Smt B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BOBBILI

Present:- Smt. B.H.V. Laxmi Kumari

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bobbili.

Monday, the 22nd day of December, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 15/2023

Between: Duvvada Ananda Rao, S/o.late Kameswara Rao, aged 63 years, Hindu, residing at Rajayyapeta village, Rajam Mandal in Vizianagaram District.

..Plaintiff

And:

1. Pilla Suri Satyam, S/o.Chinnalu, aged about 48 years, D.No.3-2- 36, Vinayaka Nagar, Dolapeta, Rajam Nagar Panchayat, Vizianagaram District.

2. Golivi Anuradha, W/o.late Srinivasa Rao, aged about 41 years, R/o.D.No.1-379, Main Road, Kandyam Village, R.A.Valasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Defendants.

This suit coming on 11.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.G.P.Prasad, Sri P.Manikeswara sai, Sri A.V.G.Naidu, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri Ch.L.V.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants praying the Honourable Court a) to direct the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule A and B properties after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.85,500/- within time fixed by the Honourable

Court and in case the defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed as directed, the Honourable Court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendants in respect of the suit A and B Schedule properties at the costs of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in 2 possession of the suit schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom or alternatively, d) direct the defendants to pay Rs.49,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit ie., 10.09.2020 till realization of the amount and e) for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

The defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit schedule

A and B property of an extent of Ac.3.83 ½ cents. The defendants executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 10.09.2020 agreeing to sell away the suit schedule A and B Properties for a valuable consideration at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per cent and both of them received Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) towards advance sale consideration and the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed in the name of plaintiff before January, 2021. The defendants stated that the remaining balance of the sale consideration shall be arrived after measurement of the lands before

January, 2021. Subsequently, the defendants approached the plaintiff and requested an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for their urgent needs. The plaintiff paid and the defendants received the sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- on 11.10.2020 and obtained a stamped receipt duly executed by both the defendants. The 2nd defendant received

Rs.5,00,000/- on 4.12.2020 from the plaintiff and obtained a stamped receipt duly executed by the 2nd defendant, and the 1st defendant also received amount of Rs.14,00,000/- on 23.12.2020 from the plaintiff as advance and obtained stamped receipt duly executed by the 1st defendant. So, the 1st defendant received advance sale amount of Rs.29,00,000/- and the 2nd defendant received advance sale amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff, total Rs.49,00,000/-.

3

The 1st defendant and another person jointly purchased the suit schedule “A” Part-I of property from Medi Sambamurthy through Reg.General Power of attorney Doc.No.45/2016 at SRO,

Therlam and by virtue of an agreement dt.27.12.2020 for half share in the schedule of GPA and another suit schedule “A” Part-2 of property was purchased from Muppidi Nagamani through registered sale deed No.687/2013 at SRO, Therlam.

The deceased husband of 2nd defendant Golivi Srinivasa

Rao purchased suit “B” Schedule property from Kucharlapati

Narayana Raju through Regd.Sale deed Document No.783/2013,

SRO, Rajam. After his death, the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire “B” Schedule properties.

The plaintiff is always ready and willing to purchase the plaint schedule A and B properties and the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration but the defendants intentionally avoid to register the sale deed as agreed only to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff. The defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff and failed to do so after repeated demands made by the plaintiff through attestors and village elders on some pretext or the other and further they are trying to sell away the suit schedule property to third parties. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his advocate on 07.05.2023. Hence this suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement, adopted by the 2nd defendant, denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the 1st defendant is having right on the suit schedule “A part-1 of property and also “A” part-2 of the schedule mentioned property. The 1st defendant obtained the suit schedule “A” part-1 from Medi Sambamurthy through registered GPA Doc.No.45/2016 at 4

Sub-Registrar office, Therlam by virtue of an agreement dt.27.12.2020 to an extent of Ac.1-85 cents and he purchased the suit schedule “A” part-2 from Muppidi Nagamani through registered sale deed No.687/2023 at SRO, Therlam. As per the document he is entitled only Ac.0-61 cents, but the plaintiff mentioned in the suit schedule as Ac.0-92 ½ cents in the name of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff mentioned in the plaint that the defendant got Ac.1-53 cents. As per the plaintiff the 1st defendant got half of the share ie., 0-92 ½ cents in total extent of land in Ac.1.85 cents, but the 1st defendant is having Ac.1-85 cents in Schedule A part-1. A schedule part-2 the 1st defendant got Ac.0-61 cents, total he has got Ac.2-46 cents. The plaintiff falsely mentioned in the plaint that the 1st defendant is having half of his share ie., Ac.0-92 ½ cents.

The husband of the 2nd defendant late Golivi Srinivasa

Rao purchased “B” Schedule property from Kutcharlapati Narayana

Raju through registered sale deed doc.No.783/2013 through SRO,

Therlam. After his death, the entire B Schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has got total extent of Ac.2-30 cents. The plaintiff concealed the facts and issued false legal notice to the defendants. The 1st defendant gave suitable reply through his counsel. As per the plaint, the defendants 1 and 2 are owners of the suit schedule A and

B properties of total extent Ac.3-83 ½ cents which is false. The total extent, the defendants 1 and 2 had got is Ac.4-76 cents.

The 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant on 10.09.2020 agreed to sell away the suit schedule A and B properties for valuable consideration @ Rs.13000/- per cent and both of them received

Rs.20,00,000/- (each Rs.10,00,000/-) from the plaintiff towards advance sale consideration and the defendants agreed to execute 5 regular sale deed in the name of the plaintiff on or before January, 2021. The 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each on 11.10.2020 and issued stamped receipt duly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. So the 1st defendant totally received an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The 1st defendant has no knowledge about the 2nd defendant receiving of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 4.12.2020.

The 1st defendant did not receive Rs.14,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 23.12.2020 from the plaintiff as advance and did not issue stamped receipt duly executed by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant received only Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract with balance sale consideration within stipulated time as agreed in the agreement of sale. As such, the agreement itself is time barred. Even if the plaintiff intend to purchase the property, due to hike in prices, he may come with fresh terms and conditions as per the present rates of market prevailing in the vicinity. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

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

1. Whether the agreement of sale dt.10.09.2020 is true, supported by consideration, thereby valid and binding upon the defendants?

2. Whether the payment dt.04.12.2020 by plaintiff is true supported by consideration, thereby valid and binding upon the defendants?

3. Whether the payment dt.23.12.2020 by plaintiff is true supported by consideration, thereby valid and binding upon the defendants?

4. Whether the agreement of sale dt.10.09.2020 is a time essence of contract, as pleaded by the defendants?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of agreement of sale dt.10.09.2020? if not 6

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of refund of amount of Rs.49,00,000/- with interest as prayed? If so,

7. To what relief?

5. To substantiate his contentions, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws 2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and on behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and also examined D.Ws 2 to 6 and no documents are marked.

6. Heard arguments on learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 6:

7.The plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as P.W.1 reiterating the contents of his Plaint. As per the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and 3, there was Ex.A.1 agreement of sale transaction taken place in between the P.W.1 and D.1 and D.2 and the D.1 had got his property under Ex.A.8/Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.13.6.2013 and the 2nd defendant had got her property under Ex.A.9/ Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.02.08.2013 executed by Kutcharlapati

Venkata Narayana Raju and as per the said documents, the total extent of the plaint schedule property is Ac.3.83 ½ cents ie., Ac.1-53 ½ cents belonging to 1st defendant and Ac.2-30 cents belonging to the 2nd defendant. The D.1 and D.2 had made a proposal to sell their property and the P.W.1 had accepted for the same on the date of execution of Ex.A.1/Agreement of sale. The plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- ie., Rs.10,00,000/- each to D.1 and D.2 and subsequently on 11.10.2020, Rs.10,00,000/- to D.1 and D.2 ie.,

Rs.5,00,000/- each to D.1 and D.2.

