OS/173/2024
IN THE COURT OF THE I – ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
HUSNABAD
Present: Ms. E. PRAMEEDA I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.
Dated this the 10 th day of April, 2026.
O.S. No. 173 of 2024
Between :
1. Gouravena @ Gouraboina Pooja D/o Vaikuntam, Age: 28 years, Occ: House hold,
2. Gouravena @ Gouraboina Srikanth D/o Vaikuntam, Age: 26 years, Occ: Pvt. employee,
Both are R/o H.No.6-1-520/4/B, near Bada Ganesh, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.
... Plaintiffs
AND
1. Gouravena @ Gouraboina Gyaneshwar S/o Vaikuntam, Age: 30 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,
2. Gouravena @ Gouraboina Raju S/o Vaikuntam, Age: 35 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,
D1 & D2 R/o H.No.6-1-520/4/B, near Bada Ganesh, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.
3. Elaboina Vijaya W/o Rajamouli, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-21, Rangaiahpally village, Post: Vangara, Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Hanmakonda District.
4. Elaboina @ Billi Srujana D/o Rajamouli (W/o Sadanandam), Age: 34 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.2-2-143/154, Suryanagar, Old Alwal, Secunderabad.
5. Elaboina Arjun S/o Rajamouli, Age: 31 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.1-21, Rangaiahpally village, Post : Vangara, Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Hanmakonda District.
6. Pradhamika Matsya Parishramioka Sahakara Sangam rep.by its President Vemula Mogili S/o Nandaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mallampally village of Akkannapet Mandal, Siddipet District. … Defendant s 1 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Yesudas, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants remained set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-
// J U D G M E N T //
1.The suit is filed for seeking of preliminary decree for partition and separate possession in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. entitle in the Plaintiff to 1/8th share of each, for appointment of an advocate commissioner for partition the said suit schedule property into two equal shares and the plaintiff be deliver separate possession of 1/8th share each in the suit schedule property and to pass final decree in terms of preliminary decree.
2.Brief contents of the plaint : The parties to the suit are Hindus and governed by
Mithakashara school, the Plaintiffs and Defendants are the brothers and sisters through maternal side except Defendant no.3 who is a daughter to the Vemula Narayana. The said parties to the suit are the legal heirs of the Vemula Narayana who is the retired
Singareni Employee. The said suit schedule property was purchased by Vemula
Narayana the list of suit schedule property is mentioned below ;
Survey number Extent 926 Ac.01-08 gts 927 Ac.00-03 gts 929Ac.00-19 gts 931 Ac.01-13 gts 932 Ac.00-39 gts 933 Ac.00-18 gts 934 Ac.01-17 gts 935 Ac.01-25 gts 936Ac.01-39 gts 2 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
3.The above mentioned property is also a ancestral property of all Plaintiffs and
Defendants. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are in the joint possession and in joint cultivation of the suit schedule property. After the demise of the Vemula Narayana the
Defendant no.1 & 3 for the purpose to take bank loans and for the government benefits hatched a plan to mutate their names in the revenue records. During the course
Defendant no.1 got mutated his name and also got patta passbook for following property ;
Survey number Extent 929/BAc.00-09 ½ gts 931/CAc.01-13 gts 932/BAc.00-19 ½ gts 933/B/2Ac.00-09 gts 934/BAc.00-28 ½ gts 935/BAc.00-32 ½ gts 936/BAc.00-39 ½ gts
During the course Defendant no.3 got mutated his name and also got patta passbook for following property ;
Survey number Extent 926/AAc.01-08 gts 927/BAc.00-03 gts 929/AAc.00-09 ½ gts 932/AAc.00-19 gts 933/B/1Ac.00-09 gts 934/AAc.00-28 ½ gts 935/AAc.00-32 ½ gts 936/AAc.00-39 ½ gts 3 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
4.And further also negotiated to sell the property to Defendant no.6 when the
Plaintiffs asked the Defendant no.1 to 5 for the partition on 14.08.2024 the same was denied, hence, the Plaintiffs filed the present suit. Hence, the suit.
5.Inspite of receiving the summons of D6, D6 called absent, no representation made on his behalf, hence D6 is set exparte. Sri. Ch. Ramesh, advocate filed vakalat for D1 and D3 and Sri. B. Sadan Maharaj, advocate filed vakalat for D2, D4 and D5. Inspite of multiple opportunities written statement not filed, hence, right to file written statement is forfeited.
6.To prove the case of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff no.1 examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and Ex.A1 to
Ex.A17 got marked. Plaintiff no.2 examined himself as PW2.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs.
