04042018 Fair 1 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURTCumXII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR
Present: Smt B.Manjari,
JUDGE, FAMILY COURTCumXII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.
Wednesday, the 4 th day of April,2018
O.S.160/2010
Between:
Gottimukala Ravi Kanth, S/o Rama Krishna, Hindu, Aged 41 years, Business, R/o D.No.44173/2, Venkata Samba Siva Residency, Flat No.8, Chandramouli Nagar, 3/2, Guntur.
..Plaintiff
AND
1. Kongara Jaya Sree, W/o Late Sudhakar, Hindu, 49 years,
2. Kongara Sandhya, D/o Late Sudhakar, Hindu, 26 years,
3. Kongara Aruna, D/o Late Sudhakar, Hindu, 25 years, Defendants 1 to 3 are R/o D.No.2516117/2, Chuttugunta, Guntur.
4. Jayanthilal Rajendra Kumar, S/o not known, Aged 45 years, Business, R/o Flat No.305, Avadhani Towers, R.Agraharam, Guntur.
5. Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Rep., by its Commissioner Municipal Office, Guntur.
...Defendants
* * * This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 22022018 in the presence of Sri N.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri M.Gandhi, Advocate for defendants 1 & 2 and the defendants 3 to 5 having remained exparte, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 5 for a) Declaration of the plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for b) Consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also c) to direct the 4th defendant to pay rent to the plaintiff from the month of July2010.
2.The averments of plaint in brief are that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah a renowned Doctor in Guntur Town is having two daughters and two sons, 04042018 Fair 2 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) that the marriages of his children were performed by him and his wife, that his 1st daughter Neena Devi was marrked to Dr.G.Rama Krishna and they were blessed with one son by name Ravi Kanth (plaintiff) and two daughters namely Sumalatha and Suneetha, that second daughter Uma Rani was married to Aduri Babu Rao and they begot a son by name Kiran, that his 1st son Manohar was married with Veera Mani and they were blessed with a daughter by name Padma Latha that was given in marriage to the plaintiff herein, that his second son by name Kongara Sudhakar married Jaya Sree ( defendant No.1 herein) and they begot two daughters namely Sandhya and
Aruna (defendants 2 & 3), that the second son of Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah predeceased him, that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah worked as Superintendent of
Government General Hospital, Guntur and retired, that after his retirement, he built a Nursing Home near Chuttugunta.
(ii)It is also the case of plaintiff that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah purchased Ac.339 cents each in the names of his two sons by names
Manohar and Sudhakar, when they were minors under Doc.2063/1965 and 2064/1965, dated 10051965, that in the year 1973 the said Manohar and
Sudhakar were made for name sake entered into a partnership for carrying on business in the name of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur, that on 09121975 the said partnership Firm was reconstituted and Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah was also admitted as partner of the said Firm, that Manohar appointed his father as his General Power of Attorney holder for carrying on the business and subsequently Manohar died on 19101999, that after the death of Manohar, his wife Veera Mani filed a suit in OS.73/1980 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in respect of properties and shares of her husband against herinlaws and others, the said suit was compromised on 12071982 and compromise decree was passed, that the second son of Dr.
Kodanda Ramaiah namely Sudhakar also died on 01101984 leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 and his mother Sarojini Devi as his legal heirs, that after the death of Sudhakar, defendants 1 to 3 lived with Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah and his wife Sarojini Devi, that the schedule mentioned property was purchased by Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah with his own funds in the names of his two sons when they were minors, who have no resources to acquire any 04042018 Fair 3 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) property, the said property was invested by them in the Firm towards their capital investment in the Firm towards in Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, that when Manohar retired from the partnership Firm on 3171979 and the 2nd son Sudhakar also retired from the Firm on 21091984, defendant No.1 was admitted as partner in the said Firm that on 20021987 when defendant
No.1 retired from the said Firm, Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah became the sole proprietor of the schedule property, that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah while living with the defendants 1 to 3 divided part of the property into plots and sole some plots under different sale deeds through his General Power of Attorney
Agents and the said fact goes to show that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah alone is the absolute owner of the schedule property and other property and neither the defendant No.1 nor others have got any right or interest in the property.
(iii)It is also the case of plaintiff that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah executed a WILL dated 10031999, but he got the same registered on 1705 1999 bequeathing most of his properties including the schedule properties to the defendants 2 & 3 herein, that after execution of the WILL, defendant induced Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah to sell adjacent part of the schedule property, that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah either individually or along with defendant No.1 executed sale deeds in the names of purchasers, that in that process, Dr.
Kodanda Ramaiah and defendant No.1 executed a sale deed dated 2712 2000 in favour of Mettupalli Ramesh Babu, S/o Pandu Ranga Rao and in the said sale deeds, it is clearly mentioned about the rights of Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah in the schedule properties and the retirement of his sosn and defendant No.1 from the said Firm, that having induced him to sell most of his properties , defendants 1 to 3 neglected to look after his needs, having no other alternate, Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah came to the house of his eldest daughter Neena Devi and her husband, considering that 1st defendant and her family members neglected him and failed to look after him properly and on account of the love and affections towards the plaintiff and his parents, since plaintiff also married his granddaughter i.e., the daughter of his eldest son Manohar, Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah executed another WILL / Codicil on 09 072009 and got the same registered with SubRegistrar, Guntur on 2808 2009 by executing the said WILL, he revoked the said WILL executed by him 04042018 Fair 4 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) on 10031999, which was registered on 17051999, under the said WILL, he bequeathed schedule property also, the property situated at Nuziveedu to the plaintiff with absolute rights and the properties situated at Kakumanu were bequeathed to his daughters, that the Doctors who attended on him opined that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah was in sound and disposing state of mind on the date of execution of the said WILL and its registration though he was suffering with Parkinsin disease. The parents of the plaintiff looked after Dr.
Kodanda Ramaiah with love and affections and subsequently Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah went into Coma.
(iv)It is also the case of plaintiff that defendants 1 to 3 who are residing near Chuttugunta, under the guise of paying a courtesy visit, came to the house of plaintiff’s parents along with her supporters and when the mother of plaintiff went inside to bring coffee, while Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah was in
Coma, to the surprise of the mother of the plaintiff, defendants 1 & 2 and their followers left the house without any intimation to the plaintiff’s mother and it was informed by the servant maid that defendants 1 & 2 have taken some photographs and thumb impressions of Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah on some blank papers, that immediately the mother of plaintiff made a complaint to
SHO., Pattabhipuram P.S., on 27092009 and as the police failed to take any action against the defendants 1 & 2, plaintiff’s mother got issued a publication in Eenadu Daily on 30092009 and for the said notice, defendants 1 & 2 got issued a paper publication on 20102009 with false and frivolous allegations contending that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah while he was in sound and disposing state of mind executed a Codicil on 18092009, plaintiff and his mother got issued registered notice on seeing the publication and denying the execution of Codicil set up by them dated 18092009 and also clearly mentioned that it is a forged and fabricated one, the defendants though received the said notice failed to issue any reply, that unfortunately
Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah died on 29092009, after his death, the WILL dated 09072009, which is the last and final WILL came into force and the plaintiff became an absolute owner of the schedule property and other properties bequeathed to him.
(v)It is also the case of plaintiff that having become the owner of the property, the plaintiff made an application to the Municipal 04042018 Fair 5 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Corporation for mutation of his name in its record in respect of the schedule property, surprisingly defendants 1 & 2 seem to have made a protest to the
Municipal Commissioner, Guntur representing that the schedule property belongs to them by virtue of Codicil dated 18092009 executed by Dr.
Kodanda Ramaiah, that subsequently defendants 2 & 3 filed Caveat alleging that defendant No.1 executed Gift Deed on 10032010 wherein, they got mentioned that schedule property belongs to their family and defendant
No.1 relinquished her 1/3rd share in favour of defendants 2 & 3 and by making such allegations, they gave a gobye to the Codicil dated 18092009 set up by them allegedly executed by Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah in the notices and the paper publication and in the contrary to the contents of sale deed
dated 27122000 executed by defendant No.1 along with Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah in favour of Mettupalli Ramesh Babu, the recitals in the Codicil
dated 18092009 and the Gift Deed dated 1032010 set up by the
defendants 1 & 2 are contradictory to each other and the said facts go to show that the schedule property exclusively belonged to Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah, in which, his sons does not have any right and by virtue of the
WILL executed by him on 28082009, schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property, that the plaintiff has been residing at Bhuveneswara and the defendants taking advantage of their residing at Lalpuram road, near to the place of schedule property, highhandedly gained over 4th defendant and were able to see that the rent is not paid to the plaintiff, that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah during his life time leased out the property to 4th defendant and the rent was paid to the parents of plaintiff during the life time of Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah, that after the death of Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah, 4th defendant colluded with the defendants 1 to 3 is not paying the rent to the plaintiff, that the defendants 1 to 3 filed a protest letter for letter for mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the records of 5th defendant as such, 5th defendant is also a necessary party to the suit, that since all the efforts made by the plaintiff to find a reason and to prevent the defendants 1 to 3 from causing obstruction and claiming title to the schedule property proved futile is constrained to file this suit for the necessary reliefs.