7

8.Though as per the Ex.A.3/receipt, it appears that on 04.12.2020, the plaintiff had paid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant who got examined himself as D.W.2, had categorically denied about receiving of Rs.5,00,000/- on the said date. It was also contended by the defendants that they had not received Rs.14,00,000/- on 23.12.2020 under Ex.A.4/payment receipt, but by misguiding the 1st defendant, plaintiff had obtained the signature of the D.1.

9.It is the main contention of the defendants that in the

Ex.A.1/Agreement of sale, there was a condition mentioned that on 31.01.2021, the P.W.1 must get registered regular sale deed in his name by D.1 and D.2, after paying the remaining sale consideration amount as time is the essence of contract. But during the cross- examination of D.W.4, who is one of the attestors in Ex.A.1 transaction and A.2 and A.3 transactions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff had confronted the endorsement made on the back side of the Ex.A.1/Agreement of sale and on going through the said endorsement, the D.W.4 had deposed that he had signed as a witness that “though condition for six months on the date of 31.1.2021 for Ex.A.1, as the said condition is cancelled since there is a correction in the land and pothi case is to be registered.” Thus, it is clear that though the defendants 1 and 2 are contending on the point that the time is the essence of contract and as per the condition mentioned in Ex.A.1/Agreement of sale, the plaintiff had failed to pay remaining balance sale consideration amount by 31.1.2021 and did not come forward for registration of the said

Regular sale deed but as per the evidence of D.W.4 who is one of the attestors in Ex.A.1 to A.3, it is clear that the condition with regard to the execution of a regular sale deed and payment of 8 balance sale consideration by 31.1.2021 was cancelled as there was correction in the land and a Pothi case is to be registered with regard to the same. Hence, the plea of “ Time is the Essence of contract” taken by the defendants, is not sustainable.

10.Further, though the 1st defendant is denying with regard to the receiving of Rs.14,00,000/- under Ex.A.4/Receipt, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.W2 and P.W.3, it is clear that on 23.12.2020, after receiving Rs.14,00,000/-, the D.1 had signed on the said receipt. Though the D.W.2 is denying with regard to the receiving of Rs.5,00,000/- under Ex.A.3/Receipt on 4.12.2020, except oral allegation made by the D.W.2, no piece of evidence is produced to that effect. Whereas the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it appears that Rs.5,00,000/- was given on the said date. The D.W.5 who signed as one of the attestor in Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 transaction had categorically admitting his signature on Ex.A.4/Receipt as such, the payment made by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant stands proved.

11.The D.W.6 who was examined on behalf of the defendants in support of their case, had categorically deposed during his cross-examination that he had signed as one of the attestor in Ex.A.1/Agreement of sale but he did not know the contents of the said document. As such as the witness is not having any knowledge about the disputed document, hence his evidence as

D.W.6 cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is also clear that the total property of

D.1 and D.2 is of an extent of Ac.3.83 ½ cents and as the plaintiff had already paid most of the sale consideration amount, an amount of Rs.85,500/- is only due to the defendants.

9

Hence, in view of the above discussion, the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of Exs.P.1 to P.12 proved the execution of Ex.A.1/agreement of sale, as such the plaintiff is entitled for execution of regular sale deed in his favour by the defendants. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

ISSUE No.7:

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule A and B properties, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.85,500/- (Rupees Eighty Five thousand and Five hundred only) from the plaintiff and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom, as per the agreement of sale dt.10.09.2020.

In case, if the defendants fail to execute and register the sale deed as directed by the Court, the plaintiff is at liberty to get executed the same through process of law.

Typed to my dictation on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of December,

2025.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For plaintiffs:-For defendants:

P.W.1 : D.Ananda RaoD.W.1: P.Suri Satyam P.W.2: A.SivunnaiduD.W.2:G.Anuradha P.W.3: P.JaggaraoD.W.3: T.Venkata Ramana D.W.4: N.Devadattudu D.W.5: D.Appalanaidu D.W.6: V.Jaganmohanarao 10

Documents marked

For plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Original Agreement of sale dt.10.09.2020 Ex.A.2: Payment receipt dt.11.10.2020 containing Adhesive Stamp worth Rs.3/-(1/- x 3) Ex.A.3: Payment receipt dt.04.12.2020 containing Adhesive Stamp worth Rs.3/-(1/- x 3) Ex.A.4: Payment receipt dt.23.12.2020 containing Adhesive Stamp owrth Rs.3/-(1/- x 3) Ex.A.5: office copy of Legal notice dt.07.05.2023 Ex.A.6: Reply given by the defendant dt.18.05.2023 Ex.A.7: Postal acknowledgment Card Ex.A.8: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.13.06.2013 executed by Muppidi Nagamani Ex.A.9: Certified copy of Registered Sale deed dt.02.08.2013 executed by Kucharlapati Venkata Narayana Raju Ex.A.10: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dt.28.01.2016 executed by one Medi Sambamurthy Ex.A.11: Acknowledgment cum agreement dt.23.12.2020 acknowledging the Agreement of sale dt.10.09.2020 Ex.A.12: Signature of D.W.5 on receipt dt.4.12.2020.

For defendants:- NIL

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

11

Date of Presentation :- 03.07.2023/10.07.2023. Date of filing :- 10.07.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BOBBILI

Present:- Smt. B.H.V. Laxmi Kumari

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bobbili.

Monday, the 22nd day of December, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 15/2023

Between: Duvvada Ananda Rao, S/o.late Kameswara Rao, aged 63 years, Hindu, residing at Rajayyapeta village, Rajam Mandal in Vizianagaram District.

..Plaintiff

And:

1.Pilla Suri Satyam, S/o.Chinnalu, aged about 48 years, D.No.3-2- 36, Vinayaka Nagar, Dolapeta, Rajam Nagar Panchayat, Vizianagaram District.

2.Golivi Anuradha, W/o.late Srinivasa Rao, aged about 41 years, R/o.D.No.1-379, Main Road, Kandyam Village, R.A.Valasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants praying the Honourable Court a) to direct the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule A and B properties after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.85,500/- within time fixed by the Honourable Court and in case the defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed as directed, the Honourable Court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendants in respect of the suit A and B Schedule properties at the costs of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom or alternatively, d) direct the defendants to pay Rs.49,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit ie., 10.09.2020 till realization of the amount and e) for costs of the suit.

12

The value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction is valued at Rs.49,85,500/- and a court fee of Rs.52,326/- is paid under section 39 of APC and S.V.Act. This suit coming on 11.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.G.P.Prasad, Sri P.Manikeswara sai, Sri A.V.G.Naidu, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri Ch.L.V.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and

D E C R E E

i ) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed directing the defendants to execute and register the sale deed infavour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule A and B properties, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.85,500/- (Rupees eighty five thousand and five hundred only) from the plaintiff and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendant therefrom, as per agreement of sale dated 10.09.2020. In case, if the defendants fail to execute and register the sale deed as directed by this court, the plaintiff is at liberty to get execute the same through process of law; ii) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.77,509/- towards costs of the suit. Copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached; Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 22nd day of December , 2025.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

Bobbili.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : Stamp on plaint:-Rs.52,326-00 Stamp on vakalat:Rs. 3-00 No costs memo is filed. Stamp on process: Rs. 80-00 Type charges:Rs. 100-00 Advocate fees:Rs. 25,000-00 ---------------------- costs allowed:Rs. 77,509-00 -----------------------

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

Bobbili.

