O.S.No. 574 / 2015 1 of 46
IN THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MEDCHAL,
MEDCHAL -MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT.
Present:-Smt. G. Bhanumathi Prl. Senior Civil Judge, At Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2025
O.S.No.574 of 2015
Between:
1. Mettu Prasad, S/o late Mettu Tukkaiah, Aged about 58 years, occupation: Business, R/o H.No.14-1-376/2, New Aghapura, Hyderabad
2. Mettu Vijaya Laxmi, D/o Mettu Prasad Aged about 29 years, occupation: Student. R/o H.No.14-1-376/2, New Aghapura, Hyderabad.
3. Mettu Srinivas, S/o late Mettu Shiv Raj, Aged about 19 years, Occupation: Business,
4. Mettu Mahinder, S/o late Mettu Shiv Raj, Aged about 16 years, occupation: Student, minor through next friend Mettu Srinivas, S/o late Mettu Shiv Raj, Aged about 19 years, occupation: Business,
Plaintiffs No. 2 & 4 are residents of House No. 23-4-554, Gowlipura, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad
5. Mettu Anjaiah (died)
...Plaintiffs
AND
1. Mettu Sadanand, S/o late Mettu Rajaiah, Aged about 59 years, occupation: Government Employee,
2. Mettu Ramchander, S/o late Mettu Rajaiah, Aged about 57 years, occupation: Government Employee, 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 2 of 46
3. Mettu Venkatesh, S/o late Mettu Rajaiah, Aged about 55 years, occupation: Business
4. Mettu Hanumanth, S/o late Mettu Rajaiah, Aged about 53 years, occupation: Government Employee,
5. Mettu Mahender, S/o late Mettu Rajaiah, Aged about 40 years, occupation: Business.
( Defendants No.1 to 5 are R/o House No 11-1-889/A/C Seetharam Bagh, Hyderabad.)
6. Mettu Narender S/o late Mettu Yadaiah Aged about 37 years, occupation: Business,
7. Mettu Natraj S/o late Mettu Yadaiah Aged about 29 years, occupation: Business,
8. Mettu Laxman, S/o late Mettu Yadaiah Aged about 47 years, occupation: Business, (Defendants No.6 to 8 are Residents of House No.12-2-563/2/B, Shantinagar, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad)
9. Mettu Rajlingam, ( died per LRs respondent No.15 to 18)
10. D.Chinna Sathiraju (died per LRs respondent No.11)
11. Smt.G.Siva Lagendramma, W/o late Shri. G.Chinna Sathiraju, Aged about 72 years, occupation: House wife, R/o Plot No.1380, Apurupa Township, Pragathinagar, Nizampet, K.V.Ranga Reddy Pin code: 500 090.
12. Muttu Vidyavathi D/o late Mettu Shiv Raj, Aged major, Occupation: Household, R/o H.No.6-2-553, Chintal Basti, Khairtabad
13. Muttu Mahalakshmi D/o. Mettu Shiv Raj, Aged Major, Occ: Household, R/o. H No. 6-2-553, Chintal Basthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 3 of 46
14. Muttu Shakuntala W/o. Late Mettu Shiv Raj aged Major, Occ : Household, R/o. H No. 6-2-553, Chintal Basthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad ( defendant No.12 to 14 are added as per orders in IA No.1648 of 2023 dt. 26.9.2023) 15 Bhagya Rekha W/o Late M. Rajalingam Aged about 60 years,
16. N. Swapna W/o N. Shekar D/o Late M. Rajalingam, Aged about 43 years.
17. Lalitha D/o Late M. Rajalingam, Aged about 40 years,
18. N. Mallika W/o N. Baburao ( daughter of Late M. Rajalingam,) Aged about 36 years.
Defendant No.15 to 18 are residents of H.No.11-1-177/A/34, Gangaputra Nagar, Bhoiguda Kaman, Aghapura Hyderabad. Defendant No.15 to 81 are added as per orders in
IA No.541/2024 dt. 13.6.2025.
…Defendants
This suit is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Mohammed Anwaruddin, counsel for Plaintiff and Sri B. Vijay Gopal Rao, counsel for defendant No.9 to 11 and defendant No.12 to 18 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.Originally the suit was filed before Senior Civil Jude, R.R.District at L.B Nagar and numbered as OS No.789 of 2009 subsequently, transferred to this court on the point of jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S No.574/2015.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 4 of 46
2.The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that plaintiffs are the owners having undivided 4/7th share out of schedule property i.e. land to the extent of Ac. 00-08 guntas forming part of Sy.No.469 situated at
Gajularamaram village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. For declaration that the registered agreement of sale cum GPA dated. 9.5.2007 bearing document No. 8532 of 2007 before SRO Medchal executed by defendant No.9 in favour of defendant No.10 in respect of schedule property i.e. land to an extent of Ac. 00-08 guntas, forming part of Sy.No.469 situated at Gajularamaram village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, void inoperative and not binding on plaintiffs so far their undivided 4/7th shares is concerned out of schedule property and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 9 and 10 from selling creating any charge over schedule property.
3.Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 against defendant No.1 to 10. During the pendency of the suit defendant No.10 died and as per order passed in IA No. 865/2018 dt. 2.4.2019 defendant No.11 legal heirs of defendant No.10 was brought on record. Subsequently during the pendency of suit as per orders passed in IA No.1648/2023 dt. 26.9.2023 defendant No.12 to 14 were brought on record being legal heirs of Shiva Raj.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 5 of 46
Thereafter during the pendency of the suit defendant No.9 died and legal heirs of defendant no.9 i.e. defendant No.15 to 18 were impleaded in the suit proceedings as per orders passed in IA No. 541/2024 dt. 13.6.2025.
4. Brief averments of the plaint filed on 19.6.2025 are as under :
a) The Defendants No.1 to 9 are related to each other and joint owners and possessors of land to the extent of Ac: 00-08 Guntas, forming part of Survey No.469 situated at Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal
Ranga Reddy District [ hereinafter referred as schedule property ].
