Sri A.Veeraiah

1

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

WEDNESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

PRESENT: Sri.A.Veeraiah

Senior Civil Judge,

Gadwal.

O.S.No. 140 OF 2014

BETWEEN:-

Telugu Ramulu S/o Venkanna, age: 40 years, occ: Agril., R/o Jakkannapally village of Narva mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Plaintiff

And

1.Venkatamma W/o Ayyanna, age: 44 years, occ: Housewife R/o Jakkkannapally village, Narva mandal, Mahabubnagar District,

2.Vakiti Padmamma W/o Venkataiah, age: 51 years, occ: Housewife, R/o Jakkannapally village of Narva mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

…Defendants

Claim:-Suit for Declaration of title and cancellation of registered sale deed, delivery of possession and for mesne profits.

*-*-*

This Original Suit coming before me on 09.12.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Manohar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri D.

Prabhakar and Sri C. Raghavendrachary, Advocates for defendants and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for declaration of title and cancellation of registered sale deed No. 356 of 2011 dated 31.01.2011, for delivery of possession and to award mesne profits with costs.

2

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

2. The brief averments of the plaintiff’s case are as follows: The plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No. 98/A to an extent of Ac.

4-18 gts., situated in the limits of Lakkardoddi village. The grandfather of plaintiff by name Ayyanna was original owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 6-28 gts., and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death, after demise of grandfather of the plaintiff, plaintiff succeeded the suit lands and was enjoying the same. The plaintiff sold Ac.

1-95 cents out of Ac.6-28 gts., to Vadde Anjanna through registered sale deed document No. 2413/1999 dated 30.12.1999 and sale proceeds received by defendant No.1 who is sister of plaintiff, with her consent the same was sold and the amount was received towards her share. The remaining land

Ac.4-18 gts., is situated kept for the plaintiff for his livelihood. About five years ago, the plaintiff temporarily left Jakkannapally village for his livelihood and taking advantage of his absent, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 colluded together illegally occupied the land and created sham registered sale deed. The plaintiff returned to his village and he came to know that defendant is started canvassing in the village that she is owner of the land. Ac. 0-12 gts., of land acquired by the Government for Bheema Project and compensation paid to defendant No.2. The plaintiff went to suit land on 15.05.2011 to attend agricultural works, the defendant No.2 did not allow him to enter into the land and plaintiff questioned defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 replied that defendant No.2 purchased the suit land from defendant No.1. Then the plaintiff has no other option filed the suit. Hence the suit.

3

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed common written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. Defendant No.1 denies that the plaintiff sold Ac. 1-95 cents of land to Vadde Anjanna with the consent of defendant No.1. The plaintiff without knowledge and consent of defendant

No.1 sold the said extent and utilized the amount for his personal. The defendant No.1 is absolute owner of suit survey number No. 98/A and the

Government acquired part of land for Bheema Project and paid compensation to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 being original owner sold away land in

Sy.No. 98/A in favour of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dated 31.01.2011 and defendant No.2 got mutated her name in the revenue records.

There is no cause of action as alleged on 15.05.2011. The plaintiff seeking declaration of title for Ac. 4-30 gts., though Government acquired 0-12 gts.

Plaintiff preferred appeal against proceedings of Tahasildar, RDO dismissed the appeal. Defendant No.2 name entered into revenue records and defendant

No.2 got possession over the suit property. The plaintiff not questioned the

Land Acquisition proceedings. The plaintiff has knowledge of disposal of land in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.2 on 10.05.2011 and the plaintiff not taken legal steps for cancellation of sale deed. The plaintiff sought for cancellation of registered sale deed but he has not paid court fee.

Hence the plaint is liable for rejection. The plaintiff not submitted mandatory provisions of description of property as such plaint is liable for dismissal.

The plaintiff not filed any document of title such as sale deed, gift deed or any other document of title and the in the absence of title deed, plaintiff is not title owner of suit land. The land Ac. 1-95 cents was given by defendant No.1 4

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

to the plaintiff as already being sold by plaintiff and the claim of the plaintiff is false. It is therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as a title holder to the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the alleged registered sale deed No. 356 of 2011 dated 31.01.2011 is entitled for cancellation and which is not binding on the plaintiff?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of suit schedule property?

4.To what relief?

5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked. A. Ramudu and G. Veera

Raghava Reddy examined as PWs 2 and 3 respectively. On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.1 herself examined as DW1 and through her

Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 marked. Second defendant herself examined as DW2 and through her Ex.B12 to Ex.B21 marked. One M. Koti Reddy examined as

DW3.

6.Heard arguments from both sides. Both the counsels filed written arguments.

