B.Papi Reddy

OS No.1/2014 1/12 Dt.03.08.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE'S COURT: NANDIGAMA.

Present: B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 3rd day of August, 2018. 

O.S. No.1/2014

Between:

1) Galam Varalakshmi,

2) Galam Saideswara Rao....Plaintiffs.

and

1) Galam Udayamma @ Vijayamma,

2) Galam Hanumantha Rao,

3) Galam Anjaneyulu @ Anji,

4) Galam Sanjeeva Rao,

5) Gaddam Hanumayamma,

6) Aruda Katam Raju,

7) Aruda Veeraswamy,

8) Aruda Chenaiah,

9) Malleboina Ajantha, 10 Jangala Anantha Ramulu, 11 Jangala Venkataravamma, 12 Jangala Veeraiah, 13 Jangala Subbaiah, 14 Potu Radhika. (D6 to D14 are impleaded as per Orders In I.A. No.262/16 dated 19.9.2016).…Defendants

This suit came before me for hearing on 23.7.2018 in the presence of Sri Y.Babu Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs, and of Sri S.Suryanarayana, Advocate for 3rd defendant, Sri K.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for 10th defendant and 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th to 9th, 11, 13th & 14th defendants having remained exparte, D5 reported died, after hearing both sides, upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 r/w

Section 26 of C.P.C for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs with metes and bounds with separate possession. 

OS No.1/2014 2/12 Dt.03.08.2018

2).The case of the plaintiffs as per the plaint is that the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the 2nd plaintiff by name

Venkateswarlu and the husband of D1 and father of D2 to D5 by name Venkata Narasaiah are the brothers, both of them and their farther Galam Subbaiah are the members of the Hindu joint family.

The said Galam Subbaiah purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 8.1.1951 and item No.2 property under a registered sale deed dated 31.3.1972. The said

Subbaiah also purchased item No.3 of the plaint schedule property along with his two sons Venkata Narasaiah and Venkateswarlu and they also purchased item No.4 property under a registered sale deed dated 24.2.1982. The said two brothers are having ancestral property which is tem No.5 of the plaint schedule property which is consisting two portions.

3.The plaintiffs further stated that the said Venkata Naraisaiah and Venkateswarlu and their father Subbaiah are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property but the said Subbaiah died intestate about 10 years back leaving behind him his two sons as

Class­I legal heirs, since the death of Subbaiah his two sons came into possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as members of Hindu joint family, the Panchayat authorities mutated the name of Subbaiah in Panchayat records in respect of item No.5 of the house property, the said Venkateswarlu died intestate on 26.5.2006 leaving behind him the plaintiffs as Class­I heirs and the said Venkata

Narasiah also died on 1.7.2007 leaving behind him D1 to D5 as Class­

I legal heirs, after that the plaintiffs and defendants enjoyed the plaint schedule property jointly and the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 are entitled to ½ share in the plaint schedule properties as legal heirs of Galam

OS No.1/2014 3/12 Dt.03.08.2018

Venkateswarlu, likewise D1 to D5 are also entitled to ½ share in the plaint schedule property as legal heirs of Galam Venkata Narasaiah as per Hindu Succession Act, as such the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for the partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs with metes and bounds but the defendants are not cooperating for the same. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 7.5.2013 demanding for partition but the defendants after receipt of the notice not issued any reply notice, but D3 filed a suit in O.S. NO.251/2013 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama for declaration and permanent

injunction in respect of item Nos.1 & 2 of the plaint schedule property with all false allegations by suppressing the real facts, as such the plaintiffs are constrained to file this partition suit. The plaintiff also filed rejoinder denying the share to the daughter of Subbaiah as they never claimed any right during the lifetime. 

4).D3 filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and it is stated that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of Galam Venkteswarlu, Galam Venkata Narasiah and their father Galam Subbaiah and his two sons died intestate. D3 further stated that after demise of Galam Venkata Narasaiah and

Galam Venkateswarlu their children partitioned their ancestral properties long back and in the said partition D3 got Ac.3­00 cents of land out of Ac.7­79 cents in item No.1 and Ac.2­00 cents of land out of Ac.7­29 cents in item No.3 of the properties and the other properties fell to the share of other defendants and plaintiffs as such he is the exclusive owner of those properties. D3 also applied to the

Revenue department for mutation of the properties that fell to his share, but there are family disputes as such taking advantage of the

OS No.1/2014 4/12 Dt.03.08.2018

non­mutation of his name the plaintiffs and other defendants tried to interfere with his peaceful possession, as such he filed a suit in O.S.