13

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BOBBILI

Present:- Smt. B.H.V. Laxmi Kumari,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bobbili

Thursday, the 18th day of December, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.3/2024

Between:-

1. Vanjarapu Simhadramma

2. Gummadi Seethamma

3. Baddudora Gunnamma …Plaintiffs.

And:

1. Vanjarapu Ramandhora

2. Vanjarapu Chandrayya

3. Vanjarapu Gangamma …Defendants.

This suit coming on 11.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Murali Krishna, Sri G.Vishnu Tulasi, Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri P.Manikeswara Sai, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for a decree in his favour a) for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule mentioned property into six equal shares between the plaintiffs and defendants and separate 3 such shares (3/6 share) of plaintiffs from joint family schedule properties and put the plaintiffs in separate possession thereof b) for future mesne profits and c) for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The 1st plaintiff is married wife of Vanjarapu late

Chinnapudhora and she begot two female children who are plaintiffs

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 2 2 and 3. One Vanjarapu Bangaramma is the concubine of late

Vanjarapu Chinnapudhora and she begot two male children, defendants 1 and 2 and one female child, Defendant No.3 and all constituted Hindu Joint family and they are coparceners and they are having equal share in the joint family schedule mentioned properties and each one get 1/6th share in the schedule mentioned joint family properties.

The family of Vanjarapu Chinnapudora is land less poor, therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh recognized Vanjarapu

Chinnapudhora is the landless poor person and granted D form patta to an extent of Ac.3-00 cents dry land at Chandapuram village and handed over the D form Patta and land to him shown as A schedule.

Since then the said Vanjarapu Chinnapudhora removed the shrubs and bushes and converted the land into cultivation and he had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same till his death.

The revenue authorities recognized his possession and mutated his name in the revenue records.

The ‘B’ Schedule land originally in the hands of Chowka

Kannapudora, who is maternal grandfather of Vanjarapu

Chinnapudora. After death of Chowka Kannapudora and his wife, the entire estate of the said Chowka Kannapudora devolved to his children who are Chowka Yerrayya and his daughter Gangamma.

The said Chowka Gangamma was given in marriage to Vanjarapu

Chandrayya, who is father of Vanjarapu Chinnappadhora. During life time of Chowka Yerrayya, he had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the B Schedule property.

The revenue authorities recognized his possession and enjoyment of the same, they mutated his name in the permanent revenue records, ie., Settlement Fair Adangal and other relevant

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 3 revenue records. The said Chowka Yerrayya had no issues. After death of his wife, he went to his sister’s house by name Vanjarapu

Gangamma and living along with her and enjoyed his properties jointly with her till his death.

After the death of Chowka Yerrayya and his sister

Gangamma (Mother of Vanjarapu Chinnapudhora), the entire estate of Chowka Yerrayya and Gangamma devolved on Vanjarapu

Chinnapudhora, who is the son of Gangamma and nephew of

Chowka Yerrayya. Since then the said Vanjarapu Chinnapudhora is having right, title and continuous possession and enjoyment of the same on the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties till his death without any let or hindrance. The revenue authorities mutated his name for ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties.

After the death of Vanjarapu Chinnapudhora, the defendants 1 and 2 who are male members of the family are acting as Kartha of the joint family and managing all the joint family properties ie., ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties. For obtaining crop loans and to get Rythu Bharosa etc, the defendants 1 and 2 got mutated their names in the revenue records equally to all the joint family properties. Due to some misunderstanding between the 1st plaintiff and mother of the defendants, the plaintiffs have been living separately from 5 years and above. But the defendants 1 and 2 gave her share every year from the joint family properties.

Whileso, the defendants 1 and 2 from six months started causing mischief to the joint family properties and misappropriating joint family income derived from the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties and they are not paying plaintiffs the share equally. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff expressed their unequivocal intention for partition of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into six equal shares

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 4 and allot three such shares to the plaintiffs but the defendants while admitting their liability postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Thus, the plaintiffs raised dispute before village elders for partition of the joint family ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties into six equal shares between the plaintiffs and defendants and allot three such shares to the plaintiffs. Hence this suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement, adopted by defendants 2 and 3, denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the 1st plaintiff separated from the father of the defendants 1 to 3 long back after obtaining customary divorce in the presence of caste elders and their father Chinnapudora married the mother of the defendants and begot the defendants and living with them. At the time of marriage of the 3rd plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff approached Chinnapudhora and demanded to give something towards their share, then the said Chinnapudhora gave money to them towards share in ‘A’ schedule properties and the plaintiffs took the money towards their share and the said Chinnapudhora being tribal illiterate did not obtain any document from them.

Whereas the ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties are concerned, the story set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint is not correct and the ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties belonged to the maternal side of the mother of the defendants by name

Bangaramma and those properties do not belong to Chowka

Kannapudora and the father of the defendants is no way related to the said Kannapudora and the mother of the defendants got the properties from her father and got incorporated in the names of the defendants and those properties were not devolved on the defendants from their father Chinnapudhora and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the ‘B’ Schedule properties.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 5

The plaintiffs have already taken their share in the schedule ‘A’ properties and taking advantage of the fact that the names of the defendants are mutated in the revenue records, in order to grab share in those properties only, the present suit is filed.

Hence they prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled :- 1.Whether plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled for partition of plaint A,B Schedule propertis into six shares and allot three shares to the plaintiffs?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for? 3.Whether the plaintiff are entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5.To substantiate their case, the plaintiffs examined 3rd plaintiff as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.6 documents. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the defendants.

6.Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs. Arguments on behalf of the defendants treated as heard. Perused the record.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3 :

7. The plaintiffs examined the 3rd plaintiff as PW.1 who filed her chief examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of the plaint stating that the 1st plaintiff is wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of one late Vanjarapu Chinnapudora and the defendants are the children of said late Vanjarapu Chinnapudora born through one

Vanjarapu Bangaramma and they all constituted Hindu joint family and they are all coparceners to the plaint schedule property. Plaint A schedule property is the D patta land given to her father by the

Government and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 6 the same and the revenue authorities also mutated his name in revenue records. The B-schedule land was devolved to her grandfather from his wife Chowka Gangamma and her brother

Chowka Yerrayya, who inturn got the same from their father Chowka

Kannapudora. Thereafter, after the death of his wife and Chowka

Yerrayya, who died issue-less, the B Schedule property was devolved on their father.

8. The defendants 1 and 2 from six months started causing mischief to the joint family properties and misappropriating joint family income derived from the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties and they are not paying plaintiffs the share equally. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff expressed their unequivocal intention for partition of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into six equal shares and allot three such shares to the plaintiffs but the defendants while admitting their liability postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiffs also got examined one third party as P.W.2 who deposed in the lines of P.W.1.

9.It is the contention of the defendants that the 1st plaintiff separated from the father of the defendants 1 to 3 long back after obtaining customary divorce in the presence of caste elders and their father Chinnapudora married the mother of the defendants and begot the defendants and living with them. At the time of marriage of the 3rd plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff approached Chinnapudhora and demanded to give something towards their share, then the said

Chinnapudhora gave money to them towards share in ‘A’ schedule properties and the plaintiffs took the money towards their share and the said Chinnapudhora being tribal illiterate did not obtain any document from them. Whereas the ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties are concerned, those properties do not belong to Chowka

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 7

Kannapudora and the father of the defendants is no way related to the said Kannapudora and the mother of the defendants got the properties from her father and got incorporated in the names of the defendants and those properties were not devolved on the defendants from their father Chinnapudhora and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the ‘B’ Schedule properties. The plaintiffs have already taken their share in the schedule ‘A’ properties and taking advantage of the fact that the names of the defendants are mutated in the revenue records, in order to grab share in those properties only, the present suit is filed.

