Page No. 1 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT, SHADNAGAR,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Present:- Smt. C.M. Rajyalakshmi.,
Senior Civil Judge,
SHADNAGAR.
Dated this the 17th day of April 2025
OS.No. 81 of 2022
(Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Between :-
1. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Sudhakar Raju (Died Per LRs as the defendant no.3 to 5). (Amended as per the Orders in IA No. 298 of 2022, dt. 04-01-2023).
2. Bhattu @Prathikantam Prabhakar Raju, S/o. Late B.P. Krishnam Raju, Aged about 63 years Occ: Business R/o. Plot No.37, Enclave Srinivasa, Road No.2, Jillelaguda, Hyderabad.
3. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkateshwar Raju, S/o. Late B.P. Krishnam Raju, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.301, 3rd floor, CBR Enclave, Road No.2, Triveeni Nagar, Balapur, Hyderabad.
4. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkat Raju, S/o. Late B.P. Satyanarayana Raju, Aged about 59 years Occ: Retd Govt Employee, R/o. Plot No. 177/1, Gayathri Nagar, Anajpur, Abdullapurmet, R.R.Dist.
...Plaintiffs
And
1. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Ramachander Raju S/o. Late. B.P. Satyanarayana Raju, aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 177, Gayathri nagar, Anajpur, Abdullapurmet, R.R.Dist.
2. Prathikantam Narshimha Raju S/o. Muralidhar Raju, Aged about 56 years Occ: Head Constable HC 247, R/o. Quarter No. 1, Block No.L, Hill Top Quarters, Yousufguda Police lines, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
3. Smt Bhattu @ Prathikantam Sukanya W/o. Pruthiviraj, aged about 42 years Occ: Housewife,
4. Smt Bhattu @ Prathikantam Sreevani W/o. Late Praveen Raju, aged about 40 years Occ: Business,
Page No. 2 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
5. Sri. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama Krishna S/o. Late B.P. Sudhakar Raju aged about 38 years Occ: service, R/o. H.No.5-6-31, Vaidehi Nagar, Road No.2 Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
(Note:- The defendant no.3 to 5 are brought as legal heirs of the plaintiff no.1 on record as per the orders in IA No.178 of 2022, dt. 04-01-2023 of this Court).
...Defendants.
@@@@@
This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s. S. Bhasker Reddy, Advocate Counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri. M. Govardhan Advocate Counsel for the defendant no.1 and of Sri. B. Rajashekar Raju Advocate Counsel for the defendant no.2 and of the defendant no.3 to 5 were set exparte and upon perusing the material documents on record, upon hearing the arguments, the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession in favour of the plaintiffs by dividing the suit schedule property into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 1/6th (4) shares each to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 and 1/4th (6) share each to the plaintiff no.4 and defendant no.1 and 1/18th share each to the defendant no.3 to 5, since the plaintiff no.1 died during the pendency of the suit (Amended as per orders in IA No. 298 of 2022 dated; 04-01-2023 and to grant consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents or attorneys from alienating the suit schedule property to the third parties and to declare the Registered sale deed bearing document No.
2065/1989, dated;21.07.1989 at SRO Kalwakurthy executed by one
Varakavi Suryanarayana Raju in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the part of the suit schedule property is null and void and not binding onb the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 & 3 to 5.
Page No. 3 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
2.The averments of plaint in brief:
The Plaintiffs submit that, originally Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam I.
Rukka Raju was the pattedar and possessor of agricultural land bearing
Sy.No.337 (old No. 282) admeasuring Ac.5-21 gts situated at Erwin Village,
Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which is herein after called as suit schedule property. Further the plaintiffs submit that after death of
Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rukka Raju, his sons Late.Bhattu @
Prathikantam Narshimha Raju @ Bhattu Narshimlu and Late Bhattu @
Prathikantam Rama Raju succeeded to the estate of Late Bhattu @
Prathikantam Rukka Raju. The plaintiffs further submit that Late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Narshimha Raju @ Bhattu Narshimlu died issues less. So
Late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama Raju succeeded to the estate of
Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rukka Raju.
II. The Plaintiffs submit that, Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama
Raju is having only one son namely Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkat
Raju being sole legal heir succeeded to the estate of the deceased
Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama Raju. The plaintiffs further submit that
Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkat Raju died leaving behind four sons namely Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama Raju, Late.Bhattu @
Prathikantam Krishnam Raju, Late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Dharma Raju and Late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Satyanarayana Raju who succeeded to the estate of the deceased Late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkat Raju.
Page No. 4 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
III. The Plaintiffs submit that, Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama
Raju and Late. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Dharma Raju and their wives died issue less. Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Krishnam Raju is having 3 sons who are the plaintiff No.1 to 3. That pending the above suit, the plaintiff
No.1 died on 29.12.2018 leaving behind his three children who are brought on record as legal heirs of the plaintiff No.1 as defendant No.3 to 5 as per the orders in IA No. 178 of 2022 dated; 04.01.2022 ( Amended as per the orders in IA No. 298 of 2022 dtd. 04.01.2023). Late Bhattu @
Prathikantam Satyanarayana Raju is having two sons who are plaintiff no.4 and defendant no.1 herein. That is to say that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 became the legal heirs and who have succeeded to the estate of the deceased Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rukka Raju who is the great great grand father. The plaintiffs further submit that since the time of Late.Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rukka Raju, the plaintiffs and defendant
No.1 and 3 to 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than six decades without partitioning among the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The suit schedule property is the joint family property and the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 3 to 5 are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law and plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are coparceners to one another.
The Plaintiffs submit that, after the death of fathers of plaintiffs IV.
and defendant No.1 and 3 to 5, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 became joint owners and possessors and are in enjoyment of the suit schedule
Page No. 5 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
property without anybody interference and without partitioning among the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs further submit that the defendant No.1 is managing the suit schedule property since long time.
The plaintiffs further submit that they are demanding the defendant No.1 to partition the suit schedule property by meets and bounds, but the defendant No.1 postponed the partition on one pretext or another by saying cock and bull stories.
V. The Plaintiffs submit that, they have strictly demanded the defendant No.1 in the month of March-2018 to partition the suit schedule property, but the defendant No.1 was giving evasive reply thereby the plaintiffs referred the dispute to the family elders and village elders for amicable settlement. The family elders and village elders advised the defendant No.1 to partition the suit schedule property and give the plaintiffs their due share in the suit schedule property, but the defendant
No.1 kept deaf ear to their advise and refused to partition the suit schedule property and to give the plaintiffs their legitimate share in the suit schedule property.
The Plaintiffs submit that, while so on 20-04-2018, the VI.
defendant No.2 who is nowhere concerned with the suit schedule property at the instance and in collusion with the defendant No.1 came to grab the suit schedule Property along his servants, henchmen, goondas and with unsocial elements and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, but the
Page No. 6 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
plaintiffs with the timely intervention of villagers and neighbours with great difficulty could resist the illegal acts of the defendant No.2 but while going, the defendant no.2 stated to the plaintiffs that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and will come again with more force and occupy the suit schedule property.
VII. The Plaintiffs submit that, afterwards they made thorough enquiry in the concerned departments and it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1 by creating forged and fabricated documents and by managing the departmental officials manipulated the revenue records by mutating the name of the defendant No.2 in the revenue records since 1990-91 in collaboration with defendant No.1, as if he has purchased the suit schedule property from one Late.Varakavi Suryanarayana Raju who is not at all concerned with the suit schedule property under the guise of the created document No. 2065/1989 dated;21.07.1989 and since that time, the plaintiffs great great grand fathers, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 3 to 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they never sold the suit schedule property to any third parties as claimed by the defendant No.2, who played fraud with an intension to grab the suit schedule property in collusion with V.
Suryanarayana Raju who is a third party and not concerned with the suit schedule property.
Page No. 7 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
The Plaintiffs submit that, the plaintiffs in proof that they being VIII.
the legal heirs of Late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkat Raju are filing herewith the family members certificate issued by the Grampanchayath
Badepally dated;28.11.1987. The plaintiffs further submit that they have obtained the certified copies of the pahanies of the year 1954-55, 1960-61, 1970-71, 1975-76, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1993-34, 1994-95, 2005- 2006, 2009-2010 from Tahsildar Madgul Mandal, R.R.Dist and the same are filing herewith for perusal of this Hon'ble court.