04042018 Fair 6 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
3.Among the defendants 1 to 5, defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.2. Defendants 3 to 5 remained exparte.
The averments of the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1 in brief are that Sudhakar died on 1101984 since then,
Kodanda Ramaiah and his wife Sarojini Devi lived with the defendants 1 to 3, that Sarojini Devi died on 12011992, that the parents of plaintiff forcibly took away Kodanda Ramaiah in the end of the year of 2008, that since the death of Sudhakar, the parents of plaintiff had an evil eye on the property of
Sudhakar and Sarojini Devi, they created a WILL dated 07091991 purported to be executed by Sarojini Devi bequeathing an extent of Ac.2473 cents of land situated at Kondapaturu in favour of the plaintiff, that after knowing the fraud played by the parents of the plaintiff, Sarojini Devi executed a WILL on 09101991 bequeathing her property to the legatees, that according to the said WILL Kodanda Ramaiah became absolute owner of
Ac.2473 cents situated at Kondapaturu, that plaintiff is trying to make an attempt to show the acquisition of properties of Manohar and Sudhakar by
Kodanda Ramaiah, that Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur not acquired any property in its name, Manohar and Sudhakar never transferred their properties to the said Firm at any point of time, that the defendants along with Kodanda Ramaiah sold an extent of 5579 Sq. yards to Utukuri
Satyanarayana on 1541998 and an extent of 3761 Sq.yards to Shaik Vali on 21041998 by specifically mentioning Doc.No.2063/65 which is in the name of Sudhakar, during that relevant period, Kodanda Ramaiah sold 9202 Sq.
yards Utukuri Satyanarayana as manager of the family, that Kodanda
Ramaiah had purchased UTI shares worth of Rs.7,35,000/ in his name on 24051998, that the said worth of Rs.7,35,000/ UTI shares were also purchased in the names of Sandya and Aruna, who are the defendants 2 & 3 herein and the said purchases were done with the above sale proceeds, that the godowns were constructed in the property of Sudhakar with its Door
No.251517, the Municipal Corporation, Guntur levied tax to the godowns in the names of Sandhya and Aruna, who are the defendants 2 & 3 herein, that Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur are no way concerned with the defendants godowns, that the door number mentioned in the schedule 04042018 Fair 7 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) property is 2515114, which is different with the door number of the defendant’s door number, that the said door number of the plaint schedule property actually belonged to two storied building of defendant No.1.
(ii)It is the further case of defendant No.1 that Bank of
Baroda filed a suit in OS.72/1977 against M/s. Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur, K.Manohar, K.Sudhakar and Kodanda Ramaiah for recovery of debt, in which, Manohar and Sudhakar were shown as guarantors and their properties were shown as securities to the said debt, that there is no evidence to show that Manohar and Sudhakar transferred their properties in favour of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur. It is also the case of defendant No.1 that Kodanda Ramaiah executed a WILL dated 1031999, which was registered on 17031999, according to the said WILL, the two storied building was allotted to defendant No.1 subsequently on 03 072007 the said building was registered in the name of Sandhya, the same was also mutated in the records of Municipal Corporation, Guntur, this caused eyesore to the parents of plaintiff, due to the deterioration of physical strength of Kodanda Ramaiah, the plaintiff and his parents forcibly took away him, that by force, the plaintiff and his parents created a WILL dated 28082009 by using thereby purporting to be bequeathed the property to the plaintiff that later, Kodanda Ramaiah called the defendants and directed to bring the scribe and attestor, on 18092009 defendants 1 & 2 along with scribe and attestor went to Kodanda Ramaiah and on his direction, a WILL
dated 18092009 was executed bequeathing his properties to the
defendants, that plaintiff has been residing at Bhuvaneswar in Orissa for the last 10 years by doing aqua business, he never rendered any service to
Kodanda Ramaiah at any point of time, that the alleged love and affection as mentioned in the plaint is not on person of Kodanda Ramaiah, but on his property, that the alleged Koma is a false story, that the suit is to be dismissed with costs.
4. In the light of the above said pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :
1. Whether the WILL dated 9072009 is true valid and binding ?
2. Whether the WILL dated 09101991 executed by Sarojini Devi is the last WILL ?
04042018 Fair 8 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
3. Whether the plaintiff got title to the suit property ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Declaration and injunction ?
5. To what relief ?
Additional Issue:
Whether the WILL dated 18092009 executed by Konda Ramayya is true, valid and binding ?
5.To substantiate their respective contentions, on plaintiff’s side, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and through him Exs.A1 to A15, A20 to
A37 are got marked. P.W.2 an attestor of the WILL, P.W.3 is the then Sub
Registrar of Koretipadu, P.W.4 is an Advocate Notary and P.W.5 is an independent purchaser of the property are examined as supportive witnesses on the plaintiff side. On the defendant’s side, defendant No.1 examined herself as D.W.1 through her Ex.B2 to B10 are got marked. When Ex.B1 was got marked through the plaintiff, Exs.A16 to A19 are got marked through
D.W.1.
6.From the pleadings filed on both sides, the admitted facts are that late Kodanda Ramaiah a renowned doctor in Guntur Town was having two sons and two daughters, that the plaintiff herein is the son of his eldest daughter and that the plaintiff married the daughter of his eldest son, that defendant No.1 is the wife of Sudhakar, who is the younger son of Kodanda
Ramaiah and the defendants 2 & 3 are the daughters of Sudhakar, that both the sons of Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah namely Manohar and Sudhakar died, that late Kodanda Ramaiah purchased Ac.339 cents each in the names of his minor sons Sudhakar and Manohar under Doc.2063/1965 & 2064/1965 respectively dated 10051965 and that a Firm by name M/s.Jaya Bharat
Cotton Industries, Guntur was established in the year 1973 by Manohar and
Sudhakar as partners, later the said partnership Firm was reconstituted and
Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah was also admitted as partner in the said Firm, that the eldest son of Kodanda Ramaiah i.e., Manohar died on 19101979 and the younger son of Sudhakar also died on 01101984, that late Kodanda
Ramaiah executed a WILL on 10031999 and got the same registered on 17 051999 bequeathing most of his properties, that even after the execution of 04042018 Fair 9 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) the WILL, several properties were sold by Kodanda Ramaiah, that Late
Kodanda Ramaiah had suffered with Parkinsons disease, that during his last days, he was taken to the house of his eldest daughter Neena Devi, the mother of the plaintiff and that late Kodanda Ramaiah died on 29092009.
7.In the light of the above said admitted facts and circumstances, the evidence led by both the parties is to be appreciated to determine the issues that arose as per the claims of the parties to this suit and to decide the claims of the plaintiff herein that approached the Court by filing this suit.
8.Among the issues, settled for determination, Issues 1 & 3 are common in nature, therefore, the evidence is to be appreciated in common for the said issues.
ISSUE No.1 & 3 and Addl., Issue dated 12092011 :
9. It is significant to note that the plaintiff herein filed this suit seeking relief of declaration of title to the suit property claiming that under the WILL dated 09072009 plaint schedule property was bequeathed by Late
Kodanda Ramaiah in his favour. As extracted by me above, it is the case of plaintiff that is not denied by the contesting defendants that the schedule mentioned property was purchased by Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah with his own funds in the names of his two sons under Doc.2063/65 and 2064/65, dated 10051965 and the said documents are filed and marked as Exs.A1 & A2 by the plaintiff herein. It is also undisputed fact that by the time of the said purchase under Exs.A1 & A2, the two sons of Kodanda Ramaiah were minors that have no source of income to acquire any property and that after they became major, it is the case of plaintiff that the said property was invested by them towards their capital investment in Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries,
Guntur, a partnership Firm by way of partnership deeds that in the subsequent years, his first son Manohar retired from partnership on 3107 1979, that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah was admitted as partner on 01081979, that his second son Sudhakar also retired from the Firm on 21091984 and the on the same date, his wife i.e., defendant No.1 was admitted as partner and on 20021987, defendant No.1 also retired from the Firm, hence the said firm became a proprietary concern and Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah became sole proprietor and absolute owner of the properties of Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur, that Late Kodanda Ramaiah had disposed off his entire 04042018 Fair 10 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) properties covered under the sale deeds except the suit schedule property and that the sale proceeds were spent by the defendants 1 to 3 that lived with Kodanda Ramaiah and that when the defendants neglected to look after
Kodanda Ramaiah after the death of his wife, the parents of plaintiff brought him to their house, rendered service, Late Kodanda Ramaiah on account of the love and affection towards the plaintiff and his parents and also as the plaintiff married the daughter of his 1st son Manohar, while he was in sound and disposing state of mind executed another WILL / Codicil on 09072009 and got the same registered before the SRO, Guntur on 28082009 and by executing the said WILL, he revoked the earlier WILL dated 10031999 which was registered on 17051999, therefore, the plaintiff has got both the plaint schedule property and the property situated at Nuziveedu with absolute rights by Late Kodanda Ramaiah.
