27/03/20231O.S.No.190/2008
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT MIRYALAGUDA
(Dated, this the 27th day of March, 2023)
PRESENT: Smt Ch.Ashalatha,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALAGUDA.
OS.No.190 OF 2008
Between:
Bhaskarabatla Vara Laxmamma, W/o. Suryanarayana, Age: 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Guttakindi Annaram Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District. … PLAINTIFF AND
1. Pullabatla Rama Devi, W/o.Siva Rama Sarma, Age: 44 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Pullabatla Shiva Rama Sarma, S/o.Late Narsimhaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture Both are R/o.Vemulapally Village and Mandal of Nalgonda District. … DEFENDANTS This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Radha Krishna, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri P.Ravindra Reddy, counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2; and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court pronounced the following:-
J U D G M E N T:: ::
The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of plaintiff’s title over the plaint schedule property and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property.
27/03/20232O.S.No.190/2008
2. The plaintiff’s case is as follows: (i) She is 2nd defendant’s sister. The 1st defendant is wife of 2nd defendant. Late Pullabatla Narsimha Ramaiah @
Narsimhaiah and Pullabatla Sharadamba are her parents. Her parents had no male issues and the plaintiff is the only daughter of her parents. Since her mother Sharadamba was only daughter to her parents her father came as illutom son-in-law. Her mother Sharadamba inherited plaint schedule land i.e.
Ac.4.10 guntas of land situated in Vemulapally Village in specific Ac.2.33 gts in Sy.No.582, Ac.0.27 gts in Sy.No.583 and Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.584.
Sharadamba also inherited Ac.6.38 gts of land situated in Shettipalem Village of Vemulapally Mandal. However, lands situated at Vemulapally village were mutated in favour of Sharadamba and with the consent of plaintiff’s mother lands situated at Shettipalem village were mutated in favour of plaintiff’s father nominally.
(ii)Since her parents have no male issues, after the death of her father, in the year 1975 they brought the defendant No.2 who was 14 years old. He is son of her junior paternal uncle. Since then he was brought up by her mother. She along with her mother performed his marriage with the defendant No.1 on 07.06.1981. Her mother gave plaint schedule land to her 27/03/20233O.S.No.190/2008 towards “pasupu kumkuma” under a document dated 27.05.1974 with a condition that during her life time the plaintiff should not sell it. Since then she was in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land. She has title over the land by way of uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of land for the continuous period of 12 years adversely to the interest of her mother and the defendants herein.
(iii)Since her mother was an old aged woman and innocent the defendant No.2 as fostered son lived with her at Vemulapally and used to look after the affairs of her mother’s family. After marriage, the plaintiff is residing with her husband in Guttakindi Annaram Village of Nalgonda Mandal. She and her mother believed the defendant No.2 and entrusted management of plaint schedule land to him. In the year 1989 when her mother seriously fell ill she, in order to prevent further litigation decided to get the lands mutated in favour of plaintiff on the basis of document executed by her on 27.05.1974. In this regard her mother asked the defendant No.2 to take steps for mutating patta in favour of plaintiff in revenue records. So the defendant No.2 took the original document dated 27.05.1974 from her to submit in concerned revenue office and later he told that patta of schedule land was mutated in her name.
27/03/20234O.S.No.190/2008
However, she permitted the defendant No.2 to manage the plaint schedule land. He used to pay the amount derived from schedule land.
(iv)On 13.07.1997 her mother Sharadamba died leaving the plaintiff as her legal heir and the defendant No.2 as her fostered son. Even after the death of her mother she used to visit her mother’s house at Vemulapally twice or thrice in a year and the defendant No.2 used to pay crop share amount till the end of year 2006. In the year 2007 the defendants started behaving hostile to the interest of plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff went to Vemulapally and asked the defendant No.2 for first crop amount of that year, but he refused to pay the same denying her title over the schedule land.
(v) In the month of November, 2007 on enquiry she came to know that in the year 1989 the defendant No.1 got validated simple sale deed dated 21.2.1975 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff and schedule land was mutated in favour of defendant No.1. In fact, the plaintiff never executed the alleged simple sale deed dated 21.02.1975 in favour of defendant No.1 nor sold any portion of plaint schedule land to the defendants as claimed by them.