7. The learned counsel for plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is successor of his grandfather, succeeded the suit schedule property and his name entered into revenue records as pattedar and possessor and pattedar pass books and title deeds issued and Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 shows the same. He further argued that as a owner, the plaintiff, sold Ac.1-95 cents to Vadde

Anjanna and paid amounts to defendant No.1 towards her share who is his 5

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

sister. He further argued that when the plaintiff is went to Gujarat for livelihood defendant No.1 and 2 created the documents and the documents are not valid in the eye of law and the registered sale deed to be cancelled and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit schedule property. He further argued that as per Sec. 6 of Old Hindu Succession Act, the defendant No.1 is not a coparcener and she has no right over the suit property. He further argued that the revenue authorities without showing any notice mutated the name of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 obtained compensation amount for the land acquired by the Government and plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession along with mesne profits.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendants has argued that the plaintiff is not owner of the property and the defendant No.1 mother gave property to defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 name entered into revenue records and plaintiff sold the property and not paid any amounts to the defendant No.1. He further argued that defendant No.1 sold the property to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 became owner and possessor of the property. He further argued that the plaintiff is silent when he was dispossessed and he further argued that the suit is barred by limitation. He further argued that the plaintiff not paid court fee for cancellation of sale deed and without payment of court fee the relief of cancellation of sale deed not valid. He further argued that the defendant Nos. 1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same till sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 and thereafter defendant No.2 became owner and possessor of property and defendants filed documents. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title.

6

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

9. Issue No.2:Whether the alleged registered sale deed No. 356 of 2011

dated 31.01.2011 is entitled for cancellation and which it is not binding on

the plaintiff?

Pw1 Telugu Ramulu in his chief examination deposed that the land in

Sy.No. 98/A1 was sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 through registered sale deed No. 356/2011 dated 31.01.2011 and in the prayer he sought for cancellation of registered sale deed. On perusal of plaint in the relief portion, the plaintiff prayed for cancellation of registered sale deed No.

356/2011. However, the plaintiff not paid court fee for cancellation sale deed.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed

No. 356/2011. According the issue is answered.

10. Issue Nos.1 and 3:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as a title holder to the suit schedule property? And Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession of suit schedule property?

Pw1 Telugu Ramulu in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of plaint. Through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked. The learned counsel for defendants cross-examined Pw1. Pw1 in his cross-examination admitted that he sold Ac. 1-38 gts., of land in Sy.No. 98/A to one Vadde

Anjanna. He admitted that 0-12 gts., acquired by Government for Bheema

Project. He admitted that he has not taken any receipt from defendant No.1 that he paid sale proceeds to defendant No.1. He admitted that RDO dismissed his appeal under Ex.A8. He admitted that he has not filed any case against defendant No.1 claiming of compensation amount of 0-57 cents. He has not filed any injunction against defendant No.2.

7

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

11. Pw2 A. Ramudu in his chief examination deposed on the same lines of

Pw1. Pw2 in his cross-examination deposed that Venkatann filed suit against

Ramulu to an extent of Ac.6-28 gts., and Venkatanna sold the same land to

Vadde Anjanna and Ramulu took sale consideration amount from

Venkatanna. He admitted that Ramulu not filed any case against

Venkatamma claiming compensation.

12. Pw3 G. Veera Raghava Reddy in his chief examination deposed that plaintiff is absolute owner of land in Sy.No. 98/A to an extent of Ac.4-30 gts., and he got the same from his grandfather Ayyanna. Pw3 in his cross- examination deposed that the plaintiff filed suit against Venkatamma in

Sy.No. 98/A to an extent of Ac. 6-28 gts. The plaintiff sold Ac.1-95 cent to

Vadde Anjanna. He deposed that entire sale proceedings amounts received by defendant No.1. He deposed that the plaintiff Ramulu took receipt from

Venkatamma that Venkatamma received entire sale consideration amount.

He admitted that Government acquired some extent of land in Sy.No. 98/A for Bheema Project and Venkatamma received compensation amount.

13. Dw1 Venkatamma in her chief examination reiterated the contests of written statement and through her Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 marked. Dw1 in her cross-examination deposed that Sy.No. 98 originally belongs to her grandfather Ayyappa and her father predeceased her grandfather. She denied suggestion that her brother sold Ac.1-95 cents to Vadde Anjanna and paid sale consideration amounts to her. She admitted that she received compensation amount of 0-12 gts., of land acquired by Government for

Bheema Project. She denied suggestion that plaintiff is owner and possessor of total extent Ac.6-28 gts. She deposed that her parents gave the properties 8

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

to her as she is only daughter and she got mutated her name in the revenue records and there is no written document executed in her favour. She deposed that there is some property situated at Raikode sivar to an extent of Ac.11-00 of her grandfather Ayyappa. She cannot say the date of mutation of her name in the revenue records and its proceedings number and file number. She deposed that she obtained loan from Andhra Bank and repaid the same. She admitted that MRO not issued any notice to the plaintiff. She admitted that she sold property to defendant No.2 when the plaintiff went to Gujarat. She denied suggestion that she has not right to sell the property to defendant No.2 and plaintiff is not entitled for cancellation of sale deed.

