Sri E.Anjaneyulu

PJCJ, CHIRALA 1 OS.NO. 206/2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

Wednesday this the 13th day of April, 2022

OS.NO. 206/2012

Between:

Utla.VenkataSubbaravamma,W/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 56 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Kotha-illu, Ramannapet Village, Vetapalem mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintif

Vs.,

1. Guthi. Suryanarayana, S/o. Mohan Rao, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Desaipeta Village and Panchayath, Vetapalem Mandal.

2. Guthi. Venkateswarlu (Died) (D2)

3. Guthi. Parvathi @ Byna. Parvathi, W/o. B.Ramanaiah, aged about 47 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Kotha-illu, Ramannapeta Village, Vetapalem Mandal.

4. Moda. Prasunamba, W/o. Guthi. Venkateswarlu, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Housewife, (proposed D4)

5. Utla. Lakshmi Kumari, W/o. Naga Srinivasa Rao, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Housewife (proposed D5)

6. Gunturu. Bhavani, W/o. Uma Maheswara Rao, aged about 27 years, Hindu, Housewife (Proposed D6)

7. Guthi. Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 25 years, Hindu, Cultivation, (Proposed D7)

Defendants 4 to 7 are R/o. Desaipeta Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District and they are added as legal representatives of Defendant NO.2 Guthi. Venkateswarlu amended as per orders in I.A.NO.2682/2018 orders dated 22.02.2019.

… Defendants

This suit is coming on 02-03-2022 for final arguments before me in the presence of Sri. A.Satyanarayana learned Advocate for plaintif, and

Sri. P.N.L.V.Prasad, learned Advocate for the defendant No.1, 4 to 7, Sri

PJCJ, CHIRALA 2 OS.NO. 206/2012

P.Venkata Chowdary, learned Advocate for the Defendant No.3, and

Defendant NO.2 was died, and heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

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

01) Initially, this suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants

No.1 to 3 suit for partition and separate possession by to pass a preliminary decree for partition of plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such shares to the plaintif by mets and bounds according to good and bad qualities in Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties with separate possession and for costs of the suit. (Later, the defendant No.2 namely Guthi. Venkateswarlu died on 24-08-2018 leaving behind the legal representatives of Defendants NO.4 to 7 as his legal representatives and plaint amended as per

I.A.NO.2682/2018 orders dated 22.02.2019)

02)The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintif would submits that the 1st defendant is the father of the plaintif and the 2nd defendant is the elder brother and the 3rd defendant is the younger sister of the plaintif. Originally item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties acquired by one Guthi. Mohan Rao who is the grand father of the plaintif, defendants 2 and 3 and father of 1st defendant. The said Guthi.

Mohana Rao died intestate at about 25 years back, since then the plaintif along with the defendants enjoying the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in joint, but being a Kartha of undivided Hindu family the first defendant used to managing the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, since long time the plaintif personally and

PJCJ, CHIRALA 3 OS.NO. 206/2012 through elders, demanded the First defendant and defendants Number two and third for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties, the First defendant even after admitting her share promised to partition the schedule mentioned properties but did not do so far and all the trails made by the plaintif personally and through mediators for amicable partition of Item NO.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties provide futile and the First defendant protract the matter on some pretext without partition the plaint schedule properties equally and the possession of items Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintif is joint and constructive along with her father i.e., First defendant and defendants second and third. It is submitted that since some days, the defendants Nos. First and Three conspired together with a view to infringe the legitimate 1/4th share of plaintif in

Item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties, hatched a plan to partition the entire paint schedule properties among them by illegally executing a deed with a view to exclude the share of the plaintif, which is not valid in law. It is submitted that since week days the First defendant is making preparations to alienate the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of defendants Nos. second and third or their men by partition by acting adverse to the interest and legitimate share of the plaintif. Hence the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in her ancestral property i.e., present Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Plaintif would submits that the defendant number two namely Guthi. Venkateswarlu died on 24-08-2018 leaving behind D4 to D7 as his legal heirs, and as such defendants 4 to 7 are agitating against the rights of plaintif, Defendants 4 to 7 are impleaded as proper and necessary parties to the suit. Thus, the defendants forth to seventh

PJCJ, CHIRALA 4 OS.NO. 206/2012 are entitled for the share of defendant NO.2 in the schedule property.

Hence, the suit.

03) The First defendant had filed his written statement and adoption memo filed by the second defendant making a general and specific denial of plaint allegations and further Inter-alia, contending that most of the allegations mentioned in the suit are all false and plaintif is filed by the plaint is either just nor maintainable in law or on facts and as such suit is not maintainable under law and must be put to the strict proof of the same. Except the relationship between the plaintif as well as the defendants all over alleged allegations made by the plaintif in the suit that the plaint schedule property are ancestral property and that the plaintif demanded for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share and the defendants 1 and 3 did not comefoward. Originally, this defendant would submits that the plaint schedule properties originally belong to Gutti Sambaiah, who is non other than the grandfather of this defendant. After the demise of Sambaiah, his surviving sons were partitioned his estate among themselves. The registered partition list

dated 02-11-1965 vide document NO.2457/65, Book NO.1 (Volume NO.3)

is herewith filed as document No.1 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

In according to the partition list, immediately soon after partition, the sharers are succeeded their shares and enjoyed the same with division of status and were in the possession of their respective share of properties without any interruption. Later, the mother of this defendant i.e., Gutti Lalithaba had executed a registered will in favour of her three sons and specified their respective shares in the recitals of the schedule of her will, vide document No.8/1993, in book NO.3. The registered will

dated 21-01-1993 is herewith filed as document NO.2 for kind perusal of

PJCJ, CHIRALA 5 OS.NO. 206/2012 this Hon’ble court. After the demise of Gutti Lalithamba i.e., the testator of will, this defendant and his brothers succeeded their respective scheduled items as in the recitals of the will and are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties.

This defendant further summits that being the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties, due to his old age, and in need of money for medical treatments of this defendant and his wife, the grandson by name Gutti Venkta Mallikarjuna secured the said sum and also looked after his welfare, on that out of love and afection, being as his self acquired property, he transfers by sale of the Item NO.1 of the property under a registered sale deed in favour of his grandson. The registered sale deed in favour of Gutti Venkata Mallikarjuna dated 09-07-2012 vide document NO.2908/2012 Book NO.1 is herewith filed as Document No.3 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court. The defendant further would submits that the said Gutti Venkta Mallikarjuna later as it was in need of sum for his further education he had mortgaged the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to are Karna Laksha Rao. The E.C dated 29-10- 2012 shown the registered mortgage if the time No.1 of the schedule property is herewith filed as document NO.4 for kind perusal of this

Hon’ble court. This defendant further would submits that the item NO.2

of the plaint schedule property is also the self acquired property of this defendant. As he in his old age, and for security of his wife, this defendant executed a registered will in favour of his wife Gutti

Vijayalakshmi and his grandfather by name Vutla Lakhmi Kumari and

Guntur Bhavani with limited rights as per book III 104 of BK/121 for his wife and equal share to his grand daughters. The registered will dated 09-07-2012 is herewith filed as document No.5 for kind perusal of this

PJCJ, CHIRALA 6 OS.NO. 206/2012

hon’ble court. The said Vutla Lakshmi Kumari is residing in it and also

paying house tax for the Item NO.2. The house tax receipt is herewith filed as document No.6 for kind perusal of this hon’ble court. This defendant further would submits that the plaintif has no joint status of the properties or joint member in any manner. Neither this defendant nor the Second defendant are having any manner of right, charge and ownership over the plaint schedule property. The plaintif knowing full well that she have no manner right nor any charge over the plaint schedule property, she mischievously and fraudulently got filed this suit to acquires the property unlawfully and to abuses the court of justices.

Hence, the suit may be dismiss with exemplary costs.

04) The 3rd defendant had filed her written statement making a general and specific denial of plaint allegations and further Inter-alia, contending that the she never disputed with plaintif relationship and that most of the over made in the plaint are hereby denied except that those which are that specifically admitted herein and plaintif shall prove to the strict proof of the same. Originally, this defendant would submits that except the fatum of relationship among the parties, the other pleadings raised by the plaintif that the plaintif demand the defendants for amicable partition and defendants 1 to 3 managing the properties and that the defendants 1 to 3 conspired together with a view to infringe the legitimate ¼ share of plaintif and defendant NO.1 making eforts to alienate Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule in the name of defendants 2 and 3 etc. and far from the truth, this defendant specifically denied herein. It is further contended that the suit is sufers from absolutely lack of bonafides and it is devoid of merits, the plaint schedule properties are undoubtedly undeniably ancestral properties and have

PJCJ, CHIRALA 7 OS.NO. 206/2012 been joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of plaintif and defendants. The suit schedule properties are under the management of

First defendant only. The marriage of this defendant was performed at about 25 years back, no properties or gifts given to this defendant at the time of her marriage. The defendants 1 and 2 are in still in joint and that as per the amended Central Act 39 of 2005 efect from 09.09.2005 which is prospective operation in view of insertion of new proviso in section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, this defendant has got ¼ share in joint family properties and that this defendant she have became a perfect in the hands of second defendant, both are colluded and not account for the income denied from the joint family and that she is silent due to keeping the vestage of the prestige of family back ground, and as such no objection to division the joint family properties into four equal shares as per good and bad qualities. This defendant not denying the right of plaintif at any point of time, she has no objection to take the legitimate share of plaintif out of the joint family properties. Therefore, the plaint schedule properties are undoubtedly and undeniably joint family properties of defendants and plaintif, plaintif right not denied by this defendant, unnecessary made false allegations against the defendant. Thus, this hon’ble court make a division of the Item NO.1 and 2 of plaint schedule into four equal shares and allot one such share to this defendant and that the plaintif filed unpleasant suit and suit may be decreed without costs against this defendant.

05) The Seventh defendant had filed his additional written statement and adoption memo for additional written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant NO.4 and 6 making a general and specific denial of plaint allegations and further Inter-alia, contending that the most of the

PJCJ, CHIRALA 8 OS.NO. 206/2012 allegations alleged by the plaintif in the suit are false and the suit is not maintainable under law or in fact and as such other allegations which are specifically admitted hereunder must be put to the strict proof of the same. Originally, this defendant would submits that this defendant is the grand son of the first defendant. This defendant was working in pune, during the period of 2012, and at that time the grant father of this defendant / defendant NO.1 fell in sick, sufered with heart disease as well as his family fell in finance crises, under the pathetic condition of, this defendant looked of and spend amounts, as good enough to meet his legal necessities, the First defendant / grandfather being the absolute owner of the property he sold item NO.1 of the property as alleged in plaint schedule property to this defendant under a registered sale deed

dated 09-07-2012 by received the consideration amount. The said

document was already filed along with the written statement filed by the first defendant and the same was marked as Ex.B5, it may be read as a part and parcel of this written statement. Since the purchase of the item

NO.1 of the schedule property, this defendant and his parents that is defendant No.2 and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. It is further contended that denied that his father being the Karth of this defendant, he paid the house tax in his name since then till now.

This defendant further submits that, this defendant due to non satisfaction of his job, he inclined to continue further studies, being the absolute owner of the item NO.1 of the plaint schedule property, on that, he took loan from one Karna Laksha Rao by secured the register sale deed under a Registered Mortgage deed dated 13-08-2012, and completed his further studies. The Registered Mortgage deed is

PJCJ, CHIRALA 9 OS.NO. 206/2012 herewith filed as document NO.1 for kind perusal of this hon’ble court.

After completion of his studies, he got job at Chennai and later repaid the Mortgage loan amount and obtained proper receipt from the said

Karna Laksha Rao. The receipt dated 03-02-2014 is herewith filed as document NO.2 for kind perusal of this hon’ble court. This defendant further submits that, the plaintif herself admitted in the evidence of, established that, the division of properties among the co-parceners with meets and bounds and took the possession of their respective allotted shares, the admissions need not be proved. The paint schedule properties are the lawful acquired properties of the first defendant, and being absolute owner he is having right to transfer his properties in his own accord as per his wish, the properties as mentioned by the plaintif are not joint family properties in any manner nor the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral one, the plaintif maliciously to bluf the court with invented alleged false in fact by shielded the exist and genuine facts. If the plaintif denies the conveyance filed by the First defendant, the suit is bad for non – joinder of proper parties to the suit.

Thus, the plaintif approached the court of justice with improper relief and odd in time of since 1993, which is barred by limitation and also not paid proper court fees as knowing the acts of transfer, as the relief prayed the plaintif is not correct, as she is very well aware of the conveyances executed by the first defendant for his legal necessities.

Hence, suit maybe dismiss with exemplary costs.

06) The Fifth defendant had filed her Additional written statement making general and specific denial of the plaint allegations and further inter – alia contending that the most of the allegations mentioned by the plaintif in the suit are all false and the suit is not maintainable under law

PJCJ, CHIRALA 10 OS.NO. 206/2012 or in fact and as such other allegations which are not specifically admitted hereunder must be put to the strict proof of the same.

Originally, this defendant would submits that, the defendant is no other than the daughter-in-law of the plaintif and the husband of this defendant is no other than the son of the plaintif. This defendant further would submits that on the request of first Defendant / grandfather of this defendant, the plaintif got married to her son to this defendant, the plaintif is very well aware that her son is having illegal intimacy with another woman, deceitfully shielded the said fact. The plaintif is an unchaste woman, who created dreadful atmosphere in this defendant’s family and instigated her son to harass this defendant with cruel acts and subsequently necked out this defendant and her minor son from the matrimonial house, plaintif got married her son to that lady without the concern of this defendant, and left them on road. Since then having no other go the defendant No.1 being the grandfather, being absolute owner of item of the property, he secured a part of his house property by way of executed a register will and the recitals revels that he ofered shelter and maintenance to this defendant, since then till now this defendant with her minor son are residing in the house and eking out her lively hood. This defendant again submits that, she got filed a complaint before the Vetapalem Police Sation the hon’ble court is very well aware of the police of Vetapalem P.S not taking any auction against the plaintif and her son. Having no other go, this defendant was constrained to file a private complaint and also maintenance on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala both in C.C.NO.290/2011 and

MC.NO.2/2009 and same one still pending. Though, the hon’ble court is

very well aware that the Police are not doing any justice, since then till

PJCJ, CHIRALA 11 OS.NO. 206/2012 now, against that if, so the Hon’ble court extended Judicial custody to the culprits, she and her minor son my full on the road.

This defendant further would submits that, the son of the plaintif as well of the plaintif conspired together and dishonestly, invented false in facts, under the leaches of law / act, she fraudulently she got filed this suit causing annoyance to all the defendants. The plaintif is very well aware that the A schedule properties was bequeath by the first defendant, along with his brothers legally enforced through will in the year 1993, the defendant herself admitted in her cross examination that the property was partitioned among the surviving successors of deceased Mohan Rao, as such this defendant’s grand father / first defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties, being the absolute owner he is having absolute / ample right to transfer his properties on his own accord legally. Necessaries of the family, on knowing the said fact, intentionally misleaded the court of justice representing that the properties are joint property and the plaintif is having right over it, in fact, the plaintif has no right, charge over the plaint schedule properties at any point of time in any manner. The defendant further would submits that the First defendant being the absolute owner of the properties he executed a will on 09-07-2012 (vide document NO.104/BK.3/2012) in favour of this defendant and Six defendant, i.e., part of item No.2, R.C.C roofed house with meets and bounds. The said original document was already filed by defendant No.1 as document NO.5, as the attester of the will is still alive, the said document was not marked as exhibit, the court may be pleased to consider the contents of the documents during the evidence. Since then this defendant is in possession of the said property with the concern /

PJCJ, CHIRALA 12 OS.NO. 206/2012 permission of the First defendant. This defendant reserves her right to resides continuously in part of the item NO.2 of the plaint schedule property. If the plaintif denies the conveyance filed by the first defendant, the suit is bad for non joinder of proper parties to the suit.

Thus, the plaintif approached the court of justice with improper relief and odd in time of since 1993, which is barred by limitation and also not paid proper court fees as knowing the acts of transfer, as the relief prayed the plaintif is not correct, as she is very well aware of the conveyance executed by the first defendant. Hence, this the suit may be dismiss with exemplary costs. Subsequently on 22-01-2020, the plaintif had filed a Rejoinder under order 8 Rule 9 CPC stating that the defendants 4 to 7 will not be considered as absolute owners of the schedule property basin on the will on which they are relying dated 09- 07-2022 is a dubious document which was brought into existence by the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 7 with the help of their henchmen through the person who has no any manner of rights in the schedule property. As such fourth defendant to seventh defendant would not became absolute owners of the schedule property.

