APWG0E0003602014
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
NARASAPUR
Present:- Sri G.Ganga Raju
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasapur
Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026
O.S.No. 207/2014
Between :
Molleti Suresh, S/o Sriramulu, age 40 years, male, Hindu, Agriculture, Door
No. 54-1-36, 26th Ward, Palakol, Palakol Mandal.
……. Plaintiff
And
1. Molleti Mangatayaru (Died)
2. Pithani Padma, W/o Purna Chandra Rao, age 46 years, Female, Hindu,
Business, Flat No. 202, Surya Residency, Ravendra Co-operative Housing
Society, Sarojini Naidu Nagar, Guttala Begum Pet, Hyderabad.
3.Pithani Suneetha, W/o Rama Krishna, age 40 years, Female, Hindu, Flat No.
501, 4th Floor, Balaji Residency, Poolapalli, Palakol Mandal.
(Defendants 2 and 3 were added as per Orders in I.A.No. 773/2019,
dated 4-12-2019)
……. Defendants 2
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
This suit has come before me for final hearing on 01-04-2026 in the presence of Sri M. Venkata Rama Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri S. Rajeswara Prasad, Advocate for Defendants 2 and 3, and defendant No.1 died pendentlite and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following :
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff, against the defendants, seeking declaration that the registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 bearing
Document No. 490/2014 of S.R.O Palakol executed by 1st defendant for the plaint schedule property to defeat the earlier registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 bearing Document No. 2243/2013 of S.R.O Palakol executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff for the plaint schedule property is capricious, illegal, sham, void and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential relief of permanent injunction and for costs of the suit.
2. Originally, the plaintiff filed this suit against the 1st defendant. During pendency of suit proceedings, the 1st defendant died leaving behind her, plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 to represent the estate of the deceased 1st defendant. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 are added as legal representatives of 1st defendant.
3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :
I) The 1st defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. Originally, the 1st defendant was the absolute owner of the property in an extent of 152-2-00 sq.
yards of site in MIG Phase-1 and house No.8 and an R.C.C roof building therein bearing new Door No. 52-32-39 in Palakol Municipal limits, which is the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant has settled a portion of building 3
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
property on the North of the plaint schedule property to his sisters Peethani
Padma and others. The 1st defendant out of love and affection towards the plaintiff has settled the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under registered
Settlement deed dated 30-03-2003 vide Document No. 2243/2013 of S.R.O
Palakol and delivered possession of shop rooms in the plaint schedule property on the date of execution of registered Settlement Deed and kept backside three rooms in the plaint schedule property with the 1st defendant for her living till her life time. The 1st defendant in the Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 pleaded that the 1st defendant took the eastern side three residential rooms in the plaint schedule building for her residence without the right of Mortgage, charge, security, gift and sale of the said three rooms during her life time and the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of said three rooms in the plaint schedule property after the life time of 1st defendant and to enjoy the same by the plaintiff with absolute rights. The remaining property in the plaint schedule property was delivered possession to the plaintiff on the date of settlement deed and thereby plaintiff is entitled to pay property tax to the
Municipality.
ii) Plaintiff has accepted the Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining portion of plaint schedule property, except the three rooms in which 1st defendant is residing.
Plaintiff has got love and affection towards 1st defendant and looking after her during her old age. The sisters of plaintiff having received huge properties from 1st defendant and the plaintiff during the time of their marriages and thereafter making attempts to grab the plaint schedule property hatched a plan and own over the mind of 1st defendant and induced her and compelled her to execute a cancellation deed to defeat the registered settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff for the plaint schedule property.
4
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
As the matter stand thus, recently disputes arose between the plaintiff and his sisters and thereby his sisters forced and induced the 1st defendant by using undue influence and by playing fraud on her and compelled 1st defendant to execute a registered Cancellation Deed to defeat the registered Settlement
Deed dated 30-3-2013 bearing Document No. 2243/2013.
iii) The 1st defendant under the influence and pressure of her daughters, to defeat the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 bearing document
No. 2243/2013 of S.R.O Palakol executed a registered Cancellation Deed
dated 30-01-2014 in respect of plaint schedule property bearing Document No.
490/2014. When the title over the plaint schedule property was conveyed to the plaintiff by executing a registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013, mere execution of registered Cancellation Deed will not revert back the title over the plaint schedule property to 1st defendant from the plaintiff. The 1st defendant under the influence of her daughters and threat given by the daughters, with a malafide and dishonest intention and to cause irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiff and to defeat the registered Settlement Deed
dated 30-03-2013 executed Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014. The plaintiff
learnt that sisters of plaintiff are compelling and forcing the 1st defendant to execute another settlement deed for the plaint schedule property and they are playing fraud on the 1st defendant and under undue influence, 1st defendant is proclaiming in the village for the last two days that she will execute another settlement deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of her daughters to cause wrongful loss and damage to the plaintiff by taking advantage of registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 bearing Document No.
490/2014 of S.R.O Palakol.