b) It is averred that the total extent of land in suit survey number is Ac: 01-18 Guntas. Mettu Tukkaiah is father of Plaintiffs No. 1 & 5 and of
Defendant No. 8 and grand father of Plaintiffs No. 2, 3 & 4 and of Defendants
No. 1 to 8. During the life time of father of Plaintiffs No. 1& 5 Patta for entire extent of land in suit survey number including Schedule Property stood and continued in his name only. Father of Plaintiffs No. 1& 5 is no more and died leaving behind him 7 sons & his wife as detailed below:-
a) Mettu Rajaiah (father of Defendant No.1 to 5)
b) Mettu Shyam Rao (died issueless)
c) Mettu Yadaiah (father of Defendant No.6 to 8) 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 6 of 46
d) Mettu Shiv Raj (father of Plaintiffs No.3 & 4 )
e) Mettu Prasad (Plaintiff No. 1)
f) Mettu Anjaiah (Plaintiff No. 5)
g) Mettu Rajlingara (Defendant No.9)
h) Mettu Mallamnma (wife)
c) Therefore on death of Mettu Tukkaiah all his sons and wife detailed above succeeded to entire land in suit survey number having undivided 1/8th share each. That entire land in suit survey number was partitioned in between said sons of Mettu Tukkaiah and his wife. Where in wife of Mettu Tukkaiah namely Mettu Mallamma (mother of Plaintiffs No. 1& 5 and of Defendant No. 8 and grand mother of Plaintiffs No. 2, 3 & 4 and of
Defendants No. 1 to 8) got Ac: 00-08 Guntas of land forming part of Survey
No.469 situated at Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal Ranga Reddy
District towards her share which is the Schedule Property. According to their shares, Patta for land that fell to share of each son of Mettu Tukkaiah and his wife has been mutated in revenue records in their names. As per law pattedar pass books and title deeds were issued in names of said persons. Therefore
Patta for Schedule Property had been mutated in the name of Mettu
Mallamma (mother of Plaintiffs No. 1 & 5 and of Defendant No. 8 and grand 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 7 of 46
mother of plaintiffs No. 2, 3 & 4 and of Defendants No. 1 to 8) in all revenue records and was issued Pattedar Pass Book and title deed in her name.
d) It is averred that Mettu Mallamma (mother of Plaintiffs No. 1& 5 and of Defendant No. 8 and grand mother of Plaintiffs No. 2. 3 & 4 and of
Defendants No. 1 to 8) died on 31-7-1992 intestate. Upon her death Schedule
Property has been succeeded by Plaintiffs No. 1& 5 and father of Plaintiffs
No. 3 & 4 and father of Defendants No. 1 to 5 and father of Defendants No. 6 to 9 as well as said Mettu Shyam Rao and Defendant No.9 jointly.
e) That one of the son of Mettu Mallamma namely Mettu Sham
Rao died issueless during 1998 leaving behind him, his wife Mettu
Laxmmamma as his only legal heirs. Therefore Mettu Laxmmamma succeeded to the properties of her husband including his share out of Schedule Property and enjoyed as absolute owner there after. Subsequently said Mettu
Laxmmamma executed Will Deed in favour of Mettu Vijaya Laxmi (2nd
Plaintiff) on 20-3-2007 and bequeathed all properties succeeded by her, from her husband including share of her husband out of Schedule Property.
Subsequently Mettu Laxmamma died. Therefore presently 2nd Plaintiff is absolute owner and actual possessor of land which was owned and possessed 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 8 of 46
by deceased Mettu Shyam Rao including his share out of Schedule Property.
Therefore presently 2nd Plaintiff is having undivided 1/7 share out of
Schedule Property.
f) That Mettu Rajaiah is no more and died during November, 2007 leaving behind him Defendants No.1 to 5 as his only sons. Mettu Yadaiah is no more and died during November, 2007 leaving behind him Defendants No.6 to 8 as his only sons. While Mettu Shiv Raj is no more and died during 2007 leaving behind him Plaintiffs No. 3 & 4 as his only sons. Therefore Plaintiffs
No. 3 & 4 as well as Defendants No.1 to 5 and Defendants No.6 to 8 succeeded to undivided share of their respective fathers on their deaths.
g) That no partition took place yet in between Plaintiffs and
Defendants No. 1 to 9 to metes and bounds and all of them are enjoying the title and possession of Schedule Property jointly. Therefore presently
Plaintiffs No. 1, 2 & 5 and Defendant No. 9 each is having undivided 1/7th share out of Schedule Property, while Plaintiffs No. 3 & 4 are jointly having undivided 1/7th share out of Schedule Property, and Defendants No. 1 to 5 are jointly having undivided 1/7th share out of Schedule Property and 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 9 of 46
Defendants No. 6 to 8 are jointly having undivided 1/7th share out of
Schedule Property.
h) Whileso, the Defendant No.9, fraudulently and with an ulterior motive to get wrongful gains to himself and to cause wrongful loss to the
Plaintiffs, played fraud and got Schedule Property mutated in his favour vide proceedings No.A/5627/2006, dated 11-9-2006 of M.R.O. Qutubullapur
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District behind and back and without notice to Plaintiffs in respect of Schedule Property.
I) That the moment Plaintiff No. 1 came to know about the illegal, fraudulent mutation for Schedule Property in the name of Defendant No.9 than immediately challenged the same before Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division under section 5(5) of A.P. Rights in land and Pattedar Pass Books Act 1971. Which was taken on file as file No. A2/4567/2006. In said Appeal Defendant No.9 here in filed counter along with one compromise/settlement deed dated 20-4-2000, alleged to have been executed by Plaintiffs No. 1& 5 and their other brothers.
The said document is created and brought in to existence in collusion with
Defendants No.1 to 8 by forging the signatures of Plaintiff No. 1& 5 and his 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 10 of 46
other brothers. The said document is a fabricated document, and the signature of the Plaintiffs No. 1& 5 and other brothers on said document are a rank forgery. The said agreement is an unregistered and unstamped document. Said document has come to light for the first time during the proceedings before Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional
Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division. The said document is unstamped and unregistered one and no rights would accrue to the Defendant No.8 by such document. The said appeal has been disposed off by Special Grade Deputy
Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division on 30-6-2008 with directions to Plaintiff No. 1 to approach revenue authorities after getting the matter appropriated from he Competent civil court. Thus
Plaintiffs are constrained to approach this Court.
j) Subsequently they came to know that Defendant No.9 executed a registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A on 09-05-2007 in favour of
Defendant No. 10. Defendant No.9 has no exclusive right, title or interest over
Schedule Property, All Plaintiffs as detailed above are having undivided share out of Schedule Property. Defendant No.9 created fabricated and forged documents and got Schedule Property mutated in his favour illegally and basing on the said mutation executed registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 11 of 46
with possession dated 09-05-2007 in favour of Defendant No.10 only with a view to deprive legitimate rights of Plaintiffs over Schedule Property which amounts to denial of title of Plaintiffs over Schedule Property, said document is illegal and void so for share of Plaintiffs is concerned and result of fraud played by Defendants No. 9 & 10 in collusion with each other and has no effect under law. But even than said registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A
dated 09-05-2007 is casting cloud up on undivided share of Plaintiffs out of
Schedule Property. As such said registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A
dated 09-05-2007 is liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on
Plaintiffs so far their undivided share is concerned as it was a sham transaction. Because Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 9 are joint owners and in joint possession of Schedule Property.
k) It is averred that since for the first time after disposal of case
before RDO they came to know about said fraudulent agreement of sale-cum-
G.P.A dated 09-05-2007, as such claim of Plaintiffs for declaration of said agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A as illegal and void and inoperative and not binding on the Plaintiffs, so far their share is concerned is well within time and not barred by limitation.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 12 of 46
l) It is averred that Defendants No. 9 and 10 colluded with unsocial elements and in order to deprive legitimate rights of Plaintiffs out of
Schedule Property and in order to cause loss to the Plaintiffs planned to sell
Schedule Property to third parties on 02-11-2008. But because of resistance of Plaintiffs they could not succeed in their malafide attempts. As such
Plaintiffs apprehend and have reasons to believe that Defendant No. 9 & 10 may renew their illegal acts in future again. As such Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable and great loss if said Defendants are not restrained from selling or creating any charge over Schedule Property during pendency of suit.
