Sri B Gautham Prasad

Page 1 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRTICT JUDGE: AT SURYAPET.

(DATED, THIS, THE 13th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SRI B. GAUTAM PRASAD,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

O.S.No. 11 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1. Lakkaraju @ Dantala Pandurangaiah

2. Lakkaraju @ Dantala Ravi Prasad

3. Lakkaraju @ Dantala Srinivasulu

4. Vuppu Haritha

5. Lakkaraju Hemamber

6. Lakkaraju Sarojinamma

--PLAINTIFFS

A N D

1. Bathini Peda Yellaiah

2. Ananthula Gopamma( since deceased per LR’s defendants 14 to 16)

3. Ananthula Janaiah

4. Ananthula Rammurthy( since deceased per LR’s11 to 13)

5. Ananthula LIngamma

6. Ananthula Mounika

7. Shaik Lal Mohammad

8. Shaik Azeeza Begum

9. Ananthula Venkanna

10. Pandillapally Navatha (D9 and 10 are impleaded vide orders passed in I.A.No.921 of 2017 dated 5-1-2018)

11. Ananthula Jayamma

12. Ananthula Srinivas

13. Ananthula Shekar (Defendant No.11 to Defendant No.13 are legal heirs of deceased defendant No.4 and they are brought on record vide orders passed in I.A.No.750 of 2020 in

O.S.No.11 of 2013 dated:26-11-2020)

14. Gundagani Ramulamma

15. Palasa Laxmamma

16. Kanugu Padma (Defendant No.14 to Defendant No.16 are legal heirs of deceased Defendant No.2 and they are brought on record vide orders passed in I.A.No.1079 of 2021 in O.S.No.11 of 2013 dated:4-1-2022)

--DEFENDANTS

Page 2 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

This case is coming for consideration before me in the presence of Sri V.L.B.Kesari, Counsel for the plaintiffs, and of V.Venkateshwar Rao, Counsel for the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 , Sri B.Vijay Kumar, Counsel for the defendants 5, 7 & 8, whereas Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.4 died, D6, D9, Defendant No.11 to Defendant No.13, Defendant No.14 to Defendant No.16 set exparte and after upon perusing the material papers on record, evidence and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Plaintiffs filed this suit against defendants seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of suit property and to declare sale deed cum General

Power of Attorney dated:01-01-2010 (Ex. A70) as null and void and also to declare that registered sale deeds (Ex. A71 to Ex. A77) are also as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs etc.

Gist of Plaintiff’s case:

2. Plaintiff No.6 is wife, plaintiff No.2 to 5 are sons and daughter of plaintiff No.1. They are members of Hindu undivided joint family. Plaintiff No.1 to 5 are coparceners whereas plaintiff No.6 is joint family member. Land admg. Ac.1- 10gts is suit schedule property. Plaintiff No.1 is the kartha and manager of joint family.

a) Defendant No.1 earlier once threatened first plaintiff claiming rights basing on agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated:01-01-2010 executed by the

Defendant No.2 to 4 in his favour. On 5-4-2013 Defendant No.5, D7 and D8 sent copies of caveat petition to plaintiffs from the office of Sri. Banala Vijay Kumar, advocate, Suryapet, wherein they claimed that they purchased caveat schedule property from its lawful owners, but they did not furnish particulars of their claim in their affidavit. In the caveat petition, name of defendant No.6 was shown as a neighbouring land owner. Plaintiffs came to know through additional written statement filed by Defendant No.5, 7 and 8 that there is a sale deed in favor of D9

Page 3 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet and also sale deeds available in favor of Defendant No.10, basing on Encumbrance certificate 23-09-2017.

b) Plaintiffs are absolute owners and exclusive possessors of suit property, i.e., Ac.1-10 gts irrigated dry land in sy.No.315 of Bechirag Madharam revenue village of Suryapet municipality. But in the revenue records the name of plaintiff No.1 is being recorded as Pattedhar and possessor being head of the family. The defendants have no rights whatsoever over the suit land.

c) Total extent of sy.No.315 is Ac.5-28 gts as per entries made in

Khasara Pahani and pahanies for the years 1954-55 to 1957-1958. Out of the said extent Ac.00-13 gts is Potkharab land (uncultivable). So, remaining extent is Ac.5-15 gts. Name of the first plaintiff was recorded as Pattedhar, actual possessor and cultivator of entire extent of Ac.5-28 gts in Khasara pahani and said pahanies.

d) At the time of filing previous civil suit in O.S.No.3 of 2010 on the file of this court, the first plaintiff learnt that in the year 1959 a person, by name,

Gannavarapu Laxmamma filed a suit in O.S.No.340/1/1959 on the file of District

Munsiff court, Suryapet, claiming right and title over an extent of Ac.2-20 gts in suit sy.No.315 and Ac.3-00 gts in sy.No.239 totaling Ac.5-20 gts of the same village against 4 persons, by name, T.Rangaiah, T.Venkat Ramaiah, this plaintiff No.1,

L.Pandurangaiah and Sriramoju Satyanarayana, for perpetual injunction. Plaintiffs

No.2 to 6 were not made as parties. Except this plaintiff No.1, said 4 persons filed their written statement admitting the suit claim of said Laxmamma. Plaintiff No.1 was not set exparte in the said suit though he did not appear nor engaged counsel nor filed written statement. The said court did not pass any judgment and decree against first plaintiff. It granted only relief of injunction by judgment and decree dated 14-11- 1959. So, the said judgment is not binding on plaintiff No.1. Copies of plaint, written

Page 4 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet statement of above said defendants and also decree passed by the court were filed in the said O.S.No.3 of 2010.

e) Though said decree in O.S.No.340/1/1959 dated:14-11-1959 was passed in favour of said G. Laxmmamma in respect of Ac.2-20 gts of suit sy.No.315, on the field actually the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment. Said Laxmamma did not approach revenue officials for mutation of her name in revenue records in respect of said extent of Ac.2-20 gts in suit sy.No.315. On the other hand, the name of first plaintiff was continued right from 1954-1955.

f) Due to political pressures prevailing adverse to the plaintiff No.1 in the year 1969, he went underground to save his life without giving information to anyone including his family members. Taking advantage of it, one person, by name,

Ananthula Rama Narsaiah, who is predecessors’ predecessor of Defendant No.2 to 4 herein threatened to dispossess plaintiff No.2 and 3 (sons) and their deceased brother Ravi Prasad from an extent of Ac.2-15 gts in suit sy.No.315. Then, mother and sons of first plaintiff filed a suit against said Ram Narsaiah and this plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.238 of 1969 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Suryapet for injunction simplicitor. Later, said suit was compromised admitting the claim of plaintiff therein, i.e., Ram Narsaiah to an extent of Ac.1-10 gts out of said Ac.2-15 gts, bounded by

East: Komatikunta Donka, West: remaining extent of Ac.1-05 gts of first plaintiff (who was 2nd defendant in that suit) north: lands of Gali Ram Narsaiah and

Bixamaiah, south: land of Lakkaraju Sarojanamma in sy.No.317. So, plaintiff No.1 got Ac.4-18 gts of land including Potkharab extent of Ac.00-13 gts in suit sy.No.315.

g) Said Rama Narsaiah did not take steps to get his name mutated in revenue records in respect of said Ac.1-10 gts. For the first time in the year 1983- 1984, he approached Tahasildar, Suryapet for transfer of patta in his name by

Page 5 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet deleting name of first plaintiff, basing on said compromise decree in O.S.No.238 of 1969. Said Ram Narsaiah along with his sons, i.e., Defendant No.3 and 4 herein sold said Ac.1-10 gts to Y. Prabhakar Reddy of Ravi Pahad village on 04-01-1994.

So, there is no property to Rama Narsaiah or his sons/ Defendant No.3 and 4.

h) The said Prabhakar Reddy in turn, sold said extent to five persons to an extent of Ac.00-10gts each, i.e., Vishwanadham, Lalitha, K. Somaiah under registered sale deeds No.1155/1994, 1156/1994, 1303/1994 and 1304/1994. The name of plaintiff No.1 was shown as western boundary holder in the said sale deeds. Donka was shown as eastern side boundary of the said sale deeds. In the registered sale deed No.1156 of 1994, name of this first plaintiff was shown as southern boundary owner and name of K. Ram Reddy was shown as northern boundary owner. Thus, it is clear that lands sold by said Prabhakar Reddy to an extent of Ac.1-15 gts covered by said compromise decree is one and the same. Suit schedule property is the said remaining Ac.1-15 gts., covered by the said compromise decree in O.S.No.238 of 1969.

i) In the year 2010, Defendant No.1 herein threatened to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of first plaintiff over said suit schedule property, i.e.,

Ac.1-10. Therefore, first plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2010 on the file of this court for perpetual injunction. In his written statement this Defendant No.1 contended that father of his vendor Ananthula Rama Narsaiah got an extent of Ac.2- 20 gts and out of the said extent Ananthula Rama Narsaiah sold Ac.1-10 gts in the year 1994 and later-on his vendor and their father Ananthula Rama Narsaiah said to have been in possession over remaining extent of Ac.1-10 gts.

j) Defendant No.2 to 4 have no rights to execute agreement sale cum

GPA., dated:01-01-2010 and Defendant No.1 did not get any rights, ownership and

Page 6 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet possession over the said extent. The said document is a sham, null and void document and not binding on the plaintiffs.

k) As on the date of filing of O.S.No.3 of 2010 plaintiff No.1 is in actual possession and enjoyment. His name was recorded as pattedar, possessor to an extent of Ac.4-18gts. But the Hon’ble court in O.S.No.3 of 2010 opined that plaintiff

No.1 failed to prove his exclusive possession over the said suit schedule land and therefore, it dismissed said suit on 27-2-2012 on technical grounds. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred first appeal in A.S.No.665 of 2012 and obtained interim status quo orders in A.S.M.P.No.1862 of 2012. Later, the said A.S.M.P.No.1862 of 2012 was dismissed after hearing both sides. As on 8-2-2013 the said dismissal order of A.S.M.P.No.1862 of 2012, plaintiff No.1 was advised to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and possession. Therefore, after taking necessary permission from the Hon’ble High Court, the said first appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with a permission to file this fresh suit.

l) After passing decree in O.S.No.238 of 1969 the said Ananthula Rama

Narsaiah and Defendant No.3 and 4 jointly sold an extent of Ac.1-10gts to Yelma

Reddy Prabhakar Reddy under registered sale deed dated 5-1-1994. In the said sale deed name of plaintiff No.1 is shown as western side boundary landholder.

Therefore, it is false to allege that said Ananthula Rama Narsaiah and Defendant

No.3 and 4 got rights over an extent of Ac.2-20 gts as wrongly mentioned in the written statement filed by this Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.3 of 2010. The alleged transaction under registered sale deed bearing No.638 of 1969 was not acted upon and document remained as an empty paper. With a mala fide intention to grab land of this plaintiff No.1, Defendant No.2 to 4 had executed registered agreement of sale

Page 7 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet cum GPA dated:1-1-2010 in favor of Defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 to 4 without any valid legal right had illegally entered into contract to sell another bit of Ac.1-10 in sy.No.315 abutting to the lands sold to said Prabhakar Reddy.

m) Plaintiff No.1 came to know about the existence of registered agreement of sale- cum-GPA dated:1-1-2010 after going through the written statement dated:28-6-2010 filed in O.S.No.3 of 2010 by Defendant No.1 Defendant

No.2 to 4 claiming their rights and title from late Ananthula Rama Narsaiah basing on registered sale deed dated:10-9-1969. Later, they executed said registered agreement of sale cum GPA dated:1-1-2010 in favor of this Defendant No.1.

Therefore, plaintiff No.1 is claiming relief of declaration that the registered agreement of sale cum GPA. Dt:1-1-2010 executed by Defendant No.2 to 4 in favor of Defendant No.1 is non-est, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff No.1.

n) Plaintiff No.1 is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land along with other lands in suit sy.No.315. Earlier, plaintiff No.1 got erected stone pillars and got fitted with barbed wire fencing on three sides of suit schedule land.

He got cultivated it with the help of agricultural well situated in a part of his land by taking service connection from APCPDCL. He also obtained pattedar passbook and title deed in his name. His name is being recorded as pattedar and possessor of

Ac.4-05 gts which includes schedule land of Ac.1-10 gts. Therefore, the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to recover possession of suit land from defendants. Hence, this suit.

3. Defendant No.1 to defendant No.4 filed common written statement.

Defendant No.5 7 and 8 also filed their common written statement. Defendant No.10 filed separate written statement. Defendant No.1 to defendant No.4 and Defendant

No.5, 7 and 8 also filed additional written statements.

Page 8 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

4. Averments of written statement filed by Defendant No.1 to defendant No.4 in brief are as follows:

a) Plaintiffs are not the absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule land. They have not filed any document to show that they are owners and possessors of schedule land. Plaintiff No.1 changed his version after dismissing his earlier suit in O.S.No.3 of 2010 and filed this false suit by creating a new story. In fact, Defendant No.1 has right and possession over schedule property. The plaintiffs have no right over the same. Only with a view to knock away the schedule property this suit is filed. The copies of pahanis filed by plaintiffs are created in collusion with revenue authorities.

b) It is true that said G.Laxmamma filed suit in O.S.No.340/1/1959 against plaintiff No.1 and others in respect of Ac.2-20 gts in this suit sy.No.315.

Plaintiff No.1 and other defendants of the said suit filed admission written statement admitting claim of said Laxmamma over the said property. On the basis of the same, suit was decreed and passed judgment as per Order-12 Rule-16 C.P.C i.e., judgment as admission. The said judgment and decree is binding on the defendants in the said suit which includes plaintiff No.1 herein. Plaintiff No.1 now changed his version that he has no knowledge about passing of the said decree basing on admission written statement.

c) After passing said decree, said G.Laxmamma sold Ac.2-20gts to

Ananthula Rama Narsaiah through registered sale deed and delivered possession.

Said Ananthula Rama Narsaiah enjoyed the said land till date of his death. After his death Defendant No.2 to 4 came into possession. Due to lack of knowledge said

Rama Narsaiah has not taken steps to get his name entered in concerned records.

For the same plaintiffs cannot take advantage of it.

Page 9 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

d) In the year 1969 mother of plaintiff No.1, his sons and wife filed

O.S.No.238 of 1969 against plaintiff No.1 and said Ananthula Rama Narsaiah

contested it and filed I.A. vide I.A.No.279 of 1969 which was dismissed. Thereafter, he did not pursue the matter. It is false to allege that said Ananthula Rama Narsaiah filed compromise memo in the said suit and as per the terms of compromise a decree was passed. The said compromise decree is collusive one and it is not binding on the said Ananthula Rama Narsaiah and Defendant No.2 to 4. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any right over the schedule property. Plaintiff

No.1 did not raise any objection at any point of time over the title and possession of said Ananthula Rama Narsaiah in respect of Ac.2-20 gts.

e) The said Rama Narsaiah and his sons sold Ac.1-10 gts to said

Y.Prabhakar Reddy and remaining Ac.1-10 gts is in possession of these defendants, i.e., Defendant No.1 to 4 and name of said Rama Narsaiah was entered in the revenue records.

f) The registered sale deed cum GPA executed by these defendants

No.3 and 4 in favour of Defendant No.1 is valid and genuine document. Plaintiffs have no right to challenge the same. These defendants have no knowledge about boundaries mentioned in registered sale deeds executed by said Prabhakar Reddy to his purchasers. These defendants are not parties to those documents.

g) Plaintiffs have no right over the schedule property. A false story was invented to file this present suit. Defendant No.3 5, 7 and 8 and another person are in possession over the schedule property and they have erected stone pillars and also arranged barbed wire. They purchased their respective extents from their lawful owner.

Page 10 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

h) There is no cause of action to file this suit and the suit is also barred by limitation. This suit is also bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.

Court fee paid is also not sufficient. Plaintiffs are not entitled to pay court fee on the basis of notional value. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

5. Averments of written statement filed by Defendant No.5, 7 and 8

and the averments of these defendant mentioned in this written statement are

almost similar to the averments mentioned in the written statement filed by

Defendant No.1 to defendant No.4. Therefore, there is no need to reproduce the averments in this written statement. Likewise, written statement of Defendant No.10 is also nothing to reiteration of averments of the Defendant No.1 to defendant No.4.

6. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of their right, title and possession in respect of plaint schedule and as prayed for by them in their plaint?

2) Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S.NO.340/1/1959 on the file of

District Munsif Court, Suryapet, is not binding on the plaintiff No.1? And whether Gannarapu Laxmamma has got valid legal right to alienate an extent of Ac.2.20 gts of land in suit survey number to Ananthula Ramalaingaiah (Ramnarsaiah) under Registered sale deed No.638/1969, dt:10-09-1969 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet?

3) Whether the terms of compromise recorded in OS.NO.238/1969 on the file of

District Munsif Court, Suryapet are true, valid and binding on Ananthula

Ramalingaiah (Ramanarsaiah), the predecessor in title defendants 2 to 4? If so, what is its effect?

4) Whether the defendants 2 to 4 has got valid legal right to alienate an extent of

Ac.1.10 gts of land in suit survey number to Defendant No.1 under Registered

Page 11 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet agreement of sale cum GPA document No.9/2010 dt: 01-01-2010 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet and what is its effect?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and men from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over suit land? Or alternatively whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of recovery of possession of suit land?

6) Whether the Registered sale deed Nos.9975/2012, 9976/2012 and 9977/2012 all d: 16-10-2012 executed by Defendant No.1 respectively in favour of

Defendant No.5 , defendants 3 & 7 and defendants 7 & 8 all registered at

Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet are valid and binding on the plaintiffs?

7) Whether the suit of plaintiffs is barred by limitation?

8) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties?

9) Whether the payment of court fee by plaintiffs on items (ii) and (iii) of court fee para based on notional valuation made by them is not proper? And whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on such reliefs?

10) To what relief?

Additional issues dated 19-03-2018

1) Whether the registered sale deed dt: 16-10-2012 vide document

No.9978/2012 is liable to be cancelled as prayed for?

2) Whether the registered sale deed is vide Doc. Numbers 3776/1 and 3777/1

dated 25-03-2013 and 9979/12 dated 16-10-2012 are valid and binding on the

plaintiffs?

7. a) During trial on plaintiffs’ side four witnesses (PWs 1 to 4) are examined besides marking 77 documents through PW1 only i.e., Chesla Pahani pertaining to the year 1961 to 1966, 1969-1970 to 1975-1976, 1977 to 2011-12.

Page 12 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

PW1 is the plaintiff No.1. PWs 2 & 3 are said to be cultivators of plaintiff. Through

PW4/Tahsildar Exs.X1 to X48 documents are marked.

b) On defendants’ side six witnesses are examined and no documents are marked. Defendant No.3 is examined as DW1. Defendant No.1 is examined as

DW2.

8. Plaintiffs side filed memo of written arguments. Defendants No. 5, 7 & 8 filed memo of written arguments. Defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 filed memo adopting written arguments defendants No. 5, 7 & 8.

9. ISSUES No.2: Whether the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.NO.340/1/1959 on the file of District Munsif Court, Suryapet, is not binding on

the plaintiff No.1? And whether Gannarapu Laxmamma has got valid legal right to alienate an extent of Ac.2.20 gts of land in suit survey number to Ananthula Ramalaingaiah (Ramnarsaiah) under Registered sale deed No.638/1969, dt:10-09- 1969 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet?

a) The relationship between the plaintiffs is not in dispute. Plaintiffs No.1 and 6 are the husband and wife and out of their wedlock plaintiffs NO.2 to 5 were born to them. The present suit originally filed against Defendant No.1 to defendant

No.8 and thereafter Defendant No.9 and Defendant No.10 were impleaded as party defendants as per orders in IA.NO.921/2017 dt: 05.01.2018. Since defendant No.4 died Defendant No.11 to Defendant No.13 were brought on record as his legal heirs as per the orders in IA.NO.750/2020 dt:26.11.2020. Since Defendant No.2 died the

Defendant No.14 to defendant No.16 were brought on record as her legal heirs as per orders in I.ANO.1079/2022.

b) Admittedly, total extent in Sy.No.315 is Ac.5.18 gts and the same is supported by Khasra Pahani under Ex. A1 and also Chesala pahani for the year 1955-1956, 1956-1957. The name of the first plaintiff is reflected in the first column of pattadhar and enjoyer in respect of Ac.5.28 gts in Sy.NO.315. The plaintiffs

Page 13 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet pleaded that out of Ac.5.28 gts an extent of Ac.0.13 gts is declared as Potkharab and remaining extent of Ac.5.15 gts is only fit for cultivation. The name of the first plaintiff also continued in the subsequent pahanies 1960-1961 till 1971-1972 under

Ex. A6 to A11, A13 to A16, for the years 1980-1981, 1982-1983, 1983-1984 under

Ex. A24 to A26 reflecting in column of pattadar and enjoyer for the entire extent of

Ac.5.28 gts in Sy.No.315. In the subsequent pahanies for the year 1972-1973, 1973-1974 name of plaintiff was deleted and the name of Rajendra Prasad, Ravi

Prasad sons of first plaintiff and Seethamma mother of first plaintiff under Ex. A18 &

A19 and Exs.A20, A21 respectively are shown. Further the name of Ananthula

Rama Narsaiah was mutated for an extent of Ac.1.10 gts out of Ac.5.28 gts in

Sy.No.315 showing Ac.4.18 gts against the name of the first plaintiff only in the column of pattadar. The name of Ananthula Rama Narsaiah is not reflected in the column of pattadar in respect of Ac.1.10 gts of land for some time. Again, the name of the first plaintiff as well as Ananthula Rama Narsaiah are also mutated both in the column of pattadr and enjoyer for the years 1990-1991 till 1993-1994 under Exs.A33 to A36, that the first plaintiff is the owner and pattadar of Ac.3.18 gts whereas

Ananthula Rama Narsaiah was the owner of Ac.1.10 gts in Sy.NO.315/1.

c) It is admitted by both the plaintiffs as well as defendants No.1 to defendant No.4 that one Gannarapu Laxmamma filed a suit in OS.NO.340/1/1959 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Suryapet against one Telakapally Rangaiah,

Telakapally Venkata Ramaiah, Lakkaraju Pandu Rangaiah the first plaintiff herein and also one Sri Ramoju Sathyanarayana for declaration of title with perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.293 on Ac.2-20gts in Sy.No.315, to a total extent of Ac.5-20gts and both parties in the suit entered into a compromise and accordingly a compromise decree was passed on 14-11-1959 declaring Laxamma

Page 14 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet being plaintiff as owner of entire properties and restrained the defendants therein from interfering with the possession of Laxamma.

d) The first plaintiff has taken a plea in the plaint as well as in his evidence affidavit that he was impleaded as Defendant No.3 in OS.NO.340/1/1959 and that he did not appear before the court nor filed any written statement by engaging any advocate nor adopted the written statement filed by other defendants in that suit and the court did not pass any exparte order against him, as such that judgment is not binding on him. But as per Ex. A5 (decree) the said suit was decreed against all the defendants declaring Laxamma as the absolute owner of entire property i.e., Ac.5-20gts in both the Sy. Nos.315 and 293.

e) Admittedly, the first plaintiff did not challenge judgment and decree in the said O.S. 340/1/1959 and it became final. Moreover, it is not the case of first plaintiff that he never received any suit summons in the said suit and he has no knowledge about filling of that suit. Therefore, order passed by the court basing on the said consent written statement filed by the other Defendant No.1, Defendant

No.2 and Defendant No.4 is equally binding against first plaintiff herein as he was

Defendant No.3 in that suit. Admittedly, the name of the first plaintiff herein was arrayed as Defendant No.3 in O.S 340/1/1959. But the first plaintiff denied his knowledge about the suit, only admitted the consent decree passed by the court under Ex. A5. It means, the first plaintiff admitted the compromise decree in O.S.No.

