Smt B.Baby Rani

1 APCH180000152008

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], SRIKALAHSTHI

Present: Smt. B. Baby Rani,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

Thursday, this the Ninth [9th ] day of April, 2026

Original Suit No. 104 of 2008

Between:

1)Naidu Poli Reddy, S/o Late Chenga Reddy (Died)

2)N.Lokanadha Reddy, S/o Late N.Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 61 years, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

3)N.Krishnamurthy Reddy, S/o Late N.Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District at present residing at No.173/14, BM Nilayam, 1st Cross, Sir.M.Visweswaraiah Road, Behind Cambridge School, Surabhi Layout, Bangalore North, Yelahanka, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560 064.

4)Naidu Dilli Babu Reddy, S/o Late Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

5)N.Rathnamma, W/o Late Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 81 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

6)N.Pavan Kumar Reddy, S/o Late N.Subramanyam Reddy, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Employee, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

7)N.Kiranmayi, D/o Late N.Subramanyam Reddy, W/o D.Mani, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Residing at Door No.32, Panchetty Road, Near FCI Church, Red Hills Road, Ponneri - 601 204.

8)N.Uma Maheswari, W/o Late N.Subramanyam Reddy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, House maker, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. … Plaintiffs 2 And:

1)Vajja Sarojamma, W/o Chengalraya Reddy, Hindu, aged about 65 years, House wife, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District.

2)Vajja Bhaksar Reddy, S/o Chengalraya Reddy, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Teacher, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day 06.04.2026 before me in the presence of Sri.E.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs; and

Sri.K.Udayanath, Advocate for Defendants; upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material in record and this matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

[1].This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs (i) to declare the Plaintiff No.1 as the absolute owners of the plaint schedule lands (ii) granting permanent

Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering in any way with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned lands; and (iii) for costs of the suit.

[2]. Brief averments of plaint are that:- The Plaintiff No.1 submit that he is the absolute owner of the lands described in the schedule hereunder having inherited the same from his ancestors. He has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same by raising rain fed crops as and when there were rains Mostly the schedule mentioned lands are lying fallow. The name of the plaintiff is duly incorporated in 10(1) accounts as the owner of the schedule mentioned lands and in No.3 adangals as the cultivator of the same. Thus the 1st plaintiff alone has got right, title, interest and possession in the schedule mentioned lands. The defendants who are mother and son residing jointly are owning a mango garden on the north of plaint schedule lands. They have been requesting the plaintiff to sell away the plaint schedule lands to them in 3 order to enable them to expand their mango garden. But the plaintiff has expressed that he is not willing to sell the same. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants wanted to cause harm to the plaintiff by encroaching over the schedule mentioned land. In pursuance of their selfish motive, on 20-08-2008 the defendants along with their followers made an attempt to commit trespass in to the schedule mentioned lands with a view to occupy the same by force

Their attempts however resisted by the plaintiff with the help of girijans in the village. The defendants thereby gave out threats of violence and forcible occupation of the schedule mentioned lands in course of time. The plaintiff submits that his family is alone in the village without any relatives. The defendants have got numerical strength of their relatives in the village. Taking undue advantage of the helpless condition of the plaintiff, the defendants are indulging in high handed acts against the person and property of the plaintiff

The plaintiff is unable to resist the unlawful acts of defendants. Hence the suit.

[3].Originally, this suit was filed by Plaintiff No.1 and during the pendency of suit, Plaintiff No.1 died, Plaintiffs 2 to 8 were added as his legal representatives.

[4].The Defendant No.2 filed written statement and it was adopted by

Defendant No.1, denying the averments of the plaint and contended that his mother, the 1st defendant herein had purchased the Item No.1 of written statement schedule property from Naidu Ramana Reddy, S/o N.Chenga

Reddy of Sullurupet, Nellore district through the registered sale deed

dt:01.07.1991 for a valid consideration of Rs.5,400/- and was inducted into

possession and enjoyment of the same on the even date. Then she also purchased the Item No.2 of written statement schedule property from Naidu

Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o N.Chenga Reddy of Sullurupet, Nellore district through the registered sale deed dt:03-07-1991 for a valid consideration of

Rs.5,400/- and was inducted into possession and enjoyment of the same on the even date. Basing on them suitable mutations were taken place in all the revenue records and she was provided with pattadar Pass Book and Title 4 deed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor on 27.06.2000, by giving resurvey numbers. Her name has also been mutated in 10(1) adangal and No:2 cultivation adangal for faslis, 1413 and 1417 and she raised groundnut and horse gram in the written statement schedule properties.

Now for want of water, the land under possession and enjoyment is fallow and full of shrub growth. She also availed a loan from S.V.Grameena Bank,

Nagalapuram. She also paid kist to the government on 29-01-1994 and 08.03.1997 over the written statement schedule property and later on the government is not collecting the kist from the 1st defendant. Hence it is false to contend that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the entire plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. On the other hand the written statement schedules are carved out from the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence in view of above documentary proof, the plaintiff has to prove strictly that he is in possession and enjoyment of the entire plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. It is further submitted that the vendors of the 1st defendant, who are brothers and sons of

Naidu Chenga Reddy and the plaintiff father Naidu Chenga Reddy are close relatives and both these Naidu Chenga Reddy have their respective shares in the plaint schedule lands equally. The share of Naidu Chenga Reddy, (i.e., the father of vendors.) the vendors of have sold their share, as stated supra, to the 1st defendant herein. Thus the 1st defendant became the absolute owner of the written statement schedule properties having exclusive right, title, possession and enjoyment of the same even as on the date of filing this suit.

ii.The Defendant No.2 filed his additional written statement on 31.08.2009 after amendment of plaint as per orders on IA No.370/2009 dated 16.07.2009, and it was adopted by Defendant No.1 and contended that the specific plea of the defendants are, they are in actual, physical, possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties through the registered sale deed dt:01-07-1991 having purchased the same from the original title holder, Naidu Ramana

Reddy, S/o N.Chenga Reddy of Sullurupeta, Nellore district and through another Registered sale deed dt:03-07-1991 having purchased the same from 5 the original title holder, Naidu Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o N.Chenga Reddy of

Sullurupeta, Nellore district. Hence it is fallacious to claim still that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit and paid court fee u/sec 24(b) of A.P.C.F. Act, 1956. The defendant submits that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief under Para 7 (1) of amended portion of the plaint and the same is barred by limitation.

iii.The Defendant No.2 filed his additional written statement dated 01.11.2023 and it was adopted by Defendant No.1, and contended that purposely, the other plaintiffs might have not added the proposed 8th plaintiff herein. This non-joinder of 8th plaintiff was, at length, crossed by these defendants of P.W.3, Naidu Delli Reddy. In order to pug the loophole in the case of the plaintiffs, the 8th plaintiff was pressed into service on her own accord. In order to protract the suit the plaintiffs No.1 to 7 did not add the 8th plaintiff. Hence there by no bonafides were established in not adding the 8th plaintiff earlier. Hence plaintiffs have not amended the plaint pleadings in such way that the 8th plaintiff, too is entitled for the benefits as claimed in the plaint relief portion and plaint is liable to be rejected on that point also, as suit is barred by limitation.

[5].Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are framed for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title in respect of suit properties?

2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties on the date of filing of the suit?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants?

4) To what relief?

The following additional issue was framed on 28.06.2012.

1) Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff to declare him as an absolute owner of the plaint schedule is barred by limitation?

After full pledged trial, this Court decreed the suit on dated 24.12.2012 and the defendants preferred appeal in AS No.36/2013 on the file of 6

Hon’ble IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the appellate court

remanded the matter for fresh disposal with the following observations.

“Therefore, in the light of above discussion, the Judgment and

decree of the trial Court in OS No.104/2008 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Srikalahasti dated 24.12.2012 is hereby set aside and

remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. The trial

court is directed to frame fresh appropriate issues, if necessary

based on the pleadings, taking into consideration nature of the lis,

by hearing the learned counsel for the both parties, permitting the

both parties to adduce further evidence if any in support of their

pleadings, but not amendments to the pleadings, hearing the

learned counsel for the both parties and deliver the judgment

afresh without influence of observations and findings if any made

by this court in the appeal.”

After remanding the matter to this Court Plaintiff No.1 died, Plaintiffs 2 to 7 were added as legal heirs of deceased 1st plaintiff as per orders in IA No.196/2022 dated 09.09.2022.

Plaintiff No.8 was added as legal heir of deceased 1st plaintiff (Plaintiff No.8 is wife of Plaintiff’s No.1 predeceased son). As per the orders on

IA NO.1076/2023 dated 17.10.2023.

After remand of the record, on 06.02.2020, the then Presiding Officer framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the Plaintiff is under possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration as absolute owner of plaint schedule property with consequential relief of Permanent Injunction?

3. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the items No.1 and 2 of Suit Schedule Properties were purchased by D1 under Registered Sale Deeds, dated 1.7.1991 and 3.7.1991 respectively and inducted into possession?

5. Whether the vendors of D1 were under actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule lands as on the date of execution of Registered Sale Deeds in favour of D1?

6. Whether there was any partition between fore fathers of Plaintiffs and defendants as claimed by defendants?

7. To what relief?

7 [6].On behalf of plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and got marked

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On behalf of the defendants Dws 1 to 5 were examined and marked Ex.B1 to B23 and Ex.X1 and X2 through DW5 (Tahsildar,

Nagalapuram).

[7].Heard both sides.

The issues framed on 06.02.2020 are taking into consideration for adjudication of the dispute.

[8]. ISSUE NO.1 & 2 : The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit schedule property and enjoying the same by raising rain fed crops and the defendants without having any manner of right or possession, unlawfully tried to trespass into the suit schedule lands on 20.08.2008 but the plaintiffs resisted the same. The defendants while leaving proclaimed that they will occupy the schedule mentioned lands forcibly. He further argued that the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is corroborated with each other and their evidence is supported by Ex.A1 to A9 and plaintiffs established their legal right and possession over the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence prays to decree the suit.

ii.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the 1st Defendant purchased Item No.1 and 2 of written statement schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 01.07.1991 and 03.07.1991 from Naidu Ramana

Reddy, S/o Chenga Reddy and Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o L.Chenga

Reddy and since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption by mutating her name in revenue records such as 10-1 account, No.2 Adangal and also by paying cist. Hence the plaintiffs possession over entire Ac.3.60 cents is false. He further argued that the vendors of 1st defendant are brothers and sons of Naidu Chenga Reddy.

He further argued that the share of Naidu Chenga Reddy (father of vendors) have sold to the defendant No.1 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with exclusive right and possession and as on the 8 date of filing of the suit. He further argued that suit is not maintainable as possession of suit schedule property is in the hands of Defendant No.1.

Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

As per plaint, the plaintiff is claiming the following properties as per plaint schedule.

Chittoor District, Pitchatur Sub-District – Kadivedu Survey group, Vajjavari kandriga village, the following agricultural lands.

Sl.No.Survey No.ExtentClassification 1358/2Ac.1.14 centsDry 2358/3Ac.0.90 centsDry 3358/4Ac.0.80 centsDry 4358/5Ac.0.76 centsDry TotalAc.3.60 cents With the following boundaries

East : DKT lands South : Dry land of Vajja Sundara Rami Reddy West : Vacant lands of Government North : Mango Garden of Vajja Chengalraya Reddy

The written statement schedule property is as follows:

Chittoor District – Pichatur Sub-District – Nagalapuram Mandal – Kadivedu village account – Dry lands

Item No.1 1S.No.358/2An extent of Ac.0.28 ½ cents out of Ac.1.14 cents 2S.No.358/3An extent of Ac.0.22 ½ cents out of Ac.0.90 cents 3S.No.358/4An extent of Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.0.80 cents 4S.No.358/5An extent of Ac.0.19 cents out of Ac.0.76 cents Total:Ac.0.90 cents (covered by Registered sale deed dated 01.07.1991 from Naidu Ramana Reddy)

Item No.2 1S.No.358/2An extent of Ac.0.28 ½ cents out of Ac.1.14 cents 2S.No.358/3An extent of Ac.0.22 ½ cents out of Ac.0.90 cents 3S.No.358/4An extent of Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.0.80 cents 4S.No.358/5An extent of Ac.0.19 cents out of Ac.0.76 cents Total:Ac.0.90 cents 9 (covered by Registered sale deed dated 03.07.1991 from Naidu Ramana Reddy) [9].Pw1 is son of 1st plaintiff, filed his chief affidavit and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is certified copy of No.3 Adangal for the lands in Sy.No.358/2, 358/3, 358/4 and 358/5. Ex.A2 is true copy of No.10(1) Account of

Sy.No.358/2, 358/4, 358/3 and 358/5. Ex.A3 is the true copy of No.3 Adangal for fasali No.1996 to 1999 and Ex.A4 is the true copy of NO.3 Adangal for the year 1988-89 to 1989-90.

[10]. In his cross examination dated 12.07.2011, he deposed that they are four sons to their parents. Subramanyam Reddy is the elder brother who died about four years back. The said Subramanyam Reddy got general power of attorney from his father to look after the case, on behalf of his father to give evidence but he died before giving evidence. His father is suffering with high

BP and shivering and has no mental stability to give evidence. No medical certificate was filed to show his father condition. One Nagarathnamma and

Sarojamma are the sisters of his father and they are alive. Suit schedule property is the ancestral property and it was acquired by fore fathers. He further deposed that there is no record to show that his father alone is the

exclusive owner of the suit schedule property and that his sisters by

name Nagarathnamma and Sarojamma are not having any manner of

right and title in the plaint schedule property. Chenga Reddy is his paternal grandfather and he know that the suit schedule property was devolved on his father from his paternal grandfather, but he did not know that how his paternal grandfather got the property. He did not know whether his paternal grandfather Chenga Reddy had two brothers by name Chinna

Chenga Reddy and Adinarayana Reddy. He did not know whether one

Papamma is the wife of Adinarayana Reddy and still she is alive. Witness volunteers that as per his knowledge there is no such person having the name of Papamma in his village. He did not know whether the said Chinna Chenga

Reddy is having two sons by name Srinivasulu Reddy and Ramana Reddy 10 and that they are residing at Sullurupeta. His father filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. He did not know the contents of written statement filed by the defendants. He denied the suggestion hat D1 purchased Ac.1.80 cents out of Ac.3.60 cents of plaint schedule property from one Srinivasulu Reddy and Ramana Reddy under two registered sale deeds and since then D1 and D2 have been in possession and enjoyment of the

Ac.1.80 cents. He did not know whether revenue records are standing in the name of D1 for Ac.1.80 cents. He denied the suggestion that he created Ex.A1 to A4 for the purpose of this case. No Rythwari passbooks, pattadar passbooks, title deeds were issued in the name of his father. He denied the suggestion that his father is entitled for ½ share in plaint schedule property and remaining ½ share is in the possession of defendants.