07) Basing on the above pleadings, this court has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the prior partition was took place among the shares of Gutti

Sambaiah by virtue of registered partition list dated 02-11-1965 as pleaded by first defendant?

2) Whether registered will dated 21-01-1993 (amended as per orders in

I.A.995/2017 its order dated 01-08-2017) executed by Gutti Lalithamba,

W/o. Gutti Sambaiah is true, valid and correct binding upon the defendant?

PJCJ, CHIRALA 13 OS.NO. 206/2012

3) Whether the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned into 4 equal shares and plaintif is entitled for one such share by metes and bounds by way of preliminary decree as prayed for?

4) To what relief, if any, are plaintif is entitled?

On 14-11-2019 as per I.A.1296/2019 and 1297/2019 are allowed its order dated 14-11-2019 reopened matter and additional issued were framed.

Additional Issues are framed as follows:

1) Whether the contents of the registered will dated 09-07-2012 vide document NO.104/B.K.3/2012 executed by first defendant in favour of

Defendant NO.5 and Defendant NO.6 is true and valid pertaining to dwelling house of the suit property having been bequeathed in favour of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 and has vested to them absolutely?

2) Whether the contents of registered sale deed executed by first defendant in favour of defendant NO.7 i.e., Gutti Mallikarjuna, dated 09- 07-2012 vide document NO.2908/2012 regarding the schedule property is valid, true and vested and absolute owner of the same?

08) On behalf of the Plaintif, PW.1 is examined and no documents are marked. On behalf of the defendants DW.1 to DW.6 are examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B8 respectively.

09) Heard the learned counsel for appearing for both parties and both sides learned counsels submitted their respective written arguments except learned counsel for defendant NO.3, and reported that the arguments as the plaintif as the plaintif on behalf of defendant NO.3

PJCJ, CHIRALA 14 OS.NO. 206/2012 may be adopted and same is recorded and having perused the material available on record in both oral and documentary evidence.

10) Issue No.1 to 3:

1) Whether the prior partition was took place among the shares of Gutti

Sambaiah by virtue of registered partition list dated 02-11-1965 as pleaded by 1st defendant?

2) Whether registered will dated 21-01-1993 executed by Gutti

Lalithamba, W/o. Gutti Sambaiah is true, valid and correct binding upon the defendant?

3) Whether the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned into 4 equal shares and plaintif is entitled for one such share by metes and bounds by way of preliminary decree as prayed for?

For the sake convenient discussion this issues No. 1 to 3 are inter connected with each other, and as such these issues are taken up together as discuss simultaneously.

11) Since, the plaintif had approached the court to seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of her share in the Item NO.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property. It is the burden of the plaintif to establish that there is a existed as the Item NO.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintif, defendants 1 to 3 item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties acquired by one Guthi. Mohan Rao who is the grand father of the plaintif, defendants 2 and 3 and father of first defendant. Later, the said Guthi. Mohana Rao died intestate at about 25 years back, since then the plaintif along with the defendants enjoying the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in joint, but being a Kartha of undivided

PJCJ, CHIRALA 15 OS.NO. 206/2012

Hindu family the first defendant used to managing the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, since long time the plaintif personally and through elders, demanded the first defendant and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties, the first defendant even after admitting her share promised to partition the schedule mentioned properties but did not do so far and all the trails made by the plaintif personally and through mediators for amicable partition of Item NO.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties provide futile. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintif also filed rejoinder, she had contended that the defendants 4 to 7 will not to be considered as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property basing on the will on which relied upon documents which was brought into existence by the defendants 1, 4 to 7 with the help of the henchmen no in any manner of the plaint schedule property as such

Defendants 4 to 7 would were became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

12) On the other hand the defendants 1 to 3 would contended that the except the relationship between the plaintif and that, they denied that suit schedule property partition and separate possession, for claiming her 1/4th share and except defendant NO.3, defendant NO.1 and 2 denied that averments of the plaint and did not come forward for partition and as such partitioned all are false to get wrongful gain.

Originally the suit schedule property belong to Gutti Sambaiah, who is no other than the grandfather of this defendant. After the demise of

Sambaiah, his surviving sons were partitioned his estate among themselves. In according to the partition list, immediately soon after partition, the sharers had succeeded their respective shares and enjoyed

PJCJ, CHIRALA 16 OS.NO. 206/2012 the same with division of status and were in the possession of their share of properties without any interruption. Later, the mother of the first defendant i.e., Gutti Lalithaba had executed a registered will in favour of her three sons and specified their respective shares in the recitals of the schedule of her will, vide document No.8/1993, book NO.3.

The registered will dated 21-01-1993. After the demise of Gutti

Lalithamba i.e., the testator of will, this defendant and his brothers succeeded their respective scheduled items as in the recitals of the will and are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. This first defendant further contended that being the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties, due to his old age, and in need of money for medical treatments of this defendant and his wife, the grandson by name Gutti Venkta Mallikarjuna secured the said sum and also looked after his welfare, on that out of love and afection, being as his self acquired property, he transfers by sale of the Item NO.1 of the property under a registered sale deed in favour of his grandson. The defendant also contended that the said Gutti Venkta Mallikarjuna later as it was in need of sum for his further education he mortgaged the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to one Karna Laksha Rao. This first defendant further contended that the item NO.2 of the plaint schedule property is also the self acquired property of this defendant. As he in his old age, and for security of his wife, this defendant executed a registered will in favour of his wife Gutti Vijayalakshmi and his grandfather by name Vutla

Lakhmi Kumari and Guntur Bhavani with limited rights for his wife and equal share to his grand daughters and that the registered will dated 09- 07-2012.

13) Where as the Defendant NO.3 had contended that he has objection to division of the joint family properties into four equal shares,

PJCJ, CHIRALA 17 OS.NO. 206/2012

Defendants 4 to 7 would qualities. Thus, this defendant not denying the right of the plaintif at any point of time, accordingly she has no objections to take the testimony share of the plaintif out of the joint family properties. Whereas the would contended that the defendant

No.7 is grand son of the first defendant who is working of pune in the year 2012 and grand father of the first defendant fell in sick, sufered with heart disease as well as his family fell in finance crises, under the pathetic condition of, this defendant looked of and spend amounts, as good enough to meet his legal necessities, the defendant / grandfather being the absolute owner of the property he sold item NO.1 of the property as alleged in plaint schedule property to this defendant under a registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012 by received the consideration amount. The said document was already filed along with the written statement filed by the first defendant and the same was marked as

Ex.B5, it may be read as a part and parcel of this written statement.

Since the date of purchase of the item NO.1 of the schedule property, this defendant and his parents that is defendant No.2 and his wife are is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. His father being the Karth of this defendant, he paid the house tax in his name since then till now. This defendants would contended that the defendant NO.7 due to non satisfaction of the job, he incline to continue further studies, being the absolute owner of the item NO.1 of the plaint schedule property, on that, he took loan from one Karna Laksha Rao by secured the register sale deed under a Registered Mortgage deed dated 13-08-2012, and completed his further studies. After completion of his studies, he got job at Chennai and later repaid the Mortgage loan amount and obtained proper receipt from the said Karna Laksha Rao.

This defendant further would submits that, the plaintif herself admitted

PJCJ, CHIRALA 18 OS.NO. 206/2012 in the evidence of, established that, the division of properties among the co-parceners with meets and bounds and took the possession of their respective allotted shares, and as such since the plaintif admitted in her evidence it need not be proved. The paint schedule properties are the lawful acquired properties of the first defendant, and being absolute owner he is having right to transfer his properties in his own accord as per his wish, the properties as mentioned by the plaintif are not joint family properties in any manner nor the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral one, the plaintif maliciously to bluf the court with invented alleged false in fact by shielded the exist and genuine facts. If the plaintif denies the conveyance filed by the defendant NO.1, the suit is bad for non – joinder of proper parties to the suit. Hence, the plaintif had approached the court of justice with improper relief and odd in time of since 1993, which is barred by limitation and also not paid proper court fees as knowing the acts of transfer, as the relief prayed the plaintif is not correct, as she is very well aware of the conveyances executed by the defendant NO.1 for his legal necessities.

14) In order to establish her case, the plaintif herself had examined as PW1 and no documents are marked on her behalf. On behalf of the

PW1 is pleadings. PW1 had deposed in chief in accordance with In her cross examination, the learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 on 28-02- 2017 reported not ready due to personal inconvenience. However the learned counsel for D3 reported ready. Hence learned counsel for D3 is permitted to cross examine PW1 before cross examination of PW.1 by defendant NO.1 and 2. In her cross examination by PW1, the learned counsel for Defendant NO.3, she admitted that the Defendant No.1 is her father and that the Defendant No.2 is her elder brother and defendant

PJCJ, CHIRALA 19 OS.NO. 206/2012

NO.3 is her younger sister and that her marriage was taken place around 1984. According to her, defendant No.3’s marriage was performed after three years from the date of her marriage and that at the time of her marriage or defendant NO.3’s marriage, their gather did not give any immovable properties to them either by way of dowry or gift. She stated that her father got acquired suit schedule property alone from his ancestral and he did not possess any other immovable properties on his name. She further staetd that originally the suit schedule property belonged to her paternal grate grand father be name Guthi Sambaiah.

Admittedly her father got succeeded schedule property herein from

Guthi Sambaiah. She also stated that before had filing this case, she issued legal notices to defendants demanding partition of suit schedule property. She further admitted that the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. She stated that she has no objection for division of suit schedule property into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to defendant NO.3 by metes and bounds. Later on 08-03-2017 PW1 is present sworn on oath and the learned counsel for the Defendants 1 and 2, cross examined the PW1, she stated that she came to know that defendants 1 to 3 got filed their respective written statements along with documents and she have gone through such contents of written statements and documents at the instance of her counsel. According to her, one Gutti Mohan Rao is her paternal grand father and that one Sambaiah is her paternal great grand father and she does not know he died and that the wife of Sambaiah pre- deceased him. She again stated that the said Sambaiah had no brothers but had two sisters by blood but she does not know their respective names and that the said sisters of Sambaiah also died. She also stated that she does not know how her paternal grand father Sambaiah got

PJCJ, CHIRALA 20 OS.NO. 206/2012 acquired suit schedule properties i.e., Items 1 and 2 and that the said

Sambaiah had three sons namely 1) Gutti Mohan Rao 2) Basava Lingam and 3) Kota Subba Rao and that said Gutti Mohan Rao had three sons and one daughter, they are 1) Gutti Suryanarayana (D1) 2) Gutti

Purnaiah @ Purnachandra Rao 3) Venkata Subba Rao @ Chitti and 4)

Audilakshmi (daughter). She further stated that the above said Surya

Narayana / D1 had one son and two daughters namely 1) Venkateswarlu,

D2 and 2) Venkata Subbaravamma (herself) and 3) Parvathi (Defendant

NO.3). She also stated that the above said sons of Sambaiah never got partitioned ancestral properties but her father and other legal heirs i.e.,

Gutti Purnaiah, Venkata Subba Rao and their legal heirs only got partitioned ancestral properties, but she cannot say when such partition efected among them. She further stated that she got married at the age of 18 years and that the above said partition was taken place after her marriage. She further admitted that after such partition her father,

Purnachandra Rao, Venkata Subba Rao are in possession in their respective shares fell to them separately. She stated that the legal heirs of Basava Lingam and Kota Subba Rao also got partitioned when partition efected in between her father Gutti Purnaiah and Venkata

Subba Rao. She denied that the legal heirs of Sambaiah got partitioned ancestral properties long back on 07-11-1965 by virtue of partition deed by metes and bounds and ever since the legal heirs of Sambaiah have been in possession and enjoyment over their respective shares. She further stated that she did not take any stand regarding the documents filed by the documents No.1 and 2. She stated that one Lalithamba is the wife of her paternal grand father Mohan Rao. She further stated that she does not know whether defendant No.1 and 2 got filed copy of will

dated 21-01-1993. She again admitted that the said and the alleged

PJCJ, CHIRALA 21 OS.NO. 206/2012 properties in item A of will dated 21-01-1993 is the property shown in the suit which fell towards the share of her father Mohan Rao. She again stated that the House of one Dogiparthy Hymavathi situated on the eastern side of item No.1 of plaint schedule. Property but she cannot say assessment its number and that one Purnachandra Rao is not eastern boundary owner either to item NO.1 or item No.2.

15)Subsequently, on 04-04-2017 the PW1 was present and sworn oath

before her for continuation of cross examination by the learned counsel

for the defendants. She stated that one Gutti Vijayalakshmi is her mother and she died at about 2 years ago. However, she stated that

She could not attend her funerals and that one Gutti Venkata Subba Rao is the younger brother of her father and that she know one Gutti Ram

Mohan Rao resident of their locality. According to her, she knows that defendant in his written statement averred that her father said to have executed a will dated 09-07-2012 in favour of his wife and children and that she do not go through such contents of will so fark and that she know one Utla Lakshmi Kumari, who is her niece. She admitted that one

Utla Lakshmi Kumari is also her daughter-in-law. She stated that one

Guntur Bhavani is the daughter of her elder brother and sister of above said Utla Lakshmi Kumari. But she cannot say door number of item NO.1 of the suit schedule property and that survey number of item NO.1 is 1/06. She further admitted that Utla Lakshmi Kumari is not residing in item NO.1 of schedule property. She stated that one Gutti

Venkateswarlu / Defendant NO.2 and his wife are residing in item NO.1 of schedule property, and that he do not remember door Number of item

NO.2 it consists of ACC and RCC roofed houses and that she does not know who is the southern boundary owner RCC roofed building / item

PJCJ, CHIRALA 22 OS.NO. 206/2012

NO.2 and that she does not know the contents of sale deed dated 09-07- 2012 got filed by defendants NO.1 and 2 and that one Gutti Poornaiah is residing on the Northern side of ACC roofed house it is part and parcel of item NO.2. Although she does not know who is the eastern boundary owner of item NO.2. She further stated that she have shown boundaries for items 1 and 2 which were in existence at about ten long years ago.

Witness had voluntaries that at present there maybe chances for variations in the said boundaries. She further denied that ever since that date of 09-07-2012, one Gutti Venkata Mallikarjuna has been in possession and enjoyment over item No.2 of suit schedule and that the present suit for partition is not maintainable since her father got succeeded item NO.1 and 2 of schedule property by virtue of will and he being absolute owner in turn executed will bequeathing such items 1 and 2 in favour of his wife and children and that she filed to take vengeance against her daughter-in-law Utla Lakshmi Kumari as she got filed a criminal case against her in Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Chirala. She also stated that no any and that no any property was given to her younger sister Parvathi / defendant NO.3 during her marriage by her parents. Finally, she denied that during the marriages of her sister / defendant No.3 and herself, her parents provided three sovereigns of gold ornaments each and also a gold ring to their respective husbands.

16) To establish their case, the first defendants have examined as frist defendant as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 through him. But Ex.B2 original registered will dated 31-01-1993, this court had taken a objected to rejected the said document of serial No.3 is a xerox copy and as such same is hereby rejected for marking and further in the original nil dated 09-07-2012 also rejected for marking on the ground that as testator is

PJCJ, CHIRALA 23 OS.NO. 206/2012 still alive. DW.1 had deposed in chief on per with his pleadings in written statement and further deposed that originally plaint schedule properties belong to Gutti Sambaiah, who is no other than her grandfather. Soon after, the demise of Sambaiah, his surviving sons living behind were all ready partitioned amicably the estate among themselves and in possession and enjoyed their respective shares. The registered partition list dated 02-11-1965 vide document NO.2457/65, volume NO.3, may be marked as Ex.B1. In according to the partition list, immediately soon after partition, the sharers were succeeded their respective shares and enjoyed the same with division of status and were in the possession of their respective share of properties without any interruption and that his father Mohan Rao was A schedule holder in the Register partition list, after the demise of his father, his wife, who is non other than his mother i.e., Gutti Lalithamba, succeeded her husband’s property and living behind children, due to old age, she executed a registered will in favour of her three sons and got mention their respective shares with meets and bounds of the schedule properties in her will, vide document

NO.8/1993, Book No.3. He further deposed that after the demise of Gutti

Lalithamaba i.e., the testator of will, he along with his brothers was bequeathed their respective schedule items as in the recitals of the will and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the said allotted properties without interception, and the same was admitted by the plaintif regarding the factum of division and status and that he being the absolute owner of the item A schedule properties bequeathed through will, due to his old age, and need of money for medical treatment and his wife, in urgency, his grand son by name Guthi Venkata

Mallikarjuna secured the said and after his welfare on that love and afection, he transferred the Item NO.1 of the schedule property under

PJCJ, CHIRALA 24 OS.NO. 206/2012 registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012. In his cross examination, he stated that the plaintif is his daughter, and that the second defendant is his son-in-law and again the witness stated that the second defendant is his son. According to him, the third defendant is also his daughter and that at the time of marriage of plaintif and third defendant is also his daughter. He stated that at the time of marriage of plaintif and third defendant she did not given any amount. He further sted that her father executed a will in favour of his mother and after demise of his mother, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that except the plaint schedule property she has no other properties. He also stated that in the year 1965 partition took place and in the said partition he got the plaint schedule property and that he have objection for partition the plaint schedule property equally along with his daughters and his son.