14. Dw2 Vakiti Padmamma in her chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of written statement. Through her Ex.B12 to Ex.B21 documents marked. Dw2 in her cross-examination deposed that Venkatamma got property from her parents, Venkatamma got registered the land from her father thereafter she purchased from her. She does not know whether it is gift deed or sale deed and she does not know the date and year of the document through which Venkatamma got the property from registration. She admitted that Ayyappa had one son by name Venkatanna. Venkatanna had one son plaintiff Ramulu and one daughter defendant No.1 Venkatamma. She did not file any document of mutation proceedings in the name of Venkatamma either to Ayyanna, Venkatanna or Ramulu. She denied suggestion that defendant No.1 has no right to sell the property and she has not right to purchase the same and her sale is not valid. She denied suggestion that herself and defendant No.1 colluded and created the documents. She does not 9

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

know whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 partitioned the property by way of written partition or not.

15. Dw3 M. Koti Reddy in his chief examination deposed that defendant

No.2 purchased property from defendant No.1 after verifying the title of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the same as owner. Dw3 in his cross-examination admitted that the total extent of Sy.No. 98 is Ac.6-28 gts. Venkatamma got property from her mother by name Rajamma. He denied suggestion that himself, Venkatamma and Vakiti

Padmamma created document and that Venkatamma has no right to sell property to defendant No.2.

16. The plaintiff relying on Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Ex.A1 is C.C. of

Khasrapahani for the year 1954-55. It shows that the land in Sy.No. 98/A to an extent of Ac. 6-28 gts., stands in the name of Ayyanna S/o Pullanna.

Ex.A2 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1980-81. It shows that the land in

Sy.No. 98/1 to an extent of Ac. 6-28 gts., stands in the name of Ayyappa S/o

Pullanna. Ex.A3 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1986-87 also shows the same.

Ex.A4 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1994-95. It shows that the land in

Sy.No. 98/A to an extent of Ac. 6-70 gts., stands in the name of Telugu

Ramulu. Ex.A5 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2000-01. It shows that Telugu

Ramulu name mentioned as pattedar and possessor to an extent of Ac.4-78 cents and Vadde Anjanna name mentioned as pattedar and possessor to an extent of Ac.1-95 cents. Ex.A6 is Title Deed Patta No. 159. It shows that the plaintiff name mentioned as pattedar for Sy.No. 98/A to an extent of Ac.6-70 gts. Ex.A7 is C.C. of sale deed No. 356/2011 dated 31.01.2011. It shows that defendant No.1 sold Ac. 4-18 cents in favour of defendant No.2 on 10

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

31.01.2011. Ex.A8 is ROR proceedings No. A/1164/2011 dated. 05.12.2012.

It shows that the RDO, Narayanapet issued proceedings and directed the plaintiff to file suit before civil court.

17. On the other hand, the defendants relying on Ex.B1 to Ex.B21. Ex.B1 is C.C. of ROR. It shows that originally the name of Telugu Ramulu shown as pattedar for Ac.6-28 gts., and thereafter Ac.1-38 gts., Vadde Anjanna S/o

Venkatanna name mentioned as possessor and subsequently the name of defendant No.1 mentioned as pattedar. Ex.B2 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2004-05. It shows that the name of defendant No.1 entered as pattedar for

Sy.No. 98/A/1 to an extent of Ac. 4-30 gts. Ex.B3 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2005-06. Ex.B4 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2006-07. Ex.B5 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2007-08. Ex.B6 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2009-10.

Ex.B3 to Ex.B6 shows the same extent as in Ex.B2. Ex.B7 is ROR appeal order by RDO which is equallent to Ex.A8. . Ex.B8 is SB account pass book

No. 2143. Ex.B9 is Original title deed pass book. It shows that Venkatamma got Ac.4-75 cents in Sy.No. 98/A/1. Ex.B10 is Original pattedar pass book shows same extent. Ex.B11 is copy of award No. 30/2006 dated 22.04.2006.

It shows that the land of Telugu Venkatamma W/o Ayyanna was acquired to an extent of 0-57 cents in Sy.No. 98. Ex.B12 is original registered sale deed

dated 31.01.2011. It shows that defendant No.2 purchased land in Sy.No.