No.251/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama for declaration. According to this defendant there was a prior partition, but the plaintiffs filed the suit with false allegations. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5).D10 filed written statement by admitting the relationship between the parties but denied the existence of Hindu joint family.

This defendant stated that Galam Subbaiah has got two sons Venkata

Narasaiah and Venkateswarlu and he is also having three daughters by name Latchamma, Seshamma (mother of this 10th defendant) and

Nagamma and the said Subbaiah performed the marriages of his three daughters and joint family of Galam Subbaiah holds and possessing the plaint schedule properties and out of the plaint schedule properties Galam Subbaiah purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of the properties with his own earnings under separate registered sale deeds, which stands in his name. The said Galam Subbaiah and his two sons purchased item No.4 of the properties with the income derived from item Nos.1 to 3 of the properties of Galam Subbaiah and item

No.5 of the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property but the said Subbaiah died intestate leaving behind him two sons and three daughters as his sole legal heirs and Class­I legal heirs to succeed his estate. D1 is the wife and D2 to D5 are the sons of Galam Venkata

Narasiah and he died intestate leaving behind them to succeed the estate of Galam Venkata Narasaiah, the 1st plaintiff is the wife, and the 2nd plaintiff is the son of Galam Venkateswarlu, the elder daughter of Galam Subbaiah was blessed with three sons D6 to D8 and two daughters D1 and D9 as Class­I legal heirs to succeed his estate.

OS No.1/2014 5/12 Dt.03.08.2018

The 2nd daughter of Galam Subbaiah by name Seshamma married

Jangala Gopaiah and they blessed with one son (this defendant) and she died on 12.6.2006. The 3rd daughter of Galam Subbaiah by name

Nagamma was given in marriage with one Jangala Veeraiah and they blessed with one son Venkateswarlu and one daughter Varalakshmi.

The said Varalakshmi (1st plaintiff) was given in marriage with Galam

Venkateswarlu who is the 2nd son of Galam Subbaiah. The said

Jangala Nagamma and her husband Veeraiah died intestate leaving behind them their son and daughter to succeed their estate. The said

Galam Venkateswarlu and his wife D11 were blessed with two sons

D12, D13 and one daughter D14 and the said Venkateswarlu also died intestate leaving behind his wife and his children D11 to D14.

According to this defendant the plaint schedule property belongs to the Galam Subbaiah and the said properties are joint properties but his sons have not partitioned the plaint schedule properties during their life time, all the properties are joint and in common possession and enjoyment of the joint family members, as such the daughters of

Galam Subbaiah are having equal share along with his sons. As such the plaint schedule properties have to be partitioned equally and each child of Galam Subbaiah will get 1/5th share each as per Sec.6 of

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, but plaintiffs are not entitled for ½ share and this defendant made counter claim under

Order VIII, Rule­6A of CPC as such paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/­ and prays to pass decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties into five equal shares and allot one such share to this defendant. The other defendants remained exparte.

6).Basing on the pleadings of both parties the following issues are settled for trial:

OS No.1/2014 6/12 Dt.03.08.2018

1) Whether the suit schedule properties were partitioned long back, in the said partition the third defendant got Ac.3­00 out of Ac.7­79 cents in R.S.No.17/4 and 17/5 (item No.1) and Ac.2­00 out of Ac.7­29 cents in R.S.No.244/1B4 and 244/2B comprising as single plot (item No.5)?

2) Whether the plaint schedule properties are liable to be partitioned into two equal shares as prayed by the plaintiffs?

3)To what relief?

7).During the course of trial the 1st plaintiff examined as PW1 and got marked A1 to A6. D3 is examined as DW1 and marked Ex.B1. D10 was examined as DW2 but not marked any documents. 

8). ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:

That according to the plaintiffs the deceased Galam Subbaiah and his two sons are members of the Hindu joint family and the said

Subbaiah purchased item Nos.1 to 3 properties and item No.4 property purchased by Subbaiah and his two sons, item No.5 of the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property, there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties and item No.5 is the ancestral property.

That according to the plaintiffs item Nos.1 to 4 are the joint family property of Galam Subbaiah and his two sons but as per D10 those properties are ancestral properties and there was no partition, but according to D3 there was a partition between the parties as such he got certain share out of the plaint schedule property but according to D10 all the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of G.Subbaiah and his two sons and three daughters.

9).The plaintiffs to substantiate their case examined the 1st plaintiff as PW1, she reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief affidavit, marked Ex.A1 – sale deed dated 8.1.1951 executed in favour of Galam

Subbaiah & Arudra Kotesam in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property. Ex.A2 is sale deed dated 7.4.1984 executed in favour of Galam

OS No.1/2014 7/12 Dt.03.08.2018

Venkata Narasaiah & Venkateswarlu in remaining extent of item No.1 of schedule property, Ex.A3 is the sale deed dated 9.4.1984 executed in favour of Galam Venkata Narasaiah & Venkateswarlu in respect of item

No.1 of the property, Ex.A4 is the sale deed dated 31.3.1972 executed in favour of Galam Subbaiah in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property, Ex.A5 is the sale deed dated 19.2.1969 executed by Matta

Jaya Rami Reddy & two others in favour of Galam Subbaiah in respect of item No.3 of the schedule property and Ex.A6 is the sale deed executed by S.Satyanarayana in favour of Galam Venkata Narasaiah and

Venkateswarlu in respect of item No.4 of the schedule property, there is no dispute about the sale deeds.

10).During the cross examination it is elicited that the said Subbaiah is having two sons and three daughters and one daughter Seshamma died on 12.6.2006 and till the death of Galam Subbaiah, the said Galam

Subbaiah and his two sons lived jointly and except the agricultural activities there are no other activities for any of the party, it is clearly stated by this witness that till the death of Galam Subbaiah the properties were kept joint without partition and continued jointly even after the death of her brother­in­law and her husband but her husband died in the year 2006 and her brother­in­law died in the year 2007 and item No.5 constructed by Galam Subbaiah. There is no dispute about

Ex.A1 to A6 by which it can be clearly inferred that item no 1 to 4 property is a joint family of Galam Subbaiah and his family.

11).According to D3 there was a prior partition in which he got some extent of share out of item No.1 property, this defendant was examined as DW1 by reiterating the contents of written statement in his chief affidavit and marked Ex.B1 plaint in O.S. No.251/2013 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama. During this cross examination also it is

OS No.1/2014 8/12 Dt.03.08.2018

elicited that Galam Subbaiah only acquired the properties but he did not get the lands from his ancestors and the said Galam Subbaiah and

Arudra Kotesam jointly purchased item No.1 property and the said

Arudra Kotesam sold his half share to Subbaiah and his sons and even according to this witness as elicited in his cross examination till the death of Galam Subbaiah all his sons lived with him and no partition took place till the death of Galam Subbaiah and he died in the month of

December, 2005. The said Galam Subbaiah and his sons entirely depend on agriculture only and the said Galam Subbaiah purchased the properties out of the income derived from agriculture and lastly he clearly admitted that till the death of Galam Subbaiah his sons lived jointly by doing agriculture and the said Subbaiah only purchased item

Nos.3 & 4 of the property in the name of his sons and the said Galam

Subbaiah only purchased item No.5 of the property, constructed the house. It is also elicited that during the life time of Galam Subbaiah he used to distribute the income derived from the agriculture to his daughters also and after death of Galam Subbaiah his two sons continued to enjoy the property collectively and cultivated the property and they also used to distribute the income to their sisters during their lifetime and even after the death of Galam Venkateswarlu and Galam

Venkata Narasaiah their children and sisters used to cultivate the property jointly and after the death of Seshamma in the year 2006 D10 cultivating the properties along with others and he clearly admitted that there is no proof for said partition except his oral statement and he has not filed any proof for the same and his name also not mutated in

Revenue records, further it is clarified that the said Galam Venkata

Narasaiah and Galam Venkateswarlu also not partitioned their properties by which it is clear that the plaint schedule properties are

OS No.1/2014 9/12 Dt.03.08.2018

joint family properties and the daughters also getting share out of the funds of the joint property and the properties were not partitioned.