17) Subsequently, on 02-08-2017 DW1 is present and sworn on oath for contentions of cross – examination, he stated that at the time of

Ex.B1 dated 02-11-1965 he was aged about 23 years and that he is married person and that he does not remember whether the plaintif was aged about 5 years and the 2nd defendant was aged 9 years by the date of Ex.B1 and that by the date of Ex.B1 the second defendant was aged 4 to 5 years. He also stated that the plaintif was born after three years of 2nd defendant was born and that the age diference between the plaintif and 3rd defendant is three years and that the Mohan Rao had three sons and they are himself, Gutti Purnachandra Rao and Gutti Venkata Subba

Rao and that he is not having any documentary proof that his a paternal grand father namely Gutti Sambaiah purchased plaint schedule property with self his acquired earning. According to him, he have no

PJCJ, CHIRALA 25 OS.NO. 206/2012 documentary proof that the government allotted the plaint schedule property to his paternal grand father. The witness had added that he does not know the source of getting the plaint schedule property to his paternal grand father. He started that one Koti Nagulu is the father of

Guthi Sambaiah. But he cannot say the ancestors of the Koti Nagulu.

Admittedly, his family got the plaint schedule property from the ancestors of Guthi Koti Nagulu who is the father of Guthi Sambaiah. He further stated that his father Mohan Rao died after two or three years of

Ex.B1 and that the date of death of his father Mohan Rao, the 3rd defendant was born and that after demise of his father Mohan Rao, his mother by name Lalithamba looked after the plaint schedule property and that his mother is not related to his father prior to her marriage with her father and that his father executed a will bequeathing the plaint schedule properties to his mother and that he does not remember the day, month or year of the alleged will executed by his father in favour of his mother. Admittedly in Ex.B2 his mother did not make any mentioned that her husband executed will in respect of the plaint schedule property under Ex.B2 in her favour. He also staed that his brothers Purnachandra

Rao, Venkata Subba Rao have no right to the plaint schedule property.

He denied that his mother has no right to executed Ex.B2 and as such

Ex.B2 is not valid in the eye of law. He further stated that except the plaint schedule properties, they did not succeed any ancestral properties and till date he did not given any property in the paint schedule property to the plaintif, so also the 3rd defendant and that the plaint schedule property is not yet partitioned among his family members. Finally he denied that the plaintif, himself D2 and D3 are admitted 1/3rd share into the plaint schedule property recalled and reopened his evidence for the purpose of marking of documents and further cross-examination as

PJCJ, CHIRALA 26 OS.NO. 206/2012 per I.A. 403/2018 and I.A.404/2018 are allowed its order dated 27-02- 2018. Dw1 is present and sworn in for marking of documents. Ex.B4 is the certificate issued by the Panchayath Secretary Gram Panchayath

Desaipeta and Ex.B5 is the registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012 marked through him. Later, on 25-06-2018 DW1 was present, and sworned on oath he stated that he sold 0.04 cents of site under Ex.B5 to his grand son and that the property covered under Ex.B5 is one of the items in the suit schedule property. According to him, originally the property covered under Ex.B5 belonged to the ancestors of his father and his father got it from his ancestors and his father conveyed the property under Ex.B5 to his mother by way of registered document and but he does not known remember the nature of document date, month and year. He further stated that the document executed by his father in favour of his mother relates to the covered under Ex.B5. He further admitted that it is not recited in Ex.B5 that he got the property covered under the said document under a will from his mother. He also denied that at the time of execution of Ex.B5 his daughter namely

Subbaravamma (plaintif) made quarrel with him from the property and his children also having share in the suit schedule property along with him and only not to give any share to his daughter namely

Subbaravamma and he created Ex.B5 and himself and his son

Venakteswarlu and his son namely Mallikarjuna created Ex.B5.

18)One of the relatives of the first defendant had examined by defendants as DW2. The said DW2 had deposed in chief on par with averments in the written statement and he further deposed that the first defendant is his senior paternal uncle and that the first defendant and his father are of his own brother and son of Gutti Mohan Rao and

PJCJ, CHIRALA 27 OS.NO. 206/2012

Lalithamba during the life time of his paternal grand mother, she executed a will in favour of her three sons. After her death, all the three sons bequeathed their respective items of property mentioned in the will. All the three sons succeeded their respective shares and are in possession and enjoyment of the same and they got mutated their names in the revenue records and paid tax since then till now. Likewise his father by name Purnachandra Rao had succeeded his share of property as per will i.e., Item No. 2 of the schedule property and paid house tax for his property till his life time and then his father died on 16- 11-2016, later being the only son he succeeded the property of his father. In his cross examination, he stated that he was born in the month of January, 1991 and he has not seen will said to be executed by

Lalithamma, which is on file and that he does not know when his paternal grand father died namely Gutti Mohan Rao. According to him,

Lalithamba died about fifteen years, back but he does not remember the day, month and year of her death and that he has no personal knowledge what was written in the will on the date of execution of it. He further stated that he cannot say the marriage of plaintif took place prior or subsequent to his birth so also the marriage of third defendant.

and that he does not know for how many plots or how many items of the properties plaintif filed the suit, but filed the suit for immovable properties. He stated that he does not known for how many plaintif are partitioned sought by plaintif. He also admitted that his father of the paternal grand father got plaint schedule properties though his ancestors. He further stated that his father died about nine months, and he can not say the particulars of the revenue records mentioned in his chief examination. He also admitted that the plaintif, D1 to D3 used to reside as jointly till their marriages. He denied that the will under

PJCJ, CHIRALA 28 OS.NO. 206/2012

Ex.B2 is in valid and that 1st defendant did not get any property through the said will. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for the D3, he stated that the first defendant has the plaintif and defendants 2 and 3 are children and that the first defendant got item NO.1 and 2 from his ancestors. He further denied that the D3 has ¼ share.

19) The defendants have examined documentary writer as DW3, and he had deposed in chief that he is document writer of old Chirala and that he received summons from this court to give evidence. Accordingly, he came to court and has identified his signature in a will under Ex.B2 as scribe. According to him, on 21-01-1993 one Lalithamba came to the registrar Office at Solomon Centre, Chirala and asked him to prepare it.

And that after preparation of the will Lalithamba obtained her thumb mark and that he does not have personal acquaintance with the attestors of Ex.B2. In his cross examination, DW3 had sated that from the year 2002 he has no license and that he did not see any document that the person who approached him stated as Gutti Lalithamba, W/o.

Mohan Rao. According to him, the person approached him stated as

Lalithamba he did not any documents pertains to the property in Ex.B2, and that the said person did not show any documentary that she had three sons. He stated that he does not remember who brought the stamp papers for drafting Ex.B2 and that the said lady did not from him any document that she had been sufering from ill-health and that at first he prepared rough will and again after reading over the same contents to the said lady he prepared Ex.B2. He further stated that he does not remember how many rough wills about prepared before preparation of Ex.B2 and that he did not seed any documents of the atterstors as to their identity. He further denied that Lalithamba did not

PJCJ, CHIRALA 29 OS.NO. 206/2012 execute Ex.B2, and that Suryanarayana did not meet him before receiving suit summons. The witness has stated that the person sat on the court hall, whose name is Gutti Venkateswarlu on enquiry by the court, approached him and had shown xerox copy of the will and asked him whether he scribed the said will or not and he stated that he scribed the original of it. During the course of cross examination of DW3, the learned counsel for the third defendant reported adopted the same cross examination of plaintif counsel.

20) One of the relatives of the plaintif and defendants who is the third defendant her was examined as DW4. She had deposed in chief on par with her pleadings. In her cross examination by the learned counsel for plaintif reported n cross-examination on 19-07-2018. Thereafter on 13-02-2020, the DW4 was cross examined by the learned counsel for plaintif, she stated that the plaintif is her elder sister and that D1 is her father and D2 is elder brother to her and plaintif. According to her, she has not objection on plaint schedule property partition into four equal shares among their family members. She admitted that the Plaint schedule property is ancestral property to their father. He also sated that his father or his mother did not self acquired property especially plaint schedule property. During the course of examination by the learned counsel for plaintif D5 to D7, she stated that the plaintif got issued a registered Legal Notice to her and she filed the same

before this Hon’ble Court and that no legal notice got issued by

plaintif and that she got issued reply notice and the same was produced before this Hon’ble Court. She denied that she is deposing false hood entirely especially with regard to the alleged

PJCJ, CHIRALA 30 OS.NO. 206/2012 exchange of Legal Notices. She further admitted that the plaintif shwon her father as D1 claiming share of the property. She also stated that defendant NO.1 died about 7 months back out of paralysis and she never assisted her father during his last days and never visited the Government Area Hospital, Chirala are even at

Hospital of Vijayawada. Witness adds to say she have no information and that the grand son of D1 by name Mallikarjuna Rao i.e., D7 attended all the needs of D1 during his last days and that the out of old age D1 has no income and D2 is her elder brother, who is no more and that the Daughter of D2 is one Vutla Lakshmi

Kumari, who married son of plaintif by name Srinivasulu, but her marital life was dismantled and she never contacted plaintif to set right the family life of Lakshmi Kumari as plaintif is may quarrel with her, when she intervened. She further stated that she is not having talking terms with plaintif and the D2 died out of mental agony due to dis mantled life of his daughter and that she know the contents of plaint, but she does not know that plaintif alleged against her D1, D2 that they all colluded in the manner of hatching a plan to avoid share in the property to plaintif and her grand father’s name is Mohan Rao and great grand father’s name is

Sambaiah and that the Plaint Schedule Property originally belongs to Sambaiah and that she came to know about the said aspect through her father/D1 and that herself and plaintif born and brought in her father’s house and that her paternal Junior uncle is residing as neighborer to her father’s house and residing with his family. She also stated that she has not gone through the

PJCJ, CHIRALA 31 OS.NO. 206/2012 documents filed by D1 in this suit and that her grand father by name Mohana Rao having 3 brothers i.e., Guthi Mohana Rao (Her

Grand Father), Basavalingham and Kota Subba Rao besides one sister, but she does not know her name. She further stated that one Adilakshmi is the sister to one D1. Admittedly, the Ex.B1 is a registered partition deed taken place in the year 1965 among her grand father and his brothers and that the entire property of her great grand father Sambaiah shared among brothers of her grand father under Ex.B1. She stated that she know that A-Schedule property under Ex.B1 fallen to the share of Mohan Rao her grand father, but she can not say the boundaries to said A-Schedule property in Ex.B1 and that at about 24 to 25 years back Mohana

Rao her grand father died and that at about 14 to 15 years back

Lalithamba wife of Mohana Rao died and that she does not know the contents of Ex.B2 i.e., WILL, dt. 21.01.1993 as filed by D1. D1,

Purnachandra Rao, Venkata Subba Rao and Adilakshmi are the children of her paternal grand parents. She also stated that she does not know as per Ex.B2 registered WILL A-Schedule property in that WILL fallen to the share of D1 through Lalithamba his mother.

She also admitted that the D1 performed all marriages and other customary rites relating to her, plaintif and other family members as a responsible person and that she knows the plaintif taken permission to amend the plaint pleadings with regard to survey number and extent and that she does not know the specific boundaries and which items were amended in plaint. She also admitted that she never visited her father’s house since her

PJCJ, CHIRALA 32 OS.NO. 206/2012 marriage till his death. She stated that she does not know the specific boundaries as well as physical features of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaint Schedule Property and that she know that D4 to D7 added as L.Rs. of D2 after his death and that the document i.e.,

Registered WILL, dt. 09.07.2012 shown to him reflect the photograph of her father i.e., D1 and his signature on all pages (Identified by witness). She further denied and that the copy of said WILL furnished to her. She stated that she does not know the contents of the said WILL. She also stated that the registered sale deed, dt. 09.07.2012 under Ex.B5 in favour of Guthi Venkata

Mallikarjuna Rao Son of D2 (grand son of D1) reflects the photograph of D1 and signature of D1 on all pages (Identified by witness). She denied that she is deposing false hood even though she know about registered will and registered sale deed duly executed by D1 with a view to grab the property in a wrongful manner along with plaintif. She also stated that the children of

Sambaiah and his remaining L.Rs not shown as parties to the suit as plaintif claiming the properties of Sambaiah for partition.

Finally, she denied that the suit itself is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that plaintif filed the present suit by suppressing real facts and that the suit itself is not maintainable and that she has not entitled for any share of the property as it was already decided by D1 through his WILL and sale deed and that she is deposing falsely.

22) One of the prime witness was examined by the defendants as DW5 he had deposed in chief on per with his pleadings and got

PJCJ, CHIRALA 33 OS.NO. 206/2012 marked Exs. B6 and B7 through him. In his cross examination, he had stated that he is his paternal grand father. Admittedly, D1 had blessed with Utla Venkata Subbaravamma – P.W.1, D2 and

D.W4(D3). According to him, soon after death of D2 himself along with two sisters i.e., D5 and D6 added as L.Rs and that to his knowledge P.W.1 filed suit for partition of the Suit Schedule

Property, but he can not say how many shares she prayed for partition with specific relief and that the suit schedule property shown as two items and that he is Engineer Graduate and that one

Mohan Rao is his great grand father and that one Guthi Sambaiah is father of Mohana Rao and that he does not know the father’s name of Guthi Sambaiah, whether it is Kotinagulu or not. He further admitted that suit schedule property is ancestral property of Mohan Rao and devolved upon him. He also stated that he has gone through the evidence of D.W.1, who is his paternal grand father, who is no more and his paternal great grand father Mohan

Rao predeceased to his wife by name Lalithamba, but he can not say when he died with specific date and that he does not know whether any document executed by Mohan Rao infavour of his wife

Lalithamba bequeathing the suit schedule property prior to his death and that he have not gone through any piece of paper showing right and title of Lalithamba over suit schedule property.

He also admitted that the Ex.B2 does not reflect the source of title of its executant by which way her husband Mohan Rao received the property to convey the same in her favour. He also stated that there is no enclosures to Ex.B2 that the testatrix under Ex.B2 is

PJCJ, CHIRALA 34 OS.NO. 206/2012 having possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by that date. He also admitted that and that the date of Ex.B2, D1 and his two brothers by name Purnachandra Rao and Venkata

Subba Rao are alive. He stated that Ex.B2 does not reflect the signatures of D1 and his brothers as witnesses or identifying witnesses. He also sated that at about 25 years back Lalithamba died and that to his knowledge D1 and his brothers not filed any petition before Hon’ble District court with regard to the Ex.B2 WILL for its enforcement. He further stated that they have no document to show the right and title of D1 against in suit schedule property as mutated in Revenue Records and that as per Ex.B5, D1 sold the property, which was received by him through Lalithamba under

Ex.B2 and he is the purchaser. He further admitted that there is no specific recital of Ex.B2 WILL as the source of title by D1 for sale of the property to him under Ex.B5 and that as per Ex.B5 D1 received the property by way of inheritance through his parents. He stated that he enquired with D1 about the right and title of testatrix of

Ex.B2 and also about right of D1 to sell the property, on that he proceeded with purchase under Ex.B5. He also admitted that the

Ex.B5 does not reflect the D2, D3, who are children of D1 signature of PW1 and that the certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary enclosed to Ex.B5 does not respect the information which was document referred for preparation of said certificate and that the

D1 is the Kartha relating to the Suit Schedule Properties i.e., two items and that after Mohana Rao D1 has become Kartha followed by D2, D3 and P.W.1 and that entire family in joint family and his

PJCJ, CHIRALA 35 OS.NO. 206/2012 father his sisters are also followed D1, and that the D2 his father is

Kartha of their joint family followed by himself and his two sisters i.e., D5 and D6. But he does not know with regard to the suit schedule property D1, D2, D3 and Plaintif are entitled to 1/4th share each. He denied that D1 is not at all right and title owner of entire Suit Schedule Property and he is entitled for 1/4th share only and that no sale consideration passed under Ex.B5 to D1 from him and that it is a created document with the assistance of his father and himself to D1. He also stated that he has not filed any document showing the health condition of D1 and his financial troubles prior to Ex.B5 and also written request if any made by D1 for my alleged financial support. He also admitted that the D1 was weaver by profession. He stated that till the age of 17 years to him D1 and his wife Vijaya Lakshmi attended weaving profession and later they started running a hotel by stopping weaving work and till their death and that defendant NO.1 died at the age of 72 and he is hale and healthy till his death and contested the suit on hand by giving his part of evidence as D.W.1. Witness adds to say six months prior to his death he sufered from paralysis and lost his breath on 23.07.2019. He stated that no written information or intimation given to D2, D3 and P.W.1 about Ex.B5 document (Sale

