regard to the Interlocutory Application as well to the effect that if the learned Counsel or the Party fails to convince the Office of the learned Judge, the only course left open to the Office is to list the same on any convenient date, depending on the need and exigency of the situation, before the Court, where the learned Presiding Officer is required to hear the Objections and judicially decide the matter by passing a

Speaking Order

This is necessitated on account of the fact that the claim of the citizen, maintainable or otherwise, shall be decided, lest the cause might become infructuous due to the ongoing Proceedings, and the Applicant, who had approached the Court, might be left high and dry without a legal remedy.

19. If the Court hears the Objections and passes a Judicial Order, that enables the

Party or Parties to avail other remedies as available to them under law.

20. In the above premises, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Civil

Revision Petition with the following directions:

24 i. Since the Execution Application filed by the Revision Petitioner in E.P.No. 15 of 2023 in O.S.No. 73 of 2017 has been returned thrice, and the last date of return was on 28.01.2026 granting seven days' time for curing the defects, the Office is directed to list the said E.A. before the learned Presiding Officer within one (01) week from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court.

ii. The learned Presiding Officer shall thereafter decide the maintainability of the

Execution Application filed by the Revision Petitioner, after putting all the

Parties to Notice, and the hearing shall take place on a day-to-day basis// ili Learned Presiding Officer shall suspend the EP Proceedings until he/she passes a Judicial Order as regards the maintainability of the Execution

Application filed by the present Revision Petitioner

With these observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. It is clanfied that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case

Before parting with this case, this Court is required to deal with an issue of

public importance This Court has noticed that the Plaints/Interlocutory

Applications/Execution Petitions/Execution Applications, etc., which are filed are being unduly delayed at the Numbering Stage on account of the Office of the concerned Court not being satisfied with the Explanation given by the

Party/Counsel.

Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate to shuttle such Pleadings between the Office of the Court on the one hand and the Party/Counsel on the other hand for an indefinite period of time and for any number of times.

Since the Guidelines incorporated in the Manual published by the Andhra

Pradesh State Academy would provide guidance to the effect that the Office can return Plaints/Interlocutory Applications/Execution Petitions/Execution Applications, etc. with Objections only three (03) times, if the Office is unconvinced with the

Explanation given by the Party/Counsel even the third time, the Office may note the 25 same and put up the matter for hearing before the learned Presiding Officer in the open Court.

21.In order to the prove case of petitioner, petitioner examined as P.W.1. To support of the P.W.1 evidence, P.W.1 brother examined as P.W.2. Respondents

No.3, 10 and 11 examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3. on behalf both parties no documents are marked. as per evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.1 doing the

Kirana business in the name and style as Vishalakshi Kirana stores. There is no dispute running of kirana Stores by the P.W.1. R.W.1 to R.W.3 deposed that

P.W.1 still running kirana shop on the date of evidence of R.W.1 to R.W.3. It is not denied by the petitioner in the cross-examination of R.W.1 to R.W.3. P.W.1 not filed the document before the court to support of winding of the kirana shop.

Petitioner has not filed any document before the court she having license or permission from the Grampanchaythi of Yenugumahal. Panchayathi secretary not examined as witness for above license or permission obtained by the P.W.1 from the concerned panchayath. As per evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 respondents borrowed money from the P.W.1. P.W.1 has not filed any document before the court. Till today no cases filed by the respondents against the petitioner for filing of insolvency petition before the court. As per evidence of P.W.1 from the last 6 months the respondents harassing to discharge the debts by the respondents

before filing petition. The petitioner not shown the date of debts except empty

promissory notes. The petitioner not bring to the notice court, said promissory notes are in force or barred by limitation under limitation Act.

22. The petitioner not proved relationship of debtor and creditor among the petitioner and respondents. P.W.1 not filed any document before the court to show debtor and creators relationship among the petitioner and respondent. The petition is also not show the date of debts from the respondents for business purpose.

P.W.1 not filed the petition within 4 months from the date of debts. P.W.1 started business in year 2010. she also running water plant in her house. That is admitted by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are residing ancestral property. P.W.1 house is not shown in the 26 petition schedule property. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that they are having vacant site. Two items are not shown in the petition schedule property. P.W.1 deposed that she took the bank loan. Bank authority not examined as witness and no document filed before the court, there is no pleading in the petition about the bank loan.

The petitioner not come to the court with clean hands.

23.P.W.1 and P.W.2 father died in fire accident. It is admitted fact, insurance money paid by the the Government to the P.W.1 and P.W.2, said amount details not furnished by the P.W.1 in the pleading and Evidence. During the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 both are admitted about death of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 father in fire accident. No document filed before the court to show how much compensation received from the Government. Death particulars also not produced

before the court by the petitioner in the pleading and in her evidence. During the

cross-examination examination of R.W.1 petitioner counsel cross examined and dependents of the P.W.1. There is no pleading in the petition taken into consideration.