98/A/1 to an extent of Ac.4-18 gts., from defendant No.1. Ex.B13 is proceedings of Tahasildar, Narva dated 25.04.2011. It shows that the name of defendant No.2 mutated in the revenue records. Ex.B14 is Computerized

ROR. It shows that defendant No.2 name mentioned as pattedar for land in

Sy.No. 98/A/1. Ex.B15 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1420 Fasli. Ex.B16 is 11

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

C.C. of pahani for the year 1421 Fasli. Ex.B17 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1422 Fasli. Ex.B18 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1423 Fasli. Ex.B19 is C.C.

of pahani for the year 1424 Fasli. Ex.B15 to Ex.B19 shows the name of

Vakiti Padmamma as pattedar and possessor. Ex.B20 is Original pattedar pass book. It shows that the name of defendant No.2 mentioned as pattedar for land in Sy.No. 98/A/1 to an extent of Ac.4-18 gts. Ex.B21 is letter addressed to Tahasildar, Narva by Andhra Bank, Amarchinta dated 27.07.2011. It shows that Andhra Bank addressed letter to Tahasildar Narva for verification of pattedar pass book of Vakiti Padmamma.

18. The learned counsel for plaintiff has argued that since the plaintiff name is entered in the revenue records he succeded the suit property from his grandfather. He argued that defendant No.1 is not coparcener as per Old Sec.

6 of Hindu Succession Act and he further argued that Sec. 6 are amended in the year 2005, therefore, defendant No.1 has no succession rights over the suit property. The contention of the counsel for plaintiff is not correct in view of the Hindu Succession Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act, 1986 and the Act came into force from 05.09.1985. As per Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act, the daughter is also a coparcener on par with son subject to that she should be unmarried as on the date 05.09.1985. In the instant case, as per the written arguments filed by the plaintiff, the marriage of defendant No.1 was performed in the year 1988. Therefore, as on the date of Act, the defendant

No.1 is not married. Therefore, the defendant No.1 also entitled share on par with the plaintiff. In the plaint it is pleaded that plaintiff paid sale consideration amount of Ac.1-95 cents to the defendant No.1 towards her share and defendant No.1 denied the same and plaintiff not filed any receipt 12

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

to show that he paid amounts to defendant No.1. When the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are children of Venkatanna, both the plaintiff and defendant

No.1 are entitled share in the properties of Ayyanna, when defendant No.1 also got share how plaintiff got mutated his name in the revenue records is not explained by the plaintiff.

19. The defendant No.1 also not filed any proceedings how her name is mutated in the revenue records. However, as per Ex.B9 title deed it shows that it was issued on 19.07.2001 as there is date below the signature of Sub- registrar of Atmakur. Therefore, the plaintiff name is entered into pattedar pass book and title deed on 19.07.2001. The learned counsel for defendant has argued that the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff is not mentioned the date of dispossession. The plaintiff filed adangal pahani for the year 2000-01 only but not subsequent pahanies to show his possession.

As per Ex.B9, the defendant No.1 name entered into revenue records and if

Ex.B9 is taken into consideration the plaintiff ought to file suit within 12 years of Ex.B9 i.e. 19.07.2013. However the plaintiff filed this suit on 28.10.2014 and he has not mentioned the date of dispossession. Therefore, the suit is not within the limitation. The evidence of Pw3 shows that the defendant No.1 received amount and plaintiff gave no objection to give amounts to defendant No.1. When in the year 2006 the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated, the plaintiff kept quite and not raised any objection from 2006 to 2014. The plaintiff filed appeal in the year 2011. The documents filed by the defendant No.1 shows that she got possession over the suit property and she sold the land to defendant No.2 on 31.01.2011 and subsequently defendant No.2 got possession over the suit property.

13

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title and also recovery of possession and for mesne profits. Accordingly these issues are answered.

20.Issue No.4:- To what relief?

In view of the findings given on issue Nos. 1 to 3, the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissal.

21. In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Typist and transcribed by her, and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of January, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF;

Pw1 Telugu Ramulu.

Pw2 A. Ramudu.

Pw3. G. Veera Raghava Reddy

DEFENDANTS:

Dw1 Venkatamma.

Dw2 Vakiti Padmamma

Dw3. M. Koti Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 is C.C. of Khasrapahani for the year 1954-55.

Ex.A2 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1980-81.

Ex.A3 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1986-87.

Ex.A4 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1994-95.

14

O.S.No. 140 of 2014 08.01.2020

Ex.A5 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2000-01.

Ex.A6 is Title Deed Patta No. 159.

Ex.A7 is C.C. of sale deed No. 356/2011 dated 31.01.2011.

Ex.A8 is ROR proceedings No. A/1164/2011 dated. 05.12.2012.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 is C.C. of ROR.

Ex.B2 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2004-05.

Ex.B3 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2005-06.

Ex.B4 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2006-07.

Ex.B5 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2007-08.

Ex.B6 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2009-10.

Ex.B7 is ROR appeal order by RDO.

Ex.B8 is SB account pass book No. 2143.

Ex.B9 is Original title deed pass book.

Ex.B10 is Original pattedar pass book.