Deed) and that he does not know whether D2 also having 1/4th share in Suit Schedule Property, which was covered under Ex.B5 and that he has not filed any document in the suit on hand showing that him name was mutated in Revenue Records relating to Suit Schedule Property basing on Ex.B5. Witness adds to say he

PJCJ, CHIRALA 36 OS.NO. 206/2012 paid tax to the concerned authority for item No.1 of the Suit

Schedule Property reflecting under Ex.B5 and that he does not know the specific date of filing of the suit on hand, but it was in the year 2012 same as that of Ex.B5 years and that till the death of D2 property tax paid to the concerned authority pertains to Ex.B5 property in the name of D2 as he is the Kartha of our family and that the D2 also present at the time of Ex.B5 transaction before

Sub-Registrar, Chirala. According to him, at the time of preparation of Ex.B5, D1, D2 and himself were present and one Prudhvi Subba

Rao is the scribe of Ex.B5 and that on receiving court summons by

D1 to D3, he came to know through D2 about the filing of the suit by P.W.1 seeking partition and that the D2 informed him that P.W.1 filed suit for partition relating to Plaint Schedule Property showing two items including the property under Ex.B5 and that by the time of receiving court summons D2 has knowledge about the D5 property as item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property intern he got knowledge about inclusion of his newly purchased property under

Ex.B5. He stated that he had completed his upto B.Tech in the year 2009 itself and that the mortgagee by name Karna Laksha

Rao is resident of his locality known persons to their family and that the said Laksha Rao is having knowledge about filing of the suit on hand and its pendency. He further denied that the creation of Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 Kanna Laksha Rao assisted us being closely acquainted person to their family and that the P.W.1 along with D1 to D3 co-passers of Plaint Schedule Property and they are entitled for 1/4th share each as such she is entitled for her share as prayed

PJCJ, CHIRALA 37 OS.NO. 206/2012 for. He further stated that he has not gone through Ex.B1 partition deed of the year 1965 and that he have knowledge about Ex.B8 does not reflect the health condition of D1 including any kind of disease. He stated that he is not claiming specifically 1/4th share as entitled by his father D2 in the Suit Schedule Property towards his right and that the D.W.6 is his elder sister, who is daughter-in- law of P.W.1 and that he does not know the cases filed by D.W.6 against P.W.1 and others relating to their family disputes. He also stated that he do not know whether P.W.1 requested D1 and D2 through elders claiming her share of property prior to filing the suit on hand or not to his knowledge D1 received the Suit Schedule

Property through his mother by way of WILL as such he sold the same to me under Ex.B5 as such he is opinion by suit is barred by limitation. She denied that on known about the furious documents creating by himself, D1, D2 in the year 2012. She also stated that she immediately approached before the Hon’ble Court through suit on hand. She also denied that no document under Ex.B1, B2, B5,

B7 and B8 not at all vitiate 1/4th share of P.W.1 over Suit Schedule

Property being daughter of D1 and one of the co-parcener and that there is no legal necessity for D1 to execute Ex.B5 and that out of petty ill feelings and disputes taken place in the family of D.W.6 and to grab the property by defeating the right of P.W.1, they all created Ex.B1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 and he is deposing entirely false hood.

During the cross-examination by DW5, the learned counsel for the

D3 reported adopted the same cross examination of the Plaintif.

PJCJ, CHIRALA 38 OS.NO. 206/2012

23) The 5th defendant was examined by the defendants as DW6 and got marked Ex.B8 through her. She deposed in chief on par with her pleadings. In her cross examination, she admitted that

P.W.1 is her paternal aunt and her mother-in-law and his D2 is her father and D1 is her paternal grant father. According to her, the defendant No.3 is her junior paternal aunt and that she does not know the relief claimed by the P.W.1 through this suit on hand and how many properties shown by her claiming for partition and that her marriage taken place on 20.02.2003 with the son of P.W.1. She stated that after 2006 herself and her husband started living separately. She further admitted that criminal cases filed by her against P.W.1, her husband and her husband. She stated that she does not know whether P.W.1 demanded for her share of property from D1 on several occasion. She also admitted that the Suit

Schedule Property is ancestral property of D1 (from his forefathers). She also stated that one Lalithamba is mother of D1 and Mohan Rao is D1’s father and that she does not know about the inheritance procedure from forefathers of D1 with regard to the schedule properties to Lalithamba and that she does not know whether any document executed infavour of D1 by any forefathers bequeathing absolute rights. She also stated that she have not observed any documents reflecting right and title exclusively by D1 relating to Suit Schedule Property. She also stated that she does not know in which way the D1 acquired right and title over the

Schedule Property under Ex.B8 for execution of WILL. She also stated that D1 died on 25.07.2019 and that she can not taken

PJCJ, CHIRALA 39 OS.NO. 206/2012 steps implementation of Ex.B8 WILL through process of law and that she does not know whether any share entitled by D2 for the ancestral property received by D1 from his forefathers. She also stated that she does not know whether P.W.1 also entitled for one share along with D1 to D3 as Suit Schedule Property is ancestral property of D1 and that the D1 is weaver by profession for some years and later on hery attaining majority he closed weaving profession and started hotel business for some years and closed the said hotel one prior to the death of paternal grand mother namely Vijaya Lakshmi (D1’s wife). She further stated that after closure of the hotel, D1 used to eke out livelihood by doing petty weaving works till his death. She denied that Ex.B8 is not at all valid document as its executed has no right and title in absolute manner in Suit Schedule Property and only entitled for 1/4th share and they are only entitled for share from the 1/4th property share entitled by D2 being L.Rs. of D2. She also stated that she does not have any objection with regard to sharing the property that was fallen to the share of D2 being L.Rs of D2 along with her brother and sister pertains to the Suit Schedule Property. During the course of cross-examination, the learned counsel for the Defendant

NO.3 reported adopting the cross examination of plaintif on behalf of the D.3.

24) During the course of arguments the learned counsel for plaintif had argued that since the relation between the plaintif and for defendant No.1 and 3 are admitted that the learned

PJCJ, CHIRALA 40 OS.NO. 206/2012 counsel for the plaintif submitted written arguments and would contended that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property of plaintif, D1, D2 and D3 and as the said plaint schedule property has not been partitioned between plaintif, D1, D2 and D3 as on the date of Act 39/2005, the plaintif is entitled for 1/4th share in the schedule property. Brief facts of the case of defendant No.1 is the written statement of D1 filed, and D2 filed adaption memo and that the case of D1 is that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to Guthi. Sambaiah and after his demise, his sons partitioned his estate through a registered partition deed dated 02- 11-1965. Later D1’s mother / G.Lalithamba executed a registered will dated 21-01-1993, and as per said will dated 21-01-1993, D1 has become absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. D1 sold item NO.2 of plaint schedule property is concerned D1 executed a registered will dated 09-07-2012 by bequeathing item

NO.2 in favour of his wife and granddaughter, and D2 adopted the written statement of D1 and prays to dismiss the suit. The learned counsel for plaintif would argued that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property / co-parcenary property of plaintif, D1, D2 and D3. Plaintif is claiming 1/4th share in plaint schedule property basing on Act 39/2005 for section 6 of Hindu Marriage Act.

Required ingredients under Act 39 of 2005. There shall be ancestral property / co-parcenary belongs to a family. In this suit D1 is father of plaintif, D2 and D3 are the plaint schedule property are ancestral property. The ancestral property is no yet partitioned among father and son. In this suit D1 as DW1 admitted that plaint

PJCJ, CHIRALA 41 OS.NO. 206/2012 schedule property in not yet partitioned. Father must alive as on the date of Act 39/2005. In this suit D1 died on 23-07-2019.

Ex.B1 is a registered partition deed in which plaintif’s grand father namely Guthi. Mohan Rao was a party on behalf of a joint family consists of D1, D2 and D3 and plaintif including Guthi. Mohan Rao and all of them are alive as on 02-11-1965 but plaintif, D1, D2 and

D3 are not parties to Ex.B1, dated 02-11-1965. She father executed a will bequeathing the plaint schedule properties to her mother and but no will filed into court. The D1 has no right to execute a will dated 09-07-2012 Ex.B8 for entire plaint schedule property and as such fro D1’s 1/4th share only Ex.B8 and as per entire property sold by D1, its shall be denied to be null and void document and hence, the suit is to be decreed in favour of the plaintif as prayed for.

25) On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 would argued that. Admittedly, the plaintif got filed suit for partition and separate possession and relationship also not disputed by either parties and the plaint schedule property is registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012 i.e. Ex.B5 was executed by

D1, D1 is not entitled to sale entire plaint schedule property. As such the Ex.B5 sale deed is to be treated as valid for D1’s share 1/4th only. Thus a belongs to Gutti Sambaiah after the demise of

Sambaiah his sons partitioned his estate through a registered partition list dated 02-11-1965. Later, defendant’s mother by name

Gutti Lalithamba executed a registered will dated 21-01-1993 in

PJCJ, CHIRALA 42 OS.NO. 206/2012 favour of her three sons by relinquishing her part of share to all the three of them. As per the will dated 21-01-1993, D1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. D1 sold item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to his grand son i.e., DW5 on dated 09-07-2012. The item No.2 of the plaint schedule property D1 executed a will in favour of his wife and grand daughters on 09-07- 2012 and prays to dismiss the suit with costs. The learned counsel for the defendant NO.3 would contended that the arguments of the plaintif may be adopted for partition of the plaint schedule property into 4 equal shares. Further the learned counsel and that this defendant have no objection for partition and separate possession 4 into equal share the plaintif and this defendant for the ancestral property. Further the learned counsel for the defendants would contended that the admittedly Ex.B1 is a registered partition deed taken place in the year 1965 among the grand father and his brothers and that the entire property belongs to her great grand father Sambaiah shared among brothers of her grand father under Ex.B1. She know that A schedule property under Ex.B1 fallen to the share Mohan Rao her grand father and that the said fact was admitted by the defendant NO.3 (Dw.4) that partition took place and one share of such property was vested to their grand father by name Mohan Rao. The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that in the cross examination of palintif page NO.3, 24th line. The legal heirs of Basava Lingam and

Kota Subba Rao also got a partitioned when partition efected in between her father Gutti Purnaiah and Venkata Subba Rao and that

PJCJ, CHIRALA 43 OS.NO. 206/2012 the said Basavalingam and Kota Subba Rao are the sons of

Sambaiah and brothers of Mohan Rao. Unless and until such partition had taken place, the property would not have be vested to Mohan Rao the father of DW1 which is confirmed by the admission made by the plaintif. The partition has taken place in favour of Gutti Sambaiah and his sons by virtue of registered partition list dated 02-11-1965.

26) The learned counsel for the defendants would argued that as per Mulla’s Hindu Law, 15th edition Art. 264(1) at page 357, wherein it has a contended that the renunciation or relinquishment of his share A co-parcener may renounce his interest in the coparcenary property in favour of the other coparceners as a body but not in favour of one or more of them. If he renounces in favour of one or more of them the renunciation ensure for the benefit of all coparceners and not for the sole benefit of the coparcener.

Gutti Laithamaba executed will by renunciation or relinquishment of her interest in the coparcenary in favour all the other coparceners. The said facts were proved by the admission made by the plaintif in their cross-examination. Admission made by the plaintif herself page No.3, 17th line. But her father and other legal heirs i.e., Gutti Purnaiah, Venkata Subba Rao and their legal only got partitioned ancestral properties of Page 3, 22nd line, after such partition her father, Purnachandra Rao, Venkata Subba Rao are in possession in their respective shares fell to them separately page

NO.4 10th line and that admitted fact alleged properties in item A of

PJCJ, CHIRALA 44 OS.NO. 206/2012 will dated 21-01-1993 is the property shown in this suit which fell towards the share of her father and that the plaintif the learned counsel for the defendants further argued that the registered will

dated 21-01-1993 executed by Gutti Lalithamba, W/o. Mohan Rao

is true, valid and correct binding upon the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that plaintif herself and the defendant No.3 (Dw4) it is crystal clear that the property as devolved to D1 (Dw.1) father of the plaintif and brothers of the defendant NO.1. The defendant NO.1 is having ample power, right to alienate his property to his whims and fans according to his will and wish and circumstance prevailing. In the above circumstance being the absolute owner of the property he executed Ex.B5 and

B8 and that here the suit properties was vested to plaintif’s father (DW1) property is self acquired, when the father of plaintif dies intestate without executing any conveyance, then the question of made and female entitled for partition of properties arise. Here

DW1 during his life time already executed B5 and B8 in respect of suit schedule properties as such the question of allotting the share of properties to plaintif, where the defendant NO.1 is alive it does not arise. Ex.B5 and Ex.B8 were executed on 09-07-2012, but the suit filed by the plaintif on 24-08-2012, said facts were very well aware of the PW1 and also admitted in the cross examination. The plaintif did not requested her father for partition of the scheduled properties nor any notice was filed as document prior to filing of the suit, except the oral evidence only to bluf the court. Hence suit for partition with valuation of notional value does not arise,

PJCJ, CHIRALA 45 OS.NO. 206/2012 paint f has to file a suit for cancellation of registered documents but not for bear partition, though the plaintifs having ample knowledge regarding the execution of documents. The suit was filed only with untrue acts to harass the old age father i.e., 1st defendant and other defendants. The said suit is bared by limitation. As per Art. 65 of the limitation Act the period of limitation for filing partition suit is 12 years. Her the marriage of the plaintif took place in the year 1984 and suit was filed in the year 2012. The period of limitation begins when there is notification of the adverse claim taken into the consideration, it is crystal clear that the the 3rd defendant, who sailing with the plaintif’s are not entitled for 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property and hence the suit may be liable to be dismiss with costs.

27) As already stated supra, the burden is upon the plaintif establish the existence of the Joint family property ancestral property as on the date of filing suit. It would be relevant to mention here that the plaintif had contended that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of her. Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties acquired by one Guthi. Mohan Rao who is the grand father of the plaintif, defendants 2 and 3 and father i.e., first defendant of plaintif, D1 and

D3. The said Guthi. Mohana Rao died intestate at about 25 years back, since then the plaintif along with the defendants enjoying the item Nos.

1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in joint, but being a Kartha of undivided Hindu family the first defendant used to managing the item

Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, since long time the

PJCJ, CHIRALA 46 OS.NO. 206/2012 plaintif personally and through elders, demanded the 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties, the 1st defendant even after admitting her share promised to partition the schedule mentioned properties but did not do so far and all the trails made by the plaintif personally and through mediators for amicable partition of Item NO.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties provide futile.

28) Even when written statements of D1 and D2 and adoption memo for D2 and filed and additional written statement of Defendant No.5, 7 adopting additional written statement adopted and on behalf of the defendant NO.4 and 6. Admittedly, the relationship between the plaintif and defendants No.1 to 3, and other defendants. This defendant further would submits that on the request of Defendant NO.1 / grandfather of this defendant, the plaintif got married to her son to this defendant, the plaintif is very well aware that her son is having illegal intimacy with another woman, deceitfully shielded the said fact. The plaintif is an unchaste woman, who created dreadful atmosphere in this defendant’s family and instigated her son to harass this defendant with cruel acts and subsequently necked out this defendant and her minor son from the matrimonial house, plaintif got married her son to that lady without the concern of this defendant, and left them on road. Since then having no other go the defendant No.1 being the grandfather, being absolute owner of item of the property, he secured a part of his house property by way of executed a register will and the recitals revels that he ofered shelter and maintenance to this defendant, since then till now this defendant with her minor son are residing in the house and eking out her lively hood. Having no other go, this defendant was constrained to file a

PJCJ, CHIRALA 47 OS.NO. 206/2012 private complaint and also maintenance on the file of Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Chirala both C.C.NO.290/2011 and MC.NO.2/2009 is still

pending. This defendants further would submits that, the son of the plaintif as well of the plaintif conspired together and dishonestly, invented false in facts, under the leaches of law / act, she fraudulently she got filed this suit causing annoyance to all the defendants. The plaintif is very well aware that the A schedule properties was bequeath by defendant NO.1, along with his brothers legally enforced through will in the year 1993, the defendant herself admitted in her cross examination that the property was partitioned among the surviving successors of deceased Mohan Rao, as such this defendant’s grand father / defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties, being the absolute owner he is having absolute / ample right to transfer his properties on his own accord legally. Necessaries of the family, on knowing the said fact, intentionally misleaded the court of justice representing that the properties are joint property and the plaintif is having right over it, in fact, the plaintif has no right, charge over the plaint schedule properties at any point of time in any manner.