[11]. PW2 R.Eswaraiah filed his chief affidavit supporting the version of plaintiff, in his cross examination he deposed that he did not know the survey number of the plaint schedule property. He is doing seasonal business. He is not having any documentary evidence to show that he took the mango garden of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 during the mango season. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff is not cultivating Ac.3.60 cents and defendants are cultivating half of the property out of Ac.3.60 cents. The Plaintiff is having four sons but he did not know their names. He did not know that one of the sons of plaintiff is Lokanadham Reddy or not.

[12]. PW3 Naidu Delli Babu Reddy filed his chief affidavit supporting the version of plaintiffs. Ex.A5 is application dated 22.01.2020 under RTI Act along with postal receipt and track consignment. Ex.A6 is endorsement of Deputy

Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal vide RTI/No.B/09/2020

dated 25.02.2020 along with 10-1 account pertaining to patta No.162 and 340.

Ex.A7 is certificate given by the family doctor B.Ramachandran of

Nagalapuram. Ex.A8 is certified copy of Registered sale deed dated 05.11.1966 executed by Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and Naidu Ramana Reddy.

Ex.A9 is attested copy of voter list of Sathyavedu Assembly Constitution 11 pertaining to Vajjavari Kandriga relating to H.No.5-46 showing that deceased 1st plaintiff and his sons are living jointly under one roof. In his cross examination he admitted about adding of legal heirs of 1st plaintiff but they did not ask about the rights over suit schedule property after the death of his father. Prior to the death of his father i.e., 1st plaintiff, he gave evidence on behalf of Pw1. He admitted that the schedule property is Ac.3.60 cents as it is their ancestral property. He denied the suggestion that to the East of item

No.3 and 4 one Kuppu Swamy land in Sy.No.358/6 is situated as per FMB.

The said Kuppusami Reddy is father of Uma Maheswari, W/o Subramanyam

Reddy (My sister-in-law). One Naidu Chenga Reddy is their common ancestor and he had two sons by name Naidu Gangi Reddy and Naidu Narayana

Reddy. Naidu Gangi Reddy has only one son by name Naidu Chenga Reddy.

The said Naidu Chenga Reddy had got three children by name 1st plaintiff,

Nagarathnamma and Sarojamma. The said Nagarathnamma and Sarojamma are not added as parties in this suit. Narayana Reddy had got three sons by name Kuppi Reddy, Chenga Reddy and Adi Reddy. Papamma is wife of Adi

Reddy. Oral partition took place, between Gangi Reddy and Narayana

Reddy during their life time. He did not know the specific share of Gangi

Reddy in the said oral partition. He denied the suggestion that in the said oral partition Ac.1.80 cents in suit schedule property was allotted to Narayana

Reddy and Ac.1.80 cents was allotted to Gangi Reddy. He filed revenue record to show that Ac.3.60 cents was fell to the share of Gangi Reddy family.

He denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 to A4 were created by his brother deceased Subramanyam Reddy by influencing the revenue authorities and

Ex.A1 was created in the year 2000 and filed in the year 2008 in this suit. He admitted that Ex.A2 was obtained from Panchyat Secretary Rajulakandriga,

Nagalapuram Mandal dated 04.02.2004. He admitted that column No.15 of

Ex.A4 reflects the word ‘Poudhi’ for Khata No.162. He do not know whether the column No.15 for Khata No.340 it was mentioned as Bhaga Parishkaram and for 162 it was mentioned as ‘Poudhi’. He denied the suggestion that

Ex.A5 to A7 are fabricated documents and already old passbooks were issued 12 in favour of Sarojamma under Ex.B8 and B9 after purchase of plaint schedule property. Witness adds that Ex.B8 and B9 are forged and fabricated documents. He denied the suggestion that the vendors of Ex.A8 are the vendors of D1 under Ex.B1 and B2. He denied the suggestion that in the year 1991 itself, his father had knowledge about the purchase of part of plaint schedule property by D1 and hence suit is barred by limitation. He admitted that no suit was filed to declare the documents of D1 as null and void.

[13]. The Defendant No.2 V.Bhaskar Reddy filed chief affidavit as DW1 reiterating the contents of written statement. Ex.B1 is the genealogical tree of

Naidu Chenga Reddy. Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed dated 01.07.1991 under which his mother 1st defendant herein purchased a portion of the plaint schedule land from one Ramana Reddy, S/o Chenga Reddy.

Ex.B3 is another original registered sale deed dated 03.07.1991. Ex.B4 is copy No.2 Adangal for falsi 1413. Ex.B5 is copy of No.3 adangal issued by the

Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal for falsi 1415 to 1417. Ex.B6 is copy of 1-B

Register relating to the lands of his mother issued by the Tahsildar,

Nagalapuram, Ex.B7 are two kist receipts stands in the name of D1. Ex.B8 is original pattadar passbook stands in the name of D1. Ex.B9 is original title deed issued by the revenue authorities in favour of D1. Ex.B10 is original cyst receipt No.C950013, Dt:29.03.1992 for fasli year 1401. Ex.B11 is original of

Small Farmer Certificate vide the proceedings L.Dis.A/533/97, dt:03.04.1997 issued by the MRO., Nagalaupuram Mandal. (Subject to objection that no official seal of AVO., on the document). Ex.B12 is the served copy of the

Caveat petition lodged by deceased Plaintiff No.1, Naidu Poli Reddy on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sathyavedu, dt:09.07.1991 against the defendant No.1 with postal receipts. Ex.B13 is the office copy of caveat petition lodged on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sathyavedu,

dt:16.07.1991 by the defendant No.1 herein. Ex.B14 is certified copy of the

registered sale deed, dt:06.02.1960 vide Doc.No.540/1960 of SRO,

Sathyavedu executed by Naidu Papamma of Vajjavari Kandriga in favour of

G.Venkata Reddy through registered sale for Ac.0.46 cents. Ex.B15 is certified 13 copy of registered sale deed, dt:22.10.1961 vide document No.1631/1961 of

SRO, Sathyavedu executed by the Naidu Papamma. Ex.B16 is certified copy of registered sale deed, Dt.26.05.2012 vide document. No.715/2012 of SRO,

Pichatur executed by Gosu Ramanamma. Ex.B17 is certified copy of registered sale deed, dt:22.08.2016 vide document No.872/2016 of SRO,

Pichatur executed by P.Batheiah in favour of the Plaintiff No.4 (PW3) herein selling the very same house site property. Ex.B18 is endorsement of Tahsildar,

Nagalapuram obtained vide RTI.NO.34/2023, dt:15.03.2023 (Subject to objection that authority signature is not there). Ex.B19 is endorsement of

Tahsildar, Nagalapuram obtained vide RTI.NO.35/2023, dt:15.03.2023 pertaining to FMB (Subject to objection that authority signature is not there).

Endorsement of Tahsildar (Subject to objection that authority signature is not there). Ex.B20 is Encumbrance certificate No. 64/2005 for the period of 21 years from 01.1.1985 to 14.02.2005 pertaining to the lands held by

E.Kuppuswamy Reddy and others in Sy.No.358/1 and Sy.No.358/6, the boundary land holder of plaint schedule property. Ex.B21 is Encumbrance certificate No.29/2017 for the period of 34 years from 01.01.1983 to 18.01.2017 pertaining to the lands held by D1 herein reflecting her two registered sale deeds dt:01.07.1991 and 03.07.1991. Ex.B22 is certified copy of registered sale deed, dt:20.05.1963. Ex.B23 is certified copy of registered sale deed, dt:02.11.1966.

[14]. In his cross examination dated 08.12.2011 he deposed that his vendor

Ramana Reddy is residing at Sullurupeta. N.Srinivasulu Reddy is vendor under Ex.B3 resident of Thummalagunta near Tirupati. The property purchased under Ex.B2 and B3 is joint family property of his vendor and joint family property not yet partitioned by the time of partition. He did not verify any record relating to the lands covered by Ex.B2 and B3 before his purchase. His mother name was mutated in revenue records basing on Ex.B2 and B3. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B2 and B3 were created documents by forging their signatures. Ex.B7 does not contain the survey number of the land but patta number was mentioned. He denied the suggestion that entire suit 14 schedule property is belongs to the plaintiff as it was fell to his share in partition of his ancestral properties. Their mango garden is situated on the north of plaint schedule property. He denied the suggestion that the property covered under Ex.B2 and B3 never in his possession and he is deposing false evidence. In his further cross examination he deposed that he did not file the proceedings for sub division of suit survey numbers. The property covered under Ex.B22 is not relating to the suit schedule property but vendors of

Ex.B22 as well as their vendors are one and the same. One Vajja Venkata

Reddy, s/o Chenga Reddy purchased the lands covered under Ex.B23. He denied the suggestion that to knock away the suit schedule properties he created the documents Ex.B2 and B3 and deposing false.

[15]. In his further cross examination dated 28.11.2023 he deposed that he did not sign in Ex.B2 and B3 as an attestor or identifying witness. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B6 was created by him. He don't remember in which year Ex.B8 and B9 were issued. He don't remember in which year his mother applied for issuance of Ex.B8 and B9. He admitted that originally Ex.B8 and

B9 were issued for an extent of Ac.2.00 in SY.No.359/1B and it was mentioned in last column as 'swantham'. Subsequently S.No.2 to 9 were added but there is no mention about any proceedings pertaining to these entries.

Subsequently 2 to 9 entries, 10 entry was made pertaining to Sy.No.425-1 and in last column for the said entry it was mentioned as ancestral. He denied the suggestion that all the entries in Ex.B8 and B9 are false and fabricated entries. As per records confronted to him i.e., 1-B Namuna and Adangal

Pahani obtained from Village Ward Sachilvalayam of Government of A.P., showing in the name of One Bhupathi, S/o Polaiah in respect of Sy.No.425-1 for an extent of Ac.0.79 cents. He don't remember whether his mother applied for entires of suit schedule survey numbers by that time of original entry in

Ex.B8 and B9. He don't remember whether his mother filed appeal for not making entry of suit survey number and for not issuing pattadar pass book and title deed. He admitted that as per Ex.B4 also one Poli Reddy,S/o Chenga

Reddy shown as owner of Patta number 340 and One Chenga Reddy is 15 shown as Patta number 162. Witness adds that the names in Ex.B4 were manipulated. He don't no who manipulated. He did not issue any legal notice for partition of suit schedule properties. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B7 and B10 were also created documents. He admitted that in Ex.B8 and B9,

Patta No.725 was strike of and inserted 726. There is no initial for the said insertion. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B11 was also created for the purpose of this suit. There is no signatures of counsel and party in Ex.B12 and

B13. He admitted that Ex.B14 was executed by Naidu Papamma, W/o

Adinaryana. Either Chenga Reddy or Poli Reddy were not party to the said document. He denied the suggestion that in Ex.B18, written statement survey numbers were inserted in between the lines. He admitted that there are no side initials in Ex.B18. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B18 is manipulated document.

[16]. DW2 one A.Jayachandra Reddy second attestor of Ex.B2 and B3 field his chief affidavit supporting the chief examination of DW1 and he deposed that he attested Ex.B2 and B3 and identified his signatures on Ex.B2 and B3.

In his cross examination he deposed that he did not see any title deed of

Srinivasulu Reddy and Ramana Reddy at the time of execution of Ex.B2 and

B3. He did not know about the documents verified by the scribe at the time of scribing Ex.B2 and B3. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B2 and B3 were not executed by Srinivasa Reddy and Ramana Reddy in his presence. He know about the lands of Srinivasulu Reddy situated by the side of his lands and do not know about his remaining lands. He did not know the details of lands partitioned in between Srinivasulu Reddy and Ramana Reddy and the details of all the properties of Naidu Poli Reddy, except the lands situated by the side of his lands which were sold to one Sarojamma, W/o Chengalraya Reddy. He denied the suggestion that the vendors of D1 are not having any land in

Sy.No.358. He had not gone through the entire contents of Ex.B2 and B3 at the time of attestation. When the said Srinivasulu Reddy and Ramana Reddy stated that they are selling their ancestral property. He had got Ac.4.00 in the joint family property. He denied the suggestion that since he is having dispute 16 with Naidu Poli Reddy with regard to the drawing of water from the disputed land, he is deposing false.

[17]. DW3 Vajja Dasaradha Reddy filed his chief affidavit stating that he has got lands an extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.359/2 of Vajjavari Kandriga which is situated to the south of lands in Sy.No.358 and Ac.1.80 cents in various survey numbers of their village stands in the name of D1 who purchased the same under two registered sale deeds in the year 1991 from Naidu

Srinivasulu Reddy and his brother Naidu Ramana Reddy who are the sons of

Naidu Chenga Reddy and they are the dayadees of Plaintiff No.1.

[18]. In his cross examination he deposed that defendants are his dayadees.

D2 is his cousin brother. He admitted that on 06.02.2001 a criminal case was filed against him by plaintiff No.4 with an allegation that they beat the said

Delli Reddy. The said case was convicted and fine was imposed. He admitted that a criminal case was filed against him with an allegation his father was murdered in his hands, in SC No.66/2016 and his wife filed civil suit against him for permanent injunction basing on the Will. His mother filed OS

No.114/2018 for partition against him and others. He did not sign as witness in

Ex.B2 and B3 and he was not present by that time. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B2 and B3 were created documents and Srinivasulu Reddy, Ramana

Reddy have no right to execute Ex.B2 and B3 and he is deposing false.

[19]. DW4 one Vajja Jayababu filed his chief affidavit stating that himself and his elder brother V.Gajendra Reddy and their cousin brothers V.Jayachandra

Reddy, V.Ramana Reddy, sons of Vajja Poli Reddy and Vajja Rajamma, W/o

Adinarayana Reddy and others jointly sold the lands in Sy.No.358/1 an extent of Ac.1.64 cents through registered sale deed dated 21.06.1991 vide

Document No.441/91 and the lands in Sy.No.358/6 an extent of Ac.2.01 cents through a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1991 vide document No.446/91 to

C.Kuppuswamy who in turn sold the same to Delli Babu Reddy, s/o N. Poli

Reddy under registered sale deed in the year 2005 and D1 purchased Ac.1.80 cents in various survey numbers under two registered sale deeds in the year 17 1991 from Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and Remana Reddy and since then she has been enjoying.

[20]. In his cross examination he deposed that he was not present at the time of Ex.B2 and B3. One Lokanadha Reddy (Plaintiff No.2) who is brother of

Plaintiff No.4 is having lands near to his lands. There is a mango garden in his land and eucalyptus trees were there in the lands of Lokanadha Reddy. He do not know whether the documents executed by him in favour of Kuppuswamy

Reddy contains boundaries or not. The document confronted to him i.e., registered sale deeds executed by him in favour of Kuppuswamy Reddy which do not contain the boundaries. His vendee sold out the property covered under two registered sale deeds executed by him on 21.06.1991 to plaintiff

No.1. The document confronted to him i.e., registered sale deed dated 13.05.2005 executed by Kuppaswamy in favour of plaintiff No.4 shows the western and northern boundary belongs to 1st plaintiff.

[21]. DW5 M.Hanuman Naidu the then Tahsildar, Nagalapuram deposed in his chief examination that he brought the records summoned from him.

Ex.B18 confronted to him was issued by their office under Right to Information

Act. Ex.X1 is the attested copy of ROR 1 of Kalivedu Village of Nagalapuram mandal (after tallying with the original by the Superintendent of this Court).