Ex.B11 is copy of award No. 30/2006 dated 22.04.2006.

Ex.B12 is original registered sale deed dated 31.01.2011.

Ex.B13 is proceedings of Tahasildar, Narva dated 25.04.2011.

Ex.B14 is Computerized ROR.

Ex.B15 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1420 Fasli.

Ex.B16 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1421 Fasli.

Ex.B17 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1422 Fasli.

Ex.B18 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1423 Fasli.

Ex.B19 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1424 Fasli.

Ex.B20 is Original pattedar pass book.

Ex.B21 is letter addressed to Tahasildar, Narva by Andhra Bank, Amarchinta

dated 27.07.2011.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GADWAL.

1

O.S.No. 176 of 2018 07.01.2020

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

TUESDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

PRESENT: Sri.A.Veeraiah

Senior Civil Judge,

Gadwal.

O.S.No. 176 OF 2018

BETWEEN:-

K. Bharath Kumar Reddy S/o Raghava Reddy, age: 55 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Gopanpally village, Devarakadra mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Plaintiff.

And

1.Kaki Swathi W/o Kiran, age: 33 years, occ: Household, R/o Gopanpally village, Devarakadra mandal.

2.Kotla Sadhana W/o K. Dharma Reddy, age: 55 years, occ: Household, R/o Gopanpally village, Devarakadra mandal. …Defendants.

Claim:-Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule properties. .

*-*-*

This Original Suit coming before me on 18-12-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Venkatrama Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff and

Defendants were set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule lands and recovery of possession with future mesne profits @

Rs. 50,000/- per crop.

2

O.S.No. 176 of 2018 07.01.2020

2.The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case are as follows: The Original owner of suit schedule lands and some other lands is Late K. Raghava Reddy

S/o Gangi Reddy and he had no issues and he taken the plaintiff as his adoptive son as per Hindu Law when the plaintiff is minor, with the consent of his mother Saraswathamma and other relatives and all the Datta

Ceremonies were held. Since then the plaintiff is in the house of his adoptive father. After attaining the majority, on the request of natural mother, a registered adoption deed No. 2/1993 dated 25.02.1993 was got executed and said deed was signed by adoptive father i.e Raghava Reddy and adoptive mother Lalithamma and also plaintiff’s natural mother. The entire properties held by Raghava Reddy handed over to the plaintiff with full and absolute rights. To avoid land ceiling limit of agriculture lands a nominal partition deed dated 04.02.1994 was got executed, in which the suit Sy.Nos. 226, 228 to an extent of Ac. 1-37 gts., and Ac. 2-31 gts., is fallen to the share of

Raghava Reddy and Sy.No. 229 and 230 to an extent of Ac. 3-17 gts., and

Ac. 5-00 fallen to the share of adoptive mother Lalithamma and Sy.No. 225, 227, 211 and 417 fallen to the share of plaintiff. But the said document was not acted upon. As per the registered adoption deed, the entire landed properties of adoptive father vested to the plaintiff only. Due to the internal disputes among the family members, the adoptive parents of plaintiff started avoiding the properties to the plaintiff and the executed various documents in favour of various persons. The adoptive father created a sale deed No.

684/2003 in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of land in Sy.No. 226 and 228 which were fallen to the share of plaintiff as per partition deed and the defendant No.1 sold the same to defendant No.2 through registered sale deed 3

O.S.No. 176 of 2018 07.01.2020

No. 4458/2007 dated 15.10.2007. On the same day the adoptive mother

Lalithamma created a sale deed No. 4457/2007 in the name of defendant

No.2. All these sale deed are illegal and void document and the vendors have no alienable rights in the said lands, as per recital of registered adoption deed and said sale deed are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant in pursuance of the registered sale deeds trespassed into the suit lands and evicted the plaintiff on 15.10.2007 but they did not maintain the possession.

In the month of November, 2018 when the plaintiff engaged the labour to clean the suit land, the defendants opposed and claimed that they are the purchasers of suit lands and they are in possession from the date of purchase and did not agree to give possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3. Though the summons served on defendants but they failed to appear

before this Court. Hence the defendants were set exparte.

4. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and through him Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 documents marked.

5. Heard counsel for plaintiff. Written arguments filed.

6. The following point would emerge for determination namely:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule properties and mesne profits?

POINT:

7. Pw1 K. Bharath Kumar Reddy in his chief examination reiterated the contents of plaint. Through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked. Ex.A1 is C.C. of registered Adoption Deed document bearing No. 2/1993 dated 25.02.1993. It shows that Raghava Reddy S/o Gangi Reddy and Lalithamma adopted the 4

O.S.No. 176 of 2018 07.01.2020

plaintiff as their son. It further shows that the plaintiff has to get right and liabilities over the entire properties. Ex.A2 is C.C. of registered sale deed document bearing No. 4457/2007 dated 15.10.2007. It shows that

Lalithamma sold the land in Sy.No. 229 and 230 to defendant No.2. Ex.A3 is

C.C. of registered sale deed document bearing No. 4458/2007. It shows that defendant No.1 sold the suit land in Sy.No. 226 and 228 to defendant No.2.