10.On the other hand, defendants 1 & 2 opposed the claim of the plaintiff stating that Manohar and Sudhakar never transferred their properties to Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur at any point of time, but
Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah sold an extent of 5579 Sq, yards of site to Utukuri
Satyanarayana, another extent of 3716 Sq. yards of site to Sk.Vali since he acted as Manager of the Firm, that the godowns were constructed in the property of Sudhakar, that tax was also levied for the said godowns by the
Municipal Corporation, Guntur in the names of defendants 2 & 3, that Jaya
Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur has no right in the said property in any manner and that Kodanda Ramaiah executed a WILL dated 1031999, which was registered on 17051999 in which a building was bequeathed to defendant No.2 and that the defendants 1 & 2 along with scribe and
Attestors went to Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah and on his direction a WILL dated 18092009 was executed bequeathing his properties to the defendants, that the parents of the plaintiff never served Kodanda Ramaiah and that Kodanda
Ramaiah never went into Coma during his last days.
11. In the light of the said contentions, the initial question that arises is
Whether the property purchased by Kodanda Ramaiah in the
names of his two minor sons after they became majors was vested in the
04042018 Fair 11 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) partnership Firm by name Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur ? and
Whether the said property became the property of the Firm ?
12.It is also a question whether Kodanda Ramaiah became sole
proprietor of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur and has got absolute
rights over the property to convey the same.
13. Adverting to the evidence led by the plaintiff as P.W.1 he reiterated his contentions with regard to purchase of property by Late
Kodanda Ramaiah in the names of his two minor sons and that the two sons of Kodanda Ramaiah had established a partnership Firm as Jaya Bharat
Cotton Industries, Guntur by investing the said property purchased in their names by their father towards their capital investment and later the two sons successively retired from the partnership and even the defendant No.1 was inducted as partner, but she too retired thereby Kodanda Ramaiah became the absolute and sole proprietor of the partnership Firm Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur as the sole proprietor i.e., Kodanda Ramaiah vested with the property and alienated the property both by way of sale deeds and by executing WILLS. The plaintiff apart from reiterating his case and claims as
P.W.1 also marked supportive and corelated documents on his behalf.
14. The plaintiff got marked Exs.A1 & A2 Registration extracts of sale deeds in favour of two minor sons of late Kodanda Ramaiah, which are not disputed. Likewise, the plaintiff also marked Ex.A3Registered WILL
dated 10031999, which was registered on 17031999 under which he
conveyed property including the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants 1 to 3. A perusal of Ex.A3, reveals that property Door No.2515 114 a two storied building was bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1 and the property which is the suit schedule property herein is found conveyed in favour of defendants 2 & 3, who are the daughters of defendant No.1. To the extent of Exs.A1 to A3 marked by the plaintiff, there is no dispute or denial and the same is accepted by the contesting defendants 1 & 2. The plaintiff also got marked Ex.A5WILL dated 09072009. Likewise, the plaintiff as P.W.1 also marked Ex.A22 and Ex.A23True copies of Partnership
Deeds and Exs.A24 to A33 income tax returns submitted by Late Kodanda
Ramaiah. He also marked Ex.A34Partnership Deed dated 01081979 of 04042018 Fair 12 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur, Ex.A35Retirement Deed dated 21 091984, Ex.A36Partnership Deed dated 21091984 and Ex.A37Retirement
Deed dated 20021987.
15.It is argued by the counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 that the evidence and the documents filed and relied by the plaintiff are suspicious that the statement of P.W.1 that they have brought Kodanda Ramaiah in
March2008 from D1 to D3 itself show that Kodanda Ramaiah was brought by force and he did not come voluntarily, that the plaintiff and his mother and others brought Kodanda Ramaiah from the custody of defendants 1 to 3 with an intention to create Ex.A5, that the age of Kodanda Ramaiah did not permit to resist the act of the plaintiff and his family members, that the conduct of mother of plaintiff Neena Devi that lodged complaint with
Pattabhipuram P.S., against the defendants 1 & 2 under Ex.A12, that paper publication given by the mother of plaintiff under Ex.A9 and the legal notice got issued by her through her Advocate under Ex.A10 indicate the declaration about the imminent death of Kodanda Ramaiah to avoid his future acts, that the mother of the plaintiff intentionally avoided to give evidence, therefore, bringing Late Kodanda Ramaiah to the house of the parents of the plaintiff is the first suspicious circumstance and the absence of noting the execution of WILL in the complaint, paper publication and legal notice got issued by the mother of Plaintiff is another suspicious circumstance, that the admission on the part of P.W.1 that there was no
WILL executed by Sarojini Devi as mentioned in Ex.A3 and the said content was created by Kodanda Ramaiah disclose the rivalry between Kodanda
Ramaiah and the plaintiff as such, bequeathing the property by late Kodanda
Ramaiah in favour of the plaintiff out of love and affection is another suspicious circumstance, that the plaintiff was residing at Bhuvaneshwar that did not render any service to Kodanda Ramaiah and was absent while any of the transaction took place under Exs.A9 & A12 throw light that no love and affection last against the plaintiff for Late Kodanda Ramaiah, which is another suspicious circumstance, that there is no evidence to show that Late
Kodanda Ramaiah went into Coma as mentioned in the documents marked by the plaintiff in Exs.A9, A10 & A12, which is another suspicious 04042018 Fair 13 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) circumstance, lastly it was asked that in the statement of P.W.2, it is mentioned that he had not made any application for registering document at the house by the SubRegistrar and he does not remember whether any one made such application and when it was made, which is also one of the suspicious circumstance on the execution of Ex.A5WILL.
16.It is also argued for the defendants 1 to 3 that as kartha of the family of Late Kodanda Ramaiah had purchased the properties in the names of his two minor sons from out of the nucleus of the joint family properties, that the establishment of partnership, joining of partners, retirement of partners and dissolution of the Firm are covered under the provisions of
Partnership Act, therefore, Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur do not come under the joint family business, that with the retirement of one among the two partners, partnership Firm stands dissolved, that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status, that the suit filed by
Bank of Baroda in OS.72/1977 against the Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries,
Guntur reveals that the Firm borrowed amounts and it was Manohar and
Sudhakar that stood as guarantors along with Kodanda Ramaiah for the loan obtained from the Bank of Baroda that falsifies the contents of partnership deed marked as Ex.A22 wherein, it is mentioned to own Ac.680 cents of land at R.Agraharam, Lalpuram Road, Guntur along with building, godowns, machinery etc., as the assets of the partnership Firm. It is also argued that the plaintiff was not certain as to the description of the property and as to his pleadings that the partnership deeds and the Retirement Deeds are created for the purpose of this case and that the evidence of supportive witnesses is of no use, that neither the partnership Deed nor the WILL is proved by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is to be dismissed.
17.On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 with all the support of all the witnesses examined by him as P.Ws.2 to 4 and among them, P.W.2 is attestor of the WILL, P.W.3 is the SubRegistrar that registered the WILL Ex.A5 and as to the transactions made by Late Kodanda Ramaiah, P.W.4 & P.W.5 are examined and the documents filed and marked by the plaintiff establish the 04042018 Fair 14 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) case of plaintiff in all probability coupled with the admissions on the part of defendant No.1 as D.W.1 in her crossexamination entitles the plaintiff for decree in his favour.
18.Both the counsels not only argued extensively and orally before the court also have filed written arguments from either side.
19.When it is the case of plaintiff that the property in question forms part of the property purchased by Late Kodanda Ramaiah in favour of his 2nd son by name Sudhakar while he was a minor, the said fact is not in dispute. When it is the case of plaintiff that the property purchased by
Kodanda Ramaiah in the names of his two minor sons on becoming majors established a partnership Firm in the name of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries,
Guntur, the same is also not denied and disputed by the contesting defendants 1 & 2. However, the claim of the plaintiff that the said property purchased in the names of Manohar and Sudhakar by their father Kodanda
Ramaiah was vested with the partnership and that the property was diverted into the partnership Firm, the same is denied by the defendants. It is here, the plaintiff that has to adduce evidence to prove the partnership, the retirement and later, the proprietorship of Late Kodanda Ramaiah that dealt with the property of the partnership Firm. It is not denied by the defendants that Late Kodanda Ramaiah that had disposed off certain extents of the property both individually and along with the defendant No.1 in favour of third parties. Ex.A14is the registration extract of sale deed in favour of third party purchaser i.e., Mettupalli Ramesh Babu,
20. A perusal of Ex.A14, discloses that it is clearly mentioned about the rights of Kodanda Ramaiah over the schedule properties and about the establishment of partnership Firm, retirement of the other partners that include both the sons of Kodanda Ramaiah and defendant No.1 herein and there is also a clear mention that defendant No.1 was made to sign in the said sale deed though she does not have any claim or interest over the property and the documents, but on the request of the purchaser by way of precaution. Likewise, the plaintiff also marked Ex.A22 partnership Deed entered between Manohar and Sudhakar that established Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur. A perusal of Ex.A22, initially it is found mentioned as follows : Whereas the above parties own Ac.340 cents each at R.Agraharam, 04042018 Fair 15 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Lalpuram Road, Guntur have jointly constructed buildings, godowns etc., on the said premises and equipped the same with machinery etc., required for jinning cotton and whereas the above parties have agreed to carry on in the name of M/s. Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur in partnership from this i.e., 26th day of May1973 in the above said newly constructed factory building premises on the above said conditions. “To own the said 680
cents of land at R.Agraharam, Lalpuram Road, Guntur along with
buildings, godowns, machinery etc., as the assets”.