The Plaintiffs submit that, the plaintiff No.1 submitted an IX.
application to the RDO on 05.05.2018 to take necessary action with regard to the mutation of the name of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the revenue records with regard to the Sy.No.337 of Erwin Village, Madgul
Mandal by deleting the name of defendant No.2 in the pattadar and possessor column of the suit schedule property and requested not to issue new patta pass book and cheques to the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property and the RDO forwarded the application to the
Tahsildar Madgul for necessary action as per rules and inturn the
Tahsildar Madgul informed to the plaintiffs on 11.07.2018 that he is not competent to reverify the mutation entries recorded in the pahanies by virtue of mutation done by the same recording authority after lapse of 25 years as per ROR act, under the influence of the defendant No.2 who managed the revenue officials. The plaintiffs further submit that they have
Page No. 8 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
made an application to the Tahsildar Madgul Mandal on 25.07.2018 requesting not to register the suit schedule property in favour of any third parties as the plaintiffs are disputing the ownership of the defendant No.2 being the legal heirs of the Late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkat Raju.
X. The Plaintiffs submit that, they are filing herewith the non availability of death certificate of Late P. Krishnam Raju and Late P.
Satayanarayana Raju in the municipal records of Badepally Municipality.
The plaintiffs further submit that with great difficulty, the plaintiffs have obtained the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.
2065/1989 dated;21.07.1989 at SRO Kalwakurthy on 25.07.2018 which was executed by one V. Suryanarayana Raju who is not having any kind of right whatsoever over the suit schedule property but had sold the said property to an extent of Ac. 2-09 gts to the defendant No.2, which is illegal, sham, bogus and fabricated and the document created for the purpose of grabbing the suit schedule property in collusion with defendant
No.1 to cause loss to the legitimate right of the plaintiffs over the suit
Schedule property. The plaintiffs further submit that the above said alleged registered sale deed is a void document and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 3 to 5 to the extent of their share in the suit schedule property.
Page No. 9 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
XI. The Plaintiffs submit that, again the defendant No.2 on 27.08.2018 along with his servants henchmen, goondas and with unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, but the plaintiffs with timely intervention of villagers and neighbours could resist the illegal acts of the defendant No.2 but while going the defendant No.2 threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences.
That, the defendant No.2 is presently working as Head constable in DGP office, Hyderabad and by taking such advantage of his position and being highly influenced is threatening the plaintiffs with dire consequences and the plaintiffs apprehend that the defendant No.2 who is not in a physical possession may come again with more force and may try to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
The Plaintiffs submit that, immediately the plaintiffs approached XII.
the Station House officer, Madgul Police station and made a complaint against the defendant No.2 about his illegal acts, but the police under the influence of the defendant No.2 refused to take the complaint by stating that the dispute is of civil nature dated;29.08.2018 and thereafter the plaintiffs have approached the higher authorities and lodged a police complainant against the defendant No.2 dated;30.08.2018. Hence the plaintiffs have no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Court by filing the present suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant
Page No. 10 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
No.1 and 3 to 5 are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and they are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property into 24 equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of 1/6th share each to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 and 1/18th share each to the defendant No.3 to 5 and 1/4th share each to the plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No.1 and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 his servants, henchmen, goondas and unsocial elements from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for a declaration that the registered sale deed bearing document No. 2065/1989 dtd. 21.07.1989 at
SRO Kalwakurthy on 25.07.2018 which was executed by one V.
Suryanarayana Raju in favour of the defendant No.2 registered at SRO
Kalwakurthy is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, 3 to 5 to the extent of their share in the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit. The plaintiffs further state that they are having right to amend the plaint when ever it is necessary in future for proper adjudication of the case. Hence this suit.
3. Averments of the Written Statements filed by the Defendant no.1 in brief:-
I. It is submitted that, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties and title as the Suit Schedule property is acquired by late.Bhattu Prathikantam Rukka Raju who was the Pattadar and possessor of the agriculture land Sy No. 337 (old Sy no.282)
Page No. 11 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
admeasuring Ac.05-21 Gts situated at Irwin village, Madgul Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District.
II. It is submitted that, after the death of Rukka Raju his sons by name Bhattu Prathikantam Narsimha Raju and Bhattu Prathikantam
Rama Raju have succeeded to the estate of Sri Rukka Raju. It is submitted that late Battu P.Narsimha Raju who died issue less and late
Bhattu Prathikantam Rama Raju succeeded to the estate of late Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rukka Raju.
III. It is admitted that, the pedigree of the family tree of Rukka
Raju as stated by the Plaintiffs is true and correct. It is further submitted that the after the death of fathers of plaintiffs and defendant no.1 they became joint owners and are enjoying the suit schedule property without anybody's interference. Further it is also admitted fact that there is no partition between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 even till today and the defendant no.1 is managing the suit schedule property from long time. It is admitted that the plaintiffs have demanded for partition of the suit schedule property since the last several months.
IV. It is submitted that, there is no dispute with regard to the joint possession and ownership of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 over the suit schedule property. Infact the defendant no.1 is only cultivating and is the care taker of the suit schedule property for the past several
Page No. 12 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
years by spending huge amounts, as such the defendant no.1 is entitled to more than his share. It is further submitted that the revenue records showing in the name of defendant no.2 are neither binding in the plaintiffs nor on the defendant no.1 and they are false and fabricated which are created in collusion with the revenue officials to grab the same. That, the created document no.2065 of 89 dated;21/07/1989 is neither binding on the plaintiffs nor on the defendant no.1, as such the alleged document and its proceedings are created, fabricated for the purpose to grab the suit schedule property, as such the defendant no.2 has no right and title whatsoever in the respect of the suit schedule property. As such the claim of the defendant no.2 is false and he has no locus-standi to claim the suit schedule property under any circumstances. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court may be pleased to declare that the alleged document no.2065/89 dated;21/07/1989, registered at SRO Kalwakurthy and also the alleged revenue proceedings as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. As such the suit may be decreed the suit schedule property may be purchased into four equal shares as per the plaint by granting preliminary decree as per the plaint between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 who are having right, interest and title over the suit schedule property as they are coparceners to the suit schedule property.
Page No. 13 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
V. It is submitted that, there is no dispute with regard to the family member's certificate issued by gram panchayat Badepally dated 28/11/1987 and also the revenue pahanies issued by the Tahsildar
Madgul Mandal.
VI. It is submitted that, the defendant no.1 is also not aware about the illegal mutation entries till receiving the summons from this court in the above suit as the defendant no.1 is only a care taker and enjoying the suit schedule property for the past several years. In fact the defendant no. 2 is working in police department and having influence with officials and without their knowledge, he created a false document and proceedings in his favour without having any kind of rights or title in collision with officials concerned therein It is further submitted that for the past several months, there are several discussions between the caste elders and well wishers of both parties to discuss for division of the suit schedule property into equal shares among the family members as per family tree shown in the plaint by the plaintiffs, but whereas the plaintiffs have demanded more than their entitled shares in the suit schedule property.
VII. It is submitted that, the defendant no.2 is threatening the plaintiffs including the defendant no.1 by using his muscle and financial power under the guise of dress code as he is working in police department by showing Goondaism with the support of his family
Page No. 14 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
members and his associates. Further, due to the torture of defendant no.2 the plaintiff no. 1 died on 29-12-2018.
VIII. It is submitted that, there are no disputes as the suit schedule property is an ancestral one. The principal of law is firmly established that a person who infers his title must prove how he got the title and from where he obtained and unless he prove his title, he is not entitled to any relief. That, there is no limitation prescribed in law for filing a suit for partition and separate possession of the shares of the parties in the joint family property and the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 are coparceners to one and another and they are having equal rights over the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 is not having any kind of right, interest and title whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule property.
Therefore it is prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstance, the defendant no.2 is nowhere concerned with the suit scheduled property, as such the above suit filed by the plaintiffs may be decreed as prayed for, as the defendant no.1 is also an equal share holder.
4. Averments of the Written Statements filed by the Defendant no.2 in brief:-
It is submitted that, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title I.
and for partition of suit schedule land and for declaration that the registered sale deed executed by Suryanarayana Raju in favour of
Page No. 15 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Defendant No.2 is illegal and void. But, the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit schedule land at any point of time in any capacity since 29 years prior to filing of the suit to seek declaration of title. No single document is filed to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule land at any time. The plaintiffs by showing wrong family pedigree are claiming that they are the owners of suit schedule land. As per the family pedigree, Rukka Raju got two sons namely Narsimha Raju and Ramaraju. Narsimha Raju died unmarried. In fact the Narsimha Raju got one daughter and the said Suryanarayana Raju is the grandson of said
Narsimha Raju (daughter's son), who sold suit schedule land to Defendant
No.2 through registered sale deed No.2065 of 1989, dated: 21-07-1989 and delivered the vacant possession to the Defendant No.2. The name of
Defendant No.2 is recorded in all the revenue records and patta pass book and title book is also issued to Defendant No.2.