In fact the defendant No.2 was only supervising cultivation of lands as an agent of the plaintiff. But the defendant No.2 played mischief, fabricated 27/03/20235O.S.No.190/2008 simple sale deed dated 21.02.1975 and got the lands mutated in favour of defendant No.1. The date of birth of defendant No.1 is 15.10.1963 as per her school record i.e. ZPPSS Guduru (J), Palakurthy Mandal of Warangal District.
As on the date of alleged simple sale deed dated 21.02.1975 the defendant
No.2 did not marry the defendant No.1. Neither she nor her mother
Sharadamba appeared before the concerned revenue authorities on 14.10.1989 nor gave any such statement accepting the alleged transaction in favour of defendant No.1. The said statement was fabricated by forging her signatures and by impersonating her mother. The defendants possession over the plaint schedule land from the year 2007 is illegal since they refused to pay crop share amount to her. When the plaintiff demanded the defendants to handover vacant possession of land, they refused to do so. Hence this suit.
3(a) The defendants filed written statement specifically denying the plaintiff’s title over the plaint schedule property. They admitted that originally
Sharadamba inherited the plaint schedule land. They filed their written statement as follows:(i) After the death of natural son, the plaintiff’s father brought the defendant No.2 with an intention to take him in adoption, but due to his ill health he could not get perform adoption ceremony. Later, by 27/03/20236O.S.No.190/2008 knowing his health condition, the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2 executed a Will Deed on 14.05.1974 bequeathing his properties to the plaintiff and defendant No.2. The plaintiff, her husband and other persons signed in the said Will deed as attesters and Saradamba also affixed her thumb impression.
After the death of Narsimhaiah, Sharadamba presented the said Will deed and got registered in concerned registration office. In that regard a public notice was published in a newspaper. She also got performed formalities of adoption.
However, the defendant No.2 never objected for giving the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff by her natural mother.
(ii) The 1st defendant purchased a part of plaint schedule land i.e. one acre of land from the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.41,000/- in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 23.12.1987. The 2nd defendant purchased the remaining land of plaint schedule land i.e. Ac. 3-10 Gts for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- under an agreement of sale dated 11.05.1988.
He paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- on the date of agreement. The plaintiff’s husband signed in above two agreements. As per the agreement the defendant
No.2 paid the remaining sale consideration in two installments viz Rs.25,000/- 27/03/20237O.S.No.190/2008 on 01.12.1988 and Rs.15,000/- on 15.04.1989. As above, the defendants are enjoying the plaint schedule land.
(iii) Later the defendants approached the concerned revenue authorities for validating agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988. They handed over the original agreements, receipts passed by the plaintiff and the original document dated 27-05-1974 to the concerned and paid amount as demanded towards stamp duty and registration fee. They have taken defendants’ signatures in some printed forms as well as in one or two blank papers. Later, the revenue authorities handed over pattedar pass book and title deed for the entire land of Ac.4.10 gts in the name of defendant No.1. But, after seeing documents filed by the plaintiff before this court, the defendants came to know that the plaintiff with a plan to claim the property at a subsequent point, managed the revenue officials and created certain documents contrary to the original sale transactions made by her. Now the defendants are left with no option except seeking the relief of specific performance of agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988 through counter claim.
27/03/20238O.S.No.190/2008
(iv)The defendant No.2 is an adoptive son of Sharadamba. His adoptive mother fell ill just three months prior to her death and till then she was hale and healthy during her life time since he was brought as adoptive son in the year 1973. The original document dated 27.05.1974 was handed over to the defendant No.2 by the plaintiff on 15.04.1989 when balance amount of
Rs.15,000/- was paid to the plaintiff as per the agreement dated 11.05.1988.
Sharadamba died on 13.07.1997 at Vemulapally Village. The plaintiff used to visit their house at Vemulapally frequently depending upon the necessity for making her visits to the house of defendants like functions and illness of the parties etc. After purchase the defendant No.2 did not pay any amount to the plaintiff towards crop share. Therefore, they pray to dismiss this suit.
3(b) The defendants filed counter claim seeking specific performance of agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988. Their case in counter claim is as follows: (i) The plaintiff agreed to sell a part of plaint schedule land i.e. one acre of land to the 1st defendant for a sale consideration of
Rs.41,000/- to meet her daughter’s marriage expenses. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 paid the entire sale consideration on 23.12.1987 and on the same day the plaintiff executed an agreement of sale. Later, the plaintiff again 27/03/20239O.S.No.190/2008 put to sale of remaining Ac.3.10 gts of plaint schedule land for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant No.2 agreed to purchase the same and paid Rs.60,000/- on 11.05.1988. On the same day the plaintiff executed an agreement of sale. The plaintiff’s husband signed in above two agreements. As per the agreement the 2nd defendant paid the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- in two installments viz. Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- on 01.12.1988 and 15.04.1989 respectively.