21. It is argued for the plaintiff that as per Section 14 of the partnership Act, the partners may convert their individual property as the property of the Firm and viceversa by way of agreement which may be expressed or implied that for such conversion it does not require any registration, there must be evidence to prove that intention is sufficient and such intention may even to be proved by course of conduct, that once the individual property was brought into partnership Firm, the individual right of partners over the property is lost and it becomes the property of the Firm, that the interest of a partnership assets of movable or immovable within the meaning of Section 17 (1) (B) of Registration Act as such, it does not require registration of any instrument.
22.The plaintiff herein also relied on Ex.A23 partnership Deed entered between Late Kodanda Ramaiah and his two sons, whereunder they established a Firm in the name and style of M/s. Jaya Hanuman Cotton
Press. A perusal of the said document, initially it is found mentioned that
the parties have taken on lease the godowns and premises situated at
R.Agraharam, Lalpuram Road, Guntur from Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur to locate the activities of business and to install the machinery, equipment for pressing the balling cotton etc., As per the terms and conditions of the partnership Deed under clause – (4), it is found mentioned that the capital required for the partnership may be contributed by all the partners has mutually agreed between them and interest @ 12 % per annum shall be charged on the capital contributions and drawings of the partners.
04042018 Fair 16 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
23.The above said documents marked by the plaintiff as Exs.A22 and A23 are not denied and disputed by the defendants herein. The covenants of the said documents clearly prove that the property that was owned by Manohar & Sudhakar in an extent of Ac.680 cents was diverted into the partnership Firm established by them as Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur and in the subsequent partnership Firm established by
Kodanda Ramaiah and his two sons as Jaya Hanuman Cotton Press, the said property was taken on lease from Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur and not from the individuals i.e., Manohar and Sudhakar in whose name, the property was originally purchased under Exs.A1 & A2.
24.It is also to be noted that the plaintiff marked Ex.A34 which is the copy of partnership Deed entered between Kongara Sudhakar and
Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah dated 01081979, Ex.A35Copy of Deed of retirement of partner under which the 2nd party is shown as out going party from the partnership on his retirement, Ex.A36Copy of partnership Deed entered between Kodanda Ramaiah and defendant No.1K.Jayasreee dated 21091984 and lastly, Ex.A37Deed of retirement of partner i.e., retirement of 2nd party K.Jaya Sree from the partnership of Firm M/s. Jaya Bharat
Cotton Industries, Guntur . A perusal of the above said documents, more particularly, Retirement Deeds i.e., Exs.A35 & A37, it is found as follows : “it
is mutually agreed that the 2 nd party has retired from the partnership
known as M/s. Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur leaving the entire
assets and liabilities to the extent as shown in the books of account of the
partnership and has agreed mutually between the parties in favour of the
continuing party of the 1 st party with effect from the date mentioned
therein”. It is also found mentioned in Clause – (2) “that the 2 nd party has
relinquished all the rights in favour of the continuing party absolutely
and forever to join his share, rights, title and interest in the partnership
of M/s. Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur including the names of the
Firm and to have and hold the same into and use of the continuing party
of the 1 st party absolutely and forever including the factory site of 2 nd
party”.
04042018 Fair 17 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
25.The said terminology that was used clarifies the fact that the retiring party had relinquished all the rights absolutely both in the property and business vested with Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur. In other words, the said partnership Deeds and Retirement Deeds were between the sons of Kodanda Ramaiah initially and later between Kodanda Ramaiah and his sons and at the end, between the Kodanda Ramaiah and defendant No.1.
With the retirement of defendant No.1 as partner, it was Late Kodanda
Ramaiah that continued as the sole proprietor of the Firm by name Jaya
Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur in whose favour the assets and liabilities of the partnership Firm remained. Though, it is argued that the accounts of
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur by way of statement of account, books of account or balance sheet have not been produced to prove the business of
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur, it is a fact to note that the plaintiff had filed the tax returns of the Firm and also of Late Kodanda Ramaiah.
However, keeping in view of the fact that the partnership that was entered in respect of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur was by the sons, father and daughterinlaw of the same family limiting the scope of enquiry to the extent of considering whether there were any properties that were vested with Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur, the question of Statement of
Accounts or business transactions of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur are not of primary concern and it is enough that there is considerable amount of evidence to establish the fact that there was a Firm that was established as partnership Firm in which there were assets that were diverted to the said firm and later owned and possessed by the Firm along with the other liabilities. Since, the question on hand is in respect of property that was purchased in the names of minor sons, who after becoming majors diverted the said property and continued the said property with the established Firm and it is the successive partners and ultimately with the retirement of the partners, the surviving partner was vested with the property, there is no need to consider the transactions of the Firm i.e., M/s.
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur. Even otherwise, it is one of the circumstances relied by the plaintiff to establish the fact that the property was dealt with by the Late Kodanda Ramaiah with absolute rights at the later point of time, though the said property was initially purchased by him in the 04042018 Fair 18 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) names of his two minor sons.
26.It is also significant to note that the contesting defendants herein that denied the entitlement of the plaintiff both for the reliefs of declaration and as to the execution of WILL in his favour let in evidence by examining defendant No.1 as a sole witness on their behalf. 1st defendant as
D.W.1, apart from deposing in compliance with the written statement averments also deposed that pending this suit, a rectification deed for the registered Gift Deed was executed by her. In fact, Ex.A15 is the registration extract of the Gift Deed dated 10032010 was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of her daughters and according to her as there was mistake in mentioning certain aspects, a rectification Deed under Ex.B9, dated 2906 2010 was executed by her.
27.In her crossexamination, D.W.1 admitted that her fatherinlaw was a famous Doctor in Coastal Districts, that he died on 29092009, that
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur was registered, that Manohar and
Sudhakar entered into a partnership Deed on 26051973. She pleaded ignorance as to what were the properties that were referred in the partnership Deed dated 26051973 between Sudhakar and Manohar, she admitted that in the property purchased by Manohar under Ex.A2 Jaya
Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur was established during the year 1973 and that in the property covered under Ex.A1 owned by Sudhakar, a pressing Mill in the name and style of Jaya Hanuman Pressing Mill was established in the year 1975, in the property covered under Exs.A1 & A2 Sudhakar and
Manohar have raised structures for the purpose of establishing Jaya Bharat
Cotton Industries, Guntur and Jaya Hanuman Pressing Mill, that since the year 1973 till the year 2000, municipal taxes were paid in the name of Jaya
Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur in respect of the properties covered under
Exs.A1 & A2 and during the said period, income tax returns were also filed in the name of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur. She further pleaded ignorance that she was not aware that while establishing Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur, the properties covered under Exs.A1 & A2 were invested in the said industry and that initially Sudhakar and Manohar retired from the said Firm later, she also retired from the said Firm and it was only Kodanda
Ramaiah that remained in the said Firm and it is his exclusive property.
04042018 Fair 19 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
28.The above said admissions on the part of defendant No.1 made it clear that the property covered under Exs.A1 & A2 owned and possessed by Sudhakar and Manohar, the firms Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur and Jaya Hanuman Pressing Mill were established and it was in the said property, the structures were raised and even the taxes were also paid and income tax returns were filed in the name of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries,
Guntur. Though, she pleaded ignorance with regard to the conversion of the property covered under Exs.A1 & A2 in the said industry or Firm by
Sudhakar and Manohar, the other admissions on the part of D.W.1 clarified the said issue.
29.D.W.1 admitted that Ex.A14Registered sale deed was executed by her and Late Kodanda Ramaiah in favour of one Mettupalli Ramesh the contents of the said document are true, that to her knowledge, it is mentioned in the said registered sale deed that though she was not having right in the property, she was made to sign. She further deposed that she does not know what was the extent of property that was soled under Ex.A14.