10.In the present suit on hand, the defendants though contested the matter by filing written statement by taking several pleas including the denial of nature of the plaint schedule properties, they did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove those contentions, for the reasons best known to them. When once the defendant did not choose to face the box, to substantiate his contentions, it can safely be inferred that the case set up by the defendant is not correct. The said inference was laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of VIDYADHAR VS. MANIK RAO AND

ANOTHER reported in AIR 1999 1441, that, “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”.

11.So, the burden is on the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiffs. Further the burden also lies on the defendant to prove the contentions raised in his written statement. When a defendant files a written statement, he is required to provide evidence to support his claims, defenses, or counterclaims. In general, the

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 8 burden of proof lies with the party making an assertion or claim.

Since the defendant has raised contentions in his written statement, he must provide evidence to substantiate those contentions. If the defendant fails to provide evidence to support his contentions, the court may 1) Disregard his claims or defenses, 2) View their written statement as a mere denial, and 3) Place more weight on the plaintiff's evidence.

12.In this case, the defendants though cross-examined the

P.W.1 and P.W.2, nothing is elicited in their favour and furthermore they did not choose to come to witness box and state their case on oath. Since the defendants have not adduced any evidence, they have not met their burden. The defendants’ failure to present evidence may lead the court to infer that the defendants are unable to contradict the plaintiffs’ claims and the plaintiffs’ evidence is unrebutted and more likely to be true.

13. The silence on the part of defendants gives rise to adverse inference that the case set up by the defendants is not true.

On the other hand, as discussed supra, the plaintiffs with the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A.6, proved and established their case. Accordingly, the issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 4:-

14. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule mentioned property into six equal shares and for delivery of possession of three such shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and put the plaintiffs in separate possession thereof.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 9

The plaintiffs are directed to file separate application for future mesne profits. No costs.

Typed to my dictation directly on the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff:- For defendant: NONE

PW.1: B.Gunnamma P.W.2: D.Appalaswamy

Documents marked

For plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 :Office copy of legal notice dt.17.01.2024 Ex.A.2: Three postal acknowledgments Ex.A.3: Corrigendum dt.06.02.2024 Ex.A.4: Three Postal acknowledgments for Ex.A.3 Ex.A.5: Four Settlement fair Adangal of A, B Schedule properties issued by Tahsildar, Ramabhadrapuram obtained under RTI Act. Ex.A.6: ROR 1-B copies stands in the name of D.1 and D.2 downloaded from Mee Bhoomi website (marked subject to objection, proof and relevancy)

For defendants:- NIL

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 10

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BOBBILI

Present:- Smt. B.H.V. Laxmi Kumari,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bobbili

Thursday, the 18th day of December, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.3/2024

Between:-

1. Vanjarapu Simhadramma, aged 78 years W/o late Chinnapudhora, resident of Chadaradavalasa village, Ramabhadrapuram mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Gummadi Seethamma, aged 44 years D/o late Chinnapudhora, resident of Chadaradavalasa village, Ramabhadrapuram mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3. Baddudora Gunnamma, aged 49 years D/o late Chinnapudhora, W/o Baddudora Somayya, resident of Chadaradavalasa village, Ramabhadrapuram mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Plaintiffs.

And:

1. Vanjarapu Ramandhora, aged 40 years S/o late Chinnapudhora, resident of Chadaradavalasa village, Ramabhadrapuram mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Vanjarapu Chandrayya, aged 35 years S/o late Chinnapudhora, resident of Chadaradavalasa village, Ramabhadrapuram mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3. Vanjarapu @ Gummadi Gangamma, aged 35 years D/o late Chinnapudhora, W/o Gummadi Simhachalam, resident of Chadaradavalasa village, Ramabhadrapuram mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for a decree in his favour a) for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule mentioned property into six equal shares between the plaintiffs and defendants and separate 3 such shares (3/6 share) of plaintiffs from joint family schedule properties and put the plaintiffs in separate possession thereof b) for future mesne profits and c) for costs of the suit.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 11

The value of the plaintiffs 3/6th value of Rs.32,51,500/- and for purpose of jurisdiction is 3/4th value of Rs.24,38,625-00 and a fixed court fee of Rs.26,826/- and partition suit a fixed court fee of

Rs.200/- is paid under section 34 (2) of APCF and S.V.Act.1956 as property is in joint possession.

Details of Valuation :

1. A-Schedule property is the D Form Patta therefore adjacent land value taken unit rate per acre Rs.7,00,000/- Ac.3.00 centsRs.21,00,000/-

2. B-Schedule property Ac.6.29 cents value of Rs.44,03,000/-Rs.44,03,000/- ----------------------- total Rs.65,03,000/-

The plaintiffs 3/6th share value of Rs.32,51,500/- 3/4th for the purpose of jurisdiction Rs.24,38,625/-

This suit coming on 11.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Murali Krishna, Sri G.Vishnu Tulasi,

Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri P.Manikeswara Sai, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and

P R E L I M I N A R Y D E C R E E

I. that the suit be and the same is hereby allowed; ii. that the partition of the plaint A and B schedule mentioned property into six equal shares and for delivery of possession of three such shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and put the plaintiffs in separate possession thereof;

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2024 12 iii. that the plaintiffs are directed to file separate application for future mesne profits; iv. that there be no order as to costs; copy of the plaint schedule and valuation slips are hereto attached;

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 18th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants :

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BOBBILI

Present:- Smt B.H.V. Laxmi Kumari,

Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Vizianagaram FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bobbili

Wednesday, the 24th day of December, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023

Between:-

Karrothu Krishna Veni, aged 40 years, W/o.Ganga Raju, Kapu by community, Gollapeta Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Plaintiff. And:

1. Kuridi Sundaramma, aged 48 years, W/o.Pentayya, Jogindoravalasa Village, Gollapeta Panchayat, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Kuridi Lakshmana, aged 22 years, S/o.Pentayya, rest do.

3. Kuridi Raju, aged 19 years, rest do. …Defendants.

This suit coming on 04.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Panigrahi, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Manikeswara Sai, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men and supporters from ever interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a landless poor woman. She was assigned the Schedule mentioned property by the Government and she was

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 2 issued D patta on 26.01.2005 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property with absolute rights. All the revenue records in respect of the schedule mentioned property such as IB Adanga, Pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in the name of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff raised mango tope immediately after the land was assigned to her in about Ac.2-00 cents of it and in the remaining

Ac.1-46 cents she has been raising cotton crop. She borrowed agricultural loans on the said land from SBI Salur and the loan limits have been enhanced by the bank from time to time, and the said fact is reflected in the pattadar passbook.

The defendants are nothing to do with the schedule mentioned property and they are not even the residents of the village, where the schedule mentioned property is situated. The defendants have been offering threats to the plaintiff that they would trespass into the schedule mentioned property in case it is resisted, they would file false cases against the plaintiff and her family members under the SC and ST POA Act as they belong to

Schedule Tribe. The village elders chastised the defendants stating that it is not proper on them to make such threats and they should desist themselves from making encroachment of other’s property as a matter of habit. The defendants in the dispute agreed for the same but again they have been, since one week, proclaiming that they would trespass into the schedule mentioned property by force. In such a case, it would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff, which cannot be compensated by way of pecuniary damages. There is standing mango trees/tope which is valuable property and if the trees are forcibly cut or damage is caused, it

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 3 will cause any amount of irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Hence, he is constrained to file the present suit for permanent injunction.

3.The defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further submitted that the plaintiff is not a land less poor person. The plaintiff is having acres of land at her in-law’s house at Sistu Seetharamapuram village and also at her native place and the father of the plaintiff by name Bali

Seethayya used to lend money to the tribal people and he is in the habit of obtaining unregistered sale deeds from them when he offered moneys to them and likewise he used to grab the

Government lands in the hands of the tribal people.