(ii) The defendants handed over those original agreements of sale, receipts passed by the plaintiff and the original document dated 27.05.1974 to the concerned revenue officials for getting validation of agreements. They paid required amount to the concerned village official as demanded by him towards stamp duty, registration fee and other miscellaneous expenditure. The authorities took defendants’ signatures in some printed forms as well as in one or two blank papers. Adoptive mother of 2nd defendant, the plaintiff and her husband reported no objection to the agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988 before the concerned MRO.
(iii) Later, the revenue authorities handed over pattadar pass book and title deed for the entire plaint schedule land in the name of defendant No.1.
27/03/202310O.S.No.190/2008
They asked about issue of pass book in favour of entire land in the name of defendant No.1, the revenue officials informed that nothing will happen in further since they are wife and husband. They believed their words. The plaintiff managed the revenue officials and created certain documents in contrary to the original sale transactions made by her. The plaintiff denied agreements dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988 and therefore cause of action started from the date of receipt of summons by the defendants in the present suit. The plaintiff agreed those agreements before the revenue authorities and for validation of those agreements. Now the plaintiff is disputing her appearance before the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer during proceedings for validation of agreements of sale. They already performed their part of agreements. They are ready to get regular registered sale deeds. Hence, this counter claim.
3 (c)The plaintiff specifically denied execution of agreements of sale.
She filed rejoinder as follows: The defendant No.2 is fostered son of her parents. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to the properties of her mother. Her mother had exclusive rights over all the lands at Vemulapally and
Shettipalem villages. Taking undue advantage of their innocence the 27/03/202311O.S.No.190/2008 defendants fabricated agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988.
She never passed any receipt nor delivered possession of land to the defendants. She never attended before the concerned revenue authorities nor given no objection for validation of any sale transaction and mutation of revenue entries in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to seek relief of specific performance of agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988. Their claim is time barred. Hence, she prays to dismiss counter claim.
4. Basing on above pleadings and the material on record the following issues were framed:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession of the plaint schedule land?
2.Whether the simple sale deed dated 21.02.1975 and alleged statements of plaintiff and late Sharadamba are forged and do not bind the plaintiff ?
3.Whether defendant No.1 and 2 are entitled to seek specific performance of agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988 ?
4.Whether Will dated 14.05.1974 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
5.Whether the suit schedule is not correct?
27/03/202312O.S.No.190/2008
6. To what relief?
5. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as Pw1, got marked Exs.A1 to 38 and further examined Pws2 and 3. Ex.X1 and X2 are marked through Pw3. The defendant No.2 examined himself as Dw1, got marked Exs.B1 to 14 and further examined Dws2 to 9. Ex.C1 and 2 are marked through Dw9.
6. I have heard the counsel for the defendants. The Learned counsel for plaintiff filed written submissions. I have perused the material on record.
7. Issue No.2i) The plaintiff’s case is that the defendants fabricated simple sale deed dated 21.02.1975, got it validated and in pursuance of those proceedings the names of defendants were mutated in respect of plaint schedule property. Her specific plea is that her signature was forged in that simple sale deed. She also pleaded that she and her mother never appeared before the revenue authorities nor gave any statements as recorded. Whereas the defendants contend that they purchased plaint schedule land from the plaintiff under agreements of sale dated 23.12.1987 and 11.05.1988 and got validated by revenue authorities. They also contend that the plaintiff created simple sale deed
dated 21.02.1975 and managed the revenue officials.
27/03/202313O.S.No.190/2008 7(ii) The concerned Tahsildar was summoned to produce copy application register and documents relating to ROR proceedings of Sy.Nos.582, 583, 584 of
Vemulapally Village. After receipt of summons the concerned Tahsildar as Pw3 stated that the relevant ROR file is not traced out. He brought Copy Application register showing an entry that they issued certified extract of the said proceedings to Bhaskarabatla Bala Subramanyam, S/o Suryanarayana, R/o
Guttakindi Annaram (Son of the plaintiff herein). Ex.X1 is true extract of relevant entry at S.No.19 in Copy Application register. As per Pw3 copies were issued on 28.01.2008. ExX2 is acknowledgment of applicant after receiving copies. The plaintiff produced Ex.A30 i.e. certified copy of ROR file alleged to have been issued by the concerned revenue authorities by making an entry in
ExX1. Pw3 stated that ExA30 is an attested copy issued from their office.