340/1/1959. Further, there is no serious dispute raised by the first plaintiff either in the pleadings of the suit or in his evidence and admitted that Gannarapu Laxmamma obtained consent decree against defendants there in including him as a defendant

No.3. So, in the absence of any challenge by the first plaintiff herein as Defendant

No.3 in O.S.No.340/1/1959, the decree passed by the competent court against the

Page 15 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet first plaintiff herein is also no doubt totally binding on him. So, without any hesitation, it can be held that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.340/1/1959 is equally binding on first plaintiff herein being 3rd defendant in OS.NO.340/1/1959.

f) The plaintiffs relied on Ex. A45 (registered sale deed dt: 10.09.1969) where under Gannarapu Laxmamma sold Ac.2-20gts out of the property involved in

OS.NO.340/1/1959 to Ananthula Rama Narsaiah (husband of Defendant No.2,

father of Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4). The plaintiffs did not deny Ex. A45.

Further, the plaintiffs are claiming schedule property i.e., Ac.1-10gts out of said Ac.

2-20gts acquired by the Ananthula Rama Narsaiah under Ex. A45. This can be elaborately discussed and decided under issue No.3. Later, as there is no dispute about the sale deed under Ex. A45 and coming back to this issue under consideration, the plaintiffs are claiming only half of the extent by admitting the sale deed between Gannarapu Laxamma and Ananthula Rama Narsaiah, the said sale deed is valid and binding on the plaintiffs. By considering both documentary and oral evidence and in view of the above discussion, issue No.2 can be answered against the plaintiffs.

10. ISSUE NO.3: Whether the terms of compromise recorded in

OS.NO.238/1969 on the file of District Munsif Court, Suryapet are true, valid and

binding on Ananthula Ramalingaiah (Ramanarsaiah), the predecessor in title defendants 2 to 4? If so, what is its effect?

a) The plaintiffs strongly placed reliance on Ex.A12/ CC of compromise decree along with docket order dt: 27.02.1971. But, Ex. A12 is not clearly visible.

Therefore, by using a magnifying lens it is gathered from the contents therein that plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein and their brother late Prasad and Seethamma mother of first

Page 16 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet plaintiff herein, as plaintiffs, they filed a suit in O.S.238 /1969 on the file of District

Munsif court Suryapet against Ananthula Rama Narsaiah and Danthala Pandu

Rangaiah, who is no other than the first plaintiff herein, for the relief of possession and perpetual injunction to an extent of Ac.2-15gts in Sy.No. 315. A compromise petition was filed before the court under order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C wherein the

Defendant No.1 Ananthula Rama Narsaiah is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land to an extent of Ac.1-10gts on the Eastern side adjacent to the western side of Komati Kunta donka. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Defendant No.2

Pandu Rangaiah (1st plaintiff) has no right, title or interest of any sort on the said Ac.

1-10gts wet land which is in possession of Ananthula Rama Narsaiah. Ananthula

Rama Narsaiah admitted that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 are the owners and possessors of the remaining area of Ac.1-05 gts of the land on the western side.

Ananthula Rama Narsaiah or his legal heirs shall not have any right, title or interest of any sort on this land of Ac.1.05 gts. In future if Ananthula Rama Narsaiah the

Defendant No.1 or his legal heirs intended to sell the suit land of Ac.1.10 gts which is in his possession he shall sell the land only to plaintiffs No.1 to 3 at the rate of

Rs.2,800/- per acre but not to sell to anyone else in preference to them.

b) It is evident from these recitals of Ex. A12, that it is only an understanding to file a compromise petition before the court as per their will and wish. So, there is no evidence to show that the court passed judgment and decree in terms of the above compromise.

c) The total extent involved in O.S. 238 of 1969 is Ac.2-15gts and it was conveniently divided between them. The first plaintiff as Pw1 admitted that entire property in Sy.No.315 is Ac.5-18gts according to him the same is his ancestral property. But, no record is placed before the court to prove the same. The only

Page 17 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet source for the claim of plaintiffs is that they got Ac.1-05gts in a compromise decree in O.S. No.238/1969. None of the present defendants including Defendant No.1 were a party to O.S.No.238/1969. Only Ananthula Rama Narsaiah husband of second defendant and father of defendants 3 and 4, was a party. Another thing is that in O.S.No. 238/1969 they entered into compromise. But it is only an understanding between them in respect of the possession only but not accepting the title of each other. Therefore, it cannot be said that the title of the plaintiffs in respect of Ac.1-05gts transferred to them.

e) Similarly, an extent of Ac.1-10gts conferred on Ananthula Rama

Narsaiah in O.S.No.238/1969 is a valid title and possession transferred to him. On the other hand, the plaintiffs themselves filed the sale deed with document No.

638/1969 dated 10-09-1969, where under Gannarapu Laxamma sold Ac.2-20gts in favor of Ananthula Rama Lingaiah. The first plaintiff being party to O.S.No.

340/1/1959 knows that the title of Gannarapu Laxamma settled in her favour including the possession over Ac. 2-20gts in Sy.No 315 and also another extent

Ac.3-00 in Sy.No.293. Once an order passed by a civil court it became a decree executable in nature, till it is set aside or modified. The first plaintiff being party to that suit simply kept quiet by taking a plea that only before filling the suit in O.S.No. 3 of 2010 he came to know about the suit proceedings in O.S.No. 340/1/1959 is not acceptable.

f) As per Ex. A5, A12 compromise memo filed, wherein there are thumb impressions of Ananthula Rama Narsaiah and Danthala Pandurangaiah, the first plaintiff herein as Defendant No.2. Admittedly first plaintiff is a signatory which is borne by plaint and other documents including evidence affidavit of first plaintiff as

PW1. On the other hand, it is manifest on the face of Ex. A12, Danthala Pandu

Page 18 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Rangaiah was a marks man but not a signatory. The defendant 1 to 4 filed a written statement and Defendant No.3 examined as DW1 that the surname of Lakkaraju and Danthala are not the one and the same and both are different surnames. The plaintiffs not explained any reasons nor produced any evidence in that regard. On the other hand, Defendant No.3 as DW1 fairly admitted that there is a street by name Danthala street in Suryapet and the plaintiffs also called as Danthala with their surname. Therefore, it is not a serious dispute whether the plaintiffs are called as

Lakkaraju with their surname and in alternative as Danthala. The names of the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 238/1969 arrayed with surname of Danthala and name of first plaintiff also arrayed as Danthala Pandu Rangaiah.

g) It is already discussed and explained that there is no record produced by the plaintiffs to show that decree was passed on the basis of compromise.

Further, there is a crucial question that arise for consideration when the plaintiffs and

Pandurangaiah in O.S.No. 238/1969 belongs to one family and the suit is only for injunction or possession, there is no explanation offered that why the first plaintiff herein included as second defendant in O.S.No.238/1969.

h) The suit in O.S.No. 238/1969 is for partition, separate possession only, in such circumstances the other family members shall also be included as defendants. Since the first plaintiff not available on account of political activities and also went underground is not at all a ground to array him as second defendant in

O.S.No.238/1969. The only document under which the plaintiffs are claiming the

suit schedule property that Ananthula Rama Narsaiah agreed to allot Ac. 1-10gts out of Ac.2-20gts purchased and he became owner of Ac. 2-20gts under Ex.A45 sale deed, and there is no need to deliver Ac.1-10gts, in favour of the plaintiffs.

Admittedly it is referred in Ex. A12 that Ac.1-05gts given to plaintiff in that suit by

Page 19 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet mistake instead of Ac. 1-10gts as it is typed as Ac.1-05gts and it is only typographical mistake. Whether it is Ac.1-10gts or Ac. 1-05gts is not at all material issue and the issue is that why the plaintiffs filed that suit and no plaint copy is filed to know the grounds for filling the said suit in O.S.No.238/1969 and why the first plaintiff herein shown as second defendant. There is no explanation from the plaintiffs. The competent court already given separate finding after detailed discussion about the decree in O.S.No.238/1969 and there are no reasons to give a separate finding in respect of O.S.No. 238/1969. Even if, Ex. A12 is taken into consideration as a compromise decree, the plaintiffs not taken steps to mutate their names in the revenue records that they got Ac. 1-10gts out of Ac. 2-20gts in a compromise with Ananthula Rama Narsaiah. However, the name of Ananthula

Rama Narsaiah reflected in the pahanies both in the column of pattedar and enjoyer in respect of Ac. 1-10gts in Sy.No.315 besides the name of the first plaintiff. The law is well settled that entries in the revenue record, does not confer any title. So, the plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs, that they got Ac.1-10gts, schedule property herein in a compromise with Ananthula Rama Narsaiah in O.S.No. 238/1969.

i) After, considering the both documentary and oral evidence it is not possible to accept that there is a compromise recorded by the competent court in

O.S.No. 238/1969 where in Ananthula Rama Narsaiah voluntarily gave Ac.1-10gts to

plaintiffs 2, 3 and Prasad another son of first plaintiff herein and Seethamma mother of the first plaintiff. As such, the compromise under Ex. A12 in O.S.No. 238/1969 is not binding on Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 herein being the wife and two sons of Ananthula Rama Narsaiah. This issue is answered accordingly.

11. ISSUE NO.4: Whether the defendants 2 to 4 have got valid legal right to alienate an extent of Ac.1.10 gts of land in suit survey number to Defendant No.1

Page 20 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet under Registered agreement of sale cum GPA document No.9/2010 dt: 01-01-2010 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet and what is its effect?

a) It is the common case of defendants No.1 to defendant No.4 that

Ananthula Rama Narsaiah, Defendant No.3, Defendant No.4 herein sold Ac.1-10gts to Y. Prabhakar Reddy under Ex. A37 sale deed. As such Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 succeeded remaining Ac.1-10gts, after death of Ananthula Rama

Narsaiah. They being the owners of Ac.1-10gts executed Ex.A70 registered agreement of sale cum GPA vide document No. 9/2010 dated 1-1-2010 authorizing the Defendant No.1 to deal with the property on receipt of sale consideration. The first plaintiff herein created a cause of action in O.S.No.3 of 2010 that the Defendant

No.1 herein trying to interfere with his possession then only came to know about Ex.

A70. As such he was forced to file O.S.No.3 of 2010 on 4-1-2010. The said suit was dismissed after contest and the first plaintiff preferred an appeal before the

Hon’ble High Court in A.S.No.665/2012 and filed an application in

AS.MP.NO.1862/2012. Initially the Hon’ble high court granted status-quo but finally dismissed the miscellaneous petition. Thereafter, the first plaintiff has withdrawn the appeal in A.S.No.665/2012 taking permission to file a fresh suit. Then, first plaintiff filed the present comprehensive suit.

b) Since plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.4 are claiming the same suit property, it is necessary to verify the boundaries shown in Ex.A45 sale deed, Ex. A37 sale deed and boundaries in O.S.No. 3 of 2010. The documents under Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 do not disclose the boundaries of land in Sy.No. 315 to an extent of Ac. 2-20gts. On the other hand, there are clear boundaries referred in

Ex.A45 sale deed for the total extent Ac. 2-20gts i.e.,

Page 21 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

East: cart track leading to Komati Kunta village,

West and South: the land of Lakkaraju Pandurangaiah

North: the land of Gali Ramanarsaiah.

Turning to the boundaries referred in Ex.A37 to an extent of Ac.1-10gts sold to Y.Prabhakar Reddy, it shows that on the East path way, on the west: Lakkaraju

Pandurangaiah, South: Lakkaraju Pandurangaiah, North: Kotam Ram Reddy etc are boundary owners.. The land of first plaintiff is shown on the west and south, both in Ex.A45 sale deed and also Ex.A37 sale deeds.

c) So, it is clear that Ananthula Rama Narsaiah and his sons sold Ac. 1- 10gts to Y. Prabhakar Reddy under Ex.A37 from west to east out of Ac.2-20gts and the remaining extent i.e. Ac. 1-10gts (suit land) is located down North of total extent of Ac.2-20gts. Even the boundaries referred by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 3 of 2010 are that

North land of plaintiff

South land of Lakkaraju Sarojanamma who is no other than the wife first plaintiff herein and the 6th plaintiff herein,

East land of Prabhakar Reddy,

West agricultural land in Sy.No. 315 and land of plaintiffs.

d) On the other hand, the plaintiffs totally changed boundaries in the present suit and shown as under:

East field channel and further East land of Ananthula Rama Narsaiah.

Thereafter land of Y.Prabhakar Reddy now the land of others Vishwanadham,

Lalitha, K.Somaiah

West the other land of plaintiffs in Sy.No.315,

Page 22 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

North the land of Gali Narsaiah and Bikshamaiah and present land of K.Ram

Reddy and thereafter land of plaintiff No.6 in Sy.No. 317.

South the land of others.

e) Whether the schedule property in O.S.No. 3 of 2010 and present schedule property is one and the same or whether there are any changes in boundaries on account of selling of the property to the purchasers. There is no such explanation from the plaintiffs except the admitted fact that Y. Prabhakar Reddy sold his purchased land to several persons in the year 1994 itself and there are other sales in the year 2012. It is borne by the revenue record that the name of the first plaintiff is reflected as pattadar and enjoyer of Ac.5-28gts initially and subsequently the extent was reduced to Ac. 4-18gts, and later to Ac. 4-05gts. The name of

Ananthula Rama Narsaiah is also reflected to the effect that he was pattadar and enjoyer of 1-10gts.

f) Already this court had answered issue No.3 against the plaintiffs opining that alleged compromise recorded in O.S.No.238/1969 is not binding on

Ananthula Rama Narsaiah and Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4. After death of

Ramanarsaiah, defendants 2 to 4 being the wife and 2 sons sold and executed Ex.

A70 registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney on receipt of sale consideration from the Defendant No.1 who is authorized to deal with the property on behalf the defendant 2 to 4 being their agent and later he sold property to

Defendant No.5, defendant No.7 and defendant No.8.

g) It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are having only Ac.1-10gts after giving Ac.1-10gts to Ananthula Rama Narsaiah. Even after selling Ac. 2-20gts to Ramanarsaiah by said Laxamma, the plaintiffs are having nearly Ac.3-00gt in the same Sy.No. 315, but there is no explanation that as to what happened to the other

Page 23 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet extent of land, after excluding Ac. 2-20gts out of Ac. 4-05gts. It is for the plaintiffs to explain whether they are in possession of the remaining land after excluding Ac.2- 20gts in favour of Ananthula Ramanarsaiah. Once there is a suspension or cloud on the genuineness of alleged compromise in OS.NO.238/1969 (Ex.A12) and the plaintiffs not offered any explanation about the existence of remaining extent of land out Ac.4-05gts as a last extent remains as per the pahanies. On the other hand,

Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.4 being legal heirs of Ananthula Rama Narsaiah retained Ac.1-10gts after selling similar extent to Prabhakar Reddy executed Ex.A70 agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of Defendant No.1 authorizing him to deal with property., Thus Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 are having a legal right to alienate remaining extent of Ac.1-10gts schedule property in the present suit and also the same schedule property in O.S.No.3 of 2010. Thus the issue is answered in favour of Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.4 and against the plaintiffs.

12. ISSUE NO.6 and Additional Issues No.1 & 2: Whether the Registered sale deed Nos.9975/2012, 9976/2012 and 9977/2012 all d: 16-10-2012 executed by Defendant No.1 respectively in favour of Defendant No.5, defendants 3 & 7 and defendants 7 & 8 all registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet are valid and binding on the plaintiffs? Whether the registered sale deed dt: 16-10-2012 vide document No.9978/2012 is liable to be cancelled as prayed for? And Whether the registered sale deed is vide Doc. Numbers 3776/1 and 3777/1 dated 25-03-2013 and 9979/12 dated 16-10-2012 are valid and binding on the plaintiffs?

a) Admittedly said Prabhakar Reddy, who purchased Ac.1.10 gts under

Ex.A37 sold Ac.0-10gts to one Mothukuri Vishwanadham under Ex.A38 and also sold Ac.0-10gts to one Pandurangaiah and Somaiah under Ex.A40 sale deed, and on the same date Prabhakar Reddy also sold Ac.0-10gts each to K. Sunitha, Pandu

Reddy Ex.A41, Ex.A42 respectively. The defendant No.1 being the GPA of defendants 2 to 4 sold Ac.1.10 gts, in Sy.No. 315 to defendant No.9 under Ex.A75.

Further Defendant No.1 also executed Ex.A71 sale deed, in favour of Ananthula

Page 24 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Janaiah/ Defendant No.3 and sale deed under Ex.A72 in favour of defendant No.7 and another sale deed under Ex.A73 in favour of Defendant No.5 and another sale deed/ Ex.A74 in favour of defendant No.6 and finally executed sale deeds/Ex.A76 and Ex.A72 in favour of Defendant No.10 for different extents out of the property covered by Ex.A70 Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney.

b) As Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 authorized Defendant No.1 to sell the property being agreement of sale cum GPA and accordingly, he sold the property to Defendant No.5 to Defendant No.10 with different extents and now they are in possession of property being the purchasers and became the title holders of their purchased plots. As such plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration as prayed.

Accordingly, these issues are answered against the plaintiffs.

13. ISSUE NO.7: Whether the suit of plaintiffs is barred by limitation?

a) The said earlier suit in O.S.No. 3 of 2010 was filed on 4-03-2010 against the defendants therein, and Defendant No.1 herein alleging that he was encroaching into the suit property of 1st plaintiff and ultimately the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dt:27-07-2012 and then plaintiff No.1 filed appeal before the Hon’ble High Court on 21-08-2012 and the Hon’ble High court granted permission to withdraw the appeal on 3-04-2013 with a permission to file fresh suit. After one month the present suit is filed on 8-04-2013. According to the defendants, Defendant No.1 filed written statement in O.S.No. 3 of 2010 denying title over the property, as such the plaintiff has to file the suit within 3 years from the date of filling in O.S.No. 3 of 2010.

b) No doubt, in O.S.No.3 of 2010 Defendant No.1 herein filed written statement on 27-07-2012 disputing the title of the first plaintiff and even then the

Page 25 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet plaintiff continued the suit till its disposal on 27-07-2012 and immediately filed an appeal and withdrawn the appeal on 4-03-2013. But the law is well settled that the period pertaining to pending proceeding before the courts can be excluded under

Article 12 of Limitation Act 1963. The plaintiffs have taken the help of Articles 58, 64, 65 of limitation Act that the suit is within limitation.

c) The Hon’ble High court finally disposed of appeal on 3-04-2013 permitting to withdraw the appeal and the period of legal proceedings from 4-03- 2010 till 3-04-2013 also can be excluded under Article 14 Limitation Act 1963 and the present suit is filed on 8-04-2013 i.e. within 5 days from 3-04-2013. Under

Article 58 of Limitation Act 1963 to obtain any other declaration, the period of limitation is 3 years when the right to sue first accrues. Thus the issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs.

14. ISSUE NO.8: Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties?

a) The issue is framed only on the simple objection raised by the defendants No.1 to defendant No.4 that the suit property is ancestral property came from the ancestors of the first plaintiff as such all family members being share holders are necessary parties. The first plaintiff as PW1 admitted that he was having two sisters who died and they are necessary parties, as such the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

b) The first plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he along with other plaintiffs inherited the schedule property from their ancestors and it is joint family property and the schedule property originally belongs to his paternal grandfather by name Krishnaiah and his father is the only son to his grandfather. According to him

Page 26 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet his two sisters, who are no more are survived by legal heirs and the legal heirs were not made as parties.

c) When the suit schedule property is ancestral property and during the life time of first plaintiff, the 6th plaintiff being his wife not entitled to any right over the property, and 6th plaintiff is not at all a coparcener. The plea taken by the defendants that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties as two sisters of first plaintiff is not included in the present suit is not at all sustainable, since the suit is for declaration any one of the family members can protect the rights of others by filling the suit on behalf of other family members. So, this issue is answered accordingly.