Originally the Schedule mentioned property to an extent of

Ac.4-65 cents was reclaimed by the mother of the 1st defendant by name Somu Yerakamma and brought the same into cultivation long back and she used to enjoy the same and after her death the same was devolved on the mother of the defendant No.1 and the defendants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

The father of the plaintiff also lent some amount to the mother of the first defendant by name Somu Yerakamma for which he was permitted to take mango crop twice and then the father of the plaintiff by taking advantage of the same, got managed the VRO who belonged to his caste and obtained D.Patta in the name of the plaintiff from the Tahsildar by managing the same and obtained records but she is not in physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The father of the plaintiff created documents in the name of the plaintiff with the help of the revenue people to grab the tribal lands and in fact the plaintiff is not a land less poor person and she never

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 4 raised mango tope and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

The defendants several times raised dispute before their caste elders and in which the father of the plaintiff promised that she would not interfere with their possession but behind their back, she got the revenue records and waited for time and lastly filed the present suit to seeking injunction.

The land is situated in Jogandoravalasa Village which is a tribal village and it is in the revenue village of Gollapeta and the defendants are residents of Jogandoravalasa village and most of the caste people of the plaintiff are residing at Gollapeta and whereas the tribals alone are residing at Jogandoravalasa village and hence the defendants are residing in the village where the land is situated.

The father of the plaintiff is an intelligent person and he grabbed acres of the tribal lands in and around village of the suit property and he obtained the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff and they are created and they do not create any title to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any time.

The Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiff intentionally hiked the value notionally and filed the suit in order to obtain the injunction orders. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The defendants have to secure some documents and hence they reserved their right to file additional written statement after obtaining the same. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit.

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

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 5

1) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing this suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction by restraining the defendants and their men not to interfere into the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5. To substantiate her contentions, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and and also examined P.W.2 and got marked

Ex.A.1 to EX.A.10 documents. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1 and also examined D.W.2 and no documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the Defendants.

6.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Defendants.

ISSUES NOS.1 AND 2:

7.The plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 by filing her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterating the contents of the plaint. As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1/D

Patta, it appears that the said D Patta was issued to the plaintiff by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramabhadrapuram on 26.01.2005 pertaining to the plaint schedule property and since the said date onwards, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is the contention of the defendants that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendants and the father of the plaintiff was in the habit of advancing loans to the Tribals of Jogannadoravalasa village and obtaining pattas pertaining to the lands allotted to the tribals as security to the loans advanced and in such a way the father of the plaintiff had

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 6 grabbed the property which originally belongs to one Somu

Yerakamma who is the mother of the 1st defendant.

8.As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the Ex.A.1 to

A.9, it is clear that the P.W.1 was given D patta by the Revenue

Authorities and as on the date of filing of the present suit, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same and her name was also mutated in revenue records with regard to the plaint schedule property. Though the defendants are alleging that the mother of the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.3.46 cents and subsequent to her death the defendants came in possession of the same and they were enjoying the said property, no piece of document was filed by the defendants in support of their contention.

9.During the cross-examination, the P.W.1 had categorically admitted that her father was having Ac.4-00 cents or Ac.5-00cents of land which devolved upon him from his ancestors whereas her husband is a landless poor and doing cultivation, as such the

Government had given D patta land of an extent of Ac.3-46 cents in Sy.No.180/3 in Gollapeta village. Though it was alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff is having other landed properties, other than the plaint schedule properties, during the cross- examination, the D.W.1 had categorically admitted that she did not file any documentary evidence to that effect and she cannot say the details of the properties owned by the plaintiff other than the plaint schedule properties as she is an illiterate and never went to

Seetarampuram. Moreover her cross examination also reveals that she is not having any patta or revenue record to show that her mother had cultivated an extent of Ac.4-65 cents which is said to be the plaint schedule property.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 7

10.As per the evidence of the D.W.1 it appears that the defendants are Tribals and they are residing in Jogannadoravalasa village and only Tribals shall be given land in the said village, as such, as the plaint schedule property is situated in

Jogannadoravalasa village, there is no possibility of issuing of D patta to the plaintiff with regard to the land situated in

Jogannadoravalasa village. But as per the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the Exs.A.2 to A.9, it is clear that the plaint schedule property is situated in Gollapeta village but not Jogannadoravalasa village, as alleged by the defendants, as such the allegation raised by the defendants is not proved.

11.During the cross-examination of D.W.1 she categorically admitted that “I demanded the plaintiff to vacate the land several times claiming that the said land belongs to me and threatened to file police cases. It is true I stated to the plaintiff that I will file police case as I belong to Schedule Tribe community. It is true as I threatened the plaintiff to vacate the land, she filed this suit. It is true there is no documentary proof with him to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to me and my mother.” Thus, from the admissions made by the D.W.1 it is clear that though there are absolute documents on behalf of the plaintiff, due to threat given by the defendants, the plaintiff had filed the present suit to protect her right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property.

12.The plaintiff got examined the P.W.2 in support of her case, and though the learned counsel for the defendants had in detail cross-examined P.W.2, they failed to elicit anything in favour of the defendants. But during the cross-examination of D.W.2, who was examined on behalf of the defendants, he categorically admitted that “ It is true that there are landed properties in the

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 8 name of the defendant No.1 and her mother by name Somu

Yerakamma. It is true that there are no landed properties in the name of D.2 and D.3”. Thus, it is clear that though the defendants had alleged that they are having land of an extent of Ac.4-65 cents, belonging to Somu Yerakamma, mother of 1st defendant, as per the admission made by the D.W.2 and D.W.1 during their cross-examination, it is clear that no piece of document was filed

before this Court to prove their title nor possession over the plaint

schedule property, as such basing on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.2 to A.9, the plaintiff had proved her lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

Hence in the above circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed for.

ISSUE NO.3:

13.In the result, the suit is decree with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and supporters from ever interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM

FAC CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 9

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff:- For defendants:

PW.1:K.KrishnaveniD.W.1: K.Sundaramma P.W.2: J.NarasimhuluD.W.2: D.Pentannadora

Documents marked

For plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Original D.patta relating to Sy.No.180/3 of Gollapeta village Ex.A.2: Original title deed of the plaintiff relating to Sy.No.180/3 of Gollapeta village Ex.A.3: Original Pattadar passbook of the plaintiff relating to Sy.No.180/3 of Gollapeta village Ex.A.4: IB Namoona (ROR) dt.12.7.2022 relating to Sy.No.180/3 of Gollapeta village. Ex.A.5: IB Namoona (ROR) dt.20.04.2023 relating to Sy.No.180/3 of Gollapeta village Ex.A.6: Adangal Pahani dt.22.7.2022 relating to Sy.No.180/3 of Gollapeta village Ex.A.7: Adangal Pahani dt.20.04.2023 relating to Sy.No.180/3 of Gollapeta village Ex.A.8: Adangal for fasali 1426 to 1432 issued by the Tahsildar, Ramabhadrapuram under RTI Act. Ex.A.9:1 B Manual copy issued by Tahsildar, Ramabhadrapuram under RTI Act Ex.A.10: Photos with CD (4 in number)

For defendants:- NIL

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM

FAC CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 10

Date of Presentation :- 16.06.2023Date of filing :- 16.06.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BOBBILI

Present:- Smt B.H.V. Laxmi Kumari,

Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Vizianagaram FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bobbili

Wednesday, the 24th day of December, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023

Between:-

Karrothu Krishna Veni, aged 40 years, W/o.Ganga Raju, Kapu by community, Gollapeta Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Plaintiff. And:

1. Kuridi Sundaramma, aged 48 years, W/o.Pentayya, Jogindoravalasa Village, Gollapeta Panchayat, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Kuridi Lakshmana, aged 22 years, S/o.Pentayya, rest do.