5
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
iv) When the plaintiff obtained encumbrance certificate, the alleged
Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 in respect of plaint schedule property is appearing in the Encumbrance Certificate and thereby the Banks and
Financial Institutions are reluctant to sanction loan to the plaintiff by pledging the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff apprehends that if the registered
Cancellation Deed dated 30-1-2014 vide Document No. 490/2014 of SRO
Palakol is left outstanding, it will cause him serious injury. Hence, the alleged
Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 even though a void document causing injury and hardship to the plaintiff while taking loans by the plaintiff by giving security of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.
4. The 1 st defendant during her life time filed written statement contending interalia that she is a widow under extreme old age having contracted marriages of her two daughters, residing far away and the defendant happened to be her sole son is always high handed and drunkard and used to employ force and extortion on the defendant under grip of fear and tension to grab the plaint schedule property by hook or crook and with a view to achieve his selfish goal, the plaintiff and his wife Smt. Lakshmi
Prasanna foisted false dowry harassment case in C.C.No. 271/2011 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakol against the defendant besides the plaintiff filed a private complaint on the file of Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakol against the defendant’s daughters and son-in-laws besides civil suits in O.S.No. 105/2011 basing on false promissory note dated 17-2-2009 for Rs.10,00,000/- on the file of
Principal District Court, Eluru transferred to Additional District Court, Narsapur
renumbered as O.S.No.14/2012 against the defendant and another civil suit
O.S.No.106/2011 basing on false promissory note dated 3-6-2010 for
Rs.8,75,000/- on the file of Principal District Court, Eluru transferred to 6
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
Additional District Court, Narsapur renumbered as O.S.No.30/2012 against the
defendant’s younger daughter Suneetha pending lis got filed by the plaintiff through his men in the verge of total strain of family relations, under the web of mental depression and despair of defendant in her extreme old age and in such circumstances at the intervention of caste elders, the family matter was pacified in execution of compromise bond dated 28-03-2013 by which plaintiff impressed the defendant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.4,50,000/- for her maintenance and the defendant shall execute register Settlement Deed over the plaint schedule property reserving life interest over the said eastern three rooms therein and withdraw all the said cases including civil suits referred to above and thereby plaintiff obtained register settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 from defendant cajole her to pay the said maintenance of
Rs.4,50,000/- at the time of registration playing fraud, deception and undue influence on the defendant. In any view of the matter, if the plaintiff committed breach of any terms of compromise bond the defendant is at liberty to cancel the proposed conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. In view of fraud and deception played by the plaintiff in procuring the register settlement deed
dated 30-03-2013 over the plaint schedule property, the defendant having
smelt of the foul play of plaintiff faced bitter experience and was compelled to cancel the register Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property under registered Revocation Deed dated 30-01-2014 by virtue of rights conferred under the compromise bond dated 28-03-2013 and as such the defendant conferred valid, absolute rights and title over the plaint schedule property and consequently plaintiff lost his rights and title over the plaint schedule property under register settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 in favour of plaintiff is not accepted and not acted upon and not delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff since the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the date of alleged registered 7
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 and even prior to thereof and till today paying property taxes and electricity bills in favour of defendant. As such plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands in suppression of material facts with dishonest dealings subjecting his old aged mother defendant to miserable fate dis-entitled to claim any relief in the suit. The suit is not maintainable under law and prays to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.
5.The defendant No.2 and 3 filed written statement contending interalia that 1st defendant is a widow under extreme old age having contracted marriages of her two daughters and the plaintiff happened to be her sole son is always high handed and drunkard and used to employ force and extortion on the defendant under grip of fear and tension to grab the plaint schedule property by hood or crook and with a view to achieve his selfish goal, the plaintiff and his wife Smt. Lakshmi Prasanna foisted false dowry harassment case in C.C.No. 271/2011 on the file of Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Palakol against the 1st defendant besides the plaintiff filed a private complaint on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Palakol against the 1st defendant’s daughters and son-in-laws besides civil suits in O.S.No. 105/2011 basing on false promissory note dated 17-2-2009 for Rs.10,00,000/- on the file of Principal District Court, Eluru transferred to additional District Court, Narsapur renumbered as
O.S.No.14/2012 against the 1stdefendant and another civil suit
O.S.No.106/2011 basing on false promissory note dated 3-6-2010 for
Rs.8,75,000/- on the file of Principal District Court, Eluru transferred to
Additional District Court, Narsapur renumbered as O.S.No.30/2012 against the
1st defendant’s younger daughter Sunitha pending lis got filed by the plaintiff through his men in the verge of total strain of family relations, under the web of mental depression and despair of defendant in her extreme old age and in 8
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
such circumstances at the intervention of caste elders, the family matter was pacified in execution of compromise bond dated 28-03-2013 by which plaintiff impressed the 1st defendant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.4,50,000/- for her maintenance and the 1st defendant shall execute register Settlement Deed over the plaint schedule property reserving life interest over the said eastern three rooms therein and withdraw all the said cases including civil suits referred to above and thereby plaintiff obtained register settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 from 1st defendant cajoling her to pay the said maintenance of