7(iii) A perusal of Ex.X1 shows that the relevant entry in Copy application register is verified by the concerned Deputy Tahisldar. Pw3 is concerned
Tahsildar. In view of the entry made in ExX1, it is evident that Pw3 is not the person who furnished copies. As per Ex.X2 thirty two pages relating to ROR file No.109/89/205 were furnished to the applicant. Whereas on perusal of entries made while furnishing certified copies, in specific on back side of 27/03/202314O.S.No.190/2008
Ex.A30 it appears that only sixteen pages were furnished to the applicant by making entry as in Ex.X1. Further, Dw1 admitted that he got pass book and title deed in pursuance of mutation proceedings of ROR/109/89 (Ex.A30). However, in Ex.A29 i.e. true extract of 1 Namuna there is a specific reference that the property was got under purchase and the entries were mutated in pursuance the proceedings vide ROR no.285/90 dated 4/11/90. It is evident that ROR proceedings referred in ExX1 and ExA29 are different and therefore the admission made by Dw1 about issue of pass book and title deed in pursuance of specific proceedings referred in ExX1 cannot be considered. Further, the plaintiff did not get examine her son in her support in this regard. Pw3 specifically stated that the relevant ROR file is not traced out.
7(iv) On confrontation of photocopy of declaration on back side of Form 1A
Namuna Ex.A30, Dw1 identified his signature and signature of his wife (defendant No.1 herein). During cross examination Dw6 was confronted with the same and he identified signature of G.Bixa Reddy as witness. Even if it is assumed that the defendants got regularized vide proceedings under Ex.A30 the statement of 2nd defendant that due to his mother’s old age she gave consent to change patta in his name as mentioned on back side of 1A Namuna is 27/03/202315O.S.No.190/2008 inconsistent since as per those proceedings specific document alleged to had been validated was a sale transaction. Further, it is evident that there is no date of recording such statement. Pw3 admitted that the said statement is not certified by any officer who recorded that statement.
7(v) Further, Dw1 stated that he did not go to the bank for payment of stamp duty and penalty through challan and that they asked to pay Rs.2,000/- in office towards all expenses and they will look after everything, accordingly he paid the amount. Pw3 also admitted that both the challans in page numbers
No.25 and 27 of Ex.A30 did not bear signature of remitter. During cross examination it is elicited from Pw3 that for regularization of unregistered deeds
ROR applicants can file application through the concerned VRO or they can apply directly. Pw3 did not deny suggestion given by the learned counsel for the defendants, but stated that he cannot say whether in order to reduce stamp duty and registration fee and to have some gain VAO’s are recording statements as per their wish and without informing the contents to the concerned affirmants.
7(vi) Further, the plaintiff produced Transfer certificate i.e. Ex.A32 contending that the date of birth of the 1st defendant was 15.10.1963 and as on the date of simple sale deed dated 21.02.1975 the defendant No.1 did not marry 27/03/202316O.S.No.190/2008 the 2nd defendant yet. The defendants specific plea is that they did not claim right under simple sale deed dated 21.2.1975 and that they are claiming plaint schedule property under ExB2and3 viz two agreements sale deed 23-12-1987 and 11-05-1988.
7(vii) During cross examination Dws5and6 were confronted with a photo copy of simple sale deed dated 21.02.1975 i.e. page no.5 of ExA30. Dw5 identified signature of second attestor as signature of Dw6 and signature of
Thangella Kantha Reddy as scribe. Dw6 also admitted his signature as second attestor and further also identified signature of scribe. It is pertinent to say here that original document dated 21.02.1975 is not produced nor confronted to the witnesses. Further, Dws5and6 did not whisper about the transaction. There is no hard and fast rule that the attestors must know about the transaction. The plaintiff’s specific case is that her signature is forged on simple sale deed dated 21.2.1975 and her mother was impersonated. Now the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove her specific plea. However, there is no cogent evidence in that regard. During cross examination Pw1 stated that the defendant no.2 obtained her signatures on blank papers. Further, as per ExA30 the application for 27/03/202317O.S.No.190/2008 regularization is made in the year 1989. Admittedly, Sharadamba died in the year 1997.