II. It is submitted that, the Defendant No.2 drilled bore-well and had taken electric service connection vide S.C.No.9213-802 and obtained bank loan and developed the suit schedule land. Prior to execution of registered sale deed, the suit land was sold by said Suryanarayana Raju along with plaintiff No.1 through an agreement of sale dated: 26-03-1989. So, the possession of Defendant No.2 over the suit schedule land is very well known to the plaintiff No. 1. The Defendant No.2 is in possession of suit schedule land for last more than 29 years without any interruption openly and independently to the knowledge of plaintiffs and perfected title by
Page No. 16 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
being in adverse possession. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for possession is clearly barred by limitation. It is settled principle of law that if the rightful owners do not come forward and assert their rights by process of law within the period of limitation their rights and title is forever extinguished and possessory owner acquire absolute right over the land.
III. It is submitted that, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession against the defendant
No.2, as they are out of possession of the suit schedule lands and they were never in possession at any point of time within 12 years prior to filing of the suit and their suit even if filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession will be barred by limitation. So, the present suit is filed to save the limitation.
IV. It is submitted that, Late.Rukka Raju is the original owner of suit
Sy.No.337, extent Ac.05-21gts, situated at Irvin village of Madgul mandal and it is denied that, Rukka Raju died leaving two sons namely Narsimha
Raju and Rama Raju. Rukka Raju died leaving only one son Narsimha
Raju. It is denied that Narsimha Raju died unmarried. In fact, Narsimha
Raju married and the vendor of suit schedule land to Defendant No.2 is his grandson. The suit schedule land sold by plaintiff No.1 Sudhakar Raju and the grandson of said Narsimha Raju to the Defendant No.2 as stated above.
Page No. 17 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
V. It is denied that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and Defendant No.1 are the legal heirs of said Rama Raju. Except the fact that Narsimha Raju died unmarried nothing is correct. Narsimha Raju was a married man and he got one daughter and the vendor Suryanarayana Raju is the grandson of the said Narsimha Raju. It is denied that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 became owners of the suit schedule land after death of father of plaintiffs.
No succession of land was granted to the plaintiffs by the revenue authorities to their parents or to their grandparents. It is also denied that the Defendant No.1 was managing the suit schedule land on behalf of the plaintiffs. In fact, the plaintiffs never stayed in the village at any time and cultivated the suit schedule land personally and it is only after purchase of land from the plaintiff No.1 and Suryanarayana Raju after more than 19 years, the plaintiffs colluded together and filed the present suit against the
Defendant No.2 for various reliefs which are not sustainable in law.
VI. It is denied that the plaintiffs demanded the defendant No.1 in the month of March, 2018 for partition of the suit schedule land. The suit schedule land is not in joint possession of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and that the question of demanding the partition of suit schedule land does not arise. The suit schedule land is in actual and exclusive possession of defendant No.2 for last more than 29 years and the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land at any time and their suit is barred by limitation for any of the reliefs. That, since the Defendant No.2
Page No. 18 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
who is in exclusive possession of the land as owner openly, independently from the last 29 years without any interruption and perfected his title, so the plaintiffs lost their right and title if any over the suit schedule land.
VII. It is submitted that the possession of the defendant No.2 over the suit schedule land is not illegal possession but, the possession of the defendant over suit schedule land is a settled possession by virtue of execution of agreement of sale by the plaintiff No.1 and the said
Suryanarayana Raju and also by virtue of registered sale deed executed by
Suryanarayana Raju. The villagers does not know the plaintiffs and
Defendant No.1, since the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 never resided in village at any time for the last more than 50 years.
It is denied that the defendant No.2 with the collusion of defendant VIII.
No.1 created fabricated and forged documents and managed with revenue officials and got mutated the name of Defendant No.2 in the revenue records as owner, it is specifically denied that the plaintiffs and Defendant
No.1 are in possession of the suit schedule land from the time of their great grandfather. The pahanies filed by the plaintiffs along with the suit clearly show that the persons other than the plaintiffs cultivated the suit land but, the plaintiffs never found to be the cultivators of the suit schedule land at any time. It is denied that the vendor who is
Suryanarayana Raju is not concerned with the suit schedule land. That, the plaintiff No.1 is a party to the agreement of sale dated: 26-03-1989, so
Page No. 19 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
the plaintiffs cannot state that Suryanarayana Raju has no concern with the suit schedule land.
IX.It is submitted that the pahanies filed by the plaintiffs do not show that the plaintiffs or their parents were in possession of the suit schedule land at any time. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs approached the
Tahsildar Madgul for correction of records but, the Tahsildar clearly informed the plaintiffs that the entries were done 25 years back and after more than 25 years he cannot alter the entries and advised to approach the civil court. But the suit of the plaintiffs is clearly barred by limitation for all the reliefs.
X. It is submitted that when the plaintiffs are not the owners of suit schedule land and not in possession of suit schedule land, the question of interference by defendant No.2 on 27-08-2018 does not arise. That, the plaintiffs did not file a single document to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit or prior to filing of the suit. That, the plaintiff No.1 is a party to the suit documents, so the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed is illegal and void is to be filed within three years from the date of knowledge.
So, the suit is clearly barred by limitation.
XI. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are not related to the suit schedule land and the plaintiffs and their forefathers were never in possession of the suit schedule land in any capacity. The suit schedule land belongs to
Page No. 20 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
late grandfather of vendor of defendant No.2, Narsimha Raju and the plaintiffs and their father and grandfather have no concern with the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs by framing incorrect family pedigree are claiming absolute right over the suit schedule land. The grandfather of vendor of Defendant No.2 alone is the absolute owner of the suit schedule land.
5. Rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs to the Written Statement of the defendant no.2:-
The plaintiffs filed their Rejoinder and they denied the contents of the
Written Statement para wise and nothing in addition is stated apart from the facts stated in plaint.
6. The defendant no.3 to 5 set-exparte.
7. Basing on the Pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule 1. property partition and entitled for and separate possession by dividing the suit schedule property into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds ?
2.Whether the alleged registered sale deed bearing document no. 2065/1989, Dt: 21.07.1989 registered at SRO Kalwakurthy is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents or attorneys from alienating the suit schedule property to the third parties?
4.To what relief?
Page No. 21 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
On behalf of Plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.2 himself got examined as PW1 8.
and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A21, one M. Chandraiah @ Chandraiah Chary filed his chief affidavit as PW2, but his evidence was eschewed, the plaintiff no.4 himself got examined as PW3 and on behalf of the defendants, the defendant no.1 got examined as DW1, defendant no.2 got examined as DW2 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B17.
9.Heard and perused the record.
10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule property is ancestral property and the defendant no.2 is no way concerned with the said property and his claim over the suit land basing on his document is not legally valid as the document under which he purchased is a fraudulent document and that they are entitled for partition. Hence, this suit.
11. It is the case of the defendant no.2 that, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land since many years and they have knowledge about the possession and ownership of the defendant no.2 over the suit land and that the plaintiff lost their right over the suit land as the suit filed by them barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
12.Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs :-
On behalf of plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.2 got examined as PW1 and in his chief examination affidavit, he re-iterated the averments of the plaint.
Page No. 22 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
In support of the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.2 got examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-21 whereEx.A1 is the CC of Kasra
Pahani for the year 1954-55 issued by MRO Madgul, Ranga Reddy District,
Ex.A2 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1960-61 issued by MRO Madgul,
Ranga Reddy District, Ex.A3 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1970-71, 1975- 76 & 1980-81 issued by MRO Madgul, Ranga Reddy District, Ex.A4 is the
CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86 issued by MRO Madgul, Ranga Reddy
District, Ex.A5 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2005-06 & 2009-10 issued by MRO Madgul, Ranga Reddy District, Ex.A6 is the CC of sale deed doc no.
2065/1989 issued by SRO Kalwakurthy, Dt: 21.07.1989, Ex.A7 is the CC of
Encumbrance certificate issued by SRO Ibrahimpatnam, Dt: 21.07.2018,
Ex.A8 is the Original family members certificate issued by Gram
Panchayath, Badepally, Dt: 28.11.1987, Ex.A9 is the Original Residence certificate issued by Gram Panchayath Syedhpally, Pargi Mandal, Vikarabad
District, Dt: 06.04.2018, Ex.A10 is the Original Application to RDO,
Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Dt: 05.05.2018, Ex.A11 is the
Original Application to the Thasildar Madgula Mandal, Dt: 28.06.2018.