3. Kuridi Raju, aged 19 years, rest do. …Defendants.

This suit is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men and supporters from ever interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property. The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is rs.20,05,000/- and a court fee of Rs.22,526/- is paid under section 26 (c) of APCF and S.V.Act.

This suit coming on 04.12.2025 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri T.Panigrahi, Advocate for the

plaintiff and of Sri P.Manikeswara Sai, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14/2023 11

D E C R E E

I. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed infavour of plaintiff against defendants granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and supports from ever interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property; ii. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.42,749/- towards costs of the suit; copy of the plaint schedule is hereto attached;

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

Stamp on plaint Rs.22,526-00 Stamp on vakalatRs. 3-00 Stamp on process:Rs. 120-00 No costs memo is filed. Type charges:Rs. 100-00 Advocate fees:Rs.20,000-00 ------------------- Costs allowed:Rs.42,749-00 --------------------

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIZIANAGARAM.

FAC CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.B.H.V.Laxmi Kumari,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 149/2024

(Old A.S.No. 17/2018 on the file of Hon’ble Principal

District Judge, Vizianagaram)

Between:

1. Guruvu Ramakrishna S/o Govinda Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Business, resident of Door No.17-133, Near Goods Shed, Arundathinagar, Cantonment, Vizianagaram Town, Municipality and District.

.......Appellant/6th Defendant.

And:-

1. Kandi Rambabu (Plaintiff) S/o late Narayana, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Thotapalem, Vizianagaram town and Municipality and district.

2. Dontala Narasimhulu (Died) (D.1) 3. Dontala Suresh Kumar (D.2) S/o late Narasimhulu, aged about 36 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram town, Municipality and District.

4. Dontala Venkata Ramana (D.3) (Died) 5. Dontala Srinivasa Rao (D.4) S/o late Appala Naidu, 43 years, Hindu, resident of Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town, Municipality and District.

6. Dontala Lakshmi (D.5) S/o late Appala Naidu, 75 years, Hindu, resident of Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town, Municipality and District.

2 7. Dontala Appayyamma (D.7) W/o late Narasimhulu, 76 years, Hindu, House wife, Mahanthi Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town and Municipality and District.

8. Majji Varalakshmi (D.8) W/o Sadhu, 39 years, Hindu, House wife, Hindu, Mahanthi Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town and Municipality and District.

9. Pathivada Ammalu (D.9) W/o Appalanarayana, age 43 years, Hindu, Mahanthi Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town and Municipality and District.

10. Majji Meena (D.10) W/o Ganesh, 48 years, Hindu, House wife R/o Majji veedhi, near Sunkari Veedhi, Vizianagaram town, Municipality and District.

11. Bonthu Bujji (D.11) W/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, Hindu, House wife, Saibaba Colony, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram town and District.

12. Donthala Ganesh Kumar S/o late Narasimhulu, age 42 years, Hindu, Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram town and Municipality and District.

13. Donthala Saraswathi S/o late Venkata Ramana, age 39 years, Hindu, House wife, resident of Door No.23-3-9, Golla Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town , Municipality Corporation and District.

14. Donthala Neeraj S/o late Venkata Ramana, aged 22 years, Hindu, resident of Door No.23-3-9, Golla Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town , Municipality Corporation and District.

15. Donthala Nandini D/o late Venkata Ramana, age 20 years, Hindu, house hold duties, resident of Door No.23-3-9, Golla Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town , Municipality Corporation and District.

( Respondent Nos.13 to 15 are added as L.Rs of 4th respondent as per orders in I.A 276/2022 dated 20.10.2022)

...... Respondents.

(On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.255/2008

dated 13.09.2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Vizianagaram)

Between:- Kandi Rambabu, S/o late Narayana, aged about 51 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Thotapalem, Vizianagaram town and Municipality and district.

...... Plaintiff.

And:- 3 1. Dontala Narasimhulu (Died) 2. Dontala Suresh Kumar S/o late Narasimhulu, aged about 27 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram town, Municipality and District.

3. Dontala Venkata Ramana S/o late Appalanaidu, aged 30 years, Hindu, Door No.1/23-3-9, Golla Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram town and District.

4. Dontala Srinivasa Rao S/o late Appala Naidu, 27 years, Hindu, resident of Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town, Municipality and District.

5. Dontala Lakshmi (D.5) S/o late Appala Naidu, 75 years, Hindu, resident of Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town, Municipality and District.

6. Guruvu Ramakrishna S/o Govinda Rao, aged 35 years, Hindu, Business, Door No.17-133, Near Goods Shed, Arundathinagar, Cantonment, Vizianagaram town and District.

7. Dontala Appayyamma W/o late Narasimhulu, 67 years, Hindu, House wife, Mahanthi Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town and Municipality and District.

8. Majji Varalakshmi W/o Sadhu, 30 years, Hindu, House wife, Hindu, Mahanthi Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town and Municipality and District.

9. Pathivada Ammalu W/o Appalanarayana, age 34 years, House wife, Hindu, Mahanthi Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram Town and Municipality and District.

10. Majji Meena W/o Ganesham, 33 years, Hindu, House wife R/o Majji veedhi, near Sunkari Veedhi, Vizianagaram town, Municipality and District.

11. Bonthu Bujji W/o Ramunaidu, age 30 years, Hindu, House wife, Saibaba Colony, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram town and District.

12. Donthala Ganesh Kumar S/o late Narasimhulu, age 28 years, Hindu, Mahanthi veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram town and Municipality and District.

(Defendants 7 to 12 are added as per orders in I.A.No.211/2009 dated 14.06.2012) …. Defendants 4

This Appeal coming before me on 24.04.2026 for compromise in the presence of Sri D.Sriramulu, Ld. Counsel for Appellant/6th Defendant and Sri

P.SrinivasaRao,learnedcounselfor1stRespondentand

Sri G.Tirupathi Rao, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to 12 and

Sri N.Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Counsels for Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 13,14 and 15 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 filed by the Appellant/6th Defendant challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court dated 13.09.2017 in

O.S.No.255/2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Vizianagaram. This appeal is received by transfer from the Honourable

District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, as per the directions of the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in ROC No.102/OP Cell-E/2023 dt.04.01.2023 and as per the orders of Honourable Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram.

2.The Appellant is the 6th Defendant and the Respondents are the

Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, 7 to 12 respectively in the suit. In the present Appeal, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in

O.S.No.255/2008 for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

3.The grounds of appeal are that – The Decree and Judgment of lower court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case and that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on hand and the Trial court failed to observe the recitals of Ex.B1 and B.2 and Ex.A.1 WILL while decreeing the suit and hence the decree and 5 judgment is liable to be set aside. The evidence of P.W.4 is clear that knowing fully well about the right of the mother of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 4 suppressing the said fact sold the plaint schedule lands under Ex.B.1 and B.2. Moreover the defendants 1 to 4 clearly stated in

Ex.B.1 and B.2 that “no other person is having any right, title, possession and enjoyment, except ourselves” and the D.W.4 further admitted the execution of Ex.B.1 and B.2 in favour of the appellant and therefore the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 conspired and sold the plaint schedule land under Ex.B.1 and B.2 to the appellant and thereby cheated the appellant and the Trial court has not applied its mind and decreed the suit. The appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the land under Ex.A.1 and A.2 from the defendants No.1 to 4 and the appellant was put in physical possession of the same, as such the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit instead of dismissing the same. Therefore, the decree and judgment of the Trial court is liable to be set aside either under law or fact.