The defendant further would submits that the 1st defendant being the absolute owner of the properties he executed a will on 09-07-2012 (vide document NO.104/BK.3/2012) in favour of his grand son i.e., defendant

NO.7 and 6th defendant, i.e., part of item No.2, R.C.C roofed house with meets and bounds. The said original document was already filed by defendant No.1 as document NO.5, as the attester of the will is still alive, the said document was not marked as exhibit, the court may be pleased to consider the contents of the documents during the evidence. Since then this defendant is in possession of the said property with the concern / permission of the defendant NO.1. This defendant reserves

PJCJ, CHIRALA 48 OS.NO. 206/2012 her right to resides continuously in part of the item NO.2 of the plaint schedule property. If the plaintif denies the conveyance filed by the defendant No.1, the suit is bad for non joinder of proper parties to the suit.

29) However, the Defendant No.7 stating that this defendant grand son of the first defendant worked at Pune that in the year, 2012 in at that time the grant father of this defendant / D1 fell in sick, sufered with heart disease as well as his family fell in finance crises, under the pathetic condition of, this defendant looked of and spend amounts, as good enough to meet his legal necessities, the defendant / grandfather being the absolute owner of the property he sold item NO.1 of the property as alleged in plaint schedule property to this defendant under a registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012 vide document NO.2908/2012 by received the consideration amount. The said document was already filed along with the written statement filed by the 1st defendant and the same was marked as Ex.B5, it may be read as a part and parcel of this written statement. Since the date of purchase of the item NO.1 of the schedule property, this defendant and his parents that is defendant No.2 and his wife are is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. His father being the Karth of this defendant, he paid the house tax in his name since then till now. This defendant further would submits that, this defendant due to non satisfaction of the job, he incline to continued further studies, being the absolute owner of the item NO.1 of the plaint schedule property, on that, he took loan from one Karna

Laksha Rao by secured the register sale deed under a Registered

Mortgage deed dated 13-08-2012, and completed his further studies.

The Registered Mortgage deed is herewith filed as document NO.1 kind

PJCJ, CHIRALA 49 OS.NO. 206/2012 perusal of this hon’ble court. After completion of his studies, he got job at Chennai and later repaid the Mortgage loan amount and obtained proper receipt from the said Karna Laksha Rao. The receipt dated 03-02- 2014 is herewith filed as document NO.2 for your honours kind perusal.

This defendant further would submits that, the plaintif herself admitted in the evidence of, established that, the division of properties among the co-parceners with meets and bounds and took the possession of their respective allotted shares, the admissions need not be proved. The averment in the plaintif and defendants and contending to the evidence of DW1 and 2 contra to the same.

30) With respect to the natural of the property, the pleadings of the plaintif very with the evidence of PW1. She clearly admitted that the defendant NO.1l who is her father D2 and D3 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the said fact was admitted by Dw.4 about the plaintif took place among the shares of the such property was neglected to their grand father by name Guthi Mohan Rao.

Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to her paternal grate grand father Guthi Sambaiah and her father got succeeded schedule property herein from Guthi Sambaiah. Before filing this case, she has issued legal notices to defendants demanding partition of suit schedule property. However, PW1 admitted in her cross-examination, that Ex.B1f partition took plaint in the year 2012, the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. But since, she has no right over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing suit of the suitl as already partition taken place, after in such partition, her father i.e., D1 (Dw.1) Purnachandra Rao, Venkata Subba Rao are in possession in their respective share filed to them separately. One Gutti

PJCJ, CHIRALA 50 OS.NO. 206/2012

Mohan Rao is her paternal grand father. One Sambaiah is her paternal great grand father and she does not know he died. The wife of

Sambaiah pre-deceased him. Sambaiah had no brothers but had two sisters by blood but she does not know their respective names. The said sisters of Sambaiah also died. She does not know how her paternal grand father Sambaiah got acquired suit schedule properties i.e., Items 1 and 2. Sambaiah had three sons namely 1) Gutti Mohan Rao 2) Basava

Lingam and 3) Kota Subba Rao. Gutti Mohan Rao had three sons and one daughter, they are 1) Gutti Suryanarayana (D1) 2) Gutti Purnaiah @

Purnachandra Rao 3) Venkata Subba Rao @ Chitti and 4) Audilakshmi (daughter). The sons of Sambaiah in the year 1965 itself got partitioned their ancestral properties by virtue of partition deed dated 07-11-1965.

The above said sons of Sambaiah never got partitioned ancestral properties but her father and other legal heirs i.e., Gutti Purnaiah,

Venkata Subba Rao and their legal heirs only got partitioned ancestral properties, but she cannot say when such partition efected among them. She got married at the age of 18 years and that the above said partition was taken place after her marriage, after such partition her father, Purnachandra Rao, Venkata Subba Rao are in possession in their respective shares fell to them separately. The legal heirs of Basava

Lingam and Kota Subba Rao also got partitioned when partition efected in between her father Gutti Purnaiah and Venkata Subba Rao and that the legal heirs of Sambaiah got partitioned ancestral properties long back on 07-11-1965 by virtue of partition deed by metes and bounds and ever since the legal heirs of Sambaiah have been in possession and enjoyment over their respective shares. The share fell to Mohan Rao by virtue of partition deed dated 07-11-1965 got equally partitioned by his sons including her father subsequently. One Lalithamba is the wife of

PJCJ, CHIRALA 51 OS.NO. 206/2012 her paternal grand father Mohan Rao and the said Lalithamba got some properties from her husband Mohan Rao and such property was bequeathed by her to her three sons including her father by virtue of a will dated 21-01-1993. She does not know whether defendant No.1 and 2 got filed copy of will dated 21-01-1993 and the alleged properties in item LA of will dated 21-01-1993 is the property shown in the suit which fell towards the share of her father Mohan Rao. House of one Dogiparthy

Hymavathi situated on the eastern side of item No.1 of plaint schedule.

She cannot say assessment number of item NO.1 of the plaint schedule and that one Purnachandra Rao is not eastern boundary owner either to item NO.1 or item No.2.

31) Subsequently, on 04-04-2017 PW1 is present and sworn before court her for continuation of cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendants. Since the PW1 admitted that Ex.B1 partition took place among the shown as ancestors property under partition list dated 02.11.1965 as such admitted fact need not be proved that one Gutti

Vijayalakshmi is her mother and she died at about 2 years ago. She could not attend her funerals. One Gutti Venkata Subba Raois the younger brother of her father and that she know one Gutti Ram Mohan

Rao resident of their locality. She know that defendant in his written statement averred that her father said to have executed a will dated 09- 07-2012 in favour of his wife and children. She does not go through such contents of will so far. She know one Utla Lakshmi Kumari, who is her niece and that one Utla Lakshmi Kumari is also her daughter-in-law.

One Guntur Bhavani is the daughter of her elder brother and sister of above said Utla Lakshmi Kumari. She cannot say door number of item

NO.1 of the suit schedule property. The survey number of item NO.1 is

PJCJ, CHIRALA 52 OS.NO. 206/2012 1/06 and that Utla Lakshmi Kumari is not residing in item NO.1 of schedule property. One Gutti Venkateswarlu/ Defendant NO.2 and his wife are residing in item NO.2. Item NO.2 consists of ACC and RCC roofed houses. She does not know who is the southern boundary owner

RCC roofed building / item NO.2. She does not know the contents of sale deed dated 09-07-2012 got filed by defendants NO.1 and 2. One

Gutti Poornaiah is residing on the Northern side of ACC roofed house it is part and parcel of item NO.2. She does not know who is the eastern boundary owner of item NO.2 and that her father sold away item NO.2 of schedule property to one P.Venkata Mallikarjuna by virtue of sale deed

dated 09-07-2012 and that the suit schedule boundaries for both items 1

and 2 got mentioned. She has shown boundaries for items 1 and 2 which were in existence at about ten long years ago. Witness had voluntaries that at present there maybe chances for variations in the said boundaries and that ever since that date of 09-07-2012, one Gutti

Venkata Mallikarjuna has been in possession and enjoyment over item

No.2 of suit schedule and that the present suit for partition is not maintainable since her father got succeeded item NO.1 and 2 of schedule property by virtue of will and he being absolute owner in turn executed will bequeathing such items 1 and 2 in favour of his wife and children and that she filed to take vengeance against her daughter-in- law Utla Lakshmi Kumari as she got filed a criminal case against her in

AJCJ, Chirala and that no any property was given to her younger sister

Parvathi / D3 herein.

32) No iota of the evidence except PW1 oral evidence as there is no other evidence and shows that the documents to plaintif and defendants resided jointly enjoyed the plaint schedule property as on the

PJCJ, CHIRALA 53 OS.NO. 206/2012 date of filing of the suit. Since the plaintif got married to her son to this defendant, the plaintif is very well aware that her son is having illegal intimacy with another woman, deceitfully shielded the said fact and that the plaintif is an unchaste woman, who created dreadful atmosphere in this defendant’s family and instigated her son to harass this defendant with cruel acts and subsequently necked out this defendant and her minor son from the matrimonial house, plaintif got married her son to that lady without the concern of this defendant, and left them on road.

Since then having no other go the defendant No.1 being the her father and being absolute owner of item of the property, he secured a part of his house property by way of executed a register will and the recitals revels that he ofered shelter and maintenance to this defendant, since then till now this defendant with her minor son are residing in the house and eking out her lively hood. Having no other go, this defendant was constrained to file a private complaint and also maintenance on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala both C.C.NO.290/2011 and

MC.NO.2/2009 is still pending. This defendant further would contended

that, the son of the plaintif as well of the plaintif conspired together and dishonestly, invented false in facts, under the leaches of law / act, she fraudulently she got filed this suit causing annoyance to all the defendants. The plaintif is very well aware that the A schedule properties was bequeath by defendant NO.1, along with his brothers legally enforced through will in the year 1993, the defendant (DW.4) herself admitted in her cross examination that the Ex.B1 property was partitioned among the surviving successors of deceased Mohan Rao, as such this defendant’s father / defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties, being the absolute owner he is having absolute / ample right to transfer his properties on his own accord

PJCJ, CHIRALA 54 OS.NO. 206/2012 legally. Necessaries of the family, on knowing the said fact, intentionally misleaded the court of justice representing that the properties are joint property and the plaintif is having right over it.

33) Since, the PW1 submitted that her father got succeeded plaint schedule property through his grand father the Gutti. Sambaiah who is great grand father of plaintif herein, the plaintif has to establish that the said disputed item NO.1 and 2 schedule property not yet partitioned even till today share to the father of plaintif who succeeded the same through his ancestral property who is the Kartha and Manager of the co- parcener property no evidence is adduced in this regard, except the oral evidence PW1 and no other document marked through her. PW1 had clearly stated that in her cross examination, she does not know her paternal grand father Sambaiah got acquired suit schedule property i.e.,

Item No.1 and 2 and the said Sambaiah had three sons namely, 1) Guthi

Mohan Rao, 2) Basava Lingam and 3) Kota Subba Rao and Guthi Mohan

Rao had three sons and one daughter, they are 1) Gutti Suryanarayana (D1) 2) Gutti Purnaiah @ Purnachandra Rao 3) Venkata Subba Rao @

Chitti and 4) Audilakshmi (daughter). So, as per partition list the sons of

Sambaiah in the year 1965 itself got partitioned their ancestral properties by virtue of partition deed dated 07-11-1965. The above said sons of Sambaiah never got partitioned ancestral properties but her father (DW.1) (D1) and other legal heirs i.e., Gutti Purnaiah, Venkata

Subba Rao and their legal heirs only got partitioned ancestral properties, but she cannot say when such partition efected among them. She got married at the age of 18 years and that the above said partition was taken place after her marriage, after such partition her father,

PJCJ, CHIRALA 55 OS.NO. 206/2012

Purnachandra Rao, Venkata Subba Rao are in possession in their respective shares fell to them separately.

34) Further more the plaintif did not produce any one of witness to support of her share and documents to support of her case, as the item

Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties acquired by one Guthi. Mohan Rao who is the grand father of the plaintif, defendants 2 and 3 and father of first defendant and not yet partitioned till now for kept the oral evidence of PW1, no other evidence Guthi. Mohana Rao died intestate at about 25 years back, since then the available on record to showing that the said plaintif along with the defendants enjoying the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in joint, but being a Kartha of undivided Hindu family the first defendant used to managing the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties.

35) As already said supra, no evidence is let in to show that the existence of Joint family property among the plaintif and defendants

No.1 to 3 and they are living jointly / joint possession and enjoyment of the present plaint schedule properties. Even, non examining of the plaintif’s case, remaining defendants plaintif side witness it fact to the ancestral property among the plaintif and defendants 1 and 2 are about the jointly existence and constructive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per property list shows that the A schedule property to them to Guthi Mohan Rao and (B) and (c) schedule alloted their respective shares shown to his properties as on the date of partition list dated 02-11-1965. The Genealogy filed by both parties shown that the Gutti Purna Chandra Rao @ Purnaiah and one Gutti

PJCJ, CHIRALA 56 OS.NO. 206/2012

Venkata Subba Rao is the own brothers of the Defendant NO.1 also not added property and necessary parties suit and they are also claiming their respective shares of the item NO.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. Defendant NO.1 succeeded through his father i.e., ancestral property covered under registered partition deed dated 02-11-1965 vide document NO.2457/65, Book NO.1 (Volume NO.3) is herewith filed as document No.1 for your honours kind perusal. In according to the partition list, ABC schedule property immediately soon after partition, the sharers are succeeded their shares and enjoyed the same with division of status and were in the possession of their respective share of properties without any interruption. Later, the mother of this defendant i.e., Gutti Lalithaba executed a registered will in favour of her three sons and specified boundaries. Since the PW1 admitted in her cross examination Ex.B1 partition list took place among the shares of her

Ancestors and as such admitted fact need not be proved. So, there is no

Joint family property i.e., existed between the plaintif, Defendants as on the date of filing of the suit. Thus, the liable failed to established by the plaintif.

36) Now the burden it would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the defendants under Exs. B1 to B8 marked, to established that the defendant No.1 (DW1) produced Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the partition deed dated dated 02-11-1965, Ex.B2 is the original registered will dated 31-01-1993, Ex.B3 is the Encumbrance certificate dated 29-10-2012, Ex.B4 is the certificate issued by

Panchayath Secretary Gram Panchayath Desaipeta and Ex.B5 is the

Registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012 marked through DW1. As seen from the partition deed dated 02-11-1965, the recitals of the said

PJCJ, CHIRALA 57 OS.NO. 206/2012 partition deed dated 02-11-1965 the ABC schedule property i.e., immovable property partitioned among shares of the plaintif and defendants ancestors namely Gutti Mohan Rao A and B schedule property father to share to G.Kota Subba Rao, and ‘C’ schedule property father to share ancestors Guthi Mohan Rao equal distributed to them during the life time G.Mohan Rao who is the father of the plaintif herein as specified the A schedule property to the share of one Gutti Mohan Rao

Item NO.1 (roofed house) Desaipeta village, Vetapalem Mandal, assessment NO.2601 NO.15/42 Kavata number roofed house specified boundaries:- East – Perneti Onkaramu Devana Raghavulu Taluka site 8 yards, South – Bandaru Naga Basavaiah, Gutti China Basava Lingam site 7 yards, West – Gutti Koti Nagulu Taluka house Panchalonu site 8 bounded by North – D schedule 1, 2 equally distributed of value of Rs.

8,00/- later remaining present are property specified schedule A of partition list dated 02-11-1965 vide document No.2457/1965 and also boundaries said in the A schedule towards surroundings of the northern side of window of roofed house with value for Rs. 800/-. A schedule property partition of the share dated 02-11-1965 vide document

NO.2457/65, Book NO.1 (Volume NO.3) also specified boundaries and distributed use i.e., value for Rs. 1250/- and out of also distributed of the item NO.2 schedule property namely Basava Lingam who is branch of

Guthi Mohan Rao i.e., B schedule property Item NO.1 of the schedule properties of the property lease dated 11-02-1965 vide document

NO.2457/65 there is no dispute of the C schedule properties of the palama share K.Venakata Subba Rao distributed among three equal respective shares to them as per specified boundaries under partition deed dated 02-11-1965.

PJCJ, CHIRALA 58 OS.NO. 206/2012

37) Defendant No.1 (DW.1) had marked Ex.B2 through him. Ex.B2 is the registered will dated 31-01-1993 marked through him since the document serial NO.3 is xerox copy and is rejected for marking the same result. As seen from the certified copy of registered will dated 21-01- 1993 executed by the Gutti Lalithamba who is the wife of Gutti Mohan

Rao father of the 1st defendant and grand father of the plaintif herein.