Ex.A12 is the Original Endorsement from the Tahsildar Madgula
Mandal, Dt: 11.07.2018, Ex.A13 is the Original; Application to the Thasildar
Madgula Mandal, Dt: 25.07.2018, Ex.A14 is the Original Non Availability of
Death Certificate of P. Krishnam Raju, Dt: 22.06.2018 issued by
Municipality of Badepally, Ex.A15 is the Original Non Availability of Death
Page No. 23 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Certificate of P. Satyanarayana, Dt: 22.06.2018 issued by Municipality of
Badepally, Ex.A16 is the Market value certificate of A schedule property, Dt:
19.07.2018, Ex.A17 is the Police complaint, Dt: 30.08.2018, Ex.A18 is the
Original Copy of Encumbrance of property issued by the SRO Kalwakurthy,
Dt: 25.07.2018, Ex.A19 is the Legal Notice issued by the plaintiffs to the
revenue authorities dated: 28.09.2020, Ex.A20 is the Acknowledgment cards (4), Dt: 05.10.2020 and Ex.A21 is the Photographs (4) with CD’s of the suit schedule property.
During the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that, he knows the contents of his chief affidavit. He deposed that, Battu Rukka Raju is his
Great grandfather and he died during his childhood i.e., about 60 years back and Battu Rama Raju is his grandfather and he is son of Battu Rukka
Raju and he died 3 to 4 years after death of his Great grandfather. He deposed that, Venkat Raju died in the year 1958 and Narsimha Raju died 30 years back and he is his grandfather. He deposed that, Ramaraju died in the year 1976, Krishnamraju died in the year 1979, Dharmaraju died in the year 1987, Satyanarayanaraju died in the year 1967. He deposed that, he is residing in Hyderabad for more than 30 years and before that he was living at Jadcherla and in Jadcherla they stayed for 20 years and that the family of
Satyanarayana Raju was living in Shamshabad for the past 30 years. He admitted that his family is residing in Hyderabad for 30 years. He deposed that, they have house property at Irwin village and they have been visiting
Page No. 24 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
their village and the house property is in the name of his grandfather. He admitted that the house property is not included in the present suit. He admitted that no partition took place in respect of house property. He admitted that the suit schedule property is in the name of Narsimha Raju in the year 1971 and the same is reflecting in ExA3 and Ex.A4.
PW1 deposed that, they did not approach any authority claiming their right in the suit schedule property as it is mutated only in the name of
Narsimha Raju. He deposed that, he is a graduate and his elders used to monitor the revenue records. He admitted that the property was never in the name of either Rama Raju, Venkat Raju, Krsihnam Raju at any point of time till today. He deposed that, he did not file any document to show that original pattadar Rukka Raju is his great grandfather and Rama Raju or
Venkat Raju are his grandfathers. He denied to the suggestion that, neither himself nor other plaintiffs are related anyway either with Rukka Raju,
Rama Raju or Venkat Raju and therefore they do not have any right over the suit schedule property. He denied to the suggestion that, Suryanarayana
Raju is son-in-law of Narsimha Raju. He admitted that in the pahani pertaining to 1989-90 filed by him, Suryanarayana Raju S/o Laxmi Raju is pattadar of the suit schedule property. He deposed that, he does not know about the above entries in the pahanies pertaining to 1989-90 till 2013 and he never enquired about the name of Suryanarayana Raju in the revenue records.
Page No. 25 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
PW1 further deposed that, they lodged police complaint in the year 2018 for wrong entries and also approached the Thasildar and he told them to approach the Court. He denied to the suggestion that, he never lodged any complaint to anybody. He admitted that Suryanarayana Raju sold the suit schedule property to defendant no.2 through registered sale deed and delivered possession and defendant no.2 is in possession of the suit schedule land. He admitted that the name of defendant no.2 is mutated in the revenue records as pattadar. He deposed that, he does not know whether the defendant no.2 also received the pass books. He admitted that, he did not file any document to show that they are in possession over the suit schedule property or we succeeded the property from Rukka Raju. He denied to the suggestion that, they did not file any document to show that we are legal heir to Rukka Raju or Rama Raju. He deposed that, he did not file any document to show that defendant no.1 is pattadar or possessor of any part of suit land. He denied to the suggestion that, they never demanded for partition. He denied to the suggestion that, they do not have any right over the suit schedule property to declare as the owners of the suit schedule property. He denied to the suggestion that, due to hike in land price, he colluded with defendant no.1 and filed this false suit.
PW1 further deposed that, this suit is filed for partition and he does not have house property in Irwin village but it was in the name of his great grandfather. He admitted that his grandfather name is reflected in ExA3
Page No. 26 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
and Ex.A4. He admitted that his grandfather died issue less. He deposed that, he is not related to defendant no.2. He further deposed that, defendant no.1 is care taker of property till today and before him one
Chakali Chandraiah was cultivating in the property and he does not know who is Suryanarayana Raju. He deposed that, he is in possession of the suit schedule property and defendant no.2 is working in Police Department.
PW1 deposed that, he did not file any document to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and Rukka Raju is his great grandfather. He denied to the suggestion that, he is deposing false by colluding with defendant no.1.
One M. Chandraiah filed his chief affidavit as PW2, but his evidence was eschewed.
The plaintiff no.4 got examined as PW3 and in his chief examination affidavit, he re-iterated the averments of the plaint.
During the cross examination of PW3, he deposed that, Rukka
Raju died in the year 1947, Rama Raju died in the year 1949 or 1950 and
Venkat Raju died in the year 1957, Krishnam Raju died in the year 1976. He deposed that, he is residing in Hyderabad since 20 years and his grandfather and his family members left Irwin village in 1957 and shifted to
Syedpally village. He deposed that, he knows the documents filed in this case. He admitted that the name of his grandfather Narsimha Raju is reflecting in the documents marked under ExA2, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. He
Page No. 27 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
deposed that, they never verified the revenue record between 1985-2017. He deposed that, the care taker was taking care of the land so they never verified the record for 25 years and defendant no.1 was the care taker of the land and he did not file any document to show that Rukka Raju is his grandfather and Rama Raju is his father. He admitted that ExA8 and Ex.A9 does not show that Rukka Raju is his grandfather and Rama Raju is his father. He denied to the suggestion that, they do not have any relationship with Rukka Raju and Rama Raju as such they do not have any right over the suit schedule property. He denied to the suggestion that, Rukka Raju has only one daughter and his son in law is Narsimha Raju and the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of Narsimha Raju in the year 1989. He deposed that Narsimha Raju died issue-less and he was never married and he did not file any document to show that Narsimha Raju is brother of Rama Raju and he died issue-less and was not married. He denied to the suggestion that, the family shown in the plaint is false.
PW3 deposed that, they came to know in 2017 that the suit schedule property is in the name of Narsimha Raju and there is no document filed by him that shows either title or possession of the suit schedule property in the names Rama Raju, Venkat Raju, Krishnam Raju, Dharma Raju and
Satyanarayana Raju. He denied to the suggestion that, Suryanarayana Raju executed registered sale deed bearing document no.2065 of 1989,
dt:21.07.1989 in the name of defendant no.2 and also delivered possession
and since then he is possession of the property. He denied to the suggestion
Page No. 28 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
that, the name of defendant no.2 was implemented in the revenue record.
He admitted that in the year 1989 itself, the name of defendant no.2 was implemented in the revenue record and he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed. He deposed that, they never challenged about the name of defendant no.2 in the revenue record in respect of suit schedule property nor about issuance of pattadar passbook and title in the name of defendant no.2. He denied to the suggestion that, they filed false case against the defendant only due to hike in land value.
13.Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendants :-
On behalf of the defendants, the defendant no.1 got examined himself as DW1 and in his chief examination affidavit, he re-iterated the averments of the Written Statement.
During the cross examination of DW1, he deposed that, he knows the contents of his written statement and the suit survey number is 337 to an extent of Ac.05-21gts. He deposed that, this suit is filed by his brothers seeking partition and his ancestors were living separately since 40 years and his father and his brothers were living jointly only till 1982. He deposed that, from 1982, he/defendant no.1 and his brothers are living separately.
He admitted that, except Dharma Raju, others brothers of Dharma Raju i.e.