12).D10 examined as DW2. He reiterated the contents of his written statement in his chief affidavit and this witness also stated that item

Nos.1 to 3 of schedule property purchased by Galam Subbaiah but according to this witness the daughters of Galam Subbaiah also entitled for share. 

13).That as seen from the above evidence there is no dispute that item

No.1 to 3 were purchased by Galam Subbaiah with joint family, but as admitted by the parties the properties were purchased by Galam

Subbaiah and his two sons. Exs.A1 to A6 clearly goes to show that the plaint schedule properties are not ancestral properties and those properties were not purchased by the ancestral nucleus, as such it is clear that all the properties are joint family properties except item no 5 which is ancestral property. But according to the plaintiffs the only two sons of Galam Subbaiah are having equal rights and equal shares but the daughters are not entitled for the share, but the admission made by

D3 clearly goes to show that the daughter of Subbaiah also getting their share continuously and no partition was effected so far.

14).The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs placed reliance on a decision reported in 2015 (6) ALD 180 (SC), between Prakash and others v.

Phulavati and others stating that Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 not applicable to this case as the Galam Subbaiah died prior to 2005, it is held that the rights under the Amendment Act are applicable to the living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born.

OS No.1/2014 10/12 Dt.03.08.2018

15).But contrary to the same the learned Counsel for D10 placed reliance on a decision reported in 2016(1) ALD I (DB) between M.Sujatha and others v. M.Surender Reddy and others and in that case also the father died on 10.7.1999 but the daughters not denied their share wherein it is clearly held that as per Sec.6 of Hindu Succession ‘Amendment’ Act, 2005 the daughter of coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son and held as under :

“Para 16: Before reverting back to the facts of the instant case, it is to be noted that new Section 6 of the Principal Act extracted supra brings uniformity in the country. Although the Central Act 39 of 2005 has not expressly repealed Section 29­A, which was introduced in the Hindu Succession Act by the A.P.State

Amendment Act 13 of 1986, the said State Law is void to the extent it is repugnant to. This Court also held that the conflict is resolved by Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India, which provided that in such cases of conflict the State Law shall be void to the extent it is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the Central Law. It was, therefore, held by this Court that all the daughters have to be treated as coparceners entitled to equal shares, irrespective of the fact whether they are majors or minors or their marriages were performed before 5.9.1985 or subsequent thereto. Hence, the new provision of Section 6, which is now on the Statute Book, would inure to the benefit of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, the daughters. Thus, on and from 9th September, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son.” 16).The learned Counsel for D10 also relied upon a decision reported in 2018 (3) ALD 19(SC) between Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another v. Amar and others wherein in it is held as under : 

“Section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in

OS No.1/2014 11/12 Dt.03.08.2018

the same manner as the son. It is apparent that the status conferred upon sons under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to treat them as coparceners since birth. The section uses the words in the same manner as the son. It should therefore be apparent that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth.

17).That at this stage it is necessary to refer Sec.6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which reads as under :

“Sec.6: Devolution of interest in coparcenary property :­ (1) One and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, ?

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that on a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener :

Provided that nothing contained in this sub­section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub­section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.” 18).That in this case there was no earlier partition or disposition as such. The above decisions and provision clearly goes to show that the

OS No.1/2014 12/12 Dt.03.08.2018

daughters are having equal right as of coparceners irrespective of date of death of the father, as such in this case the sons and daughters of the deceased Galam Subbaiah are entitled for equal shares and admittedly there is no proof of earlier partition as admitted by DW1. Hence, these issues are answered partly in favour of plaintiffs.

19).In the result, the suit is decreed partly and counter claim is allowed. The plaint schedule properties have to be partitioned into five equal shares and the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share, D1 to D4 are entitled for 1/5th share and the legal heirs of deceased Latchamma, D1 &

D6 to D9 are entitled for 1/5th share, and D10 who is legal heir of

Seshamma is entitled for 1/5th share and plaintiff No.1, D11 to D14 are entitled for 1/5th share being legal heirs of Nagamma.