Defendants No. 1 to 8 did not choose to join with Plaintiff's in filing the suit.
Hence they are placed as Defendants in the suit. Hence this suit.
5.The defendant No.9 filed written statement. Adoption memo filed by Defendant No. 1 to 8. The defendant No.10 filed separate written statement. The defendant No.11 also filed written statement. Whereas defendant no.12 to 18 remained exparte. The averments of written statement filed by defendant No.9 are as under :
I) It is averred that Defendant No.9 is the youngest brother of the
Plaintiff No.1 & 5 herein. Their father Sri Late Tukkayya is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.18 gts., situated at the Survey No.469, 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 13 of 46
Quthbullapur Village, Ranga Reddy District. After the death of their father, their elder brother Shri Mettu Rajaiah has got Ac. 0.08 gts., the six other brothers including the Plaintiff No.1 & 5 and the Defendant No.9 herein have got Ac. 0.42 gts., in equal shares i.e., Ac, 0.07 gts., they are in possession with their respective share of land on the partition with metes and bounds and the remaining Ac. 0.08 gts., was allotted to their mother Smt. Mettu Mallamma. It is well known fact that their mother was with the Defendant No.9 and he has solely looked after her upto her death on 30.07.1993 and the said Suit
Scheduled Property, which is on the name of their mother was in the physical possession of the Defendant No.9 and for that the Plaintiffs have raised any objection from any corner.
ii) It is averred that the Agreement Dated 20.04.2000 was arrived at between all the seven brothers including the Plaintiff No.1 & 5 and the
Defendant No.9 that the Suit Scheduled land, which is in the physical possession and on the name of their mother was alienated to their youngest brother, Shri Mettu Rajalingam, ie., the Defendant No.9 herein, as he has the only person looked after their mother and he has also only and solely incurred the funeral expenditure and last rites of their mother and their elder brother by name Shri Mettu Rajaiah, wife of second and third brothers, fourth brother by name Shri Mettu Shivraj, fifth brother by name Shri Mettu Anjaiah i.e., the
Plaintiff No.5 and the Defendant No.9 herein have signed and affix their 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 14 of 46
thumb impressions on the Agreement, as the Plaintiff No.1 was on tour to
Kakinada for his fisheries business at the relevant course of time. Knowing pretty well about this Agreement Dated 20.04.2000, the Plaintiffs have no objection and they have fully accepted the above said Agreement Dated 20.04.2000 and have no objection from any corner.
Iii) The Defendant No.9 has applied to the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Quthbullapur on 12.02.2004 and on 20.09.2004 for issue of relevant documents to enable him to obtain mutation certificate and after received all the relevant documents, the Defendant No.9 has applied on 08.06.2006 with all the relevant documents for issuance of mutation certificate in favour of the Defendant No.9. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur after conducting thorough enquiry, as per the procedure contemplated and having no objections from any corner including the Plaintiffs herein, issued the
Proceedings No.A/5627/06, Dated 11.09.2006 for the mutation of the said
Suit Schedule Property on the name of the Defendant No.9 herein. The said
Suit Schedule Property was sold away to the Defendant No.10 herein and registered the same vide Sale Deed No. 8532, Dated 09.05.2007, against which the document is seeking Interim Injunction and hence, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have no rights over the said Suit Schedule Property.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 15 of 46
iv) It is averred that the Plaintiff No.2 herein is no where connected to this Suit Schedule Property, as Shri Mettu Shyam Rao i.e., the son of defendant No.2 late Shri Mettu Tukkayya died issueless leaving behind his wife, Smt. Mettu Laxmamma and she has never executed any Will or the
Will Deed Dated 20.03.207 in favour of the Plaintiff No.2 of the properties of her late husband, during her life time and to only grab the properties of late
Shri Mettu Shyam Rao, the Plaintiff No.1 has created the said Will and there is no such Will is existed. The Plaintiff No.1 has grabbed the properties i.e., lands, gold, money and all movable and immovable properties of Late Shri
Mettu Shyam Rao from his wife, Smt. Mettu Laxmamma, threatening and demanded not to interfere with his activities and hence, the Plaintiff No.2 is unnecessary party to the Suit Schedule Property and on this ground alone, the
Suit is to be dismissed.
v) That late Shri Mettu Shivraj, fourth son of late Shri Mettu
Tukkayya and Smt. Mettu Mallamma has two wives. The First wife, Smt. Mettu
Shakunthala and two daughters, Miss. Mettu Vidyavathi and Miss. Mettu
Mahalkshmi are residing at H.No.6-2-553, Chintalbasthi, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad. The Plaintiff No.3 an d 4 are the sons of the Second wife. Shri
Mettu Shivraj was retired from the services on 31.08.2007 and died on 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 16 of 46
19.03.2008, while in continuous sick and taking advantage of his disability and to deprive and evade the benefits to the Fist wife and her children, by showing favour to the Plaintiff No.3 and 4 and to grab the properties i.e., movable, immovable properties and the terminal benefits, the Plaintiffs have not make the relevant and necessary parties of the First Wife and her two children willfully and deliberately and hence, non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties, the Suit is to be dismissed in limine.
vi) That the properties of late Shri Mettu Tukkayya including the
Suit Schedule Property were partitioned between all the sons and his wife by metes and bounds after the death of their father and having their peaceful physical possession, enjoying their properties and it is evident that some of them have sold out their shared properties. The contention of the Plaintiffs that no partition took place between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 & 9 is absolutely wrong and denied.
