Smt. D.sribharani

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) FAIR

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Monday, this the 29th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.41/2014 No.41/2014

Between:

1. Pasagadugula Ammaji (DIED)

2. Pasagadugula Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Satya Rao, Aged: 55 years, Hindu,

RTC Conductor, Resident of D.No.3-20, Brahmana Veedhi,

Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Municipality, Anakapalli district.

3. Pasagadugula Venkata Prasad, S/o. Satya Rao, Aged 52 years, Hindu,

RTC Conductor, Resident of Door No.5-21, Brahmana Veedhi,

Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Municipality, Anakapalli district.

(Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were added as per the orders in IA No.438/2025 dated 18.08.2025) … Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Chintalapudi Satyanarayana S/o. Nagamayya, Aged 65 years, Hindu,

Employee, Resident of 5th Ward, Near Ravi Chettu, Pedaboddepalli,

Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

2

2. Chintalapudi Venkata Rao (DIED)

3. Chintalapudi Rama Rao, S/o: Nagamayya, Aged: 54 years, Hindu, RTC,

Conductor, Resident of 5th Ward, Near: Ravi Chettu, Pedaboddepalli,

Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam district

4. Chintalapudi Satyavathi, W/o. Late Venkata Rao, Aged:55 years, Hindu,

Housewife, Balanagar Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42

5. Chintalapudi Prabhakararao, S/o.Latge: Venkatarao, Aged:38 years,

Balanagar Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42

6. Pasagadugula Rajeswari, D/o. Late Chintalapudi Venktarao, Aged: 40 years,

Balanagar Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42

7. Chintalapudi Annapoorna, D/o. Late Venkatarao, Aged:36 years, Balanagar

Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42 (Defendants 4 to 7 were added as per the orders in I.A. No: 934/2018 dated 18.02.2019) … Defendants.

This case is coming before me on 11.12.2025 in the presence of

Sri.P.Narasimham, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri.K.Appalanaidu Advocate for the defendant No.1 and of Sri.K.A.Prakash, Advocate for the defendant No.3 and of Sri.S.K.Naidu, Advocate for the defendants 4 to 7 and the defendant No.2 is set exparte during his lifetime and later he died and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:- 3

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to pass preliminary decree in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 besides plaintiff No.1 i) for partition of plaint schedule properties into 4 equal shares by metes and bounds according to good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to the plaintiff; ii) Order for ascertaining the future profits; iii) And to award costs of the suit; iv) and to award such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

2.The plaint schedule property is in S.No.15 measuring an extent of Ac 0.24 ½ cents or 1185.8 Square yards out of Ac 1.49 cents situated at 5th ward,

Pedaboddepalli Village, Narsipatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam District.

3. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:-

a) The plaintiffs submit that the Defendants 1 to 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff and all of them are the children of Chintalapudi Nagamayya and

Chintalapudi Kannayyamma @ Kamamma and all of them constituted Hindu

Joint Family. The Plaintiff's father was a Manager of the said family. The Father of

Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 by name Chintalapudi Nagamayya during his life time purchased the Plaint Schedule Land under a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.11.1976 for Rs.800/- in the name of his wife Chintalapudi Kamayyamma @

Kamamma who is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants. The said

Chintalapudi Nagamayya took possession of plaint schedule land and enjoyed 4 the plaint schedule land exclusively along with his other properties. The Plaintiff's mother is the Benami for the said sale transaction. While matter stood thus, the mother of Plaintiff and defendants died in the year 1999, and father of them also died in the year 2001 intestate as far as plaint schedule property is concerned leaving behind them the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 as their legal Heirs. The

Plaintiff and Defendants are having 1/4th share each in Plaint Schedule Land. The

Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 have been enjoying the plaint schedule property jointly since the death of their parents and have been using Plaint Schedule

Property as Kallam land. The Plaintiff's Mother was a housewife and she has no financial capacity to acquire properties. The Parents of Plaintiff's Mother were also very poor. While so, the Plaintiff has been demanding the defendants to partition plaint schedule properties into 4 equal shares by metes and bounds and to take one share for her. All the defendants promised to allot one share to the

Plaintiff in the Plaint Schedule Property but postponing it on some pretext or other and also they are trying to alienate the plaint schedule property, without giving any share to the Plaintiff. On 08.03.2013 the Plaintiff got issued notices to the defendants demanding them to come forward for partition of Plaint Schedule properties into 4 equal shares and to allot one such share to her.

b) During the pendency of the Suit, the 2nd defendant was died intestate on 05.09.2017 leaving behind them i.e., Defendants 4 to 7 as his legal heirs.

Consequent on the intestate death of Defendant No 2 his share devolved on 5 heirs of their parents. It does not make much difference even if the plaint schedule property belonged to either father or mother of the plaintiff and

Defendants 1 to 3 as plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are legal heirs of their parents.

c) During pendency of the suit the Plaintiff No.1 died on 02.05.2025 leaving behind the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 as her legal heirs and they are sons i.e., Plaintiffs

No.2 and 3. After death of Plaintiff No.1 her share in the plaint schedule property devolved on Plaintiffs No.2 and 3. As such the share of Plaintiff No.1 devolved on

Plaintiff No.2 and 3. The Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are entitled to continue the suit and to proceed further as Legal Heirs of Deceased 1st Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 together are entitled to 1/4th share. The 1/4th Share of Plaintiff No.1 in the Plaint schedule property devolved on Plaintiffs No.2 and 3. The Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 inherited the 1/4th share of Plaintiff No.1 in the plaint schedule property on account of her death. Hence, the suit.

4.The defendant No.2 was remained set exparte.

5.The brief averments of the written statement of defendant No.1 are as follows:-

The defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments except their relationship and also contended that the plaintiff has forced our father to execute a will in her favor and got it registered on 23.3.1982 and they are not aware of the facts till the expiry of their father. As per the will 6 our fatlier has bequeathed 83.5 cents of land situated in our native place

Pedaboddepalli in her favour. As per the WILL the balance assets are to be shared by Defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff has orally conveyed that she is content with the property given to her by their father and requested them to give their consent to the conveyance of her share of property as per the WILL of their father on 21.4.2001, one month after the death of their father and in this connection the defendants 1 to 3 given consent and after 5 years the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants 1 to 3 on 04.06.2005 with respect to the balance properties which are divided by the defendants 1 to 3 as per the will of their father. He further contended that the plaintiff gave a paper advertisement on 10.6.2007. He further contended that their mother has purchased 24.5 cents of dry land in S.No.15 in the year 1976 being sold away by the eldest brother of their father and subsequently, his mother gifted the same to Defendant No.2 in the year 1993 during her life time and on the same day remaining defendants 1 and 3 confirming the above said gift deed. He further contended that there is no properties in the name of her mother at the time of demise. Hence, the suit is not maintainable under law and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.The defendant No.2 set exparte during his lifetime and later he died.

7.The brief averments of the written statement of defendant No.3 are as follows:-

The defendant No.3 filed his written statement and denied the plaint 7 averments and also contended that their father executed a registered will dated 23.03.1982 bequeathing her sons (1) Ac.0-23 cents of land in S.No.364/2; (2)

Ac.0-08 cents of land in S.No.364/4; (3) Ac.0-14 cents in S.No.364/5 and Ac.0- 38.5 cents of land in S.No.371/5, making a total of Ac.0.83.5 cents, all situated in

Pedaboddepalli Village. In the said will, it was also made clear that all the remaining movable and immovable properties were bequeathed to the defendants, to be shared in three equal parts. He further contended that the plaintiff got the said will executed without the knowledge of the defendants, to safeguard the interest of her children. He further contended that the said will

dated 23.02.1982 was the last will executed by the father of the plaintiff and

defendants and she was also reminded that in addition to the said will, the plaintiff also got a confirmation deed on 21.04.2001 from all the three defendants, reiterating that the properties mentioned therein shall go to the plaintiff and her two sons, as per the will dated 23.02.1982 and that the defendants would not be making any claims on the said properties. He further contended that the suit schedule property was purchased by their mother with her Stridhana and the savings from the amounts by their father and her parents. Thus, she was the absolute owner of the property but not a benamidar, as alleged by the plaintiff. In her own right, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants executed a gift settlement deed transferring her rights over the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant on 10.03.1993, which was duly registered as Document 8

No.351/93 with the Sub-Registrar's Office, Narsipatnam. Subsequently on 18.03.2013, the 2nd defendant sold 902 sq.yds. which comes to Ac.0-18.5 cents to this defendant, out of the suit schedule property by a sale deed registered as

Document No.1032/13 with the sub-registrar's office, Narsipatnam. Thus, as can be seen from the registered documents referred above, the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of Ac.0-06 cents and this defendant is the absolute owner of Ac.

0-18.5 cents of land, which together form the suit schedule property. Thus, viewed from any angle i.e., either in accordance with the will executed by the father or the gift deed executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants, the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has no right what so ever, over the same. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit.

8.The brief averments of the written statement of defendant No.4 to7 are as follows:-

The 5th defendant filed written statement and the same is adopted by the defendants No.4, 6 and 7 and denied the plaint averments and contended that the their grand father executed a registered will dated on 23.03.1982 bequeathing her sons (1) Ac. 0-23 cents of lands in survey No: 364/2, (2) Ac.

0.08 cents of land lands in survey No: 364/4, (3) Ac. 0.14 cents of land in survey

No: 364/5 and Ac. 0.38.5 cents of land lands in survey No. 371/5, making a total of Ac.0.83.5 cents of land all situated at Pedaboddepalli Village in the said will it 9 was made clear that all the remaining movable and immovable properties were bequeathed to the defendants to be shared in 3 equal shares, it is permanent to mention that the plaintiff herself got the said will executed without the knowledge of the defendants, to safeguard the interest of her children. In reply notice got issued by the defendants it is made clear that the said will dated 23.02.1982 was the last will executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendants and she was also remanded that in addition to the said will the plaintiff also got a confirmation deed on dated 21.04.2001 from all the 1 to 3 defendants reiterating that properties mentioned therein shall go to the plaintiff and her two sons, as per the will dated 23.02.1982 and that the defendants would not be making any claims on the said properties. He further contended that the suit scheduled property was purchased by the mother of the defendants with her Stridhana and saving from the amounts contributed by their father and her parents. Thus she was absolute owner of the property but not a benamidar, as alleged by the plaintiff in her own right, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants executed a gift settlement deed transferring her rights over the suit schedule property in favor of the 2nd defendant dated 10.03.1999 which was duly registered as document No.351/93 with sub-register office, Narsipatnam. Subsequently on 18.03.2013, the father of 5th defendant i.e., 2nd deceased defendant sold extent Ac.18.5 cents to the 3rd defendant, out of the suit scheduled property by a registered sale deed as document No.1032/13 at Sub-register Office, Narsipatnam. Thus as can be seen 10 from the registered document referred above, the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of Ac. 0.06 cents and the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of Ac 0.18.5 cents of land, which together from the suit scheduled property. Thus viewed from any angle i.e, either in accordance with the will executed by the father or the gift deed executed by the mother of plaintiff and defendants, the 2nd deceased defendant and 3rd defendant are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has no right what so ever, over the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.Basing on the rival contentions my predecessor framed issues on 13.11.2018. Later the 2nd defendant was demised and after carrying out amendment my predecessor again framed fresh issues on 05.09.2022 due to oversight and inadvertence. For the purpose of convenience the court has taken into consideration the issues which were framed on 05.09.2022. The following are the issues which are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule

properties into four equal shares by metes and bounds, according to

good and bad qualities and allot one such share to the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

10.To prove the contention of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff during her lifetime herself was examined as PW.1 and the plaintiff also examined PW.2 to PW.4 to 11 support her contention and exhibited Exs.A1 to A3. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants 3 to 7, the 3rd defendant was examined as DW.1 and also examined DW2 to DW4 on their behalf. Exs.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

11.The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs has argued that plaint schedule property is joint family property purchased by father of the plaintiff purchased the

Plaint Schedule Land under a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.11.1976 for

Rs.800/- in the name of their mother under Ex.A1 that Plaintiffs proved their contention by the oral testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4 and the documents under Ex

A.1 to Ex A.3. He further contended that though Defendants pleaded that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of their mother, purchased with

Stridhana property, they failed to adduce evidence in respect of any independent income or Stridhana property possessed by their mother to purchase the said property. The learned counsel further contended that though the Defendants pleaded that their father executed Will under Ex.B1 with respect to their properties but they failed prove the said Will in support of their contention and on the other hand Plaintiffs have proved that the plaint schedule property, is joint family property and thereby Ex.B4/ Will is not valid under eye of law, that the plaint schedule property is liable for partition into four equal shares in between

Plaintiffs and Defendants. Thereby the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs prays to decree the suit with costs.

12

12.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Defendants has contended that the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the mother of the

Defendants in the year 1976 under Ex.B1 under family settlement and plaintiff received some properties in the joint family and their father executed Ex.B4 in her favour. It further contended that the father of the Defendants executed Ex.

B4/ Will in favour of the plaintiff and bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the Defendants and the said will came into force from the date of death of their mother and father. Thereby Defendants are having absolute title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The Learned counsel further contended that the evidence of PW’s 2 to 4, without their being any foundation in the plaint pleadings, is not admissible and hence Plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and for any share in the plaint schedule property and thereby prays to dismiss the suit.

13.ISSUE No. 1 and 2

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties and if so to what relief?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future profits as prayed for?

The specific contention of the plaintiff is the suit schedule property was purchased by her father in the name of her mother from the joint family financial capacity and after the death of her parents she is also entitled to get share in the petition schedule property along with defendants.

13

14.On the other hand, the contention of the defendants 1, 3, 4 to 7 is that the plaint schedule property is purchased by their mother through their Stridhana

Property and hence she has executed the gift settlement deed under Ex.B2 in favour of the 2nd defendant/ deceased and subsequently the 2nd defendant/ deceased executed the sale deed under Ex.B3 in favour of the defendant No.3.