16. ISSUE NO.9: Whether the payment of court fee by plaintiffs on items

(ii) and (iii) of court fee para based on notional valuation made by them is not proper? And whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on such reliefs?

a) The plaintiffs notionally valued the relief of declaration to declare the

Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney under section 24(D) of Andhra

Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and also notionally valued for declaration of each sale deed as null and vide at the rate of 10,000/- under section 24(D) of the

Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and paid the court fee accordingly, for each document. Since none of the plaintiffs are parties to the

Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney or any other sale deeds it is permissible under law to seek the relief of declaration to declare the documents as null and vide. The plaintiffs seekis the relief of declaration to declare the documents as null and vide and notionally valued each document at the rate of 10,000/- and paid court fee of Rs.786/- for each document even after amendment of the plaint and after adding the relief and also paid deficit court fee. So, it is clear that the

Page 27 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet defendants formally taken a plea without any material and basis to show that the court fee paid is not sufficient. The plaintiffs paid the court fee correctly without any deviation. Even otherwise it is for the court to direct the parties to pay deficit court fee at any time before pronouncing the judgment and even after disposal of the suit, if necessary. Accordingly this issue is answered.

17. ISSUES NO.1 & 5: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of their right, title and possession in respect of plaint schedule and as prayed for by them in their plaint? And Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and men from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over suit land? Or alternatively whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of recovery of possession of suit land?

a) Originally Laxmi Narsamma sold Ac.2.20 gts to Ananthula

Ramanarsaiah H/o Defendant No.2 and father of Defendant No.3 and Defendant

No.4 out of the property got by Laxmamma in a decree in OS.NO.340/1/1959 DT:

14.11.1959. The plaintiffs filed this comprehensive suit for declaration to declare their right of title and recovery of possession as the Hon’ble High Court given liberty to first plaintiff in A.S. No. 665 of 2012 to file a fresh suit after dismissing the appeal.

The Learned Second Additional District Judge at Suryapet dismissed the suit in

OS.NO.3/2010 on merits. It opined that the plaintiff in that suit who is first plaintiff

herein failed to prove his exclusive possession over the property and not accepted

Ex.A12 compromise decree and the said compromise decree is not binding on

Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 being wife and two sons of Ananthula

Ramanarsaiah and on the other hand, accepted the contention of defendants in

O.S.No.3 of 2010 that Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 herein executed Ex.A70

which was marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No. 3 of 2010. The first plaintiff herein who is

Page 28 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet sole plaintiff in OS.NO.3 of 2010 gave boundaries in said suit but changed the boundaries in present suit though claiming the same property and did not take any steps to amend the plaint to include the relief of declaration to declare him as owner of the schedule property. He continued the said suit for the same relief of perpetual injunction and after dismissal of suit only requested the Hon’ble High Court at appellate stage to permit him to file a fresh suit for other reliefs with a pleading that he was not in possession of property. Surprisingly, there are no averments or pleadings in the plaint that how he was dispossessed from the Schedule property.

b) After dismissal of the suit in O.S.No. 3 of 2010, he along with other family members filed the present suit, but, there is no explanation as to why the plaintiff No.6 who is wife of the first plaintiff is joined as a party plaintiff in this suit. In fact she has no right over the property, during the life time of first plaintiff who is claiming property from his grandfather Krishnaiah. As per the revenue records the plaintiff No.1 was pattadar and enjoyer of Ac.5-28 gts which was reduced to Ac.4.18 gts again reduced to Ac.4.5 gts. Admittedly it is not the case of the first plaintiff that it is his self-acquired property. Even if it is self-acquired property or ancestral property and during his life time, plaintiff No. 6 is not a necessary party. Even if it is an ancestral property, sons and daughter of the first plaintiff only necessary parties to protect the property. On the other hand, the first plaintiff being the kartha of the family he can maintain the suit personally on his behalf and on behalf of other family members and there is no need to include his children, wife and other plaintiffs in the suit.

c) Since the suit is for declaration, the burden is on the plaintiffs to plead and prove that they are the owners and title holders of the suit schedule property.

But there is no evidence to show that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of

Page 29 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Ac.4-05gts standing in the name of first plaintiff as per the pahanies as well as

Ex.A67 pattadar pass book.

d) The evidence on record produced in the shape of pahanies marked through PW1 and for more clarification the plaintiff’s summoned Tahsildar, Suryapet and he was examined as PW4 who produced original document of Chessale pahani (Ex.A1) and pahanies for the years 1961-1962, 2011-2012 marked as Ex.X3 and 54r X48 and those pahanies are already marked through PW1 and the marking of those original documents as in X series is only to confirm that the certified copies of pahanies filed through PW1 were obtained from the original documents produced by

PW4/Tahsildar. So, there is no need to again discuss and give separate findings against Exs.X1 to X48 which are the documents already marked.

e) Further, already a detailed finding has been given under issues No.3 and 4 that Ananthula Rama Narsaiah purchased Ac.2-20gts from Gannarapu

Laxamma and in turn Ananthula Rama Narsaiah, Defendant No.3 , Defendant No.4 sold Ac.1-10gts to Yalmareddy Prabhakar Reddy under Ex.A37, retaining Ac.1-10gts out of Ac.2-20gts and Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 being the owners after death of Ananthula Rama Narsaiah executed Ex.A70 being the owners of Ac.1- 10gts the Schedule property herein executed agreement of sale cum GPA authorizing Defendant No.1 to deal with the property. as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of declaration to declare their right over the property.

f) The dispute in respect of property in Sy.No.315 to an extent of Ac.2- 20gts started in the year 1959 when Laxmi Narsamma sold Ac.2.20 gts to Ananthula

Ramanarsaiah H/o Defendant No.2 and father of Defendant No.3 and Defendant

No.4 out of the property got by Laxmamma in a decree in O.S.NO.340/1/1959 dt:

Page 30 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet 14.11.1959 before the competent court and again the same subject matter was reached the same court and thereafter, first plaintiff again agitated the same rights in

O.S.No. 3 of 2010 and the present suit is the 5th round of litigation in respect of the

same property besides the appeal filed in A.S. 665/2012. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they are in possession of remaining extent of Ac.4.5 gts after excluding

Ac.2.20 gts sold to Ramanarsaiah and there is no explanation from the plaintiffs against the existence of remaining extent of Ac.4.05 gts, as such the Defendant

No.2 to Defendant No.4 being the legal heirs of Ramanarsaiah got a right to alienate

Ac.1.10 gts. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the relief of declaration to declare the right, title and possession over the property and the issue is answered against the plaintiffs.

18. ISSUE NO.10: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to dictation by steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW1: Lakkaraju alias Danthala Pandu Rangaiah (Plaintiff No.1) PW2: Nimmala Venkanna PW3: Donepudi Venkateshwara Rao PW4: M.Sudarshan Reddy, Tahasildar Suryapet

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

DW1: Ananthula Janaiah (Defendant No.3 ) DW2: Bathini Pedda Yellaiah (Defendant No.1 ) DW3: P.Ramchandar Rao DW4: Md.Khaja Pasha

Page 31 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

DW5: R.Satish Kumar DW6: Pandillapalli Purnachander Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1 Copy of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-1955 of B.Madharam revenue village.

Ex.A-2 CC of Sesala Pahani for the years 1955-1956 to 1957-1958 of

B.Madharam revenue village

Ex.A-3 CC of plaint in O.S.No.340/1/1959 on the file of Hon’ble District Munsif

Court Suryapet.

Ex.A-4 CC of written statement filed by defendants 1,2 and 4 in

O.S.No.340/1/1959 on the file of Hon’ble District Munsif Court Suryapet

Ex.A-5 Copy of decree passed in O.S.No.340/1/1959 on the file of Hon’ble

District Munsif Court Suryapet

Ex.A-6 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1960-1961 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-7 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1961-1962 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-8 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1962-1963 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-9 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1963-1964 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-10 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1964-1965 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-11 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1964-1965 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-12 CC of terms of compromise and decree along with docket order

dated:27.01.1971 in O.S.No.238 of 1969 on the file of District Munsif Court

Ex.A-13 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1969-1970 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-14 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1970-1971 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-15 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1971-1972 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-16 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1972-1973 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-17 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1973-1974 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-18 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1974-1975 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-19 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1975-1976 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-20 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1977-1978 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-21 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1978-1979 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-22 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1979-1980 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-23 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1980-1981 of B.Madharam village

Page 32 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Ex.A-24 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1982-1983 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-25 CC of Faisal patti for the year 1983-1984 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-26 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1983-1984 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-27 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1984-1985 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-28 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1985-1986 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-29 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1986-1987 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-30 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1987-1988 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-31 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1988-1989 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-32 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1989-1990 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-33 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1990-1991 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-34 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1991-1992 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-35 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1992-1993 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-36 CC of pahani patrika for the year 1993-1994 of B.Madharam village

Ex.A-37 CC of Regd.Sale Deed No.94/1994, dated:04-01-1994 executed by

A.Ramanarsaiah and this defendants 2 to 4 in favour of Y.Prabhakar

Reddy

Ex.A-38 CC of Regd.Sale Deed No.1155/1994, dated:23-06-1994 executed by

Y.Prabhakar Reddy in favour of M.Vishwanatham

Ex.A-39 CC of Regd.Sale Deed Nos.1156/1994, dated:23-06-1994 executed by

Y.Prabhakar Reddy in favour of M.Lalitha

Ex.A-40 CC of Regd.Sale Deed Nos.1303/1994, dated:19-07-1994 executed by

Y.Prabhakar Reddy in favour of K.Somaiah

Ex.A-41 CC of Regd.Sale Deed Nos.1304/1994, dated:19-07-1994 executed by

Y.Prabhakar Reddy in favour of K.Somaiah

Ex.A-42 CC of Regd.Sale Deed Nos.1305/1994, dated:19-07-1994 executed by

Y.Prabhakar Reddy in favour of K.Panduranga Chary

Ex.A-43 Copy of plaint in O.S.No.3 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge

Court, Nalgonda at Suryapet

Ex.A-44 Copy of written statement in O.S.No.3 of 2010 filed by the defendant on the file of II Additional District Judge Court, Nalgonda at Suryapet

Ex.A-45 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.638/1969, dated:10-09-1969

Ex.A-46 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 1994-1995

Ex.A-47 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 1995-1996

Page 33 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Ex.A-48 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 1996-1997

Ex.A-49 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 1997-1998

Ex.A-50 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 1998-1999

Ex.A-51 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 1999-2000

Ex.A-52 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2000-2001

Ex.A-53 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2001-2002

Ex.A-54 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2002-2003

Ex.A-55 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2003-2004

Ex.A-56 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2004-2005

Ex.A-57 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2005-2006

Ex.A-58 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2006-2007

Ex.A-59 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2007-2008

Ex.A-60 Certified copy of Pahani patrika of B.Madharam for the year 2008-2009

Ex.A-61 Copy of Judgment and decree in O.S.No.3 of 2010 on the file of II

Additional District Judge Nalgonda at Suryapet

Ex.A-62 Certified copy of order of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in

A.S,M.P.No.1862/2012 in A.S.No.665/2012, dt: 08-02-2013

Ex.A-63 Certified copy of order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in A.S.No.665/2012 and A.S.M.P.No.900/2013, dt:03-04-2013

Ex.A-64 Certified copy of pahani patrika of B.Madharam village for the year 2009- 2010

Ex.A-65 Certified copy of pahani patrika of B.Madharam village for the year 2010- 2011

Ex.A-66 Certified copy of pahani patrika of B.Madharam village for the year 1422 F

Ex.A-67 Original Pattadar Pass Book and Title deed books issued in favour of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A-68 Feasibility Certificate in original issued by AE,Suryapet town-1

Ex.A-69 Valuation Certificate in original issued by Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet.

Ex.A-70 CC of Regd. Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA deed No.9/2010, dated 01-01- 2010

Ex.A-71 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.9975/2012, dated:16-10-2012 executed by Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.3 and defendant No.7

Page 34 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Ex.A-72 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.9976/2012, dated:16-10-2012 executed by Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.7 and defendant No.8

Ex.A-73 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.9977/2012, dated:16-10-2012 executed by Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.5

Ex.A-74 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.9978/2012, dated:16-10-2012 executed by Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.6

Ex.A-75 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.9979/2012, dated:16-10-2012 executed by Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.9

Ex.A-76 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.3776/2013, dated:25-03-2013 executed by Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.10

Ex.A-77 Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.3777/2013, dated:25-03-2013 executed by Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of Defendant No.2 to

Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.10

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

-Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED IN X-SERIES:

Ex.X-1 is the Chesla Pahani with respect of Survey No.315 is marked as Ex.X-1

Ex.X-2 is the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1960-61

Ex.X-3 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1961-62

Ex.X-4 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1962-63

Ex.X-5 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1963-64

Ex.X-6 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1964-65

Ex.X-7 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1965-66

Ex.X-8 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1969-70

Ex.X-9 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1970-71

Ex.X-10 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1971-72

Ex.X-11 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1972-73

Page 35 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Ex.X-12 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1973-74

Ex.X-13 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1974-75

Ex.X-14 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1975-76

Ex.X-15 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1977-78

Ex.X-16 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1978-79

Ex.X-17 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1979-80

Ex.X-18 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1980-81

Ex.X-19 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1982-83

Ex.X-20 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1983-84

Ex.X-21 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1984-85

Ex.X-22 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1985-86

Ex.X-23 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1986-87

Ex.X-24 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1987-88

Ex.X-25 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1988-89

Ex.X-26 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1989-90

Ex.X-27 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1990-91

Ex.X-28 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1991-92

Ex.X-29 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1992-93

Ex.X-30 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1993-94

Ex.X-31 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1994-95

Ex.X-32 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1995-96

Ex.X-33 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1996-97

Ex.X-34 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1997-98

Ex.X-35 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1998-99

Ex.X-36 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 1999-2000

Ex.X-37 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2000-01

Ex.X-38 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2001-02

Ex.X-39 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2002-03

Ex.X-40 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2003-04

Ex.X-41 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2004-05

Ex.X-42 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2005-06

Ex.X-43 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2006-07

Ex.X-44 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2007-08

Page 36 of 36

O.S.No.11 of 2013

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Ex.X-45 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2008-09

Ex.X-46 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2009-10

Ex.X-47 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2010-11

Ex.X-48 is the entry in the Pahani with respect to Sy.No.315 for the year 2011-12

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SURYAPET

Page 1 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge,Suryapet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRTICT JUDGE:

AT SURYAPET.

(DATED, THIS, THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SRI B. GAUTAM PRASAD,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

O.S.No. 5 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

Chillamcharla Ravindranath Tagore S/o late Raghunadham, Age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o Munagala village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

--PLAINTIFF

A N D

1. Chillamcharla Varalaxmamma W/o Raghunadham, Age: 75 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Munagala village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Kothagundla Sujatha W/o late Rama Krishna, Age:59 years, Occ: house wife, R/o Anand Bhavan Residency, Plot No.66, H.No.102, Teachers Colony, Gun Rock, Thirumalagiri, Secunderabad.

3. Ardham Vijaya W/o Chandrudu, Age: 53 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o HIG-310/A, Ramachandrapuram, BHEL, Hyderabad.

4. Jella Anasurya W/o Jella Nageshwar Rao, Age:51 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Seetharamapuram, Near Venkateshwara Temple, Jaggayyapeta, Krishna District.

5. Chillamcharla Prabhakar S/o late Raghunadham, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o Munagala village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

Page 2 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

6. Lakumarapu Sridevi W/o Hareesh, Age: 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o C/o Thirumala Book Shop, Nalgonda mandal and District.

7. Chillamcharla Giridhar S/o late Raghunadham, Age: 42 years, Occ: Govt.Employee, R/o C/o K.Bhansilal, near Grameena Bank, New Palvancha, Khammam District.

8. Chillamcharla Harikishan S/o late Raghunadham, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o Munagala village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

9. Chillamcharla Anitha W/o Chillamcharla Giridhar, Age: 38 years, Occ: House wife and Business, R/o C/o K.Bhansilal, near Grameena Bank, New Palvancha, Khammam District.

10. Bodla Rangaiah S/o Satyanarayana, Age: 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o House near Old Court, Nayanagar, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

11. Devineni Rama Devi W/o Devineni Srinivasa Rao, Age; 34 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.1-211/B, Munagala village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

12. Kollu Srirajyam W/o Kollu Laxminarayana, Age:41 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o H.No.2-88, Seethanagaram, H/o Repala Grampanchayath, Munagala mandal, Nalgonda District.

13. Competent Authority (LA) and Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet.

--DEFENDANTS

This case is coming for consideration before me in the presence of Sri V.L.B. Kesari, Counsel for the plaintiff, and of Sri M.Eshwar Kumar, Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 9, 11 and 12 and of Sri.Meela Ramesh, Asst.Govt.Pleader for defendant No.13 whereas the defendant No.10 remained

Page 3 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet absent and set exparte and after upon perusing the material papers on record, evidence and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The sole Plaintiff file the suit for Partition and Separate

Possession to divide the schedule - A to D properties into equal shares and allot 12.2 paise share in A, B and C schedule properties and 22.21 paise share in item No.1 to 4 of schedule –D property and to declare the Registered sale deed vide doc No.8227 of 2010 dated 09-11-2020, registered gift deed vide doc No.4402 of 2008 dated 01-05-2008 and registered sale deeds vide doc No.5175 of 2008 dated 05-06- 2008 and doc No.5176 of 2008 dated 05-06-2008 as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s Case:

a) Chillamcherla Raghunadham son of Late

Chillamcherla Appayya is the common ancestor and father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 8. Raghunadham married one Pullamma and out of their wedlock one son by name

Chillamcherla Appa Rao born. Due to chronic illness suffering

Page 4 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet by Pullamma and unfit for marital life and with the consent of

Pullamma Raghunadham married Varalaxmma Defendant

No.1 herein in the year 1952 and out of their wedlock four daughters Defendants No.2 to 4 and 6 were born and four sons i.e., Plaintiff, Defendant No.5, 7 and 8 and one

Satyanarayana were born.

b) There was a Partition between Raghunadham and his son Appa Rao by way of a Partition deed dated 07-04- 1969 and Raghunadham represented his other sons and daughters and a share was allotted to Raghunadham and his family and a share allotted to Appa Rao, and by then

Defendant No.7 and 8 were not born. Raghunadham and

Defendant No.1 given their son Satyanarayana in adoption to one Kandi Boyina Narasaiah and his wife Laxmi Narasamma under a registered adoption deed dated 15-03-1974 and

Satyanarayana became his son of his adoptive parents and relinquished his rights in the properties of Raghunadham. As such Raghunadham, Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 8 became Hindu Undivided Joint Family and Plaintiff became a coparcener along with his father, brothers and sisters.

Page 5 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

c) It is the further case of the Plaintiff, that Pullamma died in the year-2001 whereas Appa Rao died in the year- 2005 and the Legal Heirs of Appa Rao and Satyanarayana are not necessary parties as such not impleaded in the suit.

d) It is the further case of the Plaintiff that during prior

Partition dated 07-04-1969 schedule-A agricultural lands and other agricultural lands and schedule-B House Door No.2- 52(old) and 2-404(new) fell to the share of Raghunadham,

Plaintiff herein and Defendant No.2 to 8. Accordingly the name of Raghunadham and his son Appa Rao recorded as

Pattadars of their respective shares. Raghunadham sold away

Ac-9.50 cents of agricultural land at Munagala and Tadvai

Villages and performed the marriages of his four daughters

Defendant No.2 to 4 and Defendant No.6. Thereafter

Raghunadham, Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 and

Satyanarayana having undivided joint family properties to an extent of Ac-4-66 cents in R.S No.399/2, Ac-10-62 cents in

R.S.No.410/1, Ac-7-26 cents in R.S.No.411, Ac-1-30 cents in

R.S.No.401 of Tadvai Village and Ac-1-91 cents in

R.S.No.409/3 and 35 cents in R.S.No.409/1 of Munagala

Page 6 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Village referred as schedule-A property and House bearing

No.2-52 to an extent of 480 square yards at Munagala village referred as schedule-B property.

e) During the life time of Raghunadham he entered into an agreement of sale in respect of schedule-C property and paid the sale consideration out of the joint family funds to

Defendant No.10 the owner of the land and after death of

Raghunadham on 30-08-2008, Defendant No.10 with collusion with Defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1 vide doc No.8227 of 2010 dated 09-11-2010. Hence schedule- A& B properties are ancestral and coparcenary properties, whereas schedule-C property purchased by using joint family funds, as such schedule-A,B and C properties are liable for Partition @ of 12.2 paise to

Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 to 8 each, whereas Defendant

No.1 is entitled to 02.4 paise.

f) It is the further case of the Plaintiff that previous partners of Nava Bharat Rice, flour, and oil mill Munagala sold entire immovable property to an extent of Ac-1-10 cents along with one constructed shed to an extent of 3300 square feet

Page 7 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet area along with fitted machinery and one old tiled roof house and two R.C.C roof shutters which is schedule-D properties under items No.1 to 4 purchased by Raghunadham, Plaintiff,

Defendants No.5,8 and 9 entered into a partnership firm and the Plaintiff became 20 paise shareholder in the partnership properties vide partnership deed dated 17-11-2005. Being partner the Plaintiff resided in the old tiled house in the mill and obtained water and electricity connections and paying the charges. For the road extension the National Highway

Authority of India acquired to an extent of 894.84 square meters of mill site equivalent to 1070.23 square yards including part of old titled roof house and entire R.C.C. roofed two shutters through Defendant No.13 and during award enquiry the Plaintiff appeared before Defendant No.13 on 18- 11-2009 and Defendant No.1 not appeared. The Plaintiff produced the documents i.e, water consumption receipts, electricity receipts, even then compensation not paid to

Plaintiff and referred the matter to II-Addl District Judge at

Suryapet vide OP.No.133 of 2011 as there is title dispute.