Rs.4,50,000/- at the time of registration playing fraud, deception and undue influence on the 1st defendant. In any view of the matter, if the plaintiff committed breach of any terms of compromise bond, the 1st defendant is at liberty to cancel the proposed conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. In view of fraud and deception played by the plaintiff in procuring the register settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 over the plaint schedule property, the 1st defendant having smelt of the foul play of plaintiff faced bitter experience and was compelled to cancel the register Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property under registered Revocation Deed dated 30-01-2014 by virtue of rights conferred under the compromise bond dated 28-03-2013 and as such 1st defendant conferred valid, absolute rights and title over the plaint schedule property and consequently plaintiff lost his rights and title over the plaint schedule property, register settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 in favour of plaintiff is not accepted and not acted upon and not delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff since the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the date of alleged registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 and even prior to thereof and later canceled the sham registered Settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 of plaintiff over plaint schedule property by virtue of registered Revocation Deed
dated 30-01-2014 under Document No. 490/2014 of Narsapur S.R.O and
9
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
settled the plaint schedule property with absolute rights in favour of her younger daughter, 3rd defendant under registered Settlement Deed dated 25-05-2015 under registered Document No. 2376/2015 of Joint S.R.O.,
Gunupudi delivering possession thereof in favour of 3rd defendant who rendered ostensible services to the 1st defendant in her old age confronting the high handed acts of plaintiff and even though the plaintiff obtained sham registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013, but the 1st defendant used to pay taxes under property tax receipts dated 19-01-2015 and 20-1-2015 in the name of 1st defendant's husband Molleti Srirama Murthy and electrical bills
dated 11-10-2014, 24-11-2014 and 19-01-2015 in the name of 1st defendant
over the plaint schedule property which establish that the alleged registered
Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 over plaint schedule property executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff is sham, not accepted and not acted upon, do not bind the defendants and till today paying property taxes and electricity bills being levied in favour of 1st defendant infers that plaint schedule property not mutated in the panchayat records in the name of plaintiff, does not confer title and possession. As such plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands in suppression of material facts with dishonest dealings subjecting his old aged mother defendant to miserable fate dis-entitled to claim any relief in the suit. The relief sought in the suit is not maintainable under law, since void document of registered Cancellation deed dated 30-01-2014 over the plaint schedule property and cannot be sought for under declaratory relief that the registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-1-2014 under Document No.490/2014, revoking the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 of plaintiff executed by 1st defendant over plaint schedule property is capricious, illegal, sham, void and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential permanent injunction without seeking declaratory relief to claim plaintiff’s rights and title is a scramble of title over the plaint schedule property as 1st defendant not only 10
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
canceled the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 but also executed registered Settlement Deed dated 25-05-2015 vide Document No.
2376/2015in favour of 3rd defendant and prays to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.
6. Basing on the above pleadings and documents the following issues were settled for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the registered Cancellation Deed, dated 30-01-2014 executed by defendant for the plaint schedule property is illegal, sham, void and non-est in the eye of Law ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
3. Whether the plaintiff obtained registered Settlement deed, dated 30- 03-2013 from the defendant by playing fraud, deception and undue influence on the defendant ?
4. Whether the plaintiff committed breach of terms of compromise bond
dated 28-03-2013 ?
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?
6. Whether the registered Settlement Deed, dated 30-03-2013 is not accepted and not acted upon and not delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff ?
7. To what relief ?
7. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff Molleti Suresh, himself got examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-4 are exhibited. Ex.A-1 is certified copy of registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 vide 11
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
document No. 490/2014 executed by Mollti Manga Tayaru in favour of Molleti
Suresh, Ex.A-2 is certified copy of registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03- 2013 vide Document No. 2243/2013 executed by Molleti Manga Tayaru in favour of Molleti Suresh. Ex.A-3 is property Tax receipt from 1-4-2016 to 30- 09-2016, Ex.A-4 is four electricity receipts pertaining to his name mutated in
A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Andhra Pradesh. In support of his claim the plaintiff got examined one Gudala Babu Vijayakrishna as P.W.2 and Kapila Venkata
Krishna Rao as P.W.3.
8. On behalf of defendants, 3rd defendant Pithani Suneetha herself got examined as D.W.1 and exhibited Exs.B-1 to Ex.B-7 documents in her evidence. In support of their stand, the defendants got examined one
Karumanchi Galliyya as D.W.2. Ex.B-1 is compromise bond dated 28-03-2013 in between plaintiff and his wife, defendants 1 and 2. Ex.B-2 is certified copy of registered Sale Deed dated 11-2-2021 vide document No. 989/2021 executed by plaintiff in favour of Siram Aruna Sai Kumar in respect of house bearing old
Door Number 54-1-36, new door No. 52-32-39 RCC daba house with site an extent of 152.2 sq. yards of Palakol Municipality. Ex.B-3 is certified copy of registered Mortgage Bond dated 11-2-2021 vide document No. 990/2021 executed by Molleti Suresh in favour of Gandhamsetti Venkata Satyanarayana
Gupta, Yesoda and Ravi Teja for Rs.3,00,000/-, Ex.B-4 is certified copy of Suit
Register extract in O.S.No.14/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Xth Additional District
Judge’s Court, Narsapur. Ex.B-5 is the certified copy of Suit Register extract in
O.S.No.30/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Xth Additional District Judge’s Court,
Narsapur. Ex.B-6 is certified copy of FIR along with Private Complaint, Ex.B-7 is certified copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.271/2011. (Ex.B-1 and
Ex.B-2 marked in cross examination of P.W.1, by mistake Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 marked through D.W.1. As such Ex.B-1 certified copy of FIR is referred as 12
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
Ex.B-6 and Ex.B-2 certified copy of Calender and Judgment is referred as
Ex.B-7 in this Judgment for the sake of convenience).