Rama Raju, Krishnam Raju and Satyanarayana Raju died before 1987. He admitted that, their family left Irvin village 40 years back and he does not knows the contents of the document filed by the plaintiff and he did not file
Page No. 29 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
any document to prove that Rukka Raju is his grandfather and also to prove the relationship with Rama Raju, Venkat Raju, Sathyanarayana Raju before the Court. He deposed that, from 1990, he is managing the suit schedule property and from 1980, his brother i.e plaintiff no.1 was managing the property till 1990. He deposed that, he did not file any document to show that he and his brother were managing the property since 1980 and he has not enquired the revenue records of the suit schedule property. He deposed that, after the death of Rukka Raju, his son Rama Raju got the property and after the death of Rama Raju, his son Venkat Raju got the property and he did not file any document to show that Rukka Raju, Rama Raju and Venkat
Raju inherited the property one after another. He denied to the suggestion that, Rama Raju and Venkat Raju are no way related to Rukka Raju. He denied to the suggestion that, Narsimha Raju is the only son of Rukka Raju and after death of Narsimha Raju, his son-in-law Suryanarayana Raju succeeded the suit schedule property in the year 1989 itself and he was issued passbooks and title deeds for the suit schedule property.
DW1 deposed that, he came to know in the year 2017 about the name of Surayanarayana Raju reflecting in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. He denied to the suggestion that, Suryanarayana
Raju sold the property to defendant no.2 through registered sale deed document no. 2065 of 1989, dt.21-07-1989 and since then defendant no.2 is in possession over the suit schedule property. He deposed that, he does not know whether new title deed and passbook was issued to defendant
Page No. 30 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
no.2 and he approached the Tahasildar, RDO and the police for wrongful entries in the revenue records but he does not remember the case number.
He deposed that, his brothers approached him in the year 2017 for partition except the present suit schedule property there is no other ancestral property belonging to them. He denied to the suggestion that, they are in possession over the suit schedule property since 40 years. He denied to the suggestion that, the defendant no.2 is in possession over the suit schedule property continuously since 1989 to till date. He denied to the suggestion that, they do not have any right over the suit schedule property and he is deposing false.
The defendant no.2 got examined himself as DW2 and in his chief examination affidavit, he re-iterated the averments of the Written
Statement.
In support of the case of the defendants, the defendant no.2 got examined as DW2 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B17 where Ex.B1 is the
Original Agreement of Sale, Dt: 26.03.1989 (Marked to subject to
Objection), Ex.B2 is the Original Registered Sale Deed No. 2065/1989,
Dt: 21.07.1989, Ex.B3 is the CC of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55,
Dt: 24.09.2018, Ex.B4 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1959-60, Dt:
24.09.2018, Ex.B5 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1970-71 and 1980- 81, Dt: 24.09.2018, Ex.B6 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1981-82 and 1984-85, Ex.B7 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86 and 1986-87,
Page No. 31 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Dt: 24.09.2018, Ex.B8 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1987-88 and
1988-89, Dt: 24.09.2018, Ex.B9 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1990- 91, Dt: 24.09.2018, Ex.B10 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2000-01 and 2005-06 and 2009-10, Dt: 24.09.2018, Ex.B11 is the Original Passbook,
Dt: 06.03.2018, Ex.B12 is the CC of Bank statement, Dt: 15.02.2019,
Ex.B13 is the Original New Passbook and title deed of defendant no.2,
Dt: 06.03.2018, Ex.B14 is the I-B ROR form, Dt: 30.12.2024, Ex.B15 is
the Land details, Dt: 30.12.2024, Ex.B16 is the CC of Pahani 1424 Fasli and Ex.B17 is the IB ROR Form, Dt: 26.09.2017.
During the cross examination of DW2, he deposed that, he studied till 10th standard at Kalwakurthy and the plaintiffs filed this suit for partition and he knows the contents of his chief affidavit. He admitted that the old suit survey number is 282 and the new survey number is 337 and the total extent is Ac.5-21 Gts. He admitted that
Rukka Raju is original pattadar of the suit land. He deposed that,
Narsimha Raju is the only son of Rukka Raju. He denied to the suggestion that, Rukka Raju has two sons by name Rama Raju and
Narsimha Raju. He denied to the suggestion that, Rama Raju has one son by name Venkat Raju. He deposed that, Rama Raju has five sons and he does not know about the sons of Venkat Raju. He deposed that, he is working in police department as Head Constable and his service is 24 years. He admitted that as per Ex.B3, it is shown that Narsimha
Raju and Rama Raju are sons of Rukka Raju in the pattadar passbook.
Page No. 32 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
He admitted that in the same document, it is also shown in pattadar column that Venkat Raju is son of Rama Raju. He deposed that, he does not know whether two sons of Venkat Raju namely B. Rama Raju and
Dharma Raju died issue less and he does not know whether the plaintiff no.1 to 3 are sons of Krishnam Raju and he does not know whether plaintiff no.4 and defendant no.1 are sons of Satyanarayana Raju. He deposed that, he does not know whether Sudhakar Raju died during the pendency of this suit and whether defendant no.3 to defendant no. 5 are
LR’s of Sudhakar Raju i.e., Plaintiff no.1. He denied to the suggestion that, plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property as per
Ex.B1. He denied to the suggestion that, as per Ex.B1 the suit schedule property is ancestor property. He admitted that Sudhakar Raju or his brothers i.e., the plaintiff no.2 to 4 did not execute any registered sale deed in his favour. He denied to the suggestion that, one Suryanarayana
Raju has no right to sell the suit land under ExB1. He denied to the suggestion that, it is not mentioned under Ex.B2 that his vendor
Suryananrayana Raju is the owner of the suit schedule property and how he acquired the suit land. That, he got mutated the suit land based on
ExB2. He admitted that he got mutated Ac.05-21 Gts though he purchased Ac. 02-19 Gts under Ex.B2. He admitted that, he did not file any document to show that his vendor is the owner of suit land and he did not file any ROR or the mutation proceeding of his vendor.
Page No. 33 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
DW2 deposed that, he did not file any document to prove that
Narsimha Raju got married and has a daughter. He denied to the suggestion that, Narsimha Raju died issue less. He deposed that, he does not know the daughter’s name or the name of son in law of Narsimha
Raju and the plaintiff no.1 to 4 and defendant no.1 are no way related to his vendor Suryanarayana Raju. He deposed that, he did not file any document to show that Suryanarayana Raju is son in law of Narsimha
Raju. He admitted that, he mentioned in his written statement and in his chief affidavit Suryanarayana Raju is grandson of Narsimha Raju. He denied to the suggestion that, he is deposing false about the relationship between Suryanarayana Raju and Narsimha Raju. He deposed that, he is in possession of the suit land for the past 40 years as there is no protected tenant in the suit land. He denied to the suggestion that, he is not in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs are in possession of suit land and they are enjoying the suit land. He admitted that
Chandraiah used to cultivate the land. He admitted that as per ExB8, his vendor is pattadar of part of suit land and there is no proceeding mentioned adjacent to his name. He deposed that, he does not know whether his vendor has any other land surrounding the suit land. He denied to the suggestion that, his vendor has no right over the suit land.
He deposed that, he did not file any document to show his ownership or his possession over the suit land from 1992 to 2000. He denied to the
Page No. 34 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
suggestion that, he did not take any electricity connection over the suit land nor obtained any loan based on the suit land.
DW2 deposed that, he is residing at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. He denied to the suggestion that, he is not cultivating the suit land and it is open land. He deposed that, Ex.A21 are the photos of the suit land. He admitted that as per Ex.B13, the suit land is ancestor property. He denied to the suggestion that, ExB2 is not a legally valid document and the revenue records are obtained by colluding with the revenue authorities. He admitted that, he did not file any ROR or mutation proceeding issued in his favour before the court pertaining to the suit land. He denied to the suggestion that, the contents of his chief affidavit are false. He denied to the suggestion that, he is deposing false. He deposed that, he did not file the legal opinion obtained by him before the court. He denied to the suggestion that,the plaintiffs are entitled to an equal share in the suit land. He denied to the suggestion that, the suit is filed within limitation.
DW2 admitted that, except the present suit schedule property the plaintiffs do not have any other properties in Irwin village. He deposed that, he does not know whether the plaintiffs are performing the
Kalyanam of Lord Rama and Seeta in the temple in Irwin village. He denied to the suggestion that, the plaintiffs have given their land for public purpose in which there is a Bus Stand at present. He deposed
Page No. 35 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
that, he does not know one M. Chandraiah son of Shankaraiah who is adjacent land owner in sy.no. 793 to 795. He denied to the suggestion that, he threatened M. Chandraiah not to come to court due to which he did not come before this court to give evidence. He denied to the suggestion that, his agreement of sale i.e., Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are created and based on the Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, he created other revenue proceedings pertaining to the suit land. He denied to the suggestion that, he does not have any right to question the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. He denied to the suggestion that, a police complaint has been lodged against him under ExA17. He denied to the suggestion that, the plaintiffs and defendant no.1, defendant no.3 to defendant no.5 are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. He denied to the suggestion that, he is deposing false.