On perusal of Ex.A14 Registered sale dee, it disclose the fact that the said document was executed by Late Kodanda Ramaiah as first party and defendant No.1 as second party in favour of Mettupalli Ramesh Babu (P.W.5) a sale deed for an extent of 380.35 Sq., yards of property situated at
R.Agraharam in Patta No.1053, Block No.11 in an extent of Ac.3836 cents from out of Ac.7625 cents, the southern portion an extent of Ac.656 cents in which the 1st party was having right with Municipal Door No.252223
Assessment No.3701501 Tin shed site within the boundaries noted therein.
In the said sale deed, it is found mentioned that the said property was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the two sons of the 1st party that was purchased in the names of Kongara Sudhakar and Kongara Manohar, later they established a partnership Firm on 26051973 as M/s. Jaya Bharat
Cotton Industries, Guntur in which, they both have invested the property covered under the documents bearing Nos.2063/1965 and 2064/1965 and that the said property was considered as the property of the Firm, in which business was run by the Firm and that with the retirements of the partners one after the other on 31071979 and on 20091984 that relinquished their right in the movables and immovable properties of the Firm, later the 2nd 04042018 Fair 20 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) party wife of Kongara Sudhakar that joined as partner and that the 2nd party also retired as partner on 2021987 by relinquishing all the assets and liabilities in the Firm in favour of 1st party by executing retirement Deed, it was only the 1st party that was having absolute rights over the property and was enjoying the possession of the said property with absolute rights and that the 1st party as sole proprietor had run the Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur for some time and thereafter stopped the business, that the 2nd party had no rights in the schedule property, however on the request of the purchaser, 2nd party (defendant No.1 ) was also made a party to the document, despite the fact that she had no rights whatsoever in the property that executed the said sale deed dated 27122000, which was registered on 18012001 as Doc.407/2001.
30.The above said statement of D.W.1 coupled with the covenants of the documents admittedly executed by defendant No.1 along with Late
Kodanda Ramaiah in favour of Mettupalli Ramesh babu throw light as to the absolute rights of Late Kodanda Ramaiah in respect of property vested with the Firm by name Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur not only Manohar and Sudhakar, but also by defendant No.1 who were the partners of the Firm and later retired as partners of the Firm. In other words, the contents of
Ex.A14 for which transaction, D.W.1 is a party and admitted by her as the said contents are true and binds defendant No.1 and she is estopped from turning back against the contents of the said document, which are admitted to be true.
31.It is argued for the defendants that Bank of Baroda filed a suit in
OS.72/1977 against the Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur, Kongara
Manohar and Kongara Sudhakar for recovery of debt in which, Manohar and
Sudhakar were shown as guarantors as such, it is false to contend that
Kodanda Ramaiah acquired property that was vested with the partnership
Firm by Manohar and Sudhakar. Through D.W.1, Ex.B8Served copy of plaint in OS.72/1977 is got marked. A perusal of Ex.B8, disclose the fact that the suit in OS.72/1977 was filed on the file of SubOrdinate Judge,
Guntur by Bank of Baroda against the defendants 1 to 4 i.e., M/s. Jaya
Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur represented by its Managing Partner
K.Manohar as defendant No.1, K.Manohar as Defendant No.2, K.Sudhakar as 04042018 Fair 21 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Defendant No.3 and Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah as Defendant No.4. In the description of the defendants and in the contents of the said complaint, it is mentioned that for obtaining loan from the bank by way of mortgaged loan, it was Kongara Manohar and Sudhakar that mortgaged the property in favour of Bank of Baroda and that defendant No.4 that is Kongara Kodanda
Ramaiah stood as guarantor, therefore, the suit was filed against the defendants 2 to 4 jointly and severally and also personally making them liable to pay the suit debt. It is also mentioned in the said suit that the defendants 2 & 3 have deposited their title deeds with the plaintiff bank.
32.It is significant to note that the above said suit in OS.72/1977 filed by Bank of Baroda is against the Firm by name Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur as defendant No.1 and against the Manohar and Sudhakar as mortgagors and lastly against the Kodanda Ramaiah as guarantor. It is borne out from Ex.B8 that the loan was borrowed for the purpose of completion of factory buildings for purchase of machinery and establishment of industry etc., it is also found mentioned that the construction of the industry was in progress, the defendants approached for sanction of loan. It is appropriate to note that all the statements of D.W.1 during her cross examination that it was the property in the name of Manohar that was kept under mortgage with the bank. Considering the fact that the said suit was filed against the Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur as defendant No.1 and that both Manohar and Sudhakar stood as mortgagors for the said loan and Late Kodanda Ramaiah stood as guarantor that clinches the issue that the property vested with Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur was mortgaged with the bank by Manohar and Sudhakar as partners of the Firm.
It is not known how the document Ex.B8 in respect of the suit filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of money is helpful to the contention of the contesting defendants that the property was not vested with the partnership Firm by name Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur. On the other hand, it establish the fact that though the property belonged to Manohar, as the said property became the property of the partnership Firm by name Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur and being the partners of the said Firm, they both stood as mortgagers. As rightly argued by the plaintiff side, had the said property of Manohar was not vested with the partnership Firm, Manohar alone would 04042018 Fair 22 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) have mortgaged the property and stood as mortgagor for the transaction of loan obtained from the Bank of Baroda. Hence, it tend to support the case of plaintiff that the property covered under Exs.A1 & A2 was diverted towards the capital investment in the partnership Firm established by Manohar and
Sudhakar, therefore, they both have executed mortgage Deed in favour of the Bank.
33.It may be noted that D.W.1 categorically admitted that she did not see the payment of property tax in the name of her husband late Sudhakar in respect of plaint schedule property and at the same time, she admitted that property tax was paid in the name of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries in respect of the property covered under Exs.A1 & A2. Unless, the property of
Manohar and Sudhakar was diverted and invested in Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, it is not known how said property was assessed for payment of tax in the name of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries.
34.Another significant circumstance brought out by the plaintiff herein is that D.W.1 was confronted as to the income tax returns filed by her during her crossexamination. D.W.1 categorically admitted the income tax returns for the Assessment years 19962003 and the said documents are marked as Exs.A16 to A19. As rightly pointed out by the plaintiff’s side, a perusal of the income tax returns filed by defendant No.1, there is no mention as to the suit schedule property or income that derived from any of the structures built over the suit schedule property or the property covered under Ex.A1. On the other hand, in the Tax returns filed and marked as
Ex.A24 pertaining to Late Kodanda Ramaiah, there is mention with regard to the income received through the Firm by name Jaya Bharat Cotton
Industries, Guntur. It is also borne out from the documents i.e., Tax returns of Late Kodanda Ramaiah marked as Exs.A24 to A28 income from the godown rents from the suit schedule property, income from Ginning apart from other payments are found reflected. As rightly pointed out by the plaintiff’s counsel that in Ex.A17 Tax returns filed by defendant No.1, it is found mentioned that D.W.1 had paid an amount of Rs.5,854/ as interest to
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur and inturn, there is corresponding entry reflected in IT returns of Kodanda Ramaiah as to its receipt under
Ex.A26 acknowledgment of the Tax returns filed by Kodanda Ramaiah.
04042018 Fair 23 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Though, it is explained by defendant No.1 as D.W.1 that it was late Kodanda
Ramaiah that looked after and managed the properties and had even filed income tax returns on her behalf fact remains that when it comes to the appreciation of the evidence since the Tax returns were filed in the name of
D.W.1 and duly signed and admitted by her, the same is binding on her.
35.In the light of the above said circumstances brought out both from the evidence of the plaintiff, but also through D.W.1 and from the documents filed by both sides, it is undoubtedly established that the property covered under Exs.A1& A2 was vested with the partnership Firm by name
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur thereby, the said property became the property of the Firm with the subsequent retirement of partners, it was Late
Kodanda Ramaiah that remained as sole proprietor of the Firm and admittedly was in possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death. In other words, it was Late Kodanda Ramaiah that was having absolute rights of possession and title and to dispose of the said property.
36.It is also to be noted that defendants 1 to 3 did not object for executing WILL by Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah under Ex.A3, dated 1003 1999 is which he bequeathed the suit schedule properties in favour of defendants 2 & 3 and another property i.e., a house in favour of defendant
No.1. No denial of his right to alienate suit schedule properties under the said WILL. On the other hand, D.W.1 accepted the will and implemented the said bequeath of property under the WILL by Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah.
The contesting defendants herein had even not opposed the alienations made by Late Kodanda Ramaiah in favour of third parties, except the alienations by him in favour of the plaintiff under a Registered WILL in respect of suit schedule property in this suit.
37.The next question for determination is that the defendants 1 to 3 having induced Late Kodanda Ramaiah to sell most of his properties neglected to look after his needs and having no other alternate, Late
Kodanda Ramaiah, who was suffering with parkinsons disease was brought to the house of the parents of plaintiff, that as the plaintiff being the son of eldest daughter of Kodanda Ramaiah and had married the daughter of eldest son of Kodanda Ramaiah, out of love and affection, executed a WILL on 09 072009 that was registered on 28082009 and under the said WILL, he 04042018 Fair 24 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) revoked the earlier WILL executed by him on 10031999. Therefore, the plaintiff after the death of Kodanda Ramaiah on 28081999 has become an absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Last WILL executed by Late Kodanda Ramaiah bequeathing the suit schedule property in his favour.