During the life time of father of the plaintiffs and defendants executed Will under

Ex.B2 with respect to the properties and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to share in the plaint schedule properties.

15.Admittedly Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 3 are the children of Chintalapudi

Nagamayya and Chintalapudi Kannayyamma @ Kamamma. There is no dispute to that fact that Plaintiff No.1 is sister of the defendants 1 to 3. There is also no dispute to the fact that the said Chintalapudi Kannayyamma @ Kamamma who is the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants died in the year, 1999 and also the father of the defendant died in the year, 2001. Admittedly the plaint schedule property stands in the name of Chintalapudi Kannayyamma @ Kamamma ie., the mother of Plaintiffs and Defendants, under Registered Sale deed dt.27.11.1976 under Ex.B1. As per the contention ofPlaintiffs, plaint schedule property is purchased by her father in the name of her mother under the joint family income. Per contra, Defendants took the defence that the said property is self acquired property of their mother who executed gift settlement deed under

Ex.B2 in favour of Defendant No.2 and subsequently he executed sale deed 14 under Ex.B3 in favour of Defendant No.3. Defendants also took the defence that the joint family severance as per the Ex.B4/ Will.

16.In proof of their contention during the life time of Plaintiff No.1 she examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in the affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination. The evidence of PW.1 transpires that

Plaintiffs and Defendants are all constitute joint Hindu family possessed plaint schedule property purchased in the name of their mother, being elder of their family. PW.1 testified that they got issued legal notice to the Defendants for partition of plaint schedule property. The evidence on record disclose that

Plaintiffs got issued legal notice dt.08.03.2013 under Ex.A2 demanding the

Defendants for partition of plaint schedule property and plaintiff filed Ex.A1/

Registration extract of sale deed dated 27.11.1976, Ex.A2/ Office copy of legal notice dated 08.03.2013, Ex.A3/ Three postal receipts.

17.The plea of Defendants is that their mother purchased the property covered under Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 with her Stridhana property and income. To prove the same Defendants not adduced any evidence to prove the source of income of their mother or any Stridhana property held by her during her life time to pay the sale consideration paid under Ex.A1 and Ex.B1.

18.To prove the contention of the PW.1 she got examined P.W’s 2 to 4 and reiterated the contents of the plaint and also supported the version of the PW.1 and nothing was elicited by the defence counsel from their cross examination.

15

However the evidence of P.w’s 2 to 4 clearly shows that the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of mother of the plaintiff and defendants by their father. Even other wise, to prove their contention that plaint schedule property is self acquired property of their mother, Defendants not adduced any documentary evidence.

19.On the other hand, the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W1 and he reiterated the contents of his written statement and during his cross examination he admitted that during the life time of his father they all lived together as joint family under the guardianship of his father as Kartha/ Manager of the family. His father performed the marriages of all Children. He also admitted that amounts contributed by his father. He stated that schedule property was purchased out of

Stridhana amount as arranged by her parents. He also admitted that he has not filed any document to show about Stridhana amount she purchased the schedule property. He admitted that schedule property covers part and parcel of Will.

There is no specific recital in Ex.B3 that schedule property devolve upon him.

20.D.W2 deposed similar to lines of that of D.W1 and during his cross examination he admitted that his parental grand parents, Ammaji (plaintiff), D1 to

D3 resided jointly being Hindu Joint Family. His paternal grand father lead the family as Kartha of the family. He also admitted that out of his paternal grand father earnings he got educated D1 to D3 with a view to settle them and also performed their marriages. He stated that he was not born at the time of 16 purchasing of schedule property in the name of plaintiff. He further stated that he has no personal knowledge about registered gift deed under Ex.B2 dt.10.03.1993 in the name of his father by Kamayamma by that time he is aged about 13 years.

He stated that he has not having any personal knowledge about the Ex.B3/ Will.

21.D.W3 deposed similar to the lines of D.W1 and during his cross examination, he stated that he did not act as any attestor nor was present at the time of said sale deed dt.27.11.1976 and he did not know who paid the sale consideration under the said sale deed dt.27.11.1976. He further stated that he did not acted as attestor for the Will executed by Nagamayya in favour of the plaintiff and her sons.

22.At this juncture it is quotable to mention here about the ruling which was reported in Judgment in 1960 SCJ 433 between Rukhmabai vs Lala

Laxminarayan And Others wherein it was held that “there is no presumption that any property whether immovable or movable held by a member of joint

Hindu family is joint family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. It he proves that there was sufficient joint family nucleus and out of which the said property could have been acquired, the burden shifts to the members of the family setting of the claim that it their personal property to establish that the said property has been acquired without any assistance from the joint family.”

In the present case on hand, Defendants admits that the plaintiffs and 17 defendants and their parents resided jointly being Hindu Joint Family. Their father lead the family as Kartha of the family and out of his earnings he got educated

D1 to D3 with a view to settle them and also performed their marriages. The plaint schedule property was purchased on 27.11.1976 under Ex.A1 and B1 in the name of Chintalapudi Kamayyamma @ Kamamma. Admittedly, the said

Chintalapudi Kamayya @ Kamamma who is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants is house wife and she is not a earning member. Thus though plaint schedule property is purchased in the name of their mother, in the absence of proof of independent source of income to their mother, the said property is considered as joint family property. Admittedly by the date of Ex.A1 and B1,

Plaintiffs and Defendants and their mother and father are resided together as joint family.

23.Also in Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi Vs Lakkireddi Lakshmama reported in 1963 AIR 1601, 1964 SCR (2) 172 their lordships held: “it is settled principle of Hindu law that there is lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self acquired property. There is a strong presumption about jointness of the family in Hindus. The burden is on the person who claims 18 partition thereof”.

In the present case on hand existence of joint family constituting Plaintiffs,

Defendants and their mother by the date of purchasing of Ex.A1 and B1 is not disputed by the Defendants. The evidence on record disclose that the father of the plaintiff and defendants is only earning member of the said joint family by the date of purchasing of the paint schedule under Ex.A1 and B1. The evidence of

PW.2 and PW.3 also establish payment of consideration by the father of the plaintiff and defendants under Ex.A1 and B1. Thus Plaintiffs proved that the plaint schedule property was purchased under Ex.A1 and B1 with the income of her father, being joint family member in the name of their mother Chintalapudi

Kamayyamma @ Kamamma with the joint family income. Defendants failed to prove that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of Chintalapudi

Kamayyamma @ Kamamma ie., mother of parties to the suit.

24.On the other hand, the defendants contended that during the life time of their father executed a Ex.B4/ Will with respect to the movable and immovable properties. As per the will their father has bequeathed 83.5 cents of land situated in their native place Pedaboddepalli in her favour. As per the Will the balance assets are to be shared by all the defendants 1 to 3, the Plaintiff know the said fact and she has file a suit for partition which is not maintainable.

25.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants failed to prove the said

Will/ Ex.B4. As per section 63 of Indian Succession Act and section 68 of Indian 19

Evidence Act, the Will has to be proved by examining at least one attesting witness to prove the said Will. The defendants failed to examine any of the witnesses to prove the said Will. D.W’s 2 and 3 deposed that they do not have any personal knowledge about the execution of Ex.B4/ Will and they did not acted as attestors. So, in view of the legal position laid down in a decision reported in 2017(4) ALT 628, Between T.Ramesh and others Vs Laxmamma and others , wherein it was held that “without attestation, execution of Deed of

Will is not valid. When no witness deposed that the alleged Will was signed by the deceased in his presence or that he had attested the document, the execution of the very Will is held as not proved.” So, in view of the above legal position, the Ex.B4/ Will is not proved by the defendants.

In the Judgment in Chandrakant Ambadas Mahajan And Others Vs Smt

Shakuntala Kantrao Joshi dated March, 29, 2023 their lordships held that In view of settled position of law the entire burden is on the propounder of the will to remove all suspicious circumstances surrounding the will.

It is well settled law that Property purchased by a husband in the name of his wife is generally considered family property, so it is not legally possible for a wife to write a gift deed in favor of only one child as she wishes, as other legal heirs (another child, husband etc.,) will have rights. If the wife signs as a donor and registers it, it will be difficult to transfer the entire property without the consent of the husband and children, as it is not considered a benami 20 transaction, but is considered property intended for the welfare of the family.

Property purchased by the husband without the wife’s own income becomes family property and the husband and children have rights over it. Since the property was purchased with money paid by the husband, the husband’s permission is mandatory if the wife wants to sell the property.

Here, in this case the plaintiff proved that the schedule property was purchased by her father in the name of her mother under joint family status and hence she is also having right over the schedule property. If the property is gifted or alienated by her mother the husband/ father permission is necessary.

26.It is a settled principle law that a co-parcener can make a gift of his undivided interest in the co-pacercenary property to another co-parcener or to a stranger with prior consent of the other coparceners and such a gift would be quite legal and valid. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in Thama Venkata Subba Rao (died) by Legal representatives Vs.

Thama Rattammareported in AIR 1987 SC 1775 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that :- “a co-parcener can make a gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to another co-parcener or stranger with the prior consent of all the co-parceners.” The same legal position was also laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2008 (16) SCC 785 between Baljinder

Singh Vs. Ratan Singh.So, as per the legal position laid down in the above citations, it shows that a co-parcener can gift his undivided interest in the 21 coparcenary property to any person only with the prior consent of all the coparcenars. But, in the same citation in Thama Venkata Subba Rao case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there are catena of decisions holding that “a gift by a co-parcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property is void.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court also relied on the statement of

Maynes Hindu Law 11th Additional para 382 – wherein it was stated that “It is now equally well settled in all the Provinces that a gift or devise by a coparcener in a Mitakshara family of his undivided interest is wholly invalid. A coparcener cannot make a gift of his undivided interest in the family property, movable or immovable, either to a stranger or to a relative except for purposes warranted by special texts.” The Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to a Passage from Mulla's

Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, Art. 258, which is as follows :- “Gift of undivided interest. - According to the Mitakshara law as applied in all the States, no coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in coparcenary property by gift.

Such transaction being void altogether there is no estoppel or other kind of personal bar which preclude the donor from asserting his right to recover the transferred property. He may, however, make a gift of his interest with the consent of the other coparceners.” So, in view of the above legal position cited, only after the consent of the other coparceners, a gift or Will of undivided interest in the coparcenery property by a coparcener either to another coparcener or to a stranger is valid. Now, applying the above legal position to the present case 22 facts, admittedly the consent of the Plaintiff was not obtained by Chintalapudi

Kamayamma before executing a Gift settlement deed/ Ex.B2 in favour of the 2nd defendant. So, the said Ex.B2/ Gift deed is void and not valid under law.

Subsequently, the Sale deed executed on 18.03.2013 by 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd defendant for an extent of Ac 0.18½ cents of land is also null and void.

27.Thus from the evidence on record as discussed above, Plaintiff proved existence of joint family ancestral properties. On the other hand, the Defendants failed to establish that the property purchased under Ex.B1 by her mother under her Stridhana without the aid of the joint family nucleus.

28.From the above said discussion, Plaintiff proved that plaint schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties of Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 3 and they are liable for partition. Defendants failed to prove the suit schedule property is self acquired property of their mother/ Chintalapudi Kamayamma.

Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

29.FINDING ON ISSUE NO.2

In view of the findings for Issue No.1, plaint schedule property are liable for partition between Plaintiff and Defendants equally. Thus Plaintiff and Defendants are entitled for 1/4th share in plaint schedule properties. Issue No.2 is answered infavour of the Plaintiff.

30.ISSUE NO.3:

If so to What relief?

23

IN THE RESULT, a preliminary decree passed with costs as follows:-

The plaint schedule property is partitioned into four equal shares and to allot one equal share each to the Plaintiffs and Defendants and Plaintiffs are entitled for their 1/4th share with metes and bounds by converting the joint possession into separate possession. Equities, if any to be, worked out in the final decree proceedings.

Typed by me on my laptop, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 29th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF:- PW.1: Pasagadugula Ammaji - During his lifetime and later she died

PW.2: Pasagadugula Veerayya

PW.3: Lokavarapu Sanyasi Naidu

PW.4: Pasagadugula Sreenivas

FOR DEFENDANT’S:-

DW.1: Chinthalapudi Ramarao

DW.2: Chintalapudi Prabhakar 24

DW.3: Paila Appalanaidu

DW.4: Mamidi Ramana

Documents Marked

FOR PLAINTIFF’S:-

Ex.A1: The registration extract of sale deed dated 27.11.1976

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 08.03.2013

Ex.A3: Three postal receipts.

FOR DEFENDANT’S:-

Ex.B1: Sale deed stands in the name of mother of defendants i.e., Kamayyamma @ Kamamma dated 27.11.1976

Ex.B2: Gift settlement deed executed mother of defendants over the petition schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant i.e., Chintalapudi Venkata

Rao dated 10.03.1993 (Subject to objection that original should be filed).

Ex.B3: Sale deed executed on 18.03.2013 by 2nd defendant in favour of me for an extent of Ac 0.18½ cents of land in favour of 3rd defendant.

Ex.B4: Registered will executed by father of defendants in favour of plaintiff on 23.03.1982. (Subject to objection that original should be filed).

Ex.B5: Registered lawyer notice issued by the plaintiff to defendant on 04.06.2005 (Subject to objection as Xerox copy)

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

25

Date of presentation:11.06.2014 Date of filing:11.06.2014

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Monday, this the 29th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.41/2014 No.41/2014

Between:

1. Pasagadugula Ammaji (DIED)

2. Pasagadugula Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Satya Rao, Aged: 55 years, Hindu,

RTC Conductor, Resident of D.No.3-20, Brahmana Veedhi,

Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Municipality, Anakapalli district.

3. Pasagadugula Venkata Prasad, S/o. Satya Rao, Aged 52 years, Hindu,

RTC Conductor, Resident of Door No.5-21, Brahmana Veedhi,

Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Municipality, Anakapalli district.

(Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were added as per the orders in IA No.438/2025 dated 18.08.2025) … Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Chintalapudi Satyanarayana S/o. Nagamayya, Aged 65 years, Hindu,

Employee, Resident of 5th Ward, Near Ravi Chettu, Pedaboddepalli,

Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

2. Chintalapudi Venkata Rao (DIED)

3. Chintalapudi Rama Rao, S/o: Nagamayya, Aged: 54 years, Hindu, RTC,

Conductor, Resident of 5th Ward, Near: Ravi Chettu, Pedaboddepalli,

Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam district

4. Chintalapudi Satyavathi, W/o. Late Venkata Rao, Aged:55 years, Hindu,

Housewife, Balanagar Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42 26

5. Chintalapudi Prabhakararao, S/o.Latge: Venkatarao, Aged:38 years,

Balanagar Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42

6. Pasagadugula Rajeswari, D/o. Late Chintalapudi Venktarao, Aged: 40 years,

Balanagar Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42

7. Chintalapudi Annapoorna, D/o. Late Venkatarao, Aged:36 years, Balanagar

Shobana Colony, Firozguda, Hyderabad-42 (Defendants 4 to 7 were added as per the orders in I.A. No: 934/2018 dated 18.02.2019) … Defendants. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to pass preliminary decree in favour ofThis is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to pass preliminary decree in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 besides plaintiff No.1 i) for partition of plaint schedule propertiesplaintiffs 2 and 3 besides plaintiff No.1 i) for partition of plaint schedule properties into 4 equal shares by metes and bounds according to good and bad qualitiesinto 4 equal shares by metes and bounds according to good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to the plaintiff; ii) Order for ascertaining the futureand to allot one such share to the plaintiff; ii) Order for ascertaining the future profits; iii) And to award costs of the suit; iv) and to award such other relief orprofits; iii) And to award costs of the suit; iv) and to award such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and just under the circumstances of thereliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.case in the interest of justice.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and market value of the plaint schedule is Rs.4,15,030/- and 1/4th plaintiff’s share is Rs.1,03,757.50 ps and 3/4th value of the same is Rs.77,818.125 ps and court fee of Rs.2,946/- payable, but the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under sec.34 (ii) Sche.I, Table II, Article I (b & c) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This case is coming before me on 11.12.2025 in the presence of

Sri.P.Narasimham, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri.K.Appalanaidu Advocate for the defendant No.1 and of Sri.K.A.Prakash, Advocate for the defendant No.3 and of Sri.S.K.Naidu, Advocate for the defendants 4 to 7 and the defendant No.2 is set exparte during his lifetime and later he died and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court doth order and

P R E L I M I N A R Y D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby preliminary decreed; 27

2. that the plaint schedule property is partitioned into four equal shares and to allot one equal share each to the Plaintiffs and Defendants and Plaintiffs are entitled for their 1/4th share with metes and bounds by converting the joint possession into separate possession. Equities, if any to be, worked out in the final decree proceedings; and

3. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.315/- towards institutional costs of the suit.

(Copy of plaint schedule is enclosed herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 29th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Rs. Nil

Stamps on Vakalath : 2-00 Stamps on plaint: 200-00 Stamps on petition: 3-00 Stamps on process: 110-00 –------------------ Institutional costs allowed: 315-00 --------------------

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam

Note : The parties should file the application immediately without any delay for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the records will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years or 6 years as the case may be from the above date according to the nature of the exhibits under the rules for the destruction of the records.

1OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.166/2016 No.166/2016

B e t w e e n :

1. Marampudi Obadya Shyam Prasad, S/o. Late Yahoshuva, Christian,

Aged: 66 years, resident of Door Ho:6-124-1, Hear Panchayati Office,

Kothuru, Anakapalli Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. His

Aadhar No: 311999831297.

2. Marampudi Mary Ratnam alias Saripalli Mary Ratnam, W/o.Msaripalli

Sundara Rao, Aged 61 years, resident of Door Ho:6-124-1, Hear

Panchayati Office, Kothuru, Anakapalli Town and Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. His Aadhar No: 311999831297.

. . . Plaintiff

A n d

1. Koruprolu Kannathalli, W/o.Late Swamy Naidu, Hindu, Aged 60 years,

House hold duties, Resident of Sree Rama Nagar Colony, 3rd Ward,

Door No: 12-99 Peda Boddepalli Village, Narsipatnam Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District

2. Koruprolu Appalanaidu, S/o. Late Swamy Haidu, Aged 40 years,

Resident of Sree Rama Nagar Colony, 3rd Ward, Door No: 12-99 Peda

Boddepalli Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 2OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

3. Koruprolu Venkata Ganneswara Rao, S/o.Late Swamy Naidu, Aged 30 years, Resident of Sree Rama Nagar Colony, 3rd Ward, Door No: 12-99

Peda Boddepalli Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District

4. Tamarana Rama Krishna (Died) . . . Defendants

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24.11.2025 in the presence of Sri.C.G.Prasad,Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri.P.Narasimham,

Advocate for the Defendants No.1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the defendants for declaring the right, title over the suit schedule properties and for granting relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men and farm servants and agents from ever interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for cost of the suit and other reliefs.

2.The suit schedule property Item No.I an extent of 400 Sq.yards (334 448

Sq meters 8 ¼th cents) S.No.62/2; Item No.II an extent of 400 Sq.yards (334 448 Sq meters 8 ¼th cents) S.No.62/2 situated at Jaya Prakash Nagar,

Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Mandal, Narsipatnam Sub-Registry,

Visakhapatnam District.

3OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

3.The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:- (A) The Plaintiff submits that the 1st Plaintiff is the brother of 2nd

Plaintiff and they are residing at Kothuru Village in Anakapalli Mandal. The 1st

Defendant is the mother of Defendants 2 and 3 and 4th Defendant is the vendor of the registered sale deed property in favour of 1st Defendant's husband. The plaintiff’s are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the Plaintiff’s are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in an extent of Ac. 400-00 Square yards each in Item No:1 and 2 of the plaint schedule Property in S.No:62/2. The Plaintiff’s was in peaceful possession and enjoyment, since the date of Sale Deed dt:12.02.1986 and dt:

05.09.1985 to the knowledge of all the villagers including the defendants. The

Plaintiff further submits that originally the plaint schedule Property belongs to

Gudapu Nookanna, S/o Nookanna and 64 principals in an extent of Ac 400-00 cents of Dry Land in S.No.62/2 under various Survey Numbers in Peda

Boddepalli Village in Narsipatnam Mandal. The said Nookanna and 64

Principals have been in possession and enjoyment of the above Ac. 400-00

cents of dry land. The plaintiff further submitted that the said Nookanna and 64

Principals Ac 400-00 cents divided into House Plots of S.No.62/2 and other

S.No. The Plaintiff submits that the Peda Boddepalli Grama Panchayat issued layout plan in 11.09.1996. The said Nookanna and 64 Principals gave 4OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

Registered General Power of Attorney Holder in favour of Bhupathi Raju

Gopala Raju. As per the terms and conditions of the G.P.A. Holder was in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 400-00 cents house sites Plots. As per the layouts Map of Jaya Prakash Nagar in Peda Boddepalli Village. In-turn the said G.P.A. Holder sold away the Property in an extent of Ac 400-00 cents i.e.

8¼ square yards to 1st Plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 12.02.1986 under vide document No.311/1986 of Sub Register, Narsipatnam for valuable consideration on the date of sale deed, the G.P.A. Holder delivered possession to 1st Plaintiff in an extent of AC. 400-00 cents square yards of vacant site under approved layout Map of Jaya Prakash Nagar of Peda Boddepalli Village by that time the 1st Plaintiff is working as an Employee at Araku Valley in

Visakhapatnam District. The Pedda Boddapalli Grama Panchayath Approved house plan in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 30.04.1960 for Construction of house in respect Item No.I of plaint schedule property.

(B) The plaintiff further submits that the 2nd plaintiff purchased the Item

No.2 of the plaint schedule property in an extent of Ac 400.00 Square yards (8¼ cents) under the registered sale deed dated 05.09.1985 under Document

No.1793/1985 for valuable consideration. The vendor of the above referred sale deed delivered possession to 2nd Plaintiff. Since then the 2nd Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the Ac.400-00 Square yards. By the date of 5OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM sale deed the 2nd Plaintiff is working as Teacher in Peda Bayalu in Chinthapalli

Mandal. The Item No:1 and 2 of the Suit Schedule Property, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment from the date of sale deed till today more than statutory period and by way of adverse possession and except the Plaintiffs no-body have no right, title and possession of the suit schedule property. The VRO of the Pedda Boddepalli issued possession certificate in favour of the plaintiff. While matter stood thus the 4th Defendant has no right, title and possession over the suit Schedule Property and in order to grab the suit schedule property, when the Plaintiffs are residing in various places and no body look after the suit schedule property, the 4th Defendant taking advantage, to sold the plaint schedule properties are more valuable site that to adjacent to Narsipatnam to Anakapalli Main Road. In fact, the 4th defendant has no land in surroundings of the suit schedule property. The 4th defendant colluded to 1st Defendant Husband and bargaining the Suit

Schedule Property to 1st Defendant's Husband. The 4th Defendant and 1st

Defendant's husband conspired together with evil intention with the Nefarious mind without any lawful title and possession over the suit schedule land and sold the suit schedule Land under registered sale deed dated 03.12.2007 in favour of the 1st Defendant's Husband vide document No:4556/07 and the possession was not delivered to 1st Defendant. Again the 4th Defendant sold 6OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM away the suit schedule property under registered sale deed Dated 13-06-2008 under vide Document No:1818/08 and possession was not delivered to the 1st

Defendant Husband. The Plaintiff further submits that the Plaintiffs have no knowledge the above referred sale deeds transaction. After retirement of their services these Plaintiffs are residing at Kothuru Village in Anakapalli Mandal.

The Plaintiffs came to Narsipatnam about one month back visited the suit schedule property to clear the bushes in the schedule property and identification of the survey stones and ready to prepare construction of houses in Item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule property. The Defendants 1 to 3 highhandedly entered into the suit schedule property and they are saying that they purchased the suit schedule property from the 4th Defendant under

Registered Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs are surprising about their Registered sale

Deed. The Plaintiffs hindrance to the Defendants with their henchman. Further stating that the Defendants 1 to 3 have no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. There upon on the Defendants raised disputes before

Peda Boddepalli Panchayat elders dated 20.09.2016. The Plaintiffs attended the Panchayat and submitted the registered sale deed dated: 12.02.1986 and 05.09.1985 with approved lay out plan, the Defendants submitted the sale deed dated:03.12.2007 and 13.06.2008. The Panchayat elders stating that the

Plaintiffs is earlier sale deed than defendants 1 to 3 sale deed. Further Village 7OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM elders stating that the subsequent sale deed is fabricated document and same was not binding on the Plaintiffs. Further Village elders stating that the vendor of the Defendants has no property in Peda Boddepalli Village, Narsipatnam

Mandal. The Plaintiff’s further submits that the above referred sale deed is sham, nominal and collusive documents and the same is null and void and same is not binding on the plaintiffs.

(C) The Plaintiffs further submits that the Plaintiffs have got right, title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property for more than statutory period. The Defendants have no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time. The defendants have got strong political back ground and they have got strong money and muscle power in the

Village. The Defendants are very cantankerous people and they have no respect for Law and Order. The Plaintiffs are innocents and old aged persons and also retired Employees and the Plaintiffs have no political back ground.

The defendants on 20.10.2016 proclaiming in the Village that they would occupy the suit schedule land by hook or crook. The Plaintiffs are apprehending forcible dispossession from the suit schedule site. They are capable enough to put their proclamations into the deeds. Since then the

Defendants are openly proclaiming that they will not allow the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit Schedule site and dispossess the Plaintiffs. Unless the Defendants are 8OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM restrained by way of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction that they will take the

Law into their hands and will dispossess the Plaintiffs from out of the same.

Hence this suit is filed.

4.The Brief averments of the written statement of D1 to D3 are as follows:-

The defendant No.2 and filed written statement by denying the plaint averments. The defendants No.1 hereby adopted the written statement of defendant No.2 and 3.

(A) The defendants submit that they do not admit truth, validity, genuineness, execution of Registered Sale Deeds dated 12.02.1986 and 05.09.1985 and also passing of consideration and delivery of possession there under. The alleged two sale deeds must have been a nominal, bogus and sham documents. There is no lay out as stated by the plaintiffs on land. The

V.R.O, has no right to issue possession certificate and it was manipulated by influencing him. The plaintiffs or their vendors have no right, title and possession over plaint schedule land. The defendants further submit that

Gudepu Nookanna has no land in S.No:62-2. The plaint schedule property does not belong to Gudepu Nookanna and 64 ryots and the said Bhupatiraju

Gopalaraju never executed Sale Deeds in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The said

Gudepu Nookanna died in the year 1980. The defendants submit that their 9OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM father by name Koruprolu Swaminaidu, S/o.Appanna purchased the following schedule land measuring 800 Sq. Yards under two registered sale deeds

dated 03.12.2007 and 13.06.2008 which is more fully described here under

from Tamarana Ramakrishna etc. Father of these defendants was put into possession of the land purchased by him on the date of execution of Sale

Deed and he used to enjoy the same by raising Casuarinas tope. Father of the defendants purchased 800 Sq.Yards for a valuable consideration under two registered sale deeds for Rs. 1,28,000/- each and he died intestate on 19.12.2011. Since the date of death of their father, the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of schedule land. The Plaintiffs have been highhandedly claiming the land purchased by the defendant's father under guise of plaint schedule land without any manner of right, title and possession.

The lands purchased by the Father of Defendants No.2 and 3 are contiguous.

