IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
PUNGANUR
Present:- Smt. AreefaShaik
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Punganur.
Thursday this the Twelfth (12th) day of February, 2026
O riginal S uit No.11 of 2009
Between:
1.Chinnabelduru Subbaiah @ Chinnabelduru Subbanna, aged about 76 years, s/o late Chinnabelduru Thimmaiah, Balija by caste, Hindu, cultivation, permanent resident of Balijapalli, H/o Chambakur (PO),
Ramasamudram Revenue Mandalam which was previously Punganur
Taluk, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh (died) by Legal representatives.
2.Chinnabelduri Reddeppa, aged about 60 years, s/o late
Chinnabelduri Subbanna, Hindu, Balija by caste, permanent resident of Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur, Ramasamudram Mandal, but presently
Page 2 of 37 residing at 17-89-1-14, Gottigani Cheruvu, Madanapalle-517325,
Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
3.Chinnabelduri Sreenivasulu, aged about 55 years, s/o late
Chinnabelduri Subbanna, Hindu, Balija by caste, permanent residents of Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur, Ramasamudram Mandal, but presently residing at 15-1-90-2b-19, Sivaji Nagar, Madanapalle-517325,
Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are added as per the orders in I.A.No.115 of 2022
dt: 19.7.2022.
….Plaintiffs.
And:
1.Sri Chinnabelduru Lakshminarayana, aged about 40 years, s/o late
Chinnabelduru Ramana, Hindu, Balija by caste, cultivation, permanent resident of Balijapalli, H/o Chambakur and post,
Ramasamudram Revenue Mandalam, previously Punganur Taluk,
Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
2.Chinnabelduru Gangulamma, aged about 66 years, w/o late
Chinnabelduru Venkatappa, Hindu, Balija by caste, cultivation, permanent resident of Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur (PO),
Ramasamudram Revenue Mandalam, but now residing at D.No.1- 108/1A, Balaji Nagar, Basinikonda, Outskirts of Madanapalli town (PO) & Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, (died).
2nd defendant died and reported no legal representatives as per the
Page 3 of 37 docket orders dt: 1.5.2014.
3.Chinnabelduri Lakshmanna, aged 65 years, s/o Venkataswamy (died), Hindu, cultivation, residing at Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur & (PO), Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
4.Chinnabelduri Ramachandra, aged 53 years, s/o Venkataswamy,
Hindu, cultivation, residing at Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur & (PO),
Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
5.Chinnabelduri Subbanna, aged 60 years, s/o Rangappa, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur & (PO),
Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
6.Chinnabelduri Venkatramana, aged 55 years, s/o Rangappa, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur & (PO),
Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
7.Chinnabelduri Mangamma, aged 48 years, w/o Ramamoorthy,
Hindu, cultivation, residing at Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur & (PO),
Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
8.Chinnabelduri Venkatramana, aged 25 years, s/o Ramamoorthy,
Hindu, cultivation, residing at Balijapalli, H/o Chembakur & (PO),
Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
( D3 to D8 are added as per the docket orders dt:16.12.2022.
9.C.B.Bhoolakshmamma, w/o late Chinnabelduru Venkatramana,
Page 4 of 37 aged about 58 years.
10.Chinnabelduri Subramanyam,s/o late Chinnabelduru Venkatramana, aged about 35 years.
11.G.Uma Devi, w/o G.Reddeppa, aged about 38 years,
Saagavandavaari palli, Nimmanapalli (PO) and Mandal, Annamaiah
District, Andhra Pradesh.
12.Usha Rani, w/o B.Hari, aged about 30 years, Surayyagaaripalli,
Somala post and mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
Legal Representatives of deceased 6th defendant, who are the defendants 9 to 12 added as per the orders in I.A.No.188 of 2023 dt:
28.2.2024.
…Defendants.
This suit came up on 09.02.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.S.Harshavardhan, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri
K.Mallikarjuna Naidu, Advocate for the first defendant; Sri
B.Venkatamuni, Advocate for the defendants 4 to 8; defendants 9 to 12 remained exparte and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of their Right, Title and possession of the plaint schedule properties Item No.1 to 6D and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs also prayed for
Page 5 of 37 mandatory injunction and costs of the suit.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
The first plaintiff and the husband of second defendant and father of first defendant by name Chinnabethiru Ramanna are agnates. After the demise of first plaintiff’s father Chinnabelduru Thimmaiah, the first plaintiff has succeeded to the plaint schedule extents along with other separate and self acquired properties. He is residing in the northern portion of Item No.7 of the plaint schedule in divided status. Similarly the ancestors of the defendants are also separately residing in a divided status since long time on the southern side. The plaint schedule properties except in Survey No.131/1, 128/2, the first plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were enjoying the same as co-owners earlier.
Previously, the second defendant herein got filed OS.No.941/1973 for partition and separate possession of her alleged one third share in all the plaint schedule properties on the file of District Munsif of Madanapalli. As Munsiff
Court was established at Punganur, the suit was renumbered as OS.No.
196/1976 at Punganur. The first plaintiff is shown as second defendant and his mother Seethamma was shown as third defendant. A preliminary decree was passed on 01.03.1988. Against the said decision, the first plaintiff herein as second defendant in that suit preferred A.S.No.14/1988 and the appellate court modified the decree of the trial Court on 06.08.1990 for Survey No.
131/1, 128/2 and held them as self-acquired properties of first plaintiff herein.