As seen from the certified copy of the will dated 21-01-1993, it appears that the during the life time of Gutti Lalithamba who is the wife of Gutti

Mohan Rao executed said will in favour her three sons namely Gutti

Suryanarayana D1, Gutti Purna Chandra Rao @ Purnaiah third G.Venkata

Subba Rao is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 21-01- 1993 also mentioned by after her life time, ancestral property palana two shares to they are elder son name Gutti Surya Narayana i.e., hrein B schedule property palana to the second son Purna Chandra Rao @

Purnaiah and C schedule property third son namely Venkata Subab Rao and the said Ex.B2 is the xerox copy of certified copy of the documents and the same is rejected by the court for marking. Ex.B3 is the encumbrance certificate marked through DW1 dated 29-10-2012. On perusal of Ex.B3 is the encumbrance certificate dated 29-10-2012, it appears that the defendant No.1 (DW.1) who is the father of plaintif having applied certificate giving particulars registered acts under mentioned in S.NO. 115/3, House No.16-79 extent of 237 sq. yards, Built 50 sft. , North -9 feet Joint Bata feet 40, South- joint Bata and Sajja

Subba Ratnam site feet 39, East-Somisetty Veera Prasanjaneyulu site feet 654, West-Pinjala Nagendradu site and Satram Anjaneyulu feet 54 stands in the name of Mr. Guthi Venkata Mallikarjuna. The certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary Grama Panchayath, Desaipeta.

PJCJ, CHIRALA 59 OS.NO. 206/2012

38) As seen from the Ex.B4 is the certificate / declaration issued by

Grama Panchayath, Official Secretary Desaipeta village stating that Sri

Gutti Lalithamba (late), W/o. Mohan Rao died on 12-06-1995 and to that efect the declaration certificate issued by the office and as such the

Ex.B5 is the registered deed dated 09-07-2012 marked through DW.1.

As seen from the Ex.B5 is the dated 09-07-2012 executed by the Gutti

Surya Narayana i.e., DW1 in favour of D.7 (DW.5) of Guthi. Mallikharjuna

Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 27 years, Ramannapeta Village,

Desaipeta, Vetapalem mandal towards part of the schedule property in

S.NO.115/3 under block NO.16,D.NO.16-79 specified with boundaries:-

East – Somisetty Veera Prasannanjaneyulu site of 54 feets, South – Joint

Bata Sajja Subbartnam site 39 feets, West – Pinjala Nagendrudu site

Satram Anjaneyulu site 54 yards and North – 9 feets width joint bata 4 feets. As seen from the plaint schedule property item No.1 and 2 of the schedule property there is a part of properly covered under tallied with item NO.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property under the schedule property under Ex.B5.

39) Ex.B6 is the registered mortgage deed dated 13-08-2012 which marked through DW.5. On perusal of Ex.B6 is the mortgage deed dated 13-08-2012 executed by the Defendant NO.7 Guthi. Mallikharjuna Rao,

S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 26 years, extent of Desaipeta,

Vetapalem Mandal, in favour of the Karna Laksha Rao, S/o. Swamulu,

R/o. Desaipeta Village, Vetapalem Mandal on 13-08-2012 for valid consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- for his education expenses under mortgage deed dated 13.08.2012 vide document NO.3761/2012. As per the schedule property specified herein in S.NO. 115/3 and in D.NO.16-79 and specific boundaries schedule property herein East – Somisetty

PJCJ, CHIRALA 60 OS.NO. 206/2012

Veera Prasannanjaneyulu site of 54 feet, South – Joint Bata Sajja

Subbartnam site 39 feet, West – Pinjala Nagendrudu site Satram

Anjaneyulu site 54 feets and North – 9 feet width joint bata 40 feets.

Ex.B7 is the receipt dated 03-02-2014 issued by Karna Laksha Rao, S/o.

K.Swamulu, Desaipeta, Vetapalem Mandal to the Gutti Venkata

Mallikarjuna, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Ramannapeta, Desaipeta Village,

Vetapalem mandal, marked through the defendant NO.5 (DW.5) and

Ex.B8 is marked through DW.6. As seen from the Ex.B8 registered will

dated 09-07-2012 executed by the Defendant No.1 (DW.1) in favour of

the D5 and D6 namely Gutti. Lakshmi Kumari, D6-G.Bhavani) as per schedule of the property specified boundaries in S.NO.115/3 block No.15,

D.NO.15-181, Specified boundaries East – 9 feet width of joint Bata,

South – Nasaka Koteswara Rao boundary - Galli Bata, North – 9 feet width of joint bata.

40) It is settled law that any member of the joint family property and determination of own earning source of income proper not acquired in the name an individual presumption of joint family not rebutted. The property acquired is presumed to be joint family property. Which is decision report in AIR 1993, Karnataka Dandappa Rudrappa Hampali 148 in between and others Vs., Renukappa alias Revanappa and others wherein it was the initial burden is to establish the existence are joint family property capable of being from could have been acquired and it is not sufficient to shown that the joint family of the nucleus from which the disputed property may have been acquired. So, it is clear that unless the existence of joint family as well as the joint possession of plaintif can not claim any share in the plaint schedule property which was already partitioned among the shares of the plaintif’s grand father

PJCJ, CHIRALA 61 OS.NO. 206/2012 and his brother under partition dated 02-11-1965 possessed of the same assets of the joint family may have forfeited of the property is established. ABCD items of the schedule property was already schedule to the respective shares of Gutti Mohan Rao, and his brothers under partition list dated 02-11-1965.

41) Hence, this court is concludes and holds that the plaintif had utterly failed to established that plaint schedule property is joint and constructive possession of the plaintif and Defendants No.1 to 3 and the same has established that the plaintif is not entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share and defendants have established that the plaint schedule property already partition through plaintif and defendants 1 to 3 ancestors under partition list dated 02-11-1965 and later DW.1 got his share by birth as a coparceners as per partition list

dated 02-11-1965. Item NO.1 and 2 are already partition among

sharers of (Guttii. Mohan Rao) and it was not at all joint family property as contended by the plaintif it was enjoyed as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court concludes and holds that the plaintif has failed established that the plaint schedule property is a joint family property and they have constructive possession along with other defendants 1 to 3 and as such holds that this court holds that the plaintif is not entitled for partition and of 1/4th share in separate possession each in plaint schedule property as per by her.

Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintif and issue No.2 and 3 inter connected with each other also answered against plaintif.

42) Additional Issues:

1) Whether the contents of the registered will dated 09-07-2012 vide document NO.104/B.K.3/2012 executed by D1 in favour of D5 and D6 is

PJCJ, CHIRALA 62 OS.NO. 206/2012 true and valid pertaining to dwelling house of the suit property having been bequeathed in favour of D5 and D6, and has vested to them absolutely?

Having gone through the record, it is crystal clear PW1 admitted in her cross examination that the suit schedule property to their father and after such partition the DW.1 first defendant i.e., the father of the plaintif and his bother i.e., Purna Chandra Rao, Venkata Subba Rao in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares fact to them specified under partition list dated 02-11-1965. Thus, are the properties are partitioned and allotted among them, the respective suit schedule property are deliver to the share of list document with meets and bounds, it becomes his fact a claimed properties being absolute owner of the property, the DW.1 defendant NO.1 has rightful to alienate the property by executed a registered will in favour of his wife limited and vested to his grand daughters i.e., D5 and D6.

43) As seen from the registered will dated 09-07-2012 marked through DW6 executed by the first defendant in favour of the Defendant

No.5 and 6. PW1 cross examination clearly admitted that her father got acquired suit schedule property from his ancestors and his father got

Immovable property on his name i.e., A schedule property as per his share under Ex.B1 and soon after they are possession of the 1st defendant, the plaintif father and Venkata Subba Rao and Purna

Chandra Rao father to their respective shares under registered partition deed dated 09-07-2012 as per respectively. As per ones property partition and alloted among the shares and respective to the suit schedule property and D.1 share of the first defendant metes and

PJCJ, CHIRALA 63 OS.NO. 206/2012 bounds well acquired property and being absolute owner of the plaint schedule property D.1 Gutti Surya Narayana right to the alienate the property by executed registered will dated 09-07-2012 in favour of D5 and D6 as a limited higher by virtue aforesaid resisted D5 and D6 of the share of the properties and their become absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, registered will dated 09-07-2012 executed by the defendant as he got right it was executed by the D.1 in favour of

D5 and D6 of the suit schedule property during his life time and in favour of D5 and D6 and subsequently he was died 23-07-2019, thereafter the will came into force and D5 and D6 are their share of the property and they became absolute owners of the item NO.2 of his dwelling house the suit schedule property. Accordingly, Issues Additional issue NO.1 is answered against the plaintif.

44)Additional issue No.2:

2) Whether the contents of registered sale deed executed by D1 in favour of D7 i.e., Gutti Mallikarjuna, dated 09-07-2012 vide document

NO.2908/2012 regarding the schedule property is valid, true and vested and absolute owner of the same?

45) With respect to the second additional receipt that since Dw1 produced the documentary evidence and marked the same through him.

As seen from the Ex.B5 registered salel dated 09-07-2012 under Ex.B5.

It appears that it was executed by Gutti Surya Narayana, S/o. Gutti

Mohan Rao, aged about 74 years, Desaipeta Village, Vetapalem Mandal, (DW.1) in favuor of Gutti Venkata Mallikharjuna, S/o. Gutti

Venkateswarlu, R/o. Desaipeta Village , Vetapalem Mandal, in the evidence of PW1 she categorically admitted that her father had

PJCJ, CHIRALA 64 OS.NO. 206/2012 succeeded the plaint schedule property from Gutti Sambaiah and the suit schedule property was vested their father and said partitioned i.e.,

D1. Who is plaintif father (PW.1) Purna Chandra Rao and other respective share possession and enjoyment of shares and enjoyment of the same separately. So, PW1 had categorically admitted that her grand father got ‘A’ schedulek property under partition list dated 07-11- 1965 her father succeeded schedule properly Guthi Surayanarayana through his father as per partition list dated 07-11-1965 and in possession and enjoyment of respective share separately. As per partition list dated 07-11-1965 the property was become self acquired property of the defendant No.1 having right to alienate the entire property under Ex.B5 registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012 in favour of the Defendant NO.7, in respective of the suit schedule property for his amicable Medical needs.

46) Since PW1 admitted in his evidence that the suit schedule property was vested to the share of their father DW1 and after such partitioned that the list defendant (DW1) i.e., the plaintif’s father

Purnachandra Rao and Venkata Subba Rao are in possession their respective shares fell to them separately. As such one of the property it become his entire property by executed a registered sale deed and

Exs.B5 sale deed in favour of D.7 to the share of the first defendant, himself acquired property, in his old age for his medical expenses and necessities as D7 looked after his needs and Defendant No.1 having right to alienate his entire property. DW4 had admitted in his cross examination grand son D1 by name Guthi Mallikarjuna i.e., D7 altered all his need of D1 during his life time and ought old aged of D1 has no income and PW1 and Dw4 also admitted that they have looked after D1

PJCJ, CHIRALA 65 OS.NO. 206/2012 welfare for his Medical Expenses for his old age. Accordingly, this

additional Issue NO.2 is also answered in favour of the defendants.

47) Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court concludes and holds that the plaintif had failed to prove that the plaintif lived jointly along with and as a joint family property and defendants 2 and 3.

Since the plaint schedule property is treated as self acquired property of

Defendant NO.1 who succeeded through his father under partition list

dated 07-11-1965 and as such the plaintif is not entitled for partition

and separate possession of any share in the plaint schedule property and further defendants clearly established for the same Exs.B1 to B8 respectively. Accordingly, this Additional Issue NO.2 also answered in favour of the defendants against the plaintif. It an be said that suit is liable to be dismissed without costs.

48) Issue NO.6: To what relief?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1: Utla Venkata Subbaravamma.

For Defendant:

DW1: Gutti Suryanarayana

DW2: Gutti Sambasiva Rao

DW3: Savanam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (Document Writer)

PJCJ, CHIRALA 66 OS.NO. 206/2012

DW4: Gutti Parvathi

DW5: Gutti Mallikarjuna Rao

DW6: Utla Lakshmi Kumari.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:--Nil-

For Defendant :

Ex.B1: Certified copy of partition list dated 02-11-1965.

Ex.B2: Original registered will dated 31-01-1993.

Ex.B3: Encumbrance certificate dated 29-10-2012.

Ex.B4: Panchayath Secretary Gram Panchayath, Desai peta.

Ex.B5: Registered sale deed dated 09-07-2012.

Ex.B6: Registered mortgage deed dated 13-08-2012 (marked through

Dw5).

Ex.B7: Receipt dated 03-02-2014 (marked through Dw.5).

Ex.B8: Registered will dated 09-07-2012 executed by D1 in favour of D5 and D6 (marked through Dw.6).

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J,CHIRALA.

Note :- The Stenographer of this Court is hereby instructed to upload the copy of Judgment on Official Web Site of Honourable District Court,

Ongole as well as C.I.S. Software forthwith as per the e-filing guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Suo-moto Writ (Civil) No.5 of 2020 vide order, dt. 06.04.2020.

Fair Judgment

PJCJ, CHIRALA 1OS.NO. 208/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

Wednesday this the 13th day of April, 2022

OS.NO. 208/2019

Between:

Chebrolu Madhavi, W/o. Venkata Suresh Babu, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Chirala Town, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintif

Vs.,

Arvapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Business, Flot No.402, Vutukuri Ramaneeyam, Swarna Road, Business, R/o.Chirala town, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on 08-02-2022 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri T.J. Sai Babu, learned counsel for plaintif, and of Sri. P.V.Chowdary, learned counsel for the defendant, and upon being treated as “Heard” and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

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

01) This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,24,833/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06-07-2016 executed by the defendant in her favour, for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 21% P.A, and for subsequent interest and costs.

PJCJ, CHIRALA 2OS.NO. 208/2019

02) The main averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows, the plaintif would submits that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintif on 06-07- 2016 for his business purpose and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 21% per annum either to the plaintif or her transferee on demand and executed a promissory note with his own handwriting on the self-same day for Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintif. The original promissory note is filed herewith and the contents therein may be read as part of this plaint. The plaintif further would submits that subsequently inspite of repeated demands made by her personally and through others to the defendant to repay the said promissory note due amount with interest. However, the defendant did not choose to repay the same by taking time after time on some pretext or other. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of above promissory note due amount with interest and costs. Since, the defendant is a business man, the debt relief laws are not applicable to him.

03) The defendant had filed his written statement making a general and specific denial of plaint allegations and further Inter- alia, contending that all the allegations made in the plaint are false and the suit is not maintainable under law and most of averments in the plaint are all false, except that those which are not specifically admitted herein and plaintif shall prove to strict proof of the same. Originally, this defendant would submit that neither

PJCJ, CHIRALA 3OS.NO. 208/2019 transaction of so-called promissory note dated 06-07-2016 nor receiving of consideration under suit promissory note and that the plaintif has no cause of action to claim the suit amount and that this defendant not borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- or nay other amounts from the plaintif either on 06-07-2016 or on any other day. It is further contentions of the defendnat that he

Defendant not executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif and that the plaintif suppressed the facts and filed this suit, she is only namely lender. Under the thumb of plaintif’s husband viz. Chebrolu Venkata Suresh Babu the present suit is filed. The defendant further would submit that he did various business in optimistic manner, to meet his business needs he mobilized funds from the various creditors and crafty money lenders, ultimately he sustained losses and that business of this defendant is turned from bad to worst. The liabilities of defendant are become more then his assets. When the defendant sufers with financial doldrums, some of the creditors obtained signature on blank promissory notes, cheques and that some of creditors forcibly obtained promissory note with excess amounts with own handwriting of defendant, in their names and their men. Later, the defendant filed insolvency petition in I.P.3/2017 on the file of

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Court Parchur to declare him as

insolvent etc., and the same is pending.

It is further contentions of the defendant that one Chebrolu

Venkata Suresh Babu is also one of the respondent (R.45) in the

PJCJ, CHIRALA 4OS.NO. 208/2019 said I.P.3/2017. Prior to filing of the I.P.3/17 he also obtained five promissory notes from the defendant by forcibly and coercion, in his name and his wife and other family members. The husband of plaintif herein also filed in OS.NO.209/2019 on the file of this court basing on the alleged promissory note dated 06-07-2016. He also filed in CC.NO.27/2018 under the penal provisions of N.I.Act against the defendant taking the advantage of custody of promissory notes, which are obtained forcibly from the defendant, plaintif and her husband resorted this unrighteous suit to get wrongful gain.