The Defendants raised the fencing around the plaint schedule property and raised two Cattle Sheds in the schedule land. These defendants are having right, title and possession over the schedule land. The Vendor of these defendant's father, by name Tamarana Rama Krishna used to enjoy the plaint schedule land prior to purchase of land by these defendant's Father. The said property was the ancestral property of Tamarana Ramakrishna and he used to enjoy the same by raising casuarinas tope prior to the defendants 2 and 3 and 10OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM their father. The defendants have been raising vegetable crops in the schedule land and taking usufruct. The defendants are herewith filing photos evidencing the said fact. The plaintiffs never raised any Panchayath in the village. The defendants submit that their father, prior to him, Tamarana Ramakrishna and after the death of their father, these defendants have got right, title and possession over the schedule land and enjoying the plaint schedule land since long time. The two registered sale deeds executed by Tamarana Ramaksirhna are true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants have no political background and are Law abiding citizens.

(B) Originally the land in Survey No:62-2 belonged to Kolli Jogulamma.

The vendor of the defendant's father by name Tamarana Rama Krishna got

Ac.0.16 cents from her aunt Kolli Jogulamma. The said Jogulamma gave

Ac.0.16 cents in Survey No.62-2 situated at Pedaboddepalli about 40 years ago in favour of her nephew Tamarana Rama Ksirhna out of love and affection.

The said Ramakrishna used to enjoy the said property and sold the same to the Father of the defendants 2 and 3. Father of Kolli Jogulamma and Grand

Father of Tamarana Rama Krishna are brothers. Jogulamma never gave power of attorney to anybody in respect of her land. The question of proclaiming in the village that the defendants would dispossess the plaintiffs and occupy the same would not arise as the defendants have been in 11OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM possession and enjoyment of schedule property. The D.4/ Rama Krishna died about 3 years ago. The allegations of plaint would clearly prove that the case of Plaintiffs is false as question of trespass by D.4 does not arise on the dates mentioned in the plaint. Sons of Vendor of Defendant's father also died. There is no Cause of Action for the plaintiffs to file this Suit. The cause of action shown in the plaint is not correct. There are no bonafides in the plaintiff's Suit.

The plaintiffs have no right, title and possession over plaint schedule land. The defendants 2 and 3 are having right, title and possession over plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs are not entitled to relief as claimed by them. Hence, prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff are entitled for the relief of declaration of their right, title over the suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.To prove the contention of the plaintiffs, the 1st and 2nd plaintiff’s were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and plaintiff also examined PW.3 and PW.4 to support their contention and exhibited Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, on behalf of D1 to D3, the 2nd defendant was examined as DW.1 and got marked 12OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

Exs.B1 to B3. The defendants also examined D.W2 to D.W4 in support of their contention. The defendants No.4 was demised, hence he did not adduce any evidence nor marked any documents.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that plaintiff’s proved their title by virtue of Ex.A1 and A2 which was said to be purchased from GPA holder/ BhupathiRaju GopalaRaju to an extent of Ac.400 cents each in S.No 62/2 and approved the panchayat plan. The 4th defendant who is having no manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule properties executed registered Sale deeds in favour of husband of D1. As the plaintiff’s are residing elsewhere taking advantage of the same, the defendant’s in order to grab the suit schedule properties stated that they are having right, title and possession by virtue of Ex.B1 and B2. The panchayat elders also stated that plaintiff’s have valid title than defendant’s and prayed to decree the suit in favour of the Plaintiff’s as prayed for. The plaintiff’s filed citations which were reported in 1. AIR 1996 SC 1253. 2. 1956 ALT 225 (EB).

8.The learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 argued that husband of D1 purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.B1 and B2 from D4 who acquired the same from his ancestors. D4 acquired the property from his aunt

Jogulamma. The defendants further argued that non bringing of LR’s of D4 is fatal to the case of plaintiff’s and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Moreover 13OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM the title of vendor/ GPA holder Bhupathiraju Gopalaraju was not proved by filing valid documentary evidence. Hence, prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs. The defendant’s filed citations which were reported in 1. 2024 (4)

ALD 23 (AP). 2. 1999 (3) ALT 210.

P O I N T:-

9.ISSUE No.1 and 2:

1.Whether the plaintiff are entitled for the relief of declaration of their right, title over the suit schedule properties?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

It is the case of the plaintiff’s that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule Item No.1 and 2 to an extent of 400 Square yards each which was purchased from GPA Holder/ BhupathiRaju Gopalaraju by virtue of

Registered Sale Deeds dt:12.02.1986 and dt: 05.09.1985. Originally the suit schedule property belong to Gudapu Nookanna and 64 principals in S.No.62/2 and in other S.No’s and subsequently they executed GPA in favour of

BhupathiRaju Gopalaraju and Pedaboddepalli Panchayat also issued layout plan. Meanwhile the 4th defendant who is having no manner of right, title and interest over Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule property sell the same to the husband of D1 under Registered Sale Deeds dt: 03.12.2007 and dt:

14OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM 13.06.2008. After retirement of services by the plaintiff’s they went to Item No.1 and 2 of schedule property to clear the bushes and to construct the houses in which the defendant’s No.1 to 3 obstructed the plaintiff’s and stated they purchased the property. The defendants raised dispute before Pedaboddepalli

Panchayat on 20.09.2016 by submitting both side documents and stated the sale deeds which were purchased by plaintiff’s were much earlier than defendant’s documents. The village elders stated that the vendors of defendants has no property in Pedaboddepalli. The defendant’s documents are null and void and they having political background. The defendants proclaiming in the village on 28.10.2016 they would occupy the suit schedule properties. Hence, constrained by this the plaintiff’s got field the above suit.

10.PW.1 is the 1st Plaintiff. PW.2 is the 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the Registered sale deed executed by GPA Holder Bhupatiraju Gopalaraju in favour of plaintiff

dated 12.02.1986. Ex.A2 is the Registered sale deed executed by GPA Holder

Bhupatiraju Gopalaraju in favour of plaintiff dated 05.09.1985. Ex.A3 is the Lay out map of Jayaprakash nagar pedaboddepalli Flot No.132, 133 dated 19.11.1996. Ex.A4 is the statement of encumbrance survey No.62/2. Ex.A5 is the Statement of encumbrance statement of encumbrance. Ex.A6 is the

Registered sale deed executed by 1st defendant dated 03.12.2007. Ex.A7 is the Registered sale deed executed by 4th defendant in favour of D1 dated 15OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM 13.06.2008.Ex.A8is the Possession certificate issued by VRO

Pedaboddepalli. PW.3 and PW.4 are the witnesses to the plaintiff.

11.It is the case of the defendant’s No.1 to 3 is that the Registered sale deeds dt: 12.02.1986 and 05.09.1985 are not valid documents and VRO has no right to issue possession certificate. The plaintiff’s and their vendors i.e.,

GPA Holder/ BhupathiRaju Gopalraju and Gudepu Noookanna, 64 ryots has no right over suit schedule properties. The father of defendant’s purchased 800 Sq yards under two Registered Sale Deeds dt: 0312.2007 and 13.06.2008 from D4 which is ancestral property and D4 raised Casuarinas Tope. The father of defendant’s died in 19.12.2011 and later they succeeded the said property. The defendant’s raised vegetables crops and taking Usufructs.

Originally the land in S.No.62-2 belonged to Kolli Jogulamma and D4 got the

Ac.0.16 cents from her aunt Jogulamma about 40 years back. The said

Jogulamma never gave GPA to anybody. D4 was demised about 3 years back and sons of D4 were also demised. The plaintiff’s filed false suit against these defendant’s and hence prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

12.DW.1 is the 2nd defendant. Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed executed in favour of the father of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 by defendant

No.4 dated 03.12.2007. Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed executed in favour of father of defendants No.2 and 3 by defendant No.4 dated 16OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM 13.06.2008. Ex.A3 is the Positive photographs. DW2, DW3 and DW4 are the witnesses to the defendants.

13.Now, since the present suit is filed by the Plaintiffs seeking the relief of declaration of title over Item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties and for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, the initial burden is on the Plaintiffs to prove their right and title over the suit schedule properties consisting of Item No.1 and 2 schedules with absolute certainty and the Plaintiff’s has to stand or fall on the evidence let in by them and they cannot depend on the weaknesses in the case of Defendants or that the

Defendants failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property consisting of Item No.1 and 2. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in M.M.B. Catholicos v. M.P. Athanasius , AIR 1954 SC 526, wherein it was held that “the Plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title and this can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the Defendant has proved his onus or not and a mere destruction of the respondents/Defendants title in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the Plaintiff nowhere. In Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, MANU/SC/0295/1964 :

[1965]2SCR233 , it was held that in a suit for ejectment, the Plaintiff has to succeed or fail on the title he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the 17OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM strength of his title, the suit must fail notwithstanding that the Defendant in possession has no title to the property. Strong reliance also was placed on

S.M.M. Kunhi Koya Thangal v. B.J.P. Dharas Committee and Ors. , 2004

SAR 832 where the Apex Court held that the cardinal principle in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the strength of title is that the

Plaintiff can succeed only on establishing his title to the suit property and the

Plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the case put forward by the

Defendant.” So, in the light of the legal position laid down in the above citations, the Plaintiff has to prove their right and title over the suit Item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties irrespective of whether the Defendants proved their title or that the Defendants has no title over the suit schedule properties.

14.To prove their case, the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are examined as PWs 1 and 2 by filing their chief examination affidavit and reiterated the plaint pleadings and testified that they purchased the suit schedule property from under Ex.A1 and

A2 respectively from the GPA Holder/ Bhupathi Raju Gopala Raju and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and as the

Defendants are trying to occupy the suit schedule property without having any right and hence they filed the present suit.

18OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

During the cross examination of P.W’s 1 and 2 they clearly admitted that they have not filed any documents to show that extent of land possessed by the executors (Gadepu Nookanna and other 64 farmers) of General Power of

Attorney holder was in favour of the BhupathiRaju GopalaRaju. They also admitted that they have not filed any document to show that the plaint schedule properties belongs to Gudepu Nookanna and 64 ryots. They also stated that they do not know whether the husband of the defendant No.1 and the father of the defendant Nos 2 and 3 (Korlapu Swamy Naidu) purchased the plaint schedule properties under two registered sale deeds dt. 03.12.2007 and 13.06.2008 from Defendant No.4 and the said Korlapu Swamy Naidu used to raise casuarina plants in the said land and after his death the defendants 1 to 3 are cultivating the land.

15.To prove the contention of the plaintiffs, they also examined PWs 3 and

4. P.W’s 3 and 4 stated similar to the lines of P.W’s 1 and 2 during their chief examination. During their cross examination they clearly stated that they came to know that the plaint schedule properties belongs to Gudepu Nookanna but they did not witnessed any document.

16.As can be seen from the contention of the Defendants, they are specifically denied the execution of Ex.A1 and A2. Here, in this case it is admitted fact that the plaintiff’s 1 and 2 purchased the plaint schedule property 19OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM respectively under Ex.A1 and A2 and the same was executed by the

BhupathiRaju GopalaRaju who is the GPA Holder. The GPA is executed in his favour by the Gadepu Nookanna and 64 ryots.

17.It is well settled law that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder has the right to sell a property, the parties must demonstrate that specific legal conditions have been met, as mere possession of a GPA does not confer ownership. The primary condition is that the actual transfer of ownership occurs only through a registered sale deed. Which the GPA holder can execute on the owner’s behalf, provided they have explicit, written authority to do so.

The Original registered GPA document must explicitly contain a clause or specific power of attorney (SPA is often preferred for property sales) that authorized the agent to sell the property, negotiate the price, receive payment, and execute the final sale deed. The entire transaction must comply with the terms of Transfer of property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 and the

Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Here in this case the P.W’s 1 and 2 failed to file any document to show that the said BhupathiRaju GopalaRaju is having a GPA holder rights with respect to the transaction of Ex.A1 and A2.

18.It is also doubtful circumstance that Gudepu Nookanna and 64 ryots are having property in their name or not why because the plaintiff’s failed to file 20OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM any link document to prove their title over the plaint schedule properties consisting of Item No.1 and 2. The Plaintiffs also not stated any where to show that how the Gadepu Nookanna and 64 ryots acquired the property.

19.The plaintiffs failed to prove that said Gadepu Nookanna and 64 ryots are having title over the plaint schedule property by providing a complete set of “link documents”, which are the chain of title records that establish ownership over time. These documents trace the property’s history back to the original owner and show a clear, unbroken transfer of ownership through various sales, gifts, or inheritances. With respect to the sale deeds and these are the most common and crucial documents, serving as proof of sale and transfer of ownership from seller to buyer.

20.On the other hand the husband of the defendant No.1 and the father of the defendant Nos 2 and 3 (Korlapu Swamy Naidu) purchased the plaint schedule properties under two registered sale deeds dt. 03.12.2007 and 13.06.2008 under Ex.B1 and B2 from Defendant No.4 and the said Korlapu

Swamy Naidu used to raise casuarina plants in the said land and after his death the defendants 1 to 3 are cultivating the land.

21.With respect to the Ex.B1 and B2 the plaintiffs not take any action or did not examine any revenue authorities to prove their title and possession over the plait schedule property. During their cross examination also they simply 21OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM stated that they do not know about the transaction of Ex.B1 and B2 and they did not strongly denied about the same. During the cross examination of defendants nothing was elicited by the plaintiffs.

22.It is a settled preposition of law that no one can convey a better title than what he has. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in

All India Reporter 2009 Andhra Pradesh page 166 between Tirumala

Venkata Reddiah Choudary and another minors represented by Mother

Smt. A.V.Kalyani Vs Potla Krishna Prasad and another , wherein it is held at para 5 of the judgment that“The execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title and the execution of or registration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the principle Nemo

Dat Quad Non Habet, which means 'no person can transfer/pass a better title than what he possesses in the property so transferred”.So, when the Ex.A1 and A2 sale deeds does not confer any valid title to the vendors of the

Plaintiff’s, the plaintiffs will not get any title over the suit schedule property under Ex A1 and A2 sale deeds.