Vii) That the Proceedings No. A/5627/06, Dated 11.09.2006 was issued after thorough enquiry and having no objections from any corner including the Plaintiffs herein and on the basis of recorded proof of evidences ie., the Agreement Dated 20.04.2000 etc., which are genuine, accepted and 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 17 of 46
having no objection for the possession and absolute rights of the Defendant
No.9 over the said suit schedule property for all these years, since from the alive of their mother and after the death of their mother on 30.07.1993 and now, the Plaintiffs have no right to raise the allegations that the Agreement
Dated 20.04.2000 is forged one and it has to be raised their objections at the
relevant time only and for the possession of the said Suit Schedule Property, even after the death of Smt. Mettu Mallamma on 30.07.1993 itself and hence, the Suit is to be dismissed.
ix) That Plaintiff No.1 has preferred the Appeal Case
No.A2/4567/2006 before the Hon'ble Court of the Special Grade Deputy
Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, against the Proceedings No. A/5627/06, Dated 11.09.2006 and the Hon'ble Court were pleased to pass Orders on 30.06.2008 that:
"Perused the written arguments filed by the counsel for respondent and verified the documents and record available on file. In this case, the appellant herein is disputing the signatures and thumb impression of the all other share holders and sons of late M. Tukkayya on the alleged documents produced by the respondent herein 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 18 of 46
before the MRO, Quthbullapur at the time of granting the
succession. But he has not filed any objection in this matter before the MRO at the time of conducting enquiry and no proof of document was filed in this Tribunal in support of these objections if any filed before the MRO.
Therefore, the MRO has rightly passed orders mutating the name of respondents in the record of rights. As such, I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur Mandal who were under appeal".
x) That the Defendant No.9 has exclusive right over the Suit
Schedule Property, and he is in peaceful physical possession and enjoyment since from the death of his father, late Shri Mettu Tukkayya and after his mother Smt. Mettu Mallamma was with the Defendant No.9 upto her death and he had look after her and also solely and exclusively met the expenditure of her last rights and on the compensation, all the brothers have given their consent for the Agreement Dated 20.04.2000 to alienate the Suit Schedule
Property on the name of the Defendant No.9 and upon that he has moved the proposals before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur for mutation of 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 19 of 46
the Suit Schedule Property on his name and accordingly, no objections from any comer, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullepur has issued the
Proceedings No. A/5627/2006, Dated 11.09.2006. Having exclusive right the
Defendant No.9 has sold out the said Suit Schedule Property to Shri G. Chinna
Sathi Raju, ie., the Defendant No.10 herein through the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney NO.85232 of 2007, Dated 09.05.2007. That the Plaintiffs have knowledge of the exclusive peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property by the Defendant No.9 since from the death of Shri Mettu Tukkayya and that the Suit Schedule Property was sold on 09.05.2007 itself and physical possession was handed over to the
Defendant No.10 herein and he is in peaceful physical possession and enjoyment since 9.5.2007 and no such incident was held on 2.11.2008 the averments of the plaint are created and concocted story for wrongful gain.
xi) The Plaintiffs have very well aware that the Suit Schedule
Property is in the exclusive peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the
Defendant No.9 since from the death of Shri Mettu Tukkayya and after death of Smt. Mettu Mallamma on 30.07.1993 and was mutated on 11.09.2006 and sold to the Defendant No.10 by the Sale Deed No.8532 of 2007, Dated 09.05.207 and it is exclusive peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the Defendant No.10 herein. The Plaintiff No.2 is not necessary party to the 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 20 of 46
Suit, as she is not a legal heir of late Shri Mettu Shyam Rao and Smt. Mettu
Laxmamma and not filed the alleged Will Deed Dated 20.03.2007, which is not exist. Non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., Smt. Mettu Shakunthala and her two daughters, who are the legal heirs of late Shri Mettu Shivraj, the second son of late Shri Mettu Tukkayy and Smt. Mettu Mallamma, who have exclusive right over the properties of late Shri Mettu Shivraj, as per the contention of the Plaintiffs.
Xii) The Proceedings No. A/5627/96 Dated 11.09.2006 was issued after thorough enquiry and having no objections from any corner including the Plaintiffs herein and on the basis of recorded proof evidences i.c.. the
Agreement Dated 20.04.2000 etc., which are genuine, accepted and have no objection for the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment and also absolute rights of the Defendant No.9 over the said suit schedule property for all these years, since from the alive of their mother and after the death of their mother on 30.07.1993 and now, the Plaintiffs have no rights to raise the allegations that the Agreement Dated 20.04.2000 is forged one and it has to be raised his objections at the relevant time only and for the possession of the said schedule property, even after the death of their mother on 30.07.1993 itself. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 21 of 46
6.Written statement filed by defendant No.10. The main contentions of the defendant No.10 are as follows:
a) The defendant No. 10 denied the every allegation made in the
Plaint except those which are specially admitted hereinafter. The Defendant
No. 10 submits that this Defendant has purchased an open land to the extent
Ac.0.08 Guntas in Survey no.469 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur
Mandal, R.R.District through a Registered Agreement of Sale cum General
Power of Attorney vide document bearing no.8532/2007 dated 09-05-2007 registered at Sub Registrar Office, Medchal from the original owner and pattadars M.Rajalingam S/O Tukkaiah / Defendant No.9 by paying valuable sale consideration. In persuasion of the said document, the Defendant No.9 also delivered peaceful possession of the said property, since the date of purchase, the Defendant No.10 herein is in peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of said property. Thus the Defendant No.10 is a bonafide purchaser having purchased the said property for valuable sale consideration through a Registered Document basing on the mutation proceedings and
Pattadar pass books and after making local enquiry. The Plaintiffs and
Defendant No 1 to 8 are well aware about the sale transaction and handing over of the possession of the property and at that time they have not raised any objection for the said transaction, as such they are having no right, title and interest over the said property.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 22 of 46
b) The defendant No.1 to 8 in collusion with defendant No.9 who is vendor of the defendant No.10 filed the suit with false, frivolous allegations in order to extract money from the defendant No.10. It is denied that defendant No.9 and 10 colluded with antisocial elements in order to deprive legitimate rights of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.10 has purchased the property through a registered agreement of sale cum GPA dt. 9.5.2007 and he is in peaceful, physical possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of purchase of the property the alleged incident of 2.11.2008 does not arise at all. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
7.Additional written statement filed by defendant No.11. The main contentions of the defendant No.11 are as follows:
a) The main suit is filed for declaration of agreement of sale cum
General power of attorney as illegal and void. The defendant No.10 is the husband of the defendant No.11 has filed written statement on 22.3.2010, he was expired on 4.5.2018, the defendant No.11 has impleaded as the legal heirs and successors of the defendant No.10 and she has adopted the same and it may be read as part and parcel to this to this written statement.
b) It is averred that Late Husband of the Defendant No.11 has purchased an open land to an extent of Ac.0.08 Guntas of the Suit Schedule 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 23 of 46
Property through the Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of
Attorney vide Document No.8532 of 2007, Dated 09.05.2007 at the Sub-
Registrar, Medchal from the original owner and Pattadar of the Defendant
No.9 he paid the sale consideration and he was in peaceful physical possession and enjoyment and the Defendant No.11 is the Legal Heir and
Successor of the Defendant No.10, after his death on 04.05.2015, she is in peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 to 9 are well aware about the sale transaction and handing over of the physical possession of the property and at that time, they have not raised any objection for the above said sale transaction, as such they have no right, title and interest over the above said property. It is averred that the there is no cause of actio arose for filing of the suit, since the defendant NO.10 is in lawful Bonafide purchaser of the property by paid the valuable sale consideration to the defendant NO.9 herein who has having title deed. The suit filed by the plaintiffs to partition and share of the divided immovable property, which is no available and exists hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
8. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are framed on 1-10-2010.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are having undivided share, out of the suit schedule property as prayed for ?