Against the said decision, the first plaintiff once again preferred A.A.O.1532 by 1990 to the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was decided on 27.09.1994 and upheld the modification decree dated 06.08.1990. So far as Item 6B and 6D are not granted and held as exclusive properties of the plaintiff No.1 herein. It is further submitted that the plaintiff in OS No.196/1976
Page 6 of 37 filed IA.No.732/1995 final decree petition before the trial Court for final decree of her share in continuation of the preliminary decree. The trial Court appointed a commissioner and passed a final decree on 29.11.2003, as far as
Gangulamma's share was concerned. The plaintiff therein got filed EP 142/2004 before the Executing Court for delivery of properties allotted to her share in the final decree proceedings and the delivery was also effected by the Executing Court. During the pendency of above delivery proceedings on 17.11.2007, the defendants No.1 and No.2 herein colluded together and created the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 and registered as
Document No. 3617/2007. Simultaneously on 19.11.2007, EP 142/2004 in
OS 196/1976 was dismissed by the Executing Court as decree holder was
absent. After the execution of alleged sale deed dated 17.11.2007, the first defendant stepped into the shoes of second defendant Gangulamma for her determined shares in the final decree proceedings but not more than that. On 16.05.2008, the first defendant herein tried to dispossess the first plaintiff for his allotted properties in IA No.732/1995 and also tried to demolish the house property of the plaintiffs taking advantage of the support of Sri Bussa
Thippanna, son of late Bussa Chengappa. On 16.05.2008, the first plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants and the same was served on the first defendant Lakshmi Narayana on 17.05.2008. But, Gangulamma avoided to receive the same intentionally. Again on 12.10.2008, the defendants tried to demolish the ridges and also part walls covered by the final decree proceedings.
On 12.10.2008, the first plaintiff once again issued a legal notice to the first defendant. In spite of the said two registered notices and allotment of final decree proceedings, the first defendant dispossessed by abuse of process of
Page 7 of 37 law. On 29.11.2008 and 13.12.2008, he encroached southern portion of the first plaintiff’s vacant site in Item No.7 of the plaint schedule. They also tried to destroy the existing mango garden situated in Survey No. 130/1 in an extent of 75 cents which is Item No. 6B. The defendants are barred by the principles of res judicata. The defendants 1 and 2 are stopped to go or travel beyond the final decree proceedings dated 29.11.2003. The orders passed in final decree proceedings are final and conclusive between the parties. Hence the present plaintiff No. 1 herein is entitled to half share and the first defendant is entitled to remaining half. The first plaintiff is claiming half share on the northern side and the first defendant is entitled to southern half share. After the demise of first plaintiff, his children i.e. plaintiffs No. 2 and No. 3 and their sister came into an oral settlement with regard to the estate of deceased first plaintiff in the month of September 2021 and accordingly the suit's legal properties are jointly fallen to the shares of plaintiffs No. 2 and No. 3 herein. Hence the suit.
3.The defendants 9 to 12 are remained exparte.
4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by Defendants 1 and 2 are that:
After the death of Chinnabelduru Thimmaiah, all the brothers are equally entitled to the properties i.e. one third each. It is false to state that
Plaintiff alone succeeded to the suit schedule properties with other self- acquired properties. There are no self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. All the properties are joint. He admitted filing of the suit in OS.No.96/76, filing of
AS.No.14/1998, AAO No.1532/1990. But the High Court never said that those
items are exclusive properties of the plaintiff. He also admitted that the second defendant who filed OS.No.196/76 got filed IA.No.732/95 final decree petition and final decree was also passed on 29.11.2003. After that the second
Page 8 of 37 defendant Gangulamma filed EP.No.142/2004 for delivery of possession of the properties allotted to her. While the said EP was pending the second defendant sold her right in the properties to this defendant under sale deed
dated 17.11.2007. The defendants admitted that the possession of one of the
co-owners is the possession of other co-owners. The commissioner report is clear that Gangulamma was given 6/4th share in house property i.e. Item No.
7 of the plaint. The second defendant was allotted north to south 8 feet, east to west 66 feet in the house property. She sold whatever properties fell to her share in the final decree to this defendant. So this defendant is entitled to all the share of the second defendant along with his share in the properties. As the second defendant sold the properties to this defendant and compromised the matter, she has not paid the process and hence EP was dismissed.
Dismissal of EP will not give any right to the plaintiff. He denied that he tried to dispossess the plaintiff for his allotted properties in IA.No.732/1995. In that IA, only the share of defendant No.2 was decided by the court. On 16.05.2005, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice, the address of the second defendant in the said notice and the address stated in the plaint are not one and the same.
As such the second defendant might not have received the same. The notice
dated 12.10.2008 was never refused by the defendant. But the plaintiff got
such endorsement by managing the postal authorities. Plaintiff is never in possession of the properties held to the share of defendant No.2. The defendant is having every right to construct or demolish the walls which is in his possession. The plaintiff has no right to question the same. The plaintiff has no right in the northern side of Item No.7 as the same was allotted to the second defendant. There is no cause of action to file this suit. The plaintiff has sold some of the properties to this defendant under a sale deed. But the plaintiff has not chosen to give the particulars of the same in the plaint. The
Page 9 of 37 extent shown in the schedule is also not correct. There are other co-parcenors of the suit schedule properties and they have not been added as parties to the suit. So the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5.The defendant No. 4 filed the written statement which was adopted by the defendants No. 5 to 8.
6. The brief averments of the written statement filed by defendant No. 4 to 8 are that :
The suit schedule properties originally owned and possessed by
Belduru Subbanna and his brother Belduru Timmaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff. Both were having equal shares in the suit schedule properties. They died intestate leaving their respective sons as their sole legal heirs. Subanna died leaving his two sons, who is father of defendant no. 3 and father of defendant no. 5 and defendant No.6. Timmaiah died leaving his three sons, who is husband of defendant No.2, father of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff.