Ex.X2 is the attested copy of Field Measurement Book for field No.358 of

Kadivedu village, Nagalapuram Mandal (after tallying with original by the

Superintendent of this Court).

[22]. In his cross examination he deposed that Ex.B18 and B19 confronted to him were signed by the Tahsildar but not by the Deputy Tahsildar. He admitted that in the document annexed to the Ex.B18 there is no seal or endorsement that it was issued under Right to Information Act and also does not contain signature or seal of Tahsildar. Ex.X2 does not disclose about sub division numbers of sub division numbers. Witness adds that sub division numbers of sub divisions will not reflect in FMB. They will issue proceedings for any sub division. There are no proceedings with regard to sub division of survey 18 number i.e., 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B of Sy.No.358/2, 3, 4, 5. The endorsement confronted to him on Ex.A6 was issued by their office under

Right to Information Act. Ex.B18 and B19 were issued in the year 2023. There is no official endorsement for rounding of Ac.1.14 cents and mentioning of

Ac.0.57 cents in column No.3 of Ex.X1. There is no official endorsement for inserting the name of Sarojamma for the above survey numbers and also for rounding of original extents. He did not verify the authenticity for inserting the entries in ROR by rounding of original extents. There is no seal in ROR for each page. In the year 1989 AP ROR Act was enacted and ordinance was passed. He denied the suggestion that he came to this Court along with

Bhaskar Reddy who is son of Sarojamma.

[23]. Perused the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and Dws 1 to 5, Ex.A1 to A9 and

Ex.B1 to B23 and Ex.X1 and X2.

[24]. For granting of relief of declaration and permanent injunction the burden heavily lies on the plaintiffs that they have got legal right and legal possession over the suit schedule property and defendants without having any right interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

I relied on a citation reported in Union of India and others Vs Vasavi

Cooperative Housing Limited and others AIR 2014 Supreme Court 937 wherein their lordships held that:

“15. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in

a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed

only on the strength of its own title and that could be done

only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus

on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants

have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even

if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the

absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff

must be non-suited.” 19 [25]. A perusal of Ex.A1 it is certified copy of No.3 Adangal for falsi 1409 of

Kadivedu Village it shows that Sy.No.358/2 to 5 in khata Nos.162 and 340 stands in the name of Chenga Reddy and his son Poli Reddy. In enjoydar column Poli Reddy name was mentioned. Ex.A2 is 10-1 account for settlement register No.162 of Kadivedu issued by Village Panchyat Secretary,

Rajulakandriga, Nagalapuram Mandal wherein it was mentioned that

Sy.No.358/2 and 4 for an extent of Ac.1.14 cents and Ac.0.80 cents stands in the name of N.Chenga Reddy with patta No.162. Sy.No.358/3 and 5 for an extent of Ac.0.90 cents and Ac.0.76 cents stands in the name of N.Poli Reddy,

S/o Chenga Reddy with patta No.340. Ex.A3 is certified copy of No.3 adanagal for fasli 1406 to 1408 (1996 to 1999) stands in the name of Chenga

Reddy and his son Poli Reddy for Sy.Nos.358/2 to 5 with patta No.162 and 340 as mentioned in Ex.A2. Ex.A4 is certified copy of No.2 adangal No.3 phahani of Kadivedu village, Nagalapuram Mandal for fasli 1398 & 1399 (1988-89 and 1989-90) and said document also reflects the same particulars as Ex.A2 and A3. Ex.A5 is office copy of application for obtaining the certified copies of documents addressed to the Public Information Officer, Tahsildar office, Nagalapuram. Ex.A6 is endorsement given by Deputy Tahsildar, dated 25.02.2020 for Ex.A5. Ex.A7 is medical certificate issued by

Dr.D.Ramachandran dated 15.02.2020 stating that N.Poli Reddy, S/o Chenga

Reddy is aged about 85 years and he is under his treatment. Ex.A8 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 05.11.1966 executed by N.Srinivasulu

Reddy and Ramana Reddy in favour of Venkata Reddy, s/o Papi Reddy.

Ex.A9 is voters list of Sathyavedu Assembly pertaining to Vajjavari Kandriga.

[26]. A perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff i.e., Ex.A1 to A6 are revenue records and for the faslis 1398-99, 1406 to 1409 corresponding to 1988-89 and 1997 to 2000. The suit is filed in the year 2008. Ex.A7 shows the illness of the 1st plaintiff who is aged about 85 years as on 15.02.2020. Ex.A7 is the registered document executed by Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and his minor son Krishna Reddy, Ramana Reddy sons of Naidu Chenga Reddy for 20 an extent of East to West 70 feet, North to South 37 feet in Sy.No.304 with the following boundaries.

East : Naidu Poli Reddy North : Venkata Reddy vendee West : Rastharra word South : Naidu Poli Reddy vacant site

The said document shows that the above said property is their ancestral property and they are having right and title over the same.

[27]. Pw1 and PW3 are one and the same persons. Pw1 filed his chief affidavit stating that he has got special power of attorney from his father to depose. But in his cross examination he deposed that his elder brother one

Subramanyam Reddy got general power of attorney from his father to look after the case, on behalf of his father and to give evidence in this case. But the said Subramanym Reddy died before giving evidence. The suit schedule property was their ancestral property, there is no record to show that his father alone is exclusive owner of suit schedule property and the sisters of his father are not having any manner of right. He did not know how his paternal grandfather got the property. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 and A4 were created documents and 1st defendant purchased Ac.1.80 cents from out of Ac.3.60 cents under Ex.B2 and B3 and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

[28]. A Perusal of Ex.B1 it is the Genealogy of Naidu Chenga Reddy filed by the Defendants and the same was admitted by the plaintiffs in their cross examination. There is no dispute about it. Ex.B2 is registered sale deed dated 01.07.1991 executed by N.Ramana Reddy, S/o Naidu Chenga Reddy for an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.Nos.358/2 to 5. In the said document it was mentioned that “Naa pithrarjitham naa swadeena anubavamlo undu”. Ex.B3 is also registered sale deed dated 03.07.1991 executed by N.Srinivasulu Reddy for Ac.0.90 cents in the Sy.No.358/2 to 5. In the said document also it was mentioned that “Naa pithrarjitham naa swadeena anubavamlo undu”. Above two documents were executed at Sub-Registrar Office, Pitchatur. Ex.B4 is 21 10-1 account issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Rajulakandriga,

Nagalapuram for fasli 1413 which shows that 358/2 to 5 for an extent of

Ac.3.60 cents was in possession of Chenga Reddy and Poli Reddy and same was mutated in the name of D1 after purchase and the same was reflected in

No.2 adangal for fasli 1413 for Ac.1.80 cents. Ex.B5 is No.3 adangal pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal for fasli 1415 to 1417 stands in the name of V.Sarojanamma, W/o Chengalraya Reddy for khata No.726 with regard to plaint schedule property showing sub-division numbers as 358/2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B. In column No.15 of Ex.B5 it was mentioned as “purchase” the said adangal is for the period from 2006 to 2008. Ex.B6 is 1-B

Namuna stands in the name of Defendant No.1 for Khata No.726 patta

No.162 and 340 issued by the Tahsildar and the said document shows that the

Defendant No.1 purchased the plaint schedule property and she is pattadar and titledar as per 1-B Namuna. Ex.B7 are kist receipts for fasli 1403 dated 29.01.1994 and fasli 1406 for Sy.No.162 dated 08.03.1997 shows that she paid kist. But as per 1-B Namuna 162 is Patta number/Khata number. Ex.B8 pattadar passbook stands in the name of defendant No.1 which clearly shows that the defendant No.1 has been enjoying Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.Nos.358/2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B for Ac.1.80cents and those entries were certified by the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal. Ex.B9 is title deed pass book stands in the name of defendant No.1 containing the entries made in Ex.B8 signed by the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal and against those entires it was mentioned as Konugolu. Ex.B10 is original Kist receipt dated 29.03.1992 in the name of 1st defendant issued by V.A.O., Kadivedu for fasli 1401 for Khata

Nos.162 and 340. Ex.B11 original small farmers certificate issued by the

Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagalapuram Mandal in L.Dis.A/533/97 dated 03.04.1997 wherein it was mentioned that Smt.V.Sarojamma, W/o Chengal

Reddy of Kadivedu village of Nagalapuram Mandal is having Ac.1.80 cents of dry lands in Sy.No.358/2 , 358/3, 358/4, 358/5 and she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said land and which is below Ac.5.00 and hence she is certified as small farmer. Ex.B12 is caveat petition filed by 22 Naidu Poli Reddy against Vajja Sarojamma (D1 herein) on the file of Munsif

Magistrate Court, Sathyavedu in the year 1991 wherein it was mentioned that

“the caveator is the absolute owner and in possession of

the schedule property the respondent has no right in

respect of the said property. Due to recent

misunderstandings between the caveator and the

respondent, she got nominal registered sale deed recently

in her favour from Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and Naidu

Ramana Reddy in respect of a portion of the said

properties and under guise of those documents, she is

intending to file a suit against the cavetor for permanent

injunction and in that suit she is intending to file an

exparte order of injunction against him”.

[29]. The above caveat was filed by the 1st plaintiff for suit schedule property herein. The above said caveat petition is served copy to D1. As per Ex.B12 the plaintiff’s 1 to 3's father has got knowledge about the registered sale deeds obtained by the Defendant No.1 in the year 1991 itself as Ex.B12 was filed in the year 1991. Ex.B13 is caveat petition filed by the Defendant No.1 herein against Naidu Poli Reddy in the year 1991 stating that she purchased the caveat petition schedule property i.e., Ac.1.80 cents through registered sale deeds dated 01.07.1991 and 03.07.1991 respectively from Naidu

Ramana Reddy and Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and the respondent has no manner of right over the same. Ex.B14 certified copy of registered sale deed

dated 06.02.1960 executed by Naidu Papamma, w/o Naidu Adinarayana

Reddy in favour of Gosu Venkata Reddy in Sy.No.296/19/22 an extent of

Ac.0.46 cents vide document No.540/60. The husband of Papamma i.e.,

Adinarayana Reddy was junior paternal uncle of D1 vendors. Ex.B15 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Naidu Papamma, W/o

Naidu Adi Reddy in favour of Gosu Venkata Reddy for some extent in

Sy.No.287 wherein the East and Southern boundaries are Naidu Chenga

Reddy. Ex.B16 is registered sale deed executed by Gosu Ravamma in favour of P.Bathaiah for an extent of 260 sq. yards in Sy.No.304/4 wherein the document No.1631/1961 was referred and the said document was marked as

Ex.B15. Ex.B17 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Battaiah 23 in favour of Delli Babu Reddy (D4) dated 22.08.2016 for an extent of 260 sq.

yards in Sy.No.304/4 and Ex.B16 is link document of Ex.B17. Ex.B18 is endorsement of Tahsildar pertaining to A1 register with regard to suit schedule property wherein the half of the suit schedule property was in possession of

V.Sarojamma, W/o Chengalraya Reddy as Konugolu and half of the property was in the name of Chenga Reddy and his son Poli Reddy. Ex.B19 is endorsement of Tahsildar pertaining to FMB register with regard to suit schedule property through which the then Tahsildar issued FMB and also stated that fair adangal for Sy.No.358 and 359 were not available in their office. Ex.B20 is Encumbrance certificate with regard to survey numbers 358/1, 358/6. But there are no alienations with regard to Sy.No.358/2 to 5. The said lands are belongs to Kuppuswamy Reddy who is boundary land owner of plaint schedule property. Ex.B21 is EC for the period from 01.01.1983 to 18.01.2017 reflects Ex.B2 and B3 in favour of Defendant No.1. Ex.B22 is

registered sale deed vide document No.604/1963 dated 20.05.1963

executed by Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and Naidu Ramana Reddy in

favour of Vajja Venkata Reddy for an extent of Ac.0.83 cents in

Sy.Nos.319/5 for Ac.0.28 cents, 319/8 Ac.0.28 cents, 315/6 Ac.0.27 cents.

In the said document also it was mentioned that Maa pithrarjitham maa

swadeena anubavamulo undu. Ex.B23 is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and his minor son

Krishna Reddy and Naidu Ramana Reddy in favour of Gosu Ramamma,

W/o Gosu Venkata Reddy for the properties in Sy.No.353 for an extent of

Ac.3.62 cents. In Ex.B23 also it was mentioned the “Maa pithrarjitham maapai pattadakala maa swadeena anubavamulo undu. The said document was executed on 02.11.1966.

[30]. A perusal of Ex.B1 to B23, the defendant No.1 purchased Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.358/2 to 5 from Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and Naidu Ramana Reddy and she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.1.80 cents since the date of her purchase by mutating her name in revenue records and by obtaining pattadar pass book and title deed and by paying kist to the 24 revenue authorities. Ex.B12 and B13 caveat petitions clearly shows that in the year 1991 itself Defendant No.1 obtained registered sale deeds for Ac.1.80 cents. Ex.B12 was filed by the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of Plaintiff

No.4 and Ex.B13 was filed by the defendant No.1 against plaintiff No.1 father.

When the plaintiff's father is having knowledge about obtaining Ex.B2 and B3 in the year 1991 he kept quite without filing any suit against Defendant No.1 herein for declaration that Ex.B2 and B3 are sham and nominal documents. All the documents i.e., adangal pahanis, 1-B Namuna, kist receipts shows that the defendant No.1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property Ac.1.80 cents out of plaint schedule property.

[31]. The plaintiffs except the revenue records they did not file any record to show their title over the suit schedule property. Ex.B22 and B23 also clearly goes to shows that the vendors of D1 i.e., Srinivasulu Reddy and Ramana

Reddy sold their ancestral property to some third parties in the year 1963 and 1966. So it is clear that long back they were partitioned their ancestral properties and enjoying their respective properties.

[32]. The plaintiffs documents shows their possession prior to 1991. The plaintiffs did not file any document to show their possession as on the date of filing of the suit. In a suit for declaration the plaintiff has to prove his title and possession with cogent and convincing evidence and should not depend upon the weaknesses of the defendant. Except revenue records he did not file any document to show his title over entire Ac.3.60 cents of plaint schedule property. On the other hand the documents filed by the defendants clearly goes to show their title and possession over Ac.1.80 cents out of Ac.3.60 cents of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff’s counsel also did not cross examine DW5 about title of the defendants and their enjoyment except posing questions about issuance of revenue records to the defendants.

I relied on a citation reported in between Supreme Court of India,

P.Kishore Kumar vs Vittal K Patkar on 20 November, 2023 wherein their lordships held that:

25

“It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title.

This Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors.2 held that

mutation in revenue records neither creates nor

extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value

on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour

mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.

(1996) 6 SCC 223

This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat

Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors.3 wherein this Court held that

mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a

land of their right, title and interest in the land.

In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.4 ,

this Court after considering a catena of judgments,

reiterated the principle of law as follows:

“6. ***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or

interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in

the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.”