Dictated to the Gr.I Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 3 rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/­ B.Papi Reddy

XVI ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, 

NANDIGAMA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for 

Plaintiffs : Defendants :

PW1 : Galam VaralakshmiDW1 : Galam Anjaneyulu

DW2 : Jangala Anantha Ramulu

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff

Ex.A108.01.1951Sale deed executed by Mamillapalli Appaiah and his sons in favour of Galam Subbaiah & Aruda Kotesam in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property. Ex.A207.04.1984Sale deed executed by Arudra Kotesam and his sons in favour of Galam Venkata Narasaiah & Venkateswarlu in remaining extent of item No.1 of schedule property. Ex.A309.04.1984Sale deed executed by Arudra Kotesam and his sons in favour of Galam Venkata Narasaiah &

OS No.1/2014 13/12 Dt.03.08.2018

Venkateswarlu in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property. Ex.A431.03.1972Sale deed executed by Karupati Nagabhushanam & two others in favour of Galam Subbaiah in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property. Ex.A519.02.1969Sale deed executed by Matta Jaya Rami Reddy & two others in favour of Galam Subbaiah in respect of item No.3 of the schedule property. Ex.A607.05.2013Sale deed executed by S.Satyanarayana in favour of Galam Venkata Narasaiah and Venkateswarlu in respect of item No.4 of the schedule property.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendants

Ex.B1­­Office copy of suit in O.S. No.251/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandigama.

Sd/­ B.Papi Reddy

XVI ADJ, NDG.

OS No.1/2014 1/3 Dt.03.08.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE'S COURT: NANDIGAMA.

Present: B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 3rd day of August, 2018. 

O.S. No.1/2014

(COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY D10)

Between:

Jangala Anantha Ramulu, s/o Gopaiah, Hindu, Housewife, r/o Gundaboinapalem village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District… Claimant/ 10th defendant

and

1) Galam Varalakshmi, w/o late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, 60 years, r/o D.No.2­122, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

2) Galam Saideswara Rao, s/o Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, 25 years, r/o D.No.2­122, Chillakallu village,

Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District....Plaintiffs.

3) Galam Udayamma @ Vijayamma, w/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, House­wife, 61 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

4) Galam Hanumantha Rao, s/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 45 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

5) Galam Anjaneyulu @ Anji, s/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 40 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

6) Galam Sanjeeva Rao, s/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 35 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

7) Gaddam Hanumayamma, d/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 41 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

8) Arudra Katam Raju, s/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Cultivation,

OS No.1/2014 2/3 Dt.03.08.2018

70 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

9) Arudra Veeraswamy, s/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, 68 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 10)Arudra Chenaiah, s/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, 65 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 11)Malleboina Ajantha, d/o Koteswara Rao, w/o Narayana, Hindu, Housewife, 60 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.… Defendants 1 to 9 12)Jangala Venkataravamma, w/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 13)Jangala Veeraiah, s/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 14)Jangala Subbaiah, s/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 15)Potu Radhika, d/o Venkateswarlu, w/o Malleswara Rao, Hindu, Housewife, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. (D6 to D14 are impleaded as per Orders In I.A. No.262/16 dated 19.9.2016).… Defendants 11 to 14

This counter claim is filed by the 10th defendant under Order VIII Rule 6A of C.P.C for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and to allot one such share to him with metes and bounds with separate possession thereon by dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit. 

Counter claim filed on: 22.11.2016

Fixed court fee of Rs.200/­ is paid u/s 34(2) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on and from 10 years back when Galam Subbaiah died intestate leaving behind him his two sons Venkateswarlu and Venkata Narasaiah as his Class­I legal heirs and on 26.5.2006 when Galam Venkateswarlu died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his Class­I legal heirs and on 1.7.2007 when Galam Venkata Narasaiah died intestate leaving behind him the defendants as his Class­I legal heirs and on 7.5.2013 when the plaintiffs got issued a notice demanding the defendants to cooperate for the partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and subsequently on 30.10.2013 when the 3rd defendant

OS No.1/2014 3/3 Dt.03.08.2018

filed a declaration suit in O.S. No.251/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama and subsequently so at Chillakallu village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal and Bhimavaram village of Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District, where the plaint schedule properties are situated within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court, Nandigama.