38.As rightly referred by the defendant’s counsel since the plaintiff is the propounder of the WILL or otherwise making a claim under the WILL is no doubt to prove the document, the learned counsel for the defendants cited and relied on the landmark Judgment of the Supreme Court referred in
AIR 1959 443 (1) between H.Venkatachela Iyyanna Vs. B.N.Timma Jayamma and others wherein, it is held that “ as to onus of proof on the propounder of the WILL and that it is Sections 67 & 68 of the Evidence Act are the relevant provisions as to how the WILL is to be proved.
Section 67 of the Evidence Act reads that “if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, signature of the said person must be proved to be in his hand writing and for proving such a handwriting, the opinion of the expert and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant”.
Section 68 deals with the “proof of execution of the document required by law to be attested and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution.”
39.In the situation on hand, the plaintiff as propounder of the WILL that filed this suit declaring his rights of ownership and title to the property under a WILL dated 18092009 said to have been executed by Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah. Apart from examining himself as P.W.1, he marked Ex.A5
Registered WILL. He also examined P.W.2,one of the attestors of the WILL and P.W.3, SubRegistrar, who registered the WILL. It may be noted that as per law, the evidence of SubRegistrar as P.W.3 is of no help to the plaintiff to prove execution of the will by Late Kodanda Ramaiah and his evidence can be used to believe and accept the fact that the WILL was registered by
SubRegistrar. It is argued for the plaintiff that once the document is 04042018 Fair 25 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) registered, there is presumption that registration is notice to public and that the said document is valid in the eye of law. It is true a registered document is a notice to public and is a recognized document that is valid in the eye of law. However, in the matters of proving a will, as rightly insisted by the defendants’ counsel that referred the above said citation that it is essential that at least one attesting witness for the document must be examined since the WILL is a compulsorily attestable document. In the case on hand by examining P.W.2, one of the attesting witnesses of the WILL, the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of the said WILL. P.Ws.1 to 3 are subjected for the crossexamination for the contesting defendants 1 & 2. However, nothing substantial is found elicited to suspect or deny the statements of
P.Ws.1 to 3 that withstood and deposed in support of the WILL, which is marked as Ex.A5.
40.As against the above said evidence, the defendants pleaded in the written statement that due to deterioration of the physical strength of
Kodanda Ramaiah, the plaintiff and his parents forcibly took away him by force, the plaintiff and his parents created a WILL dated 28082009 purporting to bequeath the property to the plaintiff, later Kodanda Ramaiah called the defendants and directed to bring the scribe and attestor that on 18092009 defendants 1& 2 along with scribe and attestor went to Kodanda
Ramaiah and on his direction a WILL dated 18092009 was executed bequeathing his properties to the defendants. Admittedly, the said WILL is not filed and marked by the defendants, no attestor and scribe of the WILL is examined. It is not the case of the defendants that in the subsequent WILL putforth by them dated 18092009, the earlier WILL dated 28082009 was cancelled by Late Kodanda Ramaiah or that any steps were initiated by
Kodanda Ramaiah against the parents of the plaintiff for forcibly and under threat, WILL dated 28082009 was created by them. Totally, there is vacuum in that direction in the pleadings as well as in the evidence of defendants.
41.When it comes to the evidence part, 1st defendant as D.W.1 in her crossexamination dated 17032016 deposed that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah died in the house of the mother of P.W.1Neena Devi, Neena Devi is also a doctor that both Kodanda Ramaiah and Neena Devi together practiced as 04042018 Fair 26 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) doctors, that Late Kodanda Ramaiah suffered with Parkinsons disease (Nerves disease) for 15 years prior to his death, that she does not know, who treated Kodanda Ramaiah during his last days. She admitted that Neena
Devi issued a public notice dated 30092009 through her Advocate
P.Lakshmi Narayana, for which, she got issued a reply through public notice
dated 20102009 through her Advocate and that the said public notices are
marked as Exs.A9 & A10 respectively. She also admitted that the contents in the public notice got issued by her under Ex.A10 are true and correct and in the said notice, she got mentioned that Kodanda Ramaiah executed a WILL on 10031999 and the same was registered as Doc.189/1999, that a Codicil was also executed for the said WILL with minor alternations on 18092009.
She also admitted that her daughter Sandhya (defendant No.2) filed objections before the Municipal authorities for mutation of the records in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and she does not know that her daughter had enclosed copy of Codicil dated 18092009 executed by Kodanda Ramaiah along with her objections. She denied the suggestion that she was aware of the facts that her daughter had enclosed copy of the
Codicil objections filed by her before the Municipal authorities and that purposefully she is pleading ignorance about the said fact.
42.It is significant to note that it is the plea of the defendants 1 & 2 that Kodanda Ramaiah while in the house of the parents of the plaintiff by force and under threat of the plaintiff and his parents, bequeathed the property to the plaintiff that created a WILL dated 28082009 forcibly, later
Kodanda Ramaiah called the defendants and directed to scribe and attestor, that on 18092009, defendants 1 & 2 along with the scribe and attestor went to Kodanda Ramaiah and on his direction a WILL dated 18092009 was executed bequeathing his properties to the defendants. As such, to prove the execution of the said Codicil dated 18092009 admittedly no evidence is adduced by the defendants. Admittedly, no efforts are made by the defendants to prove execution of the said WILL dated 18092009.
Neither the scribe nor the attestor of the WILL is examined by the defendants. Even the original WILL dated 18092009 is not filed by the defendants 1 & 2 to substantiate their contention. As rightly argued by the plaintiff’s side, in the absence of any evidence proving the execution of the 04042018 Fair 27 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) said Codicil dated 18092009, it can be said that the defendants failed to prove the execution of the Codicil by Late Kodanda Ramaiah. It can also be inferred that the defendants resciled from their plan that Kodanda Ramaiah had executed Codicil dated 18092009. Though the defendants failed to produce the said Codicil before this court, which was pleaded by them in the written statement, the plaintiff herein obtained copy of the said document from Municipal Corporation, Guntur under Right to Information Act and the same is marked as Ex.A33. Even in the reply public notice got issued by defendant No.1, which is marked by the plaintiff as Ex.A10 and admitted by
D.W.1, it is found mentioned that Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah executed a WILL
dated 10031999 for that a Codicil was also executed by him with minor
alterations on 18092009. However, by taking UTurn and contrary to the said contentions in the public notice and also in the objections filed before the Guntur Municipal Corporation against the mutation of the property in the name of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 claiming to be the successor of late
Sudhakar along with her two daughters and alleging that the suit schedule property was left by late Sudhakar intestate and in the capacity of one of the legal heirs executed a Gift Deed dated 10032010 in favour of defendants 2 & 3. In other words, forgetting the fact that late Sudhakar along with his brother Manohar together entered into a partnership that established Jaya
Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur and diverted the property that was purchased in their names during their minority by their father by name Late
Kodanda Ramaiah and subsequent to the induction of late Kodanda Ramaiah as partner that continued in the Firm even after the retirement of the successive partners and ultimately remained as proprietor of the Firm thereby handled the property of the Firm in which, the suit schedule property forms part. Having admitted the alienations made by Late Kodanda
Ramaiah both independently and along with the defendants 1 to 3 of late, the contesting defendants have come up with a new theory that the suit schedule property was left by Late Sudhakar that died intestate and as legal heirs defendants 1 to 3 succeeded to the said property by way of succession.
Even in Ex.A15, which is not referred in the written statement, it is found mentioned that Kongara Sudhakar died intestate on 1101984 and after his death, his sole legal heirs, Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah along with executant 04042018 Fair 28 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) by name K.Jaya Sri ( defendant No.1 ) her two minor daughters that sold the property to others and that Late Kodanda Ramaiah also since died intestate.
A rectification Deed i.e., Ex.B9 for the original of Ex.A15 is found executed by defendant No.1 for deletion of the name of Kodanda Ramaiah as legal heir of Late Sudhakar and also to delete the sentence that Late Kodanda
Ramaiah had not executed any document and died intestate.
43.Taking the totality of the recitals in the admitted documetns,
Exs.A10, A15, A33, B9, it is evident that the stand of the defendants is inconsistent, contradictory and was not sure and specific as to their rights in respect of suit schedule property. Though, it is argued by the counsel for the defendants that the pleadings and the evidence of plaintiff is uncertain, I am of the considered view that the said proposition is applicable to the defendants rather than the plaintiff herein. Having admitted that Late
Kodanda Ramaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under Exs.A1 & A2 during the life time and having accepted execution of the
WILL dated 10031999 by Late Kodanda Ramaiah and also having reacted in the reply notice and also in the objections filed before the Municipal
Corporation, Guntur, the defendants have come forward with a new turn by creating documents such as gift deed and rectification deed interse between them. It is admitted by D.W.1 that in pursuance of the WILL executed by Dr.