DW2 deposed that, he is working as Head constable and he joined in service in the year 2001 and he was born in Amberpet and he studied in Nalgonda District from 1994 to 1998. He admitted that, he has not filed any document showing that he is residing in Irwin village.
He denied to the suggestion that, he never resided in Irwin village and he has given a false address. He deposed that, he purchased Ac.02-09gGts from Suryanarayana Raju and Ac.03-12Gts from tenants in suit survey number. He admitted that, he did not file the document showing that he purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 03-12 Gts from tenants. He
Page No. 36 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
deposed that, he approached the MRO and panchanama was also conducted and he paid the consideration amount to the tenants. He admitted that, he did not file the panchanama copy or any proceeding issued by the MRO before this court with respect to the purchase of land from tenants. He deposed that, he got mutated the above land in his name in the year 1989 and he did not file any proceedings issued by the
MRO to show that his name was mutated in respect of the above land purchased by him. He deposed that, he has filed the pass book before the court. He admitted that, he did not file any document pertaining to his vendor Suryanarayana Raju showing that he is the pattadar and possessor of his land.
DW2 deposed that, Suryanarayana Raju has succeeded his land from his father in law i.e., Narsimha Raju. He deposed that, Narsimha
Raju has one daughter but he does not know her name. He denied to the suggestion that, Narsimha Raju died issue less. He denied to the suggestion that, because Narsimha Raju died issue less, his brother
Rama Raju acquired the land which fell to the share of Narsimha Raju.
He denied to the suggestion that, Suryanarayana Raju did not sell any land to him and his sale deed is created. He admitted that under ExB8,
Suryanarayana Raju is shown as Pattadar and possessor of land in suit survey number for the year 1989-90 but there is no proceeding number stated in the pahani issued by the Thasildar. He denied to the suggestion
Page No. 37 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
that, Suryanarayana Raju has not right over the land and he cannot sell the land to him and the sale deed executed by Suryanarayana Raju is a fraudulent document. He denied to the suggestion that, he did not purchase any land from any tenants. He deposed that, he cannot say the name of the Thasildar who issued pahanies to him. He denied to the suggestion that, there is no mention of any proceedings issued by
Thasildar for mutating his name in the revenue records. He denied to the suggestion that, taking advantage of the surname, he got created the revenue entries under his name. He admitted that, he did not plead in his Written Statement that he purchased land admeasuring Ac.03-12 Gts from the tenants and their details. He denied to the suggestion that, the suit schedule property was not partitioned till date with metes and boundaries and taking advantage of the disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1, he got created the documents in respect of suit land in his favour. He denied to the suggestion that, the proceedings of the revenue records are illegal as they are not issued based on any mutation proceedings as per ROR Act. He denied to the suggestion that, he did not acquire lawful title in respect of the land purchased by him.
14.Issue No.1 to 3 :- From the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is seen that the plaintiff no.2 as PW1 filed and got marked Ex.A1 to
Ex.A21 where Ex.A1 is the CC of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 which shows that B. Rukka Raju, the great grandfather of PW1 is the
Page No. 38 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
pattadar of the suit land. Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 are the certified copies of
Pahanies for the years 1960-61, 1970-71, 1975-76 & 1980-81, 1985-86 and it shows that B. Narsimhulu S/o. Rukka Raju is pattadar of suit land and it is admitted by the plaintiffs that the entire property was later mutated in the name of son of Rukka Raju i.e, B. Narsimhulu. Ex.A5 is the
CC of Pahani for the year 2005-06 & 2009-10 which shows the pattadar and possessor of suit land as Narsimha Raju. Ex.A6 is the CC of sale deed bearing document no. 2065/1989 which shows that defendant no.2 purchased the part of suit land from V. Suryanarayana Raju S/o. Laxman
Raju but it is well known fact that the suit land is ancestral property belonging to Rukka Raju which is still not partitioned and all the legal heirs will be equally entitled to a share in the said land. Further, there is no link document to show as to how V. Suryanarayana Raju acquired the said part of suit land to sell the same to Narsimha Raju. Ex.A7 is the the statement of Encumbrance on property i.e, suit property which shows Nil.
The legal validity of Ex.A6 is in question because, as the suit land is ancestral property, no single family member will have exclusive right to sell the property. Ex.A8 is the family members certificate of P. Venkat
Raju Dt: 28.11.1987. Ex.A9 is the copy of family members certificate of P.
Rama Raju, Dt: 06.04.2018.
Page No. 39 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Ex.A10 is the letter addressed to RDO, Ibrahimpatnam by B.
Sudhakar Raju, Dt: 05.05.2018 requesting the authority to stop issuance of pattadar passbook and Ryathubandhu as third parties have occupied the suit schedule property and the said document, the applicant has given the details of death of his ancestors and in the family members. Ex.A11 is also a similar kind of letter, Dt: 28.06.2018 addressed to the Tahsildar, Madgul
Mandal with the same request as in Ex.A10. Ex.A12 is the proceeding issued by the Tahsildar Madgul Mandal based on the application made by
Sudhakar Raju vide his complaint petition dt. 30-06-2018 regarding mutation of suit land in favour of Narsimha Raju and also requesting to stop distribution of new pattadar passbook and Rythubandhu cheques to
P.Narsimha Raju and in the said proceeding, the Tahsildar stated that the suit land was mutated in the name of P. Narsimha Raju and it is reflecting in the pahanies from 1993-94 onwards and that he is also in possession in the said land without any disturbance and he further stated that he is not competent to rectify the entries in the pahanies after a lapse of twenty five years. Ex.A13 is a letter addressed by P. Suryanarayana Raju and his brothers to the Thasildar Madgula Mandal, Dt: 25.07.2018 requesting him not to register the said land if it is coming before him for registration in favour of third parties. Ex.A17 is the Police complaint lodged by P.Sudhakar
Raju and his brothers against P.Narsimha Raju for interfering in the suit land. Ex.A18 is the statement of Encumbrance certificate of the suit property, Dt: 25.07.2018 for the period from 01-01-1986 to 10-10-2016 and
Page No. 40 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
it shows that during the said period P. Narsimha Raju is the claimant of the suit land having purchased the same from V. Suryanarayana Raju under
Ex.A6.
During the cross examination of PW1, it is seen that he deposed that he is residing in Hyderabad for more than 30 years but this does not disentitle him from claiming his share in the suit land being legal heir to his deceased grandfather. He further deposed that there is a house property in the name of his grandfather in Irvin village which is not partitioned and it is not included in the present suit but no other details of the house property is produced before this Court. Though, PW1 admitted that the suit schedule property is in the name of Narsimha Raju in the year 1971 and the same is reflecting in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, it is seen that the said documents are pahanies issued by the Tahsildar and they do not prove that the defendant no.2 is the exclusive owner of the suit land as the pahanies does not stand as conclusive proof of title over the suit land. He admitted that, the property was never in the name of either Rama Raju, Venkat Raju, Krishnam Raju at any point of time but it is admitted fact that the property is their ancestral property. Though, he deposed that, he did not approach any authority when the name of defendant no.2 is reflected in the revenue records in respect of the suit land, this does not curtail the plaintiffs from contesting the present suit claiming suitable relief as per law. Though PW1 admitted that, he did not file any document to prove that Rukka Raju is his great grandfather and
Page No. 41 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Rama Raju or Venkat Raju are his grandfathers, it cannot be completely ruled out that PW1 is not the legal heir of the above deceased persons as it is also not disputed that PW1 is not the legal heir to the deceased Rukka
Raju and nothing is otherwise proved disputing that he is not the legal heir to the deceased Rukka Raju.
PW1 admitted that, Suryanarayana Raju sold the suit schedule property to defendant no.2 through Reg.sale deed and delivered possession to him and the name of defendant no.2 is also reflected in the revenue records.
PW3 deposed that, he is residing in Hyderabad since twenty years. He admitted that, Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 does not show that Rukka Raju is his great- grandfather and Rama Raju is his father. He deposed that, Narsimha Raju died issue-less and he never married thereby supporting the version of
PW1. He admitted that in the year 1989 itself, the name of defendant no.2 was implemented in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed. But, the same can be ascertained as to its genuineness only after examining the documents filed by the defendant no.2.