9. Heard arguments of plaintiff and defendants, besides written arguments of plaintiff and defendants.
10. ISSUE No. 3 AND 6 :
3. Whether the plaintiff obtained registered Settlement deed, dated 30-03-2013 from the defendant by playing fraud, deception and undue influence on the defendant ?
6. Whether the registered Settlement Deed, dated 30-03-2013 is not accepted and not acted upon and not delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff ?
Issue No.3 and 6 are grouped up together for discussion, for the sake of brevity and convenience, to avoid repetition as these issues are interrelated to each other.
Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit against sole defendant for declaration that the registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 bearing Document
No. 490/2014 of S.R.O Palakol executed by defendant for the plaint schedule property to defeat the earlier registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 bearing Document No. 2243/2013 of S.R.O, Palakol executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for the plaint schedule property is capricious, illegal, sham, void and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant and for costs. During pendency of the suit, the sole defendant Molleti Manga Tayaru died and defendants 2 and 3 were added as L.Rs of deceased defendant as per Orders in I.A.No.773/2019 dated 4-12-2019.
13
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
11. It is the specific claim of the plaintiff Molleti Suresh that the deceased 1st defendant is his mother. She is the absolute owner of property in an extent of 152-2 sq. yards of site in MIG Phase-1 and house No.8 and an
R.C.C roof building bearing new Door No. 52-32-39 in Palakol Municipal limits, the 1st defendant has settled a portion of building on the North of plaint schedule property to his sisters Peethani Padma and others. The 1st defendant out of love and affection towards the plaintiff has settled the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under registered Settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 vide Document No. 2243/2013 of S.R.O Palakol and delivered possession of shop rooms in the plaint schedule property on the date of execution of registered Settlement Deed and kept backside three rooms of plaint schedule property with the 1st defendant for her living till her life time. In the said
Settlement Deed the 1st defendant pleaded that she took the eastern side three residential rooms in the plaint schedule building for her residence without the right of Mortgage, charge, security, gift and sale of the said three rooms during her life time and the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of said three rooms in the plaint schedule property after the life time of 1st defendant and enjoy the same by the plaintiff with absolute rights. The remaining property in the plaint schedule property was delivered possession to the plaintiff on the date of settlement deed. The plaintiff has accepted the said Settlement Deed
dated 30-03-2013 and have been in possession and enjoyment of the
remaining portion except the three rooms in which the 1st defendant is residing.
12. As the matter stands thus, the disputes arose between the plaintiff and his sisters, his sisters i.e., defendants 2 and 3 induced and played fraud on 1st defendant and compelled to execute registered Cancellation Deed to defeat the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-3-2013 and the 1st defendant has executed registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 in respect of 14
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
plaint schedule property to defeat the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013. When the plaintiff obtained Encumbrance Certificate, he came to know about the Cancellation deed dated 30-01-2014 and filed this suit.
13. The deceased 1st defendant filed Written Statement during her life time stating that she is a widow under extreme old age having contracted marriages of her two daughters, the plaintiff is her sole son is always high handed and drunkard and used to employ force and extortion on the defendant under grip of fear and tension to grab the plaint schedule property by hook or crook and foisted false cases through his wife and also he got filed civil suits.
Accordingly, they got civil and criminal disputes between herself and plaintiff.
In such circumstances at the intervention of elders and the family matter was some how pacified in execution of Compromise Bond dated 28-03-2013 by which the plaintiff impressed the defendant to pay Permanent Alimony of
Rs.4,50,000/- for her maintenance and the defendant shall execute registered
Settlement Deed over the plaint schedule property reserving life interest over the said eastern three rooms therein and withdraw all the said cases including civil suites. Thereby the plaintiff obtained registered Settlement deed dated 30-03-2013 from the defendant by playing fraud, deception and undue influence. In any view of the matter if the plaintiff committed breach of terms of
Compromise Bond, the defendant is at liberty to cancel the proposed conveyance in favour of plaintiff. In view of the fraud played by plaintiff, she executed Cancellation Deed under registered Revocation Deed dated 30-01-2014 by virtue of rights conferred under Compromise Bond dated 28-03-2013.
14. After death of 1st defendant, the defendants 2 and 3 filed Written
Statement on the same lines of written statement of deceased 1st defendant.
15
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
The defendants 2 and 3 stepped into the shoes of 1st defendant. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 are not allowed to take a new plea than the plea of deceased 1st defendant.
15. On analyzing the pleadings of plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff is son of 1st defendant and brother of defendants 2 and 3. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the existing relationship between the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants admitted the execution of registered Settlement
Deed dated 30-03-2013 vide Document No. 2243/2013 of S.R.O Palakol in favour of plaintiff by deceased 1st defendant.
16. According to the defendants, the plaintiff executed a Compromise
Bond on 28-03-2013 to pay maintenance of Rs.4,50,000/- to the deceased 1st defendant. Accordingly, the 1st defendant executed registered Settlement
Deed dated 30-03-2013 in favour of plaintiff, where the plaintiff failed to comply the terms and conditions of compromise bond and played fraud, deception, and undue influence on the 1st defendant, as the plaintiff committed breach of terms of Compromise Bond, the 1st defendant executed registered
Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 vide Document No. 490/2014 of S.R.O
Palakol.
17. In the written statement of defendants 2 and 3 they contended that by virtue of Registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014, the 1st defendant settled the plaint schedule property with absolute rights in favour of her younger daughter i.e., 3rd defendant under registered Settlement Deed dated 25-05-2015 under Document No. 2376/2015 of S.R.O Gunupudi and delivered possession to 3rd defendant, who rendered ostensible services to the 1st defendant in her old age. It shows the 1st defendant has executed a registered
Settlement Deed in favour of plaintiff on 30-03-2013, thereafter a Cancellation 16
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
Deed on 30-01-2014 vide Document No. 490/2014 by cancelling Settlement
Deed dated 30-03-2013 and also executed executed a registered Settlement
Deed dated 25-05-2015 vide Document No. 2376/2015 in favour of 3rd defendant during her life time in respect of plaint schedule property.
18. The plaintiff has categorically pleaded that the registered
Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 executed by 1st defendant to defeat the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 is capricious, illegal, sham, collusive, void and non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to prove the said aspect with cogent and convincing evidence to declare the registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 is capricious, illegal, sham, collusive, void and non-est in the eye of law.
19. To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff Molleti Suresh got examined as P.W.1 reiterated the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A-1 to
Ex.A-4 documents in his evidence. The plaintiff also got examined Gudala
Babu Vijayakrishna and Kapila Venkata Krishna Rao as P.W.2 and 3 in support of his contention taken in the pleadings. Thus, the plaintiff has been relying upon his evidence as P.W.1 and evidence of P.W.2 and 3 coupled with
Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4 documents to prove suit claim.
20. Let us come to Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4 documents, Ex.A-1 is certified copy of registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 vide Document No.
490/2014 executed by Molleti Manga Tayaru i.e., 1st defendant in favour of
Molleti Suresh i.e., plaintiff herein in respect of plaint schedule house bearing old Door No. 54-1-36, new Door No. 52-32-39 with 152.2 sq. yards of site. In
Ex.A-1, the 1st defendant admitted that the plaintiff is her son, she executed
Settlement Deed on 30-03-2013 in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint 17
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
schedule property. The recitals of Ex.A-1 shows Molleti Manga Tayaru cancelled the Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 as the plaintiff did not take of her care and behaved negligently against her, due to her family necessities and maintenance she cancelled the Settlement Deed executed in favour of plaintiff. In Ex.A-1 Cancellation Deed the 1st defendant does not refer the
Compromise Bond dated 28-03-2013 in between the plaintiff and defendants.
In the pleadings the defendants have categorically mentioned that as the plaintiff failed to comply the terms and conditions of Compromise Deed, the 1st defendant forced to cancel the Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013, but the said recitals absent in Ex.A-1.
21. Coming to Ex.A-2 document, it is certified copy of registered
Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 vide Document No. 2243/2013 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
Ex.A-2 recitals shows out of love and affection, the 1st defendant executed registered Settlement Deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and delivered possession to the plaintiff on the date of execution of registered Settlement Deed. In Ex.A-2 registered Settlement Deed, the 1st attestor is no other than the 3rd defendant herein Pithani Suneetha. Ex.A-2 registered before S.R.O Office under due process of law and attested by 3rd defendant and other two witnesses. The recitals of Ex.A-2 document supporting the contention of plaintiff taken in the pleadings. Ex.A-3 is property tax receipt for the period from 1-4-2016 to 13-09-2016 paid by Molleti Suresh to Palakol Municipality in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A-4 is four electricity receipts in the name of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 shows the property tax and electricity connection mutated in the name of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. The pleadings and evidence of plaintiff is supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3.
18
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
22. The defendant Counsel cross examined P.Ws. 1 to 3, but their evidence was not at all shattered in favour of the contention of the defendants so taken by them in their respective written statements i.e., the plaintiff played fraud, coercion and undue influence and obtained Ex.A-2 by 1st defendant.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden by proving Ex.A-2 contents with cogent and convincing evidence.
23. Now the onus shifts on the defendants, to prove that the plaintiff obtained registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 from the 1st defendant by playing fraud, deception and undue influence on the 1st defendant and the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 is not acted upon and not delivered possession to the plaintiff.
24. To prove the contention of the defendants, the 3rd defendant
Peethani Sunitha got examined as D.W.1, reiterated the written statement contents of defendants and exhibited Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7 documents in her evidence. The defendants also got examined one Karumanchi Galliyya as
D.W.2 in support of the contention of defendants. Thus, the defendants are relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7 documents to prove their stand taken in the pleadings.
25. D.W.1 and D.W.2 supported the contention of the defendants in their chief examination affidavits. Whereas in cross examination, D.W.1 Peethani
Sunitha testifies that her mother executed Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule house. She signed on the said Settlement
Deed as 1st identifying witness before S.R.O, Palakol, Kadali Nageswara Rao and Gudala Babu Vijaya Krishna are acted as attestors on Ex.A-2, she signed 19
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
as first attestor on Ex.A-2, she has gone through the contents of Ex.A-2, Ex.A- 2 recitals does not contain that the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to her mother i.e., deceased 1st defendant. She further testifies that Ex.A-2 recitals shows except three rooms remaining plaint schedule house possession delivered to plaintiff on the date of Ex.A-2 and mentioned her mother is entitled to enjoy the said three rooms during her life time without right of alienation, after her life time, the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of said three rooms and there is no reference in Ex.A-2 about
Compromise Deed dated 28-03-2013, the date of execution of Ex.A-1 nowhere mentioned in the document, Ex.A-2 is not a conditional Gift, her mother executed Ex.A-1 Cancellation Deed, cancelling Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed, she signed as 2nd attestor and 2nd identifying witness in Ex.A-1, subsequently, on 25-05-2015 she obtained registered Settlement Deed from defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property.
26. Accordingly, the evidence of D.W.1 has been shattered in cross examination in favour of claim of the plaintiff. Evidently, D.W.1 signed as identifying witness and 1st attestor under Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed, Ex.A-2 recitals does not contain about Compromise Bond dated 28-03-2013, Ex.A-2 is not a conditional Gift Deed, under Ex.A-2 the property was delivered to the plaintiff. Therefore, Ex.A-2 was acted upon by the plaintiff. Further it reveals that there is no date of execution mentioned on Compromise Bond. D.W.1 admitted in cross examination that Ex.B-1 document not referred in Ex.A-2,
Ex.A-2 does not contain the condition that the 1st defendant can cancel Ex.A-2
Settlement Deed if the plaintiff failed to look after the 1st defendant in future.
27. Coming to the cross examination of D.W.2, he testifies that he does not know who filed the suit against whom and for what purpose, he does not 20
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
know the contents of Ex.B-1 Compromise Deed dated 28-03-2013, he does not know the case details of Suresh and his family members, the plaintiff prepared Compromise Deed, he does not know attestors of Compromise
Deed. Therefore the evidence of D.W.2 is no way helpful to the contention of the defendants.
28. Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 certified copy of FIR and Calendar and Judgment marked in cross examination of P.W.1 confronted to the witness. By mistake again Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 marked through D.W.1 in her evidence by giving
Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2numbers to documents in the cross examination of P.W.1.
Hence, for the sake of convenience Ex.B-1 certified copy of FIR referred as
Ex.B-6 and Ex.B-2 certified copy of Calendar and Judgment in
C.C.No.217/2011 is referred as Ex.B-7 in this Judgment.
29. Let us come to Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7 documents. Ex.B-6 (Ex.B-1) is certified copy of FIR along with Private Complaint shows Molleti Kanaka
Lakshmi Prasanna gave Report against Molleti Suresh and 5 others, the
Police registered FIR under section 498-A IPC. It shows the wife of plaintiff filed case against plaintiff and five others. Ex.B-7 (Ex.B-2) is certified copy of
Calender and Judgment in C.C.No. 271/2011 showing the plaintiff and 1st defendant as accused and the case against A-1 and A-2 ended with acquittal.
30. Coming to Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 documents exhibited in the evidence of
D.W.1, Ex.B-1 is Compromise Bond containing the signatures of plaintiff, plaintiff wife and defendants 1 to 3. Ex.B-1 Compromise Bond does not contain the date of execution, except purchasing of Non-judicial stamp paper as pointed out by plaintiff Counsel in cross examination of D.W.1. In para No.2 of Ex.B-1 door number added with pen, in Para-3 the writing adjusted with 21
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
pen. The recitals of Ex.B-1 supporting the version of the defendants 2 and 3.
According to defendants 2 and 3, Ex.B-1 Compromise Bond executed on 28-03-2013. If it is true, Ex.B-1 referred in subsequent document of Settlement
Deed dated 30-03-2013, but there is no reference in Ex.A-2 in respect of
Ex.B-1 Compromise Bond. Moreover, Ex.B-1 is unregistered document cannot be looked into for any purpose. Therefore, Ex.B-1 is excluded from consideration for any purpose.
31. Ex.B-2 is certified copy of registered Sale Deed dated 11-2-2021 vide Document No. 989/2021 executed by plaintiff in favour of Siram Aruna Sai
Kumar in respect of house bearing old door No.54-1-36, new Door No.
52-32-39, RCC daba house with site in an extent of 152.2 sq. yards of Palakol
Municipality. It shows the plaintiff alienated suit schedule property under
Ex.B-2. Ex.B-3 is certified copy of registered Mortgage Bond dated 11-2-2021 vide Document No. 990/2021 executed by plaintiff in favour of Gandhamsetti
Venkata Satyanarayana Gupta, Yasoda, and Ravi Teja for Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.B-4 is certified copy of Suit Register extract in O.S.No.14/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Xth Additional District Judge’s
Court, Narsapur. Ex.B-5 is certified copy of Suit Register extract in O.S.No.
30/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Xth Additional District Judge’s Court, Narsapur.
32. Ex.B-4 reveals, the plaintiff Asyapu Jyothi Naga Prasad filed suit against Molleti Manga Tayaru, Ex.B-5 shows Pithani Suryanarayana filed suit against Pithani Suneetha. Both the suits under Ex.B-4 and Ex.B-5 are no way related to this suit proceedings. It is pertaining to note that the evidence of
D.W.1 and D.W.2 coupled with Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7 documents does not reveal that the plaintiff obtained Ex.A-2 registered Settlement Deed on 30-03-2013 by playing fraud, coercion and undue influence as contended by defendants in their pleadings.
22
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
33. At this juncture, the Plaintiff Counsel argued that Ex.A-2 registered
Settlement Deed is executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff with love and affection, the same was acted upon. Therefore, unilateral Cancellation of
Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 under Ex.A-1 Cancellation Deed is invalid under law and fact.
34. In this regard, the plaintiff Counsel relied upon the following decisions :
1. In between Fazalullah Khan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
represented by its District Registrar and others, reported in 2012 (2) ALT
728, Where in Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad has observed that :
“Cancellation of Gift Deed, once title to property is transferred to donee under a gift deed executed in his favour, the same cannot be cancelled without the participation of both parties (donor and donee).
2. In between K. Gopal Reddy Vs. Secretary, M/s Vijaya Co-
operative House Buildings Society, Hyderabad and others, reported in
2004 (2) ALT 538, Where in Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad has observed that :
“Once property is conveyed under a document, it is governed by T.P Act and transferee gets rights and possession.
Unilateral annulment or cancellation of a sale deed by vendor not permissible. Vendor must approach court by filing a suit under
Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.” 23
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
35. In the relied decisions it is held that, once title to property is transferred to donee under a registered Gift Deed, it is acted upon, the same cannot be unilaterally annulled or cancelled by vendor. Vendor must approach
Court by filing a suit under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. In the suit on hand, the 1st defendant executed Ex.A-2 Gift Settlement Deed in favour of plaintiff, the same is accepted and acted upon by donee i.e., plaintiff during the life time of donor. Under such circumstances the donor cannot be unilaterally annulled or cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed without participation of donee.
The only option left to the donor to approach the Civil Court for cancellation under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act under due process of law.
36. For better appreciation, it is apropos to refer section 122 to 126 of
Transfer of Property Act which is excerpted hereunder :
122. “Gift” defined.—“Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
Acceptance when to be made.—Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is till capable of giving,
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
123. Transfer how effected.—For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.
For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. Such delivery may be made in the same 24
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
way as goods sold may be delivered.
124. Gift of existing and future property. —A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter.
125. Gift to several, of whom one does not accept .—A gift of a thing to two or more donees, of whom one does not accept it, is void as to the interest which he would have taken had he accepted.
126. When gift may be suspended or revoked .—The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.
A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.
37. The essential ingredients as specified under section 122 of the Act covered in Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed executed by donor in favour of donee i.e., 1st defendant and plaintiff. The donee accepted the gift during the life time of donor i.e., 1st defendant. Evidently, Ex.A-2 Gift Settlement Deed is not a conditional gift. If it is a conditional gift, on the happening of specified event the donor shall suspend or revoke the Gift Deed. Where there is no specified event or condition, the question of suspend or revocation of Gift Deed does not arise without participation of donee as contemplated under section 126 of the
Act.
25
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
38. On the other hand, the defendants Counsel argued that the plaintiff obtained Ex.A-2 by playing fraud, deception and undue influence on 1st defendant, as such the 1st defendant rightly cancelled Ex.A-2 under Ex.A-1.
39. In this regard, the defendants Counsel relied upon the following decisions :
1. In between City Municipal Counsil Bhalki by its Chief Officer Vs.
Gurappa (D) by L.Rs & Another, reported in 2016 (1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 175 (S.C.), Where in Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that :
“Suit for declaration of title and possession, onus is upon plaintiff to prove his title. Plaintiff must prove his title independently and a decree in his favour cannot be awarded for the only reason that defendant has not been able to prove his title.”
2. In between Sajana Granites, Madras and another Vs. Manduva
Srinivasa Rao and others, reported in 2002 (1) ALT 466 (D.B), Where in
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has observed
that :
“Plaintiff filing suit for declaration of title succeeds only on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of case of defendants. Defendants need not plead and prove possible defects in plaintiff’s title. Even if defendants fails to establish their own title, plaintiff must be non-suited if he fails to establish his title.”
3. In between K. Venkatasubba Reddi Vs. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) and his Lrs, Second Appeal No. 222 of 1991 decided on 18-01-1999,
Wherein, Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that :
“The Appellate Court has committed error in decreeing the suit by deviating from the settled principles, that in a suit for 26
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed in establishing his title irrespective of the question whether the defendant has proved his case or not.”
4. In between Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker Vs. Pranjivandas
Magani Al Thakker and others, reported in (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases
255, Wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that :
“The gift was to become operative after the death of the donor and he was to be entitled to have the right to transfer the property absolutely by way of gift or he would be entitled to collect the mesne profits. Thus, the gift deed conferred only a limited right upon the respondent donee. The donor had executed a conditional gift deed and retained the possession and enjoyment of the property during his lifetime. The recitals in the cancellation deed were consistent with the recitals in the gift deed. He had expressly stated that the respondent had cheated him and he had not fulfilled the conditions subject to which there was an oral understanding between them. Consequently, he mentioned that the conditional gift given to the donee was cancelled. He also mentioned that the possession and enjoyment remained with him during his life time. He expressly made it clear that he did not hand over the possession to the respondent not did the gift become complete during the life time of the donor. Thus, the gift had become ineffective and inoperative. It was duly cancelled.”
40. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act provides, any person entitled to any legal character or any right to the property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right. The
Court may in its discretion make a declaration that he is so entitled. In the relied decision it is held that the plaintiff must prove his title independently but not depend on the weakness of other side. In the suit on hand, the plaintiff established his claim with independent evidence but not depend on the weakness of case of the defendants as discussed supra. In the relied decision 27
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
further held that conditional Gift Deed executed retaining possession and enjoyment of the property during donor’s life time, the donor is competent to cancel the same. In the suit on hand, Ex.A-2 is not a conditional Gift Deed and also possession delivered to the donee.
41. Therefore, it is held that the ratio decidendi in the relied decisions are not squarely applicable to the facts of this suit.
42. It is trite to say, it is established in the pleadings and evidence that
Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 is accepted, acted upon and delivered possession to the plaintiff on the date itself. Accordingly, the plaintiff established due execution of Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 by 1st defendant without any fraud, deception and undue influence. On the other hand, the defendants failed to establish that the Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 is obtained by plaintiff by playing fraud, deception and undue influence on 1st defendant and not acted upon as discussed supra.
43. ISSUE No.4 AND 5 :
4. Whether the plaintiff committed breach of terms of compromise bond
dated 28-03-2013 ?
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?
Ex.B-1 Compromise Bond dated 28-03-2013 is not binding on the plaintiff as discussed in issue No. 3 and 6. Therefore, whether the plaintiff committed breach of terms of Compromise Bond dated 28-03-2013 does not arise.
28
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
44. The defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable. The bare allegation is not suffice. On which ground the suit is not maintainable is silent in the pleadings and evidence of defendants. When the 1st defendant cancelled Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed under Ex.A-1 Cancellation Deed, after came to know the same the plaintiff filed this suit for appropriate relief. The relief claimed by plaintiff is maintainable and this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
45. ISSUE No.1 AND 2 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the registered Cancellation Deed, dated 30-01-2014 executed by defendant for the plaint schedule property is illegal, sham, void and non-est in the eye of Law ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration that the registered Cancellation
Deed dated 30-01-2014 vide Document No. 490/2014 of S.R.O Palakol executed by the 1st defendant for the suit schedule property to defeat the earlier registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 vide Document No.
2243/2013 of S.R.O Palakol executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff for the suit schedule property is illegal, sham, void and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff established the said contention taken in the pleadings with cogent and convincing evidence as discussed in the aforesaid issues.
29
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
46. On the other hand, the defendants failed to establish that the registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 is not accepted and acted upon by the plaintiff during the life time of 1st defendant and not delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff with cogent and convincing evidence as discussed in the aforesaid issues.
47. Under these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is entitle dto declare that the registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 is illegal, sham, void and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential relief of
Permanent Injunction.
Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
48. ISSUE No.7:
7. To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is decreed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring that the registered Cancellation Deed dated 30-01-2014 vide Document No. 490/2014 of S.R.O Palakol, executed by 1st defendant for plaint schedule property is sham and void and granted consequential relief of
Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property, with costs. The copy of decree is marked to
S.R.O, Palakol for necessary entries.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10thday of April, 2026.
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Narasapuram.
30
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :
P.W.1 : Molleti Suresh, D.W.1 : Pithani Suneetha,
P.W.2 : Gudala Babu Vijayakrishna,D.W.2 : Karumanchi Galliyya
P.W.3 : Kapila Venkata Krishna Rao,
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF :
Ex.A-1/30-01-2014 : Certified copy of registered Cancellation Deed
dated 30-01-2014 vide document No. 490/2014 executed
by Mollti Manga Tayaru in favour of Molleti Suresh,
Ex.A-2/30-03-2013 : Certified copy of registered Settlement Deed dated 30-03-2013 vide Document No. 2243/2013 executed by Molleti Manga Tayaru in favour of Molleti Suresh.
Ex.A-3/01-04-2016 to Property Tax receipt from 1-4-2016 to 30-09-2016, 30-09-2026 :
Ex.A-4/ --- :Four electricity receipts pertaining to his name mutated in A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Andhra Pradesh.
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B-1/28-03-2013 : Compromise bond dated 28-03-2013 in between plaintiff and his wife, defendants 1 