Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT ADDANKI.

Present : Smt D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki.

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Appeal Suit No. 10 of 2019

Between:

1. Narisetti Kotaiah ( died)

2. Thatikonda Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal.

3. Narisetti Subbulu ( died)

4. Thatikonda Varalakshmi, W/o. Venkata Rao, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal. ( Appellants 3 and 4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.131/2001, dt: 15.02.2001).

.. Appellants/Plaintiffs.

Vs.,

1. Addanki Mastan Rao ( died)

2. Yerriboina Peda Masthan, S/o. Peda Venkata Subbaiah, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

3. Yerriboina Srinu, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

4. Chinni Srimannarayana, s/o. Radhakrishna Murthy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, Landlord, R/o. Near Gramapanchayath Office, Addanki Village and Mandal.

5. Addanki Prasanna Sai, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru Addanki Mandal.

6. Addanki Eswara Prasad, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 25 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

2

7. Durgi Rama Devi, W/o. Samabasiva Rao, D/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 30 years, House Wife, r/o. Palvayi Village, Renta Chinthala Mandal, Guntur District.

8. Addanki Subbayamma @ Subbulu, W/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 52 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

( Defendants 5 to 8 are being Legal Representatives of deceased defendant No.1 added as per orders in I.A.no.783/2017, dt: 29.12.2017)… Respondents/ Defendants.

APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2019

PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, ADDANKI IN

O.S.No.258/1998.

Between:

1. Narisetti Kotaiah (died)

2. Thatikonda Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal.

3. Narisetti Subbulu ( died)

4. Thatikonda Varalakshmi, W/o. Venkata Rao, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal.

( Appellants 3 and 4 are added as per orders in

I.A.No.131/2001, dt: 15.02.2001). ...Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1. Addanki Mastan Rao (died)

2. Yerriboina Peda Masthan, S/o. Peda Venkata Subbaiah, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

3. Yerriboina Srinu, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

3

4. Chinni Srimannarayana, s/o. Radhakrishna Murthy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, Landlord, R/o. Near Gramapanchayath Office, Addanki Village and Mandal.

5. Addanki Prasanna Sai, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru Addanki Mandal.

6. Addanki Eswara Prasad, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 25 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

7. Durgi Rama Devi, W/o. Samabasiva Rao, D/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 30 years, House Wife, r/o. Palvayi Village, Renta Chinthala Mandal, Guntur District.

8. Addanki Subbayamma @ Subbulu, W/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 52 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

( Defendants 5 to 8 are being Legal Representatives of deceased defendant No.1 added as per orders in

I.A.No.783/2017, dt: 29.12.2017)...Defendants

This appeal is coming before me on 31.03.2026 for arguments in the presence of Sri A. Nagarjuna Rao, and Sri N. Hari Babu, Learned Advocates for the Appellants/Plaintiffs and of Sri V. Subrahmanyam, Learned Advocate for the Respondents 5 to 6/ Defendants; Respondent No.1 died; Respondent No.2 to 4 remained exparte; and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

// J U D G M E N T \\

01.This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under section 96 of

Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.258 of 1998 on the file of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki dated 28.02.2019.

4

02.The Appellants are the Plaintiffs. The respondents are the defendants. The respondents 5 to 8 are the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.1.

For convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred to as per their array in the suit. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties to restrain the respondents 1 to 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over those properties. During pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff died and so, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are added as his legal representatives. Likewise, the defendant No.1 also died and the defendants 5 to 8 are added as his legal representatives.

03. The brief averments of the amended plaint are as follows:

a)Items 1 to 7 are wet lands in an extent of Ac.0.91 1/3 cents, Ac.1.22 1/3 cents, Ac.0.91 1/3 cents, Ac.1.22 1/3 cents, Ac.1.22 1/3 cents, Ac.0.92 cents and Ac.0.92 cents respectively, out of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A of

Singarakondapalem, Hamlet of Kalavakur, Addanki Mandal bounded by common boundaries East : Injepalli Muthaiah etc., South: Manam China Anjaiah, West:

Sk. Peerusaheb and North : Vagu.

b)The 1st plaintiff is the father-in-law of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the wife and daughter of the deceased 1st plaintiff respectively. The plaintiffs are residents of North Addanki Village. The 1st plaintiff purchased Item

No.1 from Addanki Paradesi, Samabasiva Rao and others for consideration of

Rs.11,100/- under a registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996. He also purchased Item

No.2 from Addanki Hanumantha Rao, Adinarayana and others for consideration 5 of Rs.14,700/- under a registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996. He further purchased

Item No.3 from Addanki Lakshmaiah and others for consideration of Rs.11,100/- under a registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996. He further purchased Item No.4 from

Addanki Koteswara Rao, Mallikarjuna Rao and Bala Mastan for consideration of

Rs.14,700/- under a registered sale deed dt: 11.03.1996. So, the 1st plaintiff purchased Item No.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties and he got inducted into possession of the same on the respective dates of the sale deeds. Those properties are the ancestral properties of the vendors of the plaintiff. The said fact was recited in those sale deeds.

c)The 2nd plaintiff purchased Item No.5 from Addanki Sambaiah and

Anjaiah for consideration of Rs.14,700/-under a registered sale deed dt:

08.03.1996. On the same day, the 2nd plaintiff also purchased Item No.6 from

Addanki Tirupalu and Venkata Rao and others for valuable consideration of

Rs.11,100/- under a registered sale deed. He further purchased item No.7 from

Addanki Venkateswarlu, Satyanarayana and others for consideration of

Rs.11,100/- under a registered sale deed, on the same day. Those properties are the ancestral properties of vendors of the 2nd plaintiff, as recited in the said deeds.

On the same day of sale deed, the 2nd plaintiff was put into possession of Items 5 to 7 of the suit schedule properties. Since, the plaintiffs are closely related to each other, they have been enjoying the suit schedule properties by doing joint agricultural operations, without any obstructions from any corner, within the knowledge of one and all including the defendants.

6

d)The plaint schedule properties are wet lands. During the agricultural year, 1996 -1997, the plaintiffs have raised paddy crop in the schedule properties. On the request of the defendants 2 and 3 and three others, the plaintiffs have orally leased out the suit schedule properties to them, for the period of one year i.e. for the period from May, 1997 to April, 1998 for Maktha of 8 bags of paddy per acre. The defendants 2 and 3 along with others raised paddy crop in the schedule land during the year, 1997- 1998 and obtained good yield.

They vacated the schedule property without paying Maktha. Since, they evaded to pay the Maktha, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed suits in O.S.No.77/1998 and

O.S.No.76/1998 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Addanki for recovery of Maktha amount or paddy. Those suits are pending. In view of such suits, the defendants 2 and 3 bore grudge against the plaintiffs.

e)The defendant No.4 is an influential and powerful man. Then the defendants 1 to 3 with support of the defendant No.4, tried to interfere into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. Prior to that, the defendants 2 and 3 and others again asked the plaintiffs to give the suit schedule properties for lease even during the period of 1998 to 1999. But the plaintiffs, who had a bitter experience with the defendants, refused such proposal, for which the defendants bore grudge.

f)The defendants 1 to 3, at the instance of the 4th defendant have been giving out in the village since two days that they will not allow the defendants to enjoy the suit schedule properties and they will damage the paddy crop raised by the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right to do so. If the defendants are allowed 7 to translate their words into deeds, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The plaintiffs being law abiding citizens and residing away from the suit village, are unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs, who are apprehending eminent threat of damage to their possession, are constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction. Since, the defendants threatened the defendants 3 and 4 to dispossess them, subsequent to the death of the 1st plaintiff, they are also impleaded as parties. So, the suit may be decreed against the defendants 2 to 8.

04.The defendant No.1 filed written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3, by denying the averments of the plaint and took the following contentions:

a)The plaintiffs have neither title nor possession over the suit schedule properties. The suit is not maintainable without seeking for the relief of declaration of right of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing several material facts. The plaintiffs never leased out suit schedule properties to the defendants 2 and 3. So, the question of default of payment of Maktha by the defendants 2 and 3, alleged demand for extension of lease period and developing grudge in that regard, does not arise. Filing of the suits by the plaintiffs for the relief of Maktha is a pre-planned step for the future litigation against the defendants.

b)In fact, the land in Survey No.707 of Kalavakuru Village was sub- divided long back into survey No. 707/A1 and 707/A2, equally i.e. to an extent of 8

Ac.7.34 cents each. So, the original topographical form of land in survey No.707 was extinguished long back. The extent in Survey No.707/A1 is on the eastern side with a clear cut well formed old and grass grown ridges. It is identifiable from the remaining land in Survey No.707/A2.

c)The land to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2 belongs to the defendant No.1. Out of the said extent, the defendant No.1 sold an extent of Ac.0.70 ½ cents to the defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dt:

26.06.1998 for consideration of Rs.10,580/-, which is a different, definite and identifiable extent. The defendant No.1 also sold an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in the same survey number to one Mudra Ramesh and S. Sanjeeva Rao for valuable consideration and delivered possession of the same to his vendees. Since, then the said vendees are in possession of those extents.

d)The defendant No.1 has leased out the remaining extent of Ac.5.64 cents to Mudra Ramesh for the period of 5 years commencing from 1998-1999 to 2003-2004 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- per year. The defendant No.1 received the lease amount for agricultural year 1998-99 towards advance and issued receipt in favour of the said Ramesh. It was an oral lease. So, Mudra Ramesh has been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of Ac.5.64 cents and

Ac.1.00 cents covered under sale deed dt: 26.06.1998. Prior to that, the defendant No.1 cultivated the said land by raising paddy crop by hiring the defendants 2 and 3 as labours up to the year, 1997-1998. The defendants 2 and 3 are not necessary or proper parties to the suit. So, the suit is not maintainable against them. The suit filed by the 2nd plaintiff against the defendants 2 and 3 9 and two others is also dismissed recently. The said fact itself shows the malafide conduct of the plaintiffs.

e)The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2, by recognizing his pre-existing rights, possession and enjoyment over the said property. Adangals are also issued in his name. The title of the defendant No.1 was also accepted by the private agencies and loans were granted by the banks even in the year, 1997.

f)The alleged vendors of the plaintiffs are concerned only with the land in survey No.707/A1, which is different from the land in Survey No.707/A2 belonging to the defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 raised paddy crop in the suit schedule properties till 1997-98. The Plaintiffs never raised crop in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 is a person belonging to Barber community, which is a backward one. The plaintiffs are rich and powerful riots belonging to forward community. With a view to dispossess the defendant No.1 out of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs filed this suit. Further, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties I.e alleged vendors of the plaintiffs, so also the government in view of the grant of the riotwari pattas under

Inam abolition Act and effecting the Sub-Division. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit liable to be dismissed.

05.The defendant No.4 filed written statement with almost similar contentions taken by the defendants 1 to 3. He further took the following contentions:

10

The plaint schedule is not correct. There is no survey number as 707/A in existence, as shown in the plaint schedule. The vendors of the plaintiffs have no right or possession over the suit schedule properties. The documents relied by the plaintiffs are not true and correct and not supported by consideration. The recitals, extents and boundaries mentioned in those sale deeds are not correct and not binding on the 4th defendant. The defendant No.4 is concerned only with an extent of Ac.0.70 ½ cents in Survey No.707/A2 from the defendant No.1 under sale deed dt: 26.06.1998, out of the total extent for valuable consideration. On the same day, Mudra Ramesh also purchased some extent to the north of the defendant No.4's plot and since then, himself and those vendees, have been in possession and enjoyment of the said extent. The defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser. He has no notice of the alleged claim of the plaintiffs. The remaining land is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit is bad for non joinder of Mudra Ramesh and others as parties. The defendant No.4 is not aware about the earlier suits filed by the plaintiffs as he has not party to those suits. The suit is not maintainable without prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs to the schedule properties. The court fees paid is not correct. There is no cause of action. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

06.After impleadment of defendants 5 to 8, subsequent to the death of the defendant No.1, the defendants 5 to 8 filed a memo adopting the written statement of the defendant No.1.

11

07.Basing on the above pleadings, the learned trial court settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable without the relief of declaration?

4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?

5. To what relief ?

Additional Issue was framed on 27.07.2012:

1. Whether the 1 st defendant alone is having title over the suit schedule property and also the possession?

08.During trial before the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs got examined

PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A.18. They also got marked Ex.X.1 in the evidence of PW.5. Since PW.4 did not turn up, his evidence in chief examination, was eschewed from consideration.

09.On the other hand, the defendants 1, 5 to 8 got examined DW.1 to DW.4 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.15. Even though, the defendant No.2 and 3 adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant and the 4th defendant filed separate written statement, they did not participate in the trial and did not adduce any evidence and thus, the learned trial court has set them exparte.

10.After hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court dismissed the suit with finding 12 that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and enjoyment on the date of the suit and that the mere suit for bare injunction is not maintainable as the

Adangals relied by the plaintiffs also reflect the deceased 1st defendant as pattadar of land in Survey No.707/A2 for an extent of Ac.7.34 cents, which created a doubt in the title of the vendors of the plaintiffs.

11.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred the present appeal to set aside the said judgment and decree dt: 28.08.2019 and decree, mainly on the following grounds:

1. The trail court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs,

2. The trail court ignored the proposition that in suit for injunction, reference of title is essential to understand the claim of respective parties. Ex: A8 Rotwari patta issued in favour of vendors of the plaintiffs and others under Inam Abolition Act is conclusive in nature. The same was not appreciated and undue importance was given Ex.B1 notice under Form-II of Inam Abolition Act and wrong preference was given to Ex. B3 10 (1) Account in favour of defendants. As such, the basic principles of law in respect of source of title was wrongly appreciated. In this connection, case law was supplied but application of the same was not discussed properly.

3. The trail court in its judgment repeatedly got mentioned with regards to title and possession of defendants, was found as per NRC No. 8A/53/94, dated 15.05.1985. As per said orders, mutation was made in favour of D1 and Ex.B2 to B6 relied on by the trail court, were issued, though the alleged orders dated 15.05.1985 have not seen the light of the day. In absence of the said orders, the documents relied on by the defendants Ex.B2 to B6 pale in significance. Since 13 they are illegal documents brought into existence, it can't be appreciate under law.

4. The trail court failed to appreciate Ex.A9 to A11 and A14 and A15 to show the enjoyment of the appellant's merely because the pattadar column covered D1 basing on the alleged orders dated 15.05.1985 Under Records of Rights Act, the said documents are non-est in the eye of law. Under law without due enquiry and in absence of notice to the persons interested those are void abinitio. In this connection, given citation was ignored.

5. The trail court wrongly appreciated Ex.A18 and Ex.X1 though they are relevant to show half of the property under ExA8 was allotted to Muslim and half of the property allotted to vendors of the plaintiffs.

6. The trail court given undue importance to sub-division which is not valid, in absence of mandatory notice to the vendors of the appellants. The case law cited was ignored.

7. The trail court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of plaintiffs and undue importance was given to the defendant's evidence by ignoring admissions of DW.1 and wrongly appreciated under Section 92 of Evidence Act.

8. The trail court only referred the citations supplied by the plaintiffs without any discussion as to whether the same apply or not apply to the facts of the case, which amounts to judicial impropriety.

09. The trail court ignored that Ex.A8 patta was not cancelled and no fresh patta was granted in favour of defendants. Basing on revenue entries in pattadar column, they are under the impression that patta was granted in favour of defendants.

10. The trail court failed to appreciate prima-facie title in favour of plaintiffs and possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property with plaintiffs on the date of suit and subsequent thereto. The trail court wrongly given preference to legal status of D1 basing on orders of revenue authorities and failed to appreciate it that civil court will decide legal status.

14

11. The trail court ought to have allowed the suit instead of dismissing the same. The judgment of trail court is unsound and erroneous. Hence, appeal may be allowed.

12.After receiving notice, respondents 2 to 4 remained exparte. The respondents 5 to 8 appeared through their counsel.

13.The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 and PW.5 coupled with the documentary evidence, more particularly,

Exs.A.1 to A.8 clinchingly establish that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of Items 1 to 4 and Items 5 to 7 respectively and they have been in possession and enjoyment of those properties, but the learned trial court ignored the same. He further argued that Ex.A.8 patta issued by the Special Deputy

Tahsildar of Inams and Abolition Act clinchingly establishes that the entire extent of Ac.14.28 cents in the suit survey number was allotted to 12 persons, which belong to Barber and Muslim community and subsequently, the vendors of the plaintiffs, who belong to the branches of persons belonging to the Barber

Community (reflected in Ex.A.8) to the plaintiffs, for valid consideration and delivered possession of the same, but the learned trial court gave undue significance to Form-II ( Ex.B.1), which is just a notice prior to issuance of patta under Inam Abolition Act under Form-VIII and considered the same as if the original patta was issued in favour of the one Thathaiah and Venkata Swamy, by ignoring the provisions of the said Act. He further argued that the evidence of

DW.1 clearly shows that he got mutated his name on the basis of proceedings dt:

15.05.1985, but he did not file the same and the defendant No.1 also failed to 15 place any material to show that he is the son of Addanki Nagabhushanam, who was actually an unmarried deceased person and by ignoring all those facts, the learned trial court had erroneously dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the same in favour of the plaintiffs, who purchased the suit schedule properties from the rightful owners for valuable consideration and thus, appeal may be allowed.

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents 5 to 8 argued that the plaintiffs are claiming that riothwari patta (joint) was issued by the

Special Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole, but in fact, the suit schedule properties are situated within the jurisdiction of Special Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki and further, the plaintiffs failed to examine any person to prove the said patta. He further pointed out that the plaintiffs did not file any subsequent document to show that the vendors of the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule properties since issuance of Ex.A.8 till execution of sale deeds (Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7) and even the documents i.e. Exs.A.9 and Ex.A.10 filed by the plaintiffs reflect that the defendant No.1 is the owner/pattadar of the suit schedule properties. He further submitted that Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 reflect that the property was sold out of an undivided extent of Ac.7.34 cents, out of Ac.14.68 cents and till now, there is no partition with specific boundaries, which is highly unbelievable. He further argued that since Ex.A.8 is not a registered document, the plaintiffs have to establish their possession and also to show that their vendors were in possession of the suit schedule properties prior to the suit, but they failed to establish the same and the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 is also contra to the plaint and 16 further, PW.1 himself admitted that the 1st defendant is the son of Addanki

Nagabhushanam, but the plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence that the said

Nagabhushanam was unmarried.

15.The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that though, it is an admitted fact that there was Sub-Division of the suit survey number into 707/A1 and A.2 by the time of execution of Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7, the plaintiff has shown the survey number as 707/A and now claiming that they purchased land in survey No.707/A2 and all these facts clearly show that the plaintiffs approached the court with unclean hands and further, the claim of the plaintiffs, which is contra to the contents of the documentary evidence, cannot be considered and there is serious cloud in the title of the plaintiffs and their vendors and thus, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.

16.As a reply, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial court has relied upon the admissions of PW.1 without considering the documentary evidence and though, sub-division number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule, boundaries prevail over the inconsistency in the survey number and thus, the inconsistencies in oral evidence will be prevailed over by the documentary evidence as provided under section 92 of Indian Evidence Act and

DW.1 admitted that the plots in suit survey number are with separate ridges and the mutation made in the name of the defendant No.1 was given without notice, in the absence of the vendors and his claim that no land was given to Muslim 17

Community is false and inspite of admission of DW.1 that Ex.B.1 is not a patta, the learned trial court relied on the said document and decreed the suit and thus, the appeal may be allowed.

17.In view of these rival contentions to the appeal, the points that emerge for consideration are:

01. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit?

02. Whether the suit filed by the appellants /plaintiff for mere bare injunction is maintainable, without seeking for declaration?

03. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the Respondents / defendants as prayed for?

04. Whether there are any grounds for interference of the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.258/1998, dt: 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki?

18.Perused the entire evidence and the Judgment and Decree of the learned trial Court.

19.Point No.1 to 3 :

As seen from the pleadings and evidence, admittedly, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the son-in-law, wife and daughter of the 1st plaintiff respectively. The 4th plaintiff is the wife of the 2nd plaintiff. The defendants 1, 5 to 8 belong to the same family. Indisputably, the extent of land in Survey No.707 of Kalavakur Village,

Singarakondapalem is Ac.14.68 cents and it is an Inam Land.

18

20.In order to claim the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit and that the defendants without any manner of right or interest, have been trying to interfere into their possession or to cause obstruction in exercise of their right over the suit schedule property.

21.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the 1st plaintiff purchased items 1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties and the 2nd plaintiff purchased items 5 to 7 of the suit schedule properties under different registered sale deeds from different vendors in the year, 1996 and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of those properties. But the defendants 1 to 3 with the support of the 4th defendant are trying to dispossess them from the suit schedule property.

22.Whereas, the 1st defendant claimed that the entire extent in Survey No.707 of Kalavakur Village was sub-divided as survey No.707/A1 and survey No.707/A2 to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents each and that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the entire extent in survey No.707/A2, having succeeded through his father Addanki Nagabhushanam, S/o. Venkata Swamy. The plaintiff disputed that the 1st defendant is the son of Nagabhushanam. According to them, the said

Naga Bhushanam died unmarried and he is the Senior paternal uncle of the one of the vendors of the 1st plaintiff (PW2).

23.In order to substantiate their contentions, the plaintiffs got examined the 2nd plaintiff as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18.

19

a)Ex.A.1 is the original registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996 executed by Addanki Paradesi, Sambasiva Rao and his minor son and two others in favour of the 1st plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is the original registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996 executed by Addanki Hanumantha Rao S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Addanki

Adinarayana (PW.2) and three others in favour of the 1st plaintiff. Ex.A.3 is the registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996 executed by Addanki Lakshmaiah, Addanki

Lakshmi Narayana and their family members(PW3) in favour of the 1st plaintiff.

Ex.A.4 is the Original registered sale deed dt: 11.03.1996 executed by Addanki

Koteswara Rao, S/o. Narasimham, Addanki Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Anjaiah,

Addanki Bala Masthan in favour of the 1st plaintiff. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 disclose that the 1st plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.0.91 1/3 cents, Ac.1.22 1/3 cents,

Ac.0.91 1/3 cents and Ac.1.22 ½ cents, out of Ac.7.34 cents out of Ac.14.68 cents of Kalavakur village, which correspond to the Items 1 to 4 respectively within the common boundaries of Ac.7.34 cents as shown in the plaint schedule.

The said sale deeds also disclose that the vendors of the 1st plaintiff got those properties through their ancestors.

b)Ex.A.5 is the Original Registered Sale deed dt: 08.03.1996 executed by Addanki Somaiah, s/o. Govindu and his son Addanki Anjaiah in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A.6 is the original Registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996 executed by Addanki Venkateswarlu, S/o. Subbaiah and his children in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A.7 is the original registered sale deed dt: 08.03.1996 executed by

Addanki Anjaneyulu, S/o. Chandraiah, Addanki Thirupalu ( PW.3) and others in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A.5 to Ex.A.7 disclose that the 2nd plaintiff 20 purchased an extent of Ac.1.22 1/3 cents, Ac.0.92 cents and Ac.0.92 cents in

Survey No.707/A, which correspond to Items 5, 7 and 6 of the plaint schedule respectively. These sale deeds disclose that the vendors of the 2nd plaintiff succeeded these properties through their ancestors. The defendants seriously disputed right of those vendors over the properties covered under Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.7 by claiming that the said entire extent of Ac.7.34 cents exclusively belongs to the 1st defendant, being devolved through his father Addanki Nagabhushanam,

S/o. Venkata Swamy.

c)Ex.A.8 is riothwari patta (Form VIII) issued under Section 4 of the

Inam Abolition and conversion into Riothwari Act, 1956, dt: 06.08.1982. It discloses that the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole issued the said patta holding that one 1. Shaik Peeru Saheb, 2. Velpuru China Peeru Saheb, 3.Shaik China

Saheb, 4. Moula Saheb, 5. Addanki Anjaiah, 6. Addanki Venkata Subbaiah, 7.

Addanki Naga Bhushanam, 8. Addanki Subbaiah, 9.Addanki Paradesi, 10.

Addanki Chandraiah, 11. Addanki Lakshmaiah and 12. Addanki Somaiah shall hold the lands specified i.e. Ac.14.68 cents in Survey No.707/A under ryothwari tenure and shall be liable to pay the riothwari assessment in respect of those lands under section 12 of the said Act. The defendants seriously disputed issuance of the said patta.

d)Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.11 are the certified copies of Adangals for the Fasli 1385 to 1387, 1391 to 1394 and 1395-1396, issued by the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Addanki dt: 05.02.1999 respectively. Ex.A.9 discloses that the entire land to an extent of Ac.14.68 cents in Survey No.707/A was in possession of Mangali 21

Venkata Swamy, Thathaiah and Dudekula Saheb during the Fasli 1385, 1386 and 1387 of Kalavakuru (which corresponds to the years 1975 to 1977) and they cultivated Jowar, millets and redgram etc. Ex.A.10 discloses that Mangali

Venkata Swamy, Thataiah, Dudekula Saheb, Shaik Peeru Saheb, Moula Saheb,

Addanki Anjaiah and Venkata Subbaiah are in possession of the entire extent of

Ac.14.68 cents in Survey No.707/A during Fasli 1391 to 1994, which corresponds to period from 1981 to 1984 and those names were rounded off, as per the proceedings of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole dt: 25.04.1985. It further discloses the names of pattadars referred in Ex.A.8. It also contain the entries of Sub-Division reflecting that an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey

No.707/A1 was in possession of Thataiah, Dudekula Saheb, Shaik Peeru Saheb and Moula Saheb vide patta No.739 and that the Addanki Masthan Rao S/o.

Addanki Nagabhushanam (defendant No.1) was in possession of Ac.7.34 cents in

Survey No.707/A2 vide patta No.740. It further reflects the endorsement that the changes were effected as per NRC 8 A/53/94/dt: 15.05.1985 made by the Deputy

Surveyor on 21.05.1985. As admitted by PW.1, the entries in Ex.A.10 and

Ex.A.11 reflect that the 1st defendant was in possession of survey No.707/A2 to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents during the period from 1981 to 1984. Ex.A.11 also disclose the same entries made in Ex.A.9, except about the details of proceedings of mutation and Ex.A.8. It further discloses that Jowar and Gogu were raised in

Survey No. 707/A1 and A2. It further reflects that Shaik Peeru Saheb, Dudekula

China Peeru Saheb, Shaik China Peeru Saheb and Moula Saheb are in possession of Ac.7.34 cents, Addanki Anjaiah, Venkata Subbaiah, 22

Nagabhushanam, Subbaiah and Somaiah were in possession of Ac.3.67 cents and Addanki Paradesi, Chandaiah and Lakshmaiah were in possession of Ac.3.67 cents in Survey No.707/A, prior to the Sub-Division.

e)Ex.A.12 is the encumbrance certificate obtained by the 1st plaintiff

dt: 10.02.1999 for the period of 1987 to 1999. It discloses the transactions made

in favour of the 1st plaintiff under Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.4, in respect of land in Survey

No.707/A of Kalavakuru Village.

f)Ex.A.13 is the copy of notice dt: 24.03.1997 issued by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Ongole to the 1st defendant calling upon him to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer for enquiry in appeal filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, against issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of

Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A of Kalavaluru Village and Addanki Mandal.

Ex.A.16 is the copy of proceedings of Joint Collector cum Additional District

Magistrate, Prakasam District dt: 17.06.2000. It discloses that the Joint

Collector, Ongole has registered the Revision petition filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in D.Dis.No.51, dt:

30.03.2000 passed in favour of the 1st defendant for an extent of Ac.1.30 cents in

Survey No.707/2A of Kalavakur village and called for the parawise remarks and connected records from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole and Mandal

Revenue Officer, Addanki. The defendants got marked the proceedings dt.30.03.2000 as Ex.B11. Ex.A.17 is the copy of the petition in RC

T3/35/A2/2000, dt: 30.05.2000 in Revision filed by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 against the 1st defendant in respect of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional 23

Officer, dt: 30.03.2000. The learned counsel for the defendants raised objection that the said copy being photostat copy is inadmissible and so, it was marked subject to objection. Apparently, it is a photo stat copy and it is inadmissible.

However, the defendants did not dispute the said proceedings. Dw1 also admitted the said appeal and got marked the orders of the Joint Collector as Ex.B14.

g)Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 are the certified copies of Adangal for the Fasli 1407, dt: 01.03.1999 and Fasli 1408, dt: 24.02.2000, issued by the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Addanki. Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 disclose that the 1st defendant is the pattadar of the land to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/2A vide patta No.(740) 1609 and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are in possession of Ac.04.28 cents and Ac.3.06 cents respectively during the year 1997-1998 and 1999 and paddy crops are raised in the said property.

h)Ex.A.18 is the Certified copy of sale deed dt: 17.08.1994 ( extract) vide document No.1597 of 1994 executed by Shaik Murthy, Shaik Meera Saheb and others in favour of Surabi China Atchaiah (PW.4). It discloses that the said vendors sold Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.707/A1 which was their ancestral property for valuable consideration.

i)The plaintiffs also marked Ex.X.1/Certified copy of sale deed extract dt: 16.08.1994 vide document No.1598/1994 executed by Shaik Mastan

Saheb and Shaik Meera Saheb in favour of Yerriboina Venkateswarlu and Chinna

Venkateswarlu (PW.5) in respect of land in Ac.3.67 cents in Survey No.707/A1 of

Kalavakuru Village. The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.18 and Ex.X.1 in order to show that the land to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A1 was allotted to 24

Dudekula Community people, (Dolu Manyam) and to disprove the contention of the defendant No.1 that the entire extent in suit survey number was allotted to the branches of Addanki Thataiah and Venkata Swamy, who belong to Barber community (Mangali manyam/Nadaswara people). Ex.X.1 discloses that Addanki

Masthan Rao (D1) is the eastern boundary owner. It is noted that there is no reference about Ex.A.8, in Ex.A.18 and Ex.X.1.

24.On coming to the evidence of PW.1, it is just replica of the plaint. In brief the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 goes to show that the 1st plaintiff purchased Items 1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties under Exs.A.1 to

Ex.A.4, and he purchased items 5 to 7 under Ex.A.5, Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.6 registered sale deeds from their vendors, who are belonging to the branches of

Addanki people, to whom riothwari patta (Ex.A.8) was issued in respect of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707 by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inam Abolition Act, but the defendants are trying to cause interference into their possession.

25.The plaintiffs also examined PWs 2 to 5. Among them, PW2-Addanki Adi

Narayana, is one of the vendors of item No.2 under Ex.A.2. PW3-Addanki

Thirupalu, is one of the vendors of Item No.6 under Ex.A.7 and PW5-Yerriboyina

Venkateswarlu @ China Venkateswarlu, is one of the vendors of property covered under Ex.X.1. Their evidence goes in the same lines as that of PW.1 with regard to purchase of suit schedule properties by him and 1st plaintiff and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties, but the defendants are never in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. As referred above, 25 the plaintiff also made an attempt to examine one Surabhi China Atchaiah, who is vendee of part of Ac.7.34 cents i.e., Ac.1.00cents in Survey No.707/A1 by

Muslim community people as PW.4 under Ex.A.18. But he did not turn up to face the cross-examination and so, his evidence was eschewed from consideration.