The defendant no.1 got examined as DW1 and he deposed that he is managing the suit property from 1990 and before that the plaintiff no.1 was managing the property. He denied about the purchase of suit land by
Page No. 42 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
defendant no.2 and his possession over the suit land. He however deposed that there is no other property left to be partitioned.
In support of the case of defendant no.2, he filed and got marked
Ex.B1 to Ex.B17 where Ex.B1 is the document through which V.
Suryanarayana Raju and the plaintiff no.1 sold Ac. 2-35gts out of the suit land to the defendant no.2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 4792/-. It is also stated in the said document that their legal heirs will not have any right over the above sold land. It is also pertinent to note that an amount of
Rs.2,000/- was only paid towards part sale consideration and the remaining amount of Rs. 2792/- will be paid on 29-04-1989 upon which the registration of the land can be done failing which the amount paid under the sale consideration will be returned and the purchaser will not get any right over the land sold under this agreement and this agreement will become invalid. The said Ex.B1 was signed by the plaintiff no.1 and
V.Suryanarayana Raju. Ex.B2 is the registered sale deed executed accordingly on the terms based on Ex.B1. It is pertinent to note that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property which is admitted by either parties and in that case V. Suryanarayana Raju has no right to sell part of the suit schedule property to anybody by avoiding and ignoring the rights of eligible legal heirs who also have equal share in the suit schedule property. Further, V. Suryanarayana Raju also has no right to declare that his legal heirs will not have any right in respect of land agreed to be sold
Page No. 43 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
under Ex.B1 because no document is produced before this Court to show that V. Suryanarayana Raju and the plaintiff no.1 are the exclusive owners of the land sold under Ex.B1 and having failed to proving his exclusive ownership over the land under Ex.B1, he has no right to sell the land to anybody and the transactions that took place under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are legally not valid transactions in the eye of law and hence they are not binding on the parties to the suit. Ex.B3 is the CC of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 which shows that Rukka Raju is pattedar of the suit land.
Ex.B4 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1959-60 which shows that B.
Narsimulu is the pattedar of the suit schedule property. Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 are the certified copies of Pahanies for the year 1970-71 and 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 which shows that B. Narsimulu is son of Rukka Raju is the pattadar of the suit schedule property. Ex.B8 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1987-88 and 1988-89 which shows that
B.Narsimulu son of Rukka Raju B. Narsimulu is son of Rukka Raju is the pattadar of the suit schedule property while for the year 1989-90
Suryanarayana Raju is shown as pattadar of suit land. Ex.B9 is the CC of
Pahani for the year 1990-91 which also shows Suryanarayana Raju as pattadar of the suit land. Ex.B10 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2000-01, 2005-06 and 2009-10 which shows that P. Narsimha Raju son of
Muralidhar Raju is pattedar of suit schedule property i.e., defendant no.2.
Ex.B11 is the Original pattadar Passbook of defendant no.2 in respect of the
Page No. 44 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
suit land. Ex.B12 is the CC of Bank statement of defendant no.2. Ex.B13 is the Original New Passbook of defendant no.2 in respect of suit land.
Ex.B14 is the copy of I-B ROR, Dt: 30.12.2024 in respect of suit land showing defendant no.2 as pattedar of suit land. Ex.B15 is the online
Dharani showing the defendant no.2 as pattadar of suit land. Ex.B16 is the
CC of Pahani for 1424 Fasli showing defendant no.2 as pattadar of suit land. Ex.B17 is the CC of I-B namuna, Dt: 26.09.2017 showing the defendant no.2 is pattedar of suit schedule property. However, in view of the documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 being legally invalid documents in the eye of law as discussed above, the revenue records implemented based on
Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are also declared as invalid documents in the eye of law and does not confer any ownership or possession right to the purchaser under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 i.e,. defendant no.2 in respect of the suit schedule property.
During the cross examination of DW2, he admitted that Rukka Raju is the original pattedar of the suit land and he deposed that Narsimha Raju is the only son of Rukka Raj but there is no evidence before this Court to prove the said fact. He also admitted that, as per Ex.B3, it is shown that
Narsimha Raju and Rama Raju are sons of Rukka Raju and this goes to show that the version of DW2 that he has only one son is false. He also pleaded ignorance with regard to the fact that plaintiff no.1 to 3 are sons of
Krishnam Raju. He further deposed that, he does not know whether
Page No. 45 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
defendant no.3 to 5 are LRs of plaintiff no.1 and they were brought on record on the death of plaintiff no.1 and this shows that defendant no.2 is completely ignoring about the facts pertaining to the suit or the parties contesting the suit. He admitted that, Sudhakar Raju, his brothers, the plaintiff no.2 to 4 did not execute any sale deed in his favour which shows that the legal heirs have not consented to sell the suit land to the defendant no.2 and it was sold unanimously by only one of the legal heirs of the suit land which makes the documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 invalid in the eye of law.
DW2 further admitted that, he got mutated the suit land based on
Ex.B2 and that he got mutated the entire extent of Ac.5-21gts in his name though the land purchased under Ex.B2 is only Ac. 2-19gts and this shows that the defendant no.2 has no right over the entire suit schedule property.
He also admitted that, he did not file any document before this Court which shows that his vendor is the exclusive owner of the suit schedule property and he also did not file any mutation proceedings of his vendor. He also deposed that he did not file any document either to support his version that
Narsimha Raju got married and has a daughter. Though he claimed that
Narsimha Raju had a daughter, he further deposed that, he does not know the names of the daughter and the son-in-law of Narsimha Raju which is creating a doubt about the genuineness in the submissions made by the defendant no.2 before this Court. He further deposed that plaintiff no.1 to 4
Page No. 46 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
and defendant no.1 are no way related to his vendor Suryanarayana Raju and he is not a legal heir to the suit schedule property and has no exclusive right over the suit suit schedule property to execute Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 in favour of defendant no.2. He admitted that, in his written statement and in his affidavit, he mentioned that Suryanarayana Raju is the grandson of
Narsimha Raju though he is again contradicting his version stating on the other side that Suryanarayana is the son-in-law of Narsimha Raju. He further deposed that, he is in possession in the suit land since past 40 years and there is no other protected tenant in the suit land. He admitted that,
Chandraiah used to only cultivate the land. He also admitted that, as per
Ex.B8, his vendor is the pattadar of part of suit land and there is no proceeding adjacent to his name to prove the basis for such implementation of his vendor's name in Ex.B8 and on physical observation of Ex.B8, it is seen that, the registered sale deed bearing document no.2065 of 1989 which is nothing but Ex.B2 which is already discussed above is mentioned adjacent to the name of vendor of DW2 in Ex.B8 and when Ex.B2 is declared as not binding on plaintiffs then any revenue record issued or any mutation implementing the names of defendant no.2 based on Ex.B1 or
Ex.B2 are all declared invalid in the eye of law. He also admitted that as per Ex.B13, the suit land is ancestral property. DW2 clearly further admitted that, he did not file any ROR mutation proceedings issued in his favour before this court pertaining to suit land.
Page No. 47 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
DW2 further admitted that, except for the present suit schedule property, the plaintiffs do not have any other properties in Irvin village.
DW2 further admitted that, he did not file any document showing that he purchased Ac.3-12gts of land from the tenants out of the suit land. Though,
DW2 deposed that he approached Mandal Revenue Officer and panchanama was conducted and he paid the consideration amount to the tenants, no such documents are filed before this Court to support his version. He deposed that, he got mutated the suit land in his name in the the year 1989 which is as per Ex.B2. He however, admitted that, he did not file any document of his vendor to show that he is the pattadar and possessor of part of suit land and it is purchased by him. He deposed that,
Suryanarayana Raju succeeded his land from his father-in-law but the same is not prove by any oral or documentary evidence.
15.The counsel for the plaintiffs filed the following citations:
(i). In a case Guru Amarjit Singh Appellant Vs. Rattan Chand and others Respondents reported in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 227 in Civil Appeal No. 3549 of 1979, dt. 12-08-1993, it was held that; “Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.114- The Entries in Jambandi has no Evidentiary value of and they are not proof of title and the parties have to establish relationship or title to property ”.
(ii). In a case Smt. Sawarni Appellant Vs. Smt.Inder Kaur and others Respondents reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2823 in
Civil Appeal No. 10987 of 1996(arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6956 of
1995), dt. 23-08-1996, it was held that; “ Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S. 96- Finding of fact Trial Court's conclusion based on material on record and substantiated by weighty reasons and Granting declaration that plaintiff and heirs of her sister are owners of suit property. Appellate Court not setting aside finding of trial Court, Could not reverse the decree merely on ground of mutation entry in favour of defendant”.