On 15.05.1958, his father Venkateswami, Junior paternal uncle of defendant
No.3 by name Rangappa and the plaintiff’s husband, second defendant and father of first defendant got partitioned all the family movable and immovable properties under family arrangement dated 12.05.1958 and since then all are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares allotted in the said family arrangement. In the said family arrangement, Item No. 1 and item No. 6 of the suit schedule property exclusively fell to the father of defendant No.3 and brother of defendant No.3 Rangappa and other half share fell to the share of plaintiff, father of defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.2. Father of
D3, Venkataswami died leaving behind D3, Rammoorthy and Ramachandra as legal heirs. So after the death of father of D3, D3 and his two brothers have
Page 10 of 37 jointly succeeded the share of Venkataswami and the defendants are in separate possession and enjoyment of the said properties. The younger brother of D3 by name Ramamoorthy died intestate about 24 years ago leaving his wife Mangamma who is 7th defendant and his son
Venkataramana who is the 8th defendant. The share of the said
Ramamoorthy has been succeeded by the said Mangamma and
Venkataramana and they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. All have obtained their pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of their shares in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff and the other defendants are well known about the said shares of other co-owners including share of D3 and their separate enjoyment. They are colluding together, filing civil suits against each other and taking collusive decrees without including deceased D3 and other co-owners as parties in the said suits. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in collusion brought the present suit without including the defendants as parties in the suit, with an intention to have collusive decree. Recently when the learned commissioner came to the suit schedule properties and got measured shares of the defendants, then only they came to know about the pendency of the suit. They came to know that the plaintiff has filed the suit in respect of the properties including the house properties wherein the defendants are residing. The defendants are co-owners with the plaintiff and as such the suit for injunction against his co-owners is not at all maintainable. The suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without asking appropriate relief. There is no cause of action for filing this suit. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. The brief averments of the re-joinder filed by the plaintiffs 2 and3 are that:
Page 11 of 37
The written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 are false and imaginary recitals for wrongful gain. As far as suit Sy.Nos.131/1 and 128/2 (item Nos.6 (b) and 6 (d) in O.S.No.11 of 2009 on the file of this court are concerned, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh clearly stated in
AAO.1532/1990 that these items are not the joint family properties and rejected the plaintiff’s claim for the same in O.S.No.196 of 1976 on the file of
District Munsif Court, Punganur. In the said proceedings the second defendant who is the first plaintiff herein got proved the said properties were his self acquired properties, who contested O.S.No.196 of 1976 tooth and nail along with his mother Seethamma. The first plaintiff got purchased the suit items 6 (a) to 6 (d) under the registered sale deed dt: 5.9.1964 from its rightful owners and the same are his exclusive properties for which the same was not granted in final decree proceedings in I.A.No.732 of 1995 in O.S.No.196/1976 (O.S.No.941/1973 DMC, MPL) on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Punganur.
During the life time of first plaintiff, he sold out some of the extents relating to the suit properties in favour of the brother of first defendant and the same was under their possession and enjoyment. In view of the sudden demise of first plaintiff, his undivided sons namely the plaintiffs 2 and 3 came on record as per the orders of this court in I.A.No.115 of 2022 on 19.7.2022 who got succeeded to the entire estate of their father including the suit schedule properties, whose names were mutated in the revenue records. Hence prayed to decree the suit with costs.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? .
Page 12 of 37 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right and title in respect of items 1 to 6 of the suit schedule properties? .
3Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?
.
4Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction?
.
5To what relief?
.
Additional issue:
1. Whether the family Arrangement dated 12.05.1958 is binding on the plaintiffs and whether there is prior partition as contented by the defendants 4 to 8?
9.During the course of trial, PW1 got examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Ex A1 to A19 got marked. On the other hand DW1 to DW4 got examined on behalf of the defendants and Ex B1 to B16 got marked.
10.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants.
11.Before discussing the issues on record, let us go through the evidence filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants.
The plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1. He has reiterated all the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit. In his cross examination, he submitted that he filed the document to show that Item No. 6B and 6D in Sy.
Page 13 of 37
No.131/1 and 128/2 are their self-acquired properties. He admitted that by leaving Item No.6B and 6D in the present suit schedule, Gangulamma filed IA
No.732/1995 before Junior Civil Judge Court, Punganur for passing final decree and a final decree dated 11.03.1995 was also passed by allotting 6/40th share to the second defendant. He also admitted that during pendency of EP.No.142/2004, second defendant and first defendant herein have entered into compromise and second defendant has executed a registered sale deed in favour of first defendant for Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6A and 7 of the present suit schedule property. He also admitted that himself along with his father and his brother Sreenivasulu have executed a registered sale deed
dated 25.11.1998 for Item No. 4, 5 and 6 of the present suit schedule property
to defendant No.1 and his brother Sivaiah. They filed this suit for declaration of title; permanent injunction after excluding the properties fell to the share of
Gangulamma and the properties sold by them. He denied the suggestion that
Item No. 4, 5, 6, 6A and 7 of plaint schedule properties are the properties fell to the share of Gangulamma in the final decree proceedings. He filed copies of title deeds of plaint schedule properties. The defendants No.3 to 8 are his cousins. He admitted that his senior paternal uncles Ramaiah and
Venkatappa are also entitled to one sixth share in the suit properties along with his father. He admitted that Sivappa, who is the elder brother of defendant No.1 is not a party to the present suit. There is no reason why he and other plaintiffs did not add Sivappa as a party to the present suit. He admitted that defendant No.3 died leaving behind him, his wife Lakshmakka and his two sons Sreenivasulu and Venkataramana. He further admitted that the wife and children of defendant No. 3 are not added as parties to the present suit. There is no reason why he did not add them as parties. The defendant No.2 has sold away her one sixth share in the suit schedule
Page 14 of 37 properties in favour of defendant No.1. He admitted that defendant No.2 got the said one sixth share in the suit schedule properties by virtue of decree in
OS 196/1976. He also admitted that his father sold away his one sixth share
in Item No.4, 5 and 6 to defendant No.1 about 22 years ago under a registered sale deed. They are ready to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees three thousands only ) to defendant No.2 in respect of Item No.7 of suit schedule properties. He along with one Sivappa, defendant No.1, plaintiff
No.3 are the other co-sharers of Item No.7 of the suit schedule properties along with defendant No.2. He admitted that the defendants No.3 to 12 are also entitled to a share in Item No.7 of suit schedule properties. As on the date of filing of the suit there was vacant house site of his wife Girijamma to the
North of item No.7 of the suit schedule property. The Southern boundary of item No.7 by the date of filing of the suit was vacant house site of one
Venkataswami and Rangappa. He does not know whether the defendants 3 to 8 were issued with pattadar passbooks and title deeds for their respective shares in respect of the lands situated in Item No.1 to 6D of the suit schedule survey numbers. When PW1 was further cross examined on 10.10.2025, he admitted that the commissioner visited the property and demarked 6/40th share of Gangulamma and filed the report. He further admitted that as per the report, Gangulamma has share on the northern side. He does not know who filed IA No.1153/1996 against whom, which is marked as Ex A18. Under Ex
A19, his father purchased Ac.1.00 cents of land from Yethirajulu setty. Three items are purchased under Ex A19. Gangulamma filed the suit in the year 1976 and by that date Ex A19 is in existence. The revenue records for Survey
No.131 in Ex A19 are also mutated on the name of his father. His father got old Ryot passbook. The same is not filed in this suit. He denied the suggestion that Survey No.131 is on the name of Lakshmi Narayana. In Ex A19, the
Page 15 of 37 extent of Ac. 0.75 cents is shown as patta land and Ac. 0.25 cents of land is shown as dashabandham inam land. He admitted that in Ex A19, it is mentioned that out of Ac. 1.00 cents, half of the extent belongs to his father and defendants 3 to 8. He denied the suggestion that one Balaji is in possession of Ac. 0.20 cents in Survey No.131/1. He voluntarily stated that D1 is in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 0.20 cents in Survey No.131/1. The western boundary is the land of Pettadandavari Rayappa. The entire extent in
Survey No.131/1 is Ac. 1.00 cents. He filed this suit for an extent of Ac. 0.75 cents in Survey No.131/1 as his father has revenue records for the same. He admitted that in Ex A17 and Ex A18, the defendants 3 to 5 are not parties. He denied the suggestion that Ex A17 and Ex A18 are not binding on the defendants 3 to 5. They have sold only half extent in each survey number to defendant No.1. He does not know whether the defendants 3 to 5 have half share in the suit schedule property. He has half share in each survey member of the suit schedule property. But he does not know to whom the other half share belongs to.