26.On the other hand, the defendants 5 to 8 who have been contending that an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2 exclusively belongs to the 1st defendant, got examined the 1st defendant as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to

Ex.B.15.

a)Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of Form-II- decision of the Special

Deputy Tahsildar, Bapatla, issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), dt:

09.03.1984. It discloses that the land to an extent of Ac.14.68 cents in Survey

No.707/A of Kalavakuru has been notified that it has been finally decided by the

Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Bapatla under Sub-Section (3) of Section (3) of Andhra

Inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryothwari) Act, 1956 Andhra Act, XXXVII of 1956); that the land specified is an Inam land; is in a Ryotwari Village of

Kalavakuru and is held by an institution temple. The names of Mangali Venkata

Swamy, and one Thaiah were mentioned in remarks column. During the cross- examination, DW1 admitted that it is just a notice issued, before issuing Ryotwari patta under the said Act.

b)Ex.B.2 is the No.2 Adangal for the Fasli 1392 of Kalavkur. It discloses that the 1st defendant is in possession of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey

No.707/A2 during !982 and that his name was mutated as per NRC.8A/53/94 26

dt: 15.05.1985, by the Deputy Surveyor dt: 21.05.1985. Ex.B.3 is the 10(1)

Adangal of Settlement register related to the same extent in survey No.707/A2 disclosing that the 1st defendant is in possession of the said property as per the proceedings dt: 15.05.1985 (similar to Ex.B2). Ex.B.4 is the Ryothwari passbook of the 1st defendant issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki. Ex.B.5 is the pattadar passbook of the 1st defendant vide patta No.1609, issued by the Mandal

Revenue Officer. Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 disclose that the 1st defendant is the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2. Ex.B.4 also reflects that the changes were effected as per the proceedings dt: 15.05.1985 and it was issued on 18.06.1986. Ex.B.6 is the cist receipt for Fasli 1405, dt:

18.03.1996, disclosing that the 1st defendant paid cist for the land in Survey

No.707/2A to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents.

c)Ex.B.13 is the certified copy of resettlement register issued by the

Mandal Revenue officer, Addanki. It discloses the land in Survey No.707 of

Kalavaluru is an Inam Land and the names of M. Venkata Swamy and Thataiah were shown as pattadars and later, as per the proceedings of Special Deputy

Tahsildar, Ongole dt: 04.08.1982, the names of 12 persons were shown as pattadhars. Those names are tallied with that of Ex.A.8 relied by the plaintiffs. It further discloses that changes were effected vide proceedings dt: 15.05.1985 in respect of the land in Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/1A. It was marked subject to objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that there was correction, without initials and as the proceedings dt: 15.05.1985 were not proved. (It will be discussed later) 27

d)(i) Ex.B.7 is the notice dt: 14.03.1997 issued by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Ongole to the 1st defendant to appear for enquiry on 20.03.1997 in appeal filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of Ac.7.34 cents in

Survey No.707/A.

ii)Ex.B.11 is the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dt:

30.03.2000. It discloses that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed an appeal on 17.02.1997 against the issuance of the pattadar passbook in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2. It reflects that the Revenue divisional Officer, observed that File 8-A filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer bearing No.53/1994, the 1st defendant filed an application before the Tahsildar on 14.03.1984 for Sub-Division that his share to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in

Survey No.707/A of Kalavakuru village which was owned by his grandfather late

Addanki Venkata swamy (Mangali by caste), the Taluk Surveyor issued notices to all the pattadars in the said survey number on 12.11.1984 calling for objections for Sub-division work and then the joint pattadars sent a letter, by registered post stating that they have been enjoying the entire extent of Ac.14.68 cents jointly and they are not aware about the defendant No.1, who is not a joint pattadar passbook and then, the Taluk Surveyor again sent notices to them on 12.01.1985 to file their objections, with the documentary evidence and as no further objections were received, the Taluka surveyor prepared a Sub-division report for an extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A which was scrutinized by the

Deputy Inspector of Revenue Divisional Officers Office, Ongole on 01.02.1985 and 28

then the Mandal Revenue officer, Addanki issued proceedings in

Rc.8A/53/94, dt: 15.05.1985 for implementation of changes in village accounts

and accordingly, the changes were incorporated in the name of the 1st defendant in 10 (1) record under patta No.740 in respect the said property in the year, 1985.

It is further observed that none of the rioths in Survey No.707/A1 and 707/A2 filed their claims in Form 1A as required under Andhra Pradesh record of rights in land and pattadar passbook rules 1989 and so, the recording authority had conducted suo-moto enquiries with reference to Village accounts and accordingly, the name of the 1st defendant is recorded in draft R.O.R and the same was published as Form No.III notification in the Village on 31.10.1992 and as no rectification claims were received in Grama Sabha, Form -IV notification was published on 20.12.1992 and pattadar passbook was issued. It is also observed that the 1st defendant is the grand son of Venkata Swamy, one of the joint pattadars, as the voters list shows that the defendant No.1 is the son of

Nagabhushanam, who was the son of Venkata Swamy, original joint pattadar as per the settlement register. With the said observations, the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ongole upheld the decision of Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki in issuing the pattadar passbook in favour of the defendant No.1.

iii)Ex.B.14 is the proceedings of the joint collector, Ongole in

D.Dis.No.3852/2000, dt: 21.06.2004. It discloses that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 filed revision under section 9 of A.P rights in land of pattadar passbook 1971 against the orders of the Revenue Divisional officer i.e. Ex.B.11. It discloses that the Joint collector allowed the same as the Revenue Divisional Officer did not examine the 29 veracity of the registered sale deeds of the petitioners (plaintiffs) and whether the vendors of the petitioners do possess actual ownership rights over the said land and so, it is a defective in law. The concerned authority directed the Revenue

Divisional Officer, to verify the registered sale deeds of the Revision Petitioners and to determine whether mutations could be ordered based on those sale deeds;

to examine the link between the vendors of the Revision Petitioners and the

holders of the Ryotwari Patta over the land in question; whether the land covered in those sale deeds lies within the Ac.7.34 cents in the name of the respondent/defendant No.1;whether the Sub-Division made in

NRC/8A/53/84, dt: 15.05.1985 is correct; whether any irregularity was

made by the VAO of Kalvakur in granting the public copies to the

petitioners(plaintiffs herein) for the Adangals of 1997-98 and 1998 and

1999, as alleged by the respondent(Defendant No.1), by taking into consideration of orders dt: 17.03.2001 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Addanki to the necessary extent. He further directed the Revenue Divisional officer to dispose the matter within the two months and the Mandal Revenue officer shall make necessary changes in the Revenue records and ROR. As elicited in the evidence of DW.1, Revenue Divisional Officer did not complete such enquiry. So, the entries in the name of the defendant No.1 as reflected in Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 are not yet discarded. Similarly, the entries in Ex.A14 and

Ex.A15/Adangals relied by the plaintiffs are also not free from cloud of doubt.

e)Ex.B.8 is the original registered sale deed dt: 26.06.1998 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the 4th defendant. It discloses that the 1st 30 defendant sold his ancestral property i.e. Ac.0.70 ½ cents in Survey No.707/A2 bounded by East: Vinjepalli Peda Anjaiah, South: Land sold to Mudra Ramesh and others, West: Remaining land of the 1st defendant and North: Chakkala

Vaagu, It appears to be attested by Sanjeeva Rao and Mudra Ramesh and scribed by one Chalapathi Rao. PW.1 admitted the said sale transaction, but he denied the right of the 1st defendant to alienate the said property.

f)Ex.B.9 and Ex.B.10 are the agricultural credit passbooks of the defendant No.1 issued by the State Bank of India for the period from September, 1988 to September, 1996 and for the year 1996 respectively. Though, Ex.B.9 does not reflect the details of property, Ex.B.10 reflects that the loan was obtained to a tune of Rs.1,93,500/- by the 1st defendant, in respect of the land to an extent of

Ac.7.34 cents in survey No.707/A2.

g)Ex.B.12 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.67/1999 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki dt: 12.04.1999. It discloses that the

State Bank of India filed suit against the defendant No.1 for recovery of loan amount on the basis of agreement of hypothecation dt: 23.09.1996. But it does not disclose the details of property hypothecated as security for availing loan.

There is no whisper in the evidence of the DW1 about the defence taken by him, in that suit and the result of the said suit. So, Ex.B.12 would not help the 1st defendant to prove his contention.

h)Ex.B.15 is the certified copy of calendar and judgment in

C.C.No.295/2001 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 31

Class, Addanki. It discloses that the Advocate Receiver, (DW.4) filed complaint against the defendants 1 and 2 herein and 7 others for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 353, 181 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and it ended in acquittal on 20.12.2002. It also discloses that the Receiver appointed in this matter, gave report on the basis of report of the Village Revenue officer, alleging that the accused including the defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into the suit schedule property and committed theft of rice bags harvested by the Receiver and violated the orders of the court. But it was not proved. It further discloses that the sale proceeds of the 30 bags of paddy i.e. an amount of Rs.4,084/- was not claimed by either parties and so it was ordered to be confiscated to the state, after expiry of appeal. No appeal was preferred against the said judgment. So, the said judgment would not help either parties, to prove their possession.

27.The evidence of DW.1 just goes in accordance with the contents of his written statement. A perusal of his entire evidence reflects that it is the version of

DW.1 that the entire land in Survey No.707 of Kalavakuru was sub-divided into 707/A1 and 707/A2 to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents each, between Addanki

Thathaiah and Addanki Venkata Swamy, who is his paternal grandfather and as per his requisition, the surveyor sub-divided the same and gave report basing on which, his name was mutated in the revenue records and that pattadar passbook was issued in his name in respect of Ac.7.34cents in S.No.707/A2 ( Ex.B.3 and

Ex.B.4)and he also availed agricultural loans on the said land, as disclosed in

Ex.B1 to B6 and B9, B10 to B13. His evidence also shows about sale of Ac.0.70 ½ 32 cents to defendant No.4 under Ex.B8 and Ac.1.00 cents to Mundru Ramesh and

Sanjeeva Rao on 26.06.1998 i.e. even prior to the suit and that he gave the remaining extent of Act.5.34 cents to Mundru Ramesh for lease and that the plaintiffs are no way concerned to the suit schedule properties.

28.The defendants also examined DW.2 and DW.3, who are independent witnesses. Their evidence in chief examination goes in the same lines as that of

DW.1. According to them, after demise of Addanki Nagabhushanam, S/o.

Venkata Swamy, his only son, i.e., the defendant No.1 has been enjoying the eastern half i.e. Ac.7.34 cents of land in Survey No.707/A2. Their evidence also shows about sale of some extent by the 1st defendant to the 4th defendant and

Ramesh and others. But during the cross-examination, DW.2 categorically deposed that he does not know about the sub-division of survey No.707, though his chief examination reflects about it. It is elicited that he is not aware whether the revenue people made Tom Tom regarding Sub-division of survey No.707 calling for objections thereto. According to him, the 1st defendant has been cultivating the suit schedule property till today. Such version is contra to that of

DW.1, who deposed that the 4th defendant and Mudra Ramesh and Sanjeeva

Kumar are cultivating the suit schedule properties, till 2004. He even failed to give the boundaries of the suit schedule property.

29.Coming to DW.3, he is the Sarpanch. He also expressed unawareness about sub-division of land in Survey No.707 and whether Muslims were also granted patta in the suit survey number. According to him, the suit schedule 33 property is Mangali Manyam and it was enjoyed by that community people only and that the defendant No.1, being the member of Branch of Addanki Venkata

Swamy and Nagabhushanam, succeeded the said property. He expressed unawareness about the issuance of patta to Muslims and Barbar community people (as disclosed in Ex.A.8). Admittedly, his land is not one of the boundaries of the suit, but his land is situated at the distance of two acres away from the suit schedule property on the eastern side. It was further elicited in the evidence of

DW.2 and DW.3 that they are political leaders and there is rivalry between them and brother of PW.5 (who purchased some extent in S.No.707/A1 from Muslim

Community people, whose names are reflected in Ex.A8 and adangals filed by both parties). They denied that they helped the defendant No.1 to obtain revenue records by influencing the revenue authorities, in view of their rivalry with PW.5.

However, it is evident that they are not aware about the issuance of Ex.A8-

Ryotwari Patta and sub-division. As such, their evidence regarding sub-division and issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the 1st defendant, cannot be given much weight. But, their evidence is consistent with regard to the relationship of

DW1 with Addanki Nagabhushanam.

30.The defendants also examined the Advocate Receiver as DW.4. His evidence goes to show that he was appointed as an Advocate Receiver to cut, harvest paddy crop and deposit the sale proceeds in the court and accordingly, he executed the warrant and sold paddy crop in the public auction at Panchayath office in Singarakondapalem at rate of Rs.310/- and deposited Rs.13,000/- into 34 the court, after deducting the expenses, in the year, 2004 or 2005 and he filed report before the court. His evidence remains unchallenged. But, as seen from the

Ex.B.15 certified copy of calendar and judgment in C.C.No.295/2001 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, the said deposited amount was Rs.4,084/- and as it was not claimed by either parties, it was ordered to be confiscated to the state. No document is exhibited by the plaintiffs at whose instance, the said Receiver was appointed, regarding the sale proceeds. So, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, the evidence of DW4 is inconsistent with regard to the sale proceeds. Moreover, his evidence would not help either parties, to prove possession over the suit schedule properties.

31.It is the specific contention of the appellants that the trial court ignored the proposition of law that in suit for injunction, reference of title is essential to understand the claim of respective parties and Ex.A.8 ryothwari patta issued in favour of vendors of the plaintiffs and others under Inams Abolition Act is conclusive in nature, but the learned trial court gave undue importance to

Ex.B.1- Notice under Form-II of Inam Abolition act and also gave wrong reference to Ex.B.3- 10 (1) Accounts of the defendants, and also ignored that the defendants failed to file the proceedings in NRC No.8A/53/94, dt: 15.05.1985 basing on which mutation of defendant No.1’s name was made in Ex.B.2 to

Ex.B.6. In support of such contentions, he relied on the following decisions:

35

1. Sunkamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs S. Pushparaj (Dead) by Legal Representatives [2018 SAR (Civil) 208]

The facts disclose that the plaintiff (Pushparaj) filed suit for permanent injunction, on the basis of registered power of attorney. In such context, while discussing about the ingredients to seek for relief of permanent injunction, the

Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

"6. Though the appellants/defendants disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over site no.47, the defendants have merely averred that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff that is agreement of sale (09.09.1986) and general power of attorney (03.05.1988) are forged and not acceptable. Nothing further has been elicited from PW2 to show that he had no right to sell site no.47 to the plaintiff. The defendants went to the extent of denying the identity of Madhavan PIllai (PW2). Be it noted, the plaintiff's suit O.S.No.424 of 1995 was only for permanent

injunction in which the plaintiff is only required to prove that he is

in lawful possession of the suit property. ..."

2.N. S. Srinivas and others Vs. Madduri MallaReddy and others [2005(1) ALT 169 ]

The facts disclose that the Plaintiffs Claimed that they purchased the land in January 2000 through registered sale deeds from the original owners i.e., Defendants 1 and 2 and developed it. The defendants 3 to 4 contended thatthey had purchased the land earlier in 1980 via an agreement of sale and that the Power of Attorney used for the plaintiffs' purchase had been cancelled in the year 1992. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction. In such context, while discussing about necessity to seek for declaration of right also, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

"12.........Whereas, while dealing with the question of granting permanent injunction, various other circumstances on record have to be 36 gone into. Normally, the Court while dealing with the suit for

permanent injunction, the question of possession of the plaintiff as

on the date of filing of the suit will be taken as the prime factor for

consideration. It is also the well settled proposition of law that in a

suit for injunction, the question of title has to be and can be gone

into. What is the effect of consideration and decision regarding the finding relating to title in a suit for injunction is a different subject. But, the law established and remained unsettled is that the question of title can be gone into in a suit for injunction.

19. From the pleadings, it is clear that if the plaintiff put forth his claim prima facie on an unquestionable title basing on registered sale deeds and seeks relief of mere injunction such suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable. In other words, if the plaintiff has a strong feeling coupled with a strong reason to believe that he has valid and unimpeachable title it is permissible for such plaintiff to maintain a suit for mere permanent injunction without asking for the relief of declaration. Seeking the relief of declaration by itself denotes that the plaintiff has the knowledge that somebody else has been challenging his title or possession thereof or he has reasonable apprehension that his title and possession, if any, is being or likely to be interfered with, in which event institution of suit for declaration and consequential injunction of any kind, may be necessary.

Regarding the evidentiary of revenue records, it was further held in para No.31 as follows:

31. From the above judgments, the evidentiary value of the entries made in the revenue records, can be summarized as that firstly they are only in the nature of fiscal enquiry instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid; secondly presumption on the basis of entries in the revenue records 37 as rebuttable and not conclusive; thirdly the entries in the revenue records are not conclusive proof of title; fourthly the Revenue Courts

have limited jurisdiction and they have no jurisdiction to decide the

title conclusively and it is always desirable to have the question of title decided by competent Civil Courts rather than by Revenue Courts."

There is no dispute regarding the principles of law followed in the above decisions, when the plaintiff is not aware about dispute regarding title, by the defendants.

32.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that when there is cloud in the title of the vendors of the plaintiffs and the evidence of

PW1 is vague and the evidence of PW2 is contra to the recitals in the documentary evidence and the defendant No.1 has been disputing the title of the vendors of the plaintiffs and also able to elicit that the vendors of the plaintiffs have no exclusive right over those properties, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. To support such contentions, he relied on the following decisions:

1. Sudhakara Reddy Vs. Lakshmamma [2014 (5) ALD 385]

This appeal is centered on whether a appellant/plaintiff can maintain a suit for perpetual injunction when there is a serious dispute (a "cloud") over the title (ownership) of the property. The Plaintiff Claimed absolute ownership and possession based on a registered Will dated 13.02.1985, executed by late Chinna Gowramma. The Defendant contested the claim, asserting ownership through a registered gift deed dated 13.03.1975. It was observed that the trial Court granted injunction mainly basing on Ex.A.1 Will coupled with Exs.A.2 and A.3. The trial Court gave a finding that the name of the plaintiff is recorded in revenue records; therefore, he is entitled for injunction. In Ex.A.3, 10(1) account, in column-6 (pattadar and possessor column), the name of the defendant and Narayanamma are shown. The plaintiff's name is not shown in 10(1) account. Ex.A.2 Pass book was issued in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. There is no consistency between Exs.A.2 and A.3. In such context, the

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.10 as follows:

38 "10. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the Court has to consider

who was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date

of the filing of the suit. However, the Court can incidentally look

into the title of the parties in an injunction suit if the

circumstances so warrants."

The Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the findings of the trail court are not sustainable. By holding so, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court. The Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh heavily relied on the decision of the

Honourable Supreme court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy . As per the

purport of the said decision, while a suit for injunction is mainly about possession, if the title is under a cloud or in dispute, the plaintiff must typically file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title rather than just a simple injunction.

2.Kunchala Lakshmamma Vs.Tanneru Subbaratnamma [2011 (6) ALD 579]

This case centered on a dispute over the possession of government- assigned land (DKT patta) in Marlapadu Village, Prakasam District. The plaintiff filed s suit for a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with her possession of the land. she asserted possession of the land for over 20 years and stated the government had issued a DKT patta in her favour, where she had raised a eucalyptus garden. The defendant contended that the land was part of a larger extent held by her father-in-law, Tanneeru Anjaiah, for roughly 50 years and claimed the eucalyptus garden was actually raised by her. Both parties had filed separate suits for injunction regarding the same property. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed, but the suit filed by the defendant against the Government was dismissed in respect of the same property. The first appellate court allowed both appeals. Then the plaintiff preferred appeals before the

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was observed that the defendant

39 failed to file any D-K Patta in favour of her family members. In such context, the

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.13 and 14 as follows:

13.In case the 1st respondent was of the view that the 2nd respondent has granted DK patta in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant, without any basis, she ought to have initiated steps under the relevant provisions of law, for cancellation of the patta. Even that would not have been sufficient. Unless she has been granted patta independently, there was no way, that she could have claimed exclusive rights over the property. Even otherwise, at least when the 2nd respondent filed a written-statement, to the effect that the plaint schedule land in O.S.No.201 of 1998 was assigned in favour of the appellant herein, the 1st respondent ought to have taken steps to seek the relief of declaration of title. Therefore, the following substantial questions of law arise, viz.,

1) whether the rights of an individual, who was assigned a piece of land and granted patta by the Government, can be interfered with, by another individual, unless the assignment or patta are challenged

before the Court of law.

2) whether a suit for the relief of injunction -simplicitor can be maintained by a person, claiming possession against the defendant, on the strength of valid title, through assignment.

14.The evidence on record would clearly lead to the conclusion that the 1st respondent failed to challenge the assignment and patta in favour of the appellant, and the suit filed by her for injunction- simplicitor was not maintainable in law.

3. Baludula China Edukondalu Vs. Komati Nagarjuna [2023 (6) ALD 657 (AP)]

As seen from the facts, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction. He claimed to be the owner of Ac. 0.05-cent vacant site. The defendant contended that a portion was sold to him and that the parties had exchanged properties and subsequently, they constructed houses. The defendant also elicited in the cross- examination that there is a dilapidated house in the plaint schedule property. In such context, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.18 and 19 as follows:

40

18. This Court further observed that the suit was filed for grant of permanent injunction and the appellant/plaintiff has to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property on the date of filing of the suit. But, on verification of the record, the documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff did not disclose that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property on the date of filing of suit. Admittedly, a person, who can seek relief of permanent injunction, it is necessary to prove that plaintiff, was in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Moreover, the defendant to prove the exchange and construction of the houses in the plaint schedule property. Further, in this case, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed and in his evidence clearly falsifies the contention of the plaintiff.

19. Though the trial Court has held that the appellant is not entitled to the equitable relief, this Court need not delve into the said aspect. Even assuming that the appellant alone is entitled to maintain the suit, as he failed to establish his plea that he is in possession of the property, he is not entitled to the relief of injunction. Though the respondent has claimed that there is exchange and construction of the houses, he has not produced any material to that extent. Even if the respondent has no title over the property, his possession is enough to non-suit the appellant. Assuming that the appellant is the absolute/true owner of the property, as he is not in possession of the same, he is not entitled to the grant of injunction. The appellant, if so advised, can only file a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property.

4.T. V. Rama Krishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa and another [2021 (5) ALD 231 (SC)]

The facts disclose that the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, who contested the claim based on a prior sale deed, calling the plaintiff's title into question. The trial court initially granted the injunction. But 41 the Honourable High Court of Adndhra Pradesh, set aside the same. In second appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court found the suit is inappropriate because of the genuine dispute in title. In such context, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the principle of law in Ananthula Sudhkar Vs. P. Butchi Reddy' case and held in para No.10 and 11 as follows:

"10. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms has held that where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

"11. No doubt, this Court has held that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. However, it has been held that such cases are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.

By holding so, the Honourable Supreme court dismissed the appeal, and observed that this is not a case where the plaintiff-appellant can be said to have a clear title over the suit property or that there is no cloud on plaintiff-appellant’s title over the suit property and the question involved is one which requires adjudication after the evidence is led and questions of fact and law are decided.

5.V. Srinivasu and others Vs. D. Subba Rao [2024(1) ALD 1 (AP) ]

In this matter, the Plaintiff (D. Subba Rao) filed suit for permanent injunction. He claimed ownership through a registered Will dated January 3, 2006, executed by his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi (the second wife of Srimannarayana). He asserted that the testator had inherited the property via her husband's Will. The first and second defendants are the sons of Srimannarayana from his first wife. They denied the plaintiff's claim to the property. It was 42 observed that the trail court gave finding that the Wills are genuine and decreed the suit. In appeal, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ananthula Sudhkar Vs. P. Butchi Reddy' case, held in para No.21, 22 and 27 as follows:

21. The legal position in this regard is no more res intergra. The same is well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments that, “ In each and every case, where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff, it is not necessary that in all those cases the plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only

when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and

when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily

in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.”.

It is also well settled that, “ A finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title”.

22.In the case on hand, there was a strong contention by the defendants that the plaintiff herein had no title in the plaint schedule property and they have disputed Exs.A.1 and A2 Wills in the Written Statement itself. Morever, defendants 1 and 2 are the natural legal heirs of Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi because she died issueless. Unfortunately, even though there is a strong denial by defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement, the Trial Court came to the conclusion in its judgment that Exs.A.1 and A.2 Wills are genuine in a suit for bare injunction, without framing any issue on Exs.A1 and A2 Wills.

27.As stated supra, the nature of the present case on hand is, it is a simple suit for bare injunction, moreover there is a genuine title dispute 43 involved in the case on hand. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for bare injunction.

By holding so, the appeal was allowed, by dismissing the suit.

6.Shaik Mohammed and another Vs. Omprakash and others [2024 (6) ALD 319 (TS)]

In this matter, the plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of land, basing on a registered sale deed. The defendants contended that they are in possession of the said property, on behalf of Omprakash, the original owner. Mandal Surveyor gave report that the defendants are in possession of the said property. Boundaries given by the plaintiff are not tallied with the boundaries given by the Surveyor. The trail court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the same. In second appeal, the Honourable High Court of state of Telangana, by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P. Butchi Reddy' case, held in para No.25 to 27 as follows:

"25. Thus, both the courts below had appreciated the evidence on record and the Commissioner's report and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had shown the incorrect boundaries and the boundaries as shown by the plaintiffs and the boundaries as noted by the Mandal Surveyor were not tallying with each other and as such came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to be granted injunction to the suit schedule property within the boundaries shown by them. When there was a boundary dispute and the defendants had challenged the boundaries given by the plaintiffs as incorrect in their written statement, the plaintiffs ought to have amended the suit for declaration of title.

26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others (cited supra) while appreciating the principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction would lie and when it was necessary to file a suit for declaration and / or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, held that:

"13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto 44 and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute

and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession,

necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration,

possession and injunction."

27. As the written statement filed by the defendants poses a challenge

to the plaintiffs' title raising a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs

within the boundaries shown by them, an action for declaration is

the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. As such,

a simple suit for bare injunction is not maintainable."

By holding so, the second appeal was allowed, by dismissing the suit.

7.Yachamaneni Rajaiah Naidu Vs. Yachamaneni Muni Krishnaiah and others [2013(3) ALD 533]

The facts disclose that the appellant filed suit against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of eight items of agricultural lands. The respondents, filed written statement stating that the father of the vendor of the petitioner sold items 3 to 8 of the suit schedule property to them, way back in the year 1974 and ever since then they are in possession of the lands. The trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of items 1 and 2 of the schedule and dismissed the suit as regards items 3 to 8. In appeal, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

"7. In a suit for injunction, what becomes material is the state of affairs, pertaining to possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The title is certainly important, but assumes significance only after possession. The appellant, no doubt, purchased eight items of property through four contemporaneous sale deeds in the year 2005. The respondents, however, pleaded that about three decades earlier to that, the father of the vendor of the petitioner conveyed the lands through three sale letters, marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3. Though the title to the respective properties is yet to be established, if the appellant was able to prove his possession over the property, the relief of injunction could have certainly been granted.

8. The appellant, no doubt, filed Exs.A-5 and A-6 the 10(1) account and No.2 Adangal for the year 2005. However, immediately, prior to that 45 period, Adangals were issued in the name of the respondents. The same is evident from Exs.B-7 to B-12. Things would have been different

altogether, had the possession of the vendor of the petitioner been

reflected in any records prior to 2005. Once Exs.B-7 to B-12 reflect

possession of the respondents over the land, the appellant can

succeed if only he claimed possession through them. Added to that, the possession of the vendor of the petitioner is nowhere shown in the records. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. If the petitioner is so advised, he can file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession."

As per the purport of the said decisions, when there is a genuine dispute of title, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable and the court cannot decide title, in a suit for permanent injunction. The facts in Yachamaneni Rajaiah Naidu Vs. Yachamaneni Muni Krishnaiah and others are squarely applicable to this suit.

33.As seen from the decisions relied by both parties in suit for relief of permanent injunction, the court has to consider whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Now it has to be seen whether the plaintiffs are able to establish the said fact. Herein the case, the plaintiffs mainly relied on Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7-Registered sale deeds and Ex.A.8-

Ryothwari patta. As seen from the recitals of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4, the 1st plaintiff purchased Items 1 to 3 on 08.03.1996 and Item No.4 on 11.03.1996 by paying consideration and got inducted into possession of the same. Likewise, Exs.A.5 to

Ex.A.7 registered sale deeds dt: 08.03.1996 disclose that the 2nd plaintiff purchased Item No.5, 7 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties and got inducted into possession of the same. The said sale deeds reflect that those properties were acquired by their vendors through their ancestors. But there is no reference 46 about pattadar passbook number of the vendors or Ex.A.8/Ryothwari patta in

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8.

34.As observed by the learned trial court, the 1st defendant has been disputing the title of the plaintiffs and their vendors over the suit schedule properties and he has been claiming that he is the owner of Ac.7.34 cents in

Survey No.707/A2, having acquired through the Branch of Addanki Venkata

Swamy i.e. his paternal grandfather and he based his claim on the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, as reflected in Exs.B.2 to Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.11. To refute the same and to prove the title of their vendors, the plaintiffs relied on

Ex.A.8 ryothwari patta/Form-VIII, dt: 04.08.1982 issued by the Special Deputy

Tahsildar, Ongole. As referred above, it discloses that 12 persons i.e. Shaik Peer

Saheb, Velpuru China Peeru Saheb, Shaik China Saheb, Moula Saheb, Addanki

Anjaiah, Addanki Venkata Subbaiah, Addanki Naga Bhushanam, Addanki

Subbaiah, Addanki Paradesi, Addanki Chandraiah, Addanki Lakshmaiah and

Addanki Somaiah are held liable to pay the assessment tax under section 12 of the Andhra Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwaries Act, in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.14.68 cents in Survey No.707/A of Kalavakuru.

35.On the other hand, the 1st defendant relied on Ex.B.1/Form-II notice which indicates the names of Mangali Thathaiah and Mangali Venkata Swamy and the proceedings dt:15.05.1985, endorsed on 25.05.1985 by the Revenue

Officials. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned trial court gave undue important to the said Form-II notice, as if it was 47 the decision given by the concerned Tahsildar in favour of Mangali Thathaiah and

Venkata Swamy, but in fact, it is only a notice issued under the Andhra Inams

Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwaries Act prior to the issuance of ryothwari patta under form-VIII. On careful perusal of the entire judgment, it is noted that the learned trial court did not make any such observation that Ex.B.1 proves the title of the said Mangali Thathaiah and Venkata Swamy or it is a final decision.

The learned trial court just referred the description of Ex.B.1 as it reflects the name of Venkata Swamy and Thaiah (under section.3 (3) of Andhra Inams

Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwaries Act), dt: 30.08.1985. However, it is noted that the said certified copy was issued on 09.03.1984, but not on 30.08.1985 (as referred in para No.49 of the trial court’s judgment).

36.Before going to discuss about Ex.B.1 and Ex.A.8, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is relevant to note the procedure laid under the Andhra Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwaries Act. As can be seen from the Act, the main object of the Act is to abolish and convert the

Inam lands into ryotwari lands in Inam villages and also in Ryotwari or Zamindari

Villages. Accordingly, under Sec.3 of the said Act, it provides for determination of

Inam lands and the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall on application enquire and determine:

1. Whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an Inam land?;

2. Whether such an Inam land is in Ryotwari, Zamindari or Inam village? ;and

3. Whether such Inam land is held by any institution.

48

37.It is further provided under the Act that before holding of such an enquiry under sub-section-1 of Section 3, the Tahsildar shall cause to be published a notice in the village where the Inam lands are situated under Section 3 (2) and the Tahsildar shall thereafter, give the persons or institutions concerned, a reasonable opportunity of adducing any evidence and observing such other prescribed procedure give his decision in writing in regard to points 1, 2 and 3 referred in Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 and that the said decision of the

Tahsildar shall be in Form-II of the Forms provided under the Act. As per Rule 3,

Sub-Rule (7) of the Rules under the Act, every decision of the Tahsildar under

Section.3 (3) or of the revenue Court under sub-section 4 of the said Section shall be in Form-II. Thus, Ex.B1 which in in Form-II provided under the said Act, is only a decision of the Tahsildar as to the determination of an Inam land and thus, it does not confer any title or patta under it.