Ex.A4 is C.C. of registered sale deed document bearing No. 694/2003 dated 03.06.2003. It shows that Raghava Reddy sold land in Sy.No. 226 and 228 to defendant No.1.

8. On perusal of Ex.A1, the plaintiff is adoptive son of Late Raghava

Reddy. The learned counsel for plaintiff has argued that the entire properties were given to the plaintiff by Raghava Reddy and Lalithamma and they sold the properties and the plaintiff is entitled for declaration. The suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff in the plaint pleaded that there is a nominal partition deed dated 04.02.1994 was executed but the said document is not filed. The plaintiff not filed any document to show his possession over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff not filed any documents that the properties were recorded in his name as per adoption deed. The Ex.A2, Ex.A3 were executed in the year 2007. Ex.A4 is executed in the year 2003. The present suit is filed in the year 2018. The plaintiff has not filed the suit within 3 years of execution of exhibits Ex.A2 to Ex.A4.

The plaintiff is silent whether his adopted parents were alive or not. The plaintiff not filed any documents to show his title over the suit schedule properties. When Raghava Reddy sold his land to Swathi in the year 2003, after 15 years of execution of sale deed by Raghava Reddy the plaintiff filed 5

O.S.No. 176 of 2018 07.01.2020

the suit. When the plaintiff has no title over suit schedule properties, he cannot seek declaration of title over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also mesne profits. Accordingly the point is answered.

9. In the result, the suit isdismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Typist, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 7th day of January, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF;

Pw1 K. Bharath Kumar Reddy

DEFENDANTS:

- Set Exparte –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 is C.C. of registered Adoption Deed document bearing No. 2/1993

dated 25.02.1993.

Ex.A2 is C.C. of registered sale deed document bearing No. 4457/2007 dated 15.10.2007.

Ex.A3 is C.C. of registered sale deed document bearing No. 4458/2007.

Ex.A4 is C.C. of registered sale deed document bearing No. 694/2003 dated 03.06.2003.

DEFENDANTS: - Nil -

SENIOR CIVILJUDGE

GADWAL.

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

FRIDAY, THIS THE 10 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

PRESENT: Sri.A.Veeraiah,

Senior Civil Judge,

Gadwal.

H.M.O.P.No.74 OF 2018

Between:-

M.Srinivasulu S/o Late Kashanna, age: 32 years, R/o Macherla village, Ghattu mandal. …Petitioner And,

Smt. M.Saraswathi W/o M. Srinivasulu D/o Mailly Jagadesh Age:26 yerars, Occu: House Wife R/o Macherla village of Ghattu mandal Now present R/o H.No.22, Ashok Building, Krishna Reddy Layout, Arekere, Bangnorgattu Road, Bangalore, Karnataka state. …Respondent

This original petition coming before me on 23-12-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Md.Ismail, Advocate for petitioner and

Respondent set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of desertion.

2.The averments of the petition would demonstrate that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 15-05-2014 at

Sivalayam temple in the petitioner’s village namely Macherla village, 2

Gattu mandal, Gadwal district, Telangana State according to Hindu customs and Rites and customs which is an arranged marriage by the petitioner and respondent elders. After their marriage, they have lead happy marital life staying with the petitioner’s residence at Macherla village for 8 months. Later both are shifted to Bangalore city. Both the lead conjugal life as wife and husband and blessed with a male child namely Uday, now aged about 3 years. The Respondent lead happy marital life with the petitioner for some time. Meanwhile, the respondent’s parents also shifted to Bangalore and stayed near to petitioner and respondent house. Since the arrival of Respondents parents, Respondent attitude turned up and started insulting, the petitioner on silly reasons and started petty quarrels with the petitioner on some pretext without any cause. Thus misunderstandings cropped up in between respondent and petitioner at the instance of respondents parents.

Several times the petitioner tried his level best to convince respondent to lead a happy marital life. But, the respondent is paying deaf ear to the repeated requests of the petitioner. Finally, in the month of November, 2016 the respondent quarreled with petitioner by raising respondent voice for a simple reason when, the petitioner requested respondent not to visit respondents parents’ house at frequent intervals, as the petitioner is looking after respondent and male child properly providing all amenities in the rented house. But, Respondent adamantly objected his request and quarreled with him raising respondent voice and went away from the house along with the male child to Respondent parental house even after the petitioner restrained respondent and staying there right from

November, 2016. The petitioner several times requested respondent to 3 come to house to lead marital life. The petitioner’s mother also tried her level best to convince, Respondent and respondent’s parent. But, respondent simply rejected their request and expressed respondent unwillingness to join to lead marital life. The respondent’s parents also gave immoral support to respondent and misbehaved with petitioner and petitioner mother taking in an indecent manner by degrading petitioner in presence respondent. Respondent remained a silent separate at that time while Respondents mother insulting petitioner and petitioner mother.