After acquisition the other partners got dismantled remaining

Page 8 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet part of old tiled roof house and constructed new R.C.C.

building with G-plus 1 level by using Partnership funds. After the death of the Raghunadham, Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 8 are entitled to share the share of Raghunadham.

g) It is the further case of the Plaintiff that in the month of March,2012 the Plaintiff found Defendant No.5 and

Defendant no.8 going to Gram Panchayat office Munagala and on suspecting the Plaintiff made enquiries and came to know that Defendant No.5 and 8 approached the Gram

Panchayat officials of Munagala for ownership transfer of some of Plaint schedule properties into their names and on searching in the Tahasildhar office of Munagala, found the names of Defendant No.11 and 12 in the Adangal for the year 2009-2010 and on further search the Plaintiff came to know that Raghunadham sold Ac-2-56 cents in favour of Defendant

No.11 vide registered sale deed doc No.5175 of 2008 dated 05-06-2008 and Raghunadham also sold Ac-3-56 cents in favour of Defendant No.12 vide doc.No.5176 of 2008 dated 05-06-2008. Further the Plaintiff also found that

Raghunadham executed gift deed vide doc No.4402 of 2008

Page 9 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

dated 01-05-2008 in favour of Defendant No.8 in respect of

schedule-B property.

h) It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff came to know that without the knowledge of other family members Defendant No.5 executed rectification deeds in favour of Defendant No.11 and 12. Raghunadham used to subscribe his signature whenever he execute a document but there is a thumb impression of Raghunadham. As such, the alleged gift deed is a created document. Therefore, all the above documents are null and void and not binding on the

Plaintiffs and allot 12.2 paise share in schedule-A, B and C properties to each Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 8 and also allot 22.21 paise share in schedule-D property.

3. Defendants’ Case:

Defendant No.5 filed written statement which is adopted by Defendants No.1 to 4, Defendant No.6 to 9,

Defendant No.11 and 12.

The averments of the written statement filed by the defendants, in brief, are as follows:

Page 10 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

a) Father of plaintiff/ Late Raghunadham inherited schedule-A and B properties from his ancestors and maintained the properties as the Kartha of the family since 1960. During the life time of Raghunadham he entered into an agreement of sale with Defendant No.10, and after the death of Raghunadham sale deed was obtained in the name of

Defendant No.1/mother. During the life time of Raghunadham, he purchased schedule-D property from the original partners in the year-2004. On the initiation and insistence of the

Plaintiff an oral Partition before the elders i.e. Krishna Murthy and Someshwar Rao and five others took place on 12-06- 2005 and the same was reduced into writing signed by

Plaintiff, Defendant No.2 to 8 and also Raghunadham. Said elders and Defendnat No.1 signed as witnesses for Partition of schedule-A, B and including schedule–D properties. Their names were mutated in the Revenue Records and also issued separate Pattadhar Passbooks and Title deeds separately.

b) During the life time of Raghunadham the Plaintiff did not raise any objection about the Partition. Only after the death of Raghunadham on 30-08-2008 Plaintiff raised an

Page 11 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet objection i.e. after six years from the death of Raghunadham and nine years after said prior Partition dated 12-06-2005. As per the Revenue Records the total agriculture land is only Ac- 17-44 cents and there is an extent of Ac-4-12 cents in R.S.

No.410/1 available at the time of Partition. For the maintenance of the family Raghunadham sold Ac-3-00 gts to

Krishna Reddy and Ramaiah on 02-06-1982 and Ac-1-93 cents to one Vishnu Dashyam Kotaiah on 19-03-1988 and an extent of Ac-1-80 cents to one Vishnu Dashyam Venkatadri on 21-06-1989. An extent of 50 cents was also sold to Gandam

Narayana, totally Ac-6-51 cents with the consent of all other family members including Plaintiff who put his signature on agreements. Therefore, those lands were not included in the

Partition dated 12-06-2005. Raghunadham performed marriages of his daughters with his own money and money derived from the ancestral properties and not sold any ancestral properties.

c) In the Partition deed schedule-C property was allotted to Defendant No.7 and 8. The Defendants No.2 to 4 and 6 being the daughters of Raghunadham gave their

Page 12 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet consent for Partition by relinquishing their rights and shares and also signed on the Partition deed dated 12-06-2005.

Hence, the question that the suit schedule property is liable for

Partition does not arise. Schedule-D property was also divided into five equal shares i.e. one each share to Plaintiff,

Raghunadham, Defendant No.5, 8, and 9.

d) The National Highway Authority of India acquired 894.44 square meters equivalent to 1070.23 square yards for road widening through Defendant No.13/Competent Authority (LA) and Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet and all the shareholders appeared for award enquiry and the amount was deposited in OP.No.133 of 2011 pending before II Addl District

Judge Suryapet. All the family members are entitled to 20%

share in schedule-D property/house bearing No.1-351 and after the death of Raghunadham his share will be divided as per the family understanding. Schedule-B property house bearing No.2-404 which was allotted to Raghunadham he executed a registered gift deed in favour of Defendant No.5 (vide doc.No.4402 of 2008 dated 01-05-2008) for the services rendered by him to Raghunadham. All the family members

Page 13 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet including Plaintiff did not raise any objection. Further, at the time of Partition dated 12-06-2005 Raghunadham had given

Ac-3.12 cents to his granddaughter i.e. daughter of Defendant

No.5 towards marriage expenses and the same was referred in the Partition deed. Raghunadham executed sale deeds in favour of Defendant No.11 and 12 and with the knowledge of

Plaintiff and other family members Defendant No.5 executed rectification deeds rectifying the name of the village of Thadvai in the place of Munagala and also given no objection certificate. The Plaintiff visited the house of Defendant No.5 for several times on the occasions of functions and he never raised any objection. The Defendant No.5 is paying house taxes and other taxes to schedule-B property. Defendant No.8 constructed a house in schedule-D property with the consent of all the family members.

e) Since there is prior Partition on 12-06-2005 and transferred their respective shares in the respective names of

Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 9 and enjoying the same for the last nine years and the suit is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Page 14 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

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

1) Whether there was oral Partition among the family members during the life time of Ch.Raghunadham and it was reduced into writing on 12-06-2005?

2) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled a preliminary decree for partition in respect of suit schedule properties and separate possession thereof as prayed for

3) Whether the Registered sale deed vide doc

No.8227/2010 dated 09-11-2010 executed in favour of Defendant No.1 Registered Gift Deed vide doc.No.4402/2008 dated 01-05-2008 executed in favour of Defendant No.5 and Registered sale deed vide doc.No.5175 of 2008 dated 05-06-2008 executed in favour of Defendant No.11 and

Rectification deed vide doc No.3933 of 2009 dated 12-08-2009 executed in favour of Defendant No.11 and registered sale deed vide doc No.5176 of 2008

dated 05-06-2008 executed in favour of Defendant

No.12 and registered Rectification deed vide doc

No.3934 of 2009 dated 12-08-2009 are to be declared as null and void?

4) To what relief?

Page 15 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

5. During the trial the Plaintiff is examined as Pw-1 and one more witness is also examined as Pw-2 besides marking 15 documents i.e. Ex-A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the

Defendants, Defendant No.5 is examined as Dw-1 and one elder is also examined as Dw-2. D-8 is examined as Dw-3 whereas D-7 is also examined as Dw-4 and another elder is examined as Dw-5. Husband of D-11 is examined as Dw-6.

Altogether, 16 documents i.e. Ex-B-1 to B-16 marked.

6. Both sides filed memorandums of written arguments.

7. ISSUE NO.1:Whether there was oral Partition among the family members during the life time of Ch.Raghunadham and it was reduced into writing on 12-06- 2005?

a) There is no dispute about the family pedigree.

Late Chillamcherla Raghunadham S/o Appaiah was resident of Munagala village. Said Raghunadham married Pullamma and out of their wedlock one Appa Rao was born to them. For various reasons said Raghunadham married D-1 in the year 1952 and out of their wedlock four daughters i.e. D-2 to D-4 and D-6 and five sons i.e. Plaintiff, D-5, D-7, and D-8 and one

Satyanarayana were born. Satyanarayana was given in

Page 16 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet adoption to one Kandibanda Narasaiah and Laxminarasamma in the year-1974 under registered adoption deed vide doc

No.5 of 1974 dated 15-03-1974/ Ex.A2.

b) The Plaintiff filed this suit against the D-1 to D-9 i.e. his mother, sisters and brothers and D-9 who is the wife of

D-7, excluding said Appa Rao son of Pullamma and

Satyanarayana on the ground that there is a prior Partition between Appa Rao on one side and Raghunadham, Plaintiff and his sisters and brothers on the other side, in the year 1969 vide Partition deed vide doc.No.539 of 1969 dated 07- 04-1969/Ex.A14 and Satyanarayana relinquished his rights over the family properties of Raghunadham on the ground of adoption. Both prior Partition in the year-1969 and adoption of

Satyanarayana in the year 1974 are admitted by both Plaintiff and Defendants No.1 to 9.

c) For more clarity about the properties allotted to

Appa Rao on one side and Raghunadham and other family members on the other side schedule-A properties to an extent of Ac-4-66 cents in R.S.No.399/2, Ac-10-66 cents in

R.S.No.410/1, Ac-7-26 cents in R.S. No.411, Ac.53.50 cents

Page 17 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet in R.S.No.401, Ac-2-86 cents in R.S.No.409/3, Ac-0-35 cents,

House bearing No.2/52, allotted to Raghunadham and other family members, (Plaintiff, D-5 and Satyanarayana).

Schedule-B property to an extent of Ac-2-86 cents in

R.S.No.409/3, Ac-0-35 cents in R.S.No.409/1, site of joint well

Ac-0-2.5 cents and House bearing No.2/70 allotted to Appa

Rao. It is also an admitted fact that D-7 and D-8 were not born by the time of Ex-A-14 Partition deed dated 07-04-1969. After birth of D-7 and D-8 they became the joint family members of

Raghunadham. There is a clear recital in Ex-A-2 registered

Adoption deed that Satyanarayana should act as son of

Narasaiah and Laxmi Narasamma, as such, it can be said that the relationship of Satyanarayana with the family of

Raghunadham completely severed and became the family member of Narasaiah and Laxminarasamma even to succeed their properties.

d) The contention of D-1 to D-8 that there is a prior

Partition between Plaintiff on one side and Raghunadham and other family members (i.e. D-2 to D-4 and D-6 and D-5 and D- 7 and D-8) on the other side and they orally Partitioned the

Page 18 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet properties available in the year 2005 and the Partition of properties was also reduced into writing under Ex-B-16 signed by Plaintiff, D-5, D-7 and D-8, Raghunadham, D-1 wife of

Raghunadham and his four daughters (D-2 to D4 and D-6) joined as witnesses to the document besides the elders Dw-2 and Dw-5 who also attested the document. As per the document the properties were allotted to each party as per their shares and their respective names are also mutated in the revenue records.

8. a) The contention of the Plaintiff is that Ex-B-16 is an unregistered Partition deed and insufficiently stamped and it is compulsorily registerable document under section-17 of Registration Act,1908 and it cannot be looked into as per

Section-49 of the Registration Act. During trial Ex-B-16 was sent to District Registrar Nalgonda on the applications of

Defendants for impounding and accordingly impounded after collecting stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the defect in

Ex-B-16 relating to deficit stamp duty and penalty is cured, but it is hit by section-17 of Registration Act for the proof of contents therein. So, the document cannot be taken into

Page 19 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet consideration in the evidence for the proof of division of joint family properties. It is contended that Pw-2 being the scribe of

Ex-B-16 deposed that there was no Partition taken place in his presence, and witnesses, Dw-2 and 5, also gave different versions. Therefore, the presence of Dw’s-2 and 5 is doubtful and Ex-B-16 is a false and fabricated document and cannot be looked into as an evidence to prove the prior Partition.

b) On the other hand the Defendants also filed written arguments contending that in the mutation proceedings in Ex-B-8 and other revenue records, evidencing that there is a Partition between the family members and Pw-2 being the scribe of Ex-B-16 admitted that he is the scribe of the document, but he denied presence of other family members.

Pw-2 being the known person to family of Raghunadham used to scribe the documents including Ex-B-13 to B-16, as such, his presence at the time of Partition cannot be doubted. Ex- B- 16 is the document which shows the list of properties allotted to the parties and with the consent of each other, their names were mutated in the revenue record. Moreover, it is validated, therefore, Ex-B-16 not hit by section-17 of the Registration

Page 20 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Act,1908. In this connection the learned counsel for

Defendants relied on the judgments reported in AIR-2004 SC- 4130 and AIR-1995 SC-1728 and 2017(6) ALD-651.

c) Answer: By taking into consideration of respective contentions raised by the Plaintiff and the

Defendants, it is necessary to examine Ex-B-16 document

dated 12-06-2005 to determine whether it is a Partition deed

or comes under the category under the Partition list and family arrangement to treat the document as Partition list. Since the

Plaintiff disputing Ex-B-16 questioning the prior Partition in the year-2005 it is also necessary to consider the admissions of

Pw-1 in his evidence. Pw-1 admitted in his cross- examination that he did not file any Re-joinder for the written statement filed and did not issue any legal notice claiming share in the suit schedule property. It is also suggested to Dw-1/D5 that

Raghunadham used to subscribe his signatures but Ex-B-16 and other documents, sale deeds containing the thumb impression of the Raghunadham and the same is denied. Dw- 1/ D5 explained in his evidence that due to old age and suffering from Rib cancer, Raghunadham for the last six years

Page 21 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet till his death was unable to sign on the documents. It is born by Ex-B-16 that Raghunadham affixed his thumb impression on each and every page of Ex-B-16 and Plaintiff, D-5,7 and 8 subscribed their signatures in English. The Plaintiff has not taken any steps to send Ex-B-16 to hand writing expert to compare his admitted signatures with his alleged signature on

Ex-B-16. Dw-2 and 5 being the elders known to both Plaintiff and Defendants admitted their presence at the time of

Partition and also preparation of draft documents to finalize

Ex-B-16 and both of them admitted their signatures available in the column of witnesses. Since Pw-2/ scribe admitted his signature as a scribe on the last page of Ex-B-16, now he cannot go back and say that several times draft Partition papers were prepared and no final Partition was taken place between Raghunadham and his sons. Moreover, Pw-2 himself admitted on his own that this Partition was made with respect to Mill/D-schedule, but not in respect of lands. He also revealed that before death of Raghunadham he executed documents by himself and others on three or four occasions when sons of Raghunadham insisted for Partition. From the

Page 22 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet admission of Pw-2 it can be said that he used to draft the documents for the family of Raghunadham. It is clear that his signature on the last page of the Ex-B-16 is sufficient to draw inference that Pw-2 alone drafted Ex-B-16 on the instructions of the parties to the document. As per Ex-B-16 the parties to the document including Plaintiff agreed for Partition to divide the family properties Ac-4-66 cents in R.S.No.399/2 and Ac-4- 12 cents in R.S.No.410/1, Ac-1-30 cents, in R.S.No.401, Ac-7- 26 cents in R.S.No.411 in total Ac-17-44 cents and one Rice

Mill, House bearing No.2-404 and vacant site to an extent of 304 square yards. The Plaintiff has shown the above properties in the suit schedule as A,B,C,D. Both parties admitted that the agricultural land is ancestral property. But, there is dispute with respect to C-schedule vacant site i.e C- schedule purchased by Raghunadham and D-10 executed a sale deed in the name of D-1. As per the Partition under

Ex.B16 schedule-B property was allotted to Raghunadham.

Out of Ac-7-26 cents in R.S.No.411 half of the property on the land side of Narra Veeraiah and the remaining land by side of

Kaserla Narasaiah was allotted to D-5. Whereas Ac-7-06

Page 23 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet cents covered by R.S.No.392/2, 399/3, 410, 411 with different extents equally divided between D-7 and 8 and also equally divided schedule-C property i.e. 304 square yards and an extent of Ac-3-12 cents in R.S.No.410 given to Divya daughter of D-5 towards her marriage expenses.

d) As per Ex.B16 Mill property is not convenient for

Partition, it was equally divided with a condition to pay

Rs.500/- to Raghunadham, if any of them taken the Mill for contract. Further, eight square yards length and four square yards width, total 32 square yards, will be given to

Satyanarayana adopted son with the consent of all. D-2 to 4 and D6 being the daughters of Raghunadham did not claim any share in the written statement filed by D-5 and they voluntarily admitted the contents of the statement by filing adoption memo. D-2 to 4 and 6 did not examine themselves as witnesses. But, their presence as witnesses in Ex-B-16 fortified the claim of D-5,7 and 8 particularly.

e) As admitted by the Plaintiff in the written arguments and admittedly Ex-B-16 executed on Rs.70/- on

Non-Judicial Stamp Papers and on impounding the document

Page 24 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet by competent authority the defect of insufficiently stamped has been cured. In respect of registration, the law is well settled that any deed of the value of more than Rs.100/- is compulsorily registerable under section-17 of Registration

Act,1908 and then only it can be used for collateral purpose on payment of stamp duty under section-49 of the Registration

Act,1908. Further, it is well settled that Partition deed is compulsorily registerable under section-17 of the Registration

Act,1908 when the Partition is dividing the property permanently by metes and bounds and to deliver the possession accordingly. On the other hand Ex-B-16 styled as in Telugu Baga Pampini which means partition of the properties by way of shares as a family arrangement. The other contents of the same document evidencing the Partition of properties left after first Partition in the year-1969 and properties acquired there after were divided among the family members and Plaintiff is one of the party to the document/Ex.B16.

f) Out of Ac-7-26 cents in R.S.No.411 allotted to

Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 equally and the name of Plaintiff

Page 25 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet was mutated in the pahani for the year-2009-2010, and also pahani for the year-2010-2011 and it shows that he is the pattadhar of Ac-3-63 cents in R.S.No.411/A and the names of

Defendant No.5, 7 and 8 are also mutated in respect of their shares and particularly the name of D-5 was mutated that he is pattadar of Ac-3-63 cents in R.S.No.411/B. All the pahanies from the year-1998-1999 to 2010-2011 marked as Ex-A-1 show that names of Raghunadham and his son Appa Rao were also mutated in respect of their respective shares allotted in the prior Partition of 1969/Ex.A14. The Plaintiff did not file his pattadar pass books and title deeds. He denied issuance of the pattadar pass books and title deeds.

According to him, they are created by Defendants. But, to prove the same, the Defendants filed Ex-B-8 copy of mutation proceedings wherein the name of the Plaintiff was recorded as pattadar for Ac-3-63 cents and it bears his photo. In the same

Ex.B8 the names D-5, and 7 are also recorded and the nature of the acquisition was shown as inheritance. In the column of the remarks, the village Revenue Officer of Thadvai village recorded the Partition i.e. Ex-B-16. The names of D-7 and 8

Page 26 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet are also mutated in Ex-B-11 and 12 for the fasli-1422 and 1423 respectively. It means for the year 2012 and 2013 names of D7 & D8 are recorded. There are stray entries reflecting the name of D-5 in the year-2007 and 2008 of Ex.A1 that D-5 was in possession of Ac-6-12 cents in R.S.No. 410/1 and similar entries are also reflected in the pahani for the year-2008 and 2009.

g) In this connection the learned counsel for the

Plaintiff strongly placed reliance on Ex-A-16/paper publication stating that D-7 got issued and the same is admitted by him in his evidence. D-7 himself examined as Dw-4 and he admitted that he along with Plaintiff and D-8 approached the advocate who issued the Ex.A16 Publication and offered an explanation that the Publication is not in accordance with his request and ignored the same subsequently.

h) On perusal of Ex-A-16 it shows that one Sudhakar

Reddy, Advocate of Kodada got issued it in Andhra Jyothi

Telugu News Paper on 30-05-2008 to the effect that under the instructions of D-7/Giridhar they are having family lands to an extent of Ac-17-44 cents in R.S.No.399/2, 399/3, 410/1, 401

Page 27 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet and 411 and there is a Rice Mill in the name and style of

Navabharat and also House sites and so far not Partitioned and D-5 is trying to sell the land in R.S.No.410/1 and published a warning to public not to enter into any sale transaction. Since, other Defendants including Raghunadham who was alive by then are not party to the said Paper

Publication/Ex.A16 the same is not binding on the other

Defendants. Dw-4/D7 only answerable to Ex-A-16 and he explained the same that the Paper Publication is not in accordance with his instructions and as such it is not binding on the other Defendants. On the other hand he (Dw-4/D7) also adopted the same written statement admitting the Ex-B16

Partition deed being a signatory and he already taken his share in pursuance of Ex-B-16. So, Ex-A-16 is alone not sufficient to falsify Ex-B-16/partition deed.

i) It is the contention of the plaintiff that though the learned counsel for Plaintiff highlighted the application of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that Dw-2 and DW5 acted as elders but not passed any award according to arbitration. To invoke the provisions of Arbitration and

Page 28 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Conciliation Act, 1996 there must be an Arbitration agreement as referred under section-7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that Arbitration agreement shall be in writing signed by the parties and submit the Arbitration all are certain disputes aroused between the parties. It is very much common in the villages to involve some known elders acceptable to parties to the dispute and their role in resolving the dispute cannot be construed that they acted as Arbitrators under a reference by the parties. Thus the provisions under Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 not applicable to this case.

j) The Defendants filed Ex-B-13 to 15 documents to explain that during the lifetime of Raghunadham he sold some properties and D-5 purchased some properties on his own.