38. It is to be noted that Section 7 of the said Act, provides for the grant of ryotwari pattas and the sub-section.1 of Section.7 reads, that the Tahsildar may suomotu and shall on the application by a person or an institution, after serving a notice in the prescribed manner on all the persons or institutions interested in the grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of Inam Lands concerned and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and following such other procedure prescribed therein, grant ryotwari patta in the prescribed form. Thus, it is evident from Section 7 (1) of the Act that the ryotwari patta be granted in the prescribed form. On a perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules provided under the Act, it is evident 49 that the rvotwari patta referred to in Section 7(1) shall be in Form-VIII. On a perusal of Ex.A8, it is evident that it is in Form-VIII provided under the said Act and thus, it can be inferred that the beneficiaries mentioned in Ex.A8 are conferred ryotwari patta.

39.It is further noted that there is reference about Ex.A.8 in Ex.A.10, certified copies of Adangals for the Faslies 1391 to 1394 corresponding to 1981 to 1984,

Ex.A.11/ certified copy of Adangal for Fasli 1395-1996 ( 1995-1996), so also in

Ex.B.13/certified copy of settlement and resurvey register dt: 30.08.1985. Those documents disclose that the names of the pattadars mentioned under Ex.A8 patta were rounded off. Ex.B.13/copy of resurvey and re-settlement register relied by the 1st defendant discloses that the endorsement about Ex.A.8 patta and the names of those pattadars were mentioned by the Deputy Inam Tahsildar and those names were mutated in the name of the defendant No.1 vide proceedings in

NRC/8A/53/84, dt: 15.05.1985. So, the issuance of Ex.A.8/ryothwari patta by the concerned Inam Tahsildar, is not under cloud of doubt. If such ryothwari patta was not issued, there might not be entry in the revenue records. So, it is evident that Ex.A.8 was issued in the names of the persons, whose names are mentioned in it. Even DW.1, admitted that Ex.B.1 is just notice given to

Thathaiah and Venkata Swamy prior to issuance of Ryothwari patta.

40.Further, the Appellants relied on the following decision by contending the the right of the defendants to challenge Ex.A8-Patta is extinguished:

50

Janatha Dal party Vs. The Indian National Congress and others

[2014 SAR (Civil) 414]

This matter is centered on ownership of the Congress Bhavan in Bangalore. The Bangalore Congress Committee based its claim under a registered gift deed. In this matter, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and a later curative petition in 2015, reinforcing that mere possession by the Janata Party over an extended period did not create ownership or prove adverse possession against the Indian National Congress. It is further held in para No.12 that the entire burden of proving that the possession is adverse to that of the plaintiffs, is on the defendant.

The facts are not relevant to this matter.

41. However, it is also provided in section 7(2) of the Act that any person or institution aggrieved by the grant of ryotwari patta by the Tahsildar under sub- section.1, may appeal to the Revenue Court within 60 days from the date of such grant and the Revenue Court may after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit. It is further provided in Section 3 (3) that the decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section 2 and where no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under Sub-Section 1 shall be final. Here in the case, it is evident that there is no appeal against the ryothwari patta granted under Ex.A.8 within 60 days from the date of the said Patta and hence, it became final.

42.According to DW.1, he raised objections against the said patta

before the concerned Officials and got surveyed the land and mutated his name in

the records, for which the Mandal Revenue Officer issued Ryothwari patta 51 passbook in his name (Ex.B.4). But, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to deal with the said appeal, but not the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Surveyor. As such, the observations in Ex.B.11 would not help the defendant No.1 to prove that he raised objections against the said patta and so, Ex.A.8 did not come into force.

43.It appears from the suggestions given to PW.1 to PW.3 and also the cross- examination of DW.1, the 1st defendant took defence that the entire extent i.e.

Ac.14.68 cents is sub-divided as survey No.707/A.1 and Survey Number 707/A2 to an extent of Ac.7.34 cents each. PW.1 also admitted the said division.

According to DW.1, the land in Survey No.707/A1 was allotted to Thataiah and the land in Survey No.707/A2 in an extent of Ac.7.34 cents was allotted to his grandfather Addanki Venkata Swamy, who is father of Nagabhushanam and so, he succeeded the entire extent in Survey No.707/A2. He did not file any such patta exclusively given in the name of Addanki Venkata Swamy or Addanki

Nagabhushanam by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, under Andhra Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwaries Act in respect of the said survey number.

However, he relied on Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.4, Ex.B.6 and and even Ex.A.14 and

Ex.A.15, which reflect his name as pattadar of the said extent. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants Ex.B.8 /Certified copy of sale deed dt:

26.06.1998 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant, is also silent about the same. Likewise, Ex.B.11 / Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, dt: 30.03.2000 does not reflect that any ryothwari patta was issued in the 52 name of grandfather or father of the defendant No.1, subsequent to issuance of

Ex.B.1/Notice. DW.1 categorically denied that the people of Muslim community were also allotted to the land in the said survey number. But Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.11 and even Ex.B.13/Certified copy of Adangals and Ex.A.8 related to the suit survey number 707/A1 reflect the names of the Muslim community people such as

Shaik Peer Saheb, China Peeru Saheb, Shaik China Saheb and Moula Saheb.

Further, Ex.A.11 reflects that the said Muslim people are in possession of

Ac.07.34 cents, Addanki Anjaiah, Venkata Subbaiah, Naga Bhshanam, Subbaiah and Somaiah are jointly in possession of Ac.3.67 cents and Addanki Paradesh,

Chandraiah and Lakshmaiah are jointly in possession of Ac.3.67 cents and those names were subsequently mutated as if Thathaiah and Dudekula Saheb, Shaik

Peeru Saheb and Shaik Moula Saheb are in possession of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey

No.707/ A1 and that the 1st defendant and his father Addanki Nagabhushanam are in possession of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2. Further more, Ex.A18 and Ex.X1 also reflect that the said Muslim Community people sold some part of the land in S.No.707/A1. Even, Ex.B.13 which is relied by the 1st defendant and seriously disputed by the plaintiffs, also reflect that those names of Muslim people were mutated by the Deputy Surveyor in the name of Addanki

Nagabhushanam vide proceedings dt: 15.09.1985. So, the court finds no force in the said contention. All these circumstances clearly show that Ex.A.8 ryothwari patta was issued in the name of 12 persons among whom 4 persons belongs to

Muslim community and 8 persons belong to Barber community.

53

44. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the defendants failed to produce the proceedings dt.15.05.1985, basing on which his name was mutated in the revenue records and also to produce patta in the name of his grand father

Venkata Swamy, said to be issued by the Special Deputy Inam Tahsildar, Ongole and thus, adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. He further argued that Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 and other adangals filed by the defendants, issued on the basis of the alleged proceedings and when the defendants failed, to file the said proceedings, Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 and other Adangals filed by the defendants, cannot be relied upon. In support of such contention, they relied on the following decision:

Balu Laxman Khatik (dead) through Legal Representatives and

others Vs. Biru Ramachandra Kotmire [1999 SAR (Civil) 4].

It is a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court related to agricultural tenancy rights under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, where the question whether the tenant had the right to purchase the agricultural land under Section 33-C of the Act, or if the land was exempt because it was leased for growing sugarcane under Section 43-A(1)(b), was dealt with. Initially, the lower tenancy authorities and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ruled in favour of the tenant, affirming his right to purchase the land. In appeal, the Honourable High court of Bombay reversed the said decisions, and held in favour of the landlord based on an alleged admission by the tenant that the land was for sugarcane cultivation. Then the tenant's legal representatives appealed to the

Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court set aside the said

judgment and reinstated the orders of the Tenancy Authorities, by observing that the landlord had previously applied for a certificate under Section 88-C, classifying the lands as "Zirayat (non-cultivated/dry crop) lands, which contradicted his later claim that they were sugarcane lands and as the landlord 54

failed to produce a written lease deed or rent receipts showing rent paid for

sugarcane cultivation and as there was no evidence of selling sugarcane to a factory.

In this matter, the Hon'ble Supreme court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the landlord to provide substantial evidence to negate a tenant's statutory right to purchase land and that the tenant's alleged admission is insufficient and potentially invalid due to his lack of literacy and the absence of supporting documentation.

45.Apparently, the defendants have not filed the said proceedings. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, DW.1 categorically admitted that

Ex.B4-Ryothwari pattadar passbook and Ex.B.5/pattadar Passbook were issued on the basis of the said proceedings. He also admitted that his name was mutated in the revenue records, such as Adangals and 10 (1) as reflected in Ex.B.2, Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.13 on the basis of the said proceedings. Even though, issuance of pattadar passbook by the Mandal Revenue Officer, was upheld by the Revenue

Divisional officer in proceedings dt: 30.03.2000 (Ex.B.11), the said orders were challenged by the plaintiffs 2 and 3. As seen from Ex.A.17/ Copy of Revision petition, Ex.A.16 / copy of proceedings of joint collector, Ongole, dt: 17.06.2000, taking revision on file and Ex.B.14/proceedings of the Joint Collector, Ongole dt:

21.06.2004, the plaintiffs herein challenged Ex.B.11/orders before the Joint

Collector and the same was remitted back to the Revenue Divisional officer for further enquirty. Indisputably, Ex.B.14/Proceedings of the Joint Collector, dt:

21.06.2004 reflects that the Joint Collector directed the Revenue Divisional

Officer, to make fresh enquiry for verifying the sale deeds of the plaintiffs herein 55 and to ascertain whether the Sub-Division made in NRC/8A/53/84, dt:

15.05.1985 is correct or not and dispose of the matter within two months and then, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki will make necessary changes in the

ROR and Village records. As elicited in the evidence of DW.1, no further enquiry was made in that regard. So, the proceedings dt: 15.05.1985 are neither set aside nor confirmed. But the said orders as well as the observations in Ex.B.11 reflect that such survey was made on the application of the 1st defendant. So, the correctness of the said survey report, cannot be decided in the suit for permanent injunction. As such, the existence of the said proceedings dt: 15.05.1985 cannot be ruled out.

46.Further, the evidence of DW1 shows that on his application, the Mandal

Revenue officer and Surveyor made enquiry as per the procedure and issued

Ex.B4-Ryotwari Pass book to him and the same was confirmed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer in Ex.B11, in revision filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2. PW.2 one of the vendors admitted that he received notice from the 1st defendant and then, they raised objection that the defendant No.1 is not son of Nagabhushanam and he is no way concerned to the land in survey No.707/A. It is apparent from

Ex.A.13 notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the 1st plaintiff dt:

05.03.1997, Ex.B.7/notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the defendant No.1 dt: 15.04.1997, the Revenue Divisional Officer made an enquiry in appeal filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 on 17.02.1997 against the issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.7.34 cents in 56

Survey No.707/A of Kalavakuru Village by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki.

It reflects that the defendant No.1 filed an application before the Tahsildar,

Addanki on 14.03.1984 for division of the property as the said land was owned by his grandfather Addanki Venkata Swamy. Accordingly, as per the directions of the

Tahsildar, the Surveyor, who issued notice on 12.11.1984 calling for objections, received a letter from the Joint pattadars stating that they are enjoying the entire extent of Ac.14.68 cents jointly, and they do not know the 1st defendant, but they failed to appear and file objections after receiving notice dt: 12.01.1985 with documentary evidence and so, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings in

RC.No.8A/53/94, dt:15.05.1985 for amendment of changes in Village accounts.

47.The learned counsel for the appellants raised objection at the time of marking Ex.B.13, as there is no initial of the concerned near correction of an extent for Ac.14.68 cents to Ac.7.34 cents, but the defendants did not examine the concerned Revenue Officials, who issued the same and so, the same cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out that the learned trail court has not answered the objection about admissibility of

Ex.B13. To support such contention, he relied upon the following decision:

Chakali Manikanta v. Hon'ble Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil

Judge [2022(6) ALT 659 (AP)].

In this matter, the election of the 6th respondent (Chakali Manikanta) as

Sarpanch of Veerapunayanipalle Gram Panchayat was challenged due to age discrepancies. The facts disclose that the plaintiff did not produce the document, 57 basing on which the original of Ex.A1-school certificate was issued and Ex.A8- attested copy of Job card of 6th respondent family was marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Ex.A8 was identified as a photostat copy of an online application from a computer record, but certificate under Section 65-B of the

Indian Evidence Act, is not filed. In such context, the Honourable High Court of

Andhra Pradesh held in para No.31 as follows:

"31.This Court finds that the trail court committed manifest errors in relying on Exs.A1 and A8. The objection as to "admissibility" etc., was not at all answered or dealt with. These errors are visible/discernible from the record without a detailed process of argument/reasoning. Neither Ex.A1 nor Ex.A8 can be deemed to e documents proved in evidence...."

There is no dispute regarding the said principle of law.

As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no finding about admissibility of Ex.B13, so also about Ex.A16, which were marked subject to objection. As referred above, Ex.A16 is a photostat copy and it is inadmissible.

Coming to Ex.B13, even Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.11 relied by the plaintiffs, reflect the same mutation with regard to the Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2 in the name of the 1st defendant. Thelearned counsel for the respondents argued that there is presumption regarding the genuineness of the certified copies, and so there is no need to examine the concerned issuing authority, as its genuineness is not in dispute. In support of such contention, the respondents relied on the following decision:

M. Chandraiah and Another vs. C. Narayana and Another [2008 (4)

ALT 421 ] 58

This revision centered on whether a public official must be summoned to testify in court to prove the authenticity of a certified copy of a public document (specifically a pahani, which is a land record) and also dealt with dispute of identity, in a suit for permanent injunction. In such context, the Honourable High

Court of Andhra Pradesh Andhra pradesh held in para No.3 and 4 as follows:

3.The plaint contains the boundaries of the plot in respect of which the revision petitioner is seeking injunction. It is well known that when boundaries are defined and are well known, the survey number of the plot in those boundaries or its extent is not of much relevance or consequence in identifying the said property. So, what is the survey number of the land in respect of which the revision petitioner is claiming injunction may not be of much relevance.

4.It is well known that Pahanis are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Certified copies of public documents can be obtained in view of Section 76 of the Evidence act. Question of proving a public document by examining the person who issued it does not arise in view of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that certified copies of public documents can be produced in proof of the contents of a public document. It would have been a different case if the genuineness of Ex.A.7 is disputed and it is stated that Ex.A.7 in fact was not issued by the office of the Tahsildar cum Deputy Collector, Quthubullapur, or that it is a forged document. When the genuineness of Ex.A.7 is not questioned, question of proving Ex.A.7 by calling the person who issued it by examining him as a witness does not arise. Time of that public servant need not be wasted by summoning him to Court for proving Ex.A.7, which does not require any further proof. So, I find no grounds to admit the revision.

As per the said decision, if the genuineness of a certified copy is not disputed (i.e., no claim of forgery), there is no need to summon the issuing officer (such as a Tahsildar or Superintendent) to give evidence. Summoning them unnecessarily wastes public servants' time. The appellants also relied on the said decision with regard to identity of the property.

59

48. Indisputably, there is a presumption regarding genuineness of the certified copies under section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act ( Section 78 of

Bhrathiya Sakshya Adiniyam, 2023) and there is no necessity to examine the revenue officials, who issued the same, unless contra to the said entries are proved. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, they disputed the

Ex.B13 in view of correction in the extent of land. But the other adangals (Ex.A10 and A11) filed by the plaintiffs also reflect the same entries. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned trial court did not make any findings to the said objections. Since, the entries of the said mutation in Ex.B.13 are tallied with that of Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.11/ Adangals obtained by the plaintiffs from the same revenue officials, the court is of the view that the objections raised by the appellants for marking the said document(Ex.B13) for want of examination of the revenue officials, is not sustainable. So, the court is of the view that non- examination of the issuing authority of Ex.B13, could not be made as a ground to discard the same.

49. However, in view of orders of EX.B14, the entries in adangals relied by both parties, are still under cloud of doubt. Nothing was elicited that any enquiry was made regarding entries in the adangals relied by both parties, subsequent to the orders of the Joint Collector(Ex.B14), regarding the entries in those revenue records. Thus, the said decision would not help either parties.

50.The learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to ascertain the validity of Ryotwari Patta issued under Inams

Abolition Act. In this aspect, he relied on the following decisions:

60

1. Thumati Varamma Vs. Thumati Rambotlu [1999 (3) LS 198].

It is an appeal against the judgment of the first appellate court, which remanded the matter to the trail court, in suit for permanent injunction. The facts disclose that the defendants are distantly related to the plaintiff/Appellant. The plaintiff contended that she purchased suit schedule property from one Y. Chandrahasa Rao, under registered sale deed dated 24.2.1987 and ever since the purchase, she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, where there is casurina plantations. The second defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable in law and on facts, that Maddiralapadu is an inam village and there are private lands in the Inam estate and the suit property is the Inam property of Uppala Singaracharuyulu, who leased out the schedule land to T. Rangaiah Chowdary, after whose death, the defendants came in possession of the property and the plaintiffs vendor had no title to the lands, that the Inam Abolition Act has no application to the said Inam lands and the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, granted patta to the defendants and said Singaracharyulu and that the plaintiff's vendor has nothing to convey to the plaintiff, since the defendants are lessees of Singaracharyulu, that the plaintiffs vendor worked as clerk under the defendants and was removed for his misdeeds, that the Land Ceiling Authorities passed orders in CC 420 and 1015/OGL/75,

dated 14-4-1987 in which the suit property is shown to be that of

Singaracharyulu and the defendants are lessees. The trail court decreed the suit. The first appellate court remanded the matter to decide the nature of the land as to whether it is Inam land or not. In such context, while discussing about the Civil Court's jurisdiction in respect of Inams land, held as follows:

"10. That apart, the District Munsif cannot decide any such issue in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayath v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and others, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 228, wherein the learned Judges have observed that the Inams Act is a self contained Code. It expressly provided rights and liabilities, 61 prescribed procedure, remedies of appeal and revisions, excluded the jurisdiction of the civil Court.

11. Therefore, the civil Courts are ousted from the jurisdiction to

consider whether a particular land situated in a particular village

comes within the purview of Inam Abolition Act. As stated above, the Act itself is a self contained Code providing hierarchy of machinery to decide the matter. Accordingly, the issue involved in this particular case was already decided by the machinery provided under the Estate Abolition Act and Inam Abolition Act and the patta was granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar to PW2. When the matter was carried by the District Collector, the Estates Abolition Tribunal, constituted under the Estates Abolition Act, it was held that the said village does not come under the purview of Estates Abolition Act, but comes under the Inam Abolition Act and the above said judgment has become final and that too after the said Singaracharyulu contested the matter. Therefore, the learned District

Judge, cannot simply throw away the findings without considering the

evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, observing that the learned District Munsif did not consider the evidence and failed to give findings on certain aspects, i.e., nature of the lands."

2.Pujari Venkata Subbaiah and others Vs.Sri Madduleti Narasimha Swami Temple, Rangapuram [1993(3) ALT 287]

It is a decision in appeal filed against the Judgment in suit filed for recovery of possession of Sri Madduleti Narasimha Swami Temple lands from the defendant who claim to be the Poojaries of the temple.The temple claimed ownership through a direct grant, while the Pujaris argued the land was a "service Inam" (remuneration for priestly duties), claiming they held a right to the land, not just its income. The Inam Fair Register (Ex. A-1) indicated that the land was granted directly to the "Madduleti Swamy" deity, not to the individuals, for service. Previous rulings under the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition Act confirmed the land belonged to the temple and had already issued a ryotwari 62 patta (title) to the deity. The same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in 1974.

In such context, while dealing with the question whether the decision under the Inams Abolition Act is final and whether the Civil Court's Jurisdiction is barred, the Honourable High court of Andhra Pradesh relied on the Judgment of

Honourable Supreme Court and Privy counsel with regard to section 3 (5) and

section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, held in para No.9 as follows:

"" 9.In view of the various reasons given above, I hold on Point No.1 that the grant is to the temple and it is not a grant to the Poojaris burdened with service. I hold on Point No.2 that the defendants are not entitled to contend that the decisions of the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act is not conclusive. They cannot re-agitate the matter in the Civil Court. In view of the later judgment of the Division Bench dt: 01.04.1976 in A.S.No.71 of 1873, the law laid down in Pedda Govindaiah Vs., Subba Rao ( 1 supra) is not a correct interpretation of the law and many of the observations in that decision are obiter. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. The defendants cannot re-agitate the same question in the Civil Court when once it is decided by the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act."

The facts are not similar to the present suit.

3.In re P.S. Pradyumna, District Collector Chittoor [2019 (4) ALT 208 (TS & AP).

In this matter, the petitioner intended to get registration of gift deed. He contended that his vendor is having Ryotwari patta granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri in they ear 1980. The District Collector refused to give no objection for registration of gift deed submitted by the petitioner, to the Registration authority, on two grounds, firstly that the said patta was cancelled by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh and secondly, the subject land is Kaluva land and 63 there could not have been Ryotwari patta granted in respect of the subject land. The petitioner disputed the same. It was observed that the orders of Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh are not related to the subject matter. In such context, while discussing about the competency of the District Collector to question the Ryotwari patta, the

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.30 as follows:

"....The District Collector is not the Competent authority under the said statute (theAndhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act) to question or set aside the correctness of the orders passed under the said Act granting Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner's vendors. Moreover, since almost 40 years have elapsed since it's passing, it is not open to the District Collector to seek to collaterally question the same without directly challenging it before the competent authority."

By holding so, the writ was allowed suo moto contempt case was also closed on unconditional apology of the concerned.

There is no dispute regarding the said principle of law. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding nature of the land. Both parties admitted that the subject matter is Inam land.

51. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, as per

Section 14 of Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwaries Act, 1956, the civil court has no jurisdiction to ascertain the genuineness of ryothwari patta or the decision of the Tahsildar or Collector, except when said decision is obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion of the parties. The same was reiterated by the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in decision relied by the learned counsel for the appellants. So, viewed from in any angle, the court finds no reason to suspect the genuineness of Ex.A.8 of ryothwari patta.

64

52.Apparently, plaintiffs 1 and 2 obtained sale deeds from the persons with surname, ‘Addanki’, who have been claiming that they belong to the branches of the persons, whose names are referred in Ex.A.8. The defendants are seriously disputing the exclusive title of the said vendors by claiming that those vendors, being the persons belonging to the branch of Addanki Thataiah, were allotted land in Survey No.701/A1, but not in Survey No.707/A2, which exclusively allotted to the Addanki Venkata Swamy ( grand father of the 1st defendant). They also disputed the possession of those vendors as on the date of said sale deed or at any point of time, apart from the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the appellants and as reiterated by the above referred decisions, the court need not look into the title of the plaintiffs or their vendors in a suit for permanent injunction. However, when the defendants are also claiming right and title over the said property and there are no authenticated documents regarding possession by either parties, the court can look into the incidental title of both parties. The said principle of law was reiterated in decisions relied by both parties. The learned trial court also rightly observed the same and adopted the said principle of law.

53.Herein the case, the plaintiffs relied on Exs.A.14 and Ex.A.15 Adangals for the Fasli 1407 and 1408 which correspond to the year, 1997-1999, dt:

01.03.1999 and 24.02.2000 respectively. These adangals disclose that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are in possession of Ac.4.38 cents and Ac.3.06 cents respectively, as purchasers. However, it was elicited in the evidence of PW.1 that 65 the 1st defendant is shown as pattadar of those properties in those adangals. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs filed this suit on 20.10.1998, but those adangals were obtained subsequent to the suit. Be that as it may, there is no explanation as to why the entries in those Adangals do not reflect their names as pattadars / owners of those properties. It is not the stand of the plaintiffs that they purchased the suit schedule properties from the 1st defendant. So, as rightly observed by the learned trial court, the entries in those Adangals are contra to the contentions of the plaintiffs that those properties belong to them or their vendors.

54.Apparently, the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule properties in the year, 1996. As elicited in the evidence of PW.1 pattadar passbooks were not issued in their name till now. There is no proper explanation from the plaintiffs as to why they could not obtain passbooks till filing of the suit i.e. for two years subsequent to purchase. There is no whisper in the evidence, that they applied for issuance of pattadar passbook. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, none of the names of the vendors of the plaintiffs, except

Addanki Paradesi are reflected in any of the Adangals (Ex.A9 to Ex.A.11) to show that the vendors of the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule properties, as on the date of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7.

55.Apart from this, even according to the plaintiffs, they have leased out the suit schedule properties to the defendants 2 and 3 during the year, 1997 and 1998 and they also filed O.S.No.76 and 77 of 1998 on the file of learned Principal

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki for recovery of Maktha in respect of those 66 suit schedule properties. If such is the case, the names of the defendants 2 and 3 ought to be entered as enjoyers in Ex.A.14/Adangal for Fasli 1407 pertaining to the year, 1997-1998 and the names of the plaintiffs ought to be referred as owners / pattadars of the said property. So, as rightly observed by the learned trial court, the entries in Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 are contra to the contentions of the plaintiffs regarding their possession and ownership.

56.In addition to the said discrepancy, admittedly, the said suits filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed. All these circumstances create doubt regarding the possession and bonafides of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit or prior to the suit. Since the entries in Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 are contra to the contentions of the plaintiffs and as they were obtained subsequent to the suit, the court feels that those documents would not help the plaintiffs to prove their contentions regarding their possession as owners, as on the date of the suit.

57.Coming to the sale deeds(Ex.A1 to A7), it is needless to say that mere marking of the documents does not amount to proof of documents. Even though, the chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination of PW.1 reflects the details of extents, dates, survey number and boundaries of properties and consideration passed under those sale deeds ( Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7), during the cross-examination,

PW.1 categorically deposed that he cannot say those details without going through the documents. It is further elicited that he did not verify the Adangals to find out possession of his vendors over those properties. He admitted that pattadar passbooks were not issued in his name. According to him, he is claiming 67 the site in survey No.707/A2 and admitted that such sub-division was made even prior to execution of sale deeds, but he failed to give the reason as to why the survey number was mentioned simply as 707/A instead of specifically mentioning as survey No.707/A2.

58.The learned counsel for the appellants argued that boundaries prevail over discrepancy in the survey number and no discrepancy was elicited in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 about identify of property and thus, non reference of survey number 707/A2 itself cannot be made as a ground to discard the claim of the plaintiffs. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision in M. Chandraiah and Another vs. C. Narayana and Another [2008 (4) ALT 421 ] [referred above]. As per the said decision, when the boundaries of a property are clearly defined in a plaint, the specific survey number or exact extent is less relevant for identification. The defendants also relied on the said decision, in another aspect ( Section 79 of Evidence Act).

59.There is no dispute regarding the said decision. It is noted that PW.1 deposed that the properties covered under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 are separate, but they have been cultivating the same jointly. If such is the case, the boundaries of such separate properties must be specifically mentioned in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. But common boundaries of the entire extent of Ac.7.34 cents are mentioned in

Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7. As seen from the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, who are one of the vendors of Item No.2 and 6 of suit schedule properties covered under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.7 respectively, all the pattadars under Ex.A.8 divided the extent and 68 each of them got Ac.0.92 cents and they have been cultivating the same. If such is the case, one of the boundaries of each item must be the another Item of suit schedule properties. Such non-reference of specific boundaries and the correct survey number in sale deeds, create doubt as to whether the vendors of the plaintiffs were really in possession of such separate extents sold under Exs.A.1 to

Ex.A.7 as on the date of sale deeds.

60.Apart from this, Ex.A.8/ryothwari patta was issued in the year, 1982 and registered sale deeds were executed in the year, 1996. The plaintiffs did not file any pattadar passbook or title deed or any Adangal standing in the name of their vendors by the time of execution of sale deeds. The evidence of PW.1 is not specific about the genealogy of vendors and to whose branches the said vendors belong to. To be more clear, the evidence of PW.1 is not specific that the vendors under Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7 belong to which family of pattadars referred in Ex.A.8. As rightly observed by the learned trial court, PW.1 did not even give the details of consideration passed under those sale deeds. All these aspects create doubt in the version of PW.1, regarding his bonafides.

61.It is one of the contentions of the Appellants that the mutation in the name of the 1st defendant was made without issuing mandatory notices and following the procedure of mutation, as per law and so, the adangals, pass books issued in the name of the 1st defendant cannot be relied upon. In support of such contentions, the learned counsel for the Appellants relied on the following decisions:

69

1.Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue officer,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others [2007 (6) ALT 134 (FB) ]

In this writ petition filed against the Mandal Revenue Officer, for violating section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules, while discussing about the procedure to be followed for mutation of entries, the Honourable High court of Andhra Pradesh, held as follows:

"6. A reading of the plain language of Section 5(1) together with its proviso makes it clear that on receipt of intimation about acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer is required to determine whether the Record of Rights should be amended and. if so what should be the mode of carrying out the amendment. A negative decision on the issue of amendment of the Record of Rights can be made by the officer concerned only after giving an opportunity of representation to the person who gave intimation regarding acquisition of right in terms of Section 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 empowers the Mandal Revenue Officer to make amendment in the Record of Rights, if he has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description given in Section 4 has taken place. Section 5(3) requires, that before carrying out any amendment in the Record of Rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause against the proposed amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. The word "prescribed" has been defined in Section 2(8) to mean "prescribed by rules made under the Act". Rule 5(1) of the Rules lays down the procedure for preparation of the Record of Rights and updating the entries contained therein. Rule 5(2) lays down that notice contemplated under Sub-rule (1) shall be in Form- II and shall be published in the village by various modes specified in Clauses (a) to (e). Rule 19(1) and (2) lays down that the notice referred to in Section 5(3) shall be in Form-VIII and the same shall be published in the manner specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.

70

7. The above analysis of the relevant statutory provisions shows that proviso to Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e. audi alterem partem. These provisions contemplate issue of notice to the persons likely to be affected by the action/decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the Record of Rights. Proviso to Section 5(1) lays down that if the Mandal Revenue Officer decides not to make an amendment in the Record of Rights, then he shall pass appropriate order only after giving an opportunity of making representation to the person, who gives intimation regarding acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4. Section 5(3) provides

for issue of written notice to all persons whose names are entered in

the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the

amendment. Similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other

person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be

interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. The publication of notice in the prescribed manner is in addition to the notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. To put it differently, the publication of a copy of the amendment and the notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other person to whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. If the Legislature thought that publication of a general notice in Form-VIII will be sufficient compliance of the rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. In our considered view, the requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to any other person whom the recording authority thinks to be interested in or affected by the amendment clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in Form-VIII is sufficient.

71

11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rule 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to

be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive

provision contained in Section 5(3) , which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment."

As per the said decision, it is solidified that under Section 5(3) of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) MUST issue notice to all affected individuals before updating, amending, or rectifying Record of Rights (ROR), ensuring principles of natural justice.