23.Moreover, to claim the relief of declaration of title, the Plaintiffs must first prove the title of their vendor before claiming any title under their sale deeds obtained from their vendors. So, when the Plaintiff’s failed to prove the title of their vendors, they will not get any right or title under Ex.A1 and A2 sale deed 22OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM as they failed to prove the title of their vendor’s over the suit schedule property, in view of the legal position cited supra. So, when the Plaintiff’s failed to prove the title of their vendors under Ex.A1 and A2 and when their vendors have no title over the suit schedule property, they will not get any right or title over the suit schedule property. Moreover, Ex.A4 and A5 documents are only revenue records and they are not documents of title. So, when Ex.A4 and A5 are only revenue records, they do not prove the title of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The revenue records are only documents for the purpose of collecting land revenue and they are not documents of title. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in 1998(2) ALT Page 623, between Yeluri Vijaya Bharathi Vs Yeluri Manikyamma, wherein it was held at para 8 that “Record of Rights are not records of documents of title and entries therein are not be taken as basis to fix the title and they are documents to ensure the person to be made liable to pay the revenue and for no other purpose.” So, in view of the legal position laid down in the above citation when

Ex.A4 and A5 are only revenue records, they do not establish or prove the title of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. So, when the Plaintiff did not file any document to prove their title over the suit schedule property and when

Ex.A4 and A5 do not establish the title of the Plaintiff’s over the suit schedule property in view of the legal position cited supra, it is held that the Plaintiff’s 23OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM failed to establish that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Hence, it is held that the Plaintiff’s failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property and they are not entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property as prayed for.

24.The plaintiffs morefully relied upon Ex.A1 and A2 documents. But it was not helpful to the plaintiffs to prove their possession. It is a settled principle of law that mere filing of a document does not amount to proof of the contents of the said document and it is to be proved in a normal way. The above legal position is laid down in a decision reported in All India Reporter 1971

Supreme Court page 1865, between Sait Tarajee Khimchand Vs Yelamarti

Satyam, wherein it was held at para 15 of the judgment that “mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents or does not dispense with its proof”. So, in view of the above legal position, mere filing of Ex.A1 and A2 in court on behalf of the

Plaintiffs will not amount to proof of the contents of the said document, and

Ex.A1 and A2 are held to be not proved and does not help the case of the

Plaintiffs.

25.Moreover, when the Plaintiff’s failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property, they also not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction 24OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM as prayed for. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the

Defendants and against the Plaintiffs.

26.I S S U E No. 3:

To what relief?

In view of the discussion already made supra while answering issue

Nos.1 and 2, wherein it is held that the Plaintiff failed to prove their right and title over the suit schedule property and that their vendors didn’t got valid title over the suit schedule property to execute Ex.A1 and A2 sale deeds in their favour and that the Plaintiff’s failed to prove their right and title over the suit schedule property, it is held that the suit filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff’s.

27.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs

Typed by me in my Laptop, signed and pronounced by me in Open

Court, on this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

25OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

PW1: Marempudi Obodya Syam Prasad

PW2: Maredupudi Mary Ratnam @ Saripalli Mary Ratnam

PW3: Chode Srinivasa Chowdary

PW4: Veesam Janakirao

FOR DEFENDANTS:-

DW1: Koruprolu Appala Naidu

DW2: Bandaru Sanyasi Naidu

DW3: TAnari Appalanaidu

DW4: Vemavarapu Nagu

Documents Marked

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1/Ex.A1/Registered sale deed executed by GPA Holder

Bhupatiraju Gopalaraju in favour of plaintiff dated 12.02.1986

Ex.A2/Registered sale deed executed by GPA Holder Bhupatiraju

Gopalaraju in favour of plaintiff dated 05.09.1985 26OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

Ex.A3/Lay out map of Jayaprakash nagar pedaboddepalli Flot No.132, 133 dated 19.11.1996.

Ex.A4/Statement of encumbrance survey No.62/2

Ex.A5/Statement of encumbrance statement of encumbrance

Ex.A6/Registered sale deed executed by 1st defendant dated 03.12.2007

Ex.A7/Registered sale deed executed by 4th defendant in favour of D1

dated 13.06.2008

Ex.A8/Possession certificate issued by VRO Pedaboddepalli.

FOR DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B1/Original registered sale deed executed in favour of the father of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 by defendant No.4 dated 03.12.2007

Ex.B2/Original registered sale deed executed in favour of father of defendants NO.2 and 3 by defendant No.4 dated 13.06.2008

Ex.B3/Positive photographs

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

27OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

Date of presentation:27.10.2016 Date of filing:27.10.2016

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.166/2016 No.166/2016

B e t w e e n :

1. Marampudi Obadya Shyam Prasad, S/o. Late Yahoshuva, Christian,

Aged: 66 years, resident of Door Ho:6-124-1, Hear Panchayati Office,

Kothuru, Anakapalli Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. His

Aadhar No: 311999831297.

3. Marampudi Mary Ratnam alias Saripalli Mary Ratnam, W/o.Msaripalli

Sundara Rao, Aged 61 years, resident of Door Ho:6-124-1, Hear

Panchayati Office, Kothuru, Anakapalli Town and Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. His Aadhar No: 311999831297.

. . . Plaintiff

A n d

1. Koruprolu Kannathalli, W/o.Late Swamy Naidu, Hindu, Aged 60 years,

House hold duties, Resident of Sree Rama Nagar Colony, 3rd Ward,

Door No: 12-99 Peda Boddepalli Village, Narsipatnam Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District

2. Koruprolu Appalanaidu, S/o. Late Swamy Haidu, Aged 40 years,

Resident of Sree Rama Nagar Colony, 3rd Ward, Door No: 12-99 Peda

Boddepalli Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 28OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

3. Koruprolu Venkata Ganneswara Rao, S/o.Late Swamy Naidu, Aged 30 years, Resident of Sree Rama Nagar Colony, 3rd Ward, Door No: 12-99

Peda Boddepalli Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District

4. Tamarana Rama Krishna (Died) . . . Defendants

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the defendants for declaring the right, title over the suit schedule properties and for granting relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men and farm servants and agents from ever interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for cost of the suit and other reliefs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.3,17,700/- and half of the value is Rs.1,58,850/- and court fee of Rs.4,026/- is paid u/sec.26 (c) Sch.I (b & c) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24.11.2025 in the presence of Sri.C.G.Prasad,Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri.P.Narasimham,

Advocate for the Defendants No.1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till today, this court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed

2. that there be no costs (A copy of plaint schedule is enclosed herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam.

29OS.166/2016 PCJC (Jr.D.) NRPM

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

NIL NIL

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam.

Note : The parties should file the application immediately without any delay for return of all exhibits which they October wish to preserve as the records will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years or 6 years as the case October be from the above date according to the nature of the exhibits under the rules for the destruction of the records.

1

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.232/2019 No.232/2019

Between:

1. Surla Chinnayya, S/o.Appanna, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 55 years,

Mallavaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aadhar

No.446419968778

2. Surla Satyanarayana @ Satyam, S/o.Appanna, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 58 years, Mallavaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

Aadhar No.766985062245 … Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Surla Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 58 years, Kavalapadu village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

2. Surla Durga Prasad, S/o Surla Satyanarayana, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 24 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

3. Surla Govindu, S/o.Surla Satyanarayana Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 22 years,

Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

2

4. Surla Lakshmana Rao, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 55 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

5. Surla Rambabu, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 52 years,

Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

6. Makireddi Rama Lakshmi W/o Not Known D/o Late Akku Naidu, Hindu,

Cultivation, Aged 50 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari

District.

7. Surla Varahala Babu, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 48 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

8. Surla Bapiraju S/o Nookanna, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 58 years, Mallavaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

9. Surla Lakshmi, W/o.Surla Bapiraju, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 55 years,

Mallavaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

… Defendants.

This case is coming before me on 23.12.2025 in the presence of

Sri.G.Sankararao, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri S.V.V.Prasad, Advocate for

Defendants 1 to 9 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for granting permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men and persons claiming through them from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 3 plaintiffs, their men and persons are claiming through them over plaint schedule property and for costs and for such other and other reliefs as the Honourable

Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2.The plaint schedule property Item No.1 in S.No.1-3 an extent of Ac 0.18 cents (according to sale deed dated 26.02.1971 there is an extent of Ac 0.20 cents); Item No.2 in S.No.13-5 (Now sub divided as S.No.13-5 A) an extent of Ac 0.71 cents (according to sale deed dated 26.02.1971 there is an extent of Ac 0.10 cents); Item No.3 in S.No.55-1 (Now S.No.55-1 A) an extent of Ac 0.04 cents (according to sale deed dated 26.02.1971 there is an extent of Ac 0.25 cents); Item No.4 in S.No.2-1 an extent of Ac 1.94 cents; Item No.5 in S.No.2-5 an extent of Ac 0.72 cents; Item No.6 in S.No.3-2 an extent of Ac 0.20 cents;

Item No.7 in S.No.56-2 an extent of Ac 2.00 cents situated at Mallavaram

Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:- [a] The plaintiff submits that the 1st defendant is father of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and brother of defendants 4 to 7. The defendants 8 and 9 are instigators of the defendants 1 to 7. The plaintiffs submit that originally the plaint schedule land and other lands belongs to grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendants namely Surla Chinnayya. The father of the defendants 1 to 7 namely

Akkunaidu, father of the 8th defendant Nookanna and father of the plaintiffs namely Appanna are brothers and are sons of Surla Chinnayya. Akkunaidu, 4

Nookanna and Appanna orally partitioned the family properties by fixing the boundaries about 70 years back. In such partition Item No: 1 to 3 properties are fallen to the share of the father of the defendants 1, 3 to 7 and Item No: 4 to 6 are fallen to the share of the plaintiff's father. Since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. At the time of partition, they partitioned the properties by fixing the boundaries only by observing good and bad qualities. In recognition of the exclusive right, title and possession over the respective shares of Appanna, Akkunaidu and Nookanna the revenue authorities mutated their names in all the revenue records as per enjoyment of the shares.

[b] The plaintiffs further submit that during the life time of the father of the defendants 1 to 7, he sold away the Item No: 1 to 3 to the mother of plaintiffs namely Surla Sanyasamma under registered sale deed 26.02.1971. The sale deed executed by the father of the defendants 1 to 7 and also on behalf of the minor sons i.e., defendants No.1 and 3. At the time of execution of sale deed the defendants 4 to 7 were not born. Since then the mother of the plaintiffs has been in possession and enjoyment of the item No: 1 to 3 plaint schedule properties along the other items of the plaint schedule properties. At the time of partition and execution of the sale deed by father of defendants 1 to 7 there was no localization of properties and were partitioned according to good and bad qualities and by fixing the boundaries. Later the father of the defendants 1 to 7 along with family migrated to Kavalapadu village and lived at till his death and the 5 defendants also residing at Kavalapadu village till now. The plaintiffs further submits that about 15 years back the revenue authorities localized the Item No.1 to 7 of the plaint schedule properties within the boundaries and found that Item

No.1 in S.No.1-3 extent Ac.0-18 cents, (According to sale deed dated 26.02.1971 there is an extent of Ac.0-20 cents) Item No: 2 in S.No: 13-5 (Now sub divided as

S.No: 13-5 A) extent Ac.0-71 cents, (According to sale deed dated 26.02.1971 there is an extent of Ac.0-10 cents) and Item No: 3 in S.No: 55-1 (Now S.No: 55- 1 A) extent Ac.1-04 cents, (According sale deed dated 26-02-1971 there is an extent of Ac.0-25 cents). Likewise item No: 4 to 6 are also localized and found the extents mentioned in the schedule as per the boundaries. At the time of localization, the defendants are very much present and all the above facts are within the knowledge of the defendants.

[c] The plaintiffs further submits that during the life time of Surla Appanna

S/o.Chinnayya who is father of the plaintiffs occupied the land in S.No.56 ad- measuring Ac.2-40 cents in Mallavaram village, which is Inam land, about 80 years back and have been in possession and enjoyment of same. There were disputes with regard to above referred land about revenue authorities remarked the land as tank poromboke in the revenue records. Then Surla Appanna filed an application before the Sub collector Narsipatnam about the correction of the same and the Honourable authority after full fledged enquiry passed an order that the appellant therein i.e. Surla Appanna has been in possession and 6 enjoyment of the land referred above and it is not Tank poromboke and passed order accordingly in 1.A.2/68/78. The father of plaintiffs paid tax to the all the properties and receipts herewith filed. Later the plaintiffs presented land In an extent of Ac.0-40 cents land out of Ac.2-40 cents to their sister Suseela.