Kodanda Ramaiah dated 10031999 she is in possession of the two storied building and in detriment to the said bequeathing of the properties under the WILL, she broughtforth, subsequent document in the Form of Ex.A15 and
Ex.B9. So also, when it is denied that Late Kodanda Ramaiah did not execute the registered will under Ex.A5 dated 09072009, which was registered on 28082009 broughtforth a Codicil dated 18082009 alleged to have been executed by Late Kodanda Ramaiah. Had Late Kongara Kodanda
Ramaiah had no sound and disposing state of mind to execute WILL or that forcibly the WILL under Ex.A5 was got executed by the parents of the plaintiff, it is not known how the Codicil dated 18082009 was executed by
Late Kodanda Ramaiah that too while in the house of the parents of plaintiff and in a sound and disposing state of mind. The defendants are not permitted to blow hot and cold at a time.
04042018 Fair 29 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
44.The learned counsel for the defendants though raised the above said suspicious circumstances which according to him are material, I do not find that any of the circumstances pointed out by him are material to create a cloud as to the execution of the WILL by Late Kodanda Ramaiah while he was in the house of his eldest daughter Dr.Neena Devi, who is the mother of the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that Late Kodanda Ramaiah was aged 93 years by the time of his death and when he was brought to the house of the parents of the plaintiff in the year 2008, he might be of the age of 92 years and it is not expected that Kodanda Ramaiah would be able to come or reach on his own the house of his eldest daughter, unless he was moved and brought by them. It is no where the contention of the plaintiff that he was present in the house of his parents when Kodanda Ramaiah was brought and it is also not his case that he was attending Kodanda Ramaiah by rendering service. Fact remains that the plaintiff is admittedly residing at Bhuvaneswar in Orissa and was attending to his business. However, the plaintiff is the only son to his parents and the mother of plaintiff is the eldest daughter of
Late Kodanda Ramaiah as such, the plaintiff is the grandson of Kodanda
Ramaiah. In addition, the plaintiff married the only daughter of the eldest son of Kodanda Ramaiah as such, in both ways the plaintiff has affinity and attachment to Late Kodanda Ramaiah. It is significant to note that to bequeath property in favour of a person, it is not love and affection that was shown by the said person in favour of the executant of the WILL, but it is the love and affection of the executant towards the beneficiary that matters.
45.Though, it is argued for the defendants that there was rivalry between Kodanda Ramaiah and plaintiff as rightly argued by the plaintiff side that there was no such pleading to the effect in the written statement of the defendants. It is not even proved by the defendants as to any such rivalry that existed between the plaintiff and Late Kodanda Ramaiah. So also, it is argued for the defendants that the identity of the suit schedule property is not certain and the description of the property in the WILL Ex.A5 was based on the previous WILL executed by Late Kodanda Ramaiah in which, door number was mentioned as 2516114 with Assessment
No.37015 and later by way of amendment, the door number was amended
as 2516117. It is true, P.W.1 admitted the above said fact. However,
04042018 Fair 30 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
D.W.1 during crossexamination categorically deposed that she knows the location of the suit schedule property, that to the West of schedule property, there is road leading to Lalpuram from Guntur, on South 30 Ft., road, on
East 10 Ft., road and on NorthSite of Doddi Krishnaiah, the above said description of the suit schedule property given by D.W.1 (defendant No.1) is found tallied with the description of the property found mentioned in Ex.A5
WILL. As rightly argued by the plaintiff’s counsel that the boundaries will prevail over the noting of doors numbers, Survey numbers, Assessment numbers and even the extent. Therefore, the objection raised as to the identity of the property by the learned counsel for the defendants holds no water.
46.It is significant to note that the documents under Exs.A34 to
A37 are marked subject to objection as to the existence of its original and proof. It may be noted that defendant No.1 as D.W.1 categorically admitted that Manohar and Sudhakar entered into the partnership Firm in the name of
Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries and started Ginning Mill and it is also deposed by her that in the name of the said Firm, Municipal Taxes were paid in respect of the properties covered under Exs.A1 & A2 and it is also her statement that income tax returns were also filed in the name of Jaya Bharat
Cotton Industries. At the same time, she pleaded ignorance that while establishing Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, the properties covered under
Exs.A1 & A2 were invested in the said Firm and that initially Manohar and
Sudhakar retired from the said Firm, later she also retired from the Firm and it was only Kodanda Ramaiah that remained in the Firm and the property is his exclusive property. Defendant No.1 having admitted as to the establishment of the partnership Firm and about the property that was covered under Exs.A1 & A2 was diverted to the said Firm and also agreed with regard to the mortgage of the property in favour of Bank of Baroda and that Late Kodanda Ramaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the property during his life time failed to depose as to what had happened to the said
Firm at least after the death of her husband. She did not deny the existence of the partnership Firm and having admitted its existence, it is for her to explain the subsequent developments since she is claiming as one of the legal heirs of Late Sudhakar. Even otherwise, the documents under Ex.A34 to A37 04042018 Fair 31 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) are marked by way of secondary evidence. Admittedly, the defendants 1 to 3 lived with Late Kodanda Ramaiah and his wife by name Sarojini Devi from the beginning. It is also undisputed that it was in the year 2008 Late
Kodanda Ramaiah was brought to the house of the parents of plaintiff and till such time, he was with the defendants 1 to 3. Nowhere, it is mentioned by the defendants 1 to 3 while bringing Kodanda Ramaiah to the house of the parents of plaintiff all the documents and records pertaining to the properties and businesses of him were also taken away. From the plaintiff’s side, a notice was served on the defendant No.1 to cause production of the partnership Deed and retirement Deeds claiming that defendants 1 to 3 are in the custody of the said documents. Since, defendants 1 to 3 failed to produce the document permission was granted to the plaintiff to adduce secondary evidence. Accordingly, Exs.A34 to A37 were produced and marked by the plaintiff. Apart from marking the said documents as secondary evidence, plaintiff also examined P.Ws.4 & 5 to prove the existence of its original and the source of the said documents. Except suggesting that
P.Ws.4 & 5 that have come to depose false to help the plaintiff herein nothing substantial is found elicited to suspect the circumstances stated by
P.Ws.4 & 5 on the documents marked as Exs.A34 to A37.
47.Coming to the documents filed by D.W.1, Exs.B2 & B3 are the served copies of plaint in OS.74/2010 filed by P.Suneetha and served copy of plaint in OS.75/2010 filed by P.Sumalatha. The said suits are filed prima facie against the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the property situated at
Kondapaturu and in respect of suit schedule property. Likewise, Ex.B4 is the
WILL dated 09101991 executed by Smt.Sarojini Devi, W/o Dr. Kodanda
Ramaiah, which is not connected to the suit schedule property. Exs.B5 to B7 are the agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney executed by
Kodanda Ramaiah along with defendant No.1 pertaining to certain extents covered under the documents Exs.A1 & A2. It is found mentioned in Exs.B5 to B7 that the property was purchased by Late Kodanda Ramaiah with his selfacquisitions that was enjoying the said property as owner, moreover, the said documents are only agreements of sale cum General Power of Attorney without delivery of possession and are of no help to the defendants 1 to 3 herein. Lastly, Ex.B10 is the Tax receipt in the name of defendants 2 & 3 to 04042018 Fair 32 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) the Municipal Corporation, Guntur filed and marked through D.W.1. It is a settled position that mere payment of tax is not proof of ownership or title as such, the payment of tax in the names of defendants 2 & 3 does not confer rights of ownership and title to the property, which is to be established independently by the defendants.
48.Viewed from any angle, the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff in all probability is sufficient to establish the fact that Late
Kodanda Ramaiah was vested with the rights of ownership and title over the suit schedule property that enjoyed the said property till his death and had successively executed registered WILL dated 1031999 under Ex.A3 and the
WILL dated 09072009 under Ex.A5 and that Late Kodanda Ramaiah died on 30092009 therefore Ex.A5 is proved to be his last WILL under which the suit schedule property was conveyed in favour of the plaintiff , the plaintiff is to be declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property. In other words, WILL dated 0972009, which is proved to be true is valid and binding and the plaintiff has got title for the suit schedule property under the said WILL. Accordingly, these two issues are decided.