2.Saleema Begum Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others [2018 (3) ALT 604]

The facts disclose that Saleema Begum purchased the land from Kosigi Chennaiah (Respondent No. 5) via a registered sale deed in 1986, which validated an earlier unregistered sale from 1975. Her name was subsequently entered into revenue records through mutation. A representation was made by a third party (Respondent No. 4) in 1998, claiming the land was government land originally assigned to Smt. Sampalle Yellamma and seeking rectification of revenue entries. Following an enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer took up a suo-motu appeal in 2003, after a delay of 10 years and set aside Saleema Begum's mutation proceedings. The Joint Collector confirmed this order in 2006, leading to the writ petition. In such context, while dealing with the question whether the Revenue officials (Joint Collector and RDO) had the jurisdiction to decide land title and legal heirship under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971., after such delay, held in para No. 7 to 9 as follows:

"7.......The second respondent in the appeal which is taken up after an inordinate delay of 10 years, though the limitation is prescribed under the 72

Act as 60 days, has dealt with the issue regarding the legal heirs and title and further, he dealt with the issue of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned (Prohibition of Transfer) Lands Act,1977, stating that the assigned lands are prohibited from alienation and in the light of Section 3 of the Act, the alienation of subject land in favour of the petitioner is null and void and such transaction has no weightage. This finding of the second respondent cannot be appreciated as the second respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the title and legal heirs of the deceased as the competent Court of law has to decide the title and declaration of lawful possession. Since the subject lands were purchased prior to 1954, the provisions of A.P. Assigned (Prohibition of Transfer) Lands Act, 1977 do not apply to the lands which were assigned subsequent to 1958. Prohibition clause has been incorporated subsequent to the assignment pattas issued from 1958 onwards and prior to 1954, there was no restriction for alienation of the lands by the assignees.

8. The suo-motu appeal with inordinate delay has not been explained by the second respondent and when the matter pertains to the issue of correction of entries in the revenue records under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the second respondent has exceeded the scope of his jurisdiction under the Act as the declaration, title and possession are not within the purview of the revenue authorities, but it lies with the competent civil Court.

9. The order of the second respondent does not disclose that the third respondent before coming to the conclusion, in the name of enquiry, has neither issued notice to the parties nor heard them and no enquiry was conducted. There is no evidence placed or relied upon by the respondent officials to say that the title is with the 4th respondent who is the legal heir of the original assignee and there are no valid proceedings issued in favour of the 4th respondent declaring him as successor and legal heir of the original assignee. The 4th respondent also has to establish his locus before the competent Court of law." 73

So, as per the said decision, the revenue authorities do not have the power to decide complex issues of title or declare legal heirs and such matters must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. As referred above, the the Revenue official made suomoto made enquiry, in view of objection of the third party that it is an assigned land, without issuing notices. But, herein the case, the observations made in Ex.B11, clearly disclose that notices were issued for objections, on application of the 1st defendant. So, the facts of this matter are not relevant to this suit. However, there is no dispute regarding the principle of law in the said decision that the Revenue authorities have no authority to decide the title. Even as per the said decision, the parties have to approach the Court, for declaration of title, when there are such complex issues of title. Though, the 1st defendant did not take steps for declaration of his status as the legal heir of Addanki Nagabhushanam, when the 1st defendant has been disputing the exclusive title of vendors of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs are aware about the same, even prior to the suit, they ought to have seek for declaration of title.

3. Yerrabothu Rangamma Vs., District Collector, Nalgonda and others., reported in 2023 (1) ALT 370 (TS)., wherein, while discussing about the evidentiary value of the entries and procedure to be followed for mutation of entries, the Honourable High court of Telangana, held in Para No.16 as follows:

“16.It is settled law that mutation entries of land in the revenue records do not create or extinguish the title over any land nor do they have any presumptive value on the title of such land. Such an entry in the revenue records enables the person in whose favour the mutation is ordered to pay land revenue. Issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of either of the parties is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership. Once a dispute regarding right of succession is raised at the time of mutation, it is not open to the revenue authorities to adjudicate upon the right to succession and the matter should be referred to Civil Court or the parties should be directed to get their civil rights adjudicated through appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. When the title of an 74 occupant is disputed before the Collector or any Revenue Authorities, the appropriate course would be to refer the parties to competent Civil Court, instead of deciding title or entitlement of any of the occupants as was done in this case.

There is no dispute regarding the said principle of law.

4. Jitendra Singh Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh and others [2021 SAR (Civ) 992]

As per the purport of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

Tahsildar cannot reject a mutation application at the threshold solely because it is based on a Will. However, if the Will is contested, mutation cannot be granted without Civil Court adjudication. While discussing about the evidentiary value of revenue records, the Honourable Apex court reiterated the principle of law in para

No.6 as follows:

"6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records

neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it

any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for

the purpose of collecting land revenue..."

There is no dispute regarding the said principle of law.

5. M/S Annapoorna Financiers v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [2022 (3) ALT 125 (AP)]

In this matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed a writ petition regarding land record mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks. The petitioner firm challenged the revenue department’s refusal to update land 75 records for property in Visakhapatnam District, alleging violation of the AP Rights in Land Act, 1971. In such context, while discussing about the procedure of amendment and updating of record of Rights, the Honourable High Court held in para No.26 to 30 as follows:

"26...........Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it. Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioner sent intimation to the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation of the name of the petitioner.

27.According to Section 5(1) of the Act, i.e. Amendment and updating of Record of Rights, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination, provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.

28.Thus, the first proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act mandates of opportunity of making a representation to the applicant when the recording authority decided to refuse the request for updating entries in the revenue records and issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The proviso is nothing but affording an opportunity to this petitioner by following principles of natural justice.

76

29.To put it differently, the procedure prescribed under the proviso is nothing but a statutory prescription to issue notice before refusing such requirement in compliance of Rule 5(1), as the rule of principles of natural justice is imbedded in the proviso. In the absence of compliance of proviso to Rule 5(1), it is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 5(1).

30.A bare look at the impugned order passed by Respondent No.4, it is clear that, no notice was issued before passing such Endorsements to this petitioner as mandated under Rule 5(1). Therefore, issue of such Endorsement by Respondent No.4 is not only illegality and contrary to the principles of natural justice, but also contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain a writ petition against such an order."

2. Kandriga Subba Reddy and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2011(1) ALT 648]

This decision primarily concerns the implementation of a settlement patta (land ownership document) and the mutation of names in revenue records for land that the family had possessed for over 66 years. In this matter, the petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the government to implement a settlement patta issued in their favour, which had been previously affirmed by multiple higher authorities despite challenges from the District Collector, Chittoor. In such context, the

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.6 as follows:

".....Even if the order confirming the settlement patta is

erroneous in law, until the said order is set aside by a competent court

of law, it needs to be implemented. Respondent No.1 has obviously ignored this fundamental jurisprudential principle and taken a defiant stand implying that the purported erroneous decisions of the competent fora need not be implemented. such a conduct on the part of the bureaucratic apparatus is abhorrent and attitude derisive." 77

By holding so, the respondents were ordered to implement the settlement patta by mutating the petitioners' names in revenue records and to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners.

62.There is no dispute regarding the said principle of law regarding procedure to be adopted for mutation. But the facts are not relevant to this suit, as it is not the stand of the plaintiffs that their application or the applications of their vendors were rejected at threshold or at any point of time.

63.Coming to the present suit, the learned counsel for the

Appellants/Plaintiffs argued that the evidence of DW1 to DW3 clearly show that no notices were issued to the pattadars under Ex.A8 and so, the mutation of name of the 1st defendant and issuance of pattadar passbooks cannot be considered. No doubt, DW1 deposed that he is not aware whether the orders of the Tahsilar were communicated to the vendors of the plaintiffs and others or not.

DW2 and DW3 also deposed that they do not know about the sub-division. DW2 further deposed that he does not know whether the Revenue people made atom tom in their Gram Panchayat regarding the Sub-division of S.No.707 calling for objection there to. He further deposed that during his tenure as Sarpanch, the

Revenue People did not affix any notice in their office regarding Sub-division. As seen from his cross-examination, DW2 was Sarpanch in the year 1981. The proceedings regarding Sub-division and survey, appear to be made in the year 1985. Nothing was specifically elicited in the evidence of DW2, that he was

Sarpanch during that period.

78

64.Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, the evidence of DW1 clearly shows that the Tahsildar issued notices to the persons claiming rights in S.No.707 at the time of its sub-division calling for objections, including the vendors. It is also apparent from his evidence that the vendors of the plaintiffs and others contended that the first defendant is not the son of Nagabhushanam and that the said Nagabhushanam was unmarried and then the Tahsildar issued notices to him and he appeared before the

Tahsildar and produced his school records and other certificates to show that his father is Nagabhushanam, but the Vendors of the plaintiffs did not attend the enquiry and after purusing his records, the then Tahsildar passed orders and that the land was sub-divided at his request. It is also apparent from the evidence of PW2, one of the vendors that they received notice and they have issued reply by disputing the relationship of the 1st defendant with Nagabhushanam, by claiming that Nagabhushanam was unmarried. Such version supports the version of the

DW1. Further, it is apparent from Ex.B11-Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, that the record/file of the Tahsildar discloses the issuance of notices, objections received from some persons by post regarding relationship of the 1st defendant with Nagabhushanam and publication of draft was also made and finally, pattadar passbook was issued in the name of the 1st defendant, as no objections are received, after following the due procedure. So, it cannot be said that no notice was issued to the pattadars. However, in view of the subsequent orders of the Joint Collector in appeal (EX.B14), the Revenue Division Officer was directed to make proper enquiry in that regard.

79

65.At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the adangals (Ex.A14 and

Ex.A15) are also under dispute and fresh enquiry was ordered to be made in that regard, in Ex.B14. Nothing was elicited that any notice was given to the 1st defendant who name was entered as pattadar and enjoyer of the suit schedule properties, before making such mutation in the name of the plaintiffs in Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15. There is no reference of proceedings of the Tahsildar in Ex.A14 and

Ex.A15 about such mutation of names of the plaintiffs, as possessors. So, in the light of the above decisions relied by both parties, the entries in Ex.B2 to Ex.B6, so also in Ex.A10, Ex.A11, Ex.A14 and Ex.A15 are still in dispute. Neither parties examined the concerned revenue authorities to prove the genuineness of the entries relied upon by them. Since the plaintiffs, are seeking such relief, it is their burden to prove their contentions. But they did not file any document reflecting the possession of their vendors to the specific extents referred in Ex.A1 to A7, prior to the sale and admittedly, none of the revenue records filed by them, reflect the names of vendors of the plaintiffs as enjoyers by the time of sale. So, the above decisions would not help the appellants.

66.The learned counsel for the Appellants also argued that the survey with out notices to the original pattadars, is not binding on the plaintiffs and their vendors. In that regard, he placed reliance on the following decision:

Cogent Ventures (Indian) Ltd. Vs. State of Telangana, Principal

secretary, Irrigation, Hyderabad [2018 (1) ALT 136] 80

As per the facts, the petitioner who purchased a land under an agreement of sale cum general power of attorney, filed a writ petition against the Irrigation department, who are erecting fencing around the petitioner's land depriving him from use of the land. In such context, the Honourable High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held in para No.13 and 14 that any survey conducted behind the back

of the petitioner to determine the Full Tank Level (FTL) cannot bind the

petitioner. It is further held that it is the duty of the State to verify whether there are any land transactions in the neighbouring land which would be affected by the said survey, and it is the duty of the State to put such persons on notice

before it conducts any survey affecting their rights.

67.As discussed above, the observations made in Ex.B11 and the evidence of

DW1 reflects that the notices were issued to the concerned and the procedure was followed. Even as per Ex.B14, the proceedings dt. 15.05.1985 are not yet set aside. Even if the said survey, is discarded, in view of the orders of the Joint

Collector in Ex.B14, there is no document to show that the vendors of the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the extents specified in the sale deeds and that they have succeeded those extents from the persons whose names are referred in Ex.A8. As such, the said decision, would not help the plaintiffs.

68.It is one of the grounds of the appeal that the learned trail court has not discussed as to how the decisions relied by the plaintiffs are not applicable to the suit facts and the same is erroneous. To support such contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following decision:

81

A. Narendraraja and others Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh,

Department of Mines and Geology and others [2008(4) ALT 805].

It is a case regarding the cancellation of quarry leases for grey granite in Chittoor district. The petitioners challenged the cancellation based on "No Objection Certificates" (NOC) and environmental concerns, specifically arguing whether the site was private land or "Adavi Poramboke" (forest land under Revenue control). The petitioners were granted mining leases for land described as "Adavi Poramboke." The government (respondents) attempted to halt mining, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, which requires approval for non-forest activity in "forest lands." The court noted that "Adavi Poramboke" in this case was treated as a "forest" merely by a 1942 entry, despite lacking trees, being hillocks, and being far from the actual reserved forest boundary. The Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh held that not every piece of land labeled as "forest" in records (e.g., Adavi Poramboke) falls under the strict definition of "forest land" requiring mandatory clearances if it lacks tree growth and invalidated the cancellation of leases based solely on this classification was invalidated. While deciding the said issue, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.16 as follows:

16.The law is well settled that the judgments of the courts cannot be construed as statutes. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And another vs N.R. Vairamani And Another [ (2004) 8 SCC 579 ], the Supreme Court held as under:

"9.Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have 82 been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. ..."

69.As per the said decision, disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper, without considering the facts. There is no dispute regarding the said principle of law. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned trail court did not specifically refer the facts of each decision. However, it has discussed the principle of law of each decision relied by both parties and gave observation that the decisions relied by the plaintiffs are not applicable, but the decisions relied by the defendants are applicable.

70.The learned counsel for the Appellants further argued that the DW1 admitted that the PW2 belongs to the branch of Thataiah, who was allotted with

Ac.7.34 cents and he also admitted that there is sub-division with specific ridges and so, the identity of the property and the title of the vendors are admitted by

DW1 and so, the admitted facts need not be proved. He further argued that the learned trial court has not applied section 92 of the Evidence Act and gave undue important to the discrepancy in the evidence of PW.2. In support of such contention, he relied on the following decision:

Moturi Seeta Ramabrahmam Vs. Bodda Rama Mohana Rao and

others [2000(5) ALT 73]. In this matter, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale. While discussing about evidentiary value 83 of admission of party, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.12 as follows:

".....A clear admission is a substantive evidence even though the party is not confronted with the statement...... where the party to the suit admits a particular fact in the witness box it need not be put to him again and it is admissible in evidence under Sections 17 and 18 of the India Evidence Act.…"

71.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the oral evidence of PW1 and 2 which is contra to the recitals of sale deeds and also the entries in adangals relied by the Appellants, is inadmissible under section 92 of Evidence Act. To support such contention, he relied on the following decision:

D. Vijayalakshmi Vs. T. K. Vijay Kumar [2012 (1) ALD 759]

It is a decision in appeal related to the specific performance of an agreement of sale for a residential plot in Hyderabad. While discussing about section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para Nos. 13 to 15 as follows:

"13.One of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that once the execution of a docu ment, namely Ex.A.1, is admitted by the respondent, it was not permissible for him to adduce any oral evidence, to the contrary. In support of his contention, he cited the judgment of the privy counsel, in Baraboni Coal Concerny. The Servitors and Shebaits of Sree Sree Gopinath Jiu. Gokulananda Mohanta Thakur AIR 1934 Privy Council 58, Miryala Venkateswarluv Battula Venkata Peraiah and Venkateswarlu and Co. AIR 1969 AP 88, and Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through LRs. Sohan Lal (dead) by L.RS. AIR 2000 SC 426 (1) The plea is referable to Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The provision mandates that if there exists a written document, signed by the parties, oral evidence, contradicting terms thereof, cannot be permitted. The Section connotes a small fragment of the principle of estoppel. However, a distinction needs to be maintained as to the disputing contents, on the 84 one hand, and explaining the purport of the document or the manner in which the parties understood, the same, on the other hand. Even while admitting that what is contained in a document is true, a party can explain the circumstances or the objective with which the document was executed. It is a different matter as to whether the plea so raised is substantiated at all.

14.It is not uncommon that a transaction which purports to be of a particular category, is entered into with a totally different objective A ready example for this can be a conditional sale, or sale with a condition to re purchase. Much would depend upon the understanding of the parties and many a time the nomenclature of the document or language employed in it may not reflect the true intention of the patties. It is for this reason that in Smt.Gangabai. Smt.Chhabubai (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 4. the Supreme Court held that the bar contained under Section 92 would operate mostly against a party, who rebies upon it and set against the one who has a different understanding of the matter even while admitting the execution thereof The relevant portion mads as under.

“….It is clear to us that the bar imposed by sub-section (1) of Section 92 applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event, the law declares that the nature and in-tent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. The sub-section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties (Tyagarajı Mudaliyar v Vedathanni) AIR 1936 PC 70) … 15.To the same effect, is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Dass Jain's case (3 supra) and R Janakiraman v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 697. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was not at all open to the respondent, to take any plea, contrary to the words contained in Ex.A.1.

As per the purport of the said decision, no oral evidence, contra to the document, is inadmissible.

85

72.Coming to the oral evidence, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, PW.1 failed to give the extent of the property so also the consideration passed under Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7. He further admitted that Ex.A.8 does not contain any recital about specific extent of lands possessed by a particular person. He categorically deposed that he did not verify Adangal to find out the possession of his vendors. Further, he deposed that himself and plaintiff

NO.1 so also their vendors, did not pay any land revenue or water tax for the suit schedule property. Since his evidence is also vague about the transactions made under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7, his evidence is not sufficient to prove that his vendors were in possession of the suit schedule property.

73.Coming to PW.2, one of the vendors of Item No.2 also failed to give the extent, boundaries and survey number of property, so also the consideration of property sold by them to the plaintiffs. It is elicited that he is not aware about the sub-division of property in Survey No.707. It is further elicited that his chief affidavit was prepared on the instructions of PW.3, who was an elderly person.

When PW.2, being one of the vendors even failed to give the extent, boundaries and consideration of property sold by him, his evidence cannot be given much weight regarding the sale transaction under Ex.A.2 so also his right over Item

No.2.

74.Further PW.3 also expressed unawareness about the boundaries of the extent mentioned in Ex.A.7-sale deed said to be executed by him and others. He even failed to give the name of his grandfather. He admitted the suggestion that 86 their branch got an extent of Ac.7.34 cents towards their share. He further deposed that out of Ac.14.38 cents, Mangali people were given Ac.7.34 cents and

Dudekula community people were also given Ac.7.34 cents. It is noted that Ex.A.7 discloses that PW.3 and others sold an extent of Ac.0.92 cents in Survey

No.707/A, but PW.3 deposed that he has share of Ac.0.80 cents only, in the said survey number bounded by East: People of Madiga community, South: People of

Yadava Community, West and North: Bhavanasi Tank. If, Items 1 to 7 belong to the same branch, the property sold by PW.3 shall be bounded by any of other

Items of plaint schedule and one of the boundaries shall belong to the other vendors under Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.6. But according to PW.3, none of the other vendors of the plaintiffs or any Addanki people or Muslim community people, are boundary owners of Item No.6 sold by him. So, it is evident that he is not even aware about the boundaries of property sold by him. Such discrepancy also create doubt as to whether the description of property PW.3 was correctly mentioned in Ex.A.7 or not.

75.PW.3 further specifically deposed that and that he has right only for

Ac.0.80 cents in the said survey number and he does not have right over Ac.0.92 cents of land mentioned in Ex.A.7. By eliciting such facts in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, the defendants are able to elicit some sort of doubt regarding their title and possession over the extents mentioned in sale deeds executed by them. If at all they were in such specific possession of Item No.2 and 6, they might have given the details of those sale transactions. Further, the evidence of PW.3 is 87 contra to the contention of the plaintiff regarding the extent, over which he had right to alienate. It is to be noted that section 92 of Evidence Act ( Section 95 of

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) bars adducing of the oral evidence, which is contrary to the contents/ terms of document, in order to prove the contention of party. But the said section would not help the parties relying on the said document, to save from contradictions elicited in the evidence of the witness ( PW.2), by the opposite party. In other words, the bar under section 92 of Indian

Evidence Act, (Section 95 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) will not apply where anyone including party to the instrument,intended to disprove the terms of contract and not disprove the contract itself, or to prove that the document was not intended to be acted upon and that intention was totally different. So, oral evidence can be led to show that a transactions under a particualar document or set of documents is sham or nominal or not intended the act upon. As such, contention of the appellants with regard to the section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, is not tenable.

76.Admittedly, PW.5 does not belong to the branch of either Addanki

Thathaiah or Nagabhushanam. He is the purchaser of some extent from Muslim

Community people, on 16.08.1994 under Ex.X.1. So, his evidence is not helpful to prove sale transactions under Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7. The plaintiffs did not choose to examine the other vendors, to prove execution of those sale deeds, so also delivery of possession, which is crucial aspect to claim the relief of permanent injunction.

88

77.Coming to the relationship of the 1st defendant and Addanki Naga

Bhusbanam, whose name is reflected in Ex.A.8, PW.1 categorically admitted that the 1st defendant is son of Addanki Nagabhushanam, S/o. Addanki Venkata

Swamy. It is also elicited in the evidence of PW.2 that there is a person by name

Addanki Nagabhushanam, S/o. Addanki Venkata Swamy and that there is no document to show that Nagabhushanam was unmarried. He further admitted that the 1st defendant described himself as the son of Naga Bhushanam in the notice issued to him. He further admitted that the branch of Addanki

Nagabhushanam had Ac.7.34 cents and that the branch of Addanki Thathaiah possessed Ac.7.34 cents and that they belong to the Branch of Addanki

Thathaiah. Further, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 in chief examination shows that after death of Nagabhushanam, who is none other than the Senior paternal uncle of PW.2 his share was divided between father of PW.2 i.e., Hanumantha

Rao and his brothers and each of them got Ac.0.30 cents and so, the issues of

Venkata Subbaiah got Ac.0.30 cents each. Their evidence is not specific about the exact relationship of Venkata Subbaiah and Nagabhushanam. It appears from their evidence that Venkata Subbaiah is father of Nagabhushanam, but not

Venkata Swamy. If such is the case, when PW.1 and PW.2 admitted that Addanki

Nagabhushanam is the son of Venkata Swamy, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 in their chief examination, is quite contrary version. Further, PW.3 deposed that he came to know through one Addanki Koteswara Rao that Nagabhushanam died unmarried. So, it is evident that he has no personal knowledge about the said

Nagabhushanam. More over, he did not deny that the 1st defendant is the son of 89

Nagabhushanam, but expressed unawareness. He also did not deny that the 1st defendant is in possession of Ac.5.64 cents and about transactions made by the 1st defendant, but expressed ignorance about the same. If really, PW.2, PW.3 were in possession of the properties sold to the plaintiffs, they might have knowledge about their properties. So, in view of specific admissions made by

PW.1 and PW.2, the 1st defendant is able to elicit his relationship with Addanki

Nagabhushanam, S/o. Venkata Swamy. Even as per the decision relied by the plaintiffs, the said admission of PW.1 / the 2nd plaintiff, is sufficient to prove the defence of the defendants regarding the connectivity of the 1st defendant with suit schedule properties.

78.The learned counsel for the appellants also argued that DW1 admitted that there was specific sub-division of plots in the suit survey number and that he also admitted that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property till 2004 and he failed to prove that his vendees i.e., 4th defendant or Mundra Ramesh and others are in possession of the same and thus, it is evident that the plaintiffs are in possession of the said property. No, doubt, DW1 made such admissions regarding his possession. But, he categorically deposed that he was in possession of the said property prior to the suit and also obtained crop loans, as disclosed in

Ex.B9 and Ex.B10. So, it cannot be said that the the defendants or DW1 admitted the possession of the plaintiffs. Further DW1 admitted about specific plots with regard to the lands in S.No.707/A1 and S.N.707/A2 only(Two plots), but not in respect of the lands covered under Ex.A1 to A7. If there are specific bunds for 90 items 1 to 7, the same might have been reflected in those sale deeds. Moreover,

DWs 1 to 3 never admitted that the plaintiffs or their vendors are in possession of the suit schedule properties. Thus, the court finds no force in the said contention.

79.However, the plaintiffs are able to elicit that some people of Muslim community are also having right over Ac.14.68 cents, as disclosed in Ex.A.8, which falsify the contention of the defendants, regarding exclusive right of the 1st defendant over the extent of Ac.7.34 cents. Even if the claim of the 1st defendant over the entire extent of Ac.7.34 cents in Survey No.707/A2 is discarded, there is specific admission of PW.1 that the 1st defendant is son of Addanki

Nagabhushanam and Ex.A.8 also disclose the name of the said Nagabhushanam as one of the pattadars. Further, PW.2 also admitted that the branch of Addanki

Nagabhushanam is having right only Ac.7.34 cents. These admissions create a cloud of doubt in the title of the vendors of the plaintiffs, who belong to the branch of Addanki Thathaiah only, over the entire extent in Ac.7.34 cents, by leaving the 1st defendant son of Nagabhushanam.

80.On culmination of the entire evidence, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the entries in Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 / Adangals reflecting their possession, are free of doubt. They did not even apply for passbooks after purchasing the suit schedule properties. They failed to give proper explanation as to how their vendors have right over Items 1 to 7 specifically. Further, it is apparent from Ex.B.11 that the plaintiffs are aware that the 1st defendant obtained pattadar passbook over the entire suit schedule properties, by claiming as rightful owner and thereby, 91 impliedly denying the rights of other pattadars, even in the year, 1997, itself i.e., prior to the suit. It is elicited that the vendees of the plaintiffs(PW2) are also aware about the claim of the 1st defendant over the property in S.No.707/A2.

Instead of clarifing the same, before the proper authority, they just executed sale deeds with unspecific survey number and boundaries. The plaintiffs also got executed sale deeds without verifying the passbooks and specific title of their vendors and did not choose to mutate their names in the revenue records immediately. Though, the appellants made an effort in that regard by examining

PW.2 and PW.3, their evidence is vague and contra to their own chief examination regarding their right over the property sold under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.7 respectively,

Inspite of such specifical denial of right of the plaintiffs and their vendors and specific claim of title, the plaintiffs have simply filed suit for bare injunction, without seeking for declaration of title. As referred above, several complex issues such as validity of the proceedings dt: 15.05.1985 regarding mutation of name of 1st defendant, relationship of the 1st defendant with Addanki Nagabhushanam and the title of vendors of the plaintiffs to alienate Items 1 to 7, without knowledge of branch of Addanki Nagabhushanam are involved in this suit and such issues can be decided only in comprehensive suit of declaration. Despite specific defence of the defendants in that regard, in written statement and even prior to the suit, as rightly observed by the learned trial court, the plaintiffs did not choose to seek such relief for declaration of title.

81.In these circumstances, when the plaintiffs even failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit or atleast 92 the possession of their vendors, prior to the sale transactions in the year, 1996, the question of interference by the defendants in their possession, does not arise.

When the defendants are able to produce revenue records reflecting the name of the 1st defendant as pattadar and owner of suit schedule property and even

Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 Adangals relied by the plaintiffs reflect the name of the 1st defendant as pattadar and even Ex.A.8/ Patta reflects the name of Addanki

Nagabhushanam, but the plaintiffs failed to elicit the relationship of his vendors under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7, with the said Nagabhushanam, it can be held that the defendants are able to elicit doubt in the title and possession of the plaintiffs, so also their vendors. As such, the contention of the appellants that the defendants took bare denial of title without proof, is not tenable. Therefore, in the light of the above decisions relied by both parties in above referred decisions in respect of ingredients to be proved to seek for permanent injunction and the decision in

Yachamaneni Rajaiah Naidu Vs. Yachamaneni Muni Krishnaiah and others

so also the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ananthula Sudhakar

Vs., P. Butchi Reddy cited in the above referred decisions, the court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, without seeking for declaration. Accordingly point Nos.1 to 3 are answered against the appellants in favour of the respondents.

82. POINT NO. 4:

In view of the discussion and findings, in the above points, though the learned trail court did not discuss about the objections raised at the time of marking of Ex.A16 and Ex.B13 and to make observations as to why each decision 93 is applicable or not applicable, it has discussed each and every principle of law and rightly applied the same, in the facts of the present matter. Therefore, the court finds no grounds to interfere into finding of the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. So, as a sequel to the above findings in the above points, which are against the appellants/plaintiffs and in favour of the respondent No.5 to 8, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, these points are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.

83. In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs and accordingly, the

Decree and Judgment of the learned trial court in O.S.No.258 of 1998 dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, is hereby confirmed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi

Civil Judge, (Senior Division)

Addanki.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined “No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.”

Sd/- D.N.V.L.

CJ.(Sr.D), Adk.,

Copy to: The Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Addanki. // True Copy \\

Civil Judge, (Senior Division)

ADDANKI.

94

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT ADDANKI.

Present : Smt D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki.

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Appeal Suit No. 10 of 2019

Between:

1. Narisetti Kotaiah ( died)

2. Thatikonda Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal.

3. Narisetti Subbulu ( died)

4. Thatikonda Varalakshmi, W/o. Venkata Rao, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal. ( Appellants 3 and 4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.131/2001, dt: 15.02.2001).

.. Appellants/Plaintiffs.

Vs.,

1. Addanki Mastan Rao ( died)

2. Yerriboina Peda Masthan, S/o. Peda Venkata Subbaiah, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

3. Yerriboina Srinu, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

4. Chinni Srimannarayana, s/o. Radhakrishna Murthy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, Landlord, R/o. Near Gramapanchayath Office, Addanki Village and Mandal.

5. Addanki Prasanna Sai, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru Addanki Mandal.

6. Addanki Eswara Prasad, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 25 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

95

7. Durgi Rama Devi, W/o. Samabasiva Rao, D/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 30 years, House Wife, r/o. Palvayi Village, Renta Chinthala Mandal, Guntur District.

8. Addanki Subbayamma @ Subbulu, W/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 52 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

( Defendants 5 to 8 are being Legal Representatives of deceased defendant No.1 added as per orders in I.A.no.783/2017, dt: 29.12.2017)… Respondents/ Defendants.

APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2019

PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, ADDANKI IN

O.S.No.258/1998.

Between:

1. Narisetti Kotaiah (died)

2. Thatikonda Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal.

3. Narisetti Subbulu ( died)

4. Thatikonda Varalakshmi, W/o. Venkata Rao, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. North Addanki Village and Mandal.

( Appellants 3 and 4 are added as per orders in

I.A.No.131/2001, dt: 15.02.2001). ...Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1. Addanki Mastan Rao (died)

2. Yerriboina Peda Masthan, S/o. Peda Venkata Subbaiah, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

3. Yerriboina Srinu, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Singarakondapalem, H/o. Kalavakuru Village, Addanki Mandal.

96

4. Chinni Srimannarayana, s/o. Radhakrishna Murthy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, Landlord, R/o. Near Gramapanchayath Office, Addanki Village and Mandal.

5. Addanki Prasanna Sai, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru Addanki Mandal.

6. Addanki Eswara Prasad, S/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 25 years, Hindu, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

7. Durgi Rama Devi, W/o. Samabasiva Rao, D/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 30 years, House Wife, r/o. Palvayi Village, Renta Chinthala Mandal, Guntur District.

8. Addanki Subbayamma @ Subbulu, W/o. Late Mastan Rao, aged 52 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o. Singarakondapalem Village, H/o. Kalavakuru, Addanki Mandal.

( Defendants 5 to 8 are being Legal Representatives of deceased defendant No.1 added as per orders in

I.A.No.783/2017, dt: 29.12.2017) ...Defendants

This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.258 of 1998 on the file of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki dated 28.02.2019.