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 24 of 46
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled declaration declaring that the Registered Agreement of Sale cume GPA vide document No. 8532 dated 09-05-2007 is illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiffs ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled injunction against the
defendants No.9 and 10 from alienating the property ?
4. To what relief ?
9.Subsequently after carrying out the amendment of the plaint,
additional statement filed. Basing on the additional written statement the
following additional issue was framed on 30-07-2025
1. whether the suit is barred by Limitation ?
2. To what relief ?
10. During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiffs, M. Prasad is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A14. On behalf of the defendants
Shiva Nagendramma is examined as DW-1 and M. Mallikarjuna Rao is examined as DW-2. Ex.B1 and B2 marked.
11.Heard both sides and perused the entire material record including the written arguments and citations.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 25 of 46
12.Issue No.1. Whether the plaintiffs are having undivided share, out of the suit schedule property as prayed for ?
13.The suit filed by the plaintiffs No. 1 to defendant No. 18 for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are having undivided 4/7th share out of schedule property, declaration that registered agreement of sale cum GPA
dated 09-05-2007 bearing document No. 8532 of 2007 executed by defendant
No. 9 in favor of defendant No. 10 in respect of the suit schedule property as illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs so far the undivided 4/7 th shares is concerned out of schedule property, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 9 and 10 from selling, creating any charge over the schedule property.
14.The suit schedule property is that “all that land to the extent of
Ac. 0.08 guntas, forming part of survey No. 469 situated at Gajularamaram
Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by, East: Land of
Anjaiah, North: 40 feet wide road, South: Land of Shivaraj, West: Land of
Adilingam.
15.Originally Mettu Tukkaiah was the owner of the total extent of land in suit survey number is Ac. 01-18 guntas. There is no dispute among the parties with regard to the original ownership of the property.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 26 of 46
16.Mettu Tukkaiah died leaving behind him 7 sons and his wife. The relationship of the parties is as follows:
1. Mettu Rajaiah (died, he is the father of defendants No. 1 to 5 )
2. Mettu Shyam Rao (died issueless)
3. Mettu Yadaiah (died, father of defendants No. 6 to 8) 4.Mettu Shiv Raj, (father of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4, defendants No. 12,13, and husband of defendant 14) 5.Mettu Prasad (plaintiff No. 1)
6. Mettu Anjaiah ( Plaintiff No. 5)
7. Mettu Rajlingam (defendant No.9). Defendants 15 is the wife of defendant
No. 9, defendants No. 16 and 17 are daughters and defendant No. 18 is the son of the defendants No. 9)
8. Mettu Mallamma (wife).
17.The relationship admitted by the parties. There is no dispute among the parties with regard to the relationship.
18.It is also admitted fact that defendant No. 10 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property from the defendant No. 9. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 10 died. The legal heir of defendant No10 was brought on record as defendant No.11. Again during the pendency of the 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 27 of 46
suit, defendant No. 9 also died. Defendants No. 15 to 18 the lega heirs of the defendant No. 9 were impleaded in the suit proceedings. Defendants No. 12 to 14 are the legal heirs of Mettu Shiv Raj brought on record to the suit proceedings during the pendency of the suit.
19.There is no dispute that after the death of the Mettu Tukkaiah the property in suit survey number to an extent of Ac. 01.18 guntas was partitioned in between his sons and his wife. During the partition the elder brother Shri Mettu Rajaiah has got Ac. 0.08 guntas, the six brothers got Ac.
0.42 guntas in equal shares i.e. Ac. 0.07 guntas. All the sons were in possession of their respective shares with metes and bounds. Ex A3 the pahani for the year 2006-07 shows the respective shares of the sons of Mettu
Thukkayya. Ex. A14 the property tax receipt shows that the sons of the
Thukkayya paid the property tax to their respective shares. The remaining
Ac. 0.08 guntas was allotted to the wife of Mettu Tukkaiah namely Mettu
Mallamma. The said Ac.0.08 guntas of land in survey Number 469 is the suit schedule property. The name of the Meetu Mallamma was recorded as pattedar in revenue records and patta pass book issued in her name. Mettu
Mallamma died on 31-07-1992. Ex. B1 is the death certificate of the deceased
Mallamma.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 28 of 46
20.The plaintiffs contended that after the death of the Mettu
Mallamma the suit schedule property has been succeeded by plaintiffs No. 1 and 5, and the father of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4, and father of defendants No. 1 to 5, and father of defendants No. 6 to 8, and defendant No. 9 jointly. One son Mettu sham Rao died issue less during 1998 leaving behind hi, his wife
Mettu Laxmmamma as his only legal heir. The said Mettu Laxmmamma succeeded to the properties of her husband including his share out of schedule property and enjoyed as absolute owner. Subsequently said Mettu
Laxmmamma executed will deed in favor of Mettu Vijaya Laxmi i.e. plaintiff
No. 2 on 20-03-2007 and bequeathed all properties succeeded by her from her husband including share of her husband out of schedule property.
Subsequently Mettu Laxmamma died. Presently 2nd plaintiff is absolute owner and actual possessor of land which was owned and possessed by deceased Mettu Shyam Rao including his share out of schedule property.
Therefore, presently plaintiff No. 2 is having undivided 1/7th share out of schedule property.
21.It is further contention of the plaintiffs that no partition took place yet in between plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 9 to metes and bounds and all of them are enjoying the title and possession of schedule property jointly. Therefore presently plaintiffs No. 1,2, and 5 and defendants 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 29 of 46
No. 9 each is having undivided 1/7th share out of schedule property, while plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are jointly having undivided 1/7th sahre out of schedule property, and defendants No. 1 to 5 are jointly having undivided 1/7th share out of schedule property and defendants No. 6 to 8 are jointly having undivided 1/7th share out of schedule property.
22.On the other hand the defendants No. 1 to 9 contended that the deceased Mettu Mallamma was with defendant No.9 only and he has solely looked after her upto her death on 30-07-1993 and the said suit schedule property which is on the name of their mother was in the physical possession of the defendant No.9 and for that the plaintiffs have raised any objection from any corner.