Under Ex-B-13, agreement of sale dated 20-07-1988,

Raghunadham sold Ac-1-50 cents out of Ac-10-60 cents in

Sy.No.410/1 to one Kanderi Ramaiah son of Venkaiah for a total consideration of Rs.18,000/-. Raghunadham also sold

Ac-1-50 cents out of Ac-10-60 cents in Sy.No.410/1 under Ex-

B-14 dated 21-07-1988 to one Ayojyamma wife of Natala

Krishna Reddy. D-5 purchased same Ac-1-50 cents from

Page 29 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Venkat Reddy son of Ram Reddy and his wife Manemma and his son Janaki Reddy in Sy.No.410/1 under Ex-B-15 agreement of sale dated 06-02-2004 and the recitals there in are very much clear that the vendors under Ex-B-15 already purchased the same property from Raghunadham under Ex-

B-13 agreement of sale and the same property purchased by

D-5. To cure the defect that Ex-B-13 to 15 are insufficiently stamped, those documents were sent to District Registrar

Nalgonda for impounding for collection of stamp duty penalty and accordingly impounded. So, it is clear from the documents that Raghunadham sold Ac-3-00 under Ex-B-13 and 14 long back in the year-1988 and possession was also delivered and the said sales by Raghunadham alone without joining the other family members as parties shows that Raghunadham alienated the properties for the benefit of the family.

k) In respect of schedule-D Mill property, the claim of the Plaintiff is that schedule-D property i.e. Navabharat Rice

Flour and Oil Mill Munagala is in an extent of Ac-1-10 cents with structures and machinery purchased from previous partners in the year-2004-2005, Raghunadham, Plaintiff, D-5,

Page 30 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

D-8 and D-9 wife of D-7 invested 20 paisa share and entered into Partnership deed and 894.84 square meters acquired from the mill site which is part of old tiled roof house and entire RCC roof two shutters and there is a title dispute and he is entitled for the compensation at 22.21 paisa including the share in the remaining property deposited in OP.No.133 of 2011. The Defendants admitted that Raghunadham purchased schedule-D property in the year-2004 and he alone took over the property and Partitioned into five equal shares under the Partition deed dated 17-11-2005/Ex.B2 and jointly run the mill till the death of Raghunadham. After the death of

Raghunadham the share of the Raghunadham was decided to be given to D-1, as such D-1 became the share holder of the share of Raghunadham. So, after death of D-1 the share succeeded by her legal heir is liable for Partition among all the other family members. Admittedly, after purchase of the schedule-D property it was registered as M/S Navabharath

Rice and Flour Mill Munagala with firm No.12 of 2006 dated 20-01-2006 under Ex-B-4 Registration of the Firm,

Raghunadham, Plaintiff, D-5, D-8, D-9 entered into

Page 31 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Partnership deed on 17-11-2005 under Ex-B-3. All the

Partners signed on the document including Raghunadham who affixed the thumb impression and the Partners agreed that D-5 is the managing Partner and to operate the Bank

Account. In case of death of any Partner or Retirement the remaining Partners shall be entitled to continue the same business. D-5 filed Ex-B-5 Lease deed vide doc No.5958 of 2005 dated 21-12-2005 executed by all the Partners in favour of D-5 for a period of three years from 01-11-2005 till 31-10- 2008 for a yearly rent of Rs.40,000/- with a condition to deliver the mill to all the Partners. The Plaintiff not disputed both Ex-

B-3 and 4.

l) It is an admitted fact that the National Highway authority acquired 849.84 square meters from schedule-D property for extension of National Highway and the name of the interested persons referred as D-1, and Plaintiff and total compensation fixed at Rs.9,36,564/- as there is a title dispute between the Plaintiff and D-1 the matter is referred to Hon'ble

II Addl.District Judge at Suryapet in OP.No.133 of 2011 and

Page 32 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Plaintiff claiming a share in the compensation amount and also his share at 22.21 paisa out of schedule-D property.

m) In this connection the Plaintiff as PW-1 admitted that D-8 constructed a house in the premises of Rice Mill but denied the suggestion that 20% share of Raghunadham already transferred to D-1 and only after her the said share is liable for Partition. D-5 as DW-1 also admitted that prior to Ex-

B-3 Partnership deed the tiled house was demolished and the

Plaintiff erected two tin sheet rooms and used to reside in

RCC room. The entire Mill property shown as Item No.1 to 4 therein Item No.1 is the land to an extent of 4243.67 square yards and Item No.2 is newly constructed RCC building and

Item No.3 is Mill Machinery and Item No.4 is Plaintiff share of Rs.2,8,010/- out of total amount Rs.9,36.564/- irrespective of the admissions made by PW-1 and DW-1 there is an agreement under Ex-B-16 between the Raghunadham,

Plaintiff, D-5, D-7 and D-8 that the Mill and vacant site divided into five shares and pay Rs.500/- to Raghunadham if the Mill property given for contract if any Partner sold his share such

Partner should give 0.05 paisa to Raghunadham and 32

Page 33 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet square yards given to Satyanarayana son of Raghunadham.

Since there is a title dispute in OP.No.133 of 2011 before the competent court and it is for the court to decide the title dispute under Ex-A-7 reference and the parties shall fallow the judgment or order in OP.No.133 of 2011.

n) By considering the nature of dispute raised by the

Plaintiff and also contents of Ex-B-16/partition deed and the

Revenue entries mutating the name of the Plaintiff and his brothers separately in respect of their shares and enjoying the properties separately and independently and the parties are also living separately with separate mess and the fact is that

D-2 to 4 and 6 being the sisters of the Plaintiff not claiming any share in the suit properties admitting that they were also present at the time prior Partition and signed as witnesses to the document/Ex.B16 is one of the strong circumstance and also inferred that D-2 to4 and 6 relinquished their rights in favour of their father and brothers including the Plaintiff and allowed them to share the properties and accordingly the parties to Ex-B-16 taken their share voluntarily and also signed on the document. The Plaintiff kept quiet for a period of

Page 34 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet six years after the death of Raghunadham dated 30-08-2008 and nine years after Ex-B-16 suddenly filed the suit by involving his age old mother claiming the share much contrary to the contents of Ex.B16. After considering the evidence on record and admissions of the witnesses clinchingly proved that there is a prior Partition under Ex-B-16 between the parties and the shares of the parties also mutated their respective names and enjoying uninterruptedly. Thus the issue is answered against the Plaintiff that there is a prior

Partition of schedule-A, B, C and D properties by metes and bounds.

9. ISSUE No.3:Whether the Registered sale deed vide doc No.8227/2010 dated 09-11-2010 executed in favour of Defendant No.1 Registered Gift Deed vide doc.No.4402/2008 dated 01-05-2008 executed in favour of Defendant No.5 and Registered sale deed vide doc.No.5175 of 2008 dated 05-06-2008 executed in favour of Defendant No.11 and Rectification deed vide doc No.3933 of 2009 dated 12-08-2009 executed in favour of Defendant No.11 and registered sale deed vide doc No.5176 of 2008 dated 05-06- 2008 executed in favour of Defendant No.12 and registered Rectification deed vide doc No.3934 of 2009 dated 12-08- 2009 are to be declared as null and void?

a) The case of the Plaintiff is that the schedule-C property is the vacant land to an extent of 303 square yards

Page 35 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet equivalent to 353.308 square meters in R.S.No.150/AA/2 of

Kodada village purchased by Raghunadham under agreement of sale from D-10 and paid the sale consideration out of the undivided joint family funds but on the death of Raghunadham and in collusion with D-1, the owner/D-10 executed registered sale deed vide doc No.8227 of 2010 dated 09-10-2010 as such schedule-C property also ancestral and coparcenary properties besides schedule-A and B properties are liable for

Partition.

b) On the other hand the Defendants while admitting the same that D-10 executed Ex-A-8 sale deed in favour of D- 1 taken a plea that schedule-C property allotted to D-7 and 8 in the prior Partition dated 12-06-2005 so the property already came into the hands of D-7 and 8. There is recital in Ex-B-16 by giving available family properties including the property covered by Ex-A-8 304 sqare yards purchased from D-10 and the same was allotted to D-7 and 8 by dividing the property on equal shares.

c) It is also born by Ex-A-8/ registered sale deed that

D-7 and one Sala Ravi are acted as witnesses with the said

Page 36 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet document. So, it is in the knowledge of all the family members of Raghunadham. Since D-1 is the mother of the

Plaintiff, the transaction under Ex-A-8 must be in the knowledge of Plaintiff but he waited till 2014 as such any declaration to declare Ex-A-8 as null and void should be challenged within three years from the date of knowledge. The

Plaintiff never raised any objection while executing Ex-A-8 in favour of D-1 nor issued any notice that schedule-C property purchased with joint family funds and he is entitled for a share.

Till filing of the suit by including schedule-C property there is no claim from Plaintiff at any point of time. since

Raghunadham being the Karta of the family purchased the property from D-10 under the agreement of sale with his earnings on that ground only Ex-A-8 executed in favour of D-1 by D-10 and soon after Ex-A-8 it became the own property of

D-1 in the absence of any objection from any family member and all of them are allowed D-1 to enjoy the property.

Moreover, the same property was given to D-7 and 8 in equal shares under Ex-B-16. So, it is an issue between D-1 on one hand and D-7 and 8 on the other hand. D-7 and 8 also not

Page 37 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet raised any objection while executing Ex-A-8 in favour of D-1.

In view of the Partition of the properties under Ex-B-16, D-7 and 8 are the aggrieved parties but not the Plaintiff. D-7 and 8 who adopted the written statement of D-5 admitted without raising any objection that schedule-C property was transferred in the name of D-1 by D-10, so D-7 and 10 being the equal shareholders of the schedule-C property are at liberty to challenge the document but not the Plaintiff. Therefore, the

Plaintiff cannot and should not challenge the document under

Ex-A-8 to declare as null and void.

d) The Plaintiff also challenged registered gift deed vide doc No.4402 of 2008 dated 01-05-2008 executed by

Raghunadham in favour of D-5. In this connection the Plaintiff taken a plea the property under this gift deed is house bearing

No. 2-404 shown as schedule-B that it is the property purchased with joint family funds as such it is also liable for

Partition. The Plaintiff also taken a plea that Raghunadham was a signatory and used to subscribe his signature while executing any document and on the other hand there is thumb impression on Ex-A-9 gift deed as such it is a document

Page 38 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet created by D-5 to grab the property. The learned counsel for

Plaintiff highlighted that the date of the gift deed dated 01-05- 2008 is Public holiday and it is not possible for the Sub-

Registrar to visit the house of Raghunadham for registration of the document, so Ex-A-9 is a created document and not binding on the Plaintiff. Per contra the counsel for the

Defendants also clarified in the written arguments that under section-31 of Registration Act, 1908 the Registrar can complete the registration formalities at the house of the party by collecting necessary home visit charges. So the genuineness of the document cannot be questioned. It is also born by the gift settlement deed that there is an endorsement that the document submitted under section-32 of Registration

Act, 1908 at H.No.2-404 at Munagala village for photographs and thumb impressions during day time between 5 to 6 pm.

and collected required fee.

e) Defendant No.5 who examined as Dw-1 already explained that a prior to the death of Raghunadham he was unable to subscribe his signature due to cancer and used to affix his thumb impression on the documents execute. The

Page 39 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Plaintiff who examined as PW-1 also admitted that

Raghunadham affixed the thumb mark on Ex-B-3 Partnership deed and also Ex-A-10 and 12 sale deeds executed in favour of D-11 and 12. It is borne by Ex-B-3 Partnership deed dated 17-11-2005 between Raghunadham, Plaintiff, D-5, D-8, and

D-9 who is the wife of D-7 that Ragunatham affixed his thumb impression instead of subscribing his signature and the same was not disputed by the Plaintiff. Similarly, Ex-A-10 and

Ex.A12/registered sale deeds were also containing the thumb impression of the Raghunadham being the vendor. Ex-A-10 and 12 are subsequent to Ex-A-9 and all the documents are containing the thumb impression of Raghunadham. According to Plaintiff, Ex-B-16/partition deed is fabricated one. It contains thumb impression of Raghunadham and schedule-B property which is subject matter in Ex-A-9 was allotted to

Raghunadham. So after Ex-B-16 schedule-B property became the own property of Raghunadham and later he gifted the same property to D-5 for the services rendered by D-5 till his death on 30-08-2008. Therefore, under Ex-A-9 schedule-B property became the own property of D-5, as such, it cannot

Page 40 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet be termed as joint family property and the Plaintiff has no right to question the document/Ex.A9 and seek Partition of the same property.

f) The Plaintiff also challenging Ex-A-10 sale deed vide doc No.5171 of 2008 dated 05-06-2008 executed in favour of D-11 by Raghunadham and another registered sale deed vide doc No.5176 of 2008 dated 05-06-2008 executed by Raghunadham in favour of D-12 under Ex-A-12 to declare as null and void on the sole premise that the properties covered by the above two sale deeds are also undivided joint family properties and Raghunadham alone had no right to alienate the properties. Ex-A-10 sale deed for the land to an extent of Ac-2-56 cents out of the land in Sy.No.410/1 and Ex-

A-12 sale deed covered by the land to an extent Ac-3-56 cents out of the land in same Sy.No.410/1. According to

Plaintiff the total extent in Sy.No.410/1 is Ac-10-62 cents of

Thadvai village which is part and parcel of schedule-A property. The Defendants questioned the extent in

Sy.No.410/1 that Ragunatham sold Ac-6-51 cents to several third parties prior to Ex-B-16 and the land to an extent of Ac-4-

Page 41 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet 12 cents in Sy.No.410/1 available. As per Ex-B-1 and B-2 pattadhar passbook and title deed issued in the name of

Raghunadham reflecting that the Raghunadham also owner and pattadhar of Ac-4-12 cents in Sy.No.410/1 along with other properties to a total extent Ac-17-44 cents against the total extent claiming by Plaintiff is more than Ac-20.00 gts.

The total extent covered by Ex-A-10 and 12 is Ac-5-82 cents.

Whereas Ex-B-1 and 2 reflects that Ac-4-12 cents in

Sy.No.410/1. The Plaintiff not filed any document to show that the property covered by A-10 and 12 is also available for

Partition. Moreover, it is evident from Ex-B-16 that there is

Ac-4-12 cents in Sy.No.410/1 and the said property was not allotted to any other family members. It shows an extent of

Ac-3-12 cents in Sy.No.410 was ear marked for the marriage expenses of Divya, the daughter of D-5. Once Ex-B-16 is a document executed by all the family members including

Plaintiff, now he cannot challenge the sale deeds under Ex-A- 10 and 12. It further shows that the plaintiff had taken his share along with the other family members under

Ex.B16/partition deed.

Page 42 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

g) The Plaintiff also questioned two Rectification deeds under Ex-A-11 concerned to Ex-A-10 and Ex-A-13

Rectification deeds concerned to A-12 dated 12-08-2009.

According to him, D-5 alone has no right to execute both the

Rectification deeds under Ex-A-11 and 13 without any authorization by the other family members. D-5 who filed the written statement justified his act of execution of Ex-A-11 and 13 Rectification deeds at the request of the purchasers D-11 and D-12. It is also borne by Ex-A-11 and 13 that there is a mistake in Ex-A-10 and 12 that instead of writing the name of village as Thadvai the name of Munagala was written in both the sale deeds as the property is located in Thadvai village.

No doubt the property covered by Ex-A-10 and 12 is situated at Thadvai village and instead of Thadvai the name of the village wrongly mentioned as Munagala village. Except the

Plaintiff, other family members including D-2 to 4 and D-6 the sisters of the Plaintiff did not raise any objection for the execution Ex-A-11 and 13 Rectification deeds. In view of the gift deed/Ex.A9 executed by Raghunadham in favour of D-5 it can be presumed that Raghunadham was under the care and

Page 43 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet custody of D-5 during his last days till his death on 30-08-2008 and D-11 and 12 has no other alternative except to request D- 5 to execute the above Rectification deeds to rectify the mistakes cropped up Ex-A-10 and 12. Therefore there is no reason or ground to blame D-5 for the execution of A-11 and

A13.

h) D-5 being a donee under Ex.A9 filed Ex-B-9 house tax receipts 6 No's from 2009 to 2014 that he paid house tax for the house bearing No.2-404 in his name and also in the name of his father Raghunadham. No doubt payment of house tax or land revenue do not confer any title on the ground taxes can be paid either by the owner or by the tenant or by the family member or by the relative or by the representative. On the other hand in the case on hand Ex-B-9 tax receipts supporting Ex-A-9 gift deed that D-5 being a donee became the owner of schedule-B property. In view of the discussion in the preceding paras of the judgment the sale deeds, gift deeds and rectification deeds are not in respect of joint family properties and the Plaintiff who separated by taking his share has no right to question the sale deeds, gift

Page 44 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet deeds, and rectification deeds including Ex-A-8 sale deed standing in the name of D-1 that the issue is answered against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff has no right to seek the relief of declaration to declare the above documents as null and void.

10. Issue No.2:Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled a preliminary decree for partition in respect of suit schedule properties and separate possession thereof as prayed for?

a) In support of the case of the Plaintiff the learned counsel drawn the attention of the court to the judgment reported in AIR-1958 SC-706 between Nani Bai Appellant V/S

Geetha Bai Gunge Respondent wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that for Partition in the later sense of allotting specific properties or parcels to individual coparceners, agreement among all the coparcenaries is absolutely necessary and such a Partition may be effected orally but if the parties reduced the transaction to a formal document which is intended to be the evidence of Partition, it has the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property is allotted by Partition and is thus within the mischief of Section-17(1)(b) the material portion of which has been coated above.

Page 45 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

b) In the case on hand the Defendants who relied on

Ex-B-16(unregistered partition deed) cured the defect that the document insufficiently stamped by collecting stamp duty penalty by the District Registrar Nalgonda. Since the document is a Partition list and also affecting the character of family arrangement assign the properties allotted to each party with their consent only.

c) On the other hand the learned counsel for the

Defendant also relied on the judgment reported in AIR-2004

SC-4130 between K.G.Shivalingappa (died) by LR's Vs

G.S.Eshwarappa and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court laid a law that the parties are having separate possession of the properties several decades and were enjoyment of the properties that had fallen to the shares of three branches by their respective owners. The branches of

Mahadevappa and Rangappa are cultivating equal portions by paying taxes and they had also divided the house which had come to their shares and were living in two portions separately. For the lands acquired the branches of Rangappa and Mahadevappa had received compensation which was

Page 46 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet distributed by them among themselves to the exclusion of the branch of Shivalingappa. Thus, evidencing the fact that the properties were Partitioned and the respective branches were enjoying the properties of its usufruct separately. The three branches had been disposing of the properties which had fallen to their shares and had purchased separate properties.

The Khata entries also indicated that the properties are standing in their names respectively. By observing the same the Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the judgment dismissing the appeal suit and also regular appeal by the Addl.District

Judge that there is a prior Partition in the year-1916 and

already division of properties and severance of status in the joint family. Though the instrument is required to be registered under section-17(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908, unregistered document could be relied up on to establish severance of status in a joint family.

d) Further the learned counsel for the Defendants also strongly placed the reliance on the judgment reported in

AIR-1995 SC-1728 between Digamber Adhar Patil Vs Devram

Giridhar Patil (died) and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Page 47 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Court also laid a law that entries in the record of rights regarding the factum of Partition is relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence given by the Respondent and his brother to prove the factum of

Partition. Under Hindu Law it is not necessary that the

Partition should be effected by a registered Partition deed.

Even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate the

Partition between coparceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof. Under those circumstances the factum of Partition was evidenced by entries in the record of rights which was maintained in official course of business the correctness thereof was not questioned, it corroborates the oral evidence given by the brother and lends assurance to accept it. By applying the ratio laid down in the above two judgments there is a family arrangement between the family members under Ex-B-16 and parties to the suit are enjoying the properties as per the arrangement and their names were also mutated in the revenue records as per their respective shares, as such it can be safely concluded that there is a prior Partition between

Page 48 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Raghunadham, Plaintiff, D-5, D-7, D-8 under Ex-B-16 by way of family arrangement. So, the Plaintiff has no right to seek a fresh Partition ignoring and circumventing the contents of

Ex.B.16. Thus, the Plaintiff is not entitle to seek the Partition of the suit schedule property. The issue is answered accordingly against the Plaintiff.

11. ISSUE NO.4: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW1: Ch.Ravindranath Tagore PW2: D.Venkat Reddy

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

DW1:Ch.Prabhakar DW2:P.Someshwar Rao DW3:Ch.Hari Kishan DW4:Ch.Giridhar

Page 49 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

DW5:B.Krishna Murthy DW6:D.Srinivasa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 CC of pahani for the year 1998-1999, 2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 issued by Dpty. Tahsildar, Munagala

Ex.A2 CC of registered adoption deed dt: 15.03.1974

Ex.A3 Copy of Form-A given by Registrar of Firms

Ex.A4 Electricity bills (19 in number)

Ex.A5 Water bills (2 in number) dt: 12.11.2007 and 07.09.2003 given by Grampanchayath, Munagala

Ex.A6 Certificate dt:08.11.2013 and 31.12.2013 given by Grampanchayath, Munagala

Ex.A7 CC of reference made under national high way Act.

Ex.A8 Copy of registered sale deed dt:09.11.2010 obtained from M-Seva

Ex.A9 Copy of gift settlement deed dt:01.05.2008 obtained from M-Seva

Ex.A10 Copy of registered sale deed dt:05.06.2008 obtained from M-Seva

Ex.A11 Copy of rectification deed dt:12.08.2009 obtained from M-Seva

Ex.A12 Copy of registered sale deed dt:05.06.2008 obtained from M-Seva

Ex.A13 Copy of rectification deed dt:12.08.2009 obtained from M-Seva

Ex.A14 CC of registered partition deed dt:07.04.1969 along with translated copy.

Ex.A15 Death certificate dt: 30.10.2013 given by Grampanchayath, Munagala.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 Pattadar pass book and title deed

Ex.B2 Pattadar pass book and title deed

Page 50 of 50

O.S.No.05 of 2014

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Ex.B3 Partnership deed

Ex.B4 Firm Registration

Ex.B5 Original registration lease deed No.5958/3005 dt:21.12.2005

Ex.B6 Original letter to Tahsildar, addressed by DW1

Ex.B7 Original memo issued by Tahsildar, Munagala dt:20.05.2014

Ex.B8 T.C of mutation proceedings for the year 2006-2008 (2 sheets)

Ex.B9 Bunch of (6) house tax receipts

Ex.B10 Water tax receipt

Ex.B11 Bunch of (6) pahani patrika for the fasli year 1422 (2013)

Ex.B12 Bunch of (7) pahani patrika for the fasli year 1423 (2014)

Ex.B13 Agreement of sale dt: 20.07.1988

Ex.B14 Agreement of sale dt: 21.07.1988

Ex.B15 Agreement of sale dt: 06.02.2004

Ex.B16 Partition list dt: 12.06.2005

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

Page 1

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRTICT JUDGE: AT

SURYAPET.