Valuation and court fees : This appeal is filed by the appellants / plaintiffs against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.258/1998 dt: 28.02.2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki, an amount of Rs.186/- is paid under Section 26 ( C) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act, in the lower court and the same is adopted in the present appeal under Section 49 of A.P.C.F and .S.V. Act, upon which a court fee of Rs.1386/- (Total Rs.1572/-) is paid under Section 49, r/w. section 26 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Appeal presented on : 01.07.2019 and filed on : 16.08.2019 97

This appeal is coming before me on 31.03.2026 for arguments in the presence of Sri A. Nagarjuna Rao, and Sri N. Hari Babu, Learned Advocates for the Appellants/Plaintiffs and of Sri V. Subrahmanyam, Learned Advocate for the Respondents 5 to 6/ Defendants; Respondent No.1 died; Respondent No.2 to 4 remained exparte; and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Courtdoth order and decree :

i.that the appeal suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; ii. that the decree and judgment of the learned trial court dated 28.02.2019 passed in O.S. No.258/1998 on the file of learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Addanki is hereby confirmed;

iii that each party do bear their own costs.

( C.M & F.C not filed on either side)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi

Civil Judge, (Senior Division)

ADDANKI.

TABLE OF COSTS

NIL

Sd/-D.N.V.L

C.J (Sr.D), Adk.

NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non-exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”. // True Copy \\

Civil Judge, (Senior Division)

ADDANKI.

1

APPR040002232017

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE ( SENIOR DIVISION) : ADDANKI.

Present: Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Addanki.

Monday, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No. 92 of 2017

Between:

Ravipati Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu aged 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff.

Vs.,

1. Ravuri Venkata Krishnamma ( died)

2. Ravuri Arjuna Rao, S/o. Mallikharjuna Rao, aged 28 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal.

3. Ravuri Mallikarjuna Rao, s/o. Venkata Krishnamma, aged 51 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal.

4. Ravuri Lakshminarayana, S/o. Venkata Krsihnamma, aged 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Thammvaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal.

5. Ravuri Narasimha Rao, S/o. Venkata Krishnamma, aged 39 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal.

6. Kolluri Anjamma, W/o. Subba Rao, aged 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Pamidipadu Village, Korisapadu Mandal.

2 ( 1st defendant died intestate defendants 3 to 6 are added as Legal Representatives of deceased 1st defendant as per orders in I.A.No.228/2018, dt: 18.07.2018) … Defendants

This suit is coming on 17.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Rama Krishna Rao, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of

Sri M. Subhash Babu, Learned Advocate for defendant No.2 and 3; and

Defendant No.4 to 6 remained exparte; and defendant No.1 died; and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and hearing the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

// J U D G M E N T \\

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dt: 08.11.2013 directing the defendants to measure the plaint schedule property and execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, by receiving the balance sale consideration and to deliver possession of the same or in alternatively, to direct the defendants to refund Rs.7,00,000/-, paid as advance, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of agreement of sale, with costs.

02. The averments of the amended Plaint, in nutshell, are as follows:

a) The plaint schedule property is land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Survey No.123 of Bodduvanipalem, Thammavaram Panchayath area of Korisapadu Mandal, along with rights in irrigation canal and passage, bounded by:- East: Land of Ramireddy Venkayamma, West: Polimera Donka, 3 South: Land of Ramireddy Venkateswarlu to some extent and land of Panem

Venkateswarlu to some extent and North: Rudra Bhoomi.

b)The 1st defendant claimed as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. He proposed to sell the same for his family benefits and necessities. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. The bargain was settled for consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid Rs.7,00,000/- as advance to the 1st defendant, who in turn executed an agreement of sale dt: 08.11.2013 in favour of the plaintiff. As per the said agreement, the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration of

Rs.2,00,000/- on measurement of the site by the 1st defendant, for ascertaining the exact consideration. The 1st defendant further agreed to execute a registered sale deed and deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff has been requesting the 1st defendant to get the schedule property be measured and to receive the balance sale consideration and also to execute regular registered sale deed. The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But the 1st defendant had postponed to perform his part of contract, taking advantage of receipt of major portion of consideration. So, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dt: 09.06.2017 demanding the 1st defendant to perform his part of contract, as per the terms of agreement. The 1st defendant received the same. He got issued a reply notice dt: 17.06.2017, with false allegations, by denying execution of agreement of sale and 4 contending that he executed a gift deed in favour of his grandson i.e. 2nd defendant in the year, 2016 in respect of Ac.1.05 cents on the southern side of the schedule property and so, his son i.e. defendants 4 and 5 got filed the suit. The 1st defendant also disputed the financial capacity of the plaintiff to pay Rs.7,00,000/-, in the said legal notice.

c)The plaintiff has no knowledge about issuance of legal notice dt:

02.09.2016 by one Kolluri Anjamma i.e. 6th defendant, who is daughter of the 1st defendant for partition of properties including the suit schedule property herein, at the instance of the 5th defendant, so also about the reply notice dt: 23.09.2016 said to be issued by the 1st defendant.

d)There is no stipulation of time for performance in agreement.

The payment of balance sale consideration arises only after measurement of the land by the 1st defendant, to ascertain the actual sale consideration. So, the question of limitation for enforcement of agreement of sale, does not arise. The 1st defendant might have executed a nominal gift deed dt:

30.09.2016 in favour of the 2nd defendant. It is not binding on the plaintiff.

Further, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant is trying to create nominal documents with regard to remaining suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

e)Since, the 1st defendant died intestate, the defendants 3 to 6 are added as his legal representatives, as per the orders in I.A.No.228/2018, dt:

18.07.2018. Therefore, suit may be decreed.

5

03.The 1st defendant filed written statement, which is adopted by the 2nd defendant, by denying the averments of the plaint, except his ownership over the suit schedule property and took the following contentions:-

a)The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is the brother-in-law of one Ravuri Lakshmi Narayana (4th defendant), who is the son of the 1st defendant. In fact, the daughter of the 1st defendant i.e. the 5th defendant got issued a legal notice dt:

02.09.2016 seeking for partition of the properties of the 1st defendant, including the plaint schedule property. Then, the 1st defendant got issued a suitable reply notice dt: 23.09.2016, with true facts. Subsequently, the 1st defendant executed a registered gift deed in favour of his grandson, i.e. 2nd defendant, who is son of the 3rd defendant, in the year, 2016, in respect of

Ac.1.05 cents, out of suit schedule property, on its southern side. The said settlement deed was accepted and acted upon. Thereafter, the defendants 4 and 5, got issued a legal notice in the name of the plaintiff, with false allegations.

b)The 1st defendant never offered to sell the plaint schedule property and never executed agreement of sale dt: 08.11.2013. He never received advance of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The said agreement of sale was brought into existence, with ante-date. The plaintiff had no capacity to pay such a huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in lump sum. Non reference of time for payment of balance sale consideration, without any 6 clause of interest in agreement of sale, is unbelievable. The plaintiff filed suit at the instance of 4th defendant, to mount pressure on the 1st defendant, to get some property by way of gift. Since the agreement of sale is fabricated and forged one, the question of demand by the plaintiff for measurement of land and to execute sale deed, does not arise. The 2nd attestor of the alleged agreement, is close associate and henchman of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. Further, the market value of suit schedule property was

Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, in the year, 2013. So, sale of suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre is absolutely false. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

04.The 3rd defendant filed written statement with almost similar contents of written statement filed by the 1st defendant. He further took the following contentions:

The 1st defendant died intestate on 18.12.2017. Then the entire estate of the 1st defendant devolved on his legal heirs i.e., defendants 3 to 6, including Ac.1.95 cents out of the plaint schedule property and by excluding an extent of Ac.1.05 cents settled by the 1st defendant, in favour of the 2nd defendant under registered settlement deed dt: 30.09.2016. The defendants 3 to 6 are in joint and constructive possession of the remaining extent of

Ac.1.95 cents out of the plaint schedule property, within definite boundaries, abutting to north of Ac.1.05 cents of land settled in favour of 7 the 2nd defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

05.The defendants 4 to 6 remained exparte. No additional written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant, after impleadment of the defendants 3 to 6.

06. Basing on the above pleadings and on hearing both sides, as there was no element of settlement, this Court settled the following issues for the purpose of trial on 06.10.2020:-

1. Whether the agreement of sale dt: 08.11.2013 is true, valid and binding on defendant No.1?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of refund of advance amount with interest?

4. To what relief?

07.During the trial, the plaintiff got examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7.

08.On the other hand, the defendants 2 and 3 got examined DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.10. They also got marked Ex.C.1 -

Expert Opinion dt: 15.10.2025 in the evidence of DW.3.

8

09.Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and

3. Perused the entire record.

10.Issue No.1:

Herein the case, indisputably the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants 3 to 6 are the issues of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is brother-in-law of the 4th defendant. The 2nd defendant is grandson of the 1st defendant as well as son of the 3rd defendant. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the suit schedule property.

11.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property to him and executed an agreement of sale

dt: 08.11.2023 by receiving advance of Rs.7,00,000/-, out of total

consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-, but he did not turn up to get the schedule property be measured, to ascertain the exact extent, in order to receive balance sale consideration and to execute a regular registered sale deed, as agreed under the agreement of sale, and so, he approached the court.

12.The defendants 1 to 3, more particularly, the 1st defendant denied the execution of the said agreement of sale. So, in order to discharge his burden of proof, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in his evidence and Exs.A.5 to Ex.A.7, during the cross-examination of DW.1. Out of those documents, 9

a)Ex.A.1 is an unregistered agreement of sale dt: 08.11.2013 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It discloses that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and received Rs.7,00,000/- towards advance on that day. It further discloses that even prior to the year, 1983 the said property fell to the share of the 1st defendant in oral partition between himself and his sister Kalluri Lakshmi Devamma, who have jointly purchased the property under registered sale deed dt: 27.06.1967 vide document No.1127 of 1967 of Sub-Registrar, Addanki and that the 1st defendant intended to sell the said property for his family benefit and to discharge his debts. It further discloses that the 1st defendant has to get measure the schedule property to ascertain the exact sale consideration and then the plaintiff has pay the balance sale consideration and thereafter, the 1st defendant has to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or at his option and deliver possession of the same. It is duly attested by two attestors and scribed by one Srinivasa Rao.

b)Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice dt: 09.06.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant along with the postal receipt, calling upon the plaintiff to execute sale deed, as per the terms of agreement of sale, by receiving the balance sale consideration. The contents of said legal notice are similar to that of the plaint. Ex.A.3 is the reply notice dt:

17.06.2017 got issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff by denying the execution of an agreement of sale. The contentions of the defendant No.1 in 10 the said reply, are similar to the contentions taken in the written statement.

So, there is no dispute regarding exchange of these notices.

c)Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of registered settlement deed dt:

30.09.2016 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, obtained through Mee-seva. It discloses that the 1st defendant gifted an extent of Ac.1.05 cents out of the suit schedule property, to his grandson i.e.

2nd defendant, out of love and affection and delivered possession of the same.

Admittedly, the said extent is part and parcel of the suit schedule property.

d)Ex.A.5 is the title deed book of Rayapati Venkateswarlu(father of the plaintiff) issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Korisapadu. It discloses that the father of the plaintiff has got an extent of Ac.0.43 cents in Survey

No.4, Ac.0.21 cents in Survey No.15/1 and Ac.0.85 cents in Survey No.114 of Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal. Ex.A.6 is the title deed book of Rayapati Venkateswarlu (father of the plaintiff) issued by the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Addanki. It discloses that the father of the plaintiff has got an extent of Ac.4.12 cents in Dhenuvakonda Village of Addanki Mandal.

Ex.A.7 is the pattadar passbook of the plaintiff issued by the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Addanki, dt: 26.09.2006. It discloses that the plaintiff has got an extent of Ac.0.09 cents, Ac.0.30 cents, Ac.0.50 cents, Ac.0.46 cents,

Ac.0.13 cents and Ac.1.96 cents in Survey Nos. 179/2, 179/5, 179/6, 179/7, 179/8 and 319/5A of Vemparala Village, Addanki Mandal.

11

13.The evidence of PW.1 is just replica of the plaint. In brief, it goes to show that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A.1-agreement of sale dt:

08.11.2013 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property at the rate of

Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and also received Rs.7,00,000/-towards advance and further agreed to get measurements of the said property and after ascertaining the exact extent and value, the 1st defendant has to execute registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration and deliver possession of the same to him. His evidence further shows that inspite of his several demands including issuance of legal notice dt: 09.06.2017 (Ex.A.2) by expressing his readiness and willingness, the 1st defendant did not turn up to perform his part of contract and got issued reply notice dt: 17.06.2017 ( Ex.A.3), with false allegations, by fabricating the collusive and nominal gift deed dt: 30.09.2016 (Original of Ex.A.4) in favour of the 2nd defendant and as the 1st defendant tried to create nominal documents in respect of the remaining extent of suit schedule property, he approached the court.

14.To prove execution of the said agreement, the plaintiff examined the 1st attestor and scribe as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively. The evidence of

PW.2 in chief examination corroborates the version of PW.1 with regard to execution of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale by the 1st defendant, so also, receipt of

Rs.7,00,000/- by the 1st defendant, towards advance. The evidence of PW.3 also shows that he prepared Ex.A.1/Agreement of sale as per the instructions of the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A.1 12 and received Rs.7,00,000/-towards advance from the plaintiff, in the presence of two attestors.

15.On the other hand, the defendants 2 and 3 got examined the 2nd defendant as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.10.

a)Ex.B.1 is the office copy of the legal notice, dt: 02.09.2016 got issued by the 6th defendant, to the defendants 1, 3 to 5, calling upon them for amicable partition of the joint family properties including the present suit schedule property which is shown as Item No.3 in the notice schedule.

(It is noted that it is a served copy, but not office copy)

b)Ex.B.2 is the reply notice, dt: 23.09.2016 got issued by the 1st defendant to the counsel for the 6th defendant. (In fact it is office copy, but not served copy). It discloses that the 1st defendant contended that Item No.3 of the notice schedule, i.e. the present suit schedule property was purchased by him and his sister by name Kalluri Lakshmi Devamma and on her intestate death, her undivided half share also devolved on the 1st defendant.

It also discloses the contentions of the 1st defendant with regard to other properties of the notice schedule, but they are not relevant to this suit.

c)Ex.B.3 is the office copy of the legal notice, dt: 31.01.2018 got issued by the 5th defendant, to the plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 and 4 (In fact it is served copy, but not the office copy). The 5th defendant disputed the execution of gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the present suit schedule property and demanded for amicable partition of all the joint 13 family properties, including the present suit schedule property (shown as

Item No.4 in the notice).

d)Ex.B.4 is the true copy of Form 1B (ROR) Namuna of the 2nd defendant issued by the Tahsildar, Korisapadu dt: 10.12.2022. Ex.B.5 is the

Adangal for the Fasli 1432 of Bodduvanipalem, issued by the Tahsildar,

Korisapadu, dt: 10.12.2022. Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 disclose that the 2nd defendant is owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in Survey

No.1 to 3/2 of Bodduvanipalem Village, during the year, 2022. PW1 also admitted that the 2nd defendant obtained revenue records in respect of the property covered under Ex.A4, i.e., part and parcel of the suit schedule property. He also admitted that at present the 2nd defendant is in possession of the said extent of Ac.1.05cents, in the souther portion.

e)Ex.B.6 is the true copy of Form 1B (ROR) Namuna of the 1st defendant issued by the Tahsildar, Korisapadu dt: 10.12.2022. Ex.B.7 is the

Adangal for the Fasli 1432 of Bodduvanipalem, issued by the Tahsildar,

Korisapadu, dt: 10.12.2022. Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7 disclose that the 1st defendant is owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.95 cents in Survey

No.1 to 3 of Bodduvanipalem Village, during the year, 2022. Though, these revenue records are obtained during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff did not dispute the ownership and possession of the 1st defendant over the said property, which is part and parcel of the suit schedule property, after excluding the property covered under Ex.A4.

14

f)Ex.B.8 is the Original Registered Sale deed dt: 20.07.2015 executed by the defendants 1, 3 to 5 in favour of the 2nd defendant. It discloses that the defendants 1, 3 to 5 sold an extent of Ac.0.51 cents in

Survey No.188/2C, Ac.1.64 cents in Survey No.202/2 of Anamanamuru

Village of Korisapadu Mandal to the 2nd defendant. Apparently, Ex.B.8 is not related to the subject matter of the suit. So, it is not relevant to decide the present matter.

g)Ex.B.9 is the certified copy of the plaint and schedule dt:

07.06.2018 in O.S.No.92/2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Addanki. Ex.B.10 is the certified copy of the written statement of the 1st defendant i.e. plaintiff herein dt: 16.08.2018 in O.S.No.92/2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki. Ex.B.9 discloses that the 2nd defendant herein filed the suit against the plaintiff and his father

Ravipati Venkateswarlu, for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property covered under settlement deed dt: 30.09.2016 (Original of

Ex.A.4). There is reference about the present suit in the said plaint. Ex.B.10 discloses the same contentions taken by the plaintiff in the present suit. It is further contended in the said written statement that the 1st defendant herein allowed the plaintiff herein to cultivate the schedule property and that the plaintiff herein has been cultivating the land 2 years after the agreement.

But there is no such plea in the present suit filed in the year, 2017 i.e. after four years from the date of suit agreement of sale. Admittedly, the said suit is still pending.

15

16.The evidence of DW.1, goes in accordance with the contents of written statement of the defendants 1 and 3, where under there was denial of execution of the suit agreement of sale and further shows about execution of settlement of settlement deed dt: 30.09.2016 in his favour ( Original of

Ex.A.4). The defendants 2 and 3 also examined one of the attestors of settlement deed dt: 30.09.2016 as DW.2. His evidence in chief examination corroborates the version of the defendants 1 to 3 regarding execution of settlement deed dt: 30.09.2016 (Original of Ex.A.4) in respect of Ac.1.05 cents out of the suit schedule property, in favour of the 2nd defendant, by the 1st defendant. But, surprisingly, he deposed that he was not present at the time of execution of the said settlement deed. So, his evidence would not help the defendants to prove the said settlement deed. However, the PW1 admitted the said transaction. He also admitted that the 2nd defendant (DW.1) has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.05 cents out of the suit schedule property i.e., land covered under the settlement deed dt.30.09.2016 (Original of Ex.A4). Like wise, the plaintiff also could not elicit any fact, from the evidence of D.W.2 which helps him to prove the execution of the suit agreement of sale. So, the evidence of DW.2 would not help either parties.

17.The defendants 2 and 3 also got examined the hand writing expert as DW.3 and got marked Ex.C.1 /Expert Opinion dt: 15.10.2025. The evidence of DW.3 coupled with Ex.C.1/Expert opinion dt: 15.10.2025 goes to 16 show that he compared the disputed signatures of the 1st defendant, marked as Q1 and Q2 in Ex.A.1/Agreement of sale dt: 08.11.2013 with the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant marked as A1 to A5, in sale deed dt:

20.07.2015, A6 to A11 in settlement deed dt: 13.09.2016 (called from

O.S.No.92/2018 on the file of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Addanki vide orders in I.A.No.1060/2018 for comparison purpose), A12 in the original thumb impression register Volume No.249, page No.83 dt:

10.11.2010 of Sub-Registrar Office, Addanki and A13 in Original thumb impression register, Volume 294, page No.47 dt: 30.09.2016 and gave opinion after thoroughly examining those signatures with necessary scientific aids. According to DW.3, the person, who wrote the signatures marked as A1 to A13, did not write the signature in the enclosed portion stamped and marked as ‘Q2’ in the 2nd page of the suit agreement of sale ( Ex.A.1). He further opined that it was not possible to express any opinion regarding authorship or otherwise, on the signature marked as ‘Q1’ in the first page of the suit agreement of sale ( Ex.A.1) for the reason that some of the letters of the signature contain multiple strokes at places and over writings. So, according to DW.3, Ex.A.1/ Agreement of Sale was not executed by the deceased 1st defendant.

18.During the cross-examination, he deposed that he followed the procedure which is mentioned in the report i.e., comparison of general individual writing characteristic and he had used various lengths of 17 different magnifications and had taken photographs of the disputed signatures and other exhibits, enlarged the photographs on different magnifications varying from 1 to 15 x and used the instruments available in the laboratory. It was elicited that DW.3 did not specifically mention about the said procedure and enlargement of photographs in his report. But DW.3 clarified that all such procedures are covered in comparison of individual and general writing characteristics and therefore, there is no need to mentioning the exact magnificationof the image.

19.DW.3 further admitted that signatures vary with age and health, that the age of the person cannot be determined with the hand writing of the person, that the signatures vary with pen, handling of pen, psychological and physical health condition of the signatory/executant.

However, DW.3 clarified that all such variations are taken into consideration, while expressing the opinion. It is further elicited that there is gap of 2 to 3 years from the date of disputed signatures and the specimen signatures marked as A1 to A13. He further admitted that line quality, strokes, pen lifts, pen pressure, size slant alignment, movement, distance between the letters are forms of characteristics of hand writing, but he did not mention those characteristics in his opinion. But, DW.3 clarified that he has considered all those movements and gave opinion. He admitted that the photographs of the signatures were not sent along with the report. He further admitted that he had no degree in hand writing examination.

18 However, he submitted that no university offers such degree and that he was trained for three years in comparison of documents. He also admitted that his signatures on opinion varied from one page to another. He denied that he gave opinion in a mechanical way without proper analysis.

20.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of

PW.1 supported by the attestor and scribe i.e. PW.2 and PW.3 clinchingly establishes that the 1st defendant executed the suit agreement of sale on 08.11.2013 and received advance of Rs.7,00,000/- and inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, 1st defendant did not come forward to measure the suit schedule property, in order to arrive at exact consideration and to execute sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. He further argued that the evidence of DW.1 clearly shows that the 1st defendant was in need of money due to debts and he also sold some other properties to discharge the financial necessities in his family. He further pointed out that the facts elicited in the evidence of DW.1 coupled with Ex.A.5 to Ex.A.7 clinchingly reveals that the plaintiff has financial capacity to pay

Rs.7,00,000/- to the 1st defendant at the time of agreement of sale and further, the plaintiff is able to establish that inspite of his repeated demands, the 1st defendant postponed the same and fraudulently executed a gift deed in respect of Ac.1.05 cents out of the suit schedule property, in favour of the 2nd defendant and as 1st defendant died intestate, the defendants 3 to 6 are liable to execute regular register sale deed in favour of 19 the plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale and to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit may be decreed. He further submitted that the expert opinion of hand writing expert is not conclusive proof and when the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is corroborative in all the material aspects, the expert opinion itself, cannot be made as a ground to discard such consistent oral evidence and therefore, the suit is liable to be decreed.

21.In support of such contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following decisions:

1.Kandati Sarada Vs., Godthi Satish Chowdary and others., reported in 2024 (6) ALT 517 ( T.S). It is a decision in appeal related to suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note. While discussing about the discrepancies for the evidence of witnesses, the Honourable High

Court of State of Telangana held in para No.15, 16 and 17 as follows:

"15. This Court views that normal discrepancies in the evidence are

due to normal errors of observation and memory due to lapse of

time. It must also be borne in mind that a parrot-like deposedion

after a long lapse of time smacks of tutoring, and some differences

advance the credibility of the witnesses. The witnesses are not expected to remember every tiny detail of the transaction, and it is relevant to note that PWs.1 to 3 had given evidence seven years after the transaction under Ex.A.1. The witnesses cannot be expected to have an exact sense of time. The Court must cull out the nuggets of the truth from the evidence unless there is a reason to believe that the 20 discrepancies or inconsistencies are so glaring as utterly to destroy the confidence in the witnesses.

16. No true witness can escape from making some discrepant details. An untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make

his testimony totally non-discrepant. However, courts should bear in

mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness

are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court

is justified in jettisoning his evidence. The trial Court noted that the 1st Defendant did not assert that P.Ws.2 and 3 are henchmen of the Plaintiff or that there exists any animosity between the Defendants and these witnesses; indeed, no such suggestions were posed during their examination. Instead, the 1st Defendant claimed that Plaintiff colluded with P.Ws.2 and 3 to fabricate the promissory note, Ex.A.1. P.W.2 acknowledged in his testimony that he is a friend of the Plaintiff. In light of this evidence, the trial Court concluded that the friendship between P.W.2 and the Plaintiff does not inherently discredit P.W.2's testimony. This Court reasoned that such a relationship, without further substantiated claims of collusion or bias, does not warrant the dismissal of P.W.2's account.

17. A witness is usually considered independent unless he or she springs from sources likely to be tainted. This generally means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the other party. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 to establish the existence of such enmity or grudge against the Defendants.

2.Gudur Madhava Reddy Vs., Bobbala Raji Reddy., reported in 2025 (4) ALT 576 ( TS). The facts disclose that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and so, the agreements are cancelled and advance amount was forfeited to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time fixed under the suit agreement of sale. While discussing about the proof of financial 21 capacity of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration, the

Honourable High Court of State of Telangana held in para No.12 and 13 as

follows:

"12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azhar Sultana v. B.Rajamani 7, held that "it is not necessary that the entire amount of sale consideration should be kept ready and the plaintiff must file proof in respect thereof". In Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "it is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce the money or vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction to prove his readiness and willingness". In Rithu Saxena v. J.S. Grover 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "it is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till the date of the decree". In U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M.Krishna Murthy 10, it is held that "it may not be essential for the plaintiff to actually tender money to the defendant or to deposed money in Court, (2009)17 SCC 27 (2017)4 SCC 654 (2019)9 SCC 132 (2023)11 SCC 775 except when so directed by the Court, to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of a contract, which involves payment of money."

13. As per aforementioned citations, the party approaching the Court seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale need not produce actual cash/money but is entitled to prove his readiness and willingness by any other means. In the instant cases, the respondent has produced his bank statement to show that he had sufficient inflow and outflow of cash in his bank account during the relevant period. As to how the respondent utilized the cash available in his bank account is not the concern of the appellants as long as the balance sale consideration is paid in time.

It is further held in para No.14 that there is no law which states that a person seeking specific relief should prove his source of income, rather the law stipulates that there should be amounts available for payment of sale consideration.

22

22.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3 argued that the 1st defendant being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, gifted Ac.1.05 cents out of the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant under registered gift deed dt: 30.09.2019 and that the evidence of DW.3 coupled with Ex.C.1 clearly establishes that the suit agreement of sale is a forged one. He further submitted that it is apparent even to the naked eye that the length and characteristics of the disputed signatures are completely different when compared with the specimen and admitted signatures of the 1st defendant and so, the expert opinion need not be discarded. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.1 is full of discrepancies as to why, he kept quite for all these years without insisting the 1st defendant to execute sale deed and further, no prudent man will remain silent, after paying 80% of the sale consideration without getting registration of sale deed and possession of the property and the same shows that the 4th defendant got fabricated the said agreement of sale through his brother-in-law i.e. the plaintiff, after receiving legal notice from 6th defendant for partition. He further pointed out that the evidence of PW.3-scribe is vague in several aspects and inconsistent with regard to the age of the 1st defendant at the time of alleged execution of suit agreement of sale. He further pointed out that the evidence of PW.1 is contra to the contents of written statement filed by him (Ex.B.10) in a suit filed by the 2nd defendant in respect of the property covered under Ex.A.4, with regard to delivery of possession and that the facts elicited in the evidence of PW.1 clearly show 23 that he has no financial capacity to pay such huge amount and in view of these inconsistent versions of PW.1, his evidence cannot be relied upon and as it is apparent to the naked eye that Ex.A.1/agreement of sale is a forged one, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

23.In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:

1.Telikicherla Sesibhushan (dead) by Legal Representatives

Vs., Kalli Raja Rao (dead) by Legal Representatives and others., reported in 2015 (1) ALD 66 (SC). In this decision, the Honourable

Supreme Court held in para No.5 as follows:

"5. Clause (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that specific performance of contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which he has been prevented or waived by the defendant."

2.Kalvakolanu Tarakamma (died) by Legal Representatives

Vs., Pulichintala Narsimha Reddy., reported in 2015 (2) ALD 274. The facts disclose that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The defendant denied the execution of the sale, but she admitted her signature on Ex.A.1. The learned trial court decreed the suit.

In appeal, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while discussing 24 about burden of proof and about Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, held in para No.19 and 20 as follows:

"19. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 confers jurisdiction on a Court to decree a suit for specific performance which discretion is to be used, guided by judicial principles but not an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the jurisdiction should be resorted. Sub-clause (a) of sub- section (2) of Section 20 lays down that where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant, cannot be enforced.

20. In nutshell, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that the document Ex. A.1 alleged to have been executed by the defendant was a voluntary act performed freely after understanding its consequences. Merely because signature is appended on a document, it cannot be concluded that the executant had knowledge about its contents unless it is established by surrounding facts and circumstances and by the other evidence either direct or circumstantial."

24.It is further held that if executant is a woman, who completely depends upon the other members of the family, the burden of proof heavily rests upon the plaintiff to prove such transactions and that the executant has knowledge about the transaction before executing the same. Herein the case, the executant is not a female member. So, the facts are not similar to the present case. However, there is no dispute regarding the principle of law, regarding burden of proof.

25

25.It is the fore most contention of the defendants 2 and 3 that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is inconsistent and with improvisation in certain aspects and that the evidence of PW.3 is vague in many aspects and therefore, in view of the apparent variations or dissimilarities in the signatures of the deceased 1st defendant in the disputed agreement of sale and expert pinion, the evidence of PW.s1 to 3 cannot be relied upon. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that minor discrepancies are normal during the course of time and so, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 need not be discarded as the opinion of the expert, is not conclusive proof of forgery. In view of these rival contentions, the evidence of PW.s 1 to 3 is keenly perused. Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW.s 1 to 3 is sufficient to prove the execution of the suit agreement of sale. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3, PW1 deposed that on 6.11.2023, he gave an amount of Rs.1,000/- as advance to the first defendant, but the same was not mentioned in Ex.A1-agreement of sale. The evidence of PW2 also reflects the same. It is not the stand of PW.2 that he was present at the time of such bargain and giving of an advance of

Rs.1000/- to the first defendant. The evidence of PW.3 is silent about it. So, the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 is contra to the pleadings and recitals of

Ex.A.1-Agreement of sale with regard to the advance amount, said to be given to the first defendant.

26

26.Further, when PW1 was asked about the reason for non- performance of contract under the said agreement of sale till filing of the suit, PW1 deposed that the first defendant told him that he would clear the debt due in the society and that the first defendant has been postponing to register the document in his name till 2017, by saying that the debt due in the society is not at discharged and so, he was under the impression that the first defendant, being his grandfather would register the document in his name. But it is elicited that there is no condition in Ex.A1 about discharge of the debt due to the society either by him or by the first defendant. Whereas,

PW.2 deposed that the reason for non-registration of sale deed, is the failure of the first defendant to measure the land. So, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is inconsistent in that aspect. Further more, there is no pleading at all in the plaint about the obligation of the deceased first defendant to clear any debts to the society or any others. In other words, the evidence of PW1 is inconsistent to his pleadings with regard to the cause, for which the deceased 1st defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract under the suit agreement of sale.