7(viii) The original file of relevant ROR proceedings is not produced before this court. Further, there is no reliable evidence that the defendant no.2 entered in to sale transaction under simple sale deed dated 21.2.1975.In view of discrepancies in ExA30 and above facts and circumstances and further in the absence of any cogent evidence in proof of the plaintiff’s specific plea of forgery and impersonation of her mother, it is held that the plaintiff failed to establish that she and her mother did not make alleged statements and that simple sale deed dated 21.2.1975 is fabricated by forging her signature.This issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
8. Issue No.1 i) Admittedly, the plaint schedule property originally belong to
Sharadamba and she gave the property to the plaintiff towards Pasupu kumkuma under ExB4. The defendants’ case is that they purchased the plaint schedule land from the plaintiff under ExB2and3 viz two agreements of sale
dated 23-12-1987 and 11-05-1988. It is pertinent to say here that the defendants
contend that at the time of sale the plaintiff handed over ExB4 to them, 27/03/202318O.S.No.190/2008 therefore they produced it before this court. The plaintiff specifically denied execution of those agreements.
8(ii)As per the defendants the plaintiff’s husband also signed in two agreements of sale under ExB2and3. On confronting ExB2 and 3 Pw1 denied her signatures on ExB2and3. However, she identified her husband’s signatures on ExB2and3. During cross examination Pw1 categorically stated that she and her husband are leading their marital life together and they have no differences between them, however her husband does not come and support her since he refused to come as a witness.
8(iii)(a) The defendants specific case is that the plaintiff sold a part of plaint schedule property i.e. one acre of land to the 1st defendant under an agreement of sale dated 23.12.1987 i.e. ExB2 to meet marriage expenses of the plaintiff’s daughter. During cross examination Pw1 admitted that about 24 years back her daughter’s marriage was held. Though she denied sale of land due to paucity funds and to meet her daughter’s marriage expenses, she stated that at the relevant time they borrowed amounts from one Anthaiah for the said purpose.
She also stated that said Anthaiah is son of elder sister of her mother-in-law and he is resident of Nalgonda. However, it is clear that the plaintiff had necessity of 27/03/202319O.S.No.190/2008 money at the relevant time. There is no evidence that the plaintiff borrowed amounts from the said Anthaiah. Further, during cross examination when Pw1 was specifically suggested by the learned counsel for the defendants that whether she sold one acre of land i.e. a part of plaint schedule property to the defendant No.1 to meet marriage expenses of her daughter by executing a document for a consideration of Rs.41,000/- Pw1 did not deny the same, but stated that she does not know it.
8(iii)(b) As per the defendants Anneparthi Anantharamaiah is scribe of
ExB2. During cross examination it is elicited from Pw1 that Anneparthi
Anantharamaiah is her brother, in specific he is fostered son of paternal aunt of her husband. The defendants got examine one of the attestor to ExB2 as Dw4.
Dw4 stated that he was present when the transaction for one acre of land held in defendants house. He specifically deposed that after receiving sale consideration for one acre of land, the plaintiff and her husband signed in agreement scribed by the relative of the parties and then one Malikanti Chandraiah signed and he affixed his thumb impression as attestors. Dw4 further stated that Malikanti
Chandraiah died in a road accident. Dw4 deposed that he does not know the details of lands owned by plaintiff. However, he firmly stated that he know only 27/03/202320O.S.No.190/2008 to the extent that the plaintiff sold one acre of land and he cannot say survey number of said land but it is wet land and situated in Vemulapally. Thus, Dw4 consistently supported the defendants with regard to sale transaction under
ExB2.
8(iv)(a) The defendants’ case is that the plaintiff agreed to sell remaining part of plaint schedule land i.e. Ac.03.10 gts to the 2nd defendant by executing an agreement of sale dated 11.05.1988 i.e. ExB3. As per the defendants
Dws5and6 are attestors to ExB3. Dws5and6consistentlydeposed that they were present when the transaction for Ac.3.10 gts of land was held in defendants’ house. They categorically stated that after receipt of Rs.60,000/- plaintiff and her husband signed in agreement written by Thangella Kantha Reddy and then they signed as attestors. Dw5 also stated that the defendant no.2 is an adopted son and he resides in next bazaar in same village, therefore he knew about adoption and the above aspects. Thus, Dws5and6 supported the defendants with regard to sale transaction under ExB3.