(DATED, THIS, THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SRI B. GAUTAM PRASAD,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

A.S.No. 02 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. Banapuram Raja Bhaskar Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 44 years, Occ: Software Business

2. Banapuram Vani W/o Raja Bhaskar Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: House wife

Both R/o Flat No.202, H.No.2-2-18/41/C, Sreeman Krishna Sri Residency, Durgabai Deshmuki Colony, Bagh Amberpeta, Hyderabad

..APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS

AND

Para Seethaiah S/o Late Veeraiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, H.No.11-89, Azadnagar R/o Kodad town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

… RESPODENT/DEFENDANT

AGGRIEVED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE junior

CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, KODAD DATED:09.12.2016 PASSED IN

O.S.NO.115 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

Page 2

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

1. Banapuram Raja Bhaskar Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 44 years, Occ: Software Business

2. Banapuram Vani W/o Raja Bhaskar Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: House wife

Both R/o Flat No.202, H.No.2-2-18/41/C, Sreeman Krishna Sri Residency, Durgabai Deshmuki Colony, Bagh Amberpeta, Hyderabad

..PLAINTIFFS

AND

Para Seethaiah S/o Late Veeraiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, H.No.11-89, Azadnagar R/o Kodad town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

… DEFENDANT

This appeal is coming for consideration before me in the presence of Sri Y.Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for the appellants and Sri S.Radha Krishna Murthy, Counsel for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.115/2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Kodad, Dt: 09-12-2016.The appellants are plaintiffs in the said suit.

They filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the suit schedule vacant house plot to an extent of 806 sq.yards (50 sq.yards + 353.7 sq.yards + 402.6

Page 3

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet sq.yards) located in Block no.12 of Kodad Grampanchayat limits and out of Sy.No.938/AA situated within the Kodad Revenue village and Mandal of Nalgonda District and bounded by an East, Kodad to Huzurnagar, on West: Open place of Kodumuri Rambayamma,

On North: Grampanchayat Road and on South: Open place of

Nalabothu Satyanarayana Reddy.

Plaintiff’s case:

2.The first plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of house sit to an extent of 353.7 sq.yards purchased from his vendors under Registered sale deed no.3406/2004 dated 18-10- 2004 and the second plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 50 sq.yards purchased from her vendors under

Registered sale deed dated 18-10-2004 and also she purchased a plot to an extent of 402.6 sq.yards from her another vendor under

Registered sale deed dated 13-10-2005. All the three plots are adjacent to one another and it is a contiguous plot with total extent of 806.1 sq.yards. Since the purchase of the said plots plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the same. The defendant who is having no right, title or interest over the Schedule property, illegally trespassed into the Schedule property on 24-07-2009 with

Page 4

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

Rowdy elements and try to lay fencing stones around the Schedule property. On that the first plaintiff rushed to Kodad and registered the acts of the defendant. The first plaintiff also lodged a complaint with the police in Crime no.202 of 2009 against the defendant.

Hence the suit.

Defendant case:

3. The defendant denied the material averments made in the plaint. He alleged that the defendant has filed O.S.107 of 2009 along with I.A.No.300 of 2009 and obtained exparte injunction orders on 20-07-2009 against the plaintiffs and some others. The defendant is the owner and possessor of the schedule house plot situated in Sy.no.938/E/2 with valid title and possession over the same. The defendant averred that the plaint averments are not related to the land in Sy.No.938/E/2 and this court has already granted exparte temporary injunction against the plaintiffs and others vide above said I.A., as such the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the same is filed only to harass this defendant.

Hence prayer to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Aggrieved by the same the appellants filed this present appeal on the following grounds.

Page 5

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

a) The decree and judgment under the appeal are quite contrary to law and facts of the case.

b) The lower court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

c) The appellants proved their title and possession over the suit schedule property but the lower court totally ignored the well- established principles while dealing with the suit for perpetual injunction as a matter of fact the lower court ought to have decreed the suit.

d) The lower court failed to discuss and consider the oral and voluminous documentary evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A40 adduced by the appellants in proper way. The lower Court gave much weight to Ex.B34 to Ex.B37 though they do not relates to the suit schedule property and there by erred in passing the judgment.

e) The lower Court failed to appreciate the principles laid down in the case reported in A.I.R. 2008 S.C. Page 2033 though the facts of the said case and the present case are quite different.

f) The lower Court failed to take into consideration that the Ex.B28 to Ex.B33 over the land in Sy.no.938/EE were cancelled subsequently.

Page 6

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

g) The lower Court wrongly came to the conclusion that there are questions to be determined with regard to title of the appellants only in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs but not in the suit.

h) The lower Court did not give any clear finding in Para 24 of the Judgment with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property.

5. Heard both side arguments.

6. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property prior to and as on the date of filing of the suit before the Trial Court?

2. Whether they are any grounds to set aside or modify the trial court Judgment?

3. To what relief?

7. During trial before the Trial Court, on behalf of the

Plaintiffs Pw-1 to 4 were examined and Pw-1 is the Plaintiff No.1 in the suit. on behalf of the Defendant Dw's 1 to 3 were examined and

Dw-1 is the Defendant. since the burden is on the Plaintiffs, they produced voluminous documentary evidence marked as Ex- A-1 to

Page 7

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

A-40. whereas on behalf of the Defendant also Ex-B-1 to B-52 are marked.

8. Points No.1 and 2:- a) Since the suit filed is for simple injunction, it is for the Plaintiffs to prove that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit property to the knowledge of the Defendant and also to one and all in the village.

b) The Plaintiffs are claiming suit schedule property i.e., 806.1 square yards located in block No.12 in Sy.No.938/AA in the limits of Kodada Gram Panchayat. To prove the ownership over the property, the Plaintiffs filed Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 sale deeds where under the first plaintiffs purchased 402.6 sq.yards in Sy.No.

938 with specific boundaries. The second plaintiff also purchased 50 sq. yards in Sy.No. 938/AA of Block no. 12 Kodad village under

Ex. A6 sale deed vide document no.3399/2004 dated 18-10-2004 from one K. Sushila and M. Janakamma with specific boundaries.

The second plaintiff also purchased 353.7 sq.yards in Sy.No.

938/AA of block no. 12 kodad village vide sale deed document no.

3406 of 2004 dated 18-10-2004 from K. Sriram Reddy and M.

Venkat Reddy. The defendant also claiming 2700 sq.yards in

Page 8

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

Sy.No. 938/E/2 succeeded from his mother and he also filed a suit for injection in O.S, no. 107 of 2009 before the same court.

c) To prove the source of ownership of the land in Sy.No.

938/AA to an extent of Ac. 1-18 gts, the plaintiff filed Pahani for the year 1965-66 marked as Ex.A10 wherein the Sy.No. 938 was sub- divided as 938/A, 938/AA, 938/E, 938/EE and subject matter of the suit is to an extent of Ac.1-18gts in Sy.no.938/AA. The name of

Nagubandi Rangaiah was reflected both in the column of Pattedar and enjoyer for the said Ac.1-18gts. Whereas the name of Para

Veeraiah was also reflected in the column of Pattedar in respect of

Ac.1-18 gts in Sy.No.938/EE, but in the column of enjoyer the name of Putluri Ramara Rao as well as Nagubandi Rangaiah were reflected. Para Veeraiah was no other than the father of the defendant. The defendant also filed Ex.B1 Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 wherein similar entries are also reflected and it shows that Nagubandi Rangaiah was the pattedar and enjoyer of

Ac. 1-18 gts in Sy.No. 938/AA whereas name of Para Veeraiah was reflected to an extent of Ac.1-18 in Sy.no. 938/E.

Page 9

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

d) The plaintiffs also filed pahanies marked as Ex.A11 to

Ex.A19 for different years between 1975-76, 1976-1977, 1982- 1983, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1999-2000, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006. In all the pahanies the name of Addanki Ramaiah S/o

Lachaiah is reflected both in the column of pattedar and enjoyer in respect of Ac.1-18 gts in Sy.No. 938/AA. Even in the pahanies filed by the defendant marked as Ex.B2 to Ex.B25, for different years covering 1962-1963 till 2005-2006, the name of said Ramaiah is reflected in the column of pattedar and enjoyer in respect of the land to an extent A.1-18 gts in sy.no.938/AA and in some pahanies in the column of enjoyer it was shown as Abadi (means public purpose). So, it is clear from the documents filed by the defendant that the land to an extent of Ac.1-18 gts in Sy.no.938/AA originally belongs to Nagabandi Rangaiah and thereafter from the year 1975- 1976 (Ex.A11 corresponding to Ex.B5) the name of Addanki

Ramaiah was recorded both in the column of pattedar and enjoyer.

e) To prove the ownership of the land to an extent of Ac-1- 18gts in Sy.No.938/AA the Plaintiffs filed Ex.A24 simple sale deed

dated 16-08-1959 where under Nagubandi Rangaiah sold Ac-15-39

Page 10

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet gts in Sy.No.737 and Ac-1-18 gts in Sy.No.938/AA, totally Ac-17-17 gts to Addanki Ramaiah duly attested by two witnesses and possession was also delivered with all rights. For validation of

Ex.A24, simple sale deed, Addanki Ramaiah submitted an application under Ex.A.23 under A.P., Telengana Area Tenancy of

Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 to validate lands in Sy.No.737 to an extent of Ac.15-39 gts, Ac.1-18 gts in Sy.No.938/AA and Ac.1-35 gts in Sy.No.816/AA. The Tahsildar Huzurnagar issued Form-II notice dated 06-04-1972 to Nagubandi Rangaiah and his wife

Dhanamma to appear before him for inquiry. Addanki Ramaiah paid registration fee under Ex-28 and A-29 challans for Rs.57/- and

Rs.171 /- respectively. The Tahsildar Huzurnagar also recorded the common statement of Nagubandi Rammurthy and Laxmaiah, both sons of Nagubandi Rangaiah, and they admitted by signing the document that they sold the property in Sy.No. 737, 938/AA to a total extent of Ac.17-17gts and received full amount of consideration by executing an ordinary sale deed and possession was also delivered and they have no objection for issuance of sale validation certificate in favour of the petitioner Addanki Ramaiah.

Further, the Tahsildar Huzurnagar also obtained a report from

Page 11

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet patwari showing that Nagubandi Rangaiah sold the property under simple sale deed and possession was also delivered to purchaser and there was no objection for issuance of validation certificate.

The said report of patwari is marked as Ex.A27. After, considering all the documents, finally the Tahasildar Huzurnagar issued 50-B certificate in Form-IV dated 31-05-1974 marked as Ex.A30. A certificate to that effect was also issued by the Revenue

Department that Nagubandi Rangaiah was the owner of Ac.1-18gts in S.No.938/AA and also other properties including his wife who was the pattedar of Ac.1-35 gts in Sy.no.816/AA and the certificate is marked as Ex.A31. So, the land purchased by Addanki Ramaiah including Ac.1-18 gts in Sy.No.938/AA was validated by Tahsidhar

Huzurnagar, the competent authority who is vested with powers to validate the ordinary sale deed after collecting required fee. As such, the certificate marked as Ex.A30 became a legal document and Addanki Rangaiah acquired all rights over the property covered under Ex.A30 and so far, Ex.A30 is not challenged from any angle or by any person including the defendant herein.

Page 12

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

f) Coming to the sale deed executed by Addanki

Rangaiah marked as Ex.A1 vide document no.3249 dated 25-04- 1975 where under Addanki Ramaiah sold an extent of 2973.8 sq.yards jointly to Yele Buchi Ramulu, Gali Joji Reddy, Dange

Sharadha, Gona Saraswathi and Goushya Bhegam for consideration of Rs.15,000/- with specific boundaries, i.e, on the

East- Kodad Huzurnagar Road, West-Donka, South-

Market/Bazar, North-Donka/path way. The certificate marked as

Ex.A30 was also referred in Ex.A1 sale deed for more clarity. In turn the vendees under Ex.A1 sold the same extent 2973 sq.yards to Thammanaboena Ramaiah, Somagani Ramaiah and Malaboni

Sathyanarayana Reddy under sale deed marked as Ex.A2 dated 12-03-1982. Somagani Ramaiah one of the vendees under Ex.A2 got 50.sq.yards in a oral partition as such he along with two sons namely Burlinga Swami, Eshwaraiah sold 50 sq.yards in Sy.No.

938/AA to Konreddy Sushila and Modugu Janakamma under sale deed marked as Ex.A3 dated 17-03-1992. Somagani Ramaiah and his two sons also sold 353.7 sq.yards in Sy.no.938/AA to one

Konreddy Sriram Reddy, Modugu Venkat Reddy under sale deed

Ex.A4 dated 17-03-1992. One Thammanaboena Ramaiah,

Page 13

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

Somagani Ramaiah and Nallabothu Sathyanarayan Reddy jointly sold 402.6 sq.yards in Sy.No.938 to one Thondapu Narayanamma under Ex.A5 sale deed dated 05-02-1997. In turn the vendees under Ex.A3 sold 50 sq.yards in Sy.No.938/AA to second plaintiff under Ex.A6 sale deed dated 18-10-2004. The second plaintiff also purchased 402.6 sq.yards in Sy.No. 938 under Ex.A8 from vendee under Ex.A5 sale deed. The first plaintiff also purchased 353.7 sq.yards in Sy.no.938/AA under Ex.A7 sale deed dated 18-10-2004 from vendees under Ex.A4 sale deed.

g) So, the sale deeds available in the name of both plaintiffs under Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 prove that they purchased suit schedule property from their vendors’ vendor and vendors’ vendor. No doubt, both the sale deeds under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 do not reflect either Sy.No.938 or 938/AA. But, Ex.A1 sale deed executed by Addanki Ramaiah is sufficient to come to an irresistable conclusion that the sale under ordinary sale deed in favor of Addanki Ramaiah was validated under Ex.A30, 50-B certificate, and it is evident that Nagubandi Rangaiah sold the property Ac.1-18 gts in Sy.No. 938/AA and that documentary

Page 14

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet evidence cannot and should not be ignored without any reason or other evidence to nullify Ex.A30, 50-B certificate dt:31-05-1974.

h) The learned counsel for appellant filed written arguments explaining various aspects and also contending that the defendant is claiming 29 gts in Sy.No. 938/E/1 and created Ex.B28 and Ex.B29 pattedar passbook and title deeds respectively in respect of same property. The Gram Panchayath Kodad earlier sanctioned construction permission for house under Ex.A31 dated 08-07-2009 but, the same was cancelled under Ex.A36 proceedings by the same Gram panchayath. It is further contended that aggrieved by the same the defendant submitted an application under Ex.A37 dated 24-05-2011 to restore the permission under

Ex.A31 and the same is not considered. Further, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that Ex.B34 to Ex.B52 are not pertaining to suit schedule property and not at all useful to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Further, it is contended that with the permission of the plaintiff one Mellachervu Balaraju used to keep sand, stone bricks in the suit schedule property for the construction of his five storied Commercial Complex, as such, the suit schedule plot was not vacant as on the date of filing suit.

Page 15

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

i) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent also filed written arguments contending that no land in

Sy.no.938/AA was in the possession and enjoyment of Addanki

Ramaiah as he sold property under Ex. B34 to Ex. B52 (total 18 sale deeds). According to him, there was no land in Sy.no. 938/AA as on the date of Ex.A1 executed by Addanki Ramaiah and no boundaries are referred in Ex.A30 certificate and also no boundaries in Ex.A24 ordinary sale deed. He submitted that already Nagubandi Rangaiah died before Ex. A27 statement and

Nagubandi Ram Murthy and Laxman, being the sons of Rangaiah, sold 24 ½ gts under Ex.B34 to Ex.B37 and there is a balance of 33 ½ gts which is sold by Addanki Ramaiah under Ex.B34 to Ex.B52 sale deeds, therefore, there was no land to sell the property under

Ex.A1. He also submitted that the appellant cannot stand and rely on the weakness of the defendant and weakness of the defendant is not a ground to seek decree and the Trial Court applied the

Judgment of Anathula Sudhakar and discussed in detail and rightly dismissed the suit and there are no grounds to allow the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Page 16

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

j) In fact, there is no dispute and it is an admitted fact that the defendant also filed a prior suit in O.S.No.107 of 2009 against five defendants and these plaintiffs are D3 and D4 therein and the said suit is for perpetual injunction in respect of the property 2700 sq.yards out of Sy.no.938 , 938/E, 938/E/2 of Kodad village.

According to him, the property is ancestral property succeeded after death of his mother and the said suit is still pending before

Junior Civil Judge Court at Kodad.

k) It is already mentioned that defendant is claiming property in Sy.no. 938/EE and the same is supported by Ex.B1 to

Ex.B25 pahanies. The land in Sy.No. 938/E to an extent of Ac.1- 18gts stands in the name of the Chakali Sarvaiah both in the column of pattedar and enjoyer and nature of acquisition is shown as purchase. The claim of the defendant is confined to

Sy.no.938/EE and the name of his father was disclosed in some pahanies and names of Para Venkateshwarlu, Para Seethaiah also reflected in some pahanies, both in the column of pattedar and enjoyer. Even then, there is no explanation from the defendant as to how and why the names of Para Venkateshwarlu and Seethaiah are recorded in the place of his father’s name Veeraiah. The

Page 17

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet names of Sakkubhai /mother of the defendant and also name of

Para Venkateshwarlu were reflected in Ex. B8 to Ex.B14 ( pahanies for the 1980-1981 to 1992-1993) and it shows that Para

Venkateshwarlu is the Pattedhar of Ac.0-29 gts and Sakkubhai is also pattedar of Ac.0-29gts out of Ac.1-18gts. Further, in Ex. B15 the name of Para Venkateshwarlu is reflected and it shows that he is the Pattedhar and enjoyer of Ac.0-29gts in Sy.no 938/E (1), whereas, the name of Sakkubhai is also reflected and it shows that she is the Pattedhar and enjoyer of Ac.0-29gts in Sy.no 938/EE(2).

Though the name of Sakkubhai is reflected in the column of

Pattedhar, but in the column of enjoyer it was shown as Abadi in

Ex. B16 to Ex. B25 pahanies. The name of defendant is also mutated in Ex. B4 and Ex. B5 pahanies in the column of Pattedhar and thereafter, the name of his mother Sakkubhai is mutated and except the said pahanies the defendant has not filed any paper to show that he succeeded the property of 2700 sq.yards which is the subject matter in O.S.No. 107 of 2009 filed by him.

l) The defendant filed attested copy of title deed under

Ex. B29 claiming that he is the title holder of Ac.0-29gts in

Sy.no.938/EE/2 along with other properties. He also filed pattadar

Page 18

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet passbook/Ex.B28 wherein similar entries are reflected. As per the entries in the above documents, the property claimed by defendant to an extent of 2700 sq.yards (in O.S.no.107 of 2009) is in Sy.no.

938/EE/2, but not in the said three Sy.no i.e., 938, 938/E, 938/EE/2.

m) Though it is not the duty of the plaintiffs to disprove the claim of the defendant since it is a suit for injunction simplicitor, the plaintiffs filed Ex.A36 proceedings dated 13-07-2009 where under the Executive Officer of Gram panchayath Kodad cancelled the construction permission granted to the defendant till the dispute is settled between the defendant and Para Venkateshwarlu. In response to Ex.A36 the defendant submitted Ex.A37 representation dated 24-05-2011 to continue the construction permission already granted. But, there is no evidence to show whether the Gram panchayath Kodad accepted the request of the defendant under Ex.A37. The intention of plaintiffs who filed

Ex.A36 and Ex.A37 is that the defendant has no right over his land covered by the suit in O.S.no. 107 of 2009.

n) The defendant being a plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2009 is examined as PW1. Under Ex.A38 deposition wherein the

Page 19

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet defendant clearly admitted that he is son of Second wife of his father, and his father is also got one son through his first wife. The father name of Para Venkateshwarlu is also Veeraiah and he also filed a suit in O.S.No. 66 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge

Kodad against the defendant and plaintiffs herein, besides three others, for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the property to an extent of Ac.0-29 gts in Sy.no.938/EE1. As admitted by this defendant being defendant no.4 in his written statement in the said suit in O.S.No.66 of 2011 that he is the son of Veeraiah through

Sakkubhai who is second wife and Para Venkateshwarlu is son of first wife of Veeraiah, as such, both defendant and Para

Venkateshwarlu are the sons of Veeraiah through his two wives’ and the defendant is claiming his property through his mother

Sakkubhai whereas Para Venkateshwarlu claiming share directly from his father Veeraiah in Sy.No. 938/EE

o) As contended by the defendant Nagubandi Rammurthy and his brother Laxman sold different extents in Sy.No. 938 to third parties to a total extent of more than 24 gts in the year 1992 under

Ex.A34 to Ex.37. Likewise Addanki Ramaiah also sold land, in the

Page 20

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet shape of square yards to several persons under Ex-B-38 to B-52, in the year 1983, 1985 in Sy.No.938. On one hand, the Defendant says that there is no Survey Number in Ex. A1 and Ex.A2 as such the sale under Ex.A1 by Addanki Ramaiah for the land in

Sy.No.938 is not supported by any document. On the other hand the Defendant is taking help from the sale deeds under Ex. B38 to

Ex. B52 admitting the title and ownership of Addanki Ramaiah in respect of the land in Sy.No.938. The Defendant cannot blow hot and cold in breath. So the own documents of the Defendant under

Ex. B38 to Ex. B52 show that Ramaiah sold 2,973 sq.yards under

Ex.A1 out of total extent of 7018 square yards ( Ac-1-18 gts ).

p) It is clear that Addankai Ramaiah retained an extent of 4045 square yards, and he sold the said extent to third parties under Ex.B38 to Ex.B52. By considering Ex-A-1 to A-5 sale deeds in sequence commencing from 1974 till 1992, the property purchased by the Plaintiffs under Ex-A-6 to A-8 in the year 2004 - 2005 is the part and parcel of the property initially covered by Ex-A- 1 and fallowed by Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 in the same Sy. No.938/AA. The sales under Ex.B34 to Ex.B37 by the sons of Nagabandi Rangaiah in favor of third parties in Sy.No.938, the simple sale deed under

Page 21

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

Ex.A24 dated 16-08-1959 and ratified by Rammurthy and

Laxmaiah sons of Nagabandi Rangaiah under Ex.A26 statement, no doubt nullify the sales under Ex.B34 to Ex.B37.

q) The law is well settled that in a suit for simple injunction possession as on the date of filing suit is the paramount consideration for granting or rejecting the discretionary relief of injunction. Therefore, the court is permitted by the law only to consider both oral and documentary evidence to prove the possession over the property and the question of title is only incidentally gone into the question of involvement of title in a suit for injunction cannot be a serious question to decide the issue of title unless there is serious title dispute and claim by an opposite party and a counter claim in respect of the same property. In the case on hand the suit schedule property covered by Sy. No.938/AA whereas the property of the Defendant covered by Sy.No.938, 938/E, 938/E/1 as pert the schedule in O.S.No.107 of 2009 initiated by the

Defendant against these Plaintiffs and three others.

r) Turning to the oral evidence of Pw-1/Plaintiff No.1 he admitted that Ex.A1 did not contain Sy.No.938/AA and the mother

Page 22

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet of the Defendant has land in Sy. No.938/EE to an Extent of Ac-1-18 gts. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs are not claiming any inch of land in Sy. No.938/EE and confined their claim only to Sy.