We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in

Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by

LRs . and Ors.5 wherein it was held that there exists no

universal principle that whatever will appear in the record

of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists

evidence to the contrary”.

In view of my foregoing discussion the Plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and hence he is not entitled for declaration and permanent injunction as prays by him. Accordingly these issues are answered.

Plaintiff counsel relied on following citations:

1) AIR 1975 Orissa 159 Binod Jena and another Appellants Vs Abdul

Hamid Khan and others Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

“The burden to prove that the two brothers were separate at

the time of acquisition would thereby lie on the plaintiffs who

claimed the property not to the joint. If the above presumption

arising under Hindu Law are not rebutted by the Plaintiffs and

the parties were treating the acquisitions as joint family

property, the properties acquired by the two brothers must be

held to the joint family property”.

26 In the present suit since 1963 the vendors of Defendant No.1 are selling their properties and the plaintiffs never obstructed them to sell those properties. Plaintiffs have also got knowledge about Ex.B2 and B3 in the year 1991 itself but no steps were taken to cancel those documents and plaintiffs failed to prove that it is joint family property. On the other hand the executants of Ex.B2 and B3 are the cousin brothers of plaintiff

No.1.

2) (2008) 5 Supreme Court cases 25 Patinhare Puriyil Nabeesumma –

Appellant Vs Miniyatan Zacharias and another – Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

The above authority is in between Landlord and Tenant and the facts and circumstances of that case are different to that of this case.

3) (2003) 3 Supreme Court cases 472 : 2003 SCC Online SC 243 Chief

Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. – Appellant Vs Collector and

others – Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

Section 110 of the Evidence Act reads thus:

"110. Burden of proof as to ownership.-When the question is

whether any person is owner of anything of which he is

shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is

not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the

owner."

It embodies the principle that possession of a property

furnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor

and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his

ownership. The presumption, which is rebuttable, is

attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and

when the contesting party has no title.

In the present suit possession of the plaintiffs is not established and defendants established their possession.

4) 2025 INSC 462 K.Gopi – Appellant Vs The Sub-Registrar and others –

Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

“The execution and registration of a document have the

effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the

27

executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or

interest in the property, the registered document cannot

effect any transfer”.

5) 2024 SCC Online SC 517 Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead)

through Lrs – Appellants Vs Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and others –

Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

“If right, title or interest in certain property is sought

conveyed by a person by an instrument who herself does not

possess any such form of entitlement on the subject being

conveyed, even with a subsisting deed of conveyance on

such property, the grantee on her successors-in-interest will

not have legal right to enforce the right the latter may have

derived from such an instrument”.

6) 2023 (6) ALT 462 (TS) State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By the District

Collector, Mahaboob Nagar District and another Vs Smt.C.Geetha and

another wherein their lordships held that:

“The burden lies on the party to prove that they acquired

right and title over the property from the persons who could

validly transfer the said right”.

In the present suit the plaintiffs failed to prove that the executants of

Ex.B2 and B3 have no right, title or interest, possession over the property covered under those documents. Hence above authorities are against the plaintiffs.

7) 2009 (1) ALD 337 High Court of AP at Hyderabad Dr.Yadla Ramesh

naidu Vs Sub-Registrar, Subbavaram, Viskhapatnam District and others

wherein their lordships held that:

“I am of the considered opinion that such registration by

itself will not confer any title or right in the property so

transferred on the transferee unless the transferor is the

rightful and lawful owner of the property and was competent

to transfer the property and has put the transferee in

possession of the property, upon executing and registering

the document. In that view of the matter, it has to be held

that mere registration of a document by the registering

authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, does

not confer any title”.

28 In the present suit the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property is exclusively belongs to them and there is no partition took place and the vendors of D1 have no right to execute Ex.B2 and B3 and also failed to prove their title over entire suit schedule property.

8) 2006 (6) ALD 436 High Court of AP at Hyderabad Muddasani Sarojana

Vs Muddasani Venkat Narasaiah and others wherein their lordships held that:

As for the first aspect, Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act

mandates that the signature and handwriting of a person on

a written document can be proved, only by examining the

person concerned. The said Act provides for contingencies,

where the concerned person is not available or alive. In

such cases, the persons, who figured as witnesses, or

those, who are acquainted with the hand writing or

signature of the concerned person, can throw light upon it.

When the person is very much available and alive, attempt

to prove his signature or hand writing, by examining a third

person as a witness, would have its own draw back. An

inference, as provided for under Clause (g) of Section 14 of

the Indian Evidence Act would come into play. Ex. A. 1 was

said to have been executed by Buchamma. She was very

much alive and available by the time the suit came to be

filed. The easiest thing for the first respondent to prove

Ex.A.1, would have been to examine Buchamma as a

witness. Failure to examine her as a witness would give rise

to several inferences.

In a suit for declaration the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish his contention and after discharging their burden it will shift to the defendants. In the present plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the entire suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit.

9) (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 220 Rangammal – Appellant Vs

Kuppuswami and another – Respondents

The above authority is with regard to burden of proof lies on the party who relies on a validity of a document to prove its genuineness. Then the onus will shift on the opposite party to dislodge to such proof and establish that the document is sham or bogus. In the present suit the defendants relied 29 on Ex.B2 and B3 documents to prove their title and revenue records filed by them proved their possession and then burden shifts to the plaintiffs but they did not establish that those documents are sham and bogus.

10) AIR 2004 Supreme Court 175 Narabada Devi Gupta Appellant Vs

Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another Respondents

The facts and circumstances are different to the that of this case.

11) 2012 (3) ALD 423 High Court of AP at Hyderabad Raavi Nookaraju Vs

Kotaru Latchayyamma and others wherein their lordships held that:

“Section 68 of the Evidence Act mandates that if a document

is required to be attested, it shall not be used in evidence

until atleast one attesting witness has been examined to

prove it. The proviso thereto directs that in case the

document is registered, it shall not be necessary to examine

any witness; unless the executant of the document has

denied the execution. The procedure to prove a document

required to be attested, in the event of none of the attesting

witnesses being available, is prescribed under Section 69 of

the Evidence Act”.

In the above authority execution of gift deed was denied which required to be attested. The facts and circumstances are different to the that of this case.

12) (2020) 11 Supreme Court cases 242 Partap Singh (Dead) Through

legal representatives Appellants Vs Shiv Ram (Dead) through legal

representatives Respondents

13) (1976) 3 Supreme Court cases 642 Vishwa Vijay Bharati Appellant Vs

Fakhrul Hassan and others Respondents

The above authorities discussed about correctness of revenue entries and presumption and it will apply only to genuine documents but not for forged and fabricated documents.

14) (1999) 8 Supreme Court cases 266 Chandra Kishore Jha Appellant Vs

Mahavir Prasad and others Respondent 30 The above authority is related to Election Petition and limitation to file

Election Petition and Election Rules and it is not applicable to the present suit.

15) Air 2019 Supreme Court 719 Smt.Bimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through LR Vs Arthur Import and Export Company and others

16) AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2719 Balwant Singh and another etc

Appellants Vs Daulat Singh (dead) by Lrs and others Respondents

wherein their lordships held that:

Entries in Revenue Records does not create or extinguish title nor it has presumptive value on title. In the present suit apart from revenue records the defendants filed Ex.B2 and B3 registered sale deeds executed by Ramana

Reddy and Srinivasulu Reddy who are cousin brothers of plaintiff No.1.

17) 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB) High Court of AP at Hyderabad Chinna

Pandurangam Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally mandal,

Ranga Reddy district and others

The facts and circumstances of above case are different to that of this suit.

18) AIR 1954 Supreme Court 379 Srinivas Krishnarao Kango Appellant

Vs Narayan Devji Kango and others Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

“Proof of the existence of joint family does not lead to the

presumption that property held by any member of the family

is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any

item of property was joint to establish the fact”.

In the present suit plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property is still joint family property.

19) AIR 1953 Supreme Court 487 Sidheshwar Mukherjee Appellant Vs

Bhubneswhwar Prasad Narain Singh and other Respondents

The facts and circumstances of above case are different to that of this case as in the above suit it was discussed about pious obligation.

31

20) AIR 1966 Supreme Court 470 MVS Manikayala Rao Appellant Vs

M.Narasimhaswami and others Respondents

21) 2008 (2) ALD 41 High Court of AP at Hyderabad Amina Sultana

Abbasi Vs D.Rajalingam Jattaiah and others wherein their lordships held that:

“Alienation by coparceners of undivided interest – alienee

not entitled to possession of interest purchased by him till

partition”.

In the present suit since 1963 itself the vendors of D1 sold so many properties to third parties and the same was established by the defendants by filing Ex.B22, B23, B14, B15 and Ex.A8 etc.,

22) 2006 (1) ALD 318 High Court of AP at Hyderabad K.Papadu Vs

Golagana Suryanarayana and another wherein their lordships held that:

“Once a plaintiff is found to have established a better claim,

vis-a-vis the defendant, he cannot be denied the relief on

the ground that he did not prove it beyond doubt. Such a

course may be permissible only where the declarations

sought for are universal in nature and not against the

limited persons”.

In the present suit plaintiff failed to establish.

23) 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court cases 228 Vatticherukuru Village

Panchayat Appellant Vs Nori Venkataramana Deekshithulu and others

Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

Longer the possession, stronger the presumption. The plaintiffs in the present suit failed to establish their possession as on the date of filing of this suit.

24) AIR 1940 Nagpur 7 Baba Ramchandra Komti – Defendant – Appellant

Vs Kondoo Jagna Wadhai Plaintiff – Respondent

The above authority with regard to attachment of property.

25) AIR 1960 Punjab 296 Manna Singh Allah Singh Plaintiff Appellant Vs

Wasti Ram Saraf and other Defendants – Respondents 32 The facts and circumstances of the above case are different to that of this case as the above authority with regard to Order 21 Rule 63.

26) High Court of Madras Arabai Bibi Vs Sarbunnisa

In the above authority the plaintiff filed suit for declaration, partition and separate possession of her share. The present suit is with regard to declaration of right of plaintiff. The facts and circumstances of the above case are different to that of this case.

27) AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1457 The Roman Catholic Mission

Appellants Vs The State of Madras and another Respondents

The facts and circumstances of the above case are different to that of this case.

28) AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 83 Babulal Agrawal Appellant Vs smt.Jyothi Shrivastava and other Respondents

The facts and circumstances of the above case are different to that of this case as above authority with regard to Court fee.

29) 2024 INSC 293 Manisha Mahendra Gala and others Appellants Vs

Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and others Respondents wherein their lordships held that:

It is, therefore, settled in law that Power of Attorney holder

can only depose about the facts within his personal

knowledge and not about those facts which are not within

his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the

person who he represents or about the facts that may have

transpired much (2014) 11 SCC 790 before he entered the

scene.

The above authority is with regard to easementary rights over 23 feet wide road. In the present suit the son of D1 who is party to this suit gave evidence and he is not a power of attorney holder.

30) (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 312 Arikala Narasa Reddy Appellant

Vs Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and another Respondents 33

31) AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1103 Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal and others

In the above authorities it was mentioned that the court cannot go beyond the pleadings of the parties. In the present suit the plaintiff did not plead about Ex.B2 and B3 or take contention that they were not genuine documents. The above citation is in favour of the defendants.

32) (2003) 8 Supreme Court cases 740 Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs

Appellant Vs Jaganath Respondent

The facts and circumstances are not applicable to the present suit. In the above authority it was discussed about Hindu Adoption.

33) (1953) 1 Supreme Court cases 414 Banraj Alakhdhari Pathak and

others Appellants Vs Ambika Prasad Pathak and another Respondents

The facts and circumstances are not applicable to the present suit.

The defendants counsel relied on the following citations:

1) Manchala Mouleswara Reddy and another Appellants Vs Dabbali

Samanna and others Respondents High Court of AP, Amaravathi

2) Meenugu Mallaiah Vs Anadula Rajaiah of Hon’ble High Court of

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh 2017 1 ALD 457 wherein their lordships held that:

3) Vaddari Jhatipat Ramloo vs T.Srihari (2015) 4 ALD 546

4) Mohammad Yusuf and others Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation and others

5) 2022 Livelaw (SC) 19 between Smriti Debbarma (died) through LR Vs

Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and others

“It is trite law that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden

always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear

case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses, if

any, of the case set up by the defendant would not be a

ground to grant the relief of declaration of title in favor of the

34

plaintiff. The onus to prove title to the schedule property in

question was on the plaintiff. It was incumbent on the part of

the Court to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit

property, the Court is also bound to inquire or investigate that

question first before going into any other question that may

arise in a suit”.

6)Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanathaswamy Koil Trust

Virudhunagar Appellant Vs Chandran Respondent of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India dated 10.02.2017 wherein their lordships held that:

“From the facts of above cited suit, plaintiff in this suit has

prayed for the relief of declaration without seeking the relief

of recovery of possession and under these circumstances,

it is clearly seen that the plaintiff is not entitled for get such

relief. Therefore it is held that the suit is not maintainable

legally”.

In the present suit also the plaintiffs are out of possession as per the documents filed by the defendants. Hence the above authority is aptly applicable to the present suit.

[33]. Issue No.4 to 6: The plaintiffs contention is that the defendants vendors have no right and title to execute Ex.B2 and B3 in favour of Defendant No.1.

But a perusal of Ex.B22 and B23 alienations were took place by the vendors of D1 in the year 1963 and 1966 wherein they got mentioned that it is their ancestral property . So it is clear that already partition took place long back and enjoying their respective properties by the vendors of D1, Adinarayana

Reddy and Chenga Reddy who is father of 1st plaintiff. The wife of

Adinarayana Reddy also executed two documents which are also supporting the version of the defendants that their vendors are having right over the properties purchased by them and defendants vendors were under actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of Ex.B2 and B3. Accordingly these issues are answered.

[34]. Issue No.3: As seen from Ex.B12 and B13 caveat petitions, the first plaintiff got knowledge about Ex.B2 and B3 but either the plaintiff NO.1 or his legal heirs never take any steps to cancel those documents or to file suit restraining the defendant No.1, and after lapse of 17 years, the 1st plaintiff filed 35 this suit for permanent injunction against D1 and D2. Hence the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff has to file suit within three years from the date of

Ex.B2 and B3. On the other hand the defendants possession was established from the year 1991 by filing revenue records and small farmers certificate issued by the Tahsildar and other documents. Hence cause of action arose long back and suit is filed in the year 2008 which is barred by limitation.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

The learned counsel for defendant relied on a decision reported in

(2024) 2 ALT 38 in between Vasanth (Dead) through LRs Appellant Vs

Raja Lakhsmi alias Rajam (dead) through LRs of Supreme Court of India

wherein their lordships held that:

No suit for possession was filed with in twelve years of her death, suit is barred by limitation under Article 65 r/w Sec.27. In the present suit also though the plaintiffs are having knowledge about Ex.B2 and B3 and possession of the defendants they did not file any suit within twelve years and after lapse of seventeen years plaintiffs filed this suit. The above citation is aptly applicable to the present suit.

[35]. Issue No.7: In view of answering of Issue No.1 to 6 the suit is to be dismissed.