8(iv)(b) Further, The 2nd defendant’s case is that as per the terms of agreement of sale dated 11.05.1988 he paid remaining sale consideration in two occasions and in that regard produced receipts dated 1-12-1988 and 15-04-1989 27/03/202321O.S.No.190/2008
ExB5 and 6. The plaintiff denied passing those receipts. As per the defendants
Dw6 is scribe of receipts and Dw3 signed as a witness. Dw6 deposed that after receipt of amounts on two occasions he wrote receipts. It is elicited from Dw6 that he used to attest several documents of transactions among their villagers.
Dw3 consistently stated that he signed in receipts passed by the plaintiff for
Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the defendants established passing receipts by the plaintiff.
8(v) As per the defendants they got the plaint schedule land under sale transactions dated 23.12.1987 and 11.5.1988. During cross examination it is elicited from Pw1 that Ex.A37 is book with entries of land revenue from the year 1974 to 1987 and she did not pay any land revenue subsequent there to.
Dw3 stated that after purchase he is cultivating the defendants’ land on crop share basis. During cross examination Dw3 specifically stated that he cultivated the lands of 2nd defendant for a period of 20 years.
8(vi) As per the plaintiff the defendants stopped giving crop amount to her since the year 2007. During cross examination Pw1 stated that the plaint schedule land was leased out for 12 years from 1972, thereafter it was looked after by her husband and as per his information one Jan Reddy and some others 27/03/202322O.S.No.190/2008 cultivated the same. Whereas her husband as Dw8 stated that he does not know who looked after the property given to his wife towards Pasupu Kunkuma since his wife used to give it on lease and he does not know to whom she gave on lease. However, Dw1 stated that her brother in law used to come and collect lease amounts. It appears Dw8 is reluctant to speak the real facts.
8(vii) As per the plaintiff the defendant no.2 married defendant no.1 in the year 1981. She specifically pleaded in plaint that she and her mother performed marriage of defendant no.2 with defendant no.1. Whereas during cross examination the plaintiff as Pw1 stated that her husband attended marriage and that she does not know whether the defendant No.2 is referred as adoptive son of her natural father in wedding card. She even stated that she did not even see the said card. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s father is a priest in the village. It is elicited from Pw1 that her father was a priest (purohit) for five villages and after his death the defendant No.2 succeeded the same as his successor. Pw1 also admitted that their mother lived with the defendant No.2 till her death.
8(viii) Dw3 stated that One Pagilla Dharmaiah (PW2) and Chittimalla
Chandraiah are plaintiff’s tenants. Pw2 categorically stated that when
Narsimhaiah (plaintiff’s father) was alive they cultivated land for four years, 27/03/202323O.S.No.190/2008 thereafter, plaintiff cultivated for some time and the defendant No.2 is cultivating the said land for the last 12 to 13 years. He stated that he has been told by the plaintiff that she has given the said land to the defendant no.2 on lease, however he does not know the details of lease. It is clear that he know about the lease on information given by the plaintiff only. He also stated that he does not know whether the plaintiff sold the said land to the defendants. Thus, the evidence of Pw2 did not support the plaintiff.
8(ix)Further, during cross examination Pw1 also admitted that during life time of her father there was an open house site approximately three guntas.
Initially, she stated that she sold the said open site. She again stated that her father gave the said open house site to her husband and she knows to the extent that the said property is not available. Whereas her husband as Dw8 stated that no properties were given to him by his parents in-laws at the time of his marriage or after marriage, but his wife was given property towards “Pasupu
Kunkuma’ and he does not know the details.
8(x) During cross examination Dw1 stated that he know the condition imposed in Ex.B4 that the plaintiff is not entitled to sell property during life time of Sharadamba. Dw1 explained that despite the said condition they 27/03/202324O.S.No.190/2008 purchased the said property since the plaintiff and her brother in-law needed money to perform their daughter’s marriage and tried to sell the property to outsiders. Dw1 specifically stated that they purchased the property with a sentiment that the property of their family should not go to outsiders. It is pertinent to say here that during cross examination it is also elicited from Pw1 that they borrowed amounts for doing their daughter’s marriage.