12.On the other hand, the first defendant was examined as DW1. He has reiterated all the written statement averments in his chief examination. In his cross-examination, he deposed that in AAO No.1532/1990, the defendant No.
2 got 6 shares out of 40 shares. He filed documents to show that item No.6B and 6C are joint family properties. He got Ex B2 registered sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1 dated 25.11.1998 after passing of the final decree and before filing of the execution petition by defendant No. 2. He admitted that when D3 to D8 stated that they also have share in the property, the commissioner asked them to approach the court.
Whether D3 to D8 are having share or not is not considered in OS No.
Page 16 of 37 196/1976. He filed the document showing that the property was delivered to defendant No. 2 in EP.No.142/2004. He filed the documents to show Item No.
1, 6B and 6D is his ancestral property. He does not know the contents of the report filed by the advocate commissioner in this suit. He never filed any suit for declaration of his right on the above said properties. Witness voluntarily stated that he already has possession and right over the properties and so he did not approach the court. He does not know the flow of title mentioned in Ex
B3 registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant
No. 1. Witness voluntarily stated that he purchased the properties from defendant No.2 which she got from her husband. He admitted that it is mentioned in Ex B3 that D2 got the property from her father. Sitamma, wife of
Thimmaiah was also added as a party in OS.No.196/1976. He admitted that he purchased the share fell to Seethamma and Chinnasupanna in
OS.No.196/1976 from the plaintiffs 1 to 3 as per Ex B2. Further in the cross
examination by D4 to D8, DW1 deposed that one Sivaiah is his elder brother and he is not added as a party in this suit. D3 died and his wife Lakshmakka and sons Srinivasulu and Venkataramana are added as parties in this suit. He admitted that the suit schedule properties originally belong to Chinnabelduri
Subbaiah and his brother Thimmaiah. They have partitioned their properties, but they did not register the same. He also admitted that Subbaiah and
Thimmaiah has half share each in the suit schedule properties. Venkataswami and Rangappa are sons of Subbaiah. Venkatappa, Ramaiah and Subbaiah are sons of Thimmaiah. He also admitted that after the death of Subbaiah and
Thimmaiah, their children are enjoying their respective shares. He admitted that D3 to D8 are not parties in OS.No.196/76. D2 got one third share out of half share of his grandfather in OS.No.196/76. He cannot say the survey numbers of the property purchased from D2. He purchased 3 items from
Page 17 of 37 plaintiff’s No.1 to 3 but he cannot say the survey numbers. He admitted that the plaintiffs have shown the properties sold to him as suit schedule properties asking for partition of the same. The plaintiffs have asked for more extent than what they have in the suit. His grandfather has share in item No.7 on the
Northern side. The defendants 4 to 8 has share in Item No.7 on the southern side. There are two houses on the Northern side in item No.7 constructed by him and his junior paternal uncle. There are two houses on the southern side constructed by D3, D4 and D7. The plaintiffs have 12 feet width and 30 feet length of vacant site in Item No.7, but they have shown more extent.
13.DW2 is the third party to the suit. He stated in his chief examination that he has landed property in the vicinity of the suit schedule property. He stated that DW1 got right, title and possession in most of the items of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and their family members have no manner of right, title or possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs are never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties at any time. In his cross-examination he deposed that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants claiming the suit land. The defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from one Subbaiah about 25 years ago. He cannot say the survey numbers and the details of the properties mentioned in that sale deed. He is not an attestor in the said sale deed. He cannot say the details of the ancestral properties of defendant No.1 and the properties purchased by him and whether those properties are mentioned in the suit schedule or not. In the year 2007, defendant No.1 purchased some of the properties from defendant No. 2 which she got in a suit. He can say that the defendants got the property from their ancestors, but he does not know the other details like the survey number, extents and boundaries. He did not file
Page 18 of 37 any document to show that he has land nearby the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination by D4 to D8, he stated that he has seen Subbaiah and his brother Thimmaiah. He admitted that both the brothers got half share each in their family properties. They did not execute any partition deed in between them. They have partitioned orally and doing cultivation. Defendant No.1 has purchased three items from the plaintiffs. But he cannot say the survey number, extent and the boundaries. Defendant No.1 has purchased some properties from defendant No.2. But he cannot say the survey numbers, extents and boundaries. He denied that defendant No.1 purchased excess extent than what his vendors have. He knows that there is a house site mentioned in the suit property, but he cannot say the extent. He admitted that the legal representatives of Subbaiah and Thimmaiah are enjoying half share each in the house site. He also admitted that the plaintiffs have shown some of the properties which they sold away to defendant No.1.