4.The factual matrix of the case is that: According to the plaint, the 1st defendant, one Dontala Appalanaidu (father of Defendants 3 and 4 and husband of 5th defendant), one Kandi Narayanamma(mother of the plaintiff) who are children of one Dontala late Bangarayya, jointly acquired wet and dry lands of an extent of Ac.5-49 cents situated in K.L.Puram,

Vizianagaram and jointly cultivating the same. Subsequently, Donthala

Appalanaidu died. Kandi Narayanamma, mother of the plaintiff executed a registered WILL dt.06.05.1999 bequeathing her properties in his favour by cancelling her earlier will dt.22.4.1999 executed in favour of her brother 6 the 1st defendant. The revenue authorities also recognized his right over the 1/3rd share of the lands possessed along with 1st defendant and

Donthala Appalanaidu. The plaintiff subsequently sold away some of the lands except the suit schedule 1 and 9 to the 5th defendant under registered sale deeds. He is having 1/3rd undivided share in the lands covered under the Ryotwari patta dt.2.11.1979 and he is in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the same along with the defendants 1 to 5. The plaint schedule lands are sold away in favour of the 6th defendant by the defendants 1 to 4 under registered sale deeds without knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, without having absolute rights.

Hence he filed suit for partition and for allotment of his 1/3rd undivided share in the plaint schedule properties.

5.According to the written statement filed by the contesting 6th defendant, he purchased the property on 13.10.2003 and 03.04.2004 from

Dontula Narasimhulu. Dontula Suresh, Dontula Venkataramana and

Dontula Srinivasa Rao under two sale deeds basing on the certificate issued by the Secretary Grama panchayati. After purchase of the said lands he obtained permission from the Grama Panchayat for conversion of the said land and after getting the same he formed the land into layout plots and sol away to various persons in the name of Sai Kirthana Nagar. He is not necessary party to the suit No relief is claimed against this defendant as the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are well aware of the above facts.

Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

7 6. After considering the pleadings, the trial court settled the following Issues for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and delivery of separate possession of the same by evicting the defendants therefrom?

2.To what relief?

7.During trial before the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined PW.2 to P.W.4 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A19 documents. On behalf of the 6th defendant, he himself was examined as DW1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 marked. After recording and appreciating the evidence on behalf of the both parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved his case and is entitled for the relief as claimed and accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs.

8.As already stated above, aggrieved by the decree and

Judgment of the trial Court, the 6th Defendant filed this appeal, contending inter-alia that the Decree and Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to

Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the Trial

Court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on hand and the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit. The trial court did not properly appreciate the facts of the case and the evidence on hand and therefore, the appellant urged to set-aside the decree and Judgment of the trial Court and consequently, allow the Appeal.

8 10.Now, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

“Whether the Trial Court erred in appreciation of facts and evidence and as such the Judgment and Decree of Trial Court needs an interference by the Appellate Court as prayed for, or not?”

POINT :

11.After appearance of both parties before this appellate Court, at the request of both parties, this matter is referred to Mediation Center,

DLSA, Vizianagaram, for conducting mediation. Accordingly, this matter is referred to the Mediation Center, DLSA, Vizianagaram. Thereafter, the

Secretary-cum-Co-ordinator, Mediation Center, Vizianagaram, returned the record along with report dated: 24.4.2026 for passing judgment stating that the matter was settled before the Mediation Centre, Vizianagaram.

12.On perusal of the Agreement/Report of the mediator, it was averred as follows:

“That the Appellant/6th respondent and 1st respondent/plaintiff are present along with their counsels and after mediation, the matter is settled before the Mediation Center on 24.4.2026 and both parties agreed for the settlement with the following terms and conditions:

1. At the intervention of the gentlemen mediators, the above appeal was compromised in between the Appellant/6th Defendant and the 1st respondent(Plaintiff).

2. The Appellant purchased the land situated in Sy.Nos.159/1, 159/5, 153/16, 153/17, 149/8, 149/9, 149/15, 149/16 and 153/13 to an extent of Ac.0-68 cents from the

Defendants by two separate registered sale deeds, dt.13.10.2003 and 03.04.2004 and 9 thereafter he converted the land into house site plots and already sold away the same to the 3rd parties.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.255/2008 on the file of the

Honourable Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for partition and the

Honourable Court decreed the same directing the Appellant/6th defendant herein to

deliver the 1/3rd share to the plaintiff out of the suit schedule property. Now at the intervention of the elders, the Appellant/6th defendant agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the 1st respondent(Plaintiff) and the 1st respondent (Plaintiff agreed to receive the same. Accordingly, the Appellant/6th respondent paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the 1st respondent(Plaintiff) herein by way of cash and the plaintiff/1st respondent received the same. The plaintiff/1st respondent hereby agreed to waive his claim in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property towards his 1/3rd share.

4. The plaintiff/1st respondent and his legal heirs agreed that he will not lay any claim against the Appellant/6th respondent and other respondents, as per the above settlement and that

5. The Appellant/6th Defendant and the plaintiff /the 1 st respondent pray the

Hon’ble Court to record the terms of compromise, in the interest of justice.

13.After recording the above terms of comprise, they were read over and explained to both parties, and obtained the signatures of both parties along with their respective counsels, and the signature of the mediator on the agreement/report of the mediator.

14.After receipt of the record along with the agreement/report of mediation from the Secretary, DLSA, Vizianagaram, this court recorded the mediation report.

15. Having regard to the above circumstances and in view of the compromise entered into by the parties before Mediation Center, DLSA, 10

Vizianagaram, this court is inclined to allow the petition by considering the

Agreement/Report of the Mediator.

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in view of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the respondent at the Mediation Center, DLSA, Vizianagaram, as follows:

1. At the intervention of the gentlemen mediators, the above appeal was compromised in between the Appellant/6th Defendant and the 1 st respondent(Plaintiff).

2. The Appellant purchased the land situated in Sy.Nos.159/1, 159/5, 153/16, 153/17, 149/8, 149/9, 149/15, 149/16 and 153/13 to an extent of Ac.0-68 cents from the

Defendants by two separate registered sale deeds, dt.13.10.2003 and 03.04.2004 and thereafter he converted the land into house site plots and already sold away the same to the 3rd parties.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.255/2008 on the file of the

Honourable Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for partition and the

Honourable Court decreed the same directing the Appellant/6th defendant herein to

deliver the 1/3rd share to the plaintiff out of the suit schedule property. Now at the intervention of the elders, the Appellant/6th defendant agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the 1st respondent(Plaintiff) and the 1st respondent (Plaintiff agreed to receive the same. Accordingly, the Appellant/6th respondent paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the 1st respondent(Plaintiff) herein by way of cash and the plaintiff/1st respondent received the same. The plaintiff/1st respondent hereby agreed to waive his claim in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property towards his 1/3rd share.

4. The plaintiff/1st respondent and his legal heirs agreed that he will not lay any claim against the Appellant/6th respondent and other respondents, as per the above settlement and that

5. The Appellant/6th Defendant and the plaintiff /the 1 st respondent pray the Hon’ble

Court to record the terms of compromise, in the interest of justice.

11

17.The office is directed to annex copy of agreement/report of the Mediator dated 24.4.2026 of Mediation center, DLSA, Vizianagaram, to the decree.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this Appeal.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Vizianagaram.

Copy to: The Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Vizianagaram.

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARVATHIPURAM.

PRESENT: Smt. B.H.V. Laxmi Kumari,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram.

FAC/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parvathipuram.

Thursday this the 23rd day of April 2026.

HMOP.No.2/ 2026

Between:-

Kurangi Trinadha Rao, S/o. Varahalu, aged 37 years, working as SGT, Hindu Jatapu caste, resident of Jammuvalasa Village, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal, Parvathipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District, Aadhar No.357378674139, Ph.No.9490668503.

.... Petitioner.

And:-

Kurangi @ Kondagorri Raju Kumari, W/o. Kurangi Trinadha Rao, D/o. Late

Ramarao, Hindu, S.T. Jatapu, aged 34 years, resident of P.T. Manda Village and

Panchayat, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District, Aadhar

No.821155353655.