Remaining land was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs which delineated in the plant schedule as Item No:7. Later the father of the plaintiffs died. After death of the father the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs took possession of the plaint schedule properties and have been in possession of the same as lawful owners. The revenue authorities issued Pattadari pass book and title deed in respect of the plaint schedule to the both plaintiffs in recognition of right, title and possession over the plaint schedule land and their names were also mutated in revenue records in respect of the plaint schedule lands. Even though the authorities mutated the names of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule lands, the plaintiffs are enjoying the plaint schedule lands jointly. The plaintiffs also paid the tax to the authorities. In recent times the authorities did not collect the tax from the farmers in the vicinity. The pattadari pass book in the name of the plaintiffs and tax receipts in the name of the 1st plaintiff herewith filed. The title deed book of plaintiffs deposited in the bank and obtained loan. As things stands so, the defendants raised a dispute with regarding to the plaint schedule land and the plaintiffs gave report to the police, Makavarapalem and the police inturn gave requisition to the Tahasildar, Makavarapalem Village requesting the subject lands 7 are in whose possession and enjoyment. Accordingly the Tahsildar directed VRO,

Surveyor, R.I to conduct enquiry. In pursuance of the direction of the Tahsildar, the VRO, Surveyor, and R.I conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the

Tahsildar, Makavarapalem. After verification of the report submitted by the VRO,

Surveyor and R.I, the Tahsildar sent a report stating that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the pliant schedule lands and served copy of report to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submit that the cost of the plaint schedule property was hike in recent times. Then the cruel eyes of the defendants on the plaint schedule property and the defendants are colluded together and making troubles to the plaintiffs in enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Taking advantage of the plaintiffs is lonely persons, the defendants 1 to 7 making obstructions to the plaintiffs in enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties at the instigation of the defendants 8 and 9. The defendants have no manner of right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property. While things stands so, as part of the evil idea to grab away the plaint schedule house property on 02.08.2019 the defendants came to the plaint schedule property and try to occupy the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. At that time the neighbors came there and prevented the defendants from doing so and chastised the defendants. Thereafter on 10.08.2019 the defendants proclaiming in the village that they would dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property without having any manner of right, title and 8 possession over the plaint schedule property. Unless the defendants prevented from order of the Court they would have dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

4.The brief averments of the written statement of defendants 1 to 7 are as follows:-

The defendants submit that the Akkinaidu had S.No.1-3 Ac.2.98 cents in

Khatha No.159 of land individual patta. The said Akkinaidu is also share of ancestral joint share of land in S.No.13-5 Ac.0.50 cents out of Ac. 1.45 cents in khatha No.192; S.No.55-1-A Ac.1.20 cents out of Ac.5.10 cents; S.No.56 Ac.0.80 cents out of Ac.2.40 cents with his brothers i.e. Appanna and Nookanna. The total land of said Akkinaidu is Ac 5.48 cents. The said S.No.56 land is locally called as Cheruvu and that said Pottibanda Cheruvu is ancestral property of

Akkinaidu, Nookanna and Appanna. The said Akkinaidu is the 3rd son of Late

Surla Chinnayya @ Bulliyya. The Akkinaidu is having total land to an extent of

Ac.5.48 cents. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that regd. sale deed dated 26.02.1971 executed by late Akkinaidu with his minor sons i.e., Satyanarayana and Latchanna in favor of Surla Sanyasamma who is the mother of these plaintiffs is a rank forged document. The said document is proved by plaintiffs only. There is no oral partition in between the brothers i.e., Appanna, Nookanna and Akkinaidu. The defendants submit that the 1st defendant is the elder son of

Late Akkinaidu; 2nd defendant is the elder son of 1st defendant; 3rd defendant is 9 the 2nd son of 1st defendant; The defendants 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th are also sons and daughters of late Akkinaidu. The plaintiffs and their father have evil idea to grab the share of lands of Nookanna and Akkinaidu. The said Akkinaidu migrated to

Kalavapadu Village. It is overall conspiracy by the plaintiffs and their father. The plaintiffs and their father managed the revenue officials and created fake pass books and title deeds with wrong S.No’s, and also executed forged documents in favor of daughter of late Appanna by name Manga and said Manga in-turn given said land to her daughter by name Suseela. The land tax paid by the Appanna is not true. The tax receipts were created by said Appanna The defendants submit that the said Appanna (Plaintiff’s father) dated 04.06.1990 executed will in favour of his daughter by name Manga Ac 0.50 cents in S.No.56 is not binding on the defendants. The said will is not valid as per law. In fact the Appanna is not having any right over the said land i.e., will document land Ac 0.50 cents. The said

S.No.56 Ac 2.40 cents land is Government land. The said Appanna, Nookanna and Akkinaidu jointly cultivated the said land during their life time. The plaintiffs and their father erased the boundaries and mutated the Nookanna and Akkinaidu share of lands in their pass books. There is no oral partition in between the three brothers i.e., Appanna, Nookanna and Akkinaidu. It is all created by the plaintiffs to occupy the entire share of lands of Nookanna and Akkinaidu. The sister of

Late Akkinaidu by name Yerra Ramulamma executed Will dated 29.09.1980 vide document No.4254 in favour of Surla Satyanarayana in S.No.55-1A Ac 0.20 10 cents who is the elder son of Late Akkinaidu out of love and affection. As mentioned by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam the said S.No.56 Ac 2.40 cents of land is Inam land and purely Zamindari land. But supported as per the report given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam the above said land is in cultivable land. Except that there is no exclusive rights were confirmed by

Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam to Appanna only over the said S.No.56 land.

The boundaries are changed in between the lands of Appanna, Nookanna and

Akkinaidu. The defendants are the branch of Late Akkinaidu and having reserved their right to file additional written statement if any. The court fee paid is not correct and there is no cause of action to this suit. Therefore, the defendants are prays the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. The brief averments of the written statement of defendants 8 and 9 are as follows:-

The defendants 8 and 9 reiterated the contents of defendants 1 to 7 written statement and pleaded that there is no oral partition in between Appanna,

Nookanna and Akkinaidu. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam stated the land in S.No. 56 Ac 2.40 cents of land is Inam land and it is cultivable land.

Hence, prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

6.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of 11

plaint schedule properties on the date of filing of the suit?

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

3. To what relief?

7.To prove the contention of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and plaintiff also examined PW.2 to support their contention and exhibited Exs.A1 to A16. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 9 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 9.

8.Heard the counsel for plaintiff’s. The learned counsel for defendant’s did not addressed arguments, hence it is treated as heard.

P O I N T:-

9.ISSUE No.1 and 2:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties on the date of filing of the suit?

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

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property belong to plaintiff’s and defendants father by name Surla Chinnayya. There is oral partition took place between father of plaintiff’s, D1 to D7’s father and father of 8th defendant. In such partition the Item No.4 to 6 fell to the share of father of 12 plaintiff’s father and Item No. 1 to 3 fell to the share of father of D1, D3 to D7.

Later D1 to D7 sold Item No. 1 to 3 to the mother of plaintiff’s mother by name

Surla Sanyasamma under registered sale deed dt: 26.02.1971. The plaint Item

No.7 was occupied by father of plaintiff’s in S.No.56 which is Inam land about 80 years back. The said Surla Appanna filed an application before the Sub Collector about the correction and stated that Surla Appanna was in possession and enjoyment of the said land and it is not Tank Poramboke. The revenue authorities localized Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property about 15 years back within the boundaries and there was change in S.No’s and also localized the suit schedule Item No. 4 to 6 property as per the boundaries. After death of the father of plaintiff’s, the plaintiff’s took possession of the Item No.1 to 7 of the suit schedule property and revenue authorities issued Pattadari passbooks and title deed books. The plaintiff’s are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant’s raised dispute in which the plaintiff’s gave report to police and the police gave requisition to Tahsildar and he in turn directed the VRO, Surveyor, RI for conducting enquiry and they submitted a report. As per the report of the

Tahsildar, the plaintiff’s were in possession of the suit schedule lands. The defendant’s are obstructing the plaintiff’s possession and on 02.08.2019, 10.08.2019 the defendant’s try to occupy the suit schedule property without having any manner of right. To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A16 were marked. On 13 behalf of the Defendants no one were examined and no documents were marked on their behalf.

10. PW.1 is the 2nd Plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the Registered sale deed in favour of the mother of plaintiffs in respect of the item no.1 to 3 of plaint schedule land.

Ex.A2 is the Pattadari pass book in the name of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A3 is the Pattadari pass book in the name of the 2nd plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A4 is the Order copy issued by the Sub Collector in respect of the item No.7 of the plaint schedule land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. Ex.A5 is the From No. VIII Rythuwari patta in the name of the father of the plaintiffs in respect of the item No.7 of the plaint schedule land. Ex.A6 is the Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A7 is the Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A8 is the Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A9 is the Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A10 to A15 are the Land tax receipt in the name of the 1st the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A16 is the Served copy report by the Tahsildar,

Makavarapalem to the station house officer, Makavarapalem stating that the 14 plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. P.W2 is the witness to the plaintiff.

11.Now, since the Plaintiff’s filed the present suit, the initial burden is on the

Plaintiff’s to prove that they are the owner’s of the suit schedule properties consisting of Item No. 1 to 7 and that the Defendants encroached the schedule properties and that they are having legal right and exclusive lawful possession over the suit schedule properties consisting of Item No.1 to 7 to get the reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction in their favour.

12.To prove their contention, the 1st Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint pleadings by filing his chief examination affidavit. The plaintiff’s also got examined PW.2 in support of their contention. The defendants did not cross examine PW.1 and PW.2, hence the cross examination is treated as nil. Now it is to be looked into whether the defendant’s tried to occupy the suit schedule properties consisting of Item No. 1 to 7 without any manner of right or not. Except mere pleading defendant’s did not come forward either to cross examine PW.1 and PW.2 and to adduce their evidence.

13.It is noteworthy to mention here that Ex.A1/ Sale deed dt: 26.02.1971 was sold away by father of D1 to D7 with respect to Item No.1 to 3 to plaintiff’s mother. As per Ex.A1 Item No.1 consists in S.No.1-3 to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, Item No.2 consists in S.No.13-5 to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents and Item

No.3 consists in S.No.55-1 to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents. The plaintiff’s pleaded 15 that there is change in extent and S.No. As per plaint pleading Item No. 1 consists in S.No.1-3 to an extent of Ac.0.18 cents, Item No.2 consists in S.No.13- 5A to an extent of Ac.0.71 cents and Item No.3 consists in S.No.55-1A to an extent of Ac.1.04 cents. As per Ex.A2 and A3/ Pattadar Passbooks the extent of

Item No.1 consists in S.No.1-3 to an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, Item No.2 consists in S.No.13-5A to an extent of Ac.0.76 cents and Item No.3 consists in S.No.55- 1A to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents. It is quotable to mention here that as per Ex.A1, suit schedule and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, the extent and S.No were not tallying and there was difference. The plaintiff’s pleaded that after localization done by revenue authorities pertaining to Item No.1 to 3, the extent and S.No’s were changed. But with regard to change of extent and S.No the plaintiff failed to file correlation certificate or any other relevant documentary or ocular evidence to prove the same. Even according to any change in S.No and extent, the documents which were relied upon by the plaintiff's were not proved and no piece of document was filed to prove that they were in actual possession of Item No.1 to 3 by the date of filing the suit.

14.It is to be borne in mind that the father of Plaintiff’s acquired Item No.7 of the schedule property about 80 years back which is Inam land and Sub collector issued Ex.A4 stating that plaintiff’s father was in possession of the same. A clean perusal of Ex.A4 it resembles that the Sub-Collector gave an order stating the land in S.No.56 to an extent of Ac.2.40 cents was Inam land and it is in a 16

Zamindari Village not held by any institution and there is no Tank poramboke.

The defendants pleaded that it is government land. It is established fact that the

Item No.7 of the schedule property is an Inam land. Then the present matter comes under the purview of AP. Inam Abolition Act and conversion in to Rytowari

Act, 1948. As per A.P Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956.

Inam land means any land in respect of which the grant in Inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government. As per Section 7(1) of the Act- As soon as may be after commencement of this Act and subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Tahsildar may suo-motu and shall, on applications 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 the inam lands concerned.

15.From the above case in hand as per Ex.A4 it is made clear that Item No.7 of the schedule property is Inam land and the plaintiff’s father made an application whether there is any Tank poramboke in the schedule land for which the Sub-Collector stated that it is Inam land and there is no Tank Poramboke, it is cultivable land. As per AP. Inam Abolition Act and conversion in to Rytwari Act, 1948 either plaintiff’s father or Tahsildar suomotu has to convert Item No.7 of the schedule property to Ryotwari Patta. Which means a separate Ryotwari patta has to be issued pertaining to Item No.7 of the schedule property. Upon issuance of Ryotwari Patta only the plaintiff’s may acquire absolute title. The plaintiff’s 17 pleaded that they presented an extent of Ac.0.40 cents to their sister out of

Ac.2.40 cents. Without any such full ownership the plaintiff’s cannot transfer part of Ex.A4 property in favour of their sister. Moreover the document relating to the presentation to their sister to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents was not filed. The plaintiff’s also failed to file Occupancy Rights Certificate or any other prescribed document in the court to prove their title over Item No.7 of the schedule property.

16.Now, coming to Item No. 4 to 6 of the schedule property, as per Ex.A2, A3 and A14 the Item No.4 consisting of S.No.2-3 was mentioned to an extent of

Ac.1.30 cents. But on perusal Ex.A2, A3, Ex.A5 to Ex.A13 and Ex.A15 Item No.5 and 6 of the schedule property pertaining to extent and S.No. was no where mentioned. Even according to Item No.4 of the schedule property there is difference of extent with that of schedule mentioned property and to that of

Ex.A2, A3 and A14. So, it can be clearly understood that plaintiff’s failed to file prescribed documents to prove the same.

17.Except filing Ex.A16/ certificate issued by Tahsildar along with survey reports stating that Item No.1 to 7 were in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s nothing was filed by the plaintiff’s to prove their prima facie possession over Item

No.1 to 7 of schedule property. The plaintiff's actual possession on the date the suit was filed has to be established by plaintiff’s. Mere filing of Ex.A16 alone doesn’t confer any right, title and possession of plaintiff’s over Item No.1 to 7 of the schedule property.

18

18.It is pleaded by plaintiff’s that suit schedule properties belongs to Surla

Chinnayya and on oral partition between father of plaintiff’s, father of D1 to D7 i.e., Akkunaidu and father of D8 i.e., Nookanna they obtained properties. But when suit schedule properties were really oral partitioned by father of plaintiff’s, father of D1 to D7 i.e., Akkunaidu and father of D8 i.e., Nookanna, which share was allotted to said Nookanna who is father of D8 out of oral partition was no where mentioned in plaint pleading. It is one of the doubtful circumstance whether really Nookanna acquired any property in oral partition or not. The pleading of plaintiff’s was silent about the share of Nookanna and the plaintiff’s filed the suit seeking injunction pertaining to entire suit schedule properties.

19.Since the Plaintiff’s are claiming the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, the burden is heavily on the Plaintiffs to prove that Item No.1 to 7 of schedule properties are in their possession and enjoyment and that the

Defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties consisting of Item No.1 to 7 for which the defendants failed to prove the by adducing convincing and cogent evidence i.e., either ocular or documentary evidence.