This suit came before me for hearing on 23.7.2018 in the presence of Sri K.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for Claimant/10th defendant, Sri Y.Babu Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs, and of Sri S.Suryanarayana, Advocate for 3rd defendant, and 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th to 9th, 11th, 13th & 14th defendants having remained exparte, D5 reported died, and this court doth order and decree :­

i)that the counter claim of the 10th defendant be and is hereby al­ lowed; ii)that the counter­claimant/10th defendant do bear his own institu­ tional costs of Rs.200/­, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 9 &11 to 14 do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil since there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 3rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/­ B.Papi Reddy 

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama. 

Memorandum of Costs

Sl.ParticularsCounter­Plaintiffs1 to 9 & 11 No.claimant/10thto14 Defen­ Defendant dants

1.Vakalat­­

2.Court fee200­00

3.Process Fee­­ No bill ofNo bill of

4.Advocate’s Fee­­ costs filedcosts filed

5.Writing Charges­­

6.Type Charges­­ TotalRs.200­00

NOTE : The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

//Signed by//

(K.Rama Srinivasa Rao)

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nandigama.

OS No.1/2014 1/3 Dt.03.08.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE'S COURT: NANDIGAMA.

Present: B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 3rd day of August, 2018. 

O.S. No.1/2014

(COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY D10)

Between:

Jangala Anantha Ramulu, s/o Gopaiah, Hindu, Housewife, r/o Gundaboinapalem village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District… Claimant/ 10th defendant

and

1) Galam Varalakshmi, w/o late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, 60 years, r/o D.No.2­122, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

2) Galam Saideswara Rao, s/o Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, 25 years, r/o D.No.2­122, Chillakallu village,

Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District....Plaintiffs.

3) Galam Udayamma @ Vijayamma, w/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, House­wife, 61 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

4) Galam Hanumantha Rao, s/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 45 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

5) Galam Anjaneyulu @ Anji, s/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 40 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

6) Galam Sanjeeva Rao, s/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 35 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

7) Gaddam Hanumayamma, d/o late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 41 years, r/o D.No.2­123, Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

8) Arudra Katam Raju, s/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Cultivation,

OS No.1/2014 2/3 Dt.03.08.2018

70 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.

9) Arudra Veeraswamy, s/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, 68 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 10)Arudra Chenaiah, s/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, 65 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 11)Malleboina Ajantha, d/o Koteswara Rao, w/o Narayana, Hindu, Housewife, 60 years, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District.… Defendants 1 to 9 12)Jangala Venkataravamma, w/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 13)Jangala Veeraiah, s/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 14)Jangala Subbaiah, s/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 15)Potu Radhika, d/o Venkateswarlu, w/o Malleswara Rao, Hindu, Housewife, r/o Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. (D6 to D14 are impleaded as per Orders In I.A. No.262/16 dated 19.9.2016).… Defendants 11 to 14

This counter claim is filed by the 10th defendant under Order VIII Rule 6A of C.P.C for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and to allot one such share to him with metes and bounds with separate possession thereon by dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit. 

Counter claim filed on: 22.11.2016

Fixed court fee of Rs.200/­ is paid u/s 34(2) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on and from 10 years back when Galam Subbaiah died intestate leaving behind him his two sons Venkateswarlu and Venkata Narasaiah as his Class­I legal heirs and on 26.5.2006 when Galam Venkateswarlu died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his Class­I legal heirs and on 1.7.2007 when Galam Venkata Narasaiah died intestate leaving behind him the defendants as his Class­I legal heirs and on 7.5.2013 when the plaintiffs got issued a notice demanding the defendants to cooperate for the partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and subsequently on 30.10.2013 when the 3rd defendant

OS No.1/2014 3/3 Dt.03.08.2018

filed a declaration suit in O.S. No.251/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama and subsequently so at Chillakallu village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal and Bhimavaram village of Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District, where the plaint schedule properties are situated within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court, Nandigama.