23.It is further contentions of the defendants 1 to 9 as per the written statement and as per the chief examination of DW.2/M.Mallikarjuna
Rao that the agreement dated 20-04-2000 was arrived at between all the seven brothers including the plaintiff No.1 and 5 and the defendant No.9 that the suit schedule land which is in the physical possession and on the name of their mother was alienated to their youngest brother/defendants No.9 and as he has the only person looked after their mother and he has also only solely incurred the funeral expenditure and last rites of their mother and their elder 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 30 of 46
brother by name Mettu Rajaiah, wife of second and thir brothers, fourth brother by name Mettu shivraj, fifth brother by name Shri Mettu Anjaiah i.e.
the plaintiff No. 5 and the defendants No.9 here in have signed and affix their thumb impressions on the agreement, as the plaintiff No. 1 was on tour to
Kakinada for his fisheries business at the relevant course of time. Knowing pretty well about this agreement dated 20-04-2000 the plaintiffs have no objection and they have fully accepted the above said agreement dated 20-04-2000. There is no objection from any corner over the said suit schedule property for the peaceful physical possession and also absolute ownership.
24.The plaintiff No. 1 who examined as PW.1 deposed that he himself spent the amounts and he has look after his mother and he attended the last funerals of his mother. The plaintiff in support of his contentions filed Ex. A4 to A14. Ex. A4 is the bill dated 02-06-1993 issued by Aditya
Ultrasonic Centre in the name of Mettu Mallamma, Ex. A5 is the medical bill issued by TOTARAMA dated 2-6-93 in the name Mallamma, Ex. A6 is the medical bill issued by Aditya Pharmacy dated 3rd June, Ex. A7 is the X Ray bill issued by Roentgen X Ray Clinic dated 10-06-93, in the name of Mallamma.
Ex. A8 is the medical bill dated 2-7-93, Ex. A9 is the bill issued by Diagnostic
Requisition cum Receipt dated 17-07-93, Ex. A10 is the bill issued by
Diagnostic Requisition cum Receipt dated 20-07-1993, Ex. A11 is medical bill 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 31 of 46
dated 27-7-1993,Ex. A12 is the medical bill dated 1-09-93, Ex. A13 is medical
bill. Ex. A4 to A13 shows that the plaintiff also spent some amounts towards the medical treatment of the deceased Mallamma. However the spending of the amounts for the medical treatment and funerals does not create the rights or does not relinquish the rights of the parties.
25.The defendants in support of their contentions that all the brother executed agreement dated 20-04-2000 endorsing no objections to the rights of the defendants No. 9 did not file the agreement dated 20-04- 2000. The said agreement dated 20-04-2000 sought to be exhibiting the agreement, however the court observed that it requires stamp duty and registration and accordingly the document did not exhibited. The defendants did not take any steps to impound the document. The said alleged unregistered agreement of relinquishment deed is neither produced nor proved.
26.It is settled law an unregistered relinquishment deed has no evidentiary value in proving transfer of ownership. As per section 17 of
Registration Act the relinquishment deed is compulsorily registrable document. In this context the learned plaintiff counsel relied on following citations:
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 32 of 46
1. NANURAM VS PANNALAL, LAWS (MPH) 2024-5-45 in
which it is held that it is noteworthy that the relinquishment
of any right over any immovable property can be done only
through registered document as such unregistered
relinquishment deed can not be considered.
2.NINGAVVA VS SHIVALINGAPPA, LAWS (KAR) 2025-3-69 in
which it is held that the unregistered relinquishment deed
can not be given legal credence for two fundamental
reasons, firstly it is an unregistered document and under the
law relinquishment of immovale property must be executed
through a registered instrument. Secondly, an affidavit can
not serve as a valid mode of relinquishment.
27.As per above citation mere agreement relinquishing the rights without registration is not admissible and it can not be considered.
Accordingly in the present case there is no relinquishment of rights by the plaintiffs is not proved by the defendants.
28.In this regard the defendants adduced oral evidence DW.2/
Mallikarjuna Rao and he deposed that the plaintiff entered an agreement with defendant No.9 and given no objection for the mutation of the name of defendant No.9 in revenue records. But during the cross examination he admitted that he does not know any details of the deceased Thukkayya and 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 33 of 46
Mallamma and other property details and partition of the properties. The evidence of DW.2 is not reliable to that extent.
29.Moreover the defendant No. 9 who is claiming the exclusive rights over the suit schedule property did not enter in to the witness box.
Defendant No.9 died on 4-08-2024 and the defendants on behalf of the defendants examined DW.1/G.Siva Nagendramma/defendant No.11 and also examined DW.2/Mallikarjuna. DW.2 is the son in law of DW.1. Though the legal heirs of defendant No.9 brought on record, they did not appear and they did not contest the suit. Notices on defendants No. 15 to 18 are served in
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application, but they did not choose to contest the case.
30.Defendant No.9 during his life time, did not choose to enter in to the witness box. As per the settled law party to the suit avoid entering the witness box then his pleadings can not be considered. Mere written statement is not evidence. In this context the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that pleadings are not a substitute for proof. The contents of the pleadings must be proved by evidence. If a defendant does not lead evidence, the assertions in his written statement remain unproved. The plaintiff further contended that pleadings are not a substitute for evidence and the written statement, unless supported by oral testimony or admissible documentary 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 34 of 46
proof, can not be relied upon. Further courts are entitled to draw an adverse inference where a party withholds testimony which only he can produce.
31.In a citation reported in ISWARBHAI C. PATEL VS HARIHAR
BEHERA LAWS SC 1999-3-52 in which it is held that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the witness who had not made any statement on oath in support of his pleadings set out in the written statement. Here in this case also adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant No.9 that what he stated in the written statement was not correct.
32.The defendants further contended that defendant No.9 has applied for issue of relevant documents to enable him to obtain mutation certificate on 12-02-2004 and on 20-09-2004 and after received all the relevant documents the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur, he has applied on 08-06-2006 with all the relevant document for issue of the mutation certificate. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur after conducting thorough enquiry, as per the procedure contemplated under law and having no objection from any corner including the plaintiff here in issued the proceedings No. A/5627/06 dated 11-09-2006 for the mutation of the suit schedule property on the name of the defendants No.9.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 35 of 46
33.On the other hand the plaintiff contended that defendants No.9 fraudulently and with an ulterior motive to get wrongful gains to himself and to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiffs, played fraud and got schedule property mutated in his favor vide proceedings No. A/5627/2006, dated 11- 09-2006 of M.R.O., Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district behind and back and without notice to the plaintiffs in respect of schedule property. The plaintiff preferred appeal before Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue
Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy and the same has taken file as file No.