All the attempts made by the plaintif and her husband are black mail tactics. It is further contended that this defendant has no facial acquaintance with the plaintif, attester and scribe on alleged suit pronote even till now, so the alleged suit transaction far from the truth. It is further contentions of the defendant that the allegations suit pronote was devoid of alleged suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and that it is not enforceable under law. The alleged suit promissory note and obtained by the plaintif’s husband forcibly and coercion and it is a void instrument.

This defendant reserves his right to take necessary penal action against the plaintif, attesters and scribe. All other allegations are hereby denied and that the suit filed by the plaintif is devoid of any merits and plaintif put to strict proof of the same. This defendant has no liable to discharge the suit debt and that in the light of above factum the endeavor of the plaintif squarely amounts to sheer abuse of process of law. There are no merits in

PJCJ, CHIRALA 5OS.NO. 208/2019 the suit and the same is liable to be dismiss against the defendant with exemplary costs.

04) Basing on the above pleadings, this court has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of pronote amount with interest as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

05) On behalf of the plaintif, PW1 and PW2 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 on her behalf. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 is examined and no documents are marked through him, during the course of arguments the learned counsel for plaintif submitted written arguments. Heard for the learned counsel for the plaintif through the written arguments on behalf of the defendant is matter treated as heard. Inspite of sufficient opportunities availed by the defendant from the court, but he did not came forward to produce defense witnesses since long time, but no steps were taken.

06) The matter is taken as heard.

07)Issue No.1:

Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

PJCJ, CHIRALA 6OS.NO. 208/2019

08) It is clear from the written statement filed by the defendant, he has a taken plea of the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it is not enforceable under law, he did not executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif at any point of time and as such, suit one pronote is amount to material although. In fact Chebrolu Venkata Suresh Babu who is non other than husband of plaintif filed a present suit against this defendant.

The defendant would contended that through his written statement that he did various business in optimistic manner, to meet his business needs he mobilized funds from the various creditors and crafty money lenders, ultimately he caused sustained losses and that business of this defendant is turned from bad to worst. The liabilities of defendant are become more then his assets. When the defendant sufers with financial doldrums, some of the creditors obtained signature on blank promissory notes, cheques and that some of creditors forcibly obtained promissory note with excess amounts with own handwriting of defendant, in their names and their men. Later, the defendant filed insolvency petition I.P.3/2017 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Parchur to declare him as insolvent etc., and the same is pending. Further, the defendant had taken a plea of Ex.A1 suit pronote does not supported by consideration. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

PJCJ, CHIRALA 7OS.NO. 208/2019

09) In view of the said pleadings it can be said that to prove her case then only the burden would shifted to the defendant to prove his defense.

10) In order to established her case, she herself examined as

PW1 and that she had deposed in her chief on par with her pleadings and got the initial burden is upon the plaintif marked

Ex.A1 with her pleadings and got marked Ex.A1 on her behalf. In her cross examination, she stated that she is the housewife and that she knows the defendant herein personally and that the defendant doing business and also maintained hospital including maintaining beauty parlor. According to her, she does not know whether the defendant filed a I.P before the Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Chirala and that one Chebrolu Venkateswarlu is

residing at her house and that she does not know whether her husband filed a suit in OS.NO.209/2019 on the file of this court against the same defendant and that she does not know whether her husband shown as 45th respondent in IP on the file of Hon’ble

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur. According to her, she does not

know the details of her husband who filed cheque bounce case

before Addl., Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala. She denied that

she had suppressing details of cheque bounce case filed by her husband and that she is deposing falsely in order to get wrongful gain and that the defendant is doing so many business and due to loss of business. Witness had added that the defense approached her house for obtaining suit amount from her and as such she seen

PJCJ, CHIRALA 8OS.NO. 208/2019 him. He further denied that the defendant is heavy heavy debts from others and no other properties of defendant and there by he got filed debtors I.P insolvency petition before Honble Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Parchur to declare him an insolvent and same is

pending. She denied that herself and her husband got created

Ex.A1 and filed the same before this court. She stated that she did not legal notice to the defendant to demanding the suit amount.

She also denied that Ex.A1 suit pronote is not supported by consideration and as such her evidence is invalid in eye of Law and the attester is her relative attester of Ex.A1 is her relative and that himself and her husband with the help of attestor Siva Kumar

Ex.A1 created and filed the same before court against defendant in order to get wrongful gain.

10) To support of her case the plaintif also examined one of the attester of Ex.A1 as PW2. In his cross examination, the said PW2 has deposed on par with the evidence of PW1 in all material aspects. The PW2 had stated that he doing business and that

Ex.A1 suit pronote transaction took place at the house of PW1 and that teh PW1 lend an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to the defendant and he does not known in which purpose the defendant borrowed said amount from PW.1. According to him, he does not remember whether contents of Ex.A1. He stated that he studied up to 10th class. He denied that he was not present at the time of transaction on Ex.A1 and that he studied upto 10 class. He was not present at the transactions an Ex.A1 and that he is deposing falsely in order

PJCJ, CHIRALA 9OS.NO. 208/2019 to help her claim. He stated that the defendant is doing finance business and as well as chit business and that he does not know whether the defendant due to loss of business and that he filed I.P on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur and that I.P filed by the defendant but know he is deposing false and that no transaction Ex.A1 took place and that the PW1 and her husband obtained empty pronotes along with cheque from the defendant and got filled up and subsequent filed the same before the court against the defendant in order to get wrongful gain.

11) On behalf of the defendant, he himself had examined as

DW1 and he had deposed in chief on par with his pleadings. In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not doing business at

Parchur at any point of time. Witness added that hoe residing at

Chirala and Parchur for some time. He stated that in the year 2014 to 2015 he resided at Parchur for some period and subsequently he stayed at Chirala for some time. Admittedly his address particulars and Aadhar card available at Chirala and that except his oral words no other documents placed before court with regards to the stayed at Parchur and that he filed I.P on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Parchur declared him as insolvent but not shown the

Ch. Madhavi as respondent in the said I.P i.e., PW1 and that he did not mentioned in his chief affidavit in which type of works done by him. He stated that he can not say in which type of business done and he caused loss of business. He further stated that one

Chebrole Venkata Suresh Babu obtained 4 or 5 promissory notes or

PJCJ, CHIRALA 10OS.NO. 208/2019 2 cheques from him by forcefully in the year 2016. He can not say the date and month of the forcefully obtained promissory notes and cheque from his signatures. He further admitted that he do not know who gave was report before the police station regarding to Chebrolu Venkata Suresh Babu obtained the cheques from him by forcefully. He also stated that one Chebrolu Venkata Suresh

Babu obtained his signatures on cheques from him and in corporate in legal notice. According to him, one Venkata Suresh

Babu obtained his signatures on blank pronotes. Admittedly Ex.A1 scribed by him and put his signature by way of forcefully and that the plaintif is wife of the Chebrolu Venkata Suresh Babu and that he have no dispute with plaintif. Witness adds that he never got acquainted with plaintif and that he does not know attester of

Ex.A1 and as on to day no disputes with him. He also admitted that he can say the remaining name of the persons who obtained promissory notes and cheques from him by way of forcefully. He also admitted that there are three suits are pending against him

before the Chirala courts. Witness adds that one I.P filed by him on

the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur and same is pending. He admitted that the husband of the plaintif also filed suit against him on the file of this court. Witness adds that the plaintif's husband filed cheque bonus case against him in

CC.NO.27/2018 on the file of Addl., Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Chirala and same is pending. He again admitted that he filed his written statement in the suit and as well as suit filed by the husband of the plaintif and contains of the written statements are

PJCJ, CHIRALA 11OS.NO. 208/2019 one and same. He denied that he borrowed the suit amount from the plaintif true and correct and that he is intentionally denying the suit claim in order to avoid suit debts.

12) It is clear from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, that their evidence with respect to the execution of the suit pronotes by the defence, and passage of consideration thereunder had remained consistent and it was not at all discredited in any manner by the defendant. Eventhough PW1 during her cross examination, she stated that she do not known whether her husband shown as respondent in IP on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court,

Parchur and that she does not know the details of her husband who filed cheque bounce case before Addl., Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Chirala. As seen from the evidence of DW1, he had a taken a specific plea of suit pronote (Ex.A1) material alteration and does not supported by consideration. DW.1 himself had admitted in his cross examination, Ex.A 1 scribe of him, and put his signature on

Ex.A1. He also admitted in his cross examination with Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Parchur and same is pending. But as on record, the

defendant did not filed the stage of the said IP filed by him and

Inspite of opportunities availed from the court he did not came forward to taken a steps to further proceed in this matter. It would be relevant to refer the suit pronote dated 06-07-2016. So, the evidence of PW1 clearly establish the transaction of Ex.A1 and as such discredited in any manner. The defendant also contended that the obtaining defendant signatures on empty promissory

PJCJ, CHIRALA 12OS.NO. 208/2019 notes and cheques the husband of plaintif i.e., Ex.A1. Ex.A1 suit promissory note on 06-07-2016 said to have executed by the defendant after borrowal not suit amount from the plaintif the PW2 are respectively. There is no visible change pen used for the same.

So, this aspect rules out the contention of the defendant that Ex.A1 was created and and was filled up later. Further it is contention of the defendant that the suit pronote is materially altered and as such Ex.A1 does not supported by consideration mentioned thereunder. But Ex.A1 shows that in favour of consideration of Rs.

2,00,000/-.

13) A perusal of suit promissory note and as well as line No.12 and Ex.A1 shows that there are no Ex.A1 realize out of the mentioned by the defendant in his written statement. A perusal of the signature in written statement with signature of the defendant in chief affidavit and cross examination regard the before the court, clearly shows that from the appearing to same to the nacked eye including with their since the defendant initially to be his signature on Ex.A1 in telugu language but areas given to the chief and cross examination of the defendant, he signature in English in shows which clear shows that contends of the defendant believe and trustworthy can be believe contended that the discharged by her passing support of consideration in all material altered.

14) As seen from the evidence of support oral evidence of proved that it is amount material alternation. If really suit

PJCJ, CHIRALA 13OS.NO. 208/2019 promissory note material altered and obtaining and empty and said he disputing signatures and other documents to obtaining comparisons present case of hand the defendant taken any steps provided in this matter. Inspite of sufficient opportunity granted from the court. During the cross examination of PW1, he admitted filed in I.P not was said I.P. PW1,he further cross examination one

Venkata Suresh Babu five promissory notes by way of forceable them. On perusal of the cross examination it is crystal clear that the he himself admitted that he did not given any did not promissory note Venkata Suresh Babu and obtaining promissory note and cheque running by way of forcible conduct of the defendant scribe in defendant in chief in written statement as well as promissory notes clearly goes against him. So, it can be said that the not by her.

15) In view of the above said discussion, it is clear from the evidence of PW1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif deal with supported by consideration. It can be also failed to established that the husband of the plaintif obtaining and empty suit promissory note and it was supported by subsequently material altered in his written statement and that not supported by consideration and Ex.A1 signature it can be said that in the presumption under Sec.118 of the negotiable Instrument Act 1881 and this court also Under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. Suit promissory note by consideration has mentioned therein. Hence,

PJCJ, CHIRALA 14OS.NO. 208/2019 the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintif against the defendant.

16)Issue No.2: Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit pronote amount with interest as prayed for?

Since, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif, holding that the suit promissory note supported by consideration therein.

So, it can be said that the plaintif is entitled for suit claim from the defendant as prayed for. Hence, this issue is answered.

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

17) Issue No.3:

To What relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay the plaintif for sum of Rs. 3,24,833/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% P.A., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% P.A., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintif:

PW1: Chebrolu Madhavai

PJCJ, CHIRALA 15OS.NO. 208/2019

PW2: M.Siva Kumar.

For Defendant :

DW1: Aravapalli Srinivasa Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note dated 06-07-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for sum of Rs.

2,00,000/-.

For Defendant :- Nil -

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J, CHIRALA.

Note :- The Stenographer of this court is hereby instructed to upload the copy of Judgment on Official Web Site of Honourable

District Court, Ongole as well as C.I.S. Software forthwith as per the e-filing guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Suo-moto Writ (Civil) No.5 of 2020 vide order, dt. 06.04.2020.

Fair Judgment

PJCJ, CHIRALA 16OS.NO. 208/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

Wednesday this the 13th day of April, 2022

OS.NO. 208/2019

Between:

Chebrolu Madhavi, W/o. Venkata Suresh Babu, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Chirala Town, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintif

Vs.,

Arvapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Business, Flot No.402, Vutukuri Ramaneeyam, Swarna Road, Business, R/o.Chirala town, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,24,833/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06-07-2016 executed by the defendant in her favour, for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 21% P.A, and for subsequent interest and costs.

Plaint presented on : 27-06-2019 Plaint filed on : 01-07-2019

Cause of Action :

Cause of action arose for the suit on 06-07-2016 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintif for his business purpose agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 21% per annum either to the plaintif or her order on demand and when the defendant executed promissory note with her own hand writing in favour of the plaintif on the self-same day for Rs.2,00,000/- and failed to repay the due amount with interest by taking time after time on some pretext or other and where the pronote transaction took place and plaintif and defendant residing at Chirala, Chiral Mandal is within the jurisdiction of this court.

PJCJ, CHIRALA 17OS.NO. 208/2019

Valuation :

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 3,24,833/- on which a court fee of Rs. 5,726/- is paid under section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on 08-02-2022 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri T.J. Sai Babu, learned counsel for plaintif, and of Sri. P.V.Chowdary, learned counsel for the defendant, and upon being treated as “Heard” and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree.

i.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, ii.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintif for sum of Rs.

3,24,833/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% P.A., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% P.A., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and iii. that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.17,473/- towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs. Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

S.No.ParticularsForFor

Plaintif (Rs.)Defendant (Rs.)

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.00(Cost memo not filed)

2.Stamp on Plaint5,726.00

3. Stamp on Process 100.00

4.Advocate fee11,445.00

PJCJ, CHIRALA 18OS.NO. 208/2019

5.Writing charges100.00

6.Type charges100.00

Total 17,473.00

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J., CHIRALA.

PJCJ, CHIRALA1OS.NO. 127/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

Friday this the 8th day of April, 2022

OS.NO. 127/2015

Between:

Mogili Sambaiah, S/o. Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Welder, R/o. D.NO.12- 1, Uzilipet, Perala Village, Chirala mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintif

Vs.,

Mogili Sangeetha Rao, S/o. Punna Rao, Hindu, aged about 47 years, R.T.C Driver NO.E511647, R/o. D.No.16-21/A, Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on 07.11.2021 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri. G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for plaintif, and Sri. A.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the defendant, and upon being the plaintif treated as heard, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

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

01) This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery amount of Rs. 1,05,382/- being the principal and interest due under the Haami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 executed by the defendant in his favour for sum of Rs. 83,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% P.A, and for subsequent interest and costs.

PJCJ, CHIRALA2OS.NO. 127/2015

02) The main averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintif would submits that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs. 83,000/- from the plaintif on 11-03-2013 for his family necessaries and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand and having acknowledgment his liability to a tune of Rs.

83,000/- the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintif styled as Hami Agreement and the said amount borrowed by the defendant and the rate of interest on the principle was recited in the said agreement, and as per the terms and conditions of the same the defendant has to discharge the debt together with agreed interest with in 4 months i.e., from 11-03-2013 to 10-07- 2013, but inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif personally and through others to repay the said amount with agreed rate of interest, the defendant promised to repay the amount due together with agreed interest and discharge the debt under the said agreement dated 11-03-2013 but he did not choose to discharge the same by taking time after time at his like.

Eventhough, the agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif styled as ‘Hami Agreement’ the recitals as a whole discloses that there is a unconditional undertaking by the defendant, to repay the amount due together with interest tot eh plaintif or his order on demand, hence it is promissory note in view of Section 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for recovery of the amount due together with interest under the said

PJCJ, CHIRALA3OS.NO. 127/2015 agreement dated 11-03-2013. The said agreement is filed herewith and the contents of the same may be read as part of this plaint. The plaintif beg to submits that the defendant is a R.T.C driver i.e., employee and he agreed to repay the said amount with agreed rate of interest @ 12% P.A, hence the debt relief laws are not applicable to the suit debt.

03) The defendant had filed his written statement making a general and specific denial of plaint allegations and further inter alia contending that the most of the allegations mentioned in the plaint are not true and the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and such of the allegations does not admitted by the defendant, the plaintif must be put to strict proof of the same.

Originally, the defendant would submits that earlier the defendant and his wife namely, Mogili Subbulu jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed an unregistered mortgage agreement in favour of the plaintif on 16-07-2012.

Subsequently, the defendant and his wife stated above have redeemed the above said mortgage debt due to the plaintif.