20.In view of the discussion already made supra, wherein it was held that the

Plaintiff’s failed to prove their right and title over Item No.1 to 7 of schedule property, it is held that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the Defendants as prayed for. Moreover the 19 evidence of PW.2 do not support the version of plaintiffs and their evidence is not cogent, trustworthy and convincing. Even though the defendants failed to adduce evidence and cross examine PW.1 and PW.2, when initial burden lies on plaintiff's to prove that there are possession of Item No.1 to 7 of schedule property, the weakness upon defendant’s case by not adducing any evidence cannot be considered. Hence, it is held that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the

Defendants and against the Plaintiffs.

21.I S S U E No.3:

To what relief?

In view of the discussion already made supra while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 wherein it was held, that the Plaintiff’s are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for, it is held that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the

Defendants and against the Plaintiffs.

22. IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed by me in my laptop, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

20

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF’S:-

PW.1: Surla Satyanarayana @ Satyam

PW.2: Adigarla Satyanaraya

FOR DEFENDANT’S:- -Nil-

Documents Marked

FOR PLAINTIFF’S:-

Ex.A1/26-02-1971Registered sale deed in favour of the mother of plaintiffs in respect of the item no.1 to 3 of plaint schedule land.

Ex.A2Pattadari pass book in the name of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A3Pattadari pass book in the name of the 2nd plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A4/12-12-1978Order copy issued by the Sub Collector in respect of the item No.7 of the plaint schedule land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs.

Ex.A5/20-04-1979From No. VIII Rythuwari patta in the name fo the father of the plaintiffs in respect of the item No.7 of the plaint schedule land.

Ex.A6/08-01-1976Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A7/15-03-1978Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

21

Ex.A8/15-03-1978Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A9/03-01-1982Land tax receipt in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Surla Appanna in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A10/22-04-1992Land tax receipt in the name of the 1st the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A11/01-03-1996Land tax receipt in the name of the 1st the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A12/13-07-2000Land tax receipt in the name of the father of 1st the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A13/06-03-1997Land tax receipt in the name of the 1st the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A14/23-09-2011Land tax receipt in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A15/10-01-2015Land tax receipt in the name of the 1st the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

Ex.A16/29-11-2018Served copy report by the Thahasildhar, Makavarapalem to the station house officer, Makavarapalem stating that the plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs.

FOR DEFENDANT’S:- -None-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

22 23

Date of presentation:14.08.2019 Date of filing:19.08.2019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt.D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.232/2019 No.232/2019

Between:

1. Surla Chinnayya, S/o.Appanna, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 55 years,

Mallavaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aadhar

No.446419968778

3. Surla Satyanarayana @ Satyam, S/o.Appanna, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 58 years, Mallavaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

Aadhar No.766985062245 … Plaintiffs

A N D

1.Surla Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 58 years, Kavalapadu village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

10. Surla Durga Prasad, S/o Surla Satyanarayana, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 24 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

24

11. Surla Govindu, S/o.Surla Satyanarayana Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 22 years,

Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

12. Surla Lakshmana Rao, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 55 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

13. Surla Rambabu, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 52 years,

Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district.

14. Makireddi Rama Lakshmi W/o Not Known D/o Late Akku Naidu, Hindu,

Cultivation, Aged 50 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari

District.

15. Surla Varahala Babu, S/o.Late Akku Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 48 years, Kavalapadu Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

16. Surla Bapiraju S/o Nookanna, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 58 years,

Mallavaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

17. Surla Lakshmi, W/o.Surla Bapiraju, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 55 years,

Mallavaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

… Defendants.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for granting permanent prohibitoryThis is a suit filed by the plaintiff for granting permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men and persons claiming throughinjunction restraining the defendants, their men and persons claiming through them from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of thethem from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, their men and persons are claiming through them over plaint scheduleplaintiffs, their men and persons are claiming through them over plaint schedule property and for costs and for such other and other reliefs as the Honourableproperty and for costs and for such other and other reliefs as the Honourable 25

Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

The plaintiff notionally valued the suit for relief of permanent injunction is at Rs.3,00,000/- and court fee of Rs.5,426/- is paid u/s 26(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act,1956.

This case is coming before me on 23.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.G.Sankararao, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri S.V.V.Prasad, Advocate for

Defendants 1 to 9 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court doth order and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2. that there be no costs.

(Copy of plaint schedule is enclosed herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants

No costs memo filed on both sides

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam

Note : The parties should file the application immediately without any delay for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the records will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years or 6 years as the case may be from the above date according to the nature of the exhibits under the rules for the destruction of the records.

1 //DRAFT//

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam Saturday, this the 20th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.90/2022 No.90/2022

Between:

Karaka Narasimha Murthy, S/o.Late Pydiayya, Hindu, Aged 73 years, Retired Employee,

R/o.Vennelapalem Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Vizag District … Plaintiff

And

1.Danda Bhavani, S/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Housewife,

Resident of Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma

Temple, Tuni Town and Mandal, East Godavari District

2.Danda Srikanth, S/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged: 30 years, Resident of

Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma Temple, Tuni

Town and Mandal, East Godavari District

3.Danda Prasad, S/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged 22 years, Resident of

Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma Temple, Tuni

Town and Mandal, East Godavari District

4.Danda Parimala, D/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Aged 22 years, Hindu, Resident of

Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma Temple, Tuni

Town and Mandal, East Godavari District (The Defendants 1 to 4 are the Class I legal heirs of deceased Danda Simhachalam,

S/o.Late Rajulu, He is the Original Executant and Original Borrower) The Original

Executant died On 11-03-2019 leaving behind him, his wife and two sons and One

Daughter mentioned above i.e., Defendants 1 to 4) 2 … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 15.12.2025 in the presence of

Sri.T.Ganga Raju, Advocate for plaintiff; and Sri.M.Bulli Dora, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having been stood over to this day for consideration, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is suit filed for recovery of Money directing the defendant to pay suit amount of

Rs.1,28,900/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty Eight Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) being

principal amount and interest and also subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the

date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the suit amount and for costs of the suit and for such other or future reliefs as the Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The material averments of the plaint, in brief are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that on 20.02.2019 during the life time of Danda Simhachalam,

S/o.Late Rajulu of Gandhinagaram Village in order to meet his necessities and borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) from the Plaintiff, and on the same date after receipt of consideration, the said Danda Simhachalam executed Demand order Promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff at the village, Vennelapalem, Nathavaram

Mandal, in the presence of attestors by name (1) Koppala Appalakonda and (2) Danda

Nookaraju and the Suit Promissory Note was Scribed by Danda Simhachalam, himself and agreeing to discharge the said amount, along with the Interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

either to the Plaintiff or to his order in the village Vennelapalem. Inspite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the Danda Simhachalam did not comply the Plaintiff's 3

Demand and he used to postpone the payment by saying one reason or the other. While the matter stood so, the Original Borrower i.e., Danda Simhachalam died on 11.03.2019 intestate leaving behind him, his wife and two sons and One Daughter i.e. Defendants 1 to 4 are the Class:I Legal Heirs of the Deceased Danda Simhachalam. Subsequently after the demise of Danda Simhachalam, the Defendants 1 to 4 inherited all his Movable and

Immovable Properties and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. As such the

Defendants 1 to 4 are under liability to discharge the above referred promissory note debt to the Plaintiff. Subsequent to the demise of Danda Simhachalam, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants 1 to 4 and informed them about the promissory note debt, but the

Defendants did not pay anything and the plaintiff got issued Legal Notice on dated 05.02.2022 to the Head of the Defendants' family i.e., Danda Bhavani and the said notice

Cover was Returned back to the Plaintiff as Un-served dated 10.02.2022. Hence this suit is filed. As the Suit Promissory Note was executed dated 20.02.2019 Act 7/77 and Act 45/89 and 2/90 is not attracted to this case and as such the Interest is Claimed at 24% p.a.

accordingly.

3.The averments of Written statement are as follows:-

The 1st defendant filed her written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and the defendants 2 to 4 are adopted the written statement filed by defendant

No.1 and contended that the plaintiff approached the Honourable Court with false averments by creating false document and the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendants. The deceased by name Danda Simhachalam never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. The deceased Danda Simhachalam never executed the suit promissory note as per allegation of the plaint. The plaintiff did not have capacity to lend the amount. The deceased is not 4 necessity to borrow the money. The 1st defendant further submit that one Danda

Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy and the father of the Danda Simhachalam (i.e., the husband of the 1st defendant and father of the defendants 2 to 4) are brothers. During the life time of the said Danda Simhachalam (i.e., husband of the 1st defendant), the Danda

Simhachalam S/o Krishna Murthy borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased Danda Simhachalam. On several demands made by him the Danda

Simhachalam S/o Krishnamurthy bore grudge against them. There is also land disputes in between them since long time. So the said Danda Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy created the suit promissory note with the help of the plaintiff and attestors and scribe. The 1st defendant further submits that the plaintiff and attestors colluded and this suit note was created by the plaintiff and along with above persons. The plaintiff did not approach the defendants and never asked the suit debt. The plaintiff filed another five suits against the defendants with various amounts and various dates after demise of the husband of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant submits that the plaintiff did not issue the legal notice to the 1st defendant and all the defendants are residing at Tuni. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit against the defendant. The plaintiff has a plan to gain the wrongful gain. Therefore, the defendants pray the Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the court framed the following issues for trial.

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2.Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated/forgery as contended by the defendants?

5

3.Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration as contended by the defendants?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

5.To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the Original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 20.02.2019. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3 is the returned cover dated 10.02.2022. The plaintiff also got examined attestor of Ex.A1 as PW.2. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W1 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendant.

6.Heard arguments of both sides.

P O I N T:-

7.ISSUE NO’S: 1 to 4 :- 1.. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2.Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated/forgery as contended by the defendants?

3.Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration as contended by the defendants?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

It is the case of the plaintiff that the original borrower Danda Simhachalam borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff towards his family expenses on 20.02.2019 and on the same date, after receiving the consideration the deceased/ Danda 6

Simhachalam executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe agreeing to repay the said amount with the interest at the rate of

Rs.24 % p.a and in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and through elders, the original borrower Danda Simhachalam did not pay any amount. Later original executant Danda Simhachalam died on 11.03.2019 leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as legal heirs and all his movable and immovable properties of the Danda Simhachalam were succeeded by the defendants 1 to 4 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later the plaintiff demanded the defendants to repay the debt amount, they did not pay anything under the suit promissory note even after issuing legal notice. In support of his contention, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked, Ex.A1/ Original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 20.02.2019, Ex.A2/

Office Copy of Legal Notice, Ex.A3/ Returned cover, dt: 10.02.2022. PW.1 categorically corroborated the facts of the plaint. The plaintiff also got examined the attestor of Ex.A1 who categorically supported the version of plaintiff in all material aspects. The learned counsel for the defendant cross examined PW.1 and PW.2 but nothing was elicited during the course of cross examination except by posing mere suggestions. PW.1’s evidence is cogent and trustworthy.

8.It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendants and the deceased by name Danda Simhachalam never borrowed the amount and never executed the suit promissory note. One Danda Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy and father of the deceased/ Danda Simhachalam are brothers. During the lifetime of Danda

Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from deceased/ Danda

Simhachalam and the said Danda Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy bore grudge against 7 him and there are also land disputes between them. In consequence of the same with help of Danda Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy, the plaintiff and attestors colluded together and created suit promissory note. The plaintiff also filed 5 other cases against these defendants. In order to substantiate the case of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that one Danda Simhachalam borrowed

Ex.A1 amount by executing promissory note in the presence of scribe and attestors which categorically proved the transaction. After his demise, the plaintiff made several demands to the defendants to repay the amount, as they failed to pay the debt amount. Constrained by this the plaintiff filed the suit. Hence, prayed this court to decree the suit with costs.

10.On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that deceased did not borrow any amount from deceased/ Danda Simhachalam. In collusion with one Danda Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy, the attestors and scribe the plaintiff got filed the above case and there is no transaction took place between deceased/ Danda

Simhachalam and plaintiff, as such prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.The learned counsel for the plaintiff draw the attention of the court by saying that the deceased/ Danda Simhachalam borrowed amount and the defendants are legal heirs of the deceased/ Danda Simhachalam. It is not the case of the defendants that they never denying the signature of the deceased/ Danda Simhachalam in Ex.A1/ Promissory note except denying the execution of Ex.A1/ Promissory note and the deceased/ Danda

Simhachalam never borrowed any amount. It is also undisputed fact that the defendants are legal heirs of deceased/ Danda Simhachalam and the same was admitted by D.W1 during the course of cross examination. The learned counsel for the defendants argued 8 that at the time of the death of deceased/ Danda Simhachalam the defendants are residing in Kuwait. It is D.W1 who tentatively admitted during cross examination that at the time of death of deceased/ Danda Simhachalam and at the time of Ex.A1 transaction she was residing in Kuwait, which means it can be assumed that she is not denying Ex.A1 transaction with plaintiff and so also not denying the execution of Ex.A1/ Promissory note.

Even though she is residing at Kuwait when there is some transaction took place between plaintiff and deceased/ Danda Simhachalam that itself is sufficient to prove Ex.A1 transaction. The defendants also did not choose to examine any independent witnesses and did not file any evidence before this court to prove Ex.A1 transaction. Minor discrepancies will not go throw the case of the plaintiff. Except their pleading and self serving testimony there is nothing on record to disprove the case of the plaintiff. However this court after perusal of mere pleading available on record, feels that except mere plea raised by defendants that in collusion with one Danda Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy, the attestors and scribe the plaintiff got filed the above case and there is no transaction took place between deceased/ Danda Simhachalam and plaintiff and so also Danda

Simhachalam, S/o Krishna Murthy borrowed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from deceased/

Danda Simhachalam, they did not took any step to prove their contention. Moreover,

Ex.A1 is said to be executed by the deceased/ Danda Simhachalam. When there is no specific and oral plea raised by defendants about Ex.A1 transaction except taking that bold plea taken by defendants, it implies that they admitted about execution of Ex.A1 transaction and also nothing was elicited by them to prove their contention. Except mere pleading no documents were placed before this court by defendants. In this regard, the defendants did not place any evidence either oral or document before the court.