24. R.W.1 to R.W.3 are deposed that they not given amount to the P.W.1.for loan

R.W.1, to R.W.3 deposed about the their money kept in the P.W.1. R.W.1 to R.W.3 are not deposed about loan particular amount kept with the P.W.1 for safety purpose. P.W.1 running the chit business. Chit Business particulars not deposed by the R.W.1 to R.W.3 in their evidence. R.W.1 deposed Rs.30,000/- in the P.W.1.

custody. Details not furnished by the R.W.1 to support of her evidence. I.P.No. 4 of 2025 paper publication in the record in the S.R.No1637 dated 26-08-2025. It is noway concerned to the petition. Publication for I.P.No. 4 of 2025 not 2024 present petition is 4 of 2024.

25. As per evidence of P.W1 and P.W.2, R.W.1 to R.W.3 evidence petitioner not entitled relief as prayed by the petitioner, in the petition. petitioner not come to the court with clean hands, she suppressed the properties in her name by filing the petition to adjudicate insolvent, petitioner is also doing the business still now, that it not denied by the petitioner in cross examination of R.W.1 to R.W.3. As per 27 above discussion and oral evidence petitioner, Respondents, the petitioner not entitled adjudication in solvent. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

34.Point No.2:- In the result, petition is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation, by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 07 th day of May 2026.

Sd/- A. Sai Kumari

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

P.W.1 Gamidi Kasi Vishalakshi R.W.1: Bokka Gowri

P.W.2: Kesavarapu Venkateswara Rao. R.W.2: Bharathi Srinu

R.W.3: Kudipudi Naga Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:Nil.

For Respondent: Nil Sd/- A. Sai Kumari

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Kothapeta.

28

Petition presented on03-05-2024 Petition filed on 05-09-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

PRESENT: A. SAI KUMARI,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), KOTHAPETA

THURSDAY, THE 7 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

I.P..No. 04 of 2024

Between:-

Gamidi Kasi Vishalakshi, W/o Suryanarayana Murthy, Age 39 Years, Calling Nil

R/o D.No.19-167, Yenugu Mahal Village, H/o kothapeta, Kothapeta Mandal.

East GodavariDistrict. . .Petitioner

And

1. Bochchu Satyanarayana, S/o Pullamraju, Age 41 Years, R/o D.No.2-22, Main

Road, Kothapeta Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Addanki Rukmini, W/o Bala Murali Krishna, Age 45 years, R/o D.No.3-25

Mandapalli Village, Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari District.

3. Bokka Gowramma, W/o Yedukondalu, Age 46 years, R/o D.No.19-55

Yenugumahal Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

4. Bollisetti Venkateswara Rao, S/o Appa Rao, Age 48 Years, R/o D.No.19-60,

Yenugumahal Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

5. Saladi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Buli Venkanna, Age 60 years, R/o D.No.19-65

Yenugumahal Village, kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

6. Kudupudi Satyanarayana, S/o Ganni Raju, Age 50 years, R/o D.NO.19-70

Yenugumahal Village, kothapeta mandal, East Godavari District.

7. Kovvuri Suresh Reddy, S/o Ganiraju, R/o D.No. 10-150, Paalli Village, Attili

Mandal, East Godavari District.

8.Bayye Ammanna, W/o Buli Satyam, Age 60 Years, R/o D.No.19-80,

Gopalapuram, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

9.Gubbala Pallamma, W/o Veera swamy, Age 48 years, R/o D.No. 19-99,

Yenugumahal village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

10. Kudupudi Nagaraju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 45 Years, R/o D.No. 19-71

Yenugumhal Village, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Respondent

The petition filed under sections 10 of the Provincial insolvency Act, 1920, by the petitioner praying this Hon’ble court to pass a decree in favour of him and against respondents by adjudicating the petitioner as insolvent and discharge from the debts of her creditors and pass such other reliefs. The petitioner is a native of Yenugumahal Village of Kothapeta mandal whereas the respondents R1 to R11 are the residents of different places in and around kothapeta mandal who lent money to the petitioner. A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid ( Stamps affixed) Under/sec. Sch.II, Art.II(1)

(ii) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act. The cause of the arose for the petition from the year 2010 when she started Kirana Business and from the year 2020, when the sustain loss in her business she obtained loan from the respondents and when sustained heavy loss and one Years back when she completely windup her business and unable to discharge debts to the respondents and since 6 months when the respondents pressure to the petitioner for discharge of their debts and at yenugumahal where the petitioner run the business and sustained loss and when the some of the respondents are residing with in the of this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. This suit is coming on 15-04-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.N. Prasad, Advocate for petitioner, and Sri K.R.Raja Rao Advocate, for R3, R10, R11, set-exparte and R1,2,4 to R8 having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

i. that the petition is dismissed. With out costs.

Given under my signature and seal of this court on this the 07th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Kothapeta No costs memo filed on either side.

S.C.J.

(Petition ‘A’,B,C,D,E,F, schedule property is hitherto attached)