[36]. In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs: PW1 : Naidu Delli Babu Reddy on behalf of 1st plaintiff Pw2 : R.Eswaraiah PW3 : Naidu Delli Babu Reddy as a party 36 Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants: DW1 : V.Bhaskar Reddy DW2 : A.Jayachandra Reddy DW3 : Vajja Dasaradha Reddy DW4 : Vajja Jayababu DW5 : M.Hanuman Naidu, Tahsildar, Nagalapuram

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiffs: Ex.A.1: Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for the lands in Sy.No.358/2, 358/3, 358/4 and 358/5.

Ex.A.2: True copy of No.10(1) Account of Sy.No.358/2, 358/4, 358/3 and 358/5.

Ex.A3: True copy of No.3 Adangal for fasali No.1996 to 1999

Ex.A4: True copy of NO.3 Adangal for the year 1988-99 to 1989-90.

Ex.A5: Application dated 22.01.2020 under RTI Act along with postal receipt and track consignment.

Ex.A6: Endorsement of Tahsildars office of Nagalapuram Mandal vide RTI/No.B/09/2020 dated 25.02.2020 along with 10(1) accounts pertaining to patta No.162 and 340.

Ex.A7: Certificate given by the family doctor B.Ramachandran of Nagala- puram.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of Registered sale deed dated 05.11.1966 executed by Naidu Srinivasulu Reddy and Naidu Ramana Reddy.

Ex.A9: Voter list of Sathyavedu Assembly Constitution pertaining to Vajjavari Kandriga of Page No.23 relating to H.No.5-46 for year 2019 showing that deceased 1st plaintiff and his sons are living jointly under one roof.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants Ex.B1: The genealogical tree of Naidu Chenga Reddy.

Ex.B2The original registered sale deed dated 01.07.1991 under which his mother 1st defendant herein purchased a portion of the plaint schedule land from one Ramana Reddy, S/o Chenga Reddy.

Ex.B3: Another original registered sale deed dated 03.07.1991.

37

Ex.B4: No.2 Adangal for falsi 1413.

Ex.B5: Copy of No.3 adangal issued by the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal for falsi 1415 to 1417.

Ex.B6: Copy of 1-B Register retailing to the lands of his mother issued by the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram.

Ex.B7: Two kist receipts stands in the name of D1.

Ex.B8: Original pattadar passbook stands in the name of D1.

Ex.B9: Original title deed issued by the revenue authorities in favour of D1.

Ex.B10: Original cyst receipt No.C950013, Dt:29.03.1992 for fasli year 1401.

Ex.B11: Original of Small Farmer Certificate vide the proceedings L.Dis.A/533/97, dt:03.04.1997 issued by the MRO., Nagalaupuram Mandal. (Subject to objection that no official of AVO., on the document).

Ex.B12: The served copy of the Caveat petition lodged by deceased Plaintiff No.1, Naidu Poli Reddy on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sathyavedu, dt:09.07.1991 against the defendant No.1 with postal receipts.

Ex.B13: The office copy of caveat petition lodged on the file of Junior Civil

Judge's Court, Sathyavedu, dt:16.07.1991 by the defendant No.1

herein.

Ex.B14: Certified copy of the registered sale deed dt:06.02.1930 vide Doc.No.540/1960 of SRO, Sathyavedu executed by Naidu Papamma of Vajjavari Kandriga had sold lands to G.Venkata Reddy through registered sale.

Ex.B15: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt:22.10.1961 vide document No.1631/1961 of SRO, Sathyavedu executed by the Naidu Papamma.

Ex.B16: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt:26.05.2012 vide document. No.715/2012 of SRO, Pichatur executed by Gosu 38

Ramnamma.

Ex.B17: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt: 22.08.2016 vide document. No.872/2016 of SRO, Pichatur executed by P.Batheiah in favour of the Plaintiff .No.4 (PW3) herein selling the very same house site property.

Ex.B18: Endorsement of Tahsildar, Nagalapuram obtained vide RTI.No.34/2023, dt:15.03.2023 (Subject to objection that authority signature is not there).

Ex.B19: Endorsement of Tahsildar, Nagalapuram obtained vide RTI.No.35/2023, dt:15.03.2023 pertaining to FMB (Subject to objection that authority signature is not there). Endorsement of Tahsildar (Subject to objection that authority signature is not there).

Ex.B20: Encumbrance certificate No.64/2005 for the period of 21 years from 01.1.1985 to 14.02.2005 pertaining to the lands held by E.Kuppuswamy Reddy and others in S.No.358/1 and S.No.358/6, the boundary land holder of plaint schedule property.

Ex.B21: Encumbrance certificate No.29/2017 for the period of 34 years from 01.01.1983 to 18.01.2017 pertaining to the lands held by D1 herein reflecting her two registered sale deed dt:01.07.1991 and 03.07.1991.

Ex.B22: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt:20.05.1963.

Ex.B23: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt:02.11.1966.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants through DW5 Tahsildar:

Ex.X1: Attested copy of ROR-1 of Kalivedu village (replica of Ex.B18).

Ex.X2: Attested copy of FMB.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

Fair Judgment in

O.S.No.104/2008

39

Dt.09.04.2026 40 APCH180000152008

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], SRIKALAHSTHI

Present: Smt. B. Baby Rani,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

Thursday, this the Ninth [9th ] day of April, 2026

Original Suit No. 104 of 2008

Between:

1)Naidu Poli Reddy, S/o Late Chenga Reddy (Died)

2)N.Lokanadha Reddy, S/o Late N.Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 61 years, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

3)N.Krishnamurthy Reddy, S/o Late N.Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District at present residing at No.173/14, BM Nilayam, 1st Cross, Sir.M.Visweswaraiah Road, Behind Cambridge School, Surabhi Layout, Bangalore North, Yelahanka, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560 064.

4)Naidu Dilli Babu Reddy, S/o Late Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

5)N.Rathnamma, W/o Late Poli Reddy, Hindu, aged about 81 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

6)N.Pavan Kumar Reddy, S/o Late N.Subramanyam Reddy, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Employee, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

7)N.Kiranmayi, D/o Late N.Subramanyam Reddy, W/o D.Mani, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Residing at Door No.32, Panchetty Road, Near FCI Church, Red Hills Road, Ponneri - 601 204.

8)N.Uma Maheswari, W/o Late N.Subramanyam Reddy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, House maker, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. … Plaintiffs 41 And:

1)Vajja Sarojamma, W/o Chengalraya Reddy, Hindu, aged about 65 years, House wife, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District.

2)Vajja Bhaksar Reddy, S/o Chengalraya Reddy, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Teacher, Residing at Vajjavari Kandriga Village, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. … Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs (i) to declare the Plaintiff No.1 as the absolute owners of the plaint schedule lands (ii) granting permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering in any way with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned lands; and (iii) for costs of the suit.

The plaint filed on 01.09.2008 and Court fee of Rs.3,926/- was paid u/s 26(b) of APCF and SV Act.

This suit is came on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri.E.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs; and Sri.K.Udayanath,

Advocate for Defendants; this Court Doth order and decree:-

1. That the suit be and same is hereby dismissed without costs.

2. That the Plaintiffs do bear their own costs of Rs.24,623/- (Rupees twenty four thousand six hundred and twenty three only) being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 9 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

42

Particulars of costs

Description Plaintiffs Rs. Defendants Rs.

Stamp on Vakalath2-00

Stamp on Plaint3,926-00

Stamp on petition50-00

Advocate fees20,000-00Costs memo not filed

Process445-00

Publication Charges---

Typing Charges200-00

Total : Rs.24,623-00

CJ (Sr. Division), SKHT.

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District - Pichatur Sub-District - Kadivedu Survey group - Vajjavari

Kandriga village - the following agricultural lands:-

Sl.No.Survey NumberExtentClassification Ac. Cents 1358/21.14Dry 2358/30.90Dry 3358/40.80Dry 4358/50.76Dry

Total3.60

The above lands are bounded by East : DKT lands, South : dry land of Vajja

Sundara Rami Reddy, West : Vacant lands of Government, and North : Mango

Garden of Vajja Chengalraya Reddy.

CJ (Sr. Division), SKHT.

1

APCH180000192012

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], SRIKALAHASTHI.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Baby Rani,

Civil Judge [Senior Division],

Srikalahasthi.

Friday, this the Seventeenth [17th ] day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 150 OF 2012

Between:

Makala Muni Sekhar, S/o Bala Raju, aged about 32 years,

residing at Rajampeta Town and Mandal, Kadapa District....Plaintiff

And:

1)Makala Rajamma, W/o Bala Raju, aged about 61 years

2)Makala Mallikarjuna, S/o Bala Raju, aged about 28 years

3)Makala Parandam, S/o Bala Raju, aged about 25 years

Defendants 1 to 3 are residing at Mittakandriga, Srikalahasthi.

...Defendants

This suit coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri.G.Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri.K.Surendra Babu, Advocate for second defendant and the defendants 1 and 3 remained exparte and after hearing both sides and perusing the record having stood over for consideration till tisis day, this court delivered the followings:

JUDGMENT

01.This is a suit filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from entering into the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2

02. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

i.The first defendant is the mother and the defendants 2 and 3 are the younger brothers of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is originally belongs to the father of the plaintiff by name Makala Bala Raju. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dt.22-02-1985 for valid consideration and since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. During his lifetime, out of love and affection, he executed a registered gift deed on 02-08-1999 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac.0-01 cent out of Ac.0.07 3/4 cents out of Ac.0-11 ¼ cents out of total extent of Ac.1-20 cents and delivered possession to the plaintift on the same day. The plaintiff accepted the said gift and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights. The plaintiff's father Balaraju died on 02-02-2004 leaving behind he plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heris. The plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying the plaint schedule property jointly after the death of the father of the plaintiff.

ii.While so, the plaintiff recently approached the Municipal Commissioner and came to know that the second defendant who is none other than his brother obtained a sham sale deed from third parties and taking advantage of the said collusive sale deed, he is making hectic efforts to demolish or change the physical features of the plaint schedule property highhandedly and also trying to dispossess of the same without consent of the plaintiff. After knowing the intention of the second defendant, the plaintiff has filed a suit on the file of this court in respect of the property covered under registered gift deed, dt.02.08.1999 for declaration of his right and title against the second defendant, which was numbered as O.S.20/2012. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff felt it is no longer safe for him to be joint with the defendants. He demanded the defendants for partition of his 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property, for which the defendants gave some evasive answers. The defendants 1 and 3 joined hands with the 2nd defendant and 3 trying to dispose of the property to third parties. The plaintiff approached the defendants personally and through mediators and requested to allot his 1/4th share, but the defendants turned their deaf ear, hence the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition of the plaint schedule property and allotment of his 1/4 share in the suit schedule property.

03. The defendants 1 and 3 remained exparte.

04. The second defendant filed his written statement by denying all the material averments made in the plaint and submitted that one Sundi

Subramanyam is the rightful owner of the plaint schedule property and after his demise, his wife succeeded the same. The wife of Sundi Subramanyam i.e., C.Navaneethamma @ S.Navaneethamma filed a Suit in 0.S.No.94/2008 on the file of this court for declaration of her tile, delivery of possession and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the mother of this defendant was one of the defendants. Subsequently the said suit was decreed exparte. While so, the plaintiff never looked after his family members at any point of time and he is not paying debts of his father. This defendant and his mother informed the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.94/2008 to him. The plaintiff bluntly replied that he is not having any right over the plaint schedule property and as such, he is not responsible for the said suit. At that time, this defendant discussed with his neighbours who are the other defendants in O.S.No.94/2008 and requested

Navaneethamma to sell the plaint schedule property with their respective occupations. After verifying the revenue records and other relevant documents, this defendant and his neighbours came to conclusion to purchase the plaint schedule property. This defendant secured huge amounts from the villagers and friends by taking loans on promissory notes and purchased the plaint schedule property from its rightful owner i.e.,

Navaneethama and her legal heirs on 24.11.2011 for an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- under a registered sale deed vide document No.5165/2011.

The same is known to one and all in the locality. This defendant is paying 4 house tax, water tax and electricity connection, etc., and he is in possession of the same, as such the suit for partition does not arise. Except this defendant, none other persons having right, title or possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

05. Basing on the above pleadings, my predecessor in office was framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for partition of the suit schedule properties into 4 equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot and put him into possession of one such share as prayed for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

3) Whether the second defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties with exclusive rights as prayed for?

4) Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

5) To what relief?

06.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and one

Munirathnam was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. The

Defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B10.

07.Originally the then Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti delivered the judgment in OS No.150/2012 on 29.06.2017 by dismissing the suit. Thereafter the unsuccessful plaintiff filed appeal in AS No.118/2023 on the file of Hon’ble

XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti and the learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by this

Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give a 5 chance to both parties for adducing oral and documentary evidence and dispose off the matter. This court received the record on 20.04.2024. After receipt of record this Court issued notices to the both counsels and they adduced evidence.

08. Issue No.1: To substantiate the contention of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the extract of Registered sale deed dated 22.02.1985 stands in the name of father of plaintiff Makala Bala

Raju and it is marked as secondary evidence since it is only extract of original.

Ex.A2 is the Demand notice for payment of property tax dated 21.11.2014.

Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Registered Gift Deed dated 02.08.1999 executed by Makala Bala Raju in favour of Makala Muni Sekhar (Plaintiff).

Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in OS No.20/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasti dated 31.01.2018. Ex.A5 is the

Photos three in number along with CD. Ex.A6 is the Certified copy of FIR in

Cr.No.74/2019 of I Town PS of Srikalahasthi. Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of

FIR in Cr.No.120/2019 of I Town PS, Srikalahasthi. Ex.A8 is the True copy of

FIR in Cr.No.68/2019 of I Town PS, Srikalahasthi (served copy).

ii.In his cross examination, he categorically deposed that his mother name is Rajamma i.e., Defendant No.1 herein. He denied the suggestion that one Navaneetamma filed Suit against his mother and others in

O.S.No.94/2008 on the file this Hon'ble Court. He know the contents of Written

Statement filed by 2nd Defendant in this Suit. He admitted that in Written

Statement filed by Defendant No.2, there was a mention about filing of Suit in

O.S. No.94/2008. His mother Rajamma is residing with him. He filed this Suit

for Sy.No.298/5 of Mittakandriga. The document i.e., Fair Adangal confronted to him which was marked as Ex.A6 in O.S. No.94/2008 shows the name of

Chundi Subrahmanyam as Pattadar. Witness adds that the said entry was wrong. He denied the suggestion that originally the Sy.No.298/5 is agricultural land. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 are correct. He denied the 6 suggestion that the boundaries in plaint schedule and boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 are different. He admitted that as per Ex.A1 western boundary was shown as Chirri Venkataiah. Witness adds now Muni Raghavulu.

iii.He do not know the vendor of Muni Raghavulu and how he got the property to the West, North, and South of suit schedule property. The Plaint

Schedule Property is Ac.0.07 ¾ cents in Sy.No.298/5. His father gifted Ac.1-00 cents and the said Ac.0.01 cents was not shown in plaint schedule property.