14.The defendant No.4 was examined as DW3 and he has reiterated all the written statement averments in his chief examination. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he knows that an advocate commissioner by name P.Srinivasa Murthy came to the suit schedule property in
IA.No.732/1995 in OS.No.196/1976 to suggest mode of division. He admitted
that the plaintiff, Venkatappa and Ramaiah are sons of Thimmaiah. He admitted that the joint family properties were partitioned in the year 1958. He did not issue any notice after 1958 and before 1973 when one Gangulamma who is D2 herein filed suit in OS.No.941/1973. Witness voluntarily stated that he does not know that she filed a suit previously. He admitted that defendant
No.2 sold away some of the properties to defendant No.1. He did not issue any notice to defendant No.2 or defendant No.1 as he did not have knowledge
Page 19 of 37 about the transactions in between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. He did not issue any notice to the plaintiff or defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 after coming to know about the transactions at the time of commissioner's visit in
OS.No.196/1976. He filed the documents to show that he has a right over
Item No.1 and Item No.6 of the suit schedule property. He admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex B8 that he got the property through partition. He is giving evidence on behalf of defendants 5 to 8 also. He admitted that D3 to D8,
Venkataswami and Rangappa filed a petition to add them as parties in
IA.No.732/1995 which is final decree petition. He does not know that the
petition in IA.No.1153/1996 in IA.No.732/1995 was dismissed by the court on 29.08.1996. He does not know whether the order was challenged. He denied the suggestion that they cannot come as parties in this suit as they did not challenge the order in IA.No. 1153/1996 and therefore they are not entitled to seek any relief in this suit. He admitted that defendant No.1 purchased some of the properties from the plaintiff and his sons. He did not file any petition to set aside the report of the advocate commissioner in final decree petition as he did not have knowledge about filing of the report. In the cross examination by defendant, he stated that Thimmaiah has three sons by name Venkatappa,
Ramaiah and Subbaiah. He knows that plaintiff No.1 sold away Ac. 3.00 cents of land to defendant No. 1 in the year 1998. He does not know that defendant
No.2 filed a suit for partition against the first plaintiff. He knows defendant No.1 purchased 5 items in the suit schedule property from defendant No.2.
Defendant No.1 is the son of Ramanna. He admitted that defendant No.1 is having share in the suit schedule properties which he got from his father. The plaintiff and his children are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
Page 20 of 37
15.The son of defendant No.5 was examined as DW4. He has reiterated all the written statement averments in his chief examination. In his cross examination, he deposed that he knows the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule property consists of 11 items. He cannot say the survey number, extents and boundaries of the suit schedule property. He does not know that the plaintiff filed this suit as per the decree in OS.No.196/1976. Witness voluntarily stated that after the commissioner visited the property they came to know about the suit and came on record. He admitted that D3 to D8 gave oral objections to the commissioner when he visited the property in
IA.No.732/1995 in OS.No.196/1976. He also admitted that the commissioner
stated that they should add themselves as parties in this suit to prove their right in OS.No.196/1976. He also admitted that D3 to D8 filed a petition to add them as parties in IA.No.1153/1996, in IA.No.732/1995, in OS.No.196/1976.
He does not know that the said petition was dismissed by the court on 28.09.1996. As they did not know about the outcome of the IA, they did not take further steps. He admitted that he got mentioned in his chief affidavit in para 4 that the properties have been partitioned on 15.05.1958. Witness says that it was oral partition in the presence of the elders. He did not file any documents or any evidence to prove that the partition took place. Except coming on record as parties in the final decree petition, they did not file any suit to set aside the decree and judgment in OS.No.196/1976. He admitted that defendant No.1 purchased the properties from defendant No.2. They did not file any suit for cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1 executed by defendant No.2. He also admitted that defendant No.1 purchased properties from plaintiffs No.1 to 3. As they do not know the transactions in between defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs, they did not file any suit for cancellation of the registered documents executed in favour of
Page 21 of 37 defendant No.1. He came to know about the suit only when the advocate commissioner visited the property once. He admitted that the plaintiffs preferred CRP.No.498/2016 on the file of Hon'ble High Court against the orders in IA.No.413/2010. He admitted that the CRP is pending till date. In the cross examination by defendant No.1, he stated that all the three sons of
Thimmaiah have equal rights in the properties of Thimmaiah. He admitted that defendant No.1 purchased three items from plaintiffs No.1 to 3. He also admitted that defendant No.1 also purchased five items from defendant No.2.
The suit schedule property consists of 10 items. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are not in possession of the suit schedule properties at present.
Issue No.1:
16.Before discussing the issues on record, it is important to go through the family tree of the plaintiffs and the defendants.
C.RANGAPPA
THIMMAIAH – SEETHAMMA (wife) SUBBAIAH
VENKATAPPA RAMAIAH SUBBAIAH VENKATAMMA
{MANGAMMA(wife)} -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
LAKSHMINARAYANA(D1) SIVAPPA VENKATASWAMY RANGAPPA
Page 22 of 37 -----------------------------------------------------
LAKSHMAMMA RAMACHANDRA RAMAMURTHY
VENKATARAMANA
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBBAMMA VENKATARAMANA
17.The admitted facts in this suit are that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The fact with regard to the filing of the suit in OS.No.196/1976, A.S.No.14/1988,
AAO.No.1532/1919 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
EP.No.142/2004 and IA.No.732/1995 are admitted by the defendants.
18.The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule survey numbers are the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Except Item No.
6B and 6D, the plaintiffs and defendants have been in joint possession of the other properties. But the defendants have high-handedly encroached into the share of the plaintiffs and made illegal constructions. Hence he filed this suit for declaration, permanent injunction and also praying for mandatory injunction.
19. The contention of the defendants 1 to 3 is that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and not self-acquired properties of the first plaintiff. Under the final decree proceedings, defendant No.2 was allotted
Page 23 of 37 a specific share which she validly sold to him under registered sale deed
dated 17.11.2007. The plaintiffs also executed earlier sale deeds in favour of
defendant No.1, but suppressed material facts regarding alienation. There are other co-sharers and they are not impleaded in this suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He further contends that he is lawfully entitled to the portions purchased and denies any illegal construction or interference.
20.The case of the defendants 4 to 8 is that they have independent rights as co-sharers in the suit schedule properties. The suit properties originally belong to common ancestor and they were orally partitioned in the year 1958.
Each branch has been enjoying its respective shares separately since long time. The earlier partition suit in OS.No.196/1976 was conducted without impleading them and therefore it is not binding on them. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are colluding to obtain a decree effecting their shares. A suit for injunction against co-owners without seeking proper partition is not maintainable.