9

Eventhough D.W1 admitted that she is residing in Kuwait, when there are legal heirs of deceased/ Danda Simhachalam they cannot escape from the liability for payment of Ex.A1 amount. However this court after perusal of independent evidence available on record, feels that except mere plea raised by defendants, they has not took any steps to prove their contention. In order to prove the contention of the defendants, the defendants did not place any evidence to rebut the presumption which strengthens the case of the plaintiff. I agree with the arguments submitted by learned plaintiff counsel.

12.The only defence of defendants is suit promissory note was not executed by deceased/ Danda Simhachalam and he did not execute Ex.A1/ Promissory note nothing was placed on record and the defendants failed to prove the same by adducing convincing and cogent evidence. The inconsistent testimony of the defendants and their conduct do not fit in to prove their contention with the rest of the evidence and probabilities of the case. Therefore, once the initial burden of the plaintiff is discharged regarding the execution of the promissory note, the rule of presumption under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act helps him to shift the burden on other side. As soon the execution is proved, Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act imposes a duty on court to raise presumption in his favour. The defendants may adduce direct evidence to prove that Ex.A1 promissory note was not supported by consideration. Only when defendants who adduces acceptable evidence, the burden would shift on the plaintiff.

13.From the above discussion, it is clear that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption and also to discharge the initial burden of proving the non passing of consideration under the suit promissory note, which is available to them under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act and thus the court found them liable to pay the amount 10 covered under Ex.A1 suit promissory note. In the foregoing circumstances, the court disbelieved the version of defendants. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and by examining attestor as PW.2 categorically proved his case that original borrower i.e., deceased/ Danda Simhachalam borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 20.02.2019 and executed Ex.A1, this court has no other go except to conclude Ex.A1 dated 20.02.2019 is true, valid and binding on defendants and the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

The defendants having failed to do so, the issue No.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

14.ISSUE NO.5

To what relief?

In view of my finding on Issue No.1 to 4, the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

15.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff, the suit amount of Rs.1,28,900/- (Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand and nine hundred only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) from the properties of deceased/ Danda

Simhachalam which is lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 4.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant corrected and signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam.

11

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For PLAINTIFF:-

PW.1: Karaka Narasimhamurthy

PW.2: Dundu Nookaraju

For DEFENDANTS:-

D.W1: Danda Bhavani

Documents Marked

For PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1/Original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

dated 20.02.2019

Ex.A2/Office copy of legal notice

Ex.A3/Returned cover dated 10.02.2022

For DEFENDANTS:- - Nil -

Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam.

12

Date of presentation:21.02.2022 Date of filing:07.03.2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam Saturday, this the 20th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit Original Suit No.90/2022 No.90/2022

Between:

Karaka Narasimha Murthy, S/o.Late Pydiyya, Hindu, Aged 73 years, Retired Employee,

R/o.Vennelapalem Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Vizag District … Plaintiff

And

1.Danda Bhavani, S/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Housewife,

Resident of Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma

Temple, Tuni Town and Mandal, East Godavari District

2.Danda Srikanth, S/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged: 30 years, Resident of

Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma Temple, Tuni

Town and Mandal, East Godavari District

3.Danda Prasad, S/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged 22 years, Resident of

Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma Temple, Tuni

Town and Mandal, East Godavari District

4.Danda Parimala, D/o.Late Danda Simhachalam, Aged 22 years, Hindu, Resident of

Sai Ram Nagar, C/o.Sheik Nageswara Rao, Opp:Puntalu Musalamma Temple, Tuni

Town and Mandal, East Godavari District (The Defendants 1 to 4 are the Class I legal heirs of deceased Danda Simhachalam,

S/o.Late Rajulu, He is the Original Executant and Original Borrower) The Original

Executant died On 11-03-2019 leaving behind him, his wife and two sons and One

Daughter mentioned above 1.e. Defendants 1 to 4) 13 … Defendants

This is suit filed for recovery of Money directing the defendant to pay suit amount of

Rs.1,28,900/- being the principal and interest due under the promissory note dated 20.02.2019 for Rs.75,000/- from the defendant personally and from the properties for the recovery of the suit amount and directing the defendant to pay subsequent interest at contract rate and to award costs of the suit and for such other or future reliefs as the

Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and Jurisdiction is

Rs.1,28,900/- and court fee of Rs.3,726/- is paid under sec.20 Art.I (b and C) schedule. I of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 15.12.2025 in the presence of

Sri.T.Ganga Raju, Advocate for plaintiff; and Sri.M.Bulli Dora, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having been stood over to this day for consideration, the court doth order;

and

D E C R E E

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff, the suit amount of Rs.1,28,900/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.75,000/- from the properties of deceased/Danda Simhachalam which is lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 4.

2.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,409/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 20 th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

14

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Rs.NIL Stamps on Vakalat: 2-00 Stamps on Plaint: 3,726-00 Stamps on Process: 114-00 Advocate fees: 5,567-00 ------------------ Costs allowed: 9,409-00 -------------------

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

1 . IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) FAIR

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit No.138/2021 Original Suit No.138/2021

Between:

Guturu Ramakrishna, S/o.Late Ramulu, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Business,

R/o.Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Muncipallity, Visakhapatnam District.

… Plaintiff

And

1. Lagudu Anand, S/o.Late Nookaraju, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Business,

R/o.Ramalayam Veedhi, Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Municipality,

Visakhapatnam District.

2. Lagudu Devi, W/o.Anand, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Business R/o.Ramalayam

Veedhi, Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Municipality and Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

… Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 23.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.A.Govinda Rao, advocate for plaintiff; and Sri K.Appalanaidu, advocate for the defendants and the matter having been stood over to this day for consideration, the court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.This is suit filed for recovery of money directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.68,800/- together with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization of the suit amount and for granting costs of the suit and for such other or future reliefs as the Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The material averments of the plaint, in brief are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that on 01.11.2017 the defendants for their necessities i.e.. for family expenditure and to discharge other debts, they have approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with an interest at 24% p.a per hundred on demand either to plaintiff or his order and in receipt of the consideration the defendants herein executed a suit promissory note on the even date in favour of plaintiff i.e., 01.11.2017. The suit promissory note got scribed by one Pyla

Appalanaidu and after receipt of the consideration the defendants herein put their signature and thumb impression on a revenue stamps affixed to the suit promissory note later the attestors Kodukula Satya Ravi Kumar and Darla Nagendra are attested witnessing the transaction. Subsequently on repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through village elders, but the defendants have not paid any amount due under the suit promissory note. Hence the suit. The plaintiff submits that limitation period of suit promissory note is 01.11.2020, but the suit was 3 not filed within time, due to Covid-2019. But the honorable Supreme Court was passed orders on 08.03.2021 that the limitation from 15.03.2020 to 04.03.2022 was excluded and balance limitation period starts w.e.f. from 15.03.2021 and it is beyond 90 days. As such, the suit is filed within time and there is no limitation of the suit. The Defendants are not agriculturists and they are businessmen. Hence interest is claimed at contractual rate at 24% p.a per hundred. The defendants are not entitled to benefits of Acts 45 of 87, 2/90 of Agricultural Debt Relief; on the suit debt was contracted after the said acts came into existence.

3.The averments of Written statement are as follows:-

The defendants filed his written statement, denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and contended that the defendants do not know plaintiff, scribe and attestors and the plaintiff did not issue any legal notice to these defendants. The plaintiff do not have any financial capacity. The defendants will send the suit promissory note for comparison at later stage. D1 is un-employee and

D2 is house and they are not businessmen. Therefore pray that the Honourable

Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the above Suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, my predecessor framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

4

2. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated/forged as contended by the defendants?

3. Whether the consideration is not passed under the suit promissory note as contended by the defendants?

4 . Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1, and got marked

Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 01.11.2017 executed by the defendants. The learned defendant counsel not adduced any evidence nor marked any documents on his side, hence defendant side evidence is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of plaintiff’s side. The learned defendant counsel has not addressed arguments, hence it is treated as heard.

P O I N T

7.ISSUE NO’S: 1 to 4: -

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated/forged as contended by the defendants?

3. Whether the consideration is not passed under the suit promissory note as contended by the defendants?

4 . Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

5

It is the case of the plaintiff is that on 01.11.2017 the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- for family expenditure with interest at the rate of 24% p.a by executing suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants in the presence of attestors and scribe. Even after repeated demands made by the plaintiff or through elders, the defendants did not come forward to pay the amount.

In support of his contention, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked,

Ex.A1/ Suit promissory note dated 01.11.2017 executed by the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants counsel did not choose to cross examine PW.1.

Hence, PW.1’s evidence is cogent and trustworthy.

8.It is the case of the defendants that the defendants do not know plaintiff, scribe and attestors and the plaintiff did not issue any legal notice to these defendants and the plaintiff do not have any financial capacity. The defendants will send the suit promissory note for comparison at later stage. D1 is un-employee and

D2 is house and they are not businessmen. In support of their contention, defendants did not examine any witnesses on their behalf to prove their claim and they did not file any evidence before this court to prove that Ex.A1 is forged document. Except mere pleading of defendants there is nothing on record to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Moreover Ex.A1 is said to be executed by the defendants jointly to plaintiff. At the time of filing written statement they has taken plea that defendants will send Ex.A1 for comparison. Appertain to Ex.A1 is concern except oral plea raised by defendants 1 and 2 that it is forged one and they will 6 send the same for comparison, no steps were taken by them to prove their contention. Except mere pleading no documents were placed before this court by defendants.

9.In support of their contention, defendants did not examine any of the witnesses on their behalf nor cross examined PW.1 to prove their claim and they did not file any evidence before this court to prove the Ex.A1/ promissory note.

Except their pleading and self serving testimony there is nothing on record to disprove the case of the plaintiff. However this court after perusal of mere pleading available on record, feels that except mere plea raised by defendants, they did not taken any steps to prove their contention. Moreover, Ex.A1 is said to be executed by the defendants. In this regard, the defendants did not place any evidence either oral or document before the court. However this court after perusal of independent evidence available on record, feels that except mere plea raised by defendants, they has not taken any steps to prove their contention. In order to prove the contention of the defendants, the defendants did not place any evidence to rebut the presumption which strengthens the case of the plaintiff. I agree with the arguments submitted by learned plaintiff counsel.

10.It is to be stated that the uncorroborated and unchallenged evidence of defendants gives scope to the case of the plaintiff. In order to prove Ex.A1, the defendants not adduced any evidence on their part which shows that they are very diligent and they are admitting the claim of the plaintiff. The learned defendant 7 counsel even failed to cross examine PW.1 which categorically proves the case of the plaintiff in all aspects. The inconsistent testimony of the defendants and their conduct do not fit in to prove their contention with the rest of the evidence and probabilities of the case. Therefore, once the initial burden of the plaintiff is discharged regarding the execution of the promissory note, the rule of presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act helps him to shift the burden on other side. As soon the execution is proved, Section 118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act imposes a duty on court to raise presumption in his favour. The defendants may adduce direct evidence to prove that Ex.A1/ promissory note was not support by consideration. Only when defendants who adduces acceptable evidence, the burden would shift on the plaintiff.

11.From the above discussion, it is clear that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption and also to discharge the initial burden of proving the non passing of consideration under the suit promissory note, which is available to him under

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act and thus the court found them liable to pay the amount covered under Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Moreover the unchallenged evidence of defendants cannot be looked into. In the foregoing circumstances, the court disbelieved the pleading of defendants. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and categorically proved his case that defendants borrowed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- on 01.11.2017 and executed Ex.A1, this court has no other go to conclude Ex.A1 dated 01.11.2017 is true, valid and binding on 8 defendants and the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for. The defendants having failed to do so, the issue No.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

12.ISSUE NO.5

To what relief?

In view of my finding on Issue Nos.1 to 4, the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

13.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants, directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff, the suit amount of Rs.68,800/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam.

9

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For PLAINTIFF:-

PW.1: Guturu Saraswathi

For DEFENDANTS :- -Nil-

Documents Marked

For PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 01.11.2017 executed by the defendants.

For DEFENDANTS :- -Nil-

Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division)

Narsipatnam.

10

Date of presentation:15.06.2021/18.06.2021 Date of filing:18.06.2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsipatnam

Monday, this the 22 day of December, 2025.

Original Suit No.138/2021 Original Suit No.138/2021

Between:

Guturu Ramakrishna, S/o.Late Ramulu, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Business,

R/o.Balighattam village, Narsipatnam Muncipallity, Visakhapatnam District.

… Plaintiff

And

1. Lagudu Anand, S/o.Late Nookaraju, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Business,

R/o.Ramalayam Veedhi, Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Municipality,

Visakhapatnam District.

2. Lagudu Devi, W/o.Anand, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Business R/o.Ramalayam

Veedhi, Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Municipality and Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

… Defendants

This is suit filed for recovery of money directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.68,800/- being the principal and interest due under the promissory note dated 01.11.2017 for Rs.40,000/- together with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. and for granting costs of the suit and for such other or future reliefs as the

Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

11

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.68,800/- and a Court fee of Rs.2,786/- is paid under Section 20,

Art.I (b&c) Sch.I of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 18.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.A.Govinda Rao, advocate for plaintiff; and Sri K.Appalanaidu, advocate for the defendants and the matter having been stood over to this day for consideration, the court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff, the suit amount of Rs.68,800/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.40,000/-;

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,730/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 30 th day of December, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: Rs.NIL Stamps on Vakalat: 2-00 Stamps on Plaint: 2,786-00 Stamps on Process: 60-00 Advocate fees: 1,882-00 ------------------ Costs allowed: 4,730-00 -------------------

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narsipatnam.