This suit came before me for hearing on 23.7.2018 in the presence of Sri K.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for Claimant/10th defendant, Sri Y.Babu Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs, and of Sri S.Suryanarayana, Advocate for 3rd defendant, and 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th to 9th, 11th, 13th & 14th defendants having remained exparte, D5 reported died, and this court doth order and decree :­

i)that the counter claim of the 10th defendant be and is hereby al­ lowed; ii)that the counter­claimant/10th defendant do bear his own institu­ tional costs of Rs.200/­, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 9 &11 to 14 do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil since there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 3rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/­ B.Papi Reddy 

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama. 

Memorandum of Costs

Sl.ParticularsCounter­Plaintiffs1 to 9 & 11 No.claimant/10thto14 Defen­ Defendant dants

1.Vakalat­­

2.Court fee200­00

3.Process Fee­­ No bill ofNo bill of

4.Advocate’s Fee­­ costs filedcosts filed

5.Writing Charges­­

6.Type Charges­­ TotalRs.200­00

NOTE : The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

//Signed by//

(K.Rama Srinivasa Rao)

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nandigama.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE:

NANDIGAMA.

Present:-Sri B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl.District & Sessions Judge

Wednesday, this the 1stday of August, 2018.

E.P.No. 135 of 2017 in A.A.No. 7533/2014

Between:

L & T Finance Limited., a Company incorporated Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at L&T House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai and inter Corporate Office at 3-B Laxmi Towers, C-25, ‘G’ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051.Territory Office, D.No.40-5-6/1, Brindavan Colony, Tikkle Road, Vijayawada-10. Rep.by its AuthoriZED Signatory Mr.D.Prabhakara Reddy, S/o.Obula Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o.Vijayawada. .D.Hr./Claimant

AND

1. Boddu Rama Rao, S/o.Gopaiah, Hindu, D.No.2-111/1, Near Anganwadi School, Gosaveedu Village, Gampalagudem, Krishna District.

2. Chittareddy Rama Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, D.No.3-30, Near Main Road, Jujjuru Village, Veerullapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..J.Drs./Respondents.

Execution petition filed Order 21, Rule 22 of CPC., DHR prays to Issue

Rule 22 notice to JDR 1 and 2 and Issue Rule 37 notice and arrest him for realization of the decretal amount.

This Execution Petition coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri

V. Raja Suresh, Advocate for Decree Holder and Sri E.Ranga Rao, Advocate for

JDR.No.1 and petition against JDR.No.2 is dismissed and after hearing and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Process not paid. No representation, hence dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the Court this the this the 1stday of August, 2018.

Sd//-B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Sd//-B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE:

NANDIGAMA.

Present:-Sri B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl.District & Sessions Judge

Wednesday, this the 1stday of August, 2018.

E.P.No. 135 of 2017 in A.A.No. 7533/2014

Between:

L & T Finance Limited., a Company incorporated Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at L&T House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai and inter Corporate Office at 3-B Laxmi Towers, C-25, ‘G’ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051.Territory Office, D.No.40-5-6/1, Brindavan Colony, Tikkle Road, Vijayawada-10. Rep.by its AuthoriZED Signatory Mr.D.Prabhakara Reddy, S/o.Obula Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o.Vijayawada. .D.Hr./Claimant

AND

1. Boddu Rama Rao, S/o.Gopaiah, Hindu, D.No.2-111/1, Near Anganwadi School, Gosaveedu Village, Gampalagudem, Krishna District.

2. Chittareddy Rama Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, D.No.3-30, Near Main Road, Jujjuru Village, Veerullapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..J.Drs./Respondents.

Execution petition filed Order 21, Rule 22 of CPC., DHR prays to Issue

Rule 22 notice to JDR 1 and 2 and Issue Rule 37 notice and arrest him for realization of the decretal amount.

This Execution Petition coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri

V. Raja Suresh, Advocate for Decree Holder and Sri E.Ranga Rao, Advocate for

JDR.No.1 and petition against JDR.No.2 is dismissed and after hearing and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Process not paid. No representation, hence dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the Court this the this the 1stday of August, 2018.

Sd//-B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Sd//-B.Papi Reddy, XVI Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama.