1
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : REPALLE
PRESENT: Smt. G.DEENA,
Senior Civil Judge, Repalle.
Saturday, this the 3rd day of July, 2021
Appeal Suit No. 13 of 2018
Between:
Penumudi Raghavamma … Appellant/plaintiff
And
1. Penumudi Koteswara Rao
2. Penumudi Siva Prasad … Respondents/D2 & D3 (As the 1 st defendant died during the pendency of the suit, her name is deleted in the appeal)
On appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S.87/2012 dt.09.04.2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.
Between:
Penumudi Raghavamma … Plaintiff
And
1. Angalakuduru Venkata Ratnam (Died)
2. Penumudi Koteswara Rao
3. Penumudi Siva Prasad … Defendants
This appeal is coming on 03.05.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.N.B.Sarma, Advocate for appellant, and of Sri V.Udaya Prasad, Advocate for respondents, and matter has been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
01.The unsuccessful plaintiff in trial court is appellant herein.
02.This is plaintiff’s first appeal against the judgment and decree dt.09.04.2018, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, in original suit being O.S.87/2012, whereby suit has been dismissed without costs.
2
03.Plaintiff instituted suit in O.S.87/2012 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and their agents from interfering with the schedule property in any manner by trespassing or by selling and for costs.
04.The case of plaintiff in trial court is,
(i)The plaint schedule property is a mud wall daba house more fully described in the schedule. Item No.1 of the schedule property which is a thatched house was purchased by one
Angalakuduru Venkataramaiah, S/o.Kotaiah under a sale deed dt.1.7.1951. Item No.2 of schedule property is a way which was shown as Item-2 under sale deed dt.1.7.1951. Item No.3 of schedule property was purchased by one Angalakuduru
Venkataramaiah, S/o.Kotaiah under a sale deed dt.6.4.1957 and shows as Item-1 thereunder. Item No.4 is a way which was shown as Item-2 under sale deed dt.6.4.1957. Thus the property acquired by the said Venkataramaiah was Ac.0.04½ cents house site along with a thatched house therein. It was in absolute possession and enjoyment of said Venkataramaiah from the date of his purchase till the date of his death about 35 years back by now, being the titleholder and without any alienations or encumbrances.
(ii)During the life time of the said Venkataramaiah, he bequeathed the schedule property to plaintiff being his second daughter with absolute rights under a Will dt.21.03.1975 in a sound and disposing state of mind. The said Will was duly attested. The said Venkataramaiah died in the year 1977.
(iii)After the death of the said Venkataramaiah, the schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff being the beneficiary under the Will dt.21.03.1975. Eversince it was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing therein by 3 raising a mud wall daba house after got removing the thatched house therein previously by paying necessary tax to the Gram
Panchayat.
(iv)1st defendant is the wife of elder brother of the father of plaintiff.
2nd defendant is the younger brother of 1st defendant. 3rd defendant is the son of 2nd defendant. They are nothing to do with the schedule property either at factor at law.
(v)The defendants are the residents of Gudavalli, very near to the
Kuchinapudi village where the suit schedule property is situated.
Both the villages are within the jurisdiction of the court. The defendants taking advantage of the relationship, plaintiff being the lonely lady, having numerical strength and support in
Kuchinapudi village where the suit schedule property is situated trying to trespass into the schedule property highhandedly and to sell away the same. The defendants are proclaiming like so in the vicinity of the schedule property. They have no right to do so. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.
05.1st defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 & 3, denying most of the averments mentioned in the plaint and submitted that,
(a)This suit is not maintainable. The father of plaintiff
Venkataramaiah and Venkateswarlu who is the husband of 1st defendant are brothers and father of plaintiff Venkataramaiah worked as Village Servant (Mothadu) and his brother
Venkateswarlu worked as Lascar in P.W.D Department.
Venkateswarlu is the elder than Venkataramaiah, both are with amicable terms during their life time.
(b)Venkataramaiah purchased the 1st item of the plaint schedule site Ac.0.02 cents and a thatched house therein under a 4 registered sale deed dt.1.7.1951 from Annangi Venkata
Subbaiah with the joint passage right in norther joint galli. The said item site portion is shown as ACC1C2 in the plan of 1st defendant and the said galli shown as XX1 in the plaint of defendant.
(c)Subsequently the said Venkataramaiah purchased the 3rd item of plaint schedule site Ac.0.02 cents and a thatched house thereunder a registered sale deed dt.6.5.1957 from Madadapa
Ademma which is on the southern side abutting to the above stated purchased property with the joint passage right in norther joint galli. The said item site portion is shown as AEC2C3 and the said joint galli is shown as XX1 in the defendant’s plan. The 2nd and 4th items of the plaint schedule is relating to the XX1 joint galli. After purchase, the 3rd item of the plaint schedule 1st and 3rd items are comprised as single plot i.e., CC1EC3 as shown in the defendant’s plan is in the possession and enjoyment of the said Venkataramaiah.
(d)Venkateswarlu brother of Venkataramaiah and the husband of 1st defendant is purchased Ac.0.03 ½ cents site on the eastern side abutting to the CC1EC3 plot of Venkataramaiah from
Madadapu Punna Rao under a registered sale deed dt.26.6.1978 with the instigation of Venkataramaiah as they are intended to construct building jointly and to reside side by side in the said building. The purchased site portion is shown as
C1C3DF in the defendant’s plan.
(e)After the death of Venkataramaiah, his brother Venkateswarlu husband of 1st defendant on the request of Chukkamma who is wife of Venkataramaiah removed the thatched house in
Venkataramaiah’s plot and Venkataramaiah’s plot site and the purchased site of Venkateswarlu were comprised as single plot and Venkateswarlu constructed two portion building in the middle of the said site in 1986. The said building facing is 5 towards east, as the Bazar is on the eastern side of the said site.
(f)Venkateswarlu was constructed the said building with his own expenses for the reason that his plot site is ½ cent less than the site of Venkataramaiah. The southern portion of the said building was taken by the Venkateswarlu as per vastu sastra as he is elder than the Venkataramaiah and the northern portion of the said building was taken by the family of Venkataramaiah.
Thereafter the southern portion of the said building bearing Door
No.3-67 is in possession and enjoyment of Venkateswarlu by paying house taxes to the Gram Panchayat and the same is shown as ABEF in the defendant’s plan. The northern portion of the said building bearing Door No.3-67A is in possession and enjoyment of the family of Venkataramaiah and they are paying taxes in the name of Chukkamma and the same is shown as
ABCD in the defendant’s plan.
(g)At the time of construction of the said building, the plaintiff is a minor. The husband of 1st defendant, Venkateswarlu performed the marriage of the plaintiff with his brother-in-law Penumudi
Padigaiah i.e., brother of 1st defendant. After the death of
Venkataramaiah, the husband of plaintiff Padigaiah done the said job of Venkataramaiah till his death. Subsequently the plaintiff has been doing the said job of her husband.
(h)After the death of Venkataramaiah, his wife and three children including the plaintiff are the legal heirs of Venkataramaiah and the said house portion property and the landed property of
Venkataramaiah devolved upon them by way of succession. The husband of 1st defendant Venkateswarlu constructed compound wall to his portion building property on eastern side, southern side and western side and also constructed site of his brother’s family and the same is shown as AA1BB1 in the defendant’s plan. Venkataramaiah’s family members constructed compound 6 wall on the eastern side and western side of their building portion. Both were constructed lavatory and bathrooms in respect of their portions on western side in their building portioned property.
(i)The husband of 1st defendant Venkateswarlu retired from service in 1986. Subsequently he has resided in his portion building for sometime and he fell with serious illness.
Venkateswarlu went to 3rd defendant’s house and stayed there with 1st defendant and he executed a Will on 6.6.1996 with a sound and disposing state of mind respect to his properties including the above stated house property and registered the same on the same day at Bapatla Registrar office.
(j)As per the said Will, he bequeathed the above said house property to the 3rd defendant by reserving his life interest and also life interest of his wife. Subsequently he died testate on 6.6.2003. The said Will is the last testament of late
Venkateswarlu and came into operation and that 1st defendant is in possession of the said property and residing therein as of right. From last one year that 1st defendant is not doing well due to ill-health to old age and she is taking treatment and she is staying in the house of her brother i.e., 2nd defendant and the father of 3rd defendant and she permitted a Muslim Sk.Vali to reside in her house property. 1st defendant and 3rd defendant are intended to sell their portion building bearing Door No.3-67.
(k)The plaintiff came to know the intention of defendants 1 & 3 as she is residing on the northern side portion with his mother of the said building came forward to purchase the same and offered at low price to purchase and that the defendants 1 & 3 were refused to sell the same to her as her offered price is low than the market value and onwards the plaintiff is bore grudge against the defendants.
7 (l)The plaintiff filed this suit with false averments with a view to threaten the others to purchase the building property of defendants and by harassing the defendants for purchase the same with a low price by the plaintiff.
(m)The plaintiff has no title with respect to the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff has not in possession and enjoyment with respect to the southern portion of the building bearing Door
No.3-67 i.e., AEBF portion of the building property. The plaintiff with malafide intention for wrongful gain filed this suit with false allegations by suppressing the above stated facts and approached the court with unclean hands with a view to purchase the AEBF portion of the building property with at low price by the plaintiff from the defendants.
(n)The plaintiff with malafide intention fabricated forged Will and obtained certificate from her officer by showing the wrong boundaries in the schedule with respect to the house property and suppressing the above stated facts and filed this suit.
The plaintiff has no manner of right to file this suit as she has no absolute rights in the schedule house property. The plaintiff wantonly shown eastern boundary as Angalakuduru Saheb site in 1 & 3 items of the plaint schedule property with malafide intention.
(o)Infact the said Angalakuduru Saheb soold his Ac.0.03 ½ cents site to Madadapa Punna Rao on 7.9.1968 under a registered sale deed and the said Punna Rao sold the said site to
Angalakuduru Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed dt.26.6.1978 and he constructed two portion building as stated supra. The western premises of Door Nos.3-67 and 3-67A of two portioned building and lavatory and bathrooms of two portions are in the plaint schedule site and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
8
06.Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?
2. Whether the Will dt.21.3.1975 said to have executed by Venkataramaiah is fabricated and forged, as contended by the defendants ?
3. To what relief ?
07.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.
08.During the pendency of the suit in lower court, 1st defendant died. Memo filed by stating that 1st defendant has no legal representatives.
The claim against 1st defendant is abated on 26.10.2017. On 4.4.2018,
P.Ws.1 to 3 present, but defendants 2 & 3 called absent, no instructions reported by their counsel for cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, and defendants 2 & 3 called absent and they are set exparte.
09.The learned trial judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit by holding that plaintiff failed to establish her case with cogent evidence and also plaintiff failed to establish her possession over the suit schedule property from the last 35 years.
10.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment by the learned trial
judge, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred this appeal.
9
11.The following are the grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff :
(i)Lower court went on wrong in not considering the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 3 on behalf of plaintiff/appellant.
(ii)Lower court erred in not considering Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents on behalf of plaintiff and contents therein .
(iii)Lower court erred in opining that the plaintiff has burden to establish her case that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she has been in possession of the same as on the date of filing of the suit an further wrongly opined that plaintiff failed to show her possession and enjoyment over the schedule property.
(iv)Lower court erred in opining that attestors of Ex.A3 were not examined as it was already disclosed by the plaintiff that they died.
(v)Lower court without proper examination gave finding that Ex.A3 is a doubtful document in the absence of evidence.
(vi)Lower court erred in not considering the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 which was corroborated with P.W.2 and P.W.3.
(vii)Lower court wrongly considered the contents of written statement, as they are invalid and not maintainable under law without any evidence
12.Written arguments filed by both sides.
13. Now the points for determination are :
1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the
respondents/defendants as prayed for ?
2. Whether the Will dt.21.3.1975 said to have executed by Venkataramaiah, is fabricated and forged as contended by the 10 respondents/defendants ?
3. Whether there are any grounds to set aside
the findings of the learned Trial Judge ?
14. Point Nos. 1 to 3 :
(For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred as referred in the main suit only)
Plaint schedule property is consisting of Item Nos.1 to 4 which as follows.
(i)Item No.1 is an extent of Ac.0.02 cents situated in Guntur
District, Tenali Registration District, Repalle Sub-District, Nizampatnam
Mandal, Kuchinapudi village, under sale deed dt.1.7.1951.
(ii)Item No.2 is an extent of Ac.0.0 1/8 cents situated in Guntur
District, Tenali Registration District, Repalle Sub-District, Nizampatnam
Mandal, Kuchinapudi village, under sale deed dt.6.4.1957.
(iii)Item No.3 is an extent of Ac.0.02 cents situated in Guntur
District, Tenali Registration District, Repalle Sub-District, Nizampatnam
Mandal, Kuchinapudi village.
(iv)Item No.4 is an extent of Ac.0.0 1/8 cents situated in Guntur
District, Tenali Registration District, Repalle Sub-District, Nizampatnam
Mandal, Kuchinapudi village.
15.The plaint schedule property is a mud wall daba house more fully described in the schedule. Item No.1 of the schedule property which is a thatched house was purchased by one Angalakuduru Venkataramaiah, 11
S/o.Kotaiah under Ex.A1 sale deed dt.1.7.1951. Item No.2 of schedule property is a way which was shown as Item-2 under Ex.A1 sale deed dt.1.7.1951. Item No.3 of schedule property was purchased by one
Angalakuduru Venkataramaiah, S/o.Kotaiah under Ex.A2 sale deed dt.6.4.1957 and shows as Item-1 thereunder. Item No.4 is a way which was shown as Item-2 under Ex.A2 sale deed dt.6.4.1957. During his life time, said Venkataramaiah bequeathed the schedule property to plaintiff with absolute rights under Ex.A3 Will dt.21.03.1975 in a sound and disposing state of mind. The said Venkataramaiah died in the year 1977.
16.Plaintiff further contended since then she has been in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by raising a mud wall daba house after got removing the thatched house therein, by paying necessary taxes to the Grampanchayath. She further alleged, defendants none other than their relatives are trying to trespassing into the schedule property highhandedly and sell away the same, hence she filed the present suit.
17.The contention of defendants is, father of plaintiff and husband of 1st defendant Venkateswarlu are siblings. Venkataramaiah father of plaintiff purchased item No.1 property a thatched house therein under Ex.A1 with joint passage right to northern joint gully, said portion is shown as
ACC1C2 in the defendants plan and said gully is shown as XX1.
Subsequently said Venkataramaiah purchased item No.3 of plaint schedule, a thatched house therein under Ex.A2 registered sale deed with joint 12 passage right in northern joint gully. Said portion is shown as AEC2C3 and said joint gully is shown as XX1. Husband of 1st defendant purchased
Ac.0.03½ cents on eastern side abutting to the plot of Venkataramaiah under registered sale deed dt.26.6.1978 with intent to construct building jointly with the Venkataramaiah. After the death of Venkataramaiah, husband of 1st defendant on the request of Chukkamma who is the wife of
Venkataramaiah removed the thatched house in Venkataramaiah site, merged with Venkateswarlu site and Venakteswaralu constructed with his own expenses tow portioned building in the middle of the site in the year 1986. he bear the expenses of construction has his plot is half cent less than the site of Venkataramaiah. In the constructed building, southern portion was taken away by the Venkateswarlu and northern portion was taken away by the family members of Venkataramaiah. Since then they have been in the possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. At the time of said construction, plaintiff is a minor. Venkateswarlu constructed compound wall to his portioned building on the eastern side, southern side and western side and also in between their portions, both constructed lavotary and bathrooms in their respective portions and residing in their respective portions. Venkateswarlu executed a Will bequeathing his house property to the 3rd defendant reserving life interest with his wife, subsequently died on 6.6.2003. Where they were trying to dispose their portion of property, plaintiff offered very low price to purchase the property, as they refused to her offer, she filed the present suit . The final contention of defendants is, plaintiff got no title with respective to southern portion of the 13 building bearing No.3-67 i.e., AEBF portion of the building property. With malafide intention plaintiff forged and fabricated Ex.A3 Will, obtained certificate from her office by showing wrong boundaries with respective house property suppressing the real facts. Infact said Angalakuduru Saheb sold his Ac.0.03 ½ cents site to Madadapa Punnarao on 7.9.1968 under registered sale deed, said Punnarao sold the said site to Angalakuduru
Venkateswarlu under registered sale deed dt.26.6.1978.
18.A perusal of plaint and written statement, it is clear that both pleaded contradictory pleadings regarding the existence possession of plaint schedule property. As per the contention of plaintiff, by the date of filing of the suit, there is only a mud wall daba house in the plaint schedule property, it has been in her possession and enjoyment, she has not mentioned about the construction of said building alleged by the defendants in the middle of the their sites. Plaintiff has not mentioned about the subsequent developments and constructions made in the plaint schedule property. As there are pleadings in the written statement regarding the construction made by the husband of 1st defendant allotting portions to both plaintiff family and 1st defendant family, it is for the plaintiff to prove the existing structures in the plaint schedule property and she has been in the possession and enjoyment over the entire property as on the date of filing of the suit. Further defendants denied the alleged Ex.A3 Will of the plaintiff. Though defendants admitted the execution of Ex.A3, it is for the plaintiff to prove the due execution of Ex.A3 as per the established procedure without any ambiguity 14 and excuses.
19.As per the pleadings, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are the registered sale deeds relating to the plaint schedule property, said properties were purchased by the Venkataramaiah. The contention of plaintiff is, through
Ex.A3 said properties were bequeathed to her by her father, in view of Ex.A3 she is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. But as per the pleadings of defendants, there is a pakka daba house with two portions was constructed by the Venkateswarlu with his own expenses in their sites and only the northern side portion is belongs to the legal heirs of
Venkataramaiah. A perusal of evidence, to prove the execution of Ex.A3 Will dt.21.3.1975 no evidence has been filed by the plaintiff. She contended that the attested witnesses are died, as such she could not produced the evidence. However she has to follow the established procedure to prove the execution of Will, in case of death of attesting witnesses. As per the record, no such attempts were made by the plaintiff to prove the due execution of Ex.A3. In this regard, the counsel for respondents relied on following decisions.
(i)In 2021 (1) ALD 107 (SC) between the parties
“V.Kalyanaswamy (D) by LRs and another Vs. L.Bakthavatsalam (D) by
LRs and others” wherein it was held in para Nos.69 & 70 as follows :
Under Section-68 of Evidence Act, in
the case of a Will covered under Section-63 of
the Indian Succession Act, it is indispensable
that atleast one attesting witness must not
only be examined to prove attestation by him
15
but he must also prove the attestation by the
other attesting witness. This court has taken
the view that while it is open to prove the Will
and the attestation by examining a single
attesting witness, it is incumbent upon him to
prove attestation not only by himself but also
attestation by the other attesting witness.
Section 69 of the Evidence Act manifests a
departure from the requirement embodied in
Section 68 of the Evidence Act. In the case of
a Will, which is required to be executed in the
mode provided in Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act, when there is an attesting
witness available, the Will is to be proved by
examining him. He must not only prove that
the attestation was done by him but he must
also prove the attestation by the other
attesting witness. This is, no doubt, subject to
the situation which is contemplated in Section
71 of the Evidence Act which allows other
evidence to be adduced in proof of the Will
among other documents where the attesting
witness denies or does not recollect the
execution of the Will or the other document.
In other words, the fate of the transferee or a
legatee under a document , which is required
by law to be attested, is not placed at the
mercy of the attesting witness and the law
enables proof to be effected of the document
despite denial of the execution of the
document by the attesting witness.
(ii)In 2002 (4) ALT 426 (D.B) in between the parties “ Gondrala
Sithamahalakshmi and another Vs. Pulipati Rajarao and others”
wherein it was held in para Nos.6 & 7 as follows.
In the absence of attesting witnesses
i.e., either they are not found or they are not
found or they are dead, the concerned persons
relying upon the document have to prove that
16
at least the signature of one attesting witness
is in his own handwriting and the executant's
signature is in his handwriting. Neither
Section-68 nor Section-69 of the Evidence Act
postulaters the examination of scribe treating
the scribe as attesting witness.
In the case on hand, the plea of the
respondents-defendants is that one attesting
witness died and the whereabouts of another
attesting witness was not known. In those
circumstances, a duty is cast on the
respondents-defendants to prove that the
signature of the executant on the document is
of his own and at least the signature of one
attesting witness has to be identified in a
manner known to law, court is sure that mere
saying that the signature of attesting witness
is of him may not be sufficient unless he
produces the signature of the attesting
witness is of him may not be sufficient unless
he produces the signature of the attesting
witness on some admissible document and
make both the signatures available for
comparison by the Court to find out whether
the person acted as real witness. Those
things had not taken place in this case. It is
held that the scribe cannot act as attesting
witness more so in the case of a Will when the
statute mandates that at least one attesting
witnesses should be there to prove the
execution of Will.
20.P.W.1 is the plaintiff, P.W.2 is the 3rd party to the suit proceedings, he is not an eyewitness or related witness to Ex.A3 Will, in his evidence he did not depose about the execution of Ex.A3 and bequeathing of schedule property in favour of plaintiff. P.W.3 is also 3rd party to the proceedings, he is not a witness relating to the Ex.A3 Will. P.W.2 and P.W.3 17 in their examination in chief mentioned the said mud wall daba house is situated in door No.3-67A in an extent of Ac.0.05 cents, the plaintiff has been residing in that property from the last so many years. Defendants are disputing with the plaintiff regarding the schedule property and proclaiming in the village that they got the right in the said property. Except above said contents, nothing was deposed by P.W.2 and P.W.3. As stated above, they did not depose about the bequeathing of schedule property in favour of plaintiff by Venkataramaiah through Ex.A3 Will. As per the record, plaintiff is the is the second daughter of Venkataramaiah, further defendants are disputing the Ex.A3. However it is the established rule of law that the party who is relying on the Will has to prove to the execution of the Will with sufficient evidence as per the provisions of law. As per the record, execution of Ex.A3 was not proved by the plaintiff . As per her own pleadings, plaintiff is not the sole legal heir of Venkataramaiah. Further it is true that the present suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. However as per the facts and circumstances of the case, it is for the plaintiff to prove her prima-facie title and her lawful possession over the total extent of plaint schedule property for the relief of permanent injunction. As per the pleadings on record, there are contradictions in their pleadings and it is clear that the dispute is in respect of number of aspects.
Hence, though the defendants are set exparte, plaintiff has to prove her own case with sufficient evidence to claim the relief. Though the defendants are not in the record, set exparte it is for the plaintiff to produce sufficient and cogent evidence to prove her contentions. The pleadings of plaintiff were 18 already challenged by the defendants in their written statement, it is for the plaintiff to answer the contradictions raised by the defendants. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 nowhere answered the contradictory pleadings raised by the defendants, she neither denied the contention of defendants nor proved her contentions with sufficient evidence. Hence, the mere ocular evidence of plaintiff cannot be concluded as unchallenged sufficient evidence of her for the relief.
21.In view of the above, the evidence of plaintiff P.Ws.1 to 3 and
Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 failed to establish the points that plaintiff is the absolute owner of entire plaint schedule property, she has been in the possession and enjoyment of entire extent of plaint schedule property and due execution of Ex.A3.
22.In view of above factual and legal positions of the case, this court do not find any ground to set aside the findings of learned Trial Judge who had meticulously discussed and considered the both oral and documentary evidence at length, consequently the appeal fails.
23.In the result, appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree dt.09.04.2018 in O.S.87/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Repalle. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do
bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 3rd day of July, 2021.
Sd/- G.Deena
19
Senior Civil Judge,
Repalle.
Appendix of Evidence - Nil -
Sd/- G.Deena
S.C.J. , Rpl. Copy to:
The Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle.
// True Copy //
Senior Civil Judge,
Repalle.
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : REPALLE
PRESENT: Smt. G.DEENA,
Senior Civil Judge, Repalle.
Saturday, this the 3rd day of July, 2021
Appeal Suit No. 13 of 2018
Between:
Penumudi Raghavamma, W/o.Padigaiah, aged about 56 yrs, Village Servant, Kuchinapudi village, Nizampatnam mandal, Repalle JCJC. … Appellant/plaintiff
And
1. Penumudi Koteswara Rao, S/o.Kotaiah, aged about 70 yrs, Retired Employee, Rajakapeta, Gudavalli village, Cherukupalli mandal, Repalle JCJC.
2. Penumudi Siva Prasad, S/o.Koteswara Rao, aged about 41 yrs, Cultivation, Rajakapeta, Gudavalli village, Cherukupalli mandal, Repalle JCJC. … Respondents/D2 & D3 (As the 1 st defendant died during the pendency of the suit, her name is deleted in the appeal)
On appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S.87/2012 dt.09.04.2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.
Between:
Penumudi Raghavamma … Plaintiff
And
1. Angalakuduru Venkata Ratnam (Died)
2. Penumudi Koteswara Rao
3. Penumudi Siva Prasad … Defendants
This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.87/2012 dt.09.04.2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.
Appeal suit presented on : 02.06.2018 Appeal suit numbered on : 05.06.2018.
VALUATION : The value of the appeal is valued as valued in the lower court is for the relief of permanent injunction is Rs.5,000/-
On which a court fee of Rs.411/- is paid under Sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.
This appeal is coming on 03.05.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.N.B.Sarma, Advocate for appellant, and of Sri V.Udaya Prasad, Advocate for respondents, and upon perusing the material on record, this court doth order and decree as follows :
1. That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed ;
2. That the judgment and decree dt.09.04.2018 in O.S.87/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, be and are hereby confirmed ;
3. That each party do bear their own costs.
(CM & FC not filed by either side)
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 3rd day of July, 2021.
Senior Civil Judge,
Repalle.
TABLE OF COSTS
NIL (CM & FC not filed by either side)
S.C.J., Rpl. Copy to : The Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle.
// True Copy //
Senior Civil Judge,
Repalle.