He admitted that in Ex.A1 it was mentioned that 'Polamulo'. He admitted that

Agricultural land means Polamu. He admitted that for any agricultural land, revenue records will be available. He do not know whether there are any revenue records with regard to the property mentioned in Ex.A1. Witness adds that to his knowledge it is house site. He do not know whether the total extent of Sy.No.298/5 Ac.1-20 cents. He denied the suggestion that the said Ac.1-20 cents is belongs to K.Subrahmanyam and Revenue Records also stands in his name. He admitted that the document confronted to him i.e., old Passbook shows the name of K.Subrahmanyam for an extent of Ac.0-83 cents. He denied the suggestion that Plaint Schedule Property and other property were bequeathed by K.Subrahmayam in favour of his wife Navaneethamma under unregistered Will. He admitted that in his pleadings he got mentioned that the

Defendant No.2 obtained Sale Deed, Dt: 24-11-2011 and it is sham and nominal. He denied the suggestion that Defendant No.2 purchased Plaint

Schedule Property from Navaneethamma who has got absolute rights over the said property. He denied the suggestion that since the date of purchase i.e., from 24-11-2011, Defendant No.2 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He denied the suggestion that O.S. No.94/2008 was decreed in favour of Navaneethamma against the 1st Defendant herein and others. His mother name is M.Rajamma. He denied the suggestion that their prayer for permanent injunction is not maintainable as per pleadings of Plaint.

He denied the suggestion that either his father or himself have no right in the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A4 is not a valid 7 document as it is subsequent to the filing of this Suit. He admitted that Ex.A2 does not contain the survey number of the suit schedule property, except his father name.

iv.He admitted that Ex.A2 also subsequent to filing of the Suit. He denied the suggestion that he did not file any document to show their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Plaint Schedule Property. He admitted that there is no mention in 'A, B, C' schedules about existing of RCC building in Plaint Schedule Property. He denied the suggestion that he suppressed the material facts of previous Suit O.S.No.94/2008. He denied the suggestion that the entire Plaint Schedule Property is belongs to Defendant No.2 only. He admitted that O.S.No.20/2012 was decreed exparte and set aside petition is pending. He denied the suggestion that either himself or his father and his father's vendor have no right over the suit schedule property and it belongs to

K.Subrahmanyam, who bequeathed the said property in favour of his wife

Navaneethamma and from him it was devolved upon Defendant No.2 herein, and since then he has been enjoying the same. His mother has no knowledge about Suit in O.S.No.94/2008. He denied the suggestion that his mother had got knowledge about O.S.No.94/2008 and knowing about the same he is deposing false. He admitted that the Plaint Schedule Property in

O.S.No.94/2008 is part of Plaint Schedule Property in this Suit. He denied the

suggestion that the contents of his chief affidavit are false. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is not the joint family property, it is self-acquired property of Defendant No.2.

09.PW2 is one N.Munirathnam filed his chief affidavit supporting the version of the plaintiff. In his cross examination he categorically deposed that

Plaintiff's sister-in-law is their daughter-in-law. He denied the suggestion that

Defendant No.2 purchased the Plaint Schedule Property and other properties from one Navaneetamma on 24.11.2011. He is not the attestor of Sale Deed executed in favour of one Bala Raju i.e., father of Plaintiff. He denied the 8 suggestion that as on the date of purchase by the Defendant No.2 itself there was a house in Plaint Schedule Property. He denied the suggestion that father of the Plaintiff never constructed two houses in Plaint Schedule Property.

Witness adds that the said houses were demolished by D2 & D3, as he came to know through villagers. He denied the suggestion that D2 & D3 never demolished those houses, and they are in possession of the same. He denied the suggestion that the Plaint Schedule Property is not in joint possession. He denied the suggestion that due to relationship between him and Plaintiff he is deposing false. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is enjoying by the Defendant No.2 exclusively and hence the suit schedule property is not liable for partition as D2 purchased the same. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is not in joint possession of Plaintiff and D1 and the contents of his chief affidavit are false.

10.To substantiate the contention of the Defendant No.2, Defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B10. Ex.B1 is the Certified Copy of registered sale deed Dt: 24-11-2011 executed by K. Navaneetamma and her sons and One Savitramma in favour of him. Ex.B2 is the Certified Copy of Old Rythvari

Passbook stands in the name of K. Chundi Subramanyam. Ex.B3 is the Certified

Copy of Death Certificate of Subramanyam. Ex.B4 is the Certified Copy of

Judgment in O.S.No.94/2008. Ex.B5 is the Certified Copy of Decree in

O.S.No.94/2008.. Ex.B6 is the Encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub

Registrar, Srikalahasthi for Sy.No.298/5A. Ex.B7 is the Endorsement given by the

Deputy Tahsildar, Dt. 09.10.2024 with regard to fair adangal and 10-1 account in respect of the Sy.No.298/5A for Ac.0-83 cents. Ex.B8 is the Fair adangal obtained under Right to Information Act. Ex.B9 is the Income certificate obtained from Mee- seva of belongs to him. Ex.B10 is the Residence certificate of Defendant No.2.

ii.In his cross examination, he categorically deposed that Plaintiff is his elder brother. D1 is his mother. D3 is his younger brother. The Plaintiff filed this Suit, as if it is self-acquired property of his father. His elder brother filed 9 another Suit in O.S.No.20/2012 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, stating that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.20/2012 is belongs to him. He verified the document under Ex.A3. Witness adds that it is false document. Since 2017, he has knowledge about Ex.A3. The recitals of Ex.A3 shows that his father executed that document in favour of the Plaintiff. He came to know through Ex.A3 that it was executed for RCC building. In the year 1999 there was an RCC building in the property under Ex.A3. He did not know who constructed the said RCC building. Their family and senior paternal uncle family were residing in a house situated near Ponnalamma Temple, Mitta

Kandriga. Since 2005, Door No.17/282 was standing in the name of his father.

He did not know how his father name was given to the said house Door

No.17/282. His father died in the house bearing Door No.17-148. The said house is belongs to his father, and his senior paternal uncle jointly. His father never resided in Door No.17/282. In the year 2005, their family shifted to house bearing Door No.17/282, after the death of his father (himself, his mother and his younger brother). He did not know who resided in the said house from 1999 to 2005. He denied the suggestion that in the year 1985,

his father purchased the property i.e., vacant site wherein 'A' Schedule

house was constructed, subsequently and residing therein. Apart from the suit schedule property his father has got landed property and the same was sold prior to the death of his father.

iii.He did not know whether the suit in O.S.No.94/2008 was decreed on exparte or contest. Either himself or his brothers were not shown as parties in

OS.No.94/2008. Witness volunteers that his mother was shown as the party.

In the year 2008, his family was not residing in the Plaint 'A' Schedule, as they went to Hyderabad. He did not know whether descriptive particulars of D2 in

O.S.No.94/2008 were not mentioned in decree. He did not know whether

Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.94/2008 is not his mother, and she is another person. He did not know whether E.P., was filed for delivery of property covered under O.S.No.94/2008. He purchased Suit 'A' Schedule Property 10 from Navaneetamma and her children. He did not know whether

Navaneetamma received possession in execution proceedings. He did not file any record to show that Navaneetamma obtained possession as per

Judgment in O.S.No.94/2008. He purchased the Plaint Schedule Property when it was in the possession of Navaneetamma. He did not know whether

Navaneetamma obtained possession according to law. He denied the suggestion that without obtaining possession, the judgment in O.S.No.94/2008 is not binding on him, due to non-delivery of possession to the said

Navaneetamma. He know that in O.S.No.20/2012 Navaneetamma also one of the party. No counsel was engaged by him in that suit. He did not know whether Navaneetama also never engaged any advocate on her behalf. He came to know that O.S.No.20/2012 was decreed declaring the rights of

Plaintiff therein for the property therein. Witness adds that Order 9 Rule 13 petition is pending. He denied the suggestion that as per Judgment in

O.S.No.20/2012 rights of Plaintiff were declared and hence Navaneetamma

has no right to sell the property. Sy.No.298/A is belongs to Navaneetamma.

Total extent of that Sy.No.298/5A is Ac.0-83 cents. The 1st page of Ex.B2 shows that Sy.No.298/5A2 for Ac.0-83 cents and back shows that 298/5A is for Ac.0.83 cents.

iv.He did not file any sketch for location of the Sy.No.298/5A for Ac.0-83 cents. There is no designation seal in Ex.B2. Witness adds that it was certified by Special Deputy Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi. In Ex.B7 there is no specific extent mentioned in the name of Chundi Sbrahmanyam. Except the records filed by him there is no right over the property covered under O.S.No.94/2008. He denied the suggestion that the document filed by him does not confer any right and title to the said Navaneetamma. He denied the suggestion that in order to grab the suit schedule property he obtained Ex.B1 from Navaneetamma and her children. He denied the suggestion that as on the date of Ex.A1, he was in the said house. Ex.B1 is for the house bearing Door No.17-282 ('A' Schedule

Property). He admitted that as on the date of Ex.B1 the said house 11

bearing No.17-282 stands in the name of his father and even till today

the said house is stands in the name of his father. He denied the suggestion that originally the suit schedule property belongs to his father, and after his death the said property devolved upon him and his brothers and to evade the share of his brother Plaintiff, he obtained Ex.B1 from

Navaneetamma and her children, who have no right. He denied the suggestion that his brother, his mother, his younger brother are also having share in the Plaint Schedule Property along with him. He denied the suggestion that he has no exclusive right over the suit schedule property. He admitted that Plaintiff gave report against him in Cr.No.74/2019 when house was demolished in Plaint Schedule Property stating that the said house was demolished by him. Witness adds that it is false report. Now a small room was constructed by him in 'A' Schedule Property. He do not know who demolished the old house. He admitted that an FIR was registered against him filed by his mother in Cr.No.120/2019, stating that she was beaten in his hands. Witness adds that it is false report. A case was registered against him in Cr.No.68/2019 for demolishing the house in subject matter of O.S.No.20/2012. Witness adds that it is also false. He denied the suggestion that to grab the property, he bet his mother and demolished his house etc., and due to that they filed criminal cases against him. He denied the suggestion that Plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule property.

11.Perused the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, DW1 and Ex.A1 to A8, Ex.B1 to

B10. The claim of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property was purchased by his father under Ex.A1 and on perusal of Ex.A1 it was executed by one Sankaraiah, S/o Koneti Krishnaiah Chetty in favour of Makala Bala

Raju, S/o Makala Gurumurthy for an extent of Ac.0.07 ¾ cents out of Ac.0.11 ¼ cents owned by Sankaraiah in total extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.298/5 within the following boundaries i.e., East : Civil Road, West : Chirri Venkataiah land, North : Land of the vendor (Sankaraiah) and South : Makala 12

Chinnaswamy land. In the said document it was also mentioned that the above said property is self acquired property of vendor Sankaraiah.

12.A perusal of Ex.A2 property tax demand notice stands in the name of plaintiff’s father with Door No.17/282 dated 21.11.2014. Ex.A3 is certified copy of registered gift deed dated 02.08.1999 executed by Makala Bala Raju in favour of plaintiff for an extent of 47 square yards with the following measurements East – West : 32 ½ feet, North – South : 13 feet site and RCC house constructed therein (under construction). The said document was executed in the year 1999 on 2nd August.

13.Ex.A4 is certified copies of judgment and decree in OS No.20/2012 filed by the plaintiff herein against one K.C.Navaneethamma, K.C.Rathnam,

K.C.Munichandraiah, K.C.Savithramma and Defendant No.2 herein for an extent of Ac.0.01 cent out of Ac.0.07 ¾ cents out of Ac.0.11 ¼ cents in the total extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.298/5 basing on Ex.A3 and the said suit was decreed on contest declaring the plaintiff herein as absolute owner of the above said property and also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their men, agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff therein, over the suit schedule property therein.

14.Ex.A5 is the photographs filed by the plaintiffs to show that the house constructed in Ac.0.01 cent was demolished. Ex.A6 is certified copy of FIR on the report given by the plaintiff herein against Defendant No.2 for the offence u/s 324 IPC stating that on 12.03.2019 in their absence his brother i.e., D2 and another brother Parandham with others demolished his house, with JCB and he gave report on 15.03.2019 in I Town PS and during the pendency of said crime on 20.03.2019 at about 5.30 PM while the plaintiff is trying to put up thatched house to keep his mother in that house his brother Defendant No.2 came and highhandedly beat him with centring rod on his head resulting which 13 he received bleeding injury. The said report was registered as FIR in

Cr.No.74/2019. Ex.A7is certified copy of FIR on the report given by the plaintiff’s mother who is D1 herein against Defendant No.2 for the offences u/s 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC stating that on 24.05.2019 when her younger sister came to her, at about 8.00 AM her second son Mallikarjuna came to her and questioned her why she came to that place and demanded to leave that place and also threatened and beat D1 herein and when her sister came to rescue her the Defendant No.2 herein beat her and her sister with chappal resulting which she received contusions and her sister received bleeding injury to her right hand wrist. Ex.A8 iscertified copy of FIR in Cr.No.68/2019 on the report given by the plaintiff against Defendant No.2, Makala Parandham, Nadavati

Venkatarayulu, Antati Muni Kesavulu, Chirri Nagaraju, Sowjanya and Madhavi (wife of D2) for the offences u/s 448, 456, 427, 465 r/w 34 IPC stating that in the year 1998 his father gifted one house to him, and in the year 2004 his father died later he cleared all the debts of his father and got educated his brother D2 herein. In the year 2011 without the knowledge of him, his mother the Defendant No.2 herein, Parandham and others confined together and created documents and D2 demanding that all their family property belongs to him. He further stated that he filed a suit in the year 2012 and got judgment in his favour but Defendant No.2 herein in the absence of his mother, on 12.03.2019 at about 8.00 PM without the consent of his mother break opened the house door lock and taken away all the utensils, house hold articles etc., and demolished the said house with JCB and when one Munirathnam came and obstructed, D2 and others threatened him to leave the place.

15.As per Ex.A1 it is clear that the father of the plaintiff purchased Ac.0.07 ¾ cents in Sy.No.298/5 in the year 1985. It is also clear from Ex.A3 registered settlement deed that out of Ac.0.07 ¾ cents, 47 square yards equal to Ac.0.01 cent was settled in favour of plaintiff herein. The title of the plaintiff over the 47 square yards was declared by this Hon’ble Court in OS No.20/2012 as per

Ex.A4. The remaining extent is Ac.0.06 ¾ cents belongs to Makala Bala Raju 14 who is father of plaintiff, D2 and D3, husband of Defendant No.1. It is also not disputed fact that the said Makala Bala Raju died in the year 2004.