8.Now the points for consideration are :
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree of the partition and
separate possession in favour of the Plaintiffs and and for the 1/8th share each, for appointment of advocate commissioner for partition into two equal shares and for the delivery of separate possession of 1/8th share and for final decree for partition in which the terms of preliminary decree of the suit schedule property ?
Point:
9.The contention of the Plaintiffs are that, all the parties to the suit are Hindus and governed by Mithakshara School. The Plaintiffs and Defendant no.1 to 5 are belongs to common ancestor by name late Vemula Narayana and further submitted that, the Plaintiffs and 4 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
Defendants are the brothers and sisters through maternal side except Defendant no.3 who is a daughter to the Vemula Narayana and also the legal heirs.
10.And also contended that, The late Vemula Narayana was the retired in Singareni employee and he has two daughters i.e. i) Elaboina Vijaya/Defendant no.3 and ii) Gouravena
Shobha.
11.The late Vemula Narayana who is grand father of Plaintiffs and Defendant no.1, 2, 4 & 5 and father of Defendant no.3 during his life time he had purchased the suit schedule property and he was in the physical possession by raising paddy crop and he also dug the agriculture well to water entire the suit schedule property, later he died on 26.09.2015 due to heart attack. The following is the suit schedule property ;
Survey number Extent 926 Ac.01-08 gts 927 Ac.00-03 gts 929Ac.00-19 gts 931 Ac.01-13 gts 932 Ac.00-39 gts 933 Ac.00-18 gts 934 Ac.01-17 gts 935 Ac.01-25 gts 936Ac.01-39 gts
12.In support of the Plaintiffs contention that, Plaintiff no.1 got examined as PW1 and
Plaintiff no.2 has got examined as PW2 in their chief examination of the PW1 and PW2 are the reiterated the all averments which are made in the plaint. The Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 are marked by the PW1 to support her claim. The following are the exhibits ;
Ex.A1CC of pahani for the year 2000-01 5 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
Ex.A2CC of pahani for the year 2002-03
Ex.A3CC of pahani for the year 2004-05
Ex.A4CC of pahani for the year 2005-06
Ex.A5CC of pahani for the year 2009-10
Ex.A6CC of pahani for the year 2010-11
Ex.A7Original death certificate of Vemula Narayana
Ex.A8Original death certificate of Gouravena Shoba
Ex.A9CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.929 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A10 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.931/C of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A11 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.932 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A12 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.933/B of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A13 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.934 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A14 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.935 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A15 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.936 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A16 Attested copy of pattadar passbook of A. Vijaya
Ex.A17 Attested copy of Pattadar passbook of G. Gnaneshwar
13.For the purpose of partition and separate possession the first thing the Plaintiffs has to be prove is that, the Vemula Narayana has the title over the suit schedule property. But there is no documentary evidence is filed by the Plaintiffs to support that the Vemula Narayana has purchased the suit schedule land. The CC pahanies are only filed by the Plaintiffs to support the above contention which are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, the court is the opinion that, the said document does not help to show or to prove the said suit schedule property is purchased by the
Vemula Narayana. It only prove whether the said Vemula Narayana is in the possession or not.
6 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
14.As per the contention of the Plaintiffs, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, in which the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are in the joint possession without any partition between them. To support the Plaintiffs claim, the
Plaintiffs have filed the following list of documents i.e. CC of pahanies for the years 2000 – 2011 which is marked as the Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, but there are several flaws relating to CC of pahanies which is filed and marked as exhibits. The following Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 i.e. the certified copy of pahani for the 2000-11.
15.In Ex.A1 for the Sy.No.926 as per the revenue records is Ac.01-28 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.01-08 gts, for Sy.No.927 as per the the revenue records is Ac.00-33 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.00-03 gts and for the Sy.No.931 that there is no clear print as per the document i.e. CC of pahani which is filed.
16. In Ex.A2 for the Sy.No.926 there is no document proof, for Sy.No.927 as per the revenue records is Ac.00-33 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.00-03 gts, for Sy.No.931 as per the revenue records is Ac.01-16 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.01-13 gts and for Sy.No.934 and Sy.No.935 that there is no clear print as per the document which is filed by plaintiffs.
17.In Ex.A3 for Sy.No.926 as per the revenue records is Ac.01-29 gts but as per the pleadings Ac.01-08 gts, for Sy.No.927 as per revenue records is Ac.00-23 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.00-03 gts, for the Sy.No.931 as per the revenue records is Ac.01-16 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.01-13 gts.