27.Undoubtedly, it was elicited in the evidence of D.W.1 that there are debts to the family of the deceased first defendant and so, the first defendant and his sons sold some property to him and others under Ex.B.8-

Sale deed dt: 20.07.2015 and that 5th defendant also sold his movable properties and the first defendant also obtained Loan in the Primary 27 Agricultural Co-operative society. When there is no pleading at all in the plaint, such portion of evidence of PW.1 cannot be considered. Even if it is assumed that there were debts by the time of execution of agreement of sale, it was elicited that PW1 has no idea about the quantum of debt indebted to the society and he had not asked the first defendant about the same and did not express readiness to get registration of the document by paying the said debt in the society or by excluding the debt amount of society. It is further elicited that PW.1 did not convince the first defendant that he would discharge the debt in the society with the balance sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs and that there is no condition at all in Ex.A1 about discharge of debt due with society, either by him or the first defendant. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3, if generally, there are debts in the Primary agricultural Society co-operative society, the purchaser would chose to directly discharge the debt to the society and pay the balance sale consideration to the vendor and get registration of the sale deed. But PW.1 came with new contention that the deceased 1st defendant did not come forward to execute sale deed, as per the terms of the agreement of sale by saying that debt is still existing in the society. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW1, during the cross-examination that the first defendant did not come forward to measure the land in order to determine the extent of the property. If really, the measurement of the property is only the condition, it is the beyond of comprehension of the court as to what prevented the plaintiff, who claimed himself as the grandson of the first defendant, to get 28 measurements of land by assisting the first defendant, who is aged more than 86 years and get execute the registered sale deed. Admittedly, PW1 did not give any notice to the deceased first defendant till receipt of legal notice got issued by the 6th defendant ( Ex.B.1), by the fourth defendant, who is his brother-in-law, for amicable partition in the year 2016. As such, the version of PW1 and PW2 is not found to be reliable regarding the reason for non- performance of the alleged obligation by the deceased first defendant under the suit agreement of sale.

28.Apart from this, PW1, again changed his version during the cross-examination that the first defendant proposed to sell the suit property as the fifth defendant has debts. But he failed to give the quantum of the said debts indebted by the fifth defendant. Admittedly, the first defendant and his sons sold certain property to the second defendant under registered sale dated 20.07.2015, as disclosed in Ex.B8 to meet their family expenses.

Generally, if a property is proposed to sell to discharge the debts of one of the sons, the purchaser has to inform the other family members to avoid future conflicts and litigations, in respect of the property. But it is elicited in evidence of PW1 that he did not inform the son and daughters of the deceased first defendant, before purchasing the property. Even though, the said property is the self acquired property of the deceased first defendant, the purpose of sale is for family necessities and to discharge debts. It is apparent that there was no division of properties in the family of the 29 defendants 1, 3 to 6 and the 1st defendant was aged about 86 years at the time of the alleged agreement of sale. In these circumstances, the failure of the plaintiff, being purchaser to inform about the sale to the sons of the first defendant, creates doubt in the conduct of the plaintiff.

29.Further, it was elicited that the plaintiff did not enquire with fourth defendant, whether the other children of the first defendant had right over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the fourth defendant is brother- in-law of the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff is not utter stranger to the family of the defendants. But he neither choose to inform the defendants nor to obtain the signatures of the sons of the first defendant, atleast as attestor, in the agreement. Furthermore, he categorically deposed that as Ex.A1 is a mere agreement of sale, he did not ask any of the sons of the first defendant to be present at the time of agreement, and he did not even request anyone of them to sign as attestor. Such aspect creates serious doubt in the bonafides of the plaintiff.

30.In addition to these aspects, apparently, the stamp paper used for execution of the said agreement was purchased at Ongole on 07.11.2013.

According to PW1 and PW2, it was initially decided to execute said agreement of sale at Ongole, but later, due to health condition of the first defendant, the said agreement was executed at Addanki. Such aspect also creates doubt as to whether the first defendant, aged about 86 years alone, was capable to come over to Addanki from Thammavaram village, without 30 assistance of any of his sons or family members. It is the final version of the

PW1 that the 1st defendant sold the suit schedule property to discharge the debts of the 5th defendant. If such is the case, the 1st defendant, who was ill, might have atleast taken the assistance of the 5th defendant.

31.The evidence of PW1 further shows that he informed the first defendant to come to Ongole on 08.11.2013, as he would arrange the amount from one Vemula Srinivasa Rao, who obtained hand loan of

Rs.3,80,000/- from him in the month of July. According to PW1, he got acquaintance with said Vemula Srinivasa Rao at Ongole, while he worked in fertilizers shop prior to 2006. The said Srinivasa Rao was not examined to prove such contention. The evidence of PW1 shows that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 30.10.2013 and so, he got an amount of Rs.7 lakhs by the time of execution of agreement of sale. Even though it was elicited in the evidence of DW1, that the bank passbook confronted to him, discloses that the plaintiff had withdrawn an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the bank, the said bank passbook is not filed before this court. So, the court cannot ascertain whether the said pass book was issued by the competent authorities or not.

32.Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff had such withdrawn such amount, there is no proof to show that he secured the remaining four lakhs from Vemula Srinivasa Rao or by any other mode. On the other hand, evidence of PW.2 shows that the plaintiff informed him that he secured an 31 amount of Rs.7 lakhs out of his land acquisition compensation for

Gundlakamma Reservoir, in the year 2004. So, the evidence of PW1 and 2 is not corroborative with regard to the source of consideration, said to be paid to the deceased 1st defendant.

33.PW2 also failed to give the reason as to why the place of execution was initially fixed as Ongole and then it was changed to Addanki.

As per the version of PW2, he was called by both the plaintiff and the first defendant, while he was present at Madrametla, but it was elicited that there is no need to go to Medarametla, to reach Addanki from Thammavaram

Village. PW2 even failed to give the reason as to why he was secured as an attestor for the said agreement of sale. According to him, he is neither relative nor friend of the plaintiff and he got acquaintance with the plaintiff near lands. But it is elicited that he has no lands near the lands of the plaintiff and there are no transactions between him and the plaintiff regarding the lands. It is also elicited that PW.2 does not know the family affairs of the plaintiff and he visited the property only after 2 years of the agreement of sale. So, it is apparent that there are no transactions or relationship between the PW.2 and the plaintiff. Further, the evidence of

PW.2 is also not specific as to how he got acquaintance with the first defendant in order to secure him as an attestor. Moreover, the name of the 1st attestor is not specifically mentioned in Ex.A1-agreement of sale, though his signature appears to be similar to the first attestor in Ex.A1-agreement 32 of sale. It was elicited in the evidence of PW3, the scribe that he has no personal knowledge about the name of the attestors and that the name of the first attestor is not reflecting in the said agreement.

34.The evidence of PW.1 shows that he secured the second attestor by name Vishweshwara Rao, who also accompanied him at the time of purchasing the stamp paper used for preparation of agreement of sale. His evidence is not specific as to who secured the PW2 as the attestor. It is to be noted that PW2 categorically deposed that he does not know whether there was no need for the first defendant to sell the property and about the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. These circumstances create doubt as whether PW2 has acquaintance with the first defendant or not. So, the version of PW.2 that he was secured by the first defendant is unbelievable.

35.Moreover, PW1 deposed that the said agreement was prepared on perusal of Pattadar passbook and photostat copy of a document. But

PW.2 deposed that agreement was prepared on the instructions of the first defendant, by showing a document of the year 1967. He denied that he gave instructions to his counsel to mention in chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief examination that both the plaintiff and first defendant gave instructions for preparation of agreement of sale and got typed on computer/DTP. Such version is contra the contents of his chief affidavit filed in lieu of his chief 33 examination. Further, PW3- scribe deposed that he prepared the agreement on the instructions of the first defendant, who produced one old document and Xerox/photostat copy of Pattadar passbook. So, the evidence of PW.s 1 to 3 is inconsistent and vague with regard to the documents, used for preparation of the agreement of sale. Though the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent with regard to the date, time and place of execution of the side agreement, the other facts elicited in their cross-examination create doubt in the veracity of their evidence.

36.Coming to the evidence of PW3-Scribe, it was elicited in his cross-examination that the plaintiff narrated him about Ex.A1 on his enquiry, and so, he could said the details of Ex.A1, including date and names of Attestors. It is also elicited that the name and surname of the first attestor is not appearing in the signature portion in Ex.A1. It is further elicited that he is not maintaining any register showing the descriptive particulars of documents prepared by him and that he has got acquaintance with the plaintiff in the year 2010 through his friend. Though he deposed that he got acquaintance with plaintiff and the first defendant since 2010 as they used to consult him for advice, he failed to say about the advises said to be given by him, and that except Ex.A1, no other document related to the first defendant was prepared by him. It is to be noted that admittedly, the first defendant executed a settlement deed (Original of Ex.A4) and sale deed along with his sons, in favour of the second defendant i.e., Ex.B8 and also 34 sold another property to other persons. If really, the first defendant had such acquaintance with the PW3 since 2010, he might have opted to get those documents to be scribed through PW3. So, the version of PW3, regarding his acquaintance with the 1st defendant is found to be unbelievable.

37.PW3 also failed to give the details of computer centre, where he got typed the contents. He admitted that he signed on Ex.A1 as if it was prepared by him, but he did not mention that he got prepared it. So, his version is found to be vague. In addition to these aspects, Ex.A1 agreement of sale discloses the age of the first defendant as 86 years by the time of the agreement, but PW3 deposed that the first defendant was aged about 60 to 65 years by the time of Ex.A1. He failed to give the details of height and descriptive particulars of the first defendant. Again, he deposed that the first defendant was a lean and height person. If really PW3 had well acquaintance with the deceased first defendant since 2010, he might have given the age of the first defendant accurately. All these circumstances create serious doubt as to whether PW3 prepared the said agreement of sale in the presence of the first defendant and as per instructions given by the first defendant. Moreover, it was elicited that he gave the details of this agreement of sale even in the chief examination, as narrated by the plaintiff, but not out of his personal remembrance or the registers maintained by him. As such, the evidence of PW3 cannot be given any amount of weight.

35

38.At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that there are certain other discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 with regard to delivery of possession of suit schedule property to him. As per the pleadings and the recitals of Ex.A1, there was no delivery of possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff. During cross-examination also, initially, he admitted the said fact. He also deposed that the second defendant is cultivating Ac.1.05 Cents out of the suit schedule property, since the date of settlement deed ( Original of Ex.A.4). He further deposed that the 2nd defendant entered into the land after the death of the first defendant.

According to him, the fourth defendant is cultivating the remaining extent of 2 acres in the northern, out of the suit schedule property. He further categorically admitted that he was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the date of Ex.A1 or at any point of time. He again deposed that he cultivated the suit schedule property on lease, by paying amount of Rs.5,000/- per One acre from 2013 to 2017, i.e, till death of the first defendant. But there is no such pleading in the plaint or in legal notice ( Ex.A.2). Ex.B10-Certified copy of written statement filed by the plaintiff herein in OS No. 92 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Addanki discloses that the plaintiff herein contended that he

entered into possession of the suit schedule property after 2 years of execution of Ex.A1-Agreement of sale ( i.e., in the year, 2015), but PW1 deposed that he has not mentioned the same in the plaint or legal notice (Original of Ex.A2) that the first defendant permitted him to cultivate the 36 suit schedule property on lease from the year 2013 to 2017. He even denied that he has mentioned about the same in the written statement ( Ex.B.10) filed in the said suit that is O.S.NO. 92 of 2018. Such version is contra to the contents of Ex.B10. So, it is evident that PW.1 has been going on changing his version from time to time in order to suit his claim.

39.Further, PW1 denied that the defendants 3 to 6 are in joint possession of the remaining extent of Ac.2.00cents out of the suit schedule property after death of the first defendant. According to him, the fourth defendant alone is cultivating the remaining extent of 2 acres out of the suit property. Such improvisation in the evidence of PW1, which is contra to his own pleadings in the earlier suit (Ex.B10), clearly shows his cordial relationship and interestedness towards the welfare of his brother-in-law i.e., fourth defendant. The said fact strengthens the defence of the defendants 2 and 3 that there are cordial relationship between the plaintiff and the fourth defendant. It is also elicited in the evidence of PW2 that there is no date under the signature of the stamp vendor and the scribe. Even the scribe also did not mention the date of execution in Ex.A1 and did not maintain any register regarding the preparation of the suit agreement of sale. All these circumstances and the discrepancies elicited in the evidence of PWs1 to 3 shake the credence of their testimony, leading to a doubt as to whether, the said agreement of sale was prepared with ante date, by taking advantage of the stamp paper purchased earlier in the name of the plaintiff.

37

40.In addition to these discrepancies, the evidence of DW3, the handwriting expert coupled with Ex.C1-Expert opinion, clinching reveals that there are dissimilarities in the disputed signature on the second page of

Ex.A1 when compared with the other admitted signatures in Ex.B8 and another settlement dated 30.9.2016 i.e., Original of Ex.A4, which are of the contemporaneous period to the Ex.A.1- agreement. He further opined that the first signature on the first page of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, is not fit for comparison due to multiple strokes and several over writings at one place.

41.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the opinion of the expert is not conclusive proof and further DW3 failed to give the specific details of the procedure, magnification and other characteristics, which made him to give opinion that the disputed signature of the first defendant in the second page differs from the admitted specimen signatures of the first defendant. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decision:

Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs., Mohamad Isa, reported in AIR 1963,

Supreme Court 1728. This is a decision in appeal related to suit for the specific performance of agreement of sale, wherein the Honourable Supreme

Court, while discussing about the evidentiary value of the hand writing expert, held in para No.26 as follows:

“We have so far not considered the evidence of the experts. Mr. Bennett examined by the appellant supports the appellant's case, whereas Nasrat Hussain examined by the respondent supports his case. Evidence given 38

by experts of handwriting can never be conclusive, because it is,

after all, opinion evidence. Since we have come to the conclusion that the evidence given by the attesting witnesses and the scribe and the appellant is wholly satisfactory, that evidence proves the execution of the document by the respondent and the said evidence does not really need to be corroborated by the opinion of experts, Even so, Mr. Bennett does support the appellant's case, and though Mr. Nasrat Hussain supports the respondent's case, it is significant that he has categorically admitted that what purports to be the writing of the respondent is simulated forgery. The writing in question purports to acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- ; the appellant says that it is the writing of the respondent, whereas the respondent contends that it is forgery. The respondent's expert calls it simulated forgery. After the respondent's expert described the writing as, simulated forgery, he was asked a specific question as to whether it would be possible to have simulated forgery where there was no model before the forger of the respondent's writing, and the expert definitely stated that it would not be possible to bring out simulated forgery without the model of the respondent's writing. This answer clearly, means that the appellant or any of his alleged accomplices should have been in possession of a model writing of the respondent, and on this point, not even a suggestion has been made to the appellant that he was in possession of any writing of the respondent. That only shows that the expert evidence given by Mr. Nasrat Hussain does not really help the respondent's case.”

42.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3 argued that the evidence of DW3 and his opinion clearly establishes that

DW3 is a well experienced hand writing expert and further, it is apparent to the naked eye that the disputed signatures are forged, when compared with the other admitted signatures of the 1st defendant and thus, the opinion of the expert can be considered. To support such contention, he relied on the following decision:

Koya Lalitha Kumari and others., Vs., Polina Nageswara Rao

(died) and others., reported in 2015 (4) ALD 512., wherein the Honourable 39 High Court of State of Telangana, while discussing about the opinion of expert held in para No.6 and 7 as follows:

“6.The further statement, found in VIJAYANANDs case, that if there are already documents on record, which are proved to have been written or signed by the person disputing signature of handwriting, it is always open to the Court to send specimen signatures to a handwriting expert, I am afraid, is not framed correctly. When once a document is already proved in the Court to have been executed by a particular party or a signature appended thereon is held proved to have been truly signed as such by the party concerned, then perhaps nothing remains for a handwriting expert to further render his opinion in such cases. This apart, the opinion of a handwriting expert is not binding on the Court. It is only intended to enable the Court to firm-up its opinion. It must not be lost sight of that experts merely tender evidence and do not decide the issue. Hence, it is the responsibility of the experts to furnish to the Court necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the Court to form its own independent judgment by application of such criteria to the facts proved in the case, after giving appropriate weight to the opinion of expert.

7.The object of every judicial enquiry is to produce in the mind of the Judge a belief as to the existence or non-existence of certain facts on which rights or liabilities of the parties and the decision of the case depends. Hence, no court should mechanically surrender its will and

independence of judging properly the fact in issue, to the judgment

of an expert. The facts and circumstances of each case call for an

appropriate application of mind by the Court, as to whether the

advice of an expert is called for or not. “

43. There is no dispute regarding the said principle of Law that the handwriting expert opinion is not a conclusive proof. However, DW3 40 clarified that he gave such opinion by following the due procedure by magnifying the photos of the signatures and by considering the characteristics of signatures such as position, pen, etc., and found that the person who wrote the disputed signature in the second page of

Ex.A1 and the person who subscribed the signatures in the admitted documents ( Ex.B.8 and Original of Ex.A4), is not one and the same and so, the court finds no reason to discard the evidence of DW3.

44.Even if it is assumed for a moment that DW3 gave such opinion without following the procedure and without considering all the characteristics of signatures for comparison, this Court has ample power to compare the signatures under section 73 of Indian Evidence

Act (section 72 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3. there are several variations and dissimilarities in the signatures of the first defendant in the first page and second page of Ex.A1, when compared with the other admitted signatures of the first defendant which were executed documents in the year 2015 and 2016. It is to be noted that ExA1- agreement of sale was said to be executed in the year 2013 and admittedly, settlement deed dt.30.09.2016 and sale deed dt.

20.07.2015 (Ex.B8), which were executed in the year 2016 and 2015, respectively. On careful perusal of the signatures of the first defendant in Ex.B8/Sale deed and the Settlement deed i.e., Original of Ex.A4 41 (called from the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Addanki), those signatures are found to be clear and stable i.e., neatly subscribed, but the flow of signatures in Ex.A1 appear to be very shaky, but not normally written.

45. Moreover, it is apparent to the naked eye that there are several variations in appearance of the disputed signatures when compared with the admitted signatures, in respect of the Telugu letters 'ka', Shna, Kri and mma. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3, the size and gap in between the letters in the disputed signatures in Ex.A1, are more than the regular admitted signatures. The disputed signatures also appear to be written slowly and there are over writings, indicating an attempt to give colour of similar appearance to the earlier signatures. If really the first defendant subscribed his signatures in Ex.A1 in the year 2013 i.e., 3 years prior to Ex.B8 and the original of Ex.A4, the signatures might be much stable and neat without any shivering and over writings.

46.As seen from the facts in Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs., Mohamad

Isa (Stated supra), the evidence of the attestor and scribe were found to be corroborative. It was also observed that there was no proof that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession of any document containing model writing of the defendant, in order to believe that there is a scope for forging the signature. In the present case, it is elicited that PW3 has no personal 42 knowledge about the said agreement and he had deposed evidence as per the information given by the plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 is also found to be shaken as he was going on changing versions. Further, the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 is found to be inconsistent as to why the 1st defendant did not perform his part of contract i.e., why he did not come forward to execute the sale deed and some other aspects, referred above. Further more, the plaintiff is none other than the brother-in-law of the fourth defendant, who is son of the first defendant. The said 4th defendant remained exparte in this suit. He is one of the executants of sale deed (Ex.B8). Even though, the plaintiff claimed that he has disputes with the 4th defendant, as discussed above, the facts elicited in the evidence of PW1, reflect his interestedness towards the 4th defendant, who is husband of his elder sister. So, there is every probability for the plaintiff to have documents containing model signatures of the deceased 1st defendant. As such, the facts and decision in

Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs., Mohamad Isa and Kandati Sarada’s case

(Stated supra) cannot be applied to this matter. More over, nothing was elicited the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, to support the plaintiff regarding execution of Ex.A.1- agreement of sale. In these circumstances, the court cannot discard the evidence and opinion (Ex.C1) of DW3.

47.The defendants 2 an 3 also contended that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to purchase the property and to give Rs.7 lakhs as mentioned in the agreement of sale. As discussed above, PW1 failed to file 43 any document to show that he was in possession of Rupees Seven lakhs by the time of the agreement of sale and he was able to give the remaining rupees two lakhs for execution of regular registered sale deed. However, it was elicited in the evidence of DW1 that the father of the plaintiff got Rupees five lakhs towards compensation, and the family of the plaintiff is having lands as disclosed in Ex.A5 to Ex.A7. But, it is noted that PW.1 categorically deposed that at present, his family is not having any lands in Thammavaram village (as disclosed in Ex.A5). It is also noted that PW.1 gave different versions regarding his source of income. To be more clear, PW.1 got mentioned his occupation as of cultivation in chief affidavit. During the cross-examination, he deposed that he is grazing she buffaloes and getting income, and he gave his land to Madala Nageswara Rao for lease and that he worked in fertilizers shop at Ongole in the year 2006. He deposed that he sold his tractor for Rs.40,000 as a scrap, but he failed to give the details of the tractor. Be that as it may, DW.1 admitted that he borrowed Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff in the year 2010 and that the plaintiff is having accounts in Andhra Pragati Gramina Bank at Medearametla and Bank of India,

Ongole and that the entries in bank passbook of the plaintiff shown to him, disclose that the plaintiff had withdrawn an amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 30th

October 2013. But as referred above, the plaintiff did not choose to file the same before this court in order to ascertain the genuineness of the same, as

DW1 is not competent to speak about the entries in bank pass book of the plaintiff. He also did not examine any person to prove that Vemula Srinivas 44 discharged Rs.3,80,000/- to the plaintiff, prior to execution of agreement, and so, the plaintiff was in possession of Rs.7 lakhs on the date of agreement of sale dt: 08.11.2013 i.e. ( Ex.A.1).

48. Even though, as per the decision in Gudur Madhava Reddy

Vs., Bobbala Raji Reddy, reported in 2025 (4) ALT 576 (TS) (relied by the plaintiff), there is no need for the plaintiff to carry cash to pay the balance sale consideration or to deposit the same before the court, when the defendants are disputing the financial capacity of the plaintiff, he ought to have filed any document reflecting his Income or that he was in possession of such a huge amount of Rs.7 lakhs. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff has properties and he has such amount as on the date of the agreement of sale, for the reasons mentioned above, the plaintiff failed to establish the very execution of suit agreement of sale and passing of advance of Rs.7 lakhs to the deceased first defendant, with convincing and reliable evidence.

More over, the facts in Guduru Madhava Reddy’s case, disclose that the plaintiff produced his bank statements proving that he has the consideration amount by the time of agreement of sale ( Ex.A.1) So, the said decision, would not help the plaintiff, in the present matter.

49.For the foregoing reasons, the court is unable to believe the inconsistent version of PW.s 1 to 3, as reliable evidence regarding the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale by the first defendant and also payment of Rs.7,00,000/- towards advance. On the other hand, the 45 defendant 2 and 3 are able to elicit that it is a forged one. Therefore, the court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish that Ex.A1- agreement of sale is true, valid and binding on the first defendant. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

50. Issue Nos. 2 and 3:

In order to claim the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, plaintiff has to establish that the first defendant executed the agreement of sale in his favour and that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the first defendant failed to perform his part of contract i.e., to measure the suit schedule property in order to arrive and ascertain the exact extent and consideration. As discussed in the above issue, the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of the agreement of sale ( Ex.A.1), by the first defendant. He also failed to file any document to show that he has cash of Rs.7,00,000/- as on 08.11.2013 ( date of agreement of sale Ex.A.1) and Rs.2,00,000/- by the time of the suit, in order to establish his readiness.

51.Regarding willingness, it is the foremost contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that the first defendant did not come forward to measure the suit schedule property as agreed under the agreement of sale ( Ex.A.1) and unless and until such obligation was performed by the first defendant, he is not supposed to pay the balance sale consideration and so he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But during 46 the cross-examination, he resailed from the said pleadings and version given in the chief affidavit, filed in lieu of chief examination and deposed that the first defendant postponed the matter in view of subsistence of debt in

Primary Co-operative Agricultural Society, Thammavaram Village. It is to be noted that the first defendant was aged about 86 years even by the time of the alleged agreement of sale in the year 2013. PW1 claimed himself as the grandson of the first defendant by virtue of his relationship with the fourth defendant and that the 1st defendant was ill by the time of execution of agreement. If such is the case, it is the beyond the comprehension of the

Court, as to what prevented the plaintiff, being a young man and close relative of the deceased 1st defendant, to assist the 1st defendant, to get measurement of the land by assisting the first defendant and to convince the first defendant that he would discharge the said debt and get execution of registered sale deed. Apparently, no such effort was made by the the plaintiff, who claimed that he paid major portion of consideration. He did not even place the matter before the other family members or the elders, till issuance of the legal notice ( Ex.A.2) in the year 2017. No independent evidence is adduced by the plaintiff in order to show that he had demanded the first defendant for nearly 30 to 40 times, to get measurement of suit schedule property and to execute sale deed in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale, as deposed by him. There is no whisper in the evidence of the plaintiff that he had requested his brother-in-law i.e., fourth defendant or any other family members of the deceased first defendant including the 47 fifth defendant in respect of whose debts, the first defendant was proposed to sell the property. All these circumstances create serious doubt regarding the very transaction under Ex.A1-agreement of sale and receiving of consideration, so also the alleged readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, to perform his part of contract.

52.It is the very contention of the plaintiff that the first defendant proposed to sell the suit schedule property to discharge his debt as well as the debts of his another son i.e., fifth defendant, but no evidence is adduced to show that the first defendant utilized the alleged advance amount of Rs.7 lakhs to discharge the debts of the fifth defendant by way of examining any creditors of the fifth defendant or of the first defendant and to file any document to show that the first defendant had existing debts in respect of the suit schedule property from 2013 to 2017. Even though, DW1 admitted that the the first defendant mortgaged some property in the society, his evidence was not specific that the said mortgage is related to the suit property. Such fact also creates doubt in the version of the plaintiff regarding non-readiness of the 1st defendant to perform his part of obligation.

53.Further, as rightly pointed by the learned defence counsel, any person who gave 80% of the sale consideration would certainly demand and take possession of the property and also the original documents related to the property on the date of agreement. But for the reasons best known to 48 the plaintiff, he did not choose to take any such steps and simply contended that he paid such a huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and remained silent till 2017, i.e., for four years without taking any steps by just relying upon the words of the first defendant, who is aged about 90 years, by the time of the suit. So, viewed from any angle, the contentions of the plaintiff are found to be unbelievable.

54.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not file the suit with in three years from the date of alleged agreement of sale. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that no time was fixed under the said agreement and further, the time is not essence of any contract related to immovable property and thus, the suit is not barred by limitation. To support such contention, he relied on the following decision:

Urvashiben and Another Vs., Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi.,

[2019 SAR (Civil) 241]. It is a decision in appeal against the order filed under

Order VII, rule 17 of C.P.C to reject the plaint in a suit for agreement of sale on point of limitation. The facts disclose that no time was fixed in the agreement. In such context, the Honourable Supreme Court held in para

No.11 and 12 as follows:

"11. It is fairly well settled that, so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is a mixed question of fact and law. It is true that limitation can be the ground for rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under O.VII R.11(d) of the CPC. Equally, it is well settled that for the purpose of deciding application filed under O.VII R.11 only averments stated in the plaint alone can be looked into, merits and demerits of the matter and 49 the allegations by the parties cannot be gone into. Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the limitation of three years, for suits for specific performance. The said Article reads as under :

Suits for Specific3 yearsThe date fixed for the performance, or, if Performanceno such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused

12.From a reading of the aforesaid Article, it is clear that when the date is fixed for performance, limitation is three years from such date. If no such date is fixed, the period of three years is to be computed from the date when the plaintiff, has notice of refusal.

55.As per the Ex.A1-agreement of sale dt.08.11.2023, no time is fixed for performance of obligation by either parties. According to the plaintiff, he came to know about the settlement deed dt.30.09.2016 ( Original of Ex.A.4), after 2 months and then, he got issued legal notice dt.

09.06.2017 ( Ex.A2), for which the 1st defendant gave reply ( Ex.A.3) and then, he came to know about the intention of the 1st defendant, not to execute sale deed as per the agreement and then, he filed this suit on 18.07.2017. As such, in the light of the above decision and as per Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963, the suit is filed within the three years from the date of refusal ie.., within the period of limitation. Thus, the court finds no force in the said contention of the defendants.

56. Be that as it may, when the plaintiff even failed to prove the execution of the agreement of sale and payment of advance amount, the question of his readings and willingness or the non- performance of the first defendant, does not arise. As such, the court holds the plaintiff is not 50 entitled to seek for this relief of specific performance of the suit agreement of sale and also for the alternative relief of refund of advance amount, as claimed for. Accordingly, issues No.2 and 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

57.Issue No.4:

In view of the discussion and findings in the above issues, the court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, this issue is also answered against the plaintiff.

58.In the result, suit is dismissed, with costs.

Partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, partly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge ( Senior Division),

Addanki.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1 : Ravipati Venkata Subba RaoDW.1: Ravuri Arjun Rao PW.2 : Vadlamudi Surendra BabuDW.2 : Manne Siva Kumar PW.3 : T. Venkata Srinivasa RaoDW.3 : B. Sudhakar Reddy

Documents Marked

For Plaintiffs :

Ex.A.1 : Agreement of Sale dt: 08.11.2013 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dt: 09.06.2017 51 Ex.A.3 : Reply notice dt: 17.06.2017 got issued by 1st defendant.

Ex.A.4 : True copy of Registered Gift deed dt: 30.09.2016 in the name of

Ravuri Arjun Rao.

Ex.A.5 : Title deed stands in the name of the plaintiff’s father for Ac.2.92 cents of Thammavaram Village.

Ex.A.6 : Title deed stands in the name of plaintiff’s father for Ac.4.12 cents of Dhenuvukonda Village.

Ex.A.7 : Pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff for ac.3.44 cents of Vemparala Village.

For Defendants :

Ex.B1 : Office copy of legal notice dt: 02.09.2016 got issued by D.6. Ex.B.2 : Reply notice dt: 23.09.2016 got issued by deceased 1st defendant. Ex.B.3 : Office copy of legal notice dt: 31.01.2018 got issued by 5th defendant to defendants. Ex.B.4 : True copy of 1B ( ROR), dt: 10.12.2022 issued by Tahsildar under Khata No.3174. Ex.B.5 : True copy of pattadar Adangal dt: 10.12.2022 issued by Tahsildar, Korisapadu under Khata No.3174. Ex.B.6 : True copy of 1B ( ROR) dt: 10.12.2022 issued by Tahsildar, Korisapadu stands in the name of 1st defendant under Khata No.1291. Ex.B.7: True copy of pattadar adangal dt: 10.12.2022 issued by Tahsildar, Korisapadu stands in the name of 1st defendant under Khata No.1291. Ex.B.8 : Registered Sale deed dt: 20.07.2015 executed by defendants 1, 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No.2. Ex.B.9 : Certified copy of plaint and schedule dt: 07.06.2018 in

O.S.No.92/2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Addanki. Ex.B.10 : Certified copy of written statement dt: 16.08.2018 filed in

O.S.No.92/2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Addanki. Ild./- D.N.V.L.,

Civil Judge ( Senior Division),

Addanki.

1

APPR040000272021

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE ( SENIOR DIVISION ) ADDANKI.

Present:-Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki.

Monday, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No. 01 of 20 21

Between:

Vadranapu Alisamma, W/o. Late Yesuratnam, aged 52 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o.D.No.39/29, Chinaganugapalem, Addanki Town,

Prakasam District. ...Plaintiff

Vs.,

1. Gadde Krupa Mani, W/o. Late Santha Prabhudas, aged 52 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o. Near Bell and Benet School, Bharat Gas Agency Road, Ramnagar, Addanki Town, Prakasam District.

2. Gadde Aruna, D/o. Late Santha Prabhudas, aged 36 years, Working as Lady Women P.C Village Secretariat Janakavaram Village and Post and Mandal.

3. Gadde Santhi, D/o. Late Santha Prabhudas, aged 32 years, Teacher, MPP School, Tammaluru Village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Gadde Murali, S/o. Late Santha Prabhudas, aged 30 years, Software Engineer, Now residing at Near Bell and Benet School, Bharat Gas Agency Road, Ramnagar, Addanki Town and Mandal.

5. Gadde Swathi, D/o. Late Santha Prabhudas, aged 28 years, R/o. Near Bell and Benet School, Bharat Gas Agency Road, Ramnagar, Addanki Town and Mandal.

6. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Addanki Depot, Addanki.

...Defendants 1 to 6

2 This suit is coming on 08.04.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri P. Ramesh, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Shaik Abdul Jabbar, Learned advocate for defendants No.1 to 5; and defendant No.6 remained exparte; and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

// J U D G M E N T \\

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of her right to get all the benefits of the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas, as shown in the plaint schedule, by virtue of a registered Will dt: 30.11.2018 and for consequential injunction restraining the 6th defendant not to disburse the benefits of the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas, till the disposal of the suit and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

a)An amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, which are Provident Fund-

Rs.7,00,000/-, Gratuity- Rs.11,50,000/-, CCS- Rs.5,00,000/-, SBT –

Rs.1,50,000/-, EDLF – Rs.4,00,000/- and MRDF – Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. death benefits of deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudasu, lying in the hands of the defendant No.6 is shown as the plaint schedule property.

b)One Gadde Santha Prabhudas, S/o. Krupanandam is the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the defendant No.2 to 5. The said Santha

Prabhudas worked as Driver in Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation ( herein after referred as APSRTC), Addanki Depot bearing Staff No.E-501215.

While so, on 26.12.2020 Gadde Santha Prabhudas, while working as Driver at

Addanki Depot died, leaving behind the defendants 1 to 5 as his legal representatives. After his death, the deceased 1 to 5 succeeded the estate of

Santha Prabhudas and they have in joint possession and enjoyment of the same.

3 During his life time, Santha Prabhudas mentioned the name of the 1st defendant as his nominee in his Service Register maintained by the defendant No.6, with regard to his personal emoluments. Subsequently, due to the family disputes arose between the deceased Santha Prabhudas since December, 2013. Further to take wreak vengeance against Santha Prabhudas, the defendant No.1 filed

M.C.No.4/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Addanki for maintenance. She categorically mentioned in the said petition that the defendants 1 to 5 have no relation with the deceased Santha Prabhudas, since

December, 2013. Santha Prabhudas also filed counter by denying the contents of the petition and contended that the defendants 1 to 5 filed the said petition for unlawful gain, without attending his day to day needs, though he was having several ailments. The defendant No.1 also made an application in Criminal

M.P.No. 918/2017 in M.c.No.04/2017 in interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. After due enquiry, the court granted Rs.5,000/- per month, towards interim maintenance of the 1st defendant on 16.06.2017. The deceased Santha

Prabhudas paid the said amount to the defendant No.1. The defendants 1 to 5 never looked after the welfare of the Santha Prabhudas. Having no other go, he came to the house of the plaintiff, who is none other than the sister of the defendant No.1 for his day to day needs. In such exceptional circumstances, the plaintiff rendered services to the deceased Santha Prabhudas till his demise, by considering his ill health.

c)By taking consideration of services of the plaintiff and out of love and affection, the deceased Santha Prabhudas executed a registered Will on 30.11.2018 in favour of the plaintiff, with regard to his benefits after his retirement, which are shown in the plaint schedule. So, he created right to the plaintiff over all his benefits, after his life time. He also mentioned that the plaintiff 4 has to discharge his debts to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/- to the creditors, out of his benefits. He also referred about pendency of maintenance case filed by the defendant No.1 and non cooperation of the defendant No.1 to 5 for his day to day needs and also about rendering of service by the plaintiff. The deceased Santha

Prabhudas executed the Will in a sound and disposing state of mind in the presence of elders. The said will is the last Will and testament of Santha

Prabhudas. After the death of Santha Prabhudas, the said Will came into force. As per the terms and conditions of the said Will, the plaintiff is entitled to receive all the benefits of the deceased Santha Prabhudas from the defendant No.6. Except the plaintiff, none else including the defendants 1 to 5, has right over those benefits.

d)After demise of Santha Prabhudas, the plaintiff made an application

before the defendant No.6, requesting to grant benefits of the deceased Santha

Prabhudas i.e. plaint schedule property, by virtue of the said Will. The defendant

No.6 received the said application, but did not grant the benefits, due to the pressure of the defendants 1 to 5, who made serious efforts to grab the benefits of the deceased Santha Prabhudas. On repeated demands of the plaintiff, though the defendant No.6 agreed to pay the same, he postponed the same on some pretext or the other and finally avoided to pay the same. He further made a direction to get suitable orders from the competent Civil Court, in view of the objections raised by the defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff being a widow and lonely lady is unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants 1 to 5, at the instance of defendant

No.6. Therefore, the plaintiff is compelled to file the suit for declaration of her right over all the benefits of the deceased Santha Prabhudas shown in the plaint schedule, except the leave encashment amount, as the deceased is indebted to creditors, in order to facilitate the creditors to recover their debts from the leave 5 encashment amount and also for consequential injunction restraining the defendant No.6, not to disburse the benefits of the deceased i.e. plaint schedule property, till the final disposal of the suit.

03.The 1st defendant filed written statement, which is adopted by the defendants 2 to 5 by denying the most of the averments of the plaint, except their relationship with the deceased Santha Prabhudas. They took the following contentions:

a)The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief with regard to benefits of the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas, as the same is barred by laws governing the said area. So, the plaint is to be rejected at the threshold. The alleged registered

Will dt: 30.11.2018 is not genuine one. The same cannot be considered, as it is violative of all the laws, specifically all the rules and laws of the department.

Subsidiary Rules, Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, 1933, the Andhra Pradesh

Manual of Special Pay and Allowance including Travelling Allowances Rules and the Subsidiary Rules issued there under, The Andhra Pradesh Pension code and the Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961, the A.P. Family Rules, 1964 and A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980, Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct )

Rules, 1964, Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules Andhra

Pradesh Financial Code.

b)The defendant No.1 is having disputes with her husband and approached the court, as the deceased Santha Prabhudas deserted her. Being vengeful, the deceased Santha Prabhudas did not make entries of names of the defendant No.1 to 5, in his service records. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff being concubine of the deceased Santha Prabhudas, created the Will. In fact, the husband of the defendant No.1 admitted in M.C.No.04/2017 on the file of 6

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki that the plaintiff

herein is nothing to him. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff cannot claim any relief, as it is not genuine and the laws preclude to bequeath the death benefits under the Will. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

04.The defendant No.6 remained exparte.

05.Basing on the above pleadings and documents and also on considering submissions on both sides, the following issues have been settled for trial, on 23.09.2024:

1. Whether the Registered Will dt:30.11.2028 is true valid and executed by the deceased Santha Prabhudas?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right to get all

the benefits of the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas i.e. plaint schedule

property by virtue of the Will dt: 30.11.2018?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any consequential relief against the defendant No.6 as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

06.During the trial, the plaintiff got examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Inspite being given sufficient adjournments, either the defendants 1 to 5 or their learned counsel did not turn up and so, the cross-examination of

PW.1 to PW.3, was recorded as nil. Likewise, the defendants 1 to 5 did not even choose to adduce any evidence.

07.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not turn up the arguments on their behalf are treated as heard as per their written statement. Perused the entire record.

7

08.Issue No.1 & 2:

Herein the case, as seen from the pleadings, admittedly, the deceased

Gadde Santha Prabhudas, S/o. Krupanandam is the husband of the defendant

No.1 and father of the defendants 2 to 5. He died on 26.12.2020, while working as driver in APSRTC Depot, Addanki, i.e., department of the 6th defendant. The defendants 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased Santha Prabhudas and his estate. It is also an admitted fact that the defendants 1 to 5 resided separately from the said Santha Prabhudas, in view of family disputes and so, the defendant No.1 filed M.C.No.04/2017 on the file of learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Addanki for maintenance. Indisputably, the plaint

schedule property i.e. some of the death and service benefits of the deceased

Gadde Santha Prabhudas, is lying in the hands of the office of the 6th defendant.

09.It is the contention of the plaintiff that when the defendants 1 to 5 did not take care of the deceased Santha Prabhudas, who suffered with several health ailments, approached her and on considering the health condition of the deceased Santha Prabhudas, who is the husband of her sister i.e., the 1st defendant, she rendered services till his death and so, out of love and affection, the said Prabhudas bequeathed all his benefits of employment as shown in the plaint schedule, under a registered Will dt: 30.11.2018 and thus, she is entitled for declaration that she has right over the plaint schedule except the leave encashment amount, in order to enable the creditors to realize debts of the deceased Santha Prabhudas. It is her further contention that after death of said

Prabhudas when she made an application to the defendant No.6, who is the custodian of the death benefits of the deceased Santha Prabhudas, on the basis of the said Will, he did not disburse the same and further directed to obtain specific 8 direction from the competent civil court, in view of the obstacles raised by the defendants 1 to 5 and thus, she approached the court.

10.Since the defendants 1 to 5 denied the execution and genuineness of the Will, basing on which the plaintiff has been claiming right over the plaint schedule property, she got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to

Ex.A.5.

a)Ex.A.1 is the original registered Will dt: 30.11.2018 executed by

Gadde Santha Prabhudas in favour of the plaintiff. It discloses that the 1st defendant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas and they got married in the year, 1982 and blessed with three daughters and one son.

It further discloses that since, 2013, his wife i.e. 1st defendant deserted him and filed M.C.No.04/2017 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Addanki and interim maintenance was granted in the said proceedings. But due to ill health, he depended on the plaintiff, who is none other than the younger sister of the 1st defendant. It also discloses that the plaintiff has been looking after the welfare of the said Prabhudas and so, he bequeathed his benefits i.e. Provident fund, Gratuity, CCS, State Benefit Trust ( SBT), EDLF and MRDF etc., and it is also recited that the plaintiff has to discharge the debts of Prabhudas to a tune of

Rs.15,00,000/- and the testator has every right to cancel the same during his life time and it was voluntarily executed by the testator in the presence of two attestors namely Chennupalli Subba Rao ( PW.2) and R. Hanumantha Rao. It appears to be scribed by Dharmavarapu Pradmanabha Sarma ( PW.3) and it was duly registered on 30.11.2018 by the Sub-Registrar, Addanki.

b)Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 are the certified copies of petition (s), order and counter in Crl.M.P.No.918/2017 in M.C.No.04/2017 on the file of learned 9

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki dt: 09.02.2017,

16.06.2017 and 28.04.2017 respectively. On conjoint reading of Exs.A.2 to Ex.A.4, it is apparent that the 1st defendant herein filed a petition for maintenance and also for interim maintenance against the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas and it was partly allowed by granting Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. As seen from Ex.A.2, the 1st defendant herein alleged that her husband Prabhudas is having illicit intimacy with the plaintiff herein and due to said relationship, her husband deserted her and the children. Likewise, Ex.A.4 discloses that the said deceased Prabhudas denied the allegations made in the said petition and further contended that his children i.e., defendants 2 to 5 herein were doing jobs and as he did not agree for the love marriage of his second daughter, the 1st defendant and 2nd daughter quarelled with him and left his company and so, the 1st defendant herself deserted him in the month of

December, 2013. He further contended that he is a sick person and he needs assistance of female. He denied that he is having illicit intimacy with the plaintiff herein. As pleaded in the written statement, the deceased Santha Prabhudas did not refer in the said counter that the plaintiff herein has been looking after his needs. However, both parties did not dispute filing of the said maintenance petition and petition for interim maintenance, so also the relationship of the plaintiff and 1st defendant. So, there is no dispute with regard to Exs.A.2 to

Ex.A.4.

c)Ex.A.5 is the original death certificate of the Santha Prabhudas issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Grama Panchayath of China Kakani

dt: 02.01.2021. It discloses that the Gadde Santha Prabhudas died on 26.12.2020

at NRI General Hospital and that the deceased was resident of Addanki. The defendants also did not dispute the date of death of the deceased.

10

11.The evidence of PW.1 is just replica of the plaint apart from denial of contents of written statement. In brief, her evidence goes to show that the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas is the husband of the 1st defendant as well as the father of the defendants 2 to 5, worked as driver in APSRTC, Addanki Depot and he was deserted by the 1st defendant and abandoned by the defendants 2 to 5 and so, she looked after the welfare of the said Prabhudas and thus, the deceased

Prabhudas bequeathed her employment benefits in her favour under

Ex.A.1/Registered Will dt: 30.11.2018 and after demise of the said Prabhudas on 26.12.2020 ( as disclosed in Ex.A.5), the said Will came into force and so, she is entitled for all those benefits shown in the plaint schedule, except the family pension. Her evidence also shows that the 1st defendant filed petition for maintenance as disclosed in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 and that they neglected the deceased Prabhudas since, December, 2013. Her evidence further shows that she made application to the 6th defendant, for the benefits of the deceased Gadde

Santha Prabhudas by virtue of Ex.A.1/Will, but he asked her to obtain order from the competent court, in view of obstacles raised by the defendants 1 to 5, and so, she is entitled for declaration of right to get all the benefits of the Gadde Santha

Prabhudas by virtue of the Will.

12.The plaintiff also examined the 2nd attestor and scribe of the said Will as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively. So, their evidence corroborates the version of the plaintiff with regard to the execution of the Ex.A.1/Registered Will dt: 30.11.2018 in their presence. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 further shows that said Will was prepared on the instructions of Prabhudas and the said Will was prepared on the instructions of the Prabhudas and after execution of the same by Prabhudas,

PW.2 and one Hanumantha Rao attested the said Will and it was duly registered 11 by the registration authority. Their evidence further shows that the said

Prabhudas was not healthy, but he was mentally in sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will.

13.As referred above, the defendants, who denied the execution of such

Will, did not turn up to cross-examine PW.1 to PW.3 and even failed to adduce any evidence. So, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 remained unchallenged. As such, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3.

14.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of PW.1 supported by PW.1 to PW.3 clinchingly proves the execution of Ex.A.1 registered

Will by the deceased Prabhudas and so, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right to get those benefits shown in the plaint schedule. He further argued that admittedly, the testator and his wife i.e. 1st defendant and their children have been residing separately, since December, 2013 as reflected in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.4 and that the plaintiff has been looking after the welfare of the said Prabhudass and so, there is every probability for the testator to bequeath his retirement or death benefits to the plaintiff. He further argued that there is no rule, debarring the right of testator to bequeath his retirement or death benefits except the family pension, and so, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right as prayed for.

15.To support his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:

1. Pushpa Charles Vs., Michael Nicholas and others., reported in 2010 (3) ALT 547. In this matter, the petitioner is the brother of the deceased and one of the respondents (5th Respondent) is widow of the deceased employee. Even after the marriage, the 5th respondent / wife resided at the place of her employment.

The petitioner contended that the 5th Respondent deserted his brother, who had underwent several operations and he has looked after him. His brother, who was 12 employee of APSRTC executed a Will dt: 26.12.1996 with regard to his service benefits and other benefits such as LIC Policy, Provident Fund benefits, APSRTC

Provident Fund trust, Gratuity amount, Staff Retirement benefit Scheme,

Employee death link insurance scheme, Staff Benevolent and Gift Scheme and

Cooperative Credit Society ( MRO) Fund. After death of the testator, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of

Probate of Will dt: 26.12.1996, so as to enable him to receive the service benefits from the office of the employer of the testator. The wife of the testator also filed a suit to declare herself to be entitled for all the terminal benefits of her deceased husband. The parties are Christians. It was observed that the wife even failed to give the details of treatment of her husband/ testator and she did not attend the hospital, where her husband undergone treatment. She also admitted that her husband resided with his elder brother i.e. the petitioner. The Honourable District

Court allowed the same. Then, the wife filed Civil Miscellaneous Application. In such context, while discussing about proof of Will, the Honourble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh held in para No.10 and 11 as follows:

“10. The mode of proving the Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the Will as genuine. Even where circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be regarding the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the disposition made in the Will being unnatural, unprobable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be 13 completely removed before the document is accepted, as the last Will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will, which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the Court would grant probate, even if the Will might be unnatural and might cut-off wholly or in part near relations. Any and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance. A circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal situation or is not of a normal person.

11. "Will' being a document has to be proved by primary evidence except where the Court permits a document to be proved by leading secondary evidence. Since it is required to be attested, as provided in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. In addition, it has to satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In order to assess as to whether the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document, the propounder has to show that the Will was signed by the testator and that he had put his signatures to the testament of his own free will; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and that the testator had signed it in the presence of two witnesses who attested it in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus, which rests on the propounder, is discharged. But where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to remove the suspicion by leading appropriate evidence. The burden to prove that the Will was forged or that it was obtained under undue influence or coercion or by playing a fraud is on the person who alleges it to be so.”

The appellant further challenged the jurisdiction of the District Judge in granting the probate of the Will. The Honourable High Court held that as per Sub-

Section 2 of Section.264 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the bar restricting the limits of the terms of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, is not applicable to the

Christians and so, the District Judge is competent to grant probate of the said

Will. It is further observed that when it is apparent that the deceased person and his wife have been residing separately and the deceased has been looked after by 14 his brother i.e. the petitioner, non dispossession of the property to the wife and children is not a suspicious circumstances and it is a natural reciprocal for the testator to bequeath his properties to his elder brother, who looked after him by ignoring his wife, but deserted him for quite a long time. So, merely because, the testator excluded his wife from inheriting any of his properties, it cannot be ground to doubt genuineness of Ex.A.2/Will. These facts are squarely applicable to this matter.

2. R. Satyavathi., Vs., the Zilla Praja Prarishad West Godavari

District and others., in first Appeal No.1474/1998 decided on 21.04.2025. In this matter, the plaintiff -wife filed suit for declaration that she is entitled for family pension and to direct the defendants 1 to 4 to pay family pension of her deceased husband, who worked as a teacher in Zilla Parishad High School. Both the spouses were living separately and the deceased husband used to pay maintenance as per the compromise decree to the plaintiff. But there was no dissolution of marriage by any decree of a court. The 5th defendant claimed that she is the wife of the deceased employee and they were having children and that the deceased employee executed a Will in her favour with regard to service benefits including the provident fund amount. In such context, while discussing about the genuineness of the Will, the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in

Para No.16 as follows:

“16. It is well settled that the onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding a will and he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last will of a free and capable testator. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled by the Apex Court in a case of Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others1. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court held"it is trite law that execution of will must be held to have been proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the will are satisfied but the will is 15 also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances when such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumptive evidences also".

Regarding the right of the employee to bequeath his service/ death benefits the Honourable High Court held in para No.25 as follows:

“ 25. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.5 to 8 placed a reliance of Smt. Hardev Kaur vs. Chowdhry Jodh Singh 6, wherein the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held as follows:

"That provident fund can be disposed of by will is also a view of a Division Bench of Walmsley and Chakravarti JJ. in Kalisadhan Mitra v. Prafulla Chandra Mitra, AIR 1926 Cal 1061. In that case, a person holding a deposit in the Railway Provident Fund filed a declaration in favour of a person who in the event of his death was entitled to receive payment, and it was added by the subscriber that "I make this my will so far as regards such deposit." It was held that the rules of the Fund did not prevent a declaration from being treated as a will. Apart from the rule AIR 1984 Supreme Court 346 AIR 1969 Punjab & Haryana on which Mr. Atma Ram has relied that the money becomes payable to a dependent if there is no nomination, there is no provision in the relevant rules to suggest that the deceased officer did not have disposing power over his provident fund. Nor do we see our way to accede to his submission that the widow is at any; rate entitled to the benefit of the provident fund under subsection (2) of section 3 h of the Act. The observations in some of the rulings that the provident fund is to be administrated in accordance with the relevant rules, do not preclude the legal right of a subscriber to dispose it of by a will."

It is further observed that the plaintiff being wife herself abandoned her husband and her mother in-law and stayed at her parental house and she came to know about the death of her husband and she did not attend the obsequies of her husband. The plaintiff also admitted the relationship of the deceased with the 5th defendant and their children ( defendant No.6 to 8). By considering those circumstances, the Honourable High Court held that the plaintiff is not having any equities. By relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court that there is no rule of preclude the legal right of a subscriber to dispose his provident fund by a Will, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld the judgment of the learned trial court that the plaintiff is entitled for family pension of the 16 deceased employee and the 5th defendant is entitled for the death benefits of the employee i.e. provident fund, gratuity and group insurance scheme etc., by virtue of Will.

3.Nitu Vs., Sheela Rani reported in (2016) AIRSC 4552. The facts disclose that the wife and mother of the deceased employee claimed for the family pension in accordance with the family pension scheme 1964 of the Government of the Punjab. In the appeal, the Honourable High Court of Punjab held that the mother is also entitled for Succession Certificate in view of provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act. In the appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the ‘family’ for the purpose of family pension scheme includes wife, minor sons, unmarried minor daughters and widow/ legally divorced daughter, but not the mother or parents in case of a married employee. It is further referred in the said decision in para No.18 that in case of Violet Issaac. ( Smt.) Vs., Union of

Indian ( 1991) 1 SCC 725 and after considering the relevant provisions, this

Court came to the conclusion that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his Will by giving a direction that someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be given the same.

As per the said decision, the wife alone is entitled to claim for benefit of family pension, which does not form part of the estate of the deceased. There is no dispute regarding the said principles of law. As referred above, the unchallenged evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 proves that the deceased Gadde

Prabhudas bequeathed his service benefits i.e. the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, as she looked after his welfare, by examining PW.2 one of the attestors. The plaintiff also elicited in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 that the 17 testator executed said Will in a sound and disposing state of mind. As such, the plaintiff is able to meet the requirements regarding the proof of Will as required under section 68 of Indian evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, as reiterated in the above decision.

17.Coming to the main contention of the defendants that the deceased

Prabhudas cannot bequeath the retirement or death benefits under the Will, as per the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Nitu Vs., Sheela Rani,

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in R. Satyavathi., case there is no

bar to bequeath the retirement benefits, except the family pension. The facts of R.

Satyavathi case, and Nitu case are similar to the present case, as 1st defendant, being legally wedded wife, got separated from the testator since many years prior to the Will and there were litigations between them, which were also referred in

Ex.A.1/Will. So, the facts and decisions of the said case laws are squarely applicable to the present matter.

18.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further filed the Rules related to the employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to claim benefits, which include the production of the Will, legal heir or Succession

Certificate, if multiple heirs exists, in order to claim the gratuity, GPF, Insurance benefits, except the family pension. Further, Pushpa Charles Vs., Michael

Nicholas and others., case (stated supra) is also related to the terminal benefits of employee of APSRTC, Andhra Pradesh. In the said matter also, the brother claimed the terminal benefits of deceased employee of Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation, under a Will. So, it is settled law that there is no rule precluding the employee of APSRTC to dispose his terminal benefits, except the family pension, under the Will. Thus, the court finds no force in the contention 18 raised by the defendants in the written statement. Further more, their failure to cross-examine the witnesses and to adduce evidence inclined the court to draw an adverse inference against their contentions. So, viewed from in any angle, the court finds no reason to discard the claim of the plaintiff.

19.In these circumstances, in the light of the above decisions, mere allotting of his death benefits of the testator to the plaintiff, who looked after him by excluding his wife ( defendant No.1), who abandoned him and children i.e.

defendants 2 to 5 who were grown up and doing jobs, cannot be considered as a suspicious circumstances to discard the Will.

20.In view of the above discussion, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that Ex.A.1/Will dt: 30.11.2018 is true, valid and executed by the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas and thus, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right to get all the benefits of the deceased Gadde Santha

Prabhudas shown in the plaint schedule, by virtue of the said Will ( Ex.A.1).

Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

21.Issue No.3 and 4:

Herein the case, the plaintiff claimed for consequential relief against the 6th defendant not to disburse the benefits of the deceased Gadde Santha Prabhudas, which are shown in the plaint schedule till the disposal of the suit. Since, the suit is being dispose off, the court feels that there is no need to grant such relief.

However, in the light of decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Akkamma

Vs., Vemavathi., ( 2021 SCC Online 1146 ) non entitlement of consequential/ further relief is not a bar to grant the relief of declaration. Thus, the court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to get the plaint schedule 19 property as prayed for, which is in the custody of the 6th defendant. Accordingly, issue No.3 and 4 are answered.

22.In the result, the suit is partly decreed without costs by declaring the right of the plaintiff to get all the benefits of the deceased Gadde Santha

Prabhudas, as shown in the plaint schedule and the suit claim of the plaintiff for consequential relief of Injunction, is hereby dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – II, transcribed by her, corrected and

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

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Addanki.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1 : Vadranapu Elisamma None PW.2 : Chennupalli Subba Rao PW.3 : Dharmavarapu Padmanabha Sarma

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Original Registered Will dt: 30.11.2018 Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of petition in M.C.No.04/2017 and Crl.M.P.No.918/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki,

dt: 09.02.2017.

Ex.A.3 : Certified copy of order Crl.M.P.No.918/2017 in M.C.No.04/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki,

dt: 16.06.2017.

Ex.A.4 :Certified copy of counter in Crl.M.P.No.918/2017 in M.C.No.04/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki,

dt: 28.04.2017.

20

Ex.A.5 : Original death certificate of Gadde Santha Prabhudas, issued by the Registrar of Births and deaths, Gram Panchayat, China Kakani,

dt: 02.01.2021.

For Defendants: NIL

Ild./- D.N.V.L., C.J.(Senior Division)., Addanki.

04.05.2026 1 O.S.No. 23 of 2024

APPR040001722024

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE ( SENIOR DIVISION ) ADDANKI.

Present:-Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki.

Monday, this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No. 23 of 20 24

Between:

Mandapati Subbayamma, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.3-82, Santhi Nagar Village,

Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District. ...Plaintiff

Vs.,

Gorantla Kasaiah, S/o. Kondaiah, Hindu, aged 42 years, Press Reporter, R/o. Lakshmipuram Village,

Narasaraopet Mandal, Palnadu District. ...Defendant

This suit is coming on 27.04.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri C. Veeranjaneya Chowdary, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Padarthy Ramesh, Learned Advocate for the Defendant, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

// J U D G M E N T \\

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.24,02,752/- being the principal and interest, due under five (A to

E-marked) suit promissory notes dated 17.11.2022, for Rs.2,60,000/-, dt:

04.05.2026 2 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 08.12.2022 for Rs.3,60,000/-, dt: 25.04.2023 for Rs.3,80,000/-, dt:

26.05.2023 for Rs.4,50,000/- and dt: 01.01.2024 for Rs.3,00,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, with subsequent interest and costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- on 17.11.2022 for his agricultural expenses, Rs.3,60,000/- on 08.12.2022, Rs.3,80,000/- on 25.04.2023, Rs.4,50,000/- on 26.05.2023 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 01.01.2024 from the plaintiff on the respective dates, for his family expenses. In evidence of the above said debts, the defendant executed A, B,

C, D and E- marked promissory notes, in his own hand writing, in favour of the plaintiff on the even dates at Santhi Nagar Village, Addanki Mandal, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, either to the plaintiff or to her order. The defendant also affixed his thumb impressions, in the suit promissory notes, in addition to subscribing signatures. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt: 19.09.2024, the defendant failed to discharge the debt under suit promissory notes. The defendant got returned the said notice. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the amount, due under the promissory notes, with susequent interest and costs.

03.The defendant filed written statement, denying the averments of the plaint and further took the following contentions:

04.05.2026 3 O.S.No. 23 of 2024

a)There is no creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is a money lender and collects high rate of interest. The plaintiff is also doing private chit fund business from the last 7 years without any license from the concerned authorities. The defendant joined as one of the members/subscribers of the plaintiff’s private chit business. He became the highest bidder and received the bid amount from the plaintiff. The defendant made the periodical amounts, without fail, but the plaintiff used to charge penal interest for belated payments exorbitantly. As such, disputes arose between the parties.

b) The defendant paid the chit funds scheme subscription amount regularly, until the termination of the chit transaction. By taking advantage of detailed relations between the parties, the suit promissory notes had been forged, fabricated and manipulated for unlawful gain. The plaintiff grew wild and bore grudge against the defendant and filed false suit for wrongful gain. The plaintiff is YCP party leader. The defendant is in TDP party. This case is filed only due to political pressure. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

04.Basing on the above pleadings and considering the submissions of both sides, the following issues have been settled for trial on 27.03.2025:

01. Whether the ‘A’ marked suit promissory note dated 17.11.2022 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

02. Whether the ‘B’ marked suit promissory note dated 08.12.2022 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

04.05.2026 4 O.S.No. 23 of 2024

03. Whether the ‘C’ marked suit promissory note dated 25.04.2023 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

04. Whether the ‘D’ marked suit promissory note dated 26.05.2023 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

05. Whether the ‘E’ marked suit promissory note dated 01.01.2024 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

06. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant?

07. If so, to what relief?

05.During trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 to PW.4 and got ‘A’ marked original promissory note dt.17.11.2022 as Ex.A1, ‘B’ marked original promissory note dt.08.12.2022 as Ex.A2, ‘C’ marked original promissory note dt.25.04.2023 as Ex.A3, ‘D’ marked original promissory note dt.26.05.2023 as Ex.A4, ‘E’ marked original promissory note dt.01.01.2024 as Ex.A5, Office copy of legal notice dt: 19.09.2024 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.A6, Postal receipt dt:

20.09.2024 as Ex.A7 and Returned registered legal notice addressed to the defendant as Ex.A.8 in the evidence of PW.1.

06.The defendant got examined himself as DW.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.

07.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of PW.1 supported by PWs.2 to 4 coupled with the contents of Exs.A.1 to A5-suit promissory notes clinchingly establishes that the defendant borrowed total

Rs.17,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Exs.A.1 to A5-promissory 04.05.2026 5 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 notes on the even dates, in his own handwriting, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. He further argued that the defendant failed to prove that the suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated one and even to prove his defence regarding the chit transaction and thus, the suit may be decreed with costs.

08.Inspite of being given opportunities, the defendant or the learned counsel for the defendant did not submit arguments. So, arguments on behalf of the defendant, are treated as heard.

09.Perused the entire evidence.

10.ISSUE No.1 to 5:

(For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, these issues are jointly discussed.)

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount with interest, due under the suit promissory notes. The defendant denied the execution of the suit promissory notes, by contending that the plaintiff had forged and fabricated the suit promissory notes, in view of disputes related to chit transactions.

11.In disputably, the suit documents are promissory notes i.e.,

Negotiable Instruments. Generally, in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory notes, which are negotiable instruments, it is the initial burden of the plaintiff to establish that the borrower executed the 04.05.2026 6 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 promissory notes. Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved, Section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play, which enables the court to presume that such negotiable instrument was supported with consideration. However, such a presumption is a rebuttable one. The defendant can rebut such presumption either by adducing evidence that he executed the suit promissory note in the circumstances (without consideration) as pleaded by him or by eliciting untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff by way of cross examining the witnesses of the plaintiff.

12.In order to discharge her burden, the plaintiff got examined herself as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 i.e.,‘A’ marked promissory note dt.17.11.2022, ‘B’ marked promissory note dt.08.12.2022, ‘C’ marked promissory note dt.25.04.2023, ‘D’ marked promissory note dt.26.05.2023 and ‘E’ marked original promissory note dt.01.01.2024. The evidence of

PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5 goes to show that the defendant borrowed total amount of Rs.17,50,000/- from her i.e., an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- on 17.11.2022 for his agricultural expenses, Rs.3,60,000/- on 08.12.2022,

Rs.3,80,000/- on 25.04.2023, Rs.4,50,000/- on 26.05.2023 and

Rs.3,00,000/- on 01.01.2024 for his family expenses and executed promissory notes, in his own hand writing, in her favour on the even dates at Santhi Nagar Village, Addanki Mandal on those even dates, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, either to her or to her order. Her evidence further shows that the defendant also affixed his thumb 04.05.2026 7 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 impressions, in the suit promissory notes, in addition to subscribing signatures and inspite of her repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt: 19.09.2024 (original of Ex.A6), the defendant failed to discharge the debt under suit promissory notes. The contents of Ex.A6-office copy of legal notice, Ex.A7-Postal receipt and Ex.A8-Returned legal notice, establish the efforts made by the plaintiff, in demanding the defendant, to discharge the debt, prior to the suit.