8(xi) Dw2 deposed that he cultivated land for two years, after him the plaintiff and her husband leased out the same land to the villagers and after sale he cultivated the said land on lease. He does not know the details of lands owned by plaintiff. It is elicited from Dw2 that defendant no.2 used to lend money for his cultivation since he is cultivating tenant of lands of defendant no.2. He stated that he cannot say the details of survey number and extent of the property sold by plaintiff and that he can give only boundaries.
8(xii) Further, Dw8 deposed that he does not know how and where his parents-in-law died. He does not know whether his father-in-law suffered with any illness before his death nor the person who performed last rites of his father-in-law. He even stated that he did not attend obsequies of his father in law. As per the defendants the plaintiff’s husband also signed in agreements of 27/03/202325O.S.No.190/2008 sale under ExB2and3. On confrontation of Ex.B2 and 3 Dw8 deny the same.
Whereas Pw1 identified her husband’s signatures on ExB2and3. Dw8 simply stated that he does not know who filed the present suit. However, he admitted that he is giving evidence on behalf of his brother-in-law Shiva Rama Sharma (defendant no.2 herein). He further stated that he never visited house of his brother-in-law. He even stated that he does not know whether his father-in-law had taken anybody in adoption for the continuity of his family lineage. As above Dw8 was reluctant to speak real facts. It is clear that the plaintiff and her husband simply tried to suppress true facts.
8(xiii) Dws3to6 supported the defendants in proving the agreements of sale
ExB2and3. In view of all the above facts and circumstances, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek declaration as sought for. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
9. Issue no.3: (i) The defendants case is that they purchased plaint schedule property under ExB2and3 viz agreements of sale dated 23-12-1987 and 11-05- 1988, got validated before the revenue authorities and since the date of agreements they have been enjoying the land, further on receipt of summons from this court in above suit only they came to know about the plaintiff’s denial 27/03/202326O.S.No.190/2008 of agreements, therefore they seek specific performance of agreements under
ExB2and3.
9(ii) Dw1 stated that only on receipt of suit notices and other papers of this case from court they came to know about the mischief taken place in regularization of sale transactions in their favour by introducing document dated 21.02.1975 instead of Ex.B2 and 3. It is an admitted fact that originally the plaint schedule land belong to Sharadamba. As per the plaintiff her mother gave her the plaint schedule land towards Pasupu kumkuma by executing ExB4.
9(iii) ‘Pasupu Kukuma’ means a gift, a settlement or assignment of land to a daughter. Inevitably therefore, such a gift of immovable property, the consideration whereof would be love and affection could come within the meaning of Section 123 of Transfer of property act. It is now a well settled principle of law that any gift of immovable property to a daughter by the way of ‘Pasupu Kumkuma’ is required to be stamped and registered. In order to make a valid transfer of property to the plaintiff by the way of ‘Pasupu Kumkuma’ it has to be registered as a gift within the meaning of Section 123 of Transfer of
Property Act r/w section 17 of Registration Act. ExB4 is an unregistered document. It is evident there is no valid transfer of title under ExB4. No one can 27/03/202327O.S.No.190/2008 transfer a better title than what he himself possesses. In view of all the above, it is held that the defendants are not entitled to seek the relief as sought for.
Accordingly, this issue is answered against the defendants.
10. Issue no.4: In pursuance of orders passed in I.A.No.688/2018 in
O.S.No.225/2010, this suit and O.S.No.225/2010 were clubbed for submitting
arguments and to get disposal of two suits simultaneously. It is pertinent to say here that evidence was recorded separately in both the suits. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.225 of 2010 before this court in respect of lands situated at Shettipalem Village. Plaint schedule land in the present suit and the schedule land in the said suit are different. The defendant no.2 herein claimed land in O.S.No.225/2010 with a specific plea that his adoptive father executed a
Will deed i.e. ExB1 bequeathing referred lands in his favour. Whereas in the present suit the plaintiff claimed plaint schedule land herein under ExB4 and the defendants claimed property under agreements of sale. Evidently, Will deed is irrelevant to the present case. Therefore, issue framed with regard to genuineness of Will deed is strike out hereby.
27/03/202328O.S.No.190/2008
11. Issue No.5: Pw1 stated that she does not know the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. However, there is no evidence that the plaint schedule is incorrect. This issue is answered accordingly.