16.The contention of the Defendant No.2 is that one Chundi

Navaneethamma filed the suit in OS No.94/2008 for an extent of Ac.0.83 cents against one G.Madhavi Latha, M.Rajamma, W/o Late Raju, Raghavulu,

C.Navaneethamma, W/o Venkatamuni, C.Balaiah, Mani, C.Gopal,

P.Sankaraiah, S/o not konwn and the said suit was decreed exparte declaring the right of the plaintiff therein as owner of ‘A’ schedule property therein and also granted mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 to 5 to remove the unauthorized constructions made in plaint ‘B’ schedule property and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff therein within 30 days and also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint ‘A’ schedule land by the plaintiff therein. A perusal of Ex.B5 the said suit was filed for Ac.0.83 cents with the following boundaries: East : Srikalahasti Tirupati main road, West and

North : Railway track and land of Bathaiah and Naraiah and petrol bunk of 1st defendant, South : Lane. ‘B’ to ‘E’ schedule property therein is part of ‘A’ schedule land.

17.But the plaintiffs father purchased Ac.0.07 ¾ cents out of Ac.0.11 ¼ cents owned by Sankaraiah. The total extent of Sy.No.298/5 is Ac.1.20 cents.

Ex.B5 is for Ac.0.83 cents and it is no way concerned to the plaint schedule property as it was purchased by the father of the plaintiff under registered sale deed Ex.A1. Ex.B2 is old Rytu pass book stands in the name of

K.Subramanyam for Ac.0.83 cents in Sy.No.298/5A in Patta No.311. Ex.B1 is registered sale deed executed by the wife of Kalamjeri Chundi Subramanyam by name Navaneethamma and her sons Chundi Rathnam and Chundu Muni

Chandraiah and Chundi Ankaiah wife Savitharamma in favour of D2 herein for

Ac.0.10 cents or 484 square yards of vacant site and house therein with measurements 26 x 34 feet, 3 x 8 feet ACC sheets house in Sy.No.298/5A. As 15 per Ex.B1, the plaintiff purchased Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.298/5A. It is also not disputed fact that the total extent of Sy.No.298/5 is Ac.1.20 cents out of which the plaintiff’s father’s vendor purchased Ac.0.11 ¼ cents and remaining is belongs to others. So the property mentioned in Ex.B1, B2 are separate property and not the property covered under Ex.A1. Ex.B6 is encumbrance certificate showing the transaction covered under Ex.B1. Ex.B7 is fair adangal and 10-1 adangal issued under Right to Information Act by the Public

Information Officer, Srikalahasti. A perusal of 10-1 adangal Sy.No.298/5 is for

Ac.1.20 cents. A perusal of fair adangal patta No.311 stands in the Karamjeri

Chundi Subramanyam for an extent of Ac.0.83 cents. The said Ac.0.83 cents was rounded off and Ac.0.15 cents mentioned. The Survey number against the said entry was not mentioned in column No.1. So Ex.B8 is no way helpful to the defendants contention as the fair adangal shows Chundi Subramanyam has got Ac.0.15 cents. Ex.B9 is income certified issued through mee-seva shows that Defendant No.2 is having income of Rs.60,000/- as per records and it is valid upto 07.12.2015. Ex.B3 is death certificate of Kalangeri Chundi

Subramanyam on 03.03.1992 issued by the Musalipedu Gram Panchayat.

DW1 also admitted in his cross examination that in the year 1999 there is an

RCC building in the property covered under Ex.A3. He do not know who constructed the said building. The Door No.17/282 was stands in the name of his father. His father died in the house bearing D.No.17/148 which is belongs to his father and his senior paternal uncle jointly. He further deposed that he purchased the plaint schedule property when it was in the possession of one

Navaneethanamma. He denied the suggestion that without obtaining possession as per the judgment in OS No.94/2008 it is not binding on him. He came to know about the judgment and decree in OS No.20/2012. Witness adds that Order 9 Rule 13 petition is pending in their suit. He admitted about filing of FIRs in Cr.No.120/19, 68/2019 and 74/2019. Pw1 who is plaintiff herein deposed that he filed the suit for Sy.No.298/5 and plaint schedule property is Ac.0.07 ¾ cents in Sy.No.298/5 and his father gifted Ac.0.01 cent which was not shown in plaint schedule property.

16

18.A perusal of the decree in OS No.94/2008 the ‘A’ schedule property was shown as Ac.0.083 cents. But Ex.B2 and fair adangal shows that Chundi

Subramanyam has got Ac.0.83 cents and Ex.B1 is for Ac.0.10 cents. All the documents filed by the Defendant No.2 are not connected to each other and it is separate property by mentioning the door number of plaint schedule herein.

Dw1 admitted that the D.No.17/282 is belongs to his father. But why it is came to the possession of Navaneethamma without filing execution petition is silent and the decree and judgment passed in OS No.94/2008 is exparte decree but not contest decree and all the defendants were exparte in the said suit. Pw2 filed his chief affidavit supporting the version of plaintiff and in his cross examination he deposed that he came to know through villagers that D2 and

D3 demolished houses. He denied the suggestion that plaint schedule property is not in joint possession and it is exclusively belongs to D2 as he purchased the same. As per the evidence of PW2, plaintiff’s sister-in-law is their daughter-in-law and his evidence is not reliable.

19.In view of my foregoing discussion this court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff’s father purchased Ac.0.07 ¾ cents and out of it 47 square yards was gifted to the plaintiff under registered gift settlement deed in the year 1999 itself and the plaintiff’s father died in testate without executing any document for the remaining extent. Hence as per section 8 of Hindu

Succession Act all his class I legal heirs are entitled for share in the property of Makala Bala Raju. On the other hand the mother of the plaintiff and another brother not examined by the defendant to prove his contention that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for ¼ share in plaint schedule property. Accordingly this issue is answered against the defendants.

20. Issue No.2: The plaintiff prays to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and 17 enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per the discussion in issue No.1 defendants also having share in the suit schedule property. Hence plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction against defendants. Accordingly this issue is answered.

21. Issue No.3: The defendant No.2's contention is that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with exclusive rights and plaintiffs have no right. But defendants did not file any piece of document to show that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with cogent and convencing evidence.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

22. Issue No.4: The contention of defendant No.2 that there is no cause of action to file the suit. A perusal of the Plaintiff the cause of action for the suit was mentioned in the plaint that the defendants colluded together and tried to dispose the property to the third parties when the the plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition they refused to allot their share and then he filed this suit.

23.A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 he stated that he purchased the suit schedule property from Kalangeri Chundi

Navaneethamma and others under Ex.B1 in the year 2011 and plaintiffs has no right which shows his interference and that there is a cause of action to file this suit. Accordingly this issue is answered.

24.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on following citations:

(1) 2010 4 ALD 244 Division Bench between Dr.K.I.Askari and another

Vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan @ Waleshan Prinice Mukkaram Jah

Bahadur HEH the Nizam VIII wherein their lordships held that:

“It is true that on account of some defect in the pleadings,

the substantive rights of the parties shall not be allowed to

be jeopardized. Though the requirement of specific

18

pleadings cannot be viewed in a hyper technical manner,

one cannot lose sight of the fact that a party to a suit be,

he, the plaintiff or the defendant, must have a specific case

of his own and in the absence of any specific contention

basing on which an issue is required to be framed, the

party is not permitted to adduce evidence in regard to the

said aspect. There may be errors or omissions in the

pleadings, but it is obligatory on the part of the parties to

plead material facts and at least from the substance of the

plaint or written statement filed by a party, the Court must

be in a position to understand as to what in fact the basic

contention put-forth by the party is. The law also mandates

that unless a material fact pleaded by one party is not

controverted specifically by the opposite party he must be

deemed to have admitted the said material fact. In the

instant case, the contentions put-forth by the first appellant

in the written statement are so vague and uncertain from

which it is not possible for the Court to cull out his version.

Though on technical grounds, the substantive rights of the

parties shall not be allowed to be defeated, when the

pleadings are so evasive and come into conflict with the

evidence of the party pleading the said facts, the Court has

to certainly reject the claim or the defence of the party, as

the case may be. Therefore, in the instant case, with all the

vagueness in the written statement and contradictory

versions in the evidence and more particularly, admitting

the title of the respondent in the evidence the defence of

the appellants has no basis or foundation and we have no

hesitation to hold that the appellants cannot resist the suit

of the respondent. This point is, thus answered in favour of

the respondent and against the appellants”.

In the present suit also the Defendant No.2 denied about title of his father in his pleadings and admitted in his evidence. Hence defence of

Defendant No.2 has no basis.

(2) The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Defendant No.2 demolished the house illegally and high handedly and hence plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against D2 and relied on a citation reported in

Bachan Singh Vs Swaran Singh (ILR Panjab and Haryana) wherein their lordships held that:

19

On a consideration of the judicial pronouncements on the

subject, we are of the opinion that:

(i) a co-owner who is not in possession of any part of the

property is not entitled to seek an injunction against

another co-owner who has been in exclusive possession of

the common property unless any act of the person in

possession of the property amounts to ouster, prejudicial

or adverse to the interest of co-owner out of possession.

(ii) Mere making of construction or improvement of, in the common property does not' amount to ouster.

(iii) If by the act of the co-owner in possession the value or

utility of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of

possession can certainly seek an injunction to' prevent the

diminution of the value and utility of the property.

(iv) If the acts of the co-owner in possession are detrimental

to the interest of other co-owners, a co-owner out of

possession can seek an injunction to prevent such act

which, is detrimental to his interest.

In the present suit D1 and D3 remained exparte and they did not act to diminish the value of property and the allegation is only against D2 stating that he demolished the building in the property gifted to plaintiff under Ex.A3.

(3) 2010 Legal Eagle (AP) 146 between Jada Chennaiah Vs Jada

Venkata Subbaiah wherein their lordships held that:

“the petitioner has mentioned the amount of decree.

However, in column No. 11, which deals with the nature of

assistance, which the decree holder expects from Court, no

mention is made about the recovery of costs. The

concentration was only upon enforcement of the decree for

mandatory injunction. Therefore, the E.P. was squarely

covered by Article 135”.

The above authority is with regard to limitation to file EP., for mandatory injunction. In this suit, OS No.94/2008 was filed by Navaneethamma against one Madhavi Latha and others and obtained exparte decree. But no EP., is filed within 3 years as per article 135 of Limitation Act.

20 (4)AIR 2005 Supreme Court 104 between Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Appellant Vs Baldev Das Respondent wherein their lordships held that:

“We do not think in the facts and circumstances of this

case, the lower appellate court and the High Court were

justified in permitting the respondent to change the nature

of property by putting up construction as also by

permitting the alienation of the property, whatever may be

the condition on which the same is done. we think both the

courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the

High Court erred in making the impugned orders”.

The above authority is with regard to petition u/o 39 R1 and 2 and the facts and circumstances of the above case are different of that of this suit.

(5)Pritam Singh and others Vs Chanan Singh and others of Panjab

Haryana High Court wherein their lordships held that:

Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of

an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest

in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised

in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case.

Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor

complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional

circumstances needing action, applying them as a

prerequisite for the grant of refusal of such injunctions

would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion."

9. If the aforementioned principles are applied to the facts

of the present case, then it becomes apparent that the

plaintiff-respondents are entitled as co-sharers to protect

the suit land to ensure that the nature of the suit land is not

changed by another co-sharer. Secondly, the proceedings

for partition have been initiated and the defendant-

petitioners would not suffer any prejudice because it would

soon be clear which of the co-sharer would be entitled to

occupy and possess which portion of the land. Thirdly, the

plaintiff-respondents may suffer an irreparable loss which

would not be compensated in terms of payment of some

money because once the construction of commercial

nature is raised, then the value of the land would be

different and the matter would be further complicated.

21

Therefore, it will not be proper to permit the defendant-

petitioner to raise construction or continue with the same.

The facts and circumstances of the above case are different to that of this case as above authority is with regard to ad-interim injunction.

25.The learned counsel for D2 relied on following citations:

(1)(2018) 5 ALT 623 between Silver Jublee Club Appellant Vs State of

Telangana Respondent wherein their lordships held that:

“In the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff-club has failed to

prove its case. The findings of the lower Court on issue

Nos. 2 and 6 are correct. The lower Court rightly notices that

there is no documentary evidence to show that the plaintiff

was enjoying the entire extent of land. The mutation of the

names and the claim and possession of the club over the

entire extent with boundaries is not established. The

existence of open land surrounding the club-buildings has

not been proved. Therefore, this Court concurs with the

findings of the lower Court on issue Nos.2 and 6”.

The above authority is for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the present suit is for partition.

(2)SH. Ved Parkash Vs SH. Naresh Kumar and others of Delhi High

Court wherein their lordships held that:

33. The other relief which has been sought by the plaintiff is

partition. His claim to the property is through Maha Singh,

his father and he can claim right to property through

succession only if it continues to exist in the name of the

father. Admittedly, he has already entered into an

Agreement to Sell with defendant No. 22 and having entered

into the Agreement to Sell way back in 2006, the plaintiff has

not been able to show any independent right to claim his

ownership of the property which was exclusively owned by

his father and who dealt with the same during his life time.

34. The plaintiff has failed to disclose any cause of action

in his suit for partition or for cancellation of the Agreement

to Sell dated 24 th April, 2006 executed in favour of

defendant No. 22 of for relief of Injunction. The suit is

hereby rejected.

22

The facts and circumstances of above authority are different to that of this suit. In the above authority partition took place prior to 1956 after the death of original owners. Hence above citation is not applicable to this suit as plaintiff demanded the defendants to partition the suit schedule property and they did not turn up.

(3)2023 (2) ALT 788 (TS) between S.Narasimha Reddy (died) per Lrs and other Vs Smt.G.Vijayamma wherein their lordships held that:

“Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek for

partition of the suit scheduled property, in the absence of

establishing that the property belongs to their mother

Rathnamma, as she got it by way of Stridhana”.

In the present suit, the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to show that his father purchased Ac.0.07 ¾ cents from one Sankaraiah and the same was admitted by PW1.

(4)2023 (5) ALT 166 DB (AP) between Munipalli Subba Rao (Died) and

others Vs M.Sivasanakara Varaprasada Rao @ Prasad Rao and others

wherein their lordships held that:

“PW.1 further admits that in the building constructed by his

father, his elder brother was in occupation of the western

portion and he is in possession of eastern portion and the

1 st defendant constructed back side of southern portion

which is in his occupation and they got electricity

connection of respect buildings since 25 to 30 years, which

clearly established that the schedule property is not in joint

possession of plaintiffs and defendants”.

In the present suit both plaintiff and D2, D3 are children of Balaraju and

D1 is his wife and property originally belongs to Makala Balaraju and after his death all the class I heirs are entitled to share.

(5) 2009 (3) ALD 416 between Kurella Naga Druva Udaya Bhaskar Rao

Vs Galla Janakamma @ Macharamma wherein their lordships held that:

23

“It is well known that a document, which comes into

existence subsequent to the filing of the suit, cannot be

taken into consideration for deciding the rights of the

parties to the suit”.

The documents filed by the plaintiff are admitted by the DW1 in his cross examination. Hence the above citation is not applicable to the present suit.

(6)2019 (3) ALD 266 between Silver Jubliee Club, Devarakonda Village

Vs District Collector, Nalgonda wherein their lordships held that:

“The boundaries given by the witnesses do not tally with

each other. The extent said to have purchased under Ex.A.1

is not clearly borne out by the record. No steps were taken

to clarify the discrepancies pointed out by defendants 4 to

19 that the land is not situated in Gollavanimanyam

chelka”.