13.The evidence of PW.1 further shows that PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4, attested ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ -marked promissory notes (Ex.A1 to A3) respectively and one Kamineni Latha attested the ‘D’ and ‘E’-marked promissory notes (Ex.A4 and Ex.A5) and that the defendant himself scribed all the suit promissory notes.

14.The plaintiff also got examined the sole attestors of Exs.A 1 to A.3 as

PWs.2 to 4 respectively. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 corroborates the version of the plaintiff with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1 to A.3 respectively, by the defendant in their presence, after receiving consideration. It is noted that PW.3 deposed that Ex.A2-B-marked promissory note was prepared with black pen. Apparently, Ex.A2 was filled and signed with blue pen (ball point). However, his evidence is consistent and cogent with regard to the other material facts such as date and consideration. It is needless to say that minor discrepancies are quite common in the evidence of witness, due to lapse of time and fading up of memory. Except the said inconsistency, 04.05.2026 8 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 nothing was elicited in the evidence of PW.3 as to why he would chose to depose false hood. Further, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is consistent and cogent in all material aspects such as date, quantum of consideration and denomination. No inconsistency or infirmity is elicited in their evidence in any material aspect.

15.As referred above, their evidence clinchingly reveals that the defendant also affixed his thumb impressions in those promissory notes, in addition to subscribing his signatures. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 that there is any enmity or antipathy between them and the defendant. Not even a suggestion was given to that effect. Moreover,

DW1 categorically deposed that he has no disputes with the attestors of the suit promissory notes. So, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, with regard to execution of Exs.A1 to A3- ’A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ marked promissory notes, so also the passing of consideration.

16.Coming to Ex.A4 and Ex.A5- ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes, the plaintiff did not examine the attestor. It is needless to say that the promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable document. Moreover, the evidence of PW.1 remained unshaken with regard to the execution of those notes by the defendant, in his own handwriting. It is noted that a suggestion was given to PW.1 that she obtained blank promissory notes from the defendant in chit business. Such suggestion supports the contention of the plaintiff, regarding execution of the suit promissory notes.

04.05.2026 9 O.S.No. 23 of 2024

When the unshaken evidence of PW.1 clinchingly reveals that the defendant borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A4 and Ex.A5- ’D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes, the court is of the view that non-examination of attestor of Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 itself, cannot be made as a ground to discard the evidence of PW.1, so also her claim under those two promissory notes. In other words, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant executed the suit promissory notes (Ex.A1 to Ex.A5), by receiving consideration, but he did not chose to repay the same, with interest as agreed under those promissory notes.

17. Now it has to be seen as to whether the defendant is able to prove his defence of forgery, fabrication and manipulation as contended in written statement and to disprove the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. To prove his defence, the defendant got examined himself as DW.1. The evidence of

DW,1 just goes in accordance with written statement, where under, he denied the debtor and creditor relationship between him and the plaintiff.

As per the chief examination of DW.1, the plaintiff is moneylender and collects higher rate of interest. But during the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business.

18.Further, the chief affidavit of DW.1 filed in lieu of chief examination, shows that the plaintiff is doing private chit business from the last seven years and that he joined as a member or subscriber and became the highest 04.05.2026 10 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 bidder and made periodical payments, but the plaintiff used to charge penal interest for the delayed payments and so, disputes arose between him and the plaintiff. During the cross examination, initially DW1, deposed that he did not join in the chits business, but his friend Shakh Mastan of

Narasaraopet informed that the plaintiff is doing chits business. He again deposed that he joined in chit transaction of Rs.3,00,000/- of the plaintiff, with monthly installments of Rs.25,000/-, and paid some amounts to the plaintiff through Shaik Masthan. But he failed to say the exact amount paid by him. Further more, DW1 categorically deposed that a book will be maintained in chit transaction. It is elicited that there is no receipt or document with regard to the said transaction either between the plaintiff and Masthan or between the plaintiff and the defendant. So, there is no oral or documentary evidence regarding the said chit transaction.

19. It is also elicited that there are no personal disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant, with regard to Chit Business or money lending

Business, except with regard to the transaction between the plaintiff and

Shaik Masthan, Such version is quite contra to the written statement.

20.It is the version of DW.1 in his chief examination that the plaintiff is supporter of Y.C.P party and the defendant is supporter of Telugu Desam party and that this suit was filed due to political pressure. But, it was elicited in the cross examination that DW.1 does not know to which party, the plaintiff belongs to. It is further elicited that DW1 is not the supporter of 04.05.2026 11 O.S.No. 23 of 2024

Telugu Desam party and himself or the plaintiff never contested in elections on behalf of any political parties. Further, DW.1 categorically deposed that he did not get mentioned in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination and written statement that the plaintiff is YCP party leader, that the defendant is in TDP party and this case is filed only due to political pressure. Thus, the evidence of DW1 is contra to his own pleadings and he introduced a new defence that the dispute is between the plaintiff and

Mastan and that he used to pay the chit amount through Shaik Masthan,

The defendant even failed to examine the said Masthan. Therefore, the evidence of DW.1, which is contra to his own pleadings, is not inspiring the confidence of the Court,

21.As per the written statement, it is not the stand of the defendant that the plaintiff obtained blank promissory notes in chit transactions between him and plaintiff or between the plaintiff and Shaik Mastan. But the learned Counsel for the defendant gave suggestions to PW.1 that the plaintiff obtained the blank promissory notes from the defendant in the chit transaction. Such suggestion impliedly supports the execution of the suit promissory notes by the defendant. If such is the case, the plaintiff could avail the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which provides that the suit promissory notes are supported with consideration and it is the burden of the defendant to rebut such presumption. As referred above, the defendant did not adduce any evidence in that regard, except his inconsistent self serving testimony.

04.05.2026 12 O.S.No. 23 of 2024

22.Be that as it may, the defendant is not a lay man. Admittedly, he worked as a journalist of a widely circulated Newspaper. If really, there are such chit transactions and he paid amounts to the plaintiff completely, he might have take any receipt or acknowledgment of payment of installments from the plaintiff, but he did not do so. So, the said defence taken by the defendant, is found to be baseless.

23.Coming to the defence of forgery, it is noted that Ex.A1 to A5-suit promissory notes disclose the signatures of the defendant in 'Telugu' but the Vakalat, deposition and summons sent by the court, reflect the signatures of the defendant in English. However, he signed in Telugu in his written statement. So, it is evident that the defendant is in habit of subscribing his signatures even in Telugu. Not even a suggestion was given to PWs. 1 to 4 that the signatures of the defendant in Exs.A1 to A5 are dissimilar in appearance, when compared to the admitted signatures of the defendant in written statement. No effort was made by the defendant to send the suit promissory notes to the expert in order to establish that those signatures and hand writings are forged and to elicit that those promissory notes do not bear his thumb impressions and also to disprove the version of the PWs. 1 to 4. Such silence of the defendant inclines the court to take adverse inference against him. This Court also did not find any dissimilarity, when signatures of the defendant in suit promissory notes are compared with the admitted signatures in written statement under the 04.05.2026 13 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 ample power of section 73 of Indian Evidence Act (Section 72 of Bharathiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). So, viewed from any angle, the court holds that the inconsistent self serving testimony of the DW1, itself is not sufficient to prove his defence of forgery or fabrication.

24.As referred above, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 remained unshaken and found to be reliable. The defendant failed to elicit as to why, the plaintiff, would chose to fabricate the suit promissory notes, by forging his signatures. In these circumstances, the court holds that the plaintiff with the consistent evidence adduced by her, is able to discharge her burden to establish that the defendant executed Ex.A1 to A5/ A, B, C, D and E- marked Promissory notes in her favour and those promissory notes are supported with consideration. But the defendant failed to prove his defence.

Therefore, the court holds that the plaintiff has established that Ex.A1 to

A5- ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’- marked Promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issue nos.1 to 5 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

25.ISSUE Nos 6 and 7:

In view of the discussion and finding in issue No.1 to 5, the court holds that the defendant is liable to pay the debt amount under the suit promissory notes(Ex.A1 to A5). The evidence of Pw1 clinchingly reveals that the defendant did not repay the debt amount. Apparently, the suit has been filed on 13.11.2024 i.e., within the period of limitation. It is not the stand of 04.05.2026 14 O.S.No. 23 of 2024 thedefendant that he is a small farmer and he is entitled for any relief under the debt relief laws or that the interest claimed is excessive. Hence, the court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, issues No.6 and 7 are also answered in favour of the plaintiff.

26.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff against the defendant with costs for Rs.24,02,752/- (Rupees Twenty Four lakhs

Two thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty two only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree, with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty thousand only), due under the ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’- marked suit promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 04th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Addanki.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:For Defendant :

PW.1 : Mandapati Subbayamma DW.1: Gorantla Kasaiah PW.2 : Linga Hari Krishna PW.3 : Murakonda Anjaneyulu PW.4 : Murakonda Sambasiva Rao 04.05.2026 15 O.S.No. 23 of 2024

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 : ‘A’ marked original promissory note dt.17.11.2022 Ex.A.2 : ‘B’ marked original promissory note dt.08.12.2022 Ex.A.3 : ‘C’ marked original promissory note dt.25.04.2023 Ex.A.4 : ‘D’ marked original promissory note dt.26.05.2023 Ex.A.5 : ‘E’ marked original promissory note dt.01.01.2024 Ex.A.6 : Office copy of legal notice dt: 19.09.2024 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A.7 : Postal receipt dt: 20.09.2024 Ex.A.8 : Returned registered legal notice addressed to the defendant.

For Defendant : NIL

Ild./- D.N.V.L., C.J (Sr.D), Adk.

APPR040001722024

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE ( SENIOR DIVISION ) ADDANKI.

Present:-Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki.

Monday, this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No. 23 of 20 24

Between: Mandapati Subbayamma, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.3-82, Santhi Nagar Village,

Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District. ...Plaintiff

Vs.,

Gorantla Kasaiah, S/o. Kondaiah, Hindu, aged 42 years, Press Reporter, R/o. Lakshmipuram Village,

Narasaraopet Mandal, Palnadu District. ...Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.24,02,752/- being the principal and interest, due under five (A to E-marked) suit promissory notes dated 17.11.2022, for Rs.2,60,000/-, dt: 08.12.2022 for Rs.3,60,000/-, dt: 25.04.2023 for Rs.3,80,000/-, dt: 26.05.2023 for Rs.4,50,000/- and dt: 01.01.2024 for Rs.3,00,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, with subsequent interest and costs.

Plaint presented on : 13.11.2024 Plaint filed on : 02.12.2024

Cause of action: Cause of action for the suit arose defendants borrowed some amounts i.e. on 17.11.2022, for Rs.2,60,000/-, dt: 08.12.2022 for Rs.3,60,000/-, dt: 25.04.2023 for Rs.3,80,000/-, dt: 26.05.2023 for Rs.4,50,000/- and dt: 01.01.2024 for Rs.3,00,000/- and A, B, C, D and E marked promissory notes, said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, with subsequent interest, subsequently when inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the same, he got issued legal notice dt: 19.09.2024 to the defendants, inspite of the same, the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory notes at Santhi Nagar Village, Addanki Mandal, where is suit promissory notes transaction has taken place, is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Valuation & Court Fees: Value of the suit for the purpose of Court

Fee and jurisdiction is Rs.24,02,752/- ( Rs.3,84,098/- + Rs.5,26,800/-+ Rs.5,21,354/-+ Rs.6,08,100/-+ Rs.3,62,400/-) on which a total Court fee of Rs.36,430/- ( Rs.6,326/- + Rs.7,726/-+ Rs.7,726/- + Rs.8,526/-+ Rs.6,126/-) is paid Under Section.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 27.04.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri C. Veeranjaneya Chowdary, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Padarthy Ramesh, Learned Advocate for the Defendant, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

01. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

02. that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs. 24,02,752/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Two thousand Seven Hundred and fifty Two only ) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit i.e. 13.11.2024 till the date of decree i.e. 04.05.2026, with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree i.e. 04.05.2026, till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty thousand only) due under the ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked suit promissory notes; and 03that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,10,494/- ( Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Four

Hundred and Ninety Four only) towards costs of the suit.

( C.M & F.C not filed by the defendant)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 04th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge,(Senior Division)

Addanki.

Table of Costs

For Plaintiff For Defendant Vakalath2.002.00 Plaint Fees36,430.00( C.M & F.C not filed) Process80.00 Advocate Fees73,782.00 Writing Charges100.00 Type Charges100.00 Total 1,10,494.00 2.00

Ild./- D.N.V.L., C.J.(Sr.D), Addanki.

NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non-exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

APPR040000012026

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDANKI.

Present:- Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sessions Case No.1 63 of 202 5

(P.R.C.No.14 of 2025 in Cr. No.06 of 2022 of Addanki Police Station) Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Addanki Police Station. ...Complainant

And

1. Upputuri Jyothi, W/o. Naga Anil Babu, aged 29 years, Caste by Madiga, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal.

2. Upputuri Naga Anil Babu, S/o. Srinu, aged 30 years, Caste by Madiga, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal. …. Accused

Deceased: Palaparthi Keerthi, D/o. Samson, aged 19 years, Caste by Madiga, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal.

This case is coming before me on 06.05.2026 for herein in presence of Sri V. Veera Narayana, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Shaik Jabbar, Learned Advocate for the Accused No.1 & 2; and upon herein and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

// J U D G M E N T \\

01.The State represented by Inspector of Police, Addanki Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.06 of 2022 of Addanki Police

Station for the offence punishable under Sections. 306 read with 34 of Indian

Penal Code. (As per section 531 (a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, since the date of offence is 01.01.2022, old Criminal Major Acts are applied to this matter.)

02.The accusation levelled against the Accused No.1 and 2 as per the charge sheet as follows:

a)The accused No.1 is the wife of the Accused No.2. They are residents of Venkatapuram Village. The deceased Palaparthi Keerthi (hereafter referred as the deceased) is the daughter of Palaparthi Koteswaramma (LW.1/PW.1) and

Palaparthi Samson (LW.2/PW.2). Accused No.2 used to talk with the deceased, over phone and also used to move closely with her. Then some rumors spread in the Village that Accused No.2 is maintaining illegal intimacy with the deceased. On knowing the same, accused No.1 questioned Accused No.2 about such relationship, but accused No.2 denied the same.

b)While so, on the night of 29.01.2021, accused No.1 called the deceased to her house through her husband i.e. accused No.2. Then both the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and insulted her. Accused No.1 further questioned the deceased as to why she was talking with her husband (Accused No.2) over phone. Accused No.1 further threatened the deceased that she would defame her family by placing the matter before the village elders. For which, the deceased felt that the reputation of her parents, would be damaged in the society and she decided to leave the world. Thereupon, the deceased attempted to commit suicide by using rat paste instead of tooth paste. Then the deceased suffered with unbearable stomach ache and on 01.01.2022 at 12.30 hours, the deceased informed her mother Koteswaramma (LW.1/PW.1) about the entire facts.

Immediately, Koteswaramma (LW.1/PW.1) shifted the deceased along with the relatives to Community Health Center, Addanki and later, to the Government

General Hospital, Ongole for better treatment. While under going treatment, the deceased succumbed to death on 01.01.2022 at 22.05 hours.

c)On 02.01.2022 R. Adilakshmi (LW.17/PW.7) received the statement of PW.1 and death intimation of the deceased from V. Srinivasulu (LW.16), Head

Constable, Out Post Police Station of the Government General Hospital, Ongole.

Basing on the said statement, PW.7 registered a case in Crime NO.06/2022 under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code of Addanki Police Station at 7.30 hours.

He submitted the First Information Report to the Mandal Executive Magistrate,

Addanki and to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, she visited the scene of offence i.e. house of the deceased situated at S.C Colony, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal and prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators i.e. Arumalla Vijay Kumar ( LW.10/PW.6) and Shaik Mabahoob Basha (LW.11). She also prepared the rough sketch of the scene. Then she proceeded to the Government General hospital, where she held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. She recorded the statements of witnesses i.e. LW.1/Palaparthi Koteswaramma, LW.2/Palaparthi

Samson, LW.3/Boppuri Mariya Kumar, LW.4/Devarapalli Sailaja, LW.5/Palaparthi

Sanjay, LW.6/Kommu Subbaiah, LW.7/Palaparthi Immanuel, LW.8/Gannepalli

Sandhya, LW.9/Palaparthi Adam, LW.10/Arumalla Vijay Kumar, LW.11/Shaik

Mahaboob Basha and LW.12/Mathuri Nagamma. Basing on their statements, she altered the section of law from Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code to Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and issued alteration memo. On 04.01.2022 at 17.00 hours, she arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and produced them for judicial remand.

d)Dr. Killari Bhaskar (LW,15), Associate Professor of Government

General Hospital, Ongole conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate of the deceased by preserving Viscera. PW.7 sent the Viscera and material objects to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,

Guntur for analysis along with letter of advise and authorization of Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Darsi vide Regional Forensic Science Laboratory file

No.GNT/288/TOX/266/2022, dt: 01.02.2022. Sri S. Sree Kumar (LW.14),

Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur, examined the material objects and issued report dt: 02.03.2022. Basing on that report, Dr.

Killari Bhaskar (LW.15), issued final postmortem certificate of the deceased by opining that the cause of death of the deceased is due to phosphide a Rodenticide poisoning. Smt R. Adilakshmi (LW.18), Sub-Inspector of Police, Addanki received the same. After completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet alleging that the accused No.1 and 2 committed the offence punishable under section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

03.The Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Addanki took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and committed the case to the Honourable Court of Sessions under section 209 Cr.P.C. The

Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Ongole made over the same to this court.

04.On appearance of the accused No. 1 and 2, after satisfying that they were furnished with copies of documents and on considering the submissions of both sides and the entire record, charge for the offence punishable under sections 306 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused 1 and 2 on 17.03.2026. The same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the trial, the prosecution has examined L.W.1, LW.2, LW.5, LW.8 to

LW.10 and LW.17 as PW.1 to PW.7 respectively and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 besides M.O.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses i.e., LW.3/Boppuri Mariya Kumar, LW.4/Devarapalli Sailaja,

LW.6/Kommu Subbaiah, LW.7/Palaparthi Immanuel, LW.11/Shaik Mahaboob

Basha, LW.12/Mathuri Nagamma, LW.13/Jada Ravi Kumar, LW.14/Dr.S. Sree

Kumakr, LW.15/Dr. Killari Bhaskar and LW.16/V. Srinivasulu and LW.18/R.

Adilakshmi. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

06.On 30.04.2026 accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of

Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the incriminating portion of the prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which they denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on their behalf.

07.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 and the documentary evidence clinchingly establishes that the deceased died due to consumption of rat poison, because of the abetment of accused No.1 and 2, by way of insulting her and by blaming illegal intimacy with the accused No.1 and threatening that they would defame her by placing the matter before the elders and therefore, accused No.1 and 2 are liable for punishment under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

08.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that there is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 about the alleged acts of Accused No.1 and 2 and their connectivity to the death of the deceased and so, the evidence of

PW.6 and PW.7, who are not the direct witnesses, but only Official witnesses cannot be relied upon. He further argued that the confession of the accused No.1 and 2 said to be made in the presence of PW.7 police officials, cannot be relied upon, and thus, accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit of doubt and they may be acquitted.

09.In view of rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused.

10.Now the point arises for consideration is as follows:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable Under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.Point: As referred above, it is alleged by the prosecution in the charge sheet that the accused No.1 and 2 abetted the deceased to commit suicide, by blaming her for talking with accused No.2 over phone, for having alleged illegal intimacy with accused No.2 and by insulting and threatening her by saying that they would place the matter before the elders, so that the reputation of the family would be damaged and thereby, the accused No.1 and 2 committed the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

12. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.7 out of 18 listed witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.16 besides M.O.1.

a)PW.1 is the defacto complainant, she is the mother of the deceased

Palaparthi Keerthi. PW.2 is the father of the the deceased. PW.3 to PW.5 are the relatives of the deceased, PW.1 and PW.2, who came to know about the incident.

PW.6 is the then Village Revenue Officer of Venkatapuram village, who accompanied with the police at the time of scene observation, seizure of property and inquest of the deceased. PW.7 is the investigating officer.

b)Ex.P.1 is the statement of PW.1, dt: 01.01.2022. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6 are the statements of PW.1 to PW.6 recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure

Code respectively. Ex.P.7 is the scene observation cum seizure report dt:

01.01.2022. Ex.P.8 is the photographs of the scene (4 in number) along with compact disc. Ex.P.9 is the inquest report of the deceased dt: 02.01.2022. Ex.P.10 is the hospital intimation dt: 01.01.2022. Ex.P.11 is the Original First Information

Report dt: 02.01.2022. Ex.P.12 is the Rough Sketch of the scene. Ex.P.13 is the altered First Information Report dt: 02.01.2022. Ex.P.14 is the preliminary postmortem report of the deceased dt: 02.01.2022. Ex.P.15 is the final opinion dt:

12.01.2023 and Ex.P.16 is the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory

Report dt: 02.03.2022.

c)M.O.1 is the Ratol Tube.

13.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section.

306 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

1. That the deceased committed suicide;

2. that the deceased committed suicide on the abatement of the accused

No.1 and 2; and

3. that there is intention of accused No.1 and 2 to aid or instigate or abet

the deceased to commit suicide.

14. So, it is the initial burden of the prosecution that the death of the deceased was suicidal. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.7 coupled with contents of PW.1 and also got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and

M.O.1. As referred above, PW.1 and PW.2 are the parents of the deceased. PW.3 to

PW.5 are also, the close relatives of the deceased. Among them, PW.1 is the defacto complainant. The evidence of PWs 1 to 5 goes to show that at about 4 years back, the deceased died. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that the deceased died due to consumption of rat poison, by thinking that it was tooth paste and as she expressed some inconvenience in her stomach, she shifted her to the Community

Health Center, Addanki for treatment and again to the Government General

Hospital, Ongole for better treatment, but the deceased died at hospital. Her evidence further shows that the police came to the hospital, recorded her statement and obtained her thumb impression. She identified the statement recorded by the police and the same as marked as Ex.P.1. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborative with the contents of Ex.P.1.

15.But, PW.1 categorically deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 are no way concerned to the death of the deceased. PW.2 to PW.5 also expressed unawareness about the cause of death of the deceased. As PW.1 to PW.5 deposed that police did not examine them and did not support the prosecution in material aspects, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. PW.1 to PW.5 denied that they stated before the police as in Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6 i.e. their respective statements recorded under section 161 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Nothing was elicited from their evidence, which helps the prosecution to prove that the deceased died by committing suicide, so also the connectivity of the accused No.1 and 2 to the death of the deceased. As such, there is no support of the crucial witnesses to the allegations levelled against the accused No.1 and 2, so, also to prove the fact that the death of the deceased was suicidal, but not accidental.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7, the official witnesses, the evidence of PW.7, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Addanki Police Station shows about the registration of First Information Report (Ex.P.11) on the basis of Ex.P.1/ statement and Ex.P.10/Hospital Intimation dt: 01.01.2022 and about her investigation i.e. examination of witnesses, observation of the scene and seizure of

Ratol poison (M.O.1) under the cover of scene observation cum seizure report (Ex.P.7) in the presence of PW.6 and LW.11/Shaik Mahaboob Basha, preparation of rough sketch of the scene(Ex.P9) and conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.6, LW.12/Mathuri Nagamma and LW.13/Jada

Ravi Kumar, under the cover of inquest report (Ex.P.6). Her evidence further shows about alteration of the section of law to Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, issuance of altered First Information Report dt: 02.01.2022 (Ex.P.13), sending of Viscera and M.O.1-Ratol Tube, to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.

Her evidence further shows that LW.15/Dr. Killari Bhaskar conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Preliminary

Postmortem Report (Ex.P.14) and after receiving Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science

Laboratory report dt: 02.03.2022(Ex.P16) issued by the LW.14/Dr. S. Sree Kumar,

Scientific officer, LW.15/Dr. Killari Bhaskar, issued final opinion (Ex.P.15) on 12.01.2023, that the deceased died due to Phosphide a Rodenticide poisoning. Her evidence also shows about the arrest of accused No.1 and 2 and their production

before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki for judicial remand,

but the learned Magistrate rejected the remand and discharged the accused No.1 and 2 by securing sureties and that subsequently LW.18/R. Adi Lakshmi, Sub-

Inspector of Police completed the investigation and filed charge sheet.

17.The evidence of PW.6, the then Village Revenue Officer of

Venkatapuram corroborated the version of PW.7 regarding observation of the scene and seizure of M.O.1 under the cover of observation cum seizure report and inquest of the deceased as disclosed in Ex.P.9. His evidence also shows that PW.7 took photographs of the scene (Ex.P.8). He identified his signatures in Ex.P.8 and

Ex.P.9. He further deposed that the Panchayatdars concluded that the deceased died due to consumption of Rat poison. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the cause of the death of the deceased.

He denied that he was not present at the time of scene observation and inquest report. Nothing was elicited to shake the credence of his testimony.

18.The evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 is consistent with regard to the date, time and place of preparation of the said scene observation report and the inquest report, so also about the person(PW7), who scribed the scene observation report.

So, the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 is found to be consistent with regard to the investigation done by PW.7. So, their evidence, coupled with the contents of Ex.P9-

Inquest report, Ex.P14-Postmortem report and Ex.P15-Final Opinion, also helps the prosecution to prove that the deceased died on 01.01.2022 due to consumption of rat poison/Ratol. The said fact was also not seriously disputed by the accused.

19.However, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel, PW.6 and

PW.7 are not the direct witnesses. There is no whisper in their evidence about the reason, for which the deceased consumed rat poison. It is to be noted that there is no reference about the names of the accused No.1 and 2, in Ex.P1-report of PW1, which is the basis for registration of the First Information report(Ex.P11). PW1 also affirmed the same. According to PW.7, she altered the section of law on the basis of statements of PW.1 to PW.5, who stated as in Ex.P.2 to P.6 respectively and of other witnesses, which disclose that the deceased has consumed rat poison and committed suicide, due to the insult and intimidation made by the accused No.1 and 2 on the pretext that there were rumours of illegal intimacy between accused

No.2 and they would defame her family by placing the matter before the village elders. But, PW.1 to PW.5, who are the close relatives of the deceased, did not support the said version. Even as per Ex.P.1-statement, the death of the deceased was accidental as she used rat poison under the impression that it was a tooth paste. Since, PW.1 to PW.5 denied that they stated before PW.7, the investigating officer, as in their respective statements recorded under section 161 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, (Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6), the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 is not sufficient to substantially prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal and that the deceased committed suicide, due to the abetment of the accused No.1 and 2.

20.In these circumstances, the court holds that the prosecution is able to the establish that the deceased died due to consumption of rat poison (M.O.1).

But, the prosecution failed to establish that the death of the deceased was suicidal and that the accused No.1 and 2 abetted her to commit suicide as alleged, which are the essential ingredients of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. In other words, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish that the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code, beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Since the court finds no grounds that the victims(PW1 and PW2/parents of the deceased) need rehabilitation, no compensation under Section 357 A (3) of

Code of Criminal Procedure, is recommended. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

21.In the result, the accused No. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the same under section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused No. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:For Defence: PW.1: Palaparthi Koteswaramma None PW.2: Palaparthi Samson PW.3: Palaparthi Sanjay PW.4: Gannepalli Sandya PW.5: Palaparthi Adam PW.6: Arumalla Vijay Kumar, Village Revenue Officer. PW.7: A. Lakshmi Bhavani, Sub-Inspector of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Statement of PW.1, dt: 01.01.2022

Ex.P.2 : Statement of PW.1 recorded under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C

Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW.2 recorded under section.161 (3) Cr.P.C

Ex.P.4 : Statement of PW.3 recorded under section.161 (3) Cr.P.C

Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW.4 recorded under section.161 (3) Cr.P.C

Ex.P.6 : Statement of PW.5 recorded under section.161 (3) Cr.P.C

Ex.P.7 : Scene observation cum seizure report dt: 01.01.2022.

Ex.P.8 : Photographs of the scene (4 in number) along with compact disc.

Ex.P.9 : Inquest report of the deceased dt: 02.01.2022.

Ex.P.10: Hospital intimation dt: 01.01.2022.

Ex.P.11: Original First Information Report dt: 02.01.2022.

Ex.P.12 : Rough Sketch of the scene.

Ex.P.13 : Altered First Information Report dt: 02.01.2022.

Ex.P.14 : Preliminary postmortem report of the deceased dt: 02.01.2022.

Ex.P.15 : Final opinion dt: 12.01.2023

Ex.P.16 : Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory Report dt: 02.03.2022.

For Defence:NIL

Material Object

M.O.1 is the Ratol Tube.

Ild./- D.N.V.L., A.S.J., Adk.,

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P., Amaravathi through the Hon'ble District Judge, Ongole through C.D.,

2. The Hon'ble District Judge, Ongole.

Copies to:

3. The Director of Prosecutions, BRTS Road, Durgapuram,Vijayawada,

4. The District Collector,

5. The Superintendent of Police, Bapatla,

6. The Addl. P.P., Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Addanki,

7. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

APPR040000012026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDANKI.

Present:- Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sessions Case No.1 63 of 202 5

(P.R.C.No.14 of 2025 in Cr. No.06 of 2022 of Addanki Police Station) Between:

01. Name of the Complainant and: State Sub-Inspector of its Crime No. Police, Addanki Police Station. Cr.No.06 of 2022

02. Name of Committal Officer and: Smt B. Akhila and PRC No. Additional Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, PRC No.06/2022.

03. Name of the accused:

1. Upputuri Jyothi, W/o. Naga Anil Babu, aged 29 years, Caste by Madiga, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal.

2. Upputuri Naga Anil Babu, S/o. Srinu, aged 30 years, Caste by Madiga, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal.

04. Date of committal: 29.09.2025

05. Date of receipt of record: 30.12.2025

06. Date of appearance of accused: 27.02.2026

07. Date of commencement of trail: 08.04.2026

08. Date of closure of trial: 24.04.2026

09. Date of Judgment: 12.05.2026

10. Nature of offence: under Section 306 Indian Penal Code

11. Plea of accused: Accused pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Accused No.1 & 2 found not guilty

13. Judgment Result: In the result, the accused No. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal

Code and they are acquitted of the same under section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused No. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for the delay: This record was received on 30.12.2025. On 27.02.2026 the accused 1 & 2 are present and on 17.03.2026 the accused were examined under section. 228 of Cr.P.C., charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be trial. On 08.04.2026 PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.3 are marked. On 15.04.2026 PW.3 to PW.6 were examined and Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.9 and M.O.1 are marked. On 24.04.2026 PW.7 was examined and Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.16 are marked, prosecution side evidence was closed. On 30.04.2026 the accused No.1 and 2 are examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. On 04.05.2026 heard the arguments on behalf of prosecution. On 06.05.2025 heard the arguments of behalf of defence and Judgment was delivered on 12.05.2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki.

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P., Amaravathi through the Hon'ble District Judge, Ongole through C.D.,

2. The Hon'ble District Judge, Ongole.

Copies to:

3. The Director of Prosecutions, BRTS Road, Durgapuram,Vijayawada,

4. The District Collector,

5. The Superintendent of Police, Bapatla,

6. The Addl. P.P., Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Addanki,

7. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.