….Respondent.

This petition coming on 17.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Manmadha Rao Counsel for the petitioner and respondent called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This application is filed by the petitioner Under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act, praying to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was performed on 26.01.2013 cruelty.

2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:-

1) The respondent is resident of P.T. Manda Village, which is adjacent village of the petitioner Jammuvalasa Village. The petitioner and respondent loved each other and further the respondent eloped with the petitioner. After ten days, the family members and elders intervened and performed their marriage on 26.1.2013 at

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 2

Jammuvalasa Village, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal, as per Hindu Rites and Custom.

The petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher. Immediately after their marriage of the respondent has joined with the conjugal society of the respondent at Jammuvalasa Village. During their wedlock 1) Sai Akshay, aged 11 years and 2)

Greeshma aged 5 years were born to the respondent through the petitioner. Both the petitioner and respondent lived happily for few years only.

2)The respondent addicted to adultery life and developed dislike towards the petitioner and used to quarrel with the petitioner. Unnecessarily without any fault of the petitioner, Later the petitioner came to know that the respondent is having illegal intimacy with one Arika Kranthi Kumar of P.T. Manda Village. The petitioner requested the respondent to stop her illegal acts and live properly to lead conjugal life with him for the future of their children. But the respondent did not change her attitude and further she used to talk with the said Arika Kranthi Kumar over phone, while the petitioner went to his duty. While so in the year May 2024 the petitioner engaged to Assembly election duty at Palakonda and after completion of his duty he came to her parent’s house in the midnight at 2.00 P.M. Then the nephew of the petitioner Biddika Dhanunjaya and petitioner red handedly saw that the respondent and her paramour was having intercourse in compromising mood on one cot in the parent’s house of the respondent. After seen the petitioner and his nephew the respondent shocked and the said Arika Kranthi Kumar ran away with fear from there.

3)The petitioner raised a dispute before the village elders, the elders chastised the respondent and at the advice of the elders, the petitioner excused the respondent and shifted his family to Saluru town as he is working as SGT in

Jilleduvalasa, Salur Mandal. The respondent lived with the petitioner for some time and later again the respondent contracted her paramour over phone during the absence of the petitioner at home. Likewise the respondent continued her adultery life and illegal relationship with the said Arika Kranthi Kumar without changing her behaviour.

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 3

4)The petitioner one day he came to his house from duty and found that the respondent was talking over phone with her paramour. Then the petitioner questioned the respondent about her behaviour, and then the respondent gave adamant reply and stated that she is in love with the said Arika Kranthi Kumar and also stated that who are you to question me? The petitioner astonished for the reply given by the respondent and there is serious quarrel between the petitioner and respondent and there is serious quarrel between the petitioner and respondent, the respondent left the conjugal society of the petitioner in the month of July, 2024 and the respondent also left the children with the petitioner and went to her parent’s house seeking her adulterous life. The respondent habituated to the adulterous life with the said Arika Kranthi Kumar and left the conjugal life of the petitioner without any fault and the respondent never think about the bright future of the children and left them with the petitioner to their fate. The respondent never acted as dutiful woman with the petitioner and never acted as mother with the children of the petitioner. The petitioner always used to look after welfare of the children. The respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically and never showed interest to lead conjugal life with the petitioner as she addicted to adulterous life with the said Arika Kranthi Kumar and completely neglected the petitioner and his children.

5)The petitioner submits that he raised dispute before the elders in the month of August 2024 and requested the respondent to come and join with the petitioner and leave all her illegal activities for the bright future of children, but the respondent did not choose to join with the petitioner.

6)The petitioner submits that later the petitioner made attempts to take back the respondent on the occasion of Pongal festival and again on the festival of Maha

Shivratri, but the respondent adamant reply in the house of her parents.

7)The petitioner submits that on 11.5.2025 the petitioner, his sister, brother and village elders went to the house parent’s house of the respondent and requested

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 4 the respondent to come and join with the petitioner for conjugal, otherwise the children future will be spoiled, but the respondent did not heed their advice and gave adamant reply that she is not interesting to join with the petitioner to lead conjugal life and further the respondent stated that if her mother forced her to join with the petitioner, she will commit suicide. Then the mother of the respondent also demanded the petitioner and his family members, elders to leave the place immediately in helpless condition. Since then the children are in the custody of the petitioner.

8)The petitioner having no alternative he got issued registered legal notice on 9.6.2025 requesting the respondent to come and join with petitioner for conjugal life, the respondent received the notice, but she did not come and join with the petitioner and not given reply to the petitioner.

9)The petitioner submits that the respondent is having cruel and psycho mentality towards the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent are living separately since for the last 1 ½ year. The respondent voluntarily left the conjugal society of the petitioner and deserted him along with her children.

10)The petitioner submits that it is crystal clear from the attitude of the respondent that the respondent is not at all ready and willing to live with the petitioner. So, there is no possibility of reunion of the petitioner and respondent.

Their marital tie is irretrievable broken down due to adultery life of the respondent.

Thus in these circumstances, there is no other alternative for the petitioner to get divorce from the respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition for dissolution of their marriage held on 26.1.2013 at the house of the respondent at Jammuvalasa

Village, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal and for other reliefs. There is no collusion between the petitioner and respondent in filing this petition.

3.On registration of the petition, notices were ordered to the respondent and they were served on him. The respondent was called absent, no representation on behalf of the respondent and she was set exparte on 06.03.2026.

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 5

4.To substantiate her contention, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the respondent since the respondent remained exparte.

5.Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is,

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree

of divorce dissolving her marriage with the respondent held on 26.01.2013 on the grounds of cruelty or not?”

7. POINT:-The petitioner herself is examined as PW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit, where in she once again reiterated the entire contents of her petition and prayed for grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty. PW1 in support of her case, exhibited Exs.P.1, Ex.P2, and Ex.P3. Ex.P1 is the Wedding card, Ex.P2 is the Photograph attested by Gazetted officer. Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice.

On perusal of record, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of PW1 with the respondent. The respondent did not choose to contest the matter and she was set exparte. Therefore, in the absence of any contest, the evidence of PW1 became UN-controverted and unchallenged. The inaction and conduct of the respondent shows that he is not willing to lead conjugal life with the petitioner.

As per Sec. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, after solemnization of marriage if the wife/husband treated the petitioner with cruelty the spouse is entitled for divorce. In this case as per the evidence of PW1 coupled with the petition averements, the attitude and behaviour of the respondent towards PW1 amounts to cruelty. The record further shows that the respondent left her society and it appears that there is no chance for their reunion.

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 6

As pointed out supra, the respondent remained exparte, and as such, the evidence of PW1 became unchallenged, and hence, it can be taken into consideration and relied upon. Therefore, with the evidence of PW1 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P 3 it is proved that the behaviour of the respondent amounts to cruelty towards the petitioner. In view of the substance of the immediate preceding paragraph, it is to be held that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent has been irretrievable broken down, their conjugal society can not be restored and even if their marital tie is kept alive no useful purpose would be served except driving the parties to stay away from each other for years together. In the above circumstances, certainly, this Court has to invoke the provisions under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for awarding relief of dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent held on 26.01.2013 by granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce dissolving their marriage between the petitioner and the respondent held on 26.01.2013.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist directly on the computer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram.

FAC/ Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Parvathipuram.

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent: NIL

PW1: Kurangi Trinadha Rao

Documents Marked

For Petitioners: For Respondent: NIL

Ex.P1 is the Wedding card, Ex.P2 is the Photograph attested by Gazetted officer. Ex.P3 is the Office copy of the legal notice, dt.9.6.2025.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Vizianagaram. FAC/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parvathipuram.

HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 8 HMOP -2/ 2026 in SCJ, PVP- Dt.23.04.2026 9