Page No. 48 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
(iii). In a case C. Narendranath Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and others reported in 2018 (3) ALT 49 of Hon'ble High
Court of judicuture at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the
state of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. Nos.20585 and 20586 of 2013,dt.
23-03-2018, it was held that; “Telangana Rights in land and pattadar pass books Act, 1971, section 4,5 and 9- Recording the names of owners: - This Court purposely refrained from referring to the merits of the case as the enquiry is confined to record of entries in the revenue records but not deciding the title of the parties”.
(iv). In a case Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati (Dead by L.R.s) Appellant Vs. Prem Prakash and others Respondents reported in AIR
1995 SUPREME COURT 1789 in Civil Appeal No. 974 of 1980, dt.
10-05-1995, it was held that; “Delhi Land Reforms Act (8 of 1954), S. 186- Suit for partition of holding by co- bhumidhar and there is no Limitation prescribed and Defence by other Co-bhumidhar that he was acquired title by adverse possession is therefore of no consequences and the Question of title requiring reference to Civil Court - Does not arise ”.
The above cases support the version of the plaintiffs.
16.The counsel for the defendant no.2 filed the following citations:
(i). In a case Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Through Legal Representatives Vs. Purushottam and others reported in (2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 387 in Civil Apeals No. 6875 of 2008 with Nos 6876-77 of 2008, dt. 03-04- 2020, it was held that;
Family and personal Laws - Hindu Law - Hindu undivided Family (HUF) -
HUF property - Inference regarding - Requisite proof - Burden of proof.
“ Held, burden is on person who alleges existence of HUF to prove the same Proof is required not only with respect to joint-ness of family but also with respect to fact that property concerned belongs to joint Hindu family, unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of joint Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. In present case, existence of HUF not proved. NO material to show that properties in question belonged to an HUF. Merely because business was joint, held would not raise presumption that there was a joint Hindu family - Income Tax - Hindu undivided Family (HUF) - Evidence Act, 1872”.
Page No. 49 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Evidence Act, 1872 S.101- Burden lies on plaintiff to prove his case on basis of material available. He cannot rely on weakness or absence of defence of defendant to discharge the onus. If plaintiff claims title to property, he must prove his title Property.
In a suit for partition, it is expected of the plaintiff to include only those properties for partition to which the family has clear title and unambiguously belong to the members of the joint family which is sought to be partitioned and if someone else's property, meaning thereby disputed property is included in the schedule of the suit for partition, and the same is contested by a third party who is allowed to be impleaded by order of the trial court, obviously it is the plaintiff who will have to first of all discharge the burden of proof for establishing that the disputed property belongs to the joint family which should be partitioned excluding someone who claims that some portion of the joint family property did not belong to the plaintiff's joint family in regard to which decree for partition is sought.
The onus is on the plaintiff to positively establish its case on the basis of the material available and it cannot rely on the weakness or absence of defence to discharge the onus. In this case, it was the plaintiff who claimed title to the property which was the subject-matter of the alleged sale deed of 24-2-1951 for which he had sought partition against his brother and, therefore, it was clearly the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case establishing title of the property to the joint family out of which he was claiming his share.
In a case Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana & another (2012) 1 SCC 656 held as under:
" Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property."
But the above Citations are not relevant to the present circumstances of the case.
Page No. 50 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
17. In view of the above discussion it is clearly established that, the defendant no.2 has no right over the suit schedule property and he cannot exercise any kind of right in respect of the suit land and at the same time it is sufficiently established that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the deceased Rukka Raju to whom the plaintiff, defendant no.1, 3 to 5 are legal heirs as such they are entitled to an equal share in the said ancestral property.
Issue no.1 to 3 are accordingly answered.
18. Issue No.4:- In the result, the suit is decreed and a preliminary decree is passed by dividing the suit schedule property into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and by allotting 1/6th (4) shares each to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 and 1/18th share each to the defendant No.3 to 5 and 1/4th(6) share each to the plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No.1 and 1/8th share each to the defendant no.3 to 5 and the plaintiffs are also granted the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the registered sale deed bearing document No. 2065 of 1989, dated;21.07.1989 at SRO Kalwakurthy is hereby declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 3 to 5.
Typed to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025.
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Shadnagar.
Page No. 51 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs :- For Defendants:- PW1: Bhattu @ Prathikantam Prabhakar RajuDW1 : Bhattu @ Prathikantam
PW2: M. Chandraiah @ Chandraiah Chary(Eschewed) Ramchander Raju
DW2 : Prathikantam Narsimha Raju PW3: Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkat Raju
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiffs : Ex.A1 : CC of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 issued by MRO Madgul,
Ranga Reddy District
Ex.A2 : CC of Pahani for the year 1960-61 issued by MRO Madgul,
Ranga Reddy District
Ex.A3 : CC of Pahani for the year 1970-71, 1975-76 & 1980-81 issued by
MRO Madgul, Ranga Reddy District
Ex.A4 : CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86 issued by MRO Madgul,
Ranga Reddy District
Ex.A5 : CC of Pahani for the year 2005-06 & 2009-10 issued by MRO
Madgul, Ranga Reddy District
Ex.A6 : CC of sale deed doc no. 2065/1989 issued by SRO Kalwakurthy,
Dt: 21.07.1989
Ex.A7 : CC of Encumbrance certificate issued by SRO Ibrahimpatnam,
Dt: 21.07.2018
Ex.A8 : Original family members certificate issued by Gram Panchayath,
Badepally, Dt: 28.11.1987
Page No. 52 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
Ex.A9 : Original Residence certificate issued by Gram Panchayath
Syedhpally, Pargi Mandal, Vikarabad District, Dt: 06.04.2018
Ex.A10 : Original Applaication to RDO, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District,
Dt: 05.05.2018
Ex.A11 : Original Application to the Thasildar Madgula Mandal,
Dt: 28.06.2018
Ex.A12 : Original Endorsement from the Tahsildar Madgula Mandal,
Dt: 11.07.2018
Ex.A13 : Original Application to the Thasildar Madgula Mandal,
Dt: 25.07.2018
Ex.A14 : Original Non Availability of Death Certificate of P. Krishnam Raju,
Dt: 22.06.2018 issued by Municipality of Badepally
Ex.A15 : Original Non Availability of Death Certificate of P. Satyanarayana,
Dt: 22.06.2018 issued by Municipality of Badepally
Ex.A16 : Market value certificate of A schedule property, Dt: 19.07.2018.
Ex.A17 : Police complaint, Dt: 30.08.2018.
Ex.A18 : Original Copy of Encumbrance of property issued by the SRO
Kalwakurthy, Dt: 25.07.2018.
Ex.A19 : Legal Notice issued by the plaintiffs to the revenue authorities
dated: 28.09.2020.
Ex.A20 : Acknowledgment cards (4), Dt: 05.10.2020.
Ex.A21 : Photographs (4) with CD’s of the suit schedule property.
Page No. 53 of 53 OS.No. 81 of 2022 (Old OS.No. 129 of 2018)
For Defendants: Ex.B1 : Original Agreement of Sale, Dt: 26.03.1989 (Marked to subject to
Objection)
Ex.B2 : Original Registered Sale Deed No. 2065/1989, Dt: 21.07.1989.
Ex.B3 : CC of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, Dt: 24.09.2018.
Ex.B4 : CC of Pahani for the year 1959-60, Dt: 24.09.2018.
Ex.B5 : CC of Pahani for the year 1970-71 and 1980-81, Dt: 24.09.2018.
Ex.B6 : CC of Pahani for the year 1981-82 and 1984-85.
Ex.B7 : CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86 and 1986-87, Dt: 24.09.2018.
Ex.B8 : CC of Pahani for the year 1987-88 and 1988-89, Dt: 24.09.2018.
Ex.B9 : CC of Pahani for the year 1990-91, Dt: 24.09.2018.
Ex.B10 : CC of Pahani for the year 2000-01 and 2005-06 and 2009-10,
Dt: 24.09.2018.
Ex.B11 : Original Passbook, Dt: 06.03.2018.
Ex.B12 : CC of Bank statement, Dt: 15.02.2019.
Ex.B13 : Original New Passbook and title deed of defendant no.2,
Dt: 06.03.2018.
Ex.B14 : I-B ROR form, Dt: 30.12.2024.
Ex.B15 : Land details, Dt: 30.12.2024.
Ex.B16 : CC of Pahani 1424 Fasli.
Ex.B17 : IB ROR Form, Dt: 26.09.2017.
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Shadnagar.