21.The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of title. Admittedly, the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. The plaintiff did not file any evidence to show that the extents mentioned in the suit schedule property exclusively fell to his share. On one hand, the plaintiff admits that it is joint family property and it was never partitioned. His case is that the defendants 3 to 8 does not have share in the suit schedule property. On the other hand, he admitted in the cross examination that the defendants 3 to 8 are co-sharers and entitled to shares in the suit schedule properties. When it is so, all the parties are to be added by the plaintiff for just decision of the suit. Therefore, all co-owners or persons claiming independent shares are necessary parties
Page 24 of 37 to adjudicate the claim of the plaintiffs. On perusal of the cross examination of
PW1, he admitted that one Sivappa, who is the elder brother of defendant
No.1 is also a co-sharer, but he is not added as a party. Dw.1 also admitted the same in his cross examination. He also admitted that legal representatives of D3 were not initially added. Therefore the plaintiff himself clearly stated that he did not add the other co-owners as parties in this suit. Moreover D4 to D8 were also not added initially at the time of filing of this suit. But later on D4 to
D8 themselves came onto the record by filing an application. In a suit for declaration of title and injunction relating to joint family property, all co-owners are necessary parties, failing which the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, as rightly argued by the defendants, the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. This issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.2:
22.The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title. It is the well settled principle of law that the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove his exclusive title over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff mainly relied on the alleged succession of the first plaintiff to ancestral properties, secondly, the decree passed in OS.No.196/1976 and subsequent proceedings in
IA.No.732/1995, and finally that certain items particularly Item No. 6B and 6D
were held to be self-acquired properties of the first plaintiff and the alleged encroachment by defendants after execution proceedings.
23.On perusal of the evidence of PW1, he admitted that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. He also admitted that the plaintiffs have half share and the defendants have half share each in the suit schedule
Page 25 of 37 survey numbers. Dw.1 to Dw4 also stated that all the branches have share in the suit schedule survey numbers. There is no dispute with regard to this contention. Now, the plaintiff has to prove that he got exclusive right and title over the extents specifically mentioned in the plaint schedule. Ex B2 shows that the plaintiffs sold some portions of item No. 4, 5 and 6 to defendant No.1 through a registered sale date dated 25.11.1998. But the same was not mentioned in the plaint pleadings. On perusal of the plaint schedule in item
No.4, it is clearly mentioned that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and his brother Sivappa for an extent of
Ac. 0.57 ½ cents in Survey No. 162/9, they also sold an extent of Ac. 0.39 ½ cents in Survey No. 156/3 and Ac.0.63 cents in Survey No. 155/5. The plaintiff did not file the said sale deed in the court. It was filed by DW1 and marked as
Ex B2. Except PW1, no other witness was examined to support the contention of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No. 2 who is examined as PW1 got marked Ex A1 to A19 to prove his exclusive right and title over the suit schedule property. On perusal of the documents, Ex A1 to Ex A10 are reference to earlier litigation in
OS.No.196/1976, A.S.No.14/1998, A.A.O.No.1532/1999, I.A.No.732/1995
and EP.No. 142/2004. All these documents show that the second defendant filed a suit for partition only to declare her share out of her husband's share.
Ex A1 to A10 are admitted by the defendants. There is no dispute with regard to the filing of the suit and determination of the share of defendant No. 2. The rights of defendants 3 to 8 were never adjudicated because they were not added as parties in that suit. This fact is admitted by Pw.1 and Dw.1. Final decree proceedings also show the share allotted to the defendant No.2.
Nowhere in Ex A1 to Ex A10, is the share of the plaintiffs adjudicated. When the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration of his right and title, he has to prove his exclusive right and title over the suit schedule property. Mere reference to
Page 26 of 37 earlier litigation does not automatically establish exclusive title in favour of the plaintiffs unless the decree conclusively determines their rights against all persons claiming interest. Therefore, Ex A1 to Ex A10 do not determine the exclusive right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule extents.
24.Now let us go through the other documents filed by the plaintiffs. Ex
A11 to Ex A16 shows only the issuance of the legal notice, postal acknowledgements and the returned registered notices. These are not the documents of the title and they are no way helpful for the plaintiff to prove his title over the suit schedule property. Ex A17 to A19 were marked through
PW1 at a later stage by filing an Interlocutory Application. Ex A17 is a certified copy of commissioner report along with plan in IA.No.732/1995 in
OS.No.196/1976. Ex A18 is the certified copy of affidavit petition in
IA.No.153/1996 in IA.No.732/1995 in OS.No.1996/1976 filed by D3 to D7
herein and Ex A19 is the certified copy of sale deed for the property in Survey
No.131/1 purchased by plaintiff No.1, which was excluded from final decree in
OS No. 196/1976. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex A19, the
extent of Ac. 0.75 cents is shown as patta land and Ac. 0.25 cents of land is shown as dashabandham inam land. He further admitted that in Ex A19, out of Ac. 1.00 cents, half of the extent belongs to his father and the defendants 3 to 8. The admission of PW1 goes to show that he does not have exclusive right over the entire extent of the property in Ex A19. He stated that defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 0.20 cents in Sy.No.131/1. He deposed in his cross examination that he filed this suit for an extent of Ac. 0.75 cents in
Survey No.131/1 as his father has revenue records for the same. Though
PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that he has revenue records on his name and on the name of his father several times, he did not file a scrap of
Page 27 of 37 paper to prove their possession over the same. He also admitted that in Ex
A17 and Ex A18, the defendants 3 to 5 are not parties. He further admitted in his cross examination that he along with one Sivappa, defendant No.1, plaintiff
No.3 are the other co-sharers of item No.7 of the suit schedule properties along with defendant No.2. When the learned counsel questioned PW1 about the shares in the suit schedule survey numbers, he stated that he does not know whether the defendants 3 to 5 have half share in the suit schedule property. Further he stated that he has half share in each survey number, but he does not know to whom the other half share belongs to. As already admitted by PW1 that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties and plaintiffs and defendants are having half share each, the evidence given by him shows that PW1 does not want to speak truth before the court.