No.938/AA. The sole defendant examined as DW1 and during cross examination he fairly admitted that the land in Sy.no. 938/AA is to an extent of Ac.1-18gts. Moreover, he admitted that

Nagubandi Rangaiah was the original Pattedar of the land to an extent of Ac.1-18 gts in Sy.No. 938/AA and in the year 1974 50-B certificate was issued to Addanki Ramaiah for the same land i.e.,

Ac.1-18gts in Sy.no. 938/AA covered by Ex.A30. Further, he admitted that Addanki Ramaiah sold way 4815 sq.yards under Ex.

B-38 to Ex. B52 .

q) Therefore, the own admission of DW1 that schedule property in O.S.No. 107 of 2009 not covered by Sy.No. 938/EE2.

This admission itself sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the defendant, to the extent that the defendant is always uncertain whether his claim of 2700 sq.yards is in Sy.no. 938/EE, as per pahanies or in three Sy.Nos. 938, 938/E, 938/E/2 as per O.S.No.

107 of 2009. Therefore, the claim set up by the defendant in his written statement and also in his evidence affidavit that the suit

Page 23

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet schedule property is not located in Sy.No. 938/AA and suit schedule property is part and parcel of in Sy.no. 938/EE/2 which is a subject matter in O.S.No. 107 of 2009, is not supported by any documents. The defendant has also filed various documents including pahanies and sale deeds. Even the pahanies filed by the defendant is support the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of property own by Nagabandi

Rangaiah, the original owner who sold way the same property to

Addanki Ramaiah. The defendant has also taken a plea that there are no boundaries referred to the schedule property covered by

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. But the same does not invalidate the two

Registered sale deeds. Morever, there is a clarification both in

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, that Addanki Ramaiah acquired the property by way of simple sale deed and the same is validated under Ex.A30 certificate. The Law is also well settled that the boundaries of the property always prevail extent and boundaries may be changed from time to time on account of sales of the neighboring land and the new purchaser becomes a boundary owner. So, changing of boundaries from one sale deed to another sale deed does not mean that the property is not within the boundaries. Mere

Page 24

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet changing of the boundaries not at all changes the extent of the land except in the case of encroachment.

15. So without any hesitation it can be held that the Trial

Court came to incorrect conclusion that the parties to the suit fail to establish their respective cases in support of their pleadings. The

Trial Court on its own relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 6191 of 2001 between Anathula

Sudhakar V/s P Buchi Reddy and others and by applying the ratio laid down in that case to the present case on hand, the Trial Court observed that where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and Law and Court or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis of that the title was in issue should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction.

Further where the title of plaintiff is disputed and the plaintiff failed to offer in any explanation on the question of title of his vendors vendor and in view of the discrepancies in Ex.A24 and Ex.A30 which came into existence subsequent to Ex-A-34 to Ex.A-37 those complected questions only could be examine in a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. When the title of the plaintiff is not simple clear and involves complected or complex

Page 25

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet questions of fact and Law and Court feels that the parties have not proceeded on the basis of title was at issue the Court should not decide the title of issue in the suit for injunction. Therefore, the proper course is to relegate the plaintiffs to the remedy of full pledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.

16. The facts involved in the said Anathula Sudhakar case are as under:

One K.B Dhamodhar Rao and Rukminibhai are brother and sister, and Rukmini bhai executed sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs claiming that her brother gifted the property orally. The defendant also obtained sale deed from the original owner K.V.Dhamodhar

Rao. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction when the defendant started interfering with their possession and the Trial Court decreed the suit. On first appeal the Addl. District Judge Warangal allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff filed second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Ap.

Which allowed the appeal and restored the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same the defendant filed civil appeal 6191 of 2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Page 26

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet and the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid a Law to follow in the cases filed for permanent injunction to the effect that where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession a suit for declaration and possession with or without consequential injunction is the remedy. Where the plaintiffs title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiffs’ law full possession or threat of disposition, it is sufficient to sue for injunction simplicitor. If the property is a vacant site which is not physically possessed, used are enjoyed. In such, case the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claimed to be in possession of a vacant site one who is established title thereto will be considered to be in possession as in against the person who is not able to establish title. Where the plaintiffs have clear title supported by documents if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiffs title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further

Page 27

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet observed that in a suit for injunction simplicitor is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly or substantially in issue, a prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. Finally, the Hon'ble

Supreme court by considering the rival claims of the plaintiffs and defendant in respect of the same property involved in the judgment, observed that the court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

17. By applying the same to the facts of the present case that from the beginning the case of the plaintiffs that they purchased the property under Ex. A6 to Ex. A8 sale deeds in respect of the land in

Sy.No. 938/AA and they are in possession of the property. Since the schedule property is an open plot, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their possession over it. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant is confined to land in Sy.No. 938/E1 a separate and distinct property and no way concerned, connected to suit schedule property. Even as per the boundaries of the suit schedule property, the defendant is not at all a neighbor to the suit property even

Page 28

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet according to defendant his schedule property in O.S.No. 107 of 2009 also having specific boundaries and the suit schedule herein is not at all a boundary to the property of defendant.

Therefore, it can be said that the suit schedule property is totally different from the suit property in O.S.No. 107 of 2009. As such, the claim of the defendant that the suit property is part and parcel of his property in Sy.no. 938/E/1 not supported by any documents. So, without any hesitation it can be said that the defendant raised a false claim against the suit property without any manner of right. When the suit property and property of the defendant are different properties, the question of title dispute does not arise. Once there is no title dispute in respect of the suit property, mere denial of title by the defendant in his written statement is not a ground to drive the plaintiff to amend the suit for declaration to decide the title of the plaintiff over the suit property.

The Trial Court simply came to the conclusion by misinterpreting the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra and came to wrong conclusion that the simple suit for injunction is not maintainable without amending the prayer for the relief of declaration. The Trial Court also erred in appreciating the

Page 29

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet documentary evidence in right perspective and totally ignored the documents filed by the plaintiffs proving their possession over the suit property.

The Trial Court did not properly appreciate the illegal interference by the defendant without any base and only with a simple pleading, by the defendant that the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of his property in Sy. No. 938/E/1 and since the suit filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 107 of 2009 is a prior suit than the suit in OS.No.115 of 2009 is dismissed the suit.

18. Since Plaintiffs filed the suit for Simple injunction the onus of proof of possession over the schedule property is on the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs completely discharged their burden to prove the possession of the property. Therefore, there is no need to include the relief of Declaration by amending the Plaint. So, the finding recorded by the trial court, that simple suit for injunction is not maintainable and is not all sustainable, is not correct.

19. The Law is well settled that the Appellate Courts are vested with powers to rectify and correct the judgment and orders passed by the trial courts. So, this court being an Appellate Court examined, both oral and documentary evidence and came to an

Page 30

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet irresistible conclusion that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the property. Therefore, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is perfectly maintainable. The trial court dismissed the suit on the sole premise that there is title dispute, and the Plaintiffs have to amend the Plaint by including the relief of Declaration and without the relief of

Declaration the simple suit for injunction is not maintainable is beyond the scope of the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the

Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit in OS.No.115 of 2009 is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

11. POINT NO.3: To what relief?

In the result the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and

Decree passed by the trial court dated 09-12-2016 in OS. No.115 of 2009 hereby set aside and the suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby

Decreed granting Perpetual Injunction to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.

Page 31

AS.NO.02 of 2017

on the file of Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SURYAPET

Page 1 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRTICT JUDGE: AT

SURYAPET.

(DATED, THIS, THE 18th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SRI B. GAUTAM PRASAD,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

O.S.No. 29 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

Kandibanda Venkateswarlu S/o Naraiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business and Agriculture R/o Gaddipally village, Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

--PLAINTIFF

A N D

1. Katta Srinivas Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o H.No.1-1-464, Ward No.1, Nehru Nagar, Suryapet Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District R/o H.No.4-23, Potlapahad Village, Penpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Bibireddy Lakshmaiah S/o Kistaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-1-191, Chandrannakunta, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

3. Pasuvula Nagamma W/o Venkataiah, Age:52 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.2-6-161/3/2, Near Mutyalamma Temple, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

4. Edulla Radha Krishna Reddy S/o Linga Reddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-88, Narayanagudem, Penpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

5. Edulla Ramakrishna Reddy S/o Linga Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-88, Narayanagudem, Penpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

Page 2 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

--DEFENDANTS

This case is coming for consideration before me in the presence of Sri Grandhi Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for the plaintiff, and of Sri Banala Vijaya Kumar, Counsel for the defendant No.1 and of Sri.D.Umapathi, Counsel for the Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.5 and upon perusing the material papers on record, evidence and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants for specific performance of contract dt: 21.09.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property i.e. Ac.4.17 gts in Sy.No.253/A/2 (out of total admeasuring

Ac.8.17 gts) situated at Potlapahad (V) Penpahad (M), Nalgonda

District (Now Suryapet District).

2. Gist of Plaintiff’s case:

a) Defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property. He offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.22,12,500/- for his personal and family necessities. Plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and on 21.09.2012 defendant executed agreement (Ex.A1) by taking

Rs.20,80,000/- and also passed stamped receipt (Ex.A2).

Defendant No.1 represented to the plaintiff that an amount of

Rs.1,32,500/- is due to Cooperative Society, Potlapahad towards tractor loan and pattadar pass book and title deeds pertaining to

Page 3 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet the suit schedule property are deposited in the said cooperative society and he would clear the loan and get back the said documents.

b) Plaintiff has been ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration and he called upon defendant No.1 and explained him whether said tractor loan has been cleared or not.

But defendant No.1 went on promising to clear the said loan.

Meanwhile plaintiff learnt that defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 brought into existence sale agreement cum GPAs in the name of defendant No.2 to defendant

No.5 in respect of Ac.1.17 gts executed by D1 in favour of D5 dt:

7.3.2013, registered sale deed dt: 15.04.2013 executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of similar extent i.e. Ac.1.17 gts in Sy.No.253/a2, agreement cum GPA dt:

7.3.2013 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.1.00 gts, registered sale deed dt: 15.03.2013 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of Ac.1.15 gts. No consideration was passed under the above agreement cum GPA and registered sale deeds.

c) Plaintiff questioned all the defendants and also informed to elders by names Ramineni Krishnaiah and N.Surya

Page 4 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

Narayana and others in whose presence defendants agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property by cancelling all the above said documents brought into existence. But again defendants dragged on the matter on one pretext or the other. Moreover, in the first week of August 2015, when plaintiff demanded all the defendants to execute sale deed all the defendants threatened him with dire consequences. Then, he got issued legal notice to the defendant No.1 to defendant No.5 on 28.08.2015. Defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 received notices on 31.08.2015, but there is no response. Hence, this suit.

3. Gist of defendants’ case:

Defendant No.1 filed written statement. Defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 filed separate common written statements.

The averments of written statement filed by defendant No1.

In brief are as follows:

a) Plaintiff, this defendant and one Konduri Eswaraiah are close friends. Said Konduri Eswaraiah used to run paddy business and used to approach defendant No.1 whenever he requires money for his business purpose and defendant No.1 used to arrange amounts from his friends including plaintiff. The plaintiff also used to purchase paddy from the farmers and in turn used to sell the same to said Konduri Eswaraiah. As usual in the year

Page 5 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet 2012 the said Konduri Eswaraiah approached the plaintiff and took paddy but has not paid money to the plaintiff. In that connection plaintiff insisted said Konduri Eswaraiah either to pay amount or to return paddy. Then said Konduri Eswaraiah approached defendant

No.1 and requested him to convince the plaintiff in order to get time till selling away paddy. First defendant being close friend requested plaintiff to give some time and plaintiff agreed for the same. Surprisingly said Konduri Eswaraiah escaped from the village without paying amounts to the farmers and plaintiff for the paddy purchased by him. In that connection plaintiff approached defendant No.1 and insisted him to bring back said Konduri

Eswaraiah or to pay amounts for paddy purchased on the ground that on his assurance only he has given time to said Konduri

Eswaraiah. But defendant No.1 refused the said proposal and he tried his level best to secure the presence of said Konduri

Eswaraiah but in vain. Then plaintiff developed grudge against first defendant and in the year 2013 first defendant placed the matter

before elders i.e. Billa Ramaiah, Kukuntla Lalaiah and Mekapothula

Jagan and they called the plaintiff and reprimanded him stating that first defendant is no way responsible for the amounts liable to be paid by said Konduri Eswaraiah and advised him to take action against Konduri Eswaraiah. Then plaintiff bore grudge against first

Page 6 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet defendant and created agreement of sale and filed this false suit.

Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

The averments of written statement filed by defendant

No.2 to defendant No.5 are as follows:

a) It is contended that alleged agreement is not genuine and defendant No.1 and plaintiff colluded with each other to cause loss to these defendants and sale agreement is not binding on these defendants and the transactions between defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 are genuine and the purchasers are bonafide purchasers and paid consideration. The alleged agreement of sale was brought into existence to defeat the rights of these defendants and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit. Plaintiff never questioned these defendants at any time. These defendants never seen the face of plaintiff. It is false to allege that in the first week of August 2015, plaintiff demanded these defendants to execute sale deed and these defendants threatened him. Plaintiff never demanded these defendants to execute sale deed in his favour basing on the alleged agreement. Defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 after receiving legal notice got issued reply notice and the plaintiff without waiting for reply got filed the suit in hurried manner. The suit is also barred by limitation and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

Page 7 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1) Whether the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale on 21.09.2012 with the plaintiff?

2) Whether the defendant No.1 has received part payment of Rs.20,80,000/-?

3) Whether the defendant No.2 has purchased Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.253/A2 at Potlapahad village under sale-cum-GPA on 7.3.2013 vide registered document No.2926/2013?

4) Whether D-2 sold the purchased property in favour of Beebireddy Venkanna under a registered sale deed?

5) Whether D-3 in collusion with D-1 purchased Ac.1.15 guntas of land in Sy.No.253/A2 situated at Potlapahad village under registered sale deed No.3235/2013 dt:15.3.2013?

6) Whether D-5 in collusion with D1 purchased Ac.1.17 guntas of land in Sy.No.253/A at Potlapahad in collusion with D-1 under registered sale cum GPA bearing No.2927/2013 dt: 7.3.2013?

7) Whether D-5 get registered the land in favour of D-4 through registered sale deed bearing No.4680/2013 dt:15.4.2013?

8) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract?

10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of refund of earning sale consideration of Rs.20,80,000/-?

11) To what relief?

Page 8 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

5. During the trial plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 besides examining both the attestors as PWs2 and 3 and Ex-

Sarpanch of the said village as PW4. Ex.A1 to A9 documents are also marked. On defendants’ side defendant No.2, defendant

No.1, defendant No.4, defendant No.3 and defendant No.5 themselves are examined as Dws1, 2 and 4 to 6 respectively.

Though chief affidavit of DW3 is filed but he did not get ready to face cross-examine even on imposing costs of Rs.250/- and on 14.11.2022 at the request of counsel for defendant No.1 ultimately his evidence was eschewed, from record and consideration.

6. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following decisions.

1) 2022 (2) ALT 218 (A.P) in a case between State of

Andhra Pradesh and others v. M.Chinapapamma and others

2) 2002 (1) ALT 466 (D.B) in a case between State Sajana

Granites, Madras and another vs. Manduva Srinivasa

Rao and another

3) 2021 (4) ALT 383 (D.B) (T.S) in a case between

S.Ramachari and others vs. M/s Trichsala Infractureture

Pvt.Ltd and others

4) 2022 (4) ALT 158 (D.B) (T.S) in a case between Dasari

Krishna Reddy vs. L.I.C Housing Finance Limited.

Page 9 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

5) Special Leave Petition (c) No.13917 of 2009 in a case between Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of

Haryana & Another

6) Special Leave Appeal No.6989-6992 of 2021 in a case between Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar and others

7) 2000 (4) ALT 83 (S.C) in a case between

R.K.Mohammed Ubaidullah and others vs. Hajee C.Abdul

Wahab (died) by L.Rs and others

8) 2020 (2) ALT 303 (A.P) in a case between Kota

Sambasiva Rao vs. Kandepu Anasurya and another

7. ISSUES NO.1 & 2: Whether the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale on 21.09.2012 with the plaintiff? And Whether the defendant No.1 has received part payment of Rs.20,80,000/-?

In fact there is no dispute that suit schedule property belongs to first defendant both parties also admitted that suit schedule property belongs to first defendant earlier to the alleged agreement of sale under Ex.A1.

a) According to the plaintiff the first defendant agreed to sell the schedule property for an amount of Rs.22,12,500/- and by receiving an amount of Rs.20,80,000/-, first defendant executed

Ex.A1 agreement and also passed Ex.A2 receipt for the said consideration of Rs.20,80,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that first defendant sought time for completion of contract stating that he obtained tractor loan from co-operative society Potlapahad and the same is to be discharged to get title deed and pattadar and

Page 10 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet pass book deposited by him in said cooperative society and the balance amount of Rs.1,32,500/- is retained with plaintiff to be paid by him to the first defendant at the time of execution of regular sale deed. The allegation of the plaintiff is that in spite of sufficient time taken by first defendant for getting title deed and pattadar pass book from the said cooperative society, he failed to come forward to complete the contract under Ex.A1 and more over first defendant in collusion with defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 brought into existence sham and nominal documents covered by Exs.A2 to A6 to defeat the rights of plaintiff.

b) The contention of the first defendant on the other side is that he never executed any agreement in favour of plaintiff nor received any amount as earnest money or part of sale consideration and Exs.A1 and A2 are fabricated documents brought into existence to grab the schedule property. According to first defendant he recommended plaintiff to advance loans to one

Konduri Eswaraiah who is known to both himself and plaintiff and when said Konduri Eswaraiah failed to pay money due to plaintiff, the plaintiff resorted to create Exs.A1 and A2 and basing on the same he filed this false suit. It is the allegation of the first defendant that plaintiff requested him to pay amounts advanced to said Konduri Eswaraiah as he recommended to advance loans and

Page 11 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet when first defendant refused to fulfill the said demand the plaintiff developed grudge against him and in that connection matter was placed before elders i.e. Billa Ramaiah, Kukuntla Lalaiah and

Mekapothula Jagan and the said elders advised plaintiff not to demand first defendant to discharge loans obtained by said

Konduri Eswaraiah on the ground that first defendant recommended plaintiff to advance loans to the said Konduri

Eswaraiah.

c) As already stated above defendant No.2 to defendant

No.5 filed separate common written statement contending that first defendant colluded with plaintiff and brought into existence. Ex.A1 and A2 documents to defeat their rights over the schedule property because they purchased schedule property and they are in possession over the same.

d) Coming to the aspect of execution of Ex.A1 agreement by first defendant, to establish execution of Ex.A1 agreement the plaintiff got testified himself as PW1 and through him Ex.A1 agreement and A2 receipt are marked. He also examined both the attestors of Ex.A1 and A2 as Pws 2 and 3. All the three witnesses in one voice deposed that it is the first defendant who executed

Ex.A1 agreement and passed Ex.A2 receipt. Their evidence coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 documents clearly shows that on

Page 12 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet 21.09.2012 first defendant executed Ex.A1 agreement agreeing to sell schedule property to the plaintiff and received most of the consideration i.e. Rs.20,80,000/- and balance to be paid is only

Rs.1,32,500/-. According to the plaintiff execution of regular sale deed is postponed to enable first defendant to get back pattadar pass book Ex.B3, title deed Ex.B4 deposited with cooperative society, Potlapahad from which first defendant said to be borrowed loan for purchasing tractor.

e) As already stated above, first defendant is examined as DW2 and his chief examination affidavit is nothing but reiteration of averments mentioned in his written statement. According to him, he never agreed to sell schedule property nor executed Ex.A1 agreement, nor passed Ex.A2 receipt. Admittedly, first defendant is a B.Sc Computer Graduate and he studied degree in English

Medium. Further, there is no denial that he has got acquaintance with plaintiff. According to him, Ex.A1 and A2 do not bear his signatures and they are fabricated one. But he did not try to establish that Exs.A1 and A2 do not bear his signatures. He did not even take steps to file documents pertaining to relevant period of Ex.A1 and A2 documents to use them to compare by the court to ascertain whether they are identical or not. He simply took plea that Ex.A1 and A2 do not bear his signatures. On the other hand,

Page 13 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 goes to show that it is the first defendant who executed Ex.A1 agreement and passed Ex.A2 receipt. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pws 2 and 3 attestors particularly. Moreover, they are not interested witnesses either to plaintiff or to defendants. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 clearly shows that execution of Ex.A1 took place in the house of PW2/attestor at Hyderabad.

f) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, there is a recital in Ex.A1 agreement about taking loan by first defendant for purchasing tractor and it shows that an amount of Rs.1,32,500/- is due to the said cooperative society towards tractor loan. So, without any hesitation it can be held that first defendant executed Ex.A1 agreement in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and now he changed his version. He also passed Ex.A2 receipt for the amount of Rs.20,80,000/- received by him. So, both the issues are answered in the affirmative.