ISSUE No.4 :
49. Consequent to my above discussion and findings under Issue
Nos.1 & 3, wherein it is held that the WILL dated 09072009 executed by
Late Kodanda Ramaiah is proved to be true, valid and binding and that the plaintiff has got title to the property with the death of executant of the WILL i.e., Late Kodanda Ramaiah on 30092009, the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff is to be granted to him. Further, the plaintiff also claimed for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 thereby restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. No doubt, the plaintiff herein did not file any specific document to prove his possession, since the title follows possession and in pursuance of the WILL dated 09072009 and after the death of the executant of the said WILL under which the property was conveyed in favour of the plaintiff with the passing of the title possession also follows. Admittedly, suit schedule property has been in possession of defendant No.4, a tenant. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the tenant i.e., defendant No.4 is not paying rents. In this suit itself, the plaintiff also 04042018 Fair 33 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT) claimed for payment of rents from 4th defendant. Since it is observed by this court that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and as per the contentions of the defendants 1& 2 that putforth their claim over the suit schedule property with regard to title, the threat posed by the defendants 1 to 3 against lawful enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff is very much established. Rightful owner of the property is to be protected by granting the relief of injunction restraining the intruders from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In other words, the plaintiff herein in consequence to the declaratory relief that sought for the relief of permanent injunction is to be granted to him as a matter of course. In other words, the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue is decided.
ISSUE No.2:
50.In the written statement filed by the defendants 1 & 2, it is averred that after the death of Sudhakar, parents of the plaintiff created a
WILL dated 07091991 said to have beenexecuted by Sarojini Devi bequeathing an extent of Ac.2473 cents of land situated at Kondapaturu in favour of the plaintiff that after knowing the said fraud played by the parents of the plaintiff, Sarojini Devi executed a WILL dated 19101991 bequeathing her property in favour of legatees therein and that it was her Last WILL
dated 09101991, that the plaintiff with a malafide intention on coming to
know the extinguishment on his right on the said land of Ac.2473 cents at
Kondapaturu executed gift deeds in favour of his two sisters and as a General
Power of Attorney holder for his two sisters, he filed suits in OS.74/2010 and 75/2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.
51.When it comes to the evidence part, 1st defendant stated that she does not know that the Revenue authorities issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in the name of P.W.1 in respect of property covered under
Ex.B2 in OS.74/2010 and she also pleaded ignorance, that she does not know who is cultivating the lands covered in OS.74/2010 and that Sarojini executed a WILL dated 07091991 in respect of property situated at 04042018 Fair 34 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Kondapaturu and that in Ex.B4 WILL executed by Sarojini Devi, there is no reference of the suit schedule property in the said WILL, which is marked as
Ex.B4.
52.It is argued for the plaintiff that neither the pleadings of the defendants nor the issue framed on the said subject as to the execution of the
WILL by Sarojini Devi is not relevant to this suit as it is not related to the subject matter in the suit. He also argued that the said issue is to be struck off and an additional issue with regard to execution of Codicil by Late
Kodanda Ramaiah dated 18092009 is to be framed.
53.It is significant to note that the suit is filed for declaration of ownership and title in respect of suit schedule property said to have been owned and possessed by Late Kodanda Ramaiah, which was bequeathed by him under a WILL purported by the plaintiff dated 09072009 and for the consequential reliefs of injunction and direction to the other defendant No.4.
It is not the case or claim of the plaintiff touching the rights of ownership and title of the property of Late Sarojini Devi and as to her conveying the property. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the scope of enquiry in this petition is with regard to bequeathing of the property by Late Kodanda Ramaiah and entitlement of the plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration of title and the consequential reliefs in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff also categorically pleaded and deposed that this suit is limited only to the extent of suit schedule property and his claim is not in respect of other Items of property mentioned in the WILL propounded by him. The property covered under Ex.B4 WILL is no way related to suit schedule property, therefore, it is immaterial to take up the issue whether the WILL executed by Sarojini Devi dated 09101991 is her last WILL.
Accordingly, this issue is decided.
ISSUE No.5:
54. IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed without costs as follows :
(i)Declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of suit schedule property, 04042018 Fair 35 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
(ii)Permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property ,
(iii)Directing the defendant No.4 to pay rent from the month of July2010.
Dictated to Stenographer GradeIII, transcribed by her, correctedand
pronounced by me in open Court this the 4 th day of April,2018.
Sd/ B.Manjari
JUDGE, FAMILY COURTCUM
XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Gottimukkala Ravi Kanth
P.W.2 : Alaparthi Babu Rao
P.W.3 : Addanki Nava Kumar
P.W.4 : T.N.Lakshmana Kumar
P.W.5 : M.Ramesh Babu
FOR DEFENDANT:
D.W.1 : Kongara Jayasri
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1/: Registration extract of the sale deed executed in the name of Sudhakar , vide Doc.2063/1965, dated 10051965
Ex.A2/: Registration extract of the sale deed executed in the name of Manohar , vide Doc.206f4/1965, dated 10051965
Ex.A3/: Registered WILL executed by Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah (Certified Copy), dated 10031999.
Ex.A4/: Regd., Sale Deed executed by Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah in favour of Shaik Shamsha Azeem, dated 29071999.
Ex.A5/: WILL executed by Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah, registered on 280809
Ex.A6/: Certificate issued by Dr.P.Mohana Rao, Professor, Guntur Medical College (Photo Copy ).
Ex.A7/: Certificate dated 28082009 issued by Dr. Rama Tarak Nath (Photo Copy)
Ex.A8/: Death certificate of Dr. Kodanda Ramaiah dated 14102009 04042018 Fair 36 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Ex.A9/: Paper Publicationb made by the mother of plaintiff dated 3009 2009
Ex.A10/ : Paper Publication issued by the defendants dated 20102009
Ex.A11/ : Notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants advocate dated 02112009
Ex.A12/ : Complaint made by the mother of plaintiff with SHO., Pattabhipuram, Guntur (Photo Copy) dated 27092009
Ex.A13/ : Application submitted by the plaintiff to the Municipal Authorities
dated 27122009
Ex.A14/ : Regd., sale deed executed by Late Kodanda Ramaiah and 1st defendant, dated 07122000
Ex.A15/ : Registration extract of the gift deed dated 1032010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 2 & 3.
Ex.A16/ : Signature of K.Jayasree in Tax Returns
Ex.A17/ : Signature of K.Jayasree in Tax Returns
Ex.A18/ : Signature of K.Jayasree in Tax Returns
Ex.A19/ : Signature of K.Jayasree in Tax Returns
Ex.A20/ : Registration extracts of FormA (details of partners) of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries, Guntur.
Ex.A21/ : Registration extracts of FormA (details of partners) of Jaya Hanuman Cotton Press, Guntur.
Ex.A22/ : True copy of partnership deed dated 26051973 of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries duly attested by Income Tax Officer, CWard, Guntur.
Ex.A23/ : True copy of partnership deed dated 09121975 of Jai Hanuman Cotton Press duly attested by Income Tax Officer, C Ward, Guntur.
Ex.A24/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 19961997
Ex.A25/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 19971998
Ex.A26/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 19981999
Ex.A27/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 19992000
Ex.A28/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 20002001 04042018 Fair 37 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Ex.A29/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 20012002
Ex.A30/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 20022003
Ex.A31/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 20032004
Ex.A32/ : O/c. Of acknowledgement given by the Income Tax Officer, Guntur for the return submitted by Late Kongara Kodanda Ramaiah for the Assessment years from 20052006
Ex.A33/ : Endorsement dated 12042010 issued by Addl. Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur along with Codicil dated 18092009 said to have been executed by Late Kodanda Ramaiah and submitted to GMC, Guntur Kongara Sandhya.
Ex.A34/ : Partnership Deed dated 01081979 Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries
Ex.A35/ : Retirement Deed dated 21091984 of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries
Ex.A36/ : Partnership Deed dated 21091984 Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries
Ex.A37/ : Retirement Deed dated 20021987 of Jaya Bharat Cotton Industries
FOR DEFENDANT :
Ex.B1/: Copy of Order dated 05032011 of RDO, Tenali.
Ex.B2/: Served copy of the plaint in OS.74/2010 filed by P.Sunitha represented by her GPA holder against defendants 1 to 3
Ex.B3/: Served copy of the plaint in OS.75/2010 filed by P.Sumalatha represented by her GPA holder against defendants 1 to 3
Ex.B4/: WILL executed by Sarojini Devi in favour of Kodanda Ramaiah
dated 09101991
Ex.B5/: Regd., extract of salecum General Power of Attorney executed by defendants in favour of Mastanvali, dated 21041998
Ex.B6/: Regd., extract of salecum General Power of Attorney executed by defendants in favour of V.Satyanarayana, dated 15041998
Ex.B7/: Regd., extract of salecum General Power of Attorney executed by Kodanda Ramaiah in favour of V.Satyanarayana,
dated 15041998
Ex.B8/: Served copy of plaint in OS.72/1977 suit filed by Bank of Baroda against Manohar, Sudhakar and Kodanda Ramaiah.
04042018 Fair 38 OS.160/2010(FC,GNT)
Ex.B9/: Rectification Deed bearing Doc.2437/10, dated 29062010
Ex.B10/: Tax receipt paid in the name of defendants 2 & 3 to Municipal Corporation.
Sd/ B.Manjari JFCCumXII
ADJ, GUNTUR.