25.Dw1 and Dw2 admitted that the properties are partitioned, after the death of Subbaiah and Thimmaiah, their children are enjoying their respective shares. This evidence weakens the case of the plaintiffs. An advocate commissioner was appointed to localize the suit schedule property in this suit in I.A.No.303/2009. The learned advocate commissioner filed his report along with the plan. It is mentioned in the report that the advocate commissioner has localized the suit properties with the help of surveyor and mentioned whether the boundaries are tallied. It is well settled that the report of the advocate commissioner with regard to the possession of the parties cannot be considered. The report of the advocate commissioner fixing the boundaries is no way helpful to prove the title or possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs assert that Item No. 6B and 6D are their self-acquired properties. To prove the same, he filed Ex A19 which is
Page 28 of 37 discussed earlier in the above para. Except Ex A19, the plaintiff did not file any other document to prove that Item No. 6B and 6D are their self-acquired properties. The plaintiff's contend that defendant no. 2 filed a suit for partition in OS.No.196/1976 in which she has shown the Item 6B and 6D. Though the suit was decreed, the appellate court in AS.No.14/1998 held that the items 6B and 6D are not liable for partition. On perusal of the judgment in A.S.14/1998, nowhere it is stated that it is exclusive property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also contend that the Hon'ble High Court held that item No. 6B and 6D is the exclusive property of the plaintiffs in AAO.No.1532/1999. On perusal of the said order also, the exclusive right and title over the item No. 6B and 6D are not declared. Thus the evidence adduced by the plaintiff failed to substantiate his exclusive ownership over item No. 6B and 6D of the suit schedule property. When multiple branches claim ownership over the suit schedule property, a simple declaration without comprehensive partition is not legally sustainable. On what basis the plaintiff is claiming the extents shown in the plaint schedule property is not explained by PW1. The plaintiff did not put forth any evidence to substantiate his extent and boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property. There is no any iota of evidence on record to show that the extents mentioned in the suit schedule property exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. Even if the plaintiffs have some share, they cannot seek declaration as if they are exclusive owners when there are other co-owners. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their right and title over the extents mentioned in the suit schedule property. The issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.3:
26.The relief of permanent injunction can be granted only when the plaintiff
Page 29 of 37 proves the lawful possession over the suit schedule property and interference by the defendants. As discussed above, except PW1, the plaintiffs did not examine any other witness. PW1 stated in his chief examination and also in his cross-examination that they are in possession and enjoyment of the extents mentioned in the suit schedule property. Among Exhibit A1 to Exhibit
A19, the plaintiffs did not file any record to prove their possession over the suit schedule property. Though PW1 deposed that there is pattadar passbook in the name of plaintiff’s father and also revenue documents on his name to prove possession during the cross-examination, he did not file a scrap of paper to prove the same. As discussed earlier, none other witness is examined to speak about the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Ex A1 to A19 are no way helpful for the plaintiff to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. PW1 admitted that defendant no. 1 and defendants 3 to 8 are in possession of various portions in the suit schedule survey numbers. The plaintiffs are not in exclusive possession in the entire suit survey number. DW1, DW3 and DW4 also deposed that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They denied that the plaintiffs are in physical possession.
Except the self-serving statement of PW1, there is no oral or documentary evidence to prove the interference of the defendants over the possession of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their possession and interference by the defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, this
Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property. This issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
Page 30 of 37
Issue No.4:
27.The plaintiff also prayed for mandatory injunction for demolishing and removing the unlawful walls etc. raised and constructed by defendants no. 1 and defendant No. 2 in the southern portion of Item No. 7 on the northern side of first defendant's house site etc and also to direct the defendants to remove such constructions etc. within the portion allotted to the plaintiff No.1 at the costs of the defendants. Mandatory injunction requires strict proof of illegal construction and clear title and possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs did not file any rough sketch of the suit schedule property, showing the alleged encroachments and constructions. The plaintiffs failed to specifically show the measurements, extent, and the directions in which the construction is made and on which side the defendants occupied item No.7 of the suit schedule property. Moreover, the prayer itself shows incomplete details about the alleged construction and encroachment. The alleged encroachment and construction has to be specifically mentioned in the plaint and also in the prayer portion. But the plaintiffs prayed for removing the unlawful walls etc.
When the mandatory injunction is prayed for specifically, the term "etc" cannot be used in the prayer portion. The term etc. does not specify the measurements, the type of construction or such other thing to be removed.
The plaintiff's contend that half share in Item No.7 is allotted to the first plaintiff as per orders in final decree in IA.No.732/1995 in OS.No.196/1976. But on perusal of the orders in the final decree petition, only the share of defendant
No.2 was specifically mentioned and the share of the plaintiff is not determined by the court. The final decree proceedings show that Item No.7 is not possible for division and hence it is valued at Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand only ) and the petitioner in the final decree proceedings i.e.
Page 31 of 37 defendant No. 2 in the present suit is entitled for Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand only ). But nowhere in the said proceedings, half share is allotted to the plaintiffs. In the present case, Plaintiffs failed to establish their exclusive title and possession over the suit schedule property as discussed above.
There is no sanctioned plan, measurement sketch or independent evidence to prove unlawful construction made by the defendants. Relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted when the title itself is clouded. The report filed by the advocate commissioner in I.A.No.303/2009 is also not helpful for the plaintiffs to prove the alleged encroachment. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction. This issue is answered against the plaintiffs.
Additional Issue No.1:
28.The burden to establish the existence of prior partition and binding nature of the family arrangement lies on defendants 4 to 8, who have specifically pleaded the same in this suit. They pleaded that the total properties were partitioned under a family arrangement dated 12.05.1958 and since then different branches have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The plaintiffs on the other hand denied the binding nature of such arrangement and contented that their rights flow from later partition litigation in OS.No.196/1976 and the final proceedings therein. Now, the defendants 4 to 8 has to prove whether there was a prior partition or family arrangement in the year 1958 and whether such arrangement is binding on the plaintiffs. To prove the same, the 4th defendant himself was examined as DW3. The son of 5th defendant was examined as
DW4. In the cross-examination of DW3, he admitted that the joint family properties were partitioned in the year 1958. He did not issue any notice after
Page 32 of 37 1958 and before 1973 when the defendant no. 2 filed suit in OS.No.941/1973.