During the course of said discharge of said mortgage debt, the plaintif got obtained the signatures of the defendant on a blank non judicial stamp towards security, on a pretext that the said mortgage deed is an unregistered one Believing the words of the plaintif, the defendant got signed on a blank Rs. 100/- worth Non

Judicial Stamp on 11-03-2013. Subsequently, the defendant and his wife Subbulu got redeemed the entire mortgage deed debt, and

PJCJ, CHIRALA4OS.NO. 127/2015 though the defendant and his wife requested the plaintif for return of the aid blank signed Non Judicial Stamp, the plaintif did not return the same and postponed the same on one pretext or other.

Hence, no consideration of Rs. 83,000/- was passed from the plaintif to the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintif got created the said Hami Agreement on a blank Non Judicial Stamp worth of

Rs. 100/-, which contains the signature of the defendant with the help of his henchmen to make a wrongful gain. As such, the plaintif must be put to strict proof about the execution of the said

Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 by the defendant, and passing of consideration of Rs. 83,000/- by the plaintif to the defendant under the said Hami Agreement. The defendant further would submits that even otherwise, the said Hami Agreement dated 11- 03-2013 is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of recitals mentioned therein plus. The plaintif is not entitled to make any kind of claim beyond 10-07-2013 as per the terms of the said Hami

Agreement. The defendant further would submits that the exfacie the suit document dated 11-03-2013 is nonest under law. As such, the above suit is not maintainable. There are no merits in the suit.

There is no cause of action for filing of the suit. There are no bonafides and merits in the suit. Hence, the suit may be dismiss with costs.

04) Basing on the above pleadings, this court had framed the following issues for trial:

PJCJ, CHIRALA5OS.NO. 127/2015

1) Whether the suit stamped agreement dated 11-03-2013 is true, correct, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the suit stamped agreement dated 11-03-2013 is devoid of consideration as contended by defendant?

3) Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

4) To what relief, if any, is plaintif entitled?

05) On behalf of the plaintif, PW.1 and PW.2 are examined in chief Ex.A1 is marked. During the course of cross examination of

PW.1 and PW.2. Defendant is called absent no representation.

Since, witness is waited in witness box and ready to given for cross examination. But, counsel for defendant did not turned up.

Therefore, there is not sufficient reason to further adjourned the matter without any sufficient cause. Hence, cross-examination of witnesses are treated as nil. Subsequently, the defendant did not come forward before the court to taken steps to contest the matter. Eventhough, sufficient opportunities availed by the defendant from this court.

06) The matter is taken as heard.

07)Issue No.1 and 2:-

1) Whether the suit stamped agreement dated 11-03-2013 is true, correct, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the suit stamped agreement dated 11-03-2013 is devoid of consideration as contended by defendant?

PJCJ, CHIRALA6OS.NO. 127/2015

For the sake convenient discussion the issue No. 1 and 2 shall be discuss together as these issues 1 and 2 are inter connected with each other.

08) Since, the plaintif had approached this court and filed the present suit basing on Haami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for a sum of Rs.

83,000/- with agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% P.A and as from the initiate the burden is upon the plaintif to establish the transaction under Ex.A1. Then only the burden would shifted to defendant the Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 never executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.

83,000/- and which was created by the plaintif with help of her to her henchmen to get wrongful gain. In view of the said pleadings the initiate is upon the plaintif at first yet to establish the same.

09) In order to support of his case, the plaintif had himself examined as PW1 and deposed in chief on 13-07-2017 on par with his pleadings and got marked Ex.A1 on his behalf. Later on 15-03- 2022 the PW1 sworned on oath and Ex.A1 is marked through him.

In his cross-examination, The defendant is called absent no representation. Since, the suit is 2015 old and identified matter.

Since witness is waited in witness box and ready giving for cross examination and waited in the witness box. But counsel for defendant did not turned up. Therefore there is not sufficient reasons to further adjourned the matter without any sufficient

PJCJ, CHIRALA7OS.NO. 127/2015 cause. Hence cross examination of witness is treated as nil. To support of his case, the plaintif aslo examined one of the attester of the said Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 i.e., Ex.A1 as PW2.

The said PW2 had deposed in chief to supported version of the plaintif and averments of plaint in all material aspects. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, the defendant is called absent no representation. Since witness is present and ready to given for cross examination and waited in the witness box. But, counsel for defendant did not turned up. Therefore there is not sufficient reasons to further adjourned the matter without any sufficient cause. Hence cross examination of witness is treated as nil.

10) Having gone through the record, it is crystal clear that the defendant did not come forward before the court to take steps to recall and re-opend the evidence of PW1 and 2 in order to contest is the matter. Though Inspite of sufficient opportunities availed by the defendant, but he did taken any steps to further proceed in this matter as contest of the suit proceedings. A perusal evidence of

PW1 and PW2 and coupled with Ex.A1 it is crystal clear that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 have supported the plaintif case and thus their evidence plaint at all discredited in any manner. As seen from the Ex.A1 is the Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 it is clear that which was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif on 11-03-2013 for sum of Rs. 83,000/- with agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% P.A is not at all genuine as plaintif created Exs.A1 with help any with presence of PW2 and

PJCJ, CHIRALA8OS.NO. 127/2015 other attesters and scribe on it. So, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are clearly established the said Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 was executed by the defendant after borrowed an amount of Rs.

83,000/- in favour of the plaintif on 11-03-2013 and it is true and valid document.

11) Now the burden would shifted to the document transaction

Ex.A1 of his henchmen in order to get wrongful gain. It would be relevant to refer the documents relied upon Ex.A1 and as such

Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 not supported by any consideration.

12) On perusal of entire material available on record, inspite of it is crystal clear that this court given to the opportunities to the defence, but he had failed to before the court on sworn oath to contest of the matter even after evidence of PW1 and pW2 in chief and he did to entire witness box to state his case on oath. When one of the parties to the suit does not turn up to the place the evidence before the court or to give evidence in support of his please then what the courts have to presume was already dealt with in the decisions reported in Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1999 (3)

ALT Page- 1(SC), and 2004)(3) ALT Page-665 (DB). Wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the said decisions where a

party to the suit does not appear into the witness box to prove his case set up by him or her and state his own case on oath and does not ofer himself to the cross-examined by other side, a

PJCJ, CHIRALA9OS.NO. 127/2015 presumption under Sec.118 of the negotiable Instrument Act 1881 has to be drawn that the case set up by him is not true, this court also applied principle of law, in this case consequently this court concludes and holds that the Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 i.e., Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif after borrowed said amount but it is not at all credited by the plaintif with assistance of his henchmen. Hence, it can be held that defendant has taken a plea of false.

13) So, in view of the above said discussion, the plaintif has established that under transaction Ex.A1 is the Hami Agreement

dated 11-03-2013 is true valid while the defendant and on account

of failure of the defendant to state his case on oath, this court is inclined to apply the said settled law to the present case also as the Defendant failed to enter into the witness box to state his case on oath and concludes that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to that efect that his please are false.

Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintif, and

Issue No.2 answered against the defendant.

14) Issue No.3:

Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

Since the Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif. It can be said that this issue also answered in favour fo

PJCJ, CHIRALA10OS.NO. 127/2015 the plaintif and as such the plaintif is entitled for suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

15) Issue No.4:

To what relief, if any, is plaintif entitled?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay the plaintif for a sum of Rs.1,05,382/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% P.A., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% P.A., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.83,000/- excluding interest as per avermnets of plaint.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendant : -Nil-

PW1: Mogili Sambaiah

PW2: Doddempudi Venkateswara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A1 is the Hami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs. 83,000/-.

For Defendant :- Nil -

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J, CHIRALA.

PJCJ, CHIRALA11OS.NO. 127/2015

Note :- The Stenographer of this court is hereby instructed to upload the copy of Judgment on Official Web Site of Honourable

District Court, Ongole as well as C.I.S. Software forthwith as per the e-filing guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Suo-moto Writ (Civil) No.5 of 2020 vide order, dt. 06.04.2020.

Fair Judgment

PJCJ, CHIRALA12OS.NO. 127/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

Friday this the 8th day of April, 2022

OS.NO. 127/2015

Between:

Mogili Sambaiah, S/o. Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Welder, R/o. D.NO.12- 1, Uzilipet, Perala Village, Chirala mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintif

Vs.,

Mogili Sangeetha Rao, S/o. Punna Rao, Hindu, aged about 47 years, R.T.C Driver NO.E511647, R/o. D.No.16-21/A, Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

… Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery amount of Rs. 1,05,382/- being the principal and interest due under the Haami Agreement dated 11-03-2013 executed by the defendant in his favour for sum of Rs. 83,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% P.A, and for subsequent interest and costs.

Plaint presented on : 12-06-2015 Plaint filed on : 02-07-2015

Cause of Action :Cause of action for the suit arose on 11-03- 2013 at Perala Village, Chirala Mandal, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 83,000/- from the plaintif for his family necessaries and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand and when the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintif by acknowledging his liability to a tune of Rs. 83,000/- at

Chirala where the aforesaid transaction took place at Perala of

Chirala town and mandal, Prakasam District, and where both parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this court.

PJCJ, CHIRALA13OS.NO. 127/2015

Valuation : Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 1,05,382/- on which a court fee of Rs. 3,526/- is paid under section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on 07.11.2021 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri. G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for plaintif, and Sri. A.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the defendant, and upon being the plaintif treated as heard, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree.

i.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, ii.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintif for a sum of

Rs.1,05,382/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12%

P.A., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% P.A., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.83,000/- excluding interest as per avermnets of plaint, and iii. that the defendant do pay to the plaintif for sum of Rs.

8,689/- towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs. Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

ForFor S.No.Particulars Plaintif (Rs.)Defendant (Rs.)

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.00

2.Court fee3,526.00 Cost memo not filed

3. Stamp on Process 100.00

4.Advocate fee4,861.00

5.Writing charges100.00

6.Type charges100.00 Total 8,689.00

Sd/- Sri E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J., CHIRALA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

This the 8th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No. 36/2017

Between:

1. NaralasettyRenukamma,W/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Housewife,D.No.6-119,ChunduriStreet, Nayunipalli, Vetapalem mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Naralasetty Swamy @ Swamulu, S/o. Late Venkateswwarlu, Hindu, aged about 41 years, auto driver, Door NO.6-119, Chundurilompa, Nayunipalli, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1. Kelam Parvathi, W/o. Pothuraju, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Milk vendor, Near Bapana Cheruvu, Swarna Village, Village, Karamchedu mandal.

2. Naralasetty Rama Devi, W/o. Late Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Housewife, Door No.7-3-11, Ward No.20, Bhimavaripalem, Bapatla, Bapatla Mandal.

3. Gummalla Subbamma @ Subbulu, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 80 years, Housewife,D.No.7-3-11,WardNo.20, Bhimavaripalem, Bapatla.

…. Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Srikanth Thakur, learnedcounsel for the plaintiffs, and of Sri. Kakani Venkata Rao, learned counsel for

Defendants, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following.

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

This suit is a filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such ¼ th share to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and one 1/4th share each to the defendants 1 to 3 by metes and bounds free from all encumbrances, and for costs of the suit.

Plaintiffs are called absent. No representation. Inspite of orders. But, the plaintiffs not taken steps. It shows that the plaintiffs are not showing any intended to proceed case proceedings. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of

April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined - Nil -

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J, CHIRALA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

This the 8th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No. 36/2017

Between:

1. NaralasettyRenukamma,W/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Housewife,D.No.6-119,ChunduriStreet, Nayunipalli, Vetapalem mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Naralasetty Swamy @ Swamulu, S/o. Late Venkateswwarlu, Hindu, aged about 41 years, auto driver, Door NO.6-119, Chundurilompa, Nayunipalli, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1. Kelam Parvathi, W/o. Pothuraju, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Milk vendor, Near Bapana Cheruvu, Swarna Village, Village, Karamchedu mandal.

2. Naralasetty Rama Devi, W/o. Late Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Housewife, Door No.7-3-11, Ward No.20, Bhimavaripalem, Bapatla, Bapatla Mandal.

3. Gummalla Subbamma @ Subbulu, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 80 years, Housewife,D.No.7-3-11,WardNo.20, Bhimavaripalem, Bapatla.

…. Defendants

This suit is a filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such ¼ th share to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and one 1/4th share each to the defendants 1 to 3 by metes and bounds free from all encumbrances, and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 15-12-2016 Plaint filed on : 08-02-2017

Cause of Action : Cause of action of the suit arose, when the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 got the plaint schedule properties from their ancestor Naralasetty Swamy, S/o. Kotaiah who died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants to succeed to the plaint schedule properties and on when the defendants are not cooperating for partition amicably and on when the defendants failed to come for partition of the plaint schedule properties inspite of legal notice dated 22-10-2016 and notice

dated 01-12-2016 in Vetapalem Village and Mandal where the

plaint schedule properties are situated and where the plaintiffs are residing within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation: Suit for partition the valuation is the same for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The present market value of the Item NO.1 of the plaint schedule property is Rs. 4,32,000/-.

The 1/4th share of the plaintiff’s 1 and 2 is Rs. 1,08,000/- 3/4th of the same is Rs. 81,000/-. The present market value of the Item

NO.2 of the plaint schedule property is Rs. 4,61,250/-. The 1/4th share of the plaintiff’s 1 and 2 is Rs. 1,15,315/- 3/4th of the same is

Rs. 86,484/- on which a court fee of Rs. 200/- is payable as fixed court fee under section 34(1) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act. As the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule properties a fixed court fee of Rs. 200/- is herewith paid under section 34(2) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Srikanth Thakur, learnedcounsel for the plaintiffs, and of Sri. Kakani Venkata Rao, learned counsel for

Defendants, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree.

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default,

2. that the suit be and the same is hereby plaintiffs are called absent. No representation. Inspite of orders. But, the plaintiffs not taken steps. It shows that the plaintiffs are not showing any intended to proceed case proceedings. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for default, and

3. that there is no order as to costs.

- Plaint schedule is hereto attached -

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

// Table of Costs //

-Nil-

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J, CHIRALA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

Monday, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No.177/2015

Between:

Amara Venkata Subbarao, S/o.Venkatarao, Hindu, age 47 years, Business, R/o.Swarna Road, Chirala- Town & Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Plaintif

Vs.,

Mohammad Yaseen Baig, S/o. Mohammad Ibrahim Baig, Muslim, age 52 years, Business, R/o.Ganjipalem, Chirala – town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. I. Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, and of Sri. I.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following.

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

This is a suit filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men for not to made any constructions in the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Cost not paid. Plaintiff absent. No representation. Hence suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined - Nil -

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J, CHIRALA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA.

PRESENT :- Sri E. ANJANEYULU,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

Monday, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No.177/2015

Between:

Amara Venkata Subbarao, S/o.Venkatarao, Hindu, age 47 years, Business, R/o.Swarna Road, Chirala- Town & Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Plaintif

Vs.,

Mohammad Yaseen Baig, S/o.Mohammad Ibrahim Baig, Muslim, age 52 years, Business, R/o.Ganjipalem, Chirala – town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Defendant

This is a suit filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men for not to made any constructions in the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 21-08-2015 Plaint filed on : 21-08-2015

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose at Chirala-Village & Mandal, when the plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.85/2013 against the defendant on the file of S.C.J Court, Chirala for specific performance of contract on 03.05.2013 based on agreement of sale dated 21.03.2009, when the suit was decreed on 27.06.2013 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, and when the plaintiff deposited the balance of sale consideration as per the directions of the decree and when the defendant not complying the directions of the decree, when the plaintiff filed E.P. /2015 to execute a decree which is pending before the S.C.J Court, Chirala, when the defendant during the pendency of the said proceedings is going to change the physical features of the plaint schedule property which is also the subject mater of the present suit with a view to change the physical features and location of the property in order to avoid to execute register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, when after personal requests of the plaintiff not to made any constructions in the subject mater of the property covered by decree in OS.No.85/2013 and when the defendant without obliging the plaintiff’s request openly proclaiming that he is going to made constructions in the same, where the plaint schedule property is situated at Chirala - Town & Mandal, and where both parties are residing at Chirala - Town & Mandal, Which is with in the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation : For the purpose of the relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V Act by deposited in Andhra Bank,

G.V.Palem under Account No.18813 vide receipt dt.21.08.2015 this court is having jurisdiction.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. I. Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, and of Sri. I.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree.

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default,

2. that the suit be and the same is hereby cost not paid.

Plaintiff absent. No representation. Hence suit is dismissed for default, and

3. that there is no order as to costs.

- Plaint schedule is hereto attached - Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

// Table of Costs //

(Cost memo not filed on either side)

Sd/- Sri. E.Anjaneyulu

P.J.C.J, CHIRALA.