The petitioner was so deprived of himself for the miserable consequences and unable to stay alone in the house at Bangalore came to Hyderabad

July, 2017 and staying here leading his life alone. Out of love and affection towards, respondent and his son, the petitioner several times invited respondent for all these days to join petitioner to lead respondent matrimonial life staying with him at his residence and waited for respondent arrival for all these months with a fond hope that she will come to his house along with respondent and son to lead Respondent conjugal life. That, the petitioner was so deprived of the consequences due to respondent separate in and leading lonely life without.

Respondent and his son for all these months and facing so many problems and mental agony. The petitioner submitted that an account of lack of adjustment and misunderstanding they are not liable to live together. There were present quarrels and mis-understandings every day during their matrimonial life. Now, they are living separately since from

November, 2016. All the efforts taken by the elders, friends mediators and caste persons interested in the family of both, have failed and there was no cohabitation between the petitioner and respondent from 2016 to 4 till today. The petitioner counsel also issued legal notice on 20-04-2018 and 10-7-2018 to the respondent and respondent received legal notice.

The respondent not gave any reply to the legal notice. Even though petitioner take all steps for joining of respondent in matrimonial life.

Due to above said relations between the petitioner and respondent further strained and they have come to the point of no return the petitioner realized that they cannot live together and lead happy matrimonial life.

Hence, the petitioner have decided to get the marriage dated. 15-05-2014 dissolved by a decree of divorce. Hence the petition.

3. Respondent set expate.

4.On behalf of petitioner, petitioner himself examined as Pw1 and through him Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked. The respondent was set exparte on 13-09-2019.

5. Heard counsel for petitioner.

6. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioner and respondent under the ground of desertion?

7. POINT: Pw1 M.Srinivaulu in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of petition. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked. Ex.A1 is

Marriage card, Ex.A2 is Photograph.

8.The petitioner in his chief examination deposed that the respondent without any reason went to her parents house and deserted him. The petitioner proved that the respondent deserted him. Therefore the petitioner entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion. Accordingly the point is answered.

5 9. In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent dated 15-05-2014 by passing a decree of divorce with immediate effect. No costs.

Dictated to the typist and typed by him corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 10th day of January, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---nil---

PW-1 M.Srinivasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER:

Ex.A1 is Marriage card, Ex.A2 is Photograph.

RESPONDENT: -NIL---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

FRIDAY, THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

PRESENT: Sri.A.Veeraiah,

Senior Civil Judge,

Gadwal.

H.M.O.P.No. 17 OF 2018

Between:-

Smt. Ashwini @ Yadamma W/o Ramesh Goud (D/o Late Srinivasulu Goud, age: 31 years, occ: Housewife, R/o Bandarpally village, C.C. Kunta mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

…Petitioner

And

Ramesh Goud S/o Bhagavanth Goud, age: 38 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Uppair village, Dharoor mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

…Respondent ***

This original petition coming before me on 18.11.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Srikanth, Advocate for petitioner and D. Laxmanna, Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce, on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. In the petition it is averred by the petitioner that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage took place on 04.05.2007 at Bandarpally village, Chinna Chintakunta mandal, Mahabubnagar mandal as per Hindu Caste and Customs, and that the parents of the petitioner have given dowry of Rs. 90,000/- and 8 tulas of gold to the respondent at the time of marriage, the petitioner and respondent lived happily for the period of one year and thereafter the respondent has started harassing the petitioner and subjected her to cruelty by his behavior, particularly on the ground that the petitioner could not give birth to children and unfit to be his wife and she is barren lady and that the other family members also humiliated and harassed her. The petitioner further averred that the respondent never treated her as human and respondent has sent away the petitioner from his house about 5 years back and that the petitioner is staying in the house of her parents since then till today and that the respondent never made any effort to take back the petitioner and that the respondent has also later suffered with paralysis and he has stated that he is not willing to lead marital life with the petitioner and that the respondent has willfully deserted the petitioner for more than five year i.e. 15.01.2013 and that there is no chance for reunion of the petitioner and respondent. Therefore the petitioner is seeking divorce from the respondent on twin grounds of desertion and cruelty. Hence, the petition.