12. Issue No.6: In view of the answers given to issue No.1 and 2, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as sought for. Further, in view of the answer given to issue no.3, it is held that the defendants are not entitled to the relief as sought for. This issue is answered accordingly.
13.In the result, suit is dismissed with costs. Counter claim is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March, 2023.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MIRYALAGUDA.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
THE PLAINTIFF: PW.1: B.Vara Laxmamma PW.2: D.Janaiah PW.3: K.Sudhakar Reddy THE DEFENDANTS: DW.1: P.Shiva Rama Sharma DW.2: P.Dharmaiah DW.3: V.Durga Reddy DW.4: M.Anjaneyulu 27/03/202329O.S.No.190/2008
DW.5: R.Dasharadha Reddy DW.6: M.Satyanarayana Reddy DW.7: Dr.G.Venkat Reddy DW.8: B.Suryanarayana DW.9: M.Varun
EXHIBITS MARKED
THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1974-75. Ex.A2: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76. Ex.A3: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1976-77. Ex.A4: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1977-78. Ex.A5: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1981-82. Ex.A6: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83. Ex.A7: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1983-84. Ex.A8: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1984-85. Ex.A9: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.A10: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1986-87. Ex.A11: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88. Ex.A12: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1988-89. Ex.A13: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90. Ex.A14: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.A15: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1991-92. Ex.A16: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1992-93. Ex.A17: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1993-94. Ex.A18: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.A19: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96. Ex.A20: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1996-97. Ex.A21: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1997-98. Ex.A22: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1998-999. Ex.A23: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000. Ex.A24: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2000-01. Ex.A25: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2001-02. Ex.A26: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2004-05. Ex.A27: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2005-06.
27/03/202330O.S.No.190/2008
Ex.A28: Copy of pahani for the year 2006-07 issued by VRO and attested by Tahsildar, Vemulapally. Ex.A29: True extract of ROR proceedings file in Form No.1 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Vemulapally. Ex.A30: Xerox copies of record in File RD is F.No.RO2/109/2005 and CFP No.32 dated 27.06.1989 containing all the relevant papers and documents of ROR proceedings certified and issued by the Tahsildar, Vemulapally. Ex.A31: Original Death certificate No.C/333/2008, dated 25.01.2008 in respect of death of Pullambatla Sharadamba issued by the Tahsildar, Vemulapally. Ex.A32: Duplicate Transfer certificate No.99608 (A.No.8/58) dated 15.02.2008 relating to Yellambatla Rama Devi, issued by Head Master ZPPSS Gudur (J), Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District. Ex.A33: Encumbrance certificate dated 10.03.2008 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Miryalguda bearing No.1268/2008. Ex.A34: Encumbrance certificate dated 12.03.2008 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Miryalguda bearing No.1288/2008. Ex.A35: Certificate dated 04.04.2008 issued by the VRO, Vemulapally. Ex.A36: Certified copy of Faisal patti for the year 1977-78 in respect of Sy.Nos.223 and 224 of Shettipalem village. Ex.A37: Book containing entries of payment of L.R from 01.07.1978 to 28.12.87. Ex.A38: Valuation Certificate issued by SRO, Miryalguda.
Ex.X1:True extract of relevant entry at S.No.19 in copy application register. Ex.X2:Acknowledgment of applicant after receiving copies.
THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Registered Will dated 14.05.1974. Ex.B2: Un-registered sale agreement dated 23.12.87. Ex.B3: Un-registered sale agreement dated 11.05.88.
27/03/202331O.S.No.190/2008
Ex.B4: Un-registered gift deed dated 27.05.74. Ex.B5: Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dated 01.12.1988. Ex.B6: Receipt for Rs.15,000/- dated 15.04.1989. Ex.B7: General notice paper cutting. Ex.B8: Wedding card dated 07.06.1981. Ex.B9: Pattedar Pass Book Ex.B10: Occupancy certificate dated 18.03.1998. Ex.B11: Bunch of land revenue receipts containing 40 in number. Ex.B12: Book of title deed bearing No.254095 issued in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.B13: Andhra Jyothi News paper dated 26.09.1974. Ex.B14: Counter folio SBH Vemulapally branch, dated 11.12.2012 in respect of loan A/c No.52026558302 in the name of defendant No.1.
Ex.C-1: FSL Report. Ex.C-2: Photo comparison chart.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MIRYALAGUDA.