In the present suit schedule property is Ac.0.06 ¾ cents and there is no discrepancy about boundaries as Ex.A1 is clear about it.

(7)2024 (1) ALT 758 AP between Dandamudi Vani and another Vs

Madala Venkateswara Rao and others wherein their lordships held that:

“In the light of the above reasons, this Court is of the

considered view that the appellants/plaintiffs miserably

failed to establish their interest and rights so as to seek a

decree for partition in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the

plaint schedule property. Learned Additional AVRB,J

District Judge, in my considered view, rightly commented

against the case of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs did not

present any consistent case explaining as to how the plaint

schedule property was the joint family property. Having

regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view

that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the

judgment of the learned Additional District Judge”.

In the present suit, the suit schedule property originally belongs to

Makala Balaraju who is father of plaintiff, D2 and D3 and after his death plaintiff is claiming his share in Ac.0.06 ¾ cents.

24

26.In view of my foregoing discussion the plaintiff is entitled for the partition of the suit schedule property as prayed by him.

27. Issue No.5: In view of answering of issues No.1 to 4 the suit is to be decreed.

28.In the result, suit is preliminarliy decreed with costs for partition of suit schedule property into four equal shares. Out of four shares one such share was alloted to the plaintiff, one share each to the Defendants 1 to 3 who are wife and sons of Makala Bala Raju. The claim for permanent injunction is hereby dismissed. The plaintiff is directed to file final decree petition for passing final decree. Call on 15.06.2026.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:

PW.1 : M.Muni Sekhar PW.2 : N.Muni Rathnam

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants:

DW.1 : M.Mallikarjuna @ Arjun Bose

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Extract of Registered sale deed dated 22.02.1985 stand in the name of father of plaintiff Makala Bala Raju and it is marked as secondary evidence since it is only extract of original.

Ex.A2: Demand notice for payment of property tax dated 21.11.2014.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Registered Gift Deed dated 02.08.1999 executed by Makala Bala Raju in favour of Makala Muni Sekhar (Plaintiff).

25

Ex.A4: Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in OS No.20/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasti dated 31.01.2018.

Ex.A5: Photos three in number along with CD.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.74/2019 of I Town PS of Srikalahasthi.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of FIR Cr.No.120/2019 of I Town PS, Srikalahasthi.

Ex.A8: True copy of FIR in Cr.No.68/2019 of I Town PS, Srikalahasthi.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants:

Ex.B1:Certified Copy of registered sale deed Dt: 24-11-2011 executed by K. Navaneetamma and her sons and One Savitramma in favour of me. Ex.B2:Certified Copy of Old Rythvari Passbook stands in the name of K. Chundi Subramanyam. Ex.B3:Certified Copy of Death Certificate of Subramanyam.

Ex.B4:Certified Copy of Judgment in O.S.No.94/2008.

Ex.B5:Certified Copy of Decree in O.S.No.94/2008.

Ex.B6:Encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Srikalahasthi for Sy.No.298/5A. Ex.B7:Endorsement given by the Deputy Tahsildar, Dt: 09-10-2024 with regard to fair adangal and 10-1 account in respect of the Sy.NO.298/5A for Ac.0-83 cents. Ex.B8:Fair adangal obtained under Right to Information Act.

Ex.B9:Income certificate obtained from Mee-seva of me.

Ex.B10:Residence certificate of Defendant No.2.

CJ (Sr. Division), SKHT.

26

Fair Judgment in

OS No.150/2012

Dt.17.04.2026 27

APCH180000192012

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], SRIKALAHASTHI.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Baby Rani,

Civil Judge [Senior Division],

Srikalahasthi.

Friday, this the Seventeenth [17th ] day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 150 OF 2012

Between:

Makala Muni Sekhar, S/o Bala Raju, aged about 32 years,

residing at Rajampeta Town and Mandal, Kadapa District....Plaintiff

And:

1)Makala Rajamma, W/o Bala Raju, aged about 61 years

2)Makala Mallikarjuna, S/o Bala Raju, aged about 28 years

3)Makala Parandam, S/o Bala Raju, aged about 25 years

Defendants 1 to 3 are residing at Mittakandriga, Srikalahasthi.

...Defendants

This is a suit filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from entering into the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint filed on 12.06.2012 and Court fee of Rs.200/- was paid u/s 34(2) of APCF and SV Act.

28

This suit came on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri.G.Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri.K.Surendra Babu, Advocate for second defendant and the defendants 1 and 3 remained exparte and this

Court Doth order and preliminary decree:-

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby preliminarly decreed;

2. That the suit schedule property is be and hereby divided into four equal shares and one such share is hereby allotted to the plaintiff, one share each to the Defendants 1 to 3.

3. That the claim for permanent injunction is be and hereby dismissed.

4. That the defendants do pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,353/- [Rupees twelve thousand three hundred and fifty three only] being the costs of the suit and Defendant No.2 do bear his own costs (costs memo not filed).

5. The plaintiff is be and hereby directed to file final decree petition on 15.06.2026.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

Particulars of costs

Description Plaintiff Rs. Defendants Rs.

Stamp on Vakalath2-00

Stamp on Plaint200-00

Stamp on petition---

Advocate fees11,701-00Costs memo not filed

Process350-00

Publication Charges---

Typing Charges100-00

Total : Rs.12,353-00

CJ (Sr. Division), SKHT.

29

'A' SCHEDULE

RCC House - D.No.17-282 - situated at Srikalahasti Town and Municipality 17th Ward - Panagal - Mittakandriga in Survey No.298/5 measurements East to West : 34 feet, North to South : 13 feet, total 442 Sq. Feet (all construction therein) bounded by East : Road, West : Muniraghavulu's site, North :

Property of D.Gnanamma, South : House of Plaintiff.

'B' SCHEDULE

Vacant site - adjacent to the suit 'A' schedule property - situated at Srikalahsti town and Municipality 17th ward, Panagal, Mittakandriga in Survey No.298/5 measurements East to West : 60 feet, North to South : 40 feet, Total 2400 sq.

Feet bounded by East : Road, West : Muniraghavulu's site, North : Property of

D.Gnanamma, South : Suit 'A' schedule property.

'C' SCHEDULE

Vacant site - adjacent to the suit 'A' schedule property - situated at Srikalahsti town and Municipality 17th ward, Panagal, Mittakandriga in Survey No.298/5 consist of bathroom measurements East to West : 8 feet, North to South : 13 feet, Total 104 sq. Feet bounded by East : Suit 'A' schedule property, West :

Muniraghavulu's site, North : Suit 'B' schedule property, South :

Muniragavulu's site.

CJ (Sr. Division), SKHT.

30

Decree in

OS No.150/2012

Dt:.17.04.2026

1

APCH180000612025

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], SRIKALAHASTHI.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Baby Rani,

Civil Judge [Senior Division],

Srikalahasthi.

Tuesday, this the Seventh [7th] day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 10 OF 2025

Between: Puli Ramachandra, S/o Subbarayulu, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Business, Residing at D.No.13/301, Bhaskarpeta, Srikalahasthi Town and Mandal, Tirupathi District .

...Petitioner

And: S.R.Sudhakar, S/o S.Radhakrishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Business, Residing at D.No.11/78, Near Municipal School, Bahadurpeta, Srikalahasthi Town and Mandal,

Tirupati District... Defendant

This suit was coming before me on 06.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Devi and Sri.K.Kumar, Advocates for Plaintiff; and Defendant remained exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

[01]This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of money a sum of

Rs.45,64,000/- being the Principal and interest due under 'A' promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- and 'B' promissory note for Rs.20,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of the realization and for costs.

2 [02]. Brief averments of plaint are that: The defendant is a Class-I contractor and doing contract works under Sri Vigneswara Constructions and for the said business necessities, he borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- on 06.03.2023 from the plaintiff and for the consideration received the defendant has executed the suit 'A' marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The

Plaintiff further submits that again the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.20,00,000/- on 17.08.2023 for the above said business necessities from the plaintiff and for the consideration received, the defendant has executed the suit 'B' marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of oral repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the suit 'A' and 'B' marked promissory notes and postponed the same on some pretext or the other. The defendant is doing business and not an agriculturist and hence he is not entitled to the benefits of AP Act 4 of 1938.

Hence prays to decree the suit.

[03]. After receipt of Summons, the defendant did not turn up and remained exparte.

[04]. To substantiate the contention of the Plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6.

[05]. Heard the plaintiff's counsel and perused the record.

[06]. The contention of the plaintiff is that the Defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.12,00,000/- on 06.03.2023 and Rs.20,00,000/- on 17.08.2023 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 and A2 and thereafter he did not turn up to pay the suit amount in spite of repeated demands and legal notice dated 01.03.2025 and the evidence of PW1 is supported by Ex.A1 to A6. Hence prays to decree the suit.

3 [07]. The Plaintiff who is examined as PW1 filed his cheif affidavit reiterating the contents of Plaint. Ex.A1 is 'A' marked promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- executed by defendant dated 06.03.2023. Ex.A2 is 'B' marked promissory note for Rs.20,00,000/- executed by defendant dated 17.08.2023. Ex.A3 is office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant and one Parthasaradhi

dated 01.03.2025. Ex.A4 is reply notice dated 06.03.2025. Ex.A5 is counter

reply notice dated 17.03.2025. Ex.A6 is registered reply notice dated 19.02.2025. The defendant did not turn up to contest his case and after receipt of legal notice Ex.A2 also, he gave reply notice and then he did not turn up. The evidence of PW1 is supported by Ex.A1 to A3 and established the contention of the plaintiff. The defendant did not turn up to prove his contention taken in the reply notice and remained exparte. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as Ex.A1 and A2 shows that the defendant borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 and A2 for Rs.12,00,000/- on 06.03.2023 and Rs.20,00,000/- on 17.08.2023.

[08]. In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.45,64,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on Rs.32,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court this 7 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:

PW.1 : P.Ramachandra

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants:

Nil 4

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:'A' marked promissory note for Rs..12,00,000/- executed by defendant

dated 06.03.2023.

Ex.A2:'B' marked promissory note for Rs..20,00,000/- executed by defendant

dated 17.08.2023.

Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice issued to the Defendant and one Parthasaradhi dated 01.03.2025.

Ex.A4:Reply notice dated 06.03.2025.

Ex.A5:Counter reply notice dated 17.03.2025.

Ex.A6: Registered reply notice dated 19.02.2025.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants:

NIL

CJ (Sr. Division), SKHT.

Fair Judgment in

OS No.10/2025

dated 07.04.2026.

5

APCH180000612025

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], SRIKALAHASTHI.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Baby Rani,

Civil Judge [Senior Division],

Srikalahasthi.

Tuesday, this the Seventh [7th] day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 10 OF 2025

Between: Puli Ramachandra, S/o Subbarayulu, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Business, Residing at D.No.13/301, Bhaskarpeta, Srikalahasthi Town and Mandal, Tirupathi District .

...Petitioner

And: S.R.Sudhakar, S/o S.Radhakrishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Business, Residing at D.No.11/78, Near Municipal School, Bahadurpeta, Srikalahasthi Town and Mandal,

Tirupati District... Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of amount a sum of Rs.45,64,000/- along with further interest at 24% p.a. on 'A' promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- and 'B' promissory note for Rs.20,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of the realization and for costs.

Plaint presented on 01.04.2025 and court fee of Rs.50,652/- was paid u/s 20 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit came before me on this day for final disposal in the presence of Smt.K.Devi and Sri.K.Kumar, Advocates for Plaintiff; and Defendant remained exparte; this Court Doth order and decree:- 6

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. That the Defendant do pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.45,64,000/- (Rupees forty five lakhs and sixty four thousand only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on principle amount of Rs.32,00,000/- [Rupees thrity two lakhs only] from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

3. That the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,19,964/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand nine hundred and sixty four only) being the institution costs of the Suit. (Costs memo not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Srikalahasti.

Particulars of costs

Description Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on Vakalath2-00

Stamp on Plaint50,652-00

Stamp on petition---

Advocate fees(Exparte) 69,310-00 Costs memo not filed

Process---

Typing charges---

Total : Rs.1,19,964-00

CJ (Sr. Division), SKHT.

1

APCH180000802020

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: SRIKALAHASTI

Present: Smt. B. Baby Rani,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Srikalahasti.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No. 10 of 2020

Between:

Obulapuram Paramasiva Reddy, S/o Manikya Reddy, Hindu, aged about 62 years, Cultivation, Residing at Pudi Village, Karur Post, Tada mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

… Plaintiff And:

1)B.Nagaraju Naidu, S/o Late K.V.Balarama Naidu, Hindu, aged about 57 years, Electrician, Residing at No.22/48(8), Second Floor, Opp. to Thamayathi Apartment, Near by Nungambakam Police Station, South Mada Street, Nungambakam, Chennai - 600034.

2)Obulapuram Chandramma, W/o Late Shanmugam Reddy, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Cultivation, Residing at Pudi Village, Karur Post, Tada mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

... Defendants

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff prays to (a) declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner having title over the suit schedule property (b) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, associates, legal heirs, relatives and transferees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property (c) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their legal heirs and transferees from alienating and encumbering the plaint schedule property to third parties and for costs.

2

This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of

Sri.E.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.S.Adinarayana, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and Sri.P.Murali Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.2, hence this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This Court received orders of Honourable District Judge, Chittoor in Tr.O.P.

No.201/2025 to withdraw this suit from this Court and to transfer the same to the file of Honourable XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti to try along with the suit in

OS No.79/2023 and directed this Court to transmit the entire record in OS

No.10/2020 to the Honourable XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti to try along with the suit in OS No.79/2003. Hence the suit is withdrawn from this Court and transmitted to the Honourable XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti after duly indexed along with all the petitions.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Srikalahasti.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Srikalahasti.

1

APCH180000062009

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], SRIKALAHASTHI

PRESENT: Smt. B.Baby Rani,

Civil Judge [Senior Division],

Srikalahasthi.

Friday, this the Seventeenth [17th ] day of April, 2026

OS No. 112 of 2010

Between:

S.Chenchu Krishna Reddy… Plaintiff

And:

1) The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary

2) The District Collector, Chittoor

3) The Land Acquisition Officer and RDO

4) The Mandal Revenue Officer

5) Mukunda Reddy… Defendants

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for D5 filed memo stating that SA 274/24 Judgment by the Honourable High Court of AP, dated 30.03.2026 wherein, this Court was directed to transmit the trial Court record forthwith to the Honourable XII Additional District

Court, Srikalahasti. Hence office is directed to submit the entire case record to the

Honourable XII Additional District Judges Court, Srikalahasti after duly indexed. I

also perused the copy of judgment in online. As per Second Appeal Judgment matter was remanded to the First Appellate Court to dispose of the same on merits.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

2

Civil Judge [Senior Division],

Srikalahasthi.

Appendix of evidence -Nil-

Civil Judge [Senior Division],

Srikalahasthi.