3. Summons served on respondent, the respondent appeared and filed his counter contending that the petition is not maintainable. The respondent admitted the marriage with the petitioner and denied that about payment of Rs. 90,000/- and 8 tulas of gold ornaments. The respondent denied the contents of the petition and stated that the respondent is suffering with paralysis since 5 years and the petitioner is avoiding services to the respondent. The respondent further contended that the petitioner and her parents not cooperated to join in the society of respondent and that the petitioner made false allegations for the purpose of filing present petition and further pleaded that the respondent is interested with the petitioner. He prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.To substantiate her case against the respondent, the petitioner examined herself as Pw1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The learned counsel for respondent not opted to cross examine the Pw1. The respondent himself examined as Rw1 and no documents marked. The counsel for petitioner not cross examined the Rw1.

5. Heard counsel for petitioner and respondent.

6.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion?

7. POINT: The petitioner in her chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of petition. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. Ex.P1 is Marriage Card. Ex.P2 is Photograph. The petitioner deposed that the respondent harassed her stating that she could not give birth to children and respondent deserted her from 15.01.2013. The learned counsel for respondent not cross examined the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner proved the cruelty and desertion by the respondent.

8. Rw1 in his chief examination deposed that he lived happily with his wife for more than one year and thereafter some disputes arosed and the petitioner is living with her parents since 15.01.2013 and he has no objection to give divorce to the petitioner. The respondent agreed that disputes arose between them and they are residing separately from 15.01.2013. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly the point is answered.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent held on 04.05.2007 by passing a decree of divorce. No costs.

Dictated to the typist and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 20th day of November, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: Pw1 Ashwini @ Yadamma Rw1 Ramesh Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER: Ex.P1 is Marriage Card. Ex.P2 is Photograph . RESPONDENT: -NIL---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

HMOP. 47 OF 2019 DT. 06-11-2020

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

FRIDAY, THE 6 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020.

PRESENT: Sri A.Veeraiah,

Senior Civil Judge,

Gadwal.

H.M.O.P.No. 47 of 2019

BETWEEN:

1. B. Hemanth Kumar @ Mala Thimma Raju, S/o Late B. Pedda Venkatanna, age: 27 years, R/o Boravelli village, Manopad mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. …PETITIONER No.1

2.Smt. Meena @ Anjali @ Mala Ramanjinamma W/o B. Hemanth Kumar, D/o

G. Nagarjun, age: 25 years, R/o Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool District.

...PETITIONER No.2

Claim:- Petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent.

-*-*-*-*-

This original petition is coming before me for final hearing on 02-11-2020 in the presence of Sri D. Laxman Prasad, Advocate for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed U/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the petitioners jointly who are husband and wife respectively seeking divorce by mutual consent.

HMOP. 47 OF 2019 DT. 06-11-2020

2.It is averred in the petition by the petitioners that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 took place on 09.02.2014 at 08.09 a.m at

Boravelly village as per Hindu Rites and Customs before elders. After marriage there are no issues to the petitioners. After the marriage they lived happily for two years. Later some disputes arose in between the petitioners and they are living separately in their parents house from 02.05.2017. After that many panchayaths were held in between the petitioners and their family members

before elders to settle their disputes. Elders tried to reunion them but they have

not been able to live together and there is no possibility of any conciliation or reunion between then but in vain. It is further averred that the petitioners were decided that they could not live together happily and they decided to get divorce by way of mutual consent. There is no connivance or coerce in filing this petition for divorce. They decided that there is no possibility to lead matrimonial life together and they came into decision to dissolve their marriage and to get mutual divorce. Hence, the petition.

3.On behalf of the petitioners, they were examined as PW1 and PW2 and through PW1, Ex.P1 is Wedding Card and Ex.P2 is Marriage photographs are marked.

4.Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5.The point that arises for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce by mutual consent?

HMOP. 47 OF 2019 DT. 06-11-2020

6. POINT:- The petitioners in their chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of petition. Through PW1, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. Ex.P1 is wedding card. Ex.P2 is Marriage Photographs 2 Nos. Both the petitioners deposed that after marriage some disputes arose between them and they are living separately since 02.05.2017. This petition filed on 31.08.2019. The petitioners decided to take divorce by mutual consent by dissolving their marriage. This court asked the petitioners whether there is any chance of reunion, for that they stated as no and they stated that they intending to take divorce by mutual consent. Since the parties have submitted that they have filed this petition voluntarily and there is no possibility of reunion, this court holds that the marriage between parties shall be dissolved by passing a decree of divorce

U/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly this point is answered.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The marriage of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 dt. 09-02-2014 is hereby dissolved. No costs.

Typed to dictation to the Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of November, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

HMOP. 47 OF 2019 DT. 06-11-2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT:

PW-1 B. Hemanth Kumar @ Mala Thimma Raju ---Nil--- PW-2 Meena @ Anjali @ Mala Ramanjinamma

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT:

Ex.P1 is Wedding Card - Nil.- Ex.P2 is Marriage photographs 2 (Nos).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.