8. ISSUES NO.3 to 7: Whether the defendant No.2 has purchased Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.253/A2 at Potlapahad village under sale-cum-GPA on 7.3.2013 vide registered document No.2926/2013? Whether D-2 sold the purchased property in favour of Beebireddy Venkanna under a registered sale deed? Whether D-3 in collusion with D-1 purchased Ac.1.15 guntas of land in Sy.No.253/A2 situated at Potlapahad village under registered sale deed No.3235/2013 dt:15.3.2013? Whether D-5 in collusion with D1 purchased Ac.1.17 guntas of land in Sy.No.253/A at Potlapahad in collusion with D-1 under registered sale cum GPA

Page 14 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet bearing No.2927/2013 dt: 7.3.2013? and Whether D-5 get registered the land in favour of D-4 through registered sale deed bearing No.4680/2013 dt:15.4.2013?

a) It is the contention of defendant No.2 to defendant

No.5 that Exs.A1 and A2 were brought into existence by the first defendant in collusion with plaintiff to defeat their rights over the extents purchased by these defendants out of suit schedule property. As already stated above, defendant No.2 to defendant

No.5 are examined as DW1, 4 to 6. Through them Ex.B1 to B8 documents are filed. They relate to purchases made by them in respect of suit schedule property.

b) According to the plaintiff’s all these counsel transactions in favour of defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 are sham and nominal and not supported by consideration. As rightly pointed out by him DW1/defendant No.2 in his cross examination revealed that in the year of said purchase value of one acre was

Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-, but Ex.A5 agreement cum GPA executed in his favour shows that value of said land was shown as

Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. He also stated that in his I.T returns this transaction was not reflected. Further attestors or scribe of Ex.A5 agreement cum sale are not examined. During his further cross examination he deposed that on the date of registration of Ex.A5

Page 15 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet they did not go to the property and he cannot say the length and width of land covered by said Ex.A5 GPA cum sale.

c) Likewise with regard to another alleged purchase of

Ac.1.15 gts by DW5/defendant No.3 under Ex.A6 document during her cross examination DW5 revealed that an agreement was obtained first in the name of her husband by paying Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and they paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- at the time of registration. She admitted during further cross examination that

Ex.A6 does not show about the earlier agreement. She also did not choose to examine attestors and scribe of Ex.A6.

d) Further another purchaser DW4/defendant No.4 also stated that cost of land was Rs.5,00,000/- per acre at the time of the alleged transaction. But his document/Ex.A4 shows that it was obtained for only Rs.2,14,000/- for the extent of Ac.1.17 gts. He also did not choose to examine his attestors and scribe of his document Ex.A4.

e) All the above said facts clearly go to show that the alleged purchases under Ex.A3 to A6 are not genuine and admittedly they are subsequent to Ex.A1 agreement.

f) According to learned counsel for plaintiff defendant

No.2 to defendant No.5 cannot be treated as bonafide purchasers.

In this connection he relied upon a decision reported in 2000 (4)

Page 16 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

ALT 83 (S.C) in a case between R.K.Mohammed Ubaidullah and others vs. Hajee C.Abdul Wahab (died) by L.Rs and others wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“SPECIFIC RELEIF ACT, 1963, Sec.19 – question whether appellants are bona fide purchasers of the suit property in good faith, for value without notice - subsequent purchasers to make enquiries about prior agreements.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court declared defendants as not the bonafide purchasers under the circumstances of the case therein.

The facts and circumstances of the above cited case squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

g) The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a decision reported in 2020 (2) ALT 303 (A.P) in a case between

Kota Sambasiva Rao vs. Kandepu Anasurya and another wherein the Hon’ble High Court of A.P held as under:

“Subsequent events - A court can take notice of subsequent events and would amend the relief.” “Relief without amendment – even in the absence of amendment of plaint, the plaintiff would be entitled to canvass that she is entitled to a larger share than that was originally claimed to be in the suit.”

Page 17 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

In this case also Exs.A3 to A6 are subsequent documents to

Exs.A1 and A2, as such it is the bounden duty of subsequent purchasers to enquire about the prior transactions, but in this case in collusion with defendant No.1, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 created the documents, as such the said documents can be set aside even without there being any specific plea.

h) In view of the above discussion all the issues No.3 to 7 are answered against the defendants.

9. ISSUE NO.8: Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

According to the plaintiff he was always ready and willing to get regular sale deed basing on Ex.A1 agreement from first defendant and it was the first defendant who failed to come forward to complete contract under Ex.A1. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the reason for postponing execution of regular sale deed is to enable first defendant to get back his title deed and pattadar pass book deposited with the said cooperative society and it is already observed that Ex.A1 bears recital with regard to said fact. The evidence on record clearly shows that plaintiff paid nearly 95% of the consideration for the entire extent agreed to be purchased. It shows that out of total

Page 18 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet amount of Rs.22,12,500/-, he paid Rs.20,80,000/- and balance is only Rs.1,32,500/-. Nobody keeps quiet after paying almost 95% of the consideration, without getting regular sale deed. Therefore the contention that because of inaction of first defendant, plaintiff could not obtain regular sale deed basing on Ex.A1 agreement, is tenable. Ex.A7 is the legal notice got issued by plaintiff expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and first defendant received it, but did not come forward to complete the contract. Since plaintiff paid almost 95% of the consideration and he got issued prior legal notice demanding all defendants to come forward to execute regular sale deed in his favour, without any hesitation it can be held that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and it was the first defendant who did not cooperate plaintiff to complete contract. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in the affirmative.

10. ISSUE NOS. 9 & 10: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract? And Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of refund of earning sale consideration of Rs.20,80,000/-?

a) It is already opined in issue No.1 and 2 that defendant

No.1 agreed to sell schedule property to the plaintiff and entered into Ex.A1 agreement and first defendant also passed Ex.A2 receipt, for the huge amount towards consideration received under

Ex.A1. It is also held in issue No.8 that the plaintiff established his

Page 19 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet readiness and willingness to complete contract under Ex.A1 and due to inaction of first defendant agreement under Ex.A1 could not completed.

b) Issues i.e. 3 to 7 pertaining to transactions made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, defendant No.5 and defendant No.3 and resale made by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.4 pertaining to ac.1.17 gts, are also answered against the defendants. It is already opined that they cannot be termed as bonafide purchasers in respect of Ac.1.7 gts sold in favour of defendant No.5, Ac.1.00 gts in favour of defendant No,2 and Ac.1.15 gts in favour of defendant No.3.

c) Keeping in view the above said circumstances and findings, instead of granting alternative relief of refund of said consideration of Rs.20,80,000/-, granting relief of specific performance of contract directing defendant No.1 to defendant

No.5 to execute sale deed in respect of schedule property in favour of plaintiff, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, issue No.9 is answered in the affirmative, whereas issue No.10 is answered in the negative.

11.ISSUE NO.11: To what relief?

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.

Page 20 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

a) Defendant No.1 to defendant No.5 are hereby directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule land.

b) The plaintiff shall deposit balance sale consideration of

Rs.1,32,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Two Thousand Five Hundred

Only) within 30 days from the date of this judgment.

c) If the defendants failed to execute registered sale deed within 30 days, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same executed under due process of law.

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW1: K.Venkateshwarlu PW2: N.Surya Narayana PW3: R.Krishnaiah PW4: M.Pichaiah

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

DW1: Beebireddy Laxmaiah DW2: K.Srinivas Reddy

Page 21 of 21

O.S.No.29 of 2015

on the file of Prl.Dist. Judge, Suryapet

DW3: D.Nagiah (Eschewed) DW4: E.Radha Krishna Reddy DW5: P.Nagamma DW6: E.Rama Krishna Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 The Original agreement of sale deed dt: 21.09.2012

Ex.A2 Original stamped receipt dt: 21.09.2012

Ex.A3 C.C of agreement of sale cum GPA dt: 7.3.2013

Ex.A4 C.C. of registered sale deed dt:15.04.2013

Ex.A5 C.C of agreement cum GPA dt: 7.3.2013

Ex.A6 C.C of registered sale deed dt: 15.03.2013

Ex.A7 Office copy of legal notice dt: 28.08.2015

Ex.A8 Returned cover with acknowledgement

Ex.A9 Two postal acknowledgements

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 Office copy of reply notice

Ex.B2 Postal receipt

Ex.B3 Pattadar pass book

Ex.B4 Telangana State pass book cum title deed

Ex.B5 C.C of Meeseva pahani for the year 2015 dt: 28.10.2015

Ex.B6 Pattadar pass book

Ex.B7 Title deed

Ex.B8 E.Pass book cum title deed vide khatha No.738.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

Page 1 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRTICT JUDGE: AT

SURYAPET.

(DATED, THIS, THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SRI B. GAUTAM PRASAD,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

A.S.No. 26 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. Banala Kotesh S/o B.Venkateshwarlu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o Barkathgudem village, Munagal mandal, Suryapet District.

2. Vadapally Venkateshwarlu S/o Sriramulu, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture and business, R/o H.NO.1-118/1, Kodad village, Suryapet District (since deceased per L.Rs 3 to 6)

3. Vadapalli Rangamma W/o late Venkateshwarlu, Age: 56 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.NO.1-118/1, Kodad village, Suryapet District.

4. Vadapalli Rajani @ Munagala Rajini W/o Srinu, D/o late Venkateshwarlu, Age: 39 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.NO.1-118/1, Kodad village, Suryapet District.

5. Vadapalli Vijaya @ Gunti Vijaya Laxmi D/o late Venkateshwarlu, Age: 36 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.NO.1-118/1, Kodad village, Suryapet District.

6. Vadapalli Ramakrishna @ Stalin S/o late Venkateshwarlu, Age: 33 years, Occ: nil, R/o H.NO.1-118/1, Kodad village, Suryapet District. (Appellants 3 to 6 are brought on record as per orders in I.A. No.742/2022 dt:3.01.2023)

Page 2 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

..Appellants/Defendants

AND Chinta Laxmi @ Kakumanu Laxmi, W/o Promod Reddy, D/o late Chandra Reddy, Age:57 years, R/o H.No.8293, Windy Harbor Way, West Chester, OH 45069, U.S.A rep. by her S.P.A. holder Chinta Hanuma Reddy, S/o late Chandra Reddy, Age: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gudibanda village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District. Respondent/Plaintiff

AGGRIEVED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KODAD

DATED:21.06.2019 PASSED

IN

OS.NO. 190 of 2009

BETWEEN:

Chinta Laxmi @ Kakumanu Laxmi, W/o Promod Reddy, D/o late Chandra Reddy, Age:57 years, R/o H.No.8293, Windy Harbor Way, West Chester, OH 45069, U.S.A rep. by her S.P.A. holder Chinta Hanuma Reddy, S/o late Chandra Reddy, Age: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gudibanda village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District. …Plaintiff

AND

1. Banala Kotesh S/o B.Venkateshwarlu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o Barkathgudem village, Munagal mandal, Suryapet District.

2. Vadapally Venkateshwarlu S/o Sriramulu, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture and business, R/o H.NO.1-118/1, Kodad village, Suryapet District. …Defendants

Page 3 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

This appeal is coming for consideration before me in the presence of Sri V.L.B Kesari, Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants and Sri Y.Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Present appeal is filed u/s 96 and u/o 41 of cpc against the judgment and decree passed by Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Kodad in OS.NO.190/2019 dt: 21.06.2019.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial court. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred as they were referred before the trial court.

3. Plaintiff’s case:

a) The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property admeasuring 1500 sq.yards in Sy.No.524/A, 524/AA situated at Kodad. Plaintiff’s brother in law L.Nageshwar

Reddy gifted the suit property to the plaintiff under registered gift deeds documents bearing No.781/1998 Dt: 30.03.1998 and 803/1998 dt: 30.03.1998 and delivered the possession of the same. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same

Page 4 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet since said L.Nageshwar Reddy purchased 0.13 gts of land from predecessors in title Sri.Budan and Sk.Gulam Dasthagiri under registered sale deed document No.341/1973 dt: 22.01.1973.

The plaintiff let off the suit schedule property to Gopi, Guruvaiah and K.Rajasekhar. The said tenants of the plaintiff have been paying rents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been residing at

U.S.A.

b) The defendants do not have any right title or interest over the suit schedule property but taking undue advantage of the plaintiff’s residence at U.S.A they are trying to occupy the suit schedule property illegally. They trespassed into the suit schedule property on 20.12.2009 and tried to occupy the same.

Special Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff resisted the attempts and lodged complaint to the police. But the police did not take any action. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit through

Special Power of Attorney Holder for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

4. The defendants case:

a) The defendants along with one Linga Reddy purchased 294 Sq.yards and 14.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.524 from

Page 5 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

Sk.Budan and Sk.Gulam Dastagiri under registered sale deeds documents No.1620/2006 dt: 01.04.2006 and 1622/2006 dt:

01.04.2006 (P). The son of Sk.Budan also filed rectification deeds document bearing No.2293/2006 dt: 25.05.2006 and 2294/2006 dt: 25.05.2006. The defendants got surveyed the said land by seeking direction from the Hon’ble High Court. The

Deputy Surveyor fixed boundaries after the survey. Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the above land. It is further contended that the document of the plaintiff are fake documents brought into existence by the plaintiff’s vendor

Maheshwar Reddy although he was not having any land in

Sy.No.524. It is contended that the plaintiff filed the suit to grab the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is not entitled for injunction as prayed for and the suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial court.

1. Whether power of attorney of plaintiff is not valid as contended by the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

Page 6 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

6. During the course of trial, plaintiff to establish her case before the trial court examined her Special Power of

Attorney Holder. As PW1 apart from examining Pws 2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A53. The defendants got examined DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B13. However, the evidence of Dw2 & 4 was got eschewed by them.

7. The trial judge upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and contentions of both sides decree the suit of the plaintiff with costs.

8. Now the present appeal is filed challenging the findings of the trial court. The learned counsel or the appellants/ defendants submitted that the trial court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and giving finding wrongly. It is submitted that the trial court erred in considering the evidence of Pws1 who is the

Special Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff and does not have persona knowledge with regard to the facts spoken to by him. The defendants also submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the suit schedule property is separate from the

Page 7 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet property mentioned in the Ex.A4 & A5 gift deeds. It is also submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff has not filed any other documents except Ex.B5, B6 sale deeds to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. It is also submitted that the trial court failed to consider that plaintiff does not chosen to get herself examined as witness to prove her possession over the suit schedule property.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the findings of the trial court by praying to uphold the judgment and decree and dismiss the present appeal. It is further contended that the evidence of DW1, 3 & 5 and Exs.B1 to B13 are not useful to prove the case of the defendants and disprove the case of the plaintiff. It is contended that DW1 admitted in his cross examination that by the date of Ex.B5 & B6 sale deeds Si.Budan and Sk.Dastagiri the vendors of defendant already expired and more over DW5 admitted in his cross examination that defendants are not in possession of land in Sy.No.524. It is contended by the plaintiff that the evidence of Pws 1 to 4 and

Exs.A1 to A53 proves that she is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property and in view of the interference by the defendants she is entitled for injunction as prayed for.

Page 8 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

10. The plaintiff and defendant also submitted written arguments.

11. Now the points that arise for determination are as under:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dt: 21.06.2019 is sustainable in law and on the facts?

3) To what relief?

12. Point No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

a) The plaintiff got herself examined as a witness in this suit.

Plaintiff examined her Special Power of Attorney as PW1.

Plaintiff claimed to be the owner and possessor of the suit property on the strength of Ex.A4 & A5 gift deeds said to have been executed by her brother in law (PW4). PW1 deposed in his evidence that PW4 purchased 30 gts of land from the original owners of the land Sk.Budan and Sk.Gulam Dastagiri under

Ex.A3 registered sale deed document No.341/1973 dt:

22.01.1973, gifted suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A4 & A5 gift deeds. PW1 also deposed that PW4

Page 9 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet delivered vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff on the date of Ex.A4 & A5. But in his cross examination

PW1 stated that plaintiff was in U.S.A on the date of execution of

Ex.A4 & A5. He also deposed that Ex.A4 and A5 gift deeds do not bear the signatures of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not chosen to file her travel documents like pass port and visa to prove that she visited India on the date of execution of Ex.A4 &

A5. So, it is clear that neither the plaintiff nor PW1 was present at the execution of Ex.A4 & A5. In other words Pw1 was not having knowledge with regard to execution of Ex.A4 & A5 and delivery possession of the suit property under Ex.A4 & A5.

b) The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad vs. K.Purnachander Rao relying upon judgment in Podili chinnamma v. Bandari Pedda Bhoomanna (2004(1) ALD 341 (2)

D.B) held that: Power of attorney is not a substitute for party. So

PW1 cannot speak about the facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the plaintiff. So, the evidence of General

Power of Attorney of the party would be hearsay and it is not admissible in evidence. The General Power of Attorney of such party merely because of such powers would not become as substitute to the party and so is in competent to depose about

Page 10 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet the fact which are within the exclusive personal knowledge of the party.

c) The evidence of PW4 that he delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and she has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property is not trustworthy and probable. His evidence that plaintiff was in India at the time of execution of Ex.A4 & A5 is also not reliable. Admittedly,

Ex.A4 and A5 do not bear the signatures of the plaintiff and the travel documents of the plaintiff are not filed to show that the plaintiff was present at the time of Ex.A4 & A5 as admitted by PW1 in his cross examination. It can therefore be inferred from the above that the gift under Ex.A4 & A5 was not accepted by the plaintiff as required u/s 122 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Thus neither the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff under Ex.A4 & A5 nor the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property. The evidence of Pw4 that the plaintiff was present at the time of execution of

Ex.A4 & A5 and that he delivered possession of suit property to the plaintiff is quite improbable.

Page 11 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

d) The evidence of PW2 that he is the tenant of plaintiff and that he is paying rents to the plaintiff is also not trustworthy because there are no rental receipts and there is no lease deed evidencing the lease of the suit property in his favor. It is stated by PW2 that he has been doing mechanical works in the suit property for the last eight years. But his evidence shows that he has been the tenant for more than one year. The lease in question is therefore compulsory registrable as it is already pointed out that there is no document to evidence in prove of this transaction between the plaintiff and Pw4 in respect of suit property. The evidence of PW2 that he is tenant of the plaintiff is therefore not reliable. It is also stated by him in his cross examination that he has not obtained any permission from the Gramapanchayath for conducting business.

e) Similarly the evidence of PW3 that he is a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of 400 sq.yards is not reliable and trust worthy as it is not evidenced by any document. There are also no rental receipts evidencing payments of rents. The evidence of PWs1

Page 12 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet to 4 is not useful to prove that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and she is in possession of the same. The case of the plaintiff that she is in lawful possession of the suit property and that defendants interfered with her possession over the suit property is therefore not made out.

f) It is the case of the defendant that they have purchased 1694 sq.yards in Sy.No.524 from Sk.Budan and

Sk.Gulam Dastagiri under Ex.B6 & B7 sale deeds and that the plaintiff isn’t in possession of the suit property. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that his vendor

Sk.Budan and Sk.Gulam Dastagiri were already expired by the time of Ex.B6 & B7 sale deeds. Dw5 (Tahsildar Kodad) in his cross examination stated that he issued letter under

Ex.A52 to SDPO, to the effect that the defendants are not in possession of land in Sy.No.524.

g) DW3 who deposed in his chief examination affidavit that the defendants are the owners and possessors of 1694 sq.yards of land in Sy.No.524 and that plaintiff has never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. However, in his cross examination he admitted that there are several criminal cases are pending against him. He also admitted that he along

Page 13 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet with D2 are belong to Congress party. In view of the above admissions of DW3 & 5 the case of the defendants that they are owners and possessor of 1694 sq.yards of land in Sy.No.524 rendered weak.

h) It is settled possession of law that weaknesses of the defendants cannot taken advantage by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to prove his own case. In the instance case, the plaintiff is trying to prove that she is in possession of the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff is that she is owner of the suit property. But the same in disputed by the defendants in their written statement as well as in their evidence. Both the parties claim title over the suit property. So, the plaintiff ought to have filed suit for declaration, possession and injunction. But, she did not seek amendment of the plaint for the reasons best known to her.

i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in famours case between

Ananthula Sudhkar vs. B.Buchi Reddy held as follows:

“The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.

Page 14 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

i) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession s interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

ii) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simp0liciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

iii) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.

Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

j) In the instant case the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit property. The defendants having disputed the title of the plaintiff and also claimed title over the suit property. The title of the plaintiff come under a cloud and as such the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above squarely

Page 15 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. So, the suit for mere injunction filed by plaintiff in the wake of assertion of the title by the defendants over the suit property is not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid discussion the plaintiff is therefore failed to prove that she is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property. This point is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.

13. Point No.2: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dt: 21.06.2019 is sustainable in law and on the facts?

In view of the finding on point No.1 that the plaintiffs is not entitled for perpetual injunction s prayed for, judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 21.06.2019 is not sustainable in law and therefore liable to be set aside. The point is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

14. Point No.3: To what relief?

In view of the findings of points 1 & 2, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed dismissing the suit in

Page 16 of 16

AS.NO.26 of 2019 on the file of

Prl.District Judge, Suryapet

OS.NO.190/2019 and judgment and decree dt:21.06.2019 is

hereby set aside. Both parties bear their own costs throughout.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 thday of April, 2023.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SURYAPET