Witness voluntarily stated that he does not know that she filed the suit previously. In his written statement and also in his chief examination, he specifically mentioned that the family arrangement took place in the year 1958 and since then all of them have obtained separate pattadar passbook for their extents. Dw1 also admitted that the suit schedule properties originally belongs to Subbaiah and Thimmaiah. They partitioned their properties but did not register the same. He further admitted that Subbaiah and Thimmaiah have half share each in the suit survey number. DW4 also supported the contention of the defendants 4 to 8. The defendant No.4 has substantiated his contention by placing oral and documentary evidence on record.
29. On perusal of the documents filed by the DW3, he has filed the pattadar passbooks in the name of D3 to D7, and copy of 1-B namoona in the name of D3 to D7. Ex B7 to B16 shows that each branch has been enjoying its respective share separately. Except giving a suggestion that Ex B7 to Ex
B16 are fabricated, the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of Dw.3 and Dw.4. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the plaintiffs to disprove the contention of the defendants 4 to 7. These documents support the plea of severance of status. PW1 also admitted in his cross-examination that the branches of the family have been residing separately for long. He also admitted that the defendants 3 to 8 and other branches are also entitled to shares. The evidence adduced by the defendants show existence of separate houses and separate cultivation by different branches. The plaintiffs also admitted that the earlier litigation in
OS.No.196/1976 did not include defendants 3 to 8. The defendants 3 to 8
applied to implead themselves in final decree proceedings, which indicate that
Page 33 of 37 they were asserting independent rights even at that stage. This conduct of the parties shows that they have been treating their shares as separate. Though the plaintiffs asserted that they have ownership over the suit schedule extents, that they have pattadar passbooks in the name of Pw.1 and his father but failed to file such documents for the reasons best known to them. If such documents are filed by PW1, it would have been clear as to what extents are possessed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the properties continued as joint and undivided after 1958. Once severance of status is established, subsequent claims of exclusive title, ignoring such arrangement, cannot be sustained. It is to be noted that the defendants have not produced strong documentary evidence conclusively proving exact allotments under the 1958 arrangement. Therefore while existence of prior partition and separate enjoyment can be inferred through the documents filed by the defendants, the exact extent of shares may still require adjudication in appropriate proceedings. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants, this Court came to the conclusion that there existed a prior family arrangement and severance of status among the branches of the family. The plaintiffs have failed to disprove such arrangement. Therefore this
Court holds that there was a prior family arrangement and partition among the family members and the same is biting on the plaintiffs. This issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.5:
30.In the result, the suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of February,
Page 34 of 37 2026.
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Punganur
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
Plaintiffs Defendants
PW.1Chinnabelduri ReddeppaDW.1Chinnabelduru Lakshminarayana
DW2Gajjela Ramanappa.
DW3Chinnabelduru Ramachandra.
DW4Chinnabelduru Narayana
Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs
Ex A1 :Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.196 of 1976 on the file of
District Munsif Court, Punganur (transferred from District
Munsif Court, Madanapalle in O.S.No.941/1973).
Ex A2:Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.196 of 1976 passed by
District Munsif Court, Punganur.
Ex A3 :Certified copy of Judgment in A.S.No.14 of 1988 on the file of
Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.
Ex A4 :Certified copy of Decree in AS.No.14/1988 on the file of
Page 35 of 37
Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.
Ex A5 :Certified copy of Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in AAO.No.1532/1919.
Ex A6 :Certified copy of petition and affidavit with orders thereon in
O.S.No.196/1976 in I.A.No.732/1995.
Ex A7:Certified copy of fair orders in I.A.No.732/1995 in
O.S.No.196/1976 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Punganur.
Ex A8:Certified copy of final decree in I.A.No.732/1995 in
O.S.No.196/1976 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Punganur.
Ex A9:Certified copy of EP.No.142/2004 in IA.No.732/1995 in
O.S.No.196/1976 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Punganur.
Ex A10:Certified copy of memo filed by the decree holder in
EP.No.142/2004.
Ex A11:Office coy of legal notice dt: 16.5.2008 issued to defendants 1 and 2.
Ex A12:Postal acknowledgement of first defendant.
Ex A13:Returned register notice of second defendant with receipts.
Ex A14:Returned legal notice send to second defendant through certificate of posting with receipt.
Ex A15:Office copy of legal notice dt: 12.10.2008 to first defendant
Page 36 of 37 with receipt.
Ex A16:Returned registered notice sent to first defendant.
Ex A17:Certified copy of commissioner report along with plan in I.A.No.732/1995 in O.S.No.196 of 1976.
Ex A18:Certified copy of affidavit, petition in I.A.No.1153/1996 in I.A.No.732/1995 in O.S.No.196/1976 filed by D3 to D7 herein.
Ex A19:Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.2747/1964 for the property in Sy.No.131/1 purchased by first plaintiff which was excluded from final decree in O.S.No.196 of 1976.
Exhibits marked for Defendants
Ex B1:Pattadar pass book in the name of D1.
Ex B2:Registered sale deed executed by first plaintiff in favour of first defendant dt:25.11.1998.
Ex B3:Registered sale deed executed by D2 in favour of first defendant dt:17.11.2007.
Ex B4:1B namoona in favour of D1, dt: 4.3.2025.
Ex B5:Adangal in the name of D1 – 4 in number dt: 4.3.2025.
Ex B6:Adangal in the name of D1 – 4 in number dt: 9.3.2025.
Ex B7:Pattadar pass book in the name of D3
Ex B8:Pattadar pass book in the name of D4
Ex B9:Pattadar pass book in the name of D5
Ex B10:e- Pattadar pass book in the name of D6
Ex B11:Pattadar pass book in the name of D7
Ex B12:Copy of 1 B namoona in the name of D3 dt: 28.7.2025
Ex B13:Copy of 1 B namoona in the name of D4 dt: 28.7.2025
Ex B14:Copy of 1 B namoona in the name of D5 dt: 28.7.2025
Page 37 of 37
Ex B15:Copy of 1 B namoona in the name of D6 dt: 28.7.2025
Ex B16:Copy of 1 B namoona in the name of D7 dt: 28.7.2025
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Punganur