18.In Ex.A4 which for Sy.No.926 as per the revenue records is Ac.01-28 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.01-08 gts, for Sy.No.927 as per the revenue records is Ac.00-33 gts but as per the pleadings, but the Ac.00-03 gts, for Sy.No.931 as per the revenue records is Ac.01-16 gts but as per the pleadings it is Ac.01-13 gts.
7 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
19.In Ex.A5 for Sy.No.931 as per revenue records is Ac.01-16 ½ gts, but as per the pleadings it is Ac.01-13 gts.
20.From the Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 which is filed Vemula Narayana name is reflecting as per revenue records. Even though if there are no flaws as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.7210/2011 between P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar, it was held that ;
Therevenue records are not the documents of title, neither create nor extinguish the title of ownership.
21.The Ex.A6 which is filed by the Plaintiff i.e. certified copy of pahani for the 2010-11, for the Sy.No.926 to an extent of Ac.01-08 gts, Vijaya name is reflecting as per revenue records for the Sy.No.931 for the extent of Ac.01-13 gts Shobha name is reflecting as per revenue records.
22.But the plaintiffs did not disclosed any fact relating to the Ex.A6 which is filed by them and also not disclosed that how their ancestral property i.e. Sy.No.931 to extent of
Ac.01-13 gts got in favour of the plaintiffs mother G. Shobha before the death of the
Vemula Narayana and also the plaintiffs suppressed the facts relating before the rectification by Defendant in their names of the Sy.No.931 the said land which was in favour of their plaintiffs mother.
23.As per the pleadings they only said that the suit schedule property was in the name of
Vemula Narayana, later it was mutated by the Defendant, but the plaintiffs fails to explain the few transactions which was held between the Plaintiffs and Defendants in their pleadings.
8 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
24.On based on these exhibits which clearly shows that there is no proper connection between the documents filed by the plaintiff and pleadings in the plaint by the plaintiff.
25.As per the contention of the plaintiffs that, the said suit schedule property is the ancestral property, even if the suit schedule property is the ancestral property the Plaintiffs has to prove that, they are the legal heirs of the said Vemula Narayana.
26.To support the above contention the Plaintiffs has filed only the death certificates which are marked as Ex.A7 & Ex.A8, but none of those documentary evidence reveals that there is a relationship between the said Vemula Narayana and the Plaintiffs and also does not reveals that, they are legal heirs of the said Vemula Narayana and the Plaintiffs also failed to prove in what manner they are the ancestors and in what way they can entitled to inherited the suit schedule property of the said Vemula Narayana.
27.The Plaintiffs further contended that, along with the Defendant that they are entitle for the 1/8th share each, but fails to file regarding the calculation of interest with respect to 1/8th of each share.
28.The Plaintiffs fails to file the title deed of the Vemula Narayana who purchased of the suit schedule property, as per the pleadings the Plaintiffs also stated that they are in joint possession and in the joint cultivation of the above mentioned all suit schedule property for which the Plaintiffs fails to file proper documentary evidence to prove the joint possession over the all suit schedule property.
29.Even though it is an exparte it is necessary for the Plaintiffs to file the documentary evidence to prove his case. But the Plaintiffs fails to file evidence in this suit to the satisfaction of the court.
9 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
30.In view of the findings, the Plaintiffs are not entitle for the reliefs which they are prayed for.
31.The suit is dismissed for the following reasons ;
The Plaintiffs fails to prove that the Vemula Narayana is having title over the suit schedule property and also not prove the said suit schedule property is the ancestral property and also fails to prove that they are the legal heirs of the Vemula Narayana.
32.In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DefendantS
PW1 G. Pooja - Nil - PW2G. Srikanth
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A1CC of pahani for the year 2000-01
Ex.A2CC of pahani for the year 2002-03
Ex.A3CC of pahani for the year 2004-05
Ex.A4CC of pahani for the year 2005-06
Ex.A5CC of pahani for the year 2009-10
Ex.A6CC of pahani for the year 2010-11
Ex.A7Original death certificate of Vemula Narayana 10 I A JCJ, Husnabad.
OS/173/2024
Ex.A8Original death certificate of Gouravena Shoba
Ex.A9CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.929 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A10 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.931/C of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A11 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.932 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A12 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.933/B of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A13 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.934 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A14 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.935 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A15 CC of virasath proceedings in Sy.No.936 of A. Vijaya and G. Gnaneshwar
Ex.A16 Attested copy of pattadar passbook of A. Vijaya
Ex.A17 Attested copy of Pattadar passbook of G. Gnaneshwar
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
- Nil -
Sd/-
I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.
11 I A JCJ, Husnabad.