A2/4567/2006 and in the said appeal the defendant No.9 produced the fraudulent and forged agreement dated 20-04-2000 and after thorough enquiry the said appeal has been disposed off by Special Grade Deputy
Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division on 30-06- 2008 with a directions to plaintiff No.1 to approach revenue authorities after getting the matter appropriated from the competent civil court. Ex. A1 is the order copy passed by the Special Grade Deputy Collectors & Revenue
Divisional Officer Ranga Reddy District and it clearly shows that a direction has been given to the plaintiff to approach the competent civil court.
34.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the entries in the revenue records does not confer any right or title over the suit land. The learned counsel relied on following citations:
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 36 of 46
1. AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 681 BETWEEN DAYARAM AND
OTHERS VS DAWALATSHAN AND ANOTHER in which it is held that order of revenue officer in mutation proceeding based on untrue piece of evidence has no evidentiary value in civil suit.
2. LAWS SC 2007-4-48 BETWEEN SURAJ BHAN VS FINANCIAL
COMMISSIONER in which it is held that it is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only fiscal purpose i.e.
payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court.
35.The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiffs has given no objection for mutation the name of the defendants No.9 in revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule property and the defendants also failed to show that the plaintiffs entered in to the agreement of relinquishing of rights on 20-04-2000, as such from the available evidence on record it is concluded that deceased Mallamma died intestate leaving her sons and grand sons and daughters. The suit schedule property is liable for partition.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 37 of 46
36.The plaintiffs contended that one son Mettu sham Rao died issue less during 1998 leaving behind him, his wife Mettu Laxmamma as his only legal heir. The said Mettu Laxmamma succeeded to the properties of her husband including his share out of schedule property and enjoyed as absolute owner. Subsequently said Mettu Laxmamma executed will deed in favor of
Mettu Vijaya Laxmi i.e. plaintiff No. 2 on 20-03-2007 and bequeathed all properties succeeded by her from her husband including share of her husband out of schedule property. Subsequently Mettu Laxmamma died. Presently 2nd plaintiff is absolute owner and actual possessor of land which was owned and possessed by deceased Mettu Shyam Rao including his share out of schedule property. Therefore, presently plaintiff No. 2 is having undivided 1/7th share out of schedule property.
37.On the other hand the defendants contended that plaintiff No. 2 is no way concerned to this suit schedule property as Shri Mettu Shyam Rao i.e. the 2nd son of Late Shri Mettu Tukkayya died issueless leaving behind his wife, Smt Mettu Laxmamma has never executed any will deed dated 20-03- 2007 in favor of plaintiff no.2 for the properties of her late husband during her life time and to grab the properties of late Shri Mettu Shyam Rao, the plaintiff No. 1 has created the said will and it is not filed before the court and hence presumed that there is no such will is exists. The plaintiff no. 1 has 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 38 of 46
grabbed the properties i.e.lands, money, gold, and all moveable and immovable properties of Late Mettu Shyam Rao from his wife, Smt. Mettu
Laxmamma by threatening, coercive manner and hence the plaintiff is not necessary party.
38.The defendants did not dispute that Mettu Shyam Rao died issue less. It is also admitted fact that the wife of Mettu shyam Rao namely
Laxmamma also died. The defendants did not claim any rights over the properties of the Mettu Shyam Rao. It is not the case of the defendants that they acquired the properties of the deceased Mettu Shyam Rao. Admittedly the plaintiff no. 2 though claiming the rights over the share of Mettu Shyam
Rao did not file the will deed. On the other hand the defendants also did not claiming the rights in the share of Meetu Shyam Rao. PW.1 in his cross examination stated that Mettu Shyam Rao and his wife died in his house. It is presumed that since Mettu Shyam Rao died in the house plaintiff No. 1 and 2, they are entitled the share of the Mettu Shyam Rao.
39.It is the contention of the defendants that Mettu Shivraj, the 4th son of late Shri Mettu Tukkayya and Smt. Mettu Mallamma has two wives. The first wife, Mettu Shakunthala and her two daughters, Mettu Vidyavathi and
Mettu Mahalakshmi are residing at H.No. 6-2-553, Chintalbasthi, Khairatabad, 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 39 of 46
Hyderabad. The plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are the sons of second wife. Shri Mettu
Shivraj was retired from the services on 31-08-2007 and died on 19-03-2008 while in continuous sick and taking advantage of his disability to deprive and evade the benefits to the first wife and her children, by showing favor to the plaintiff No. 3 and 4 and to grab the properties i..e movable, immovable properties and the terminal benefits. The plaintiffs have not made the relevant and necessary parties of the first wife and her two children willfully and deliberately and hence non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties the suit is liable to be dismissed.
40.The plaintiffs subsequently as per the orders of the I.A.No. 1648 of 2023 dated 26-09-2023 impleaded Mettu Vidyavathi, Mettu Mahalakshmi the daughters of Mettu Shiva Raj and Mettu Shauntala the first wife of Mettu shiva Raj impleaded. Hence the contentions raised by the learned defendant counsel is not tenable.
41.The learned counsel for the defendant contended that as per the depositions of PW.1, the plaintiff No. 5 Mettu Anjaiah was expired about one year back and he has survived with wife and daughter, but they have not come on record of the suit as the legal heirs and the suit is not maintainable due non-joinder of necessary parties. Admittedly the legal heirs of deceased 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 40 of 46
plaintiff No. 5 were not brought on records. The legal heirs of plaintiff No.. 5 were not impleaded. Mere non implead of them does not make to dismiss the entire suit and the shares of the other share holders. The share of Mettu
Anjaiah/plaintiff No. 5 is entitled by his legal heirs. If a share allotted to the legal heirs to them no harm caused to the other defendants. It is just and necessary to allot one share to plaintiff No. 5 in the suit.
42.Since Mettu Mallamma died intestate who was the original owner of the suit schedule property, all her legal heirs are entitled the share in the suit schedule property. Mettu Mallama is having 7 sons namely M. Rajaiah,
M. Shyam rao, M. Yadaiah, M. Shiva Raj, M. Prasad, M. Rajalingam, M. Anjaiah.
43.Mettu Rajaiah died, his legal representatives defendants No. 1 to 5 are entitled undivided 1/7 th share jointly. Since Mettu Prasad died issueless, the plaintiff No. 2 is entitled his 1/7th share. Mettu Yadaiah died and his legal heirs, defendants No. 6 to 8 are jointly entitled undivided 1/7th share. Mettu Shiva Raj also died, as such his legal representatives Plaintiff No.
3, 4, defendants No. 12 to 14 are jointly entitled 1/7 th share. Mettu Prasad, the plaintiff No. 1 is entitled 1/7th share. Mettu Rajalingam died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives defendants No. Defendants
No.15 to 18 are entitled 1/7th undivided share jointly. Mettu Anjaiah/plaintiff 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 41 of 46
No. 5 died and his legal representatives are entitled 1/7th share. Accordingly the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned in to 1/7 th share equally. From the above discussions this issued is answered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
44.Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled declaration declaring that the Registered Agreement of Sale cum GPA vide document
No.8532 dated 09-05-2007 is illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiffs ?
45.Admittedly the defendant No. 9 executed the Agreement of Sale
Cum General Power of Attorney bearing No. 8532 of 2007 dated 09-05-2007 in favor of the defendant No. 10 in respect of the suit schedule property.
Ex.B2 and Ex. A2 are the certified copy of Agreement of Sale Cum General
Power of Attorney bearing No. 8532 of 2007 dated 09-05-2007 Originally
Mettu Mallamma acquired the suit schedule property towards his share after the death of her husband namely Tukkayya. Mettu Mallamma died intestate.
After her death, the defendant No.9 mutated his name without having any right and title over the suit property. All the sons of the Mettu Mallamma are having equal rights over the suit schedule property. The defendants failed 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 42 of 46
prove that the defendant No. 9 is having exclusive right over the suit schedule property.
2009 (1) ALD 321 SIRIKI APPALASWAMY VS SUB-REGISTRAR, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT in which it is held that the law is well settled that execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title, and the execution of or registration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the principle Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet, which means that no one can transfer better title than what he has . Therefore, unless and until the vendor has title to the property, by mere registration of a document transferring the property vested in him, does not confer any title on the vendee.
46.Mere execution of the registered sale deed does not create any new title and the defendants No. 9 who is not having any valid title can not transfer better title to defendant No. 10. without valid title the defendant
No.9 does not transfer any lawful title to the defendants No.9. Defendant No.
11 who is the legal heir of defendant No. 10 examined as DW.1 and her evidence also did not establish that defendant No. 9 was having valid title over the suit property. Hence the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of
Attorney executed by the defendant No. 9 in favor of defendant No. 10 is not binding on the plaintiffs and that document is liable to declared as illegal, and not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly this issued answered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 43 of 46
47. Issue No.3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled injunction against the defendants No.9 and 10 from alienating the property ?
48.All the plaintiffs and defendants are having equal rights over the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 9 was not having any exclusive rights over the suit schedule property. The Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attoreny executed by defendant No. 9 in favor of the defendant No. 10 is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Accordingly the defendant No. 10 and 11 did not acquire the valid rights under Agreement of Sale cum General
Power of Attorney. The defendants No. 11 who acquire the tile under invalid document is not entitled to alienate the property to any third parties. As such the plaintiffs are entitled for the perpetual injunction against the defendant no.11 restraining to alienate the suit schedule property in favor of the third parties. From the above discussion this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiffs.
49.Additional Issue: 1. whether the suit is barred by Limitation ?
50.The defendants contended that the suit is barred by limitation since Mettu Mallamma died in the year 1993 and the suit is filed in the year 2009. hence the suit is barred by limitation. Admittedly the suit is filed in the 6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 44 of 46
year 2009. Though Mettu Mallamma died in the year 1993, there is no limitation to file the partition suit. The agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney executed on 09-05-2007 by defendant No. 9 in favor of defendant No. 10 and the suit is filed with in three years in the year 2009, as such the suit is not barred by Limitation. Accordingly this issue is answered.
51.Issue No. 4 To what relief : In view of my findings the suit deserves to be decreed with costs by passing the preliminary decree by dividing the suit schedule property as plaintiff No. 1 is entitled 1/7th share, the plaintiff No. 2 is entitled his 1/7th share,
Plaintiff No. 3, 4, defendants No. 12 to 14 are jointly entitled 1/7 th share. The legal representatives of plaintiff No. 5 are entitled undivided 1/7th share.
defendants No. 1 to 5 are entitled undivided 1/7 th share jointly. Defendants
No. 6 to 8 are jointly entitled undivided 1/7th share. Defendants No. 15 to 18 are entitled 1/7th undivided share jointly.
52.The suit is also liable to be decreed by declaring the Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney bearing No. 8532 of 2007 dated 20-05- 2007 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 45 of 46
53.The suit is also liable to be decreed by granting the perceptual injunction restraining the defendant No. 11 from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties.
54.In the result, the suit decreed with costs by passing the preliminary decree by dividing the suit schedule property as follows:
a) plaintiff No. 1 is entitled 1/7th share, the plaintiff No. 2 is entitled his 1/7th share, Plaintiff No. 3, 4, defendants No. 12 to 14 are jointly entitled 1/7 th share. The legal representatives of plaintiff No. 5 are entitled undivided 1/7th share. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are entitled undivided 1/7 th share jointly. Defendants No. 6 to 8 are jointly entitled undivided 1/7th share.
Defendants No. 15 to 18 are entitled 1/7th undivided share jointly.
b) The suit is also decreed by declaring the Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney bearing No. 8532 of 2007 dated 20-05-2007 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.
c) The suit is also decreed by granting the perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.11 from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties.
(Partly dictated to the stenographer G-II typed by her, partly typed by me on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of November, 2025). Prl. Senior Civil Judge, At Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal
O.S.No. 574 / 2015 46 of 46
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: PW-1 : M. Prasad DW-1 : Shiva Nagendramma
DW-2 : M. Mallikarjuna Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
ExA1 is the orders dated 30-06-2008 passed by RDO in file No. A2/4567/2006. ExA2 is the certified copy of Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 09-05-2007. ExA3 is Pahani for the year 2006-2007. ExA4 is receipt issued by Aditya Ultrasonic center dated 02-06-1993. ExA5 Is Cash memo issued by Totaram's Chemist & Druggist dt. 02-06-1993. ExA6 is Cash memo issued by Aditya Pharmacy dated 3rd June. ExA7 is Receipt issued by Roentgen X-Ray clinic dated 10-06-1993. ExA8 is cash memo Issued by Sri Laxmi Medial& General Stores Dt. 02-07-1993 ExA9 is Cash Memo issued by Medwin Hospitals dated 14-07-1993. ExA10 is Cash Memo issued by Medwin Hospitals dated 20-07-1993. ExA11 is Cash Memo issued by Nahdi Medical Stores dated 27-7-1993 ExA12 is Cash Memo Issued by Mor Chemist & Druggist dt.1-9-1993 ExA13 Is Cash Memo Issued by Sabbar medial hall dt.26-09-1993 ExA14 is Land Revenue receipt dated 03-01-1994
For Defendants:
Ex.B1 : Death certificate of Smt.Mettu Mallamma
Ex.B2 : Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.8532/2007 dt. 9.5.2007
Prl. Senior Civil Judge, At Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
6.11.2025Prl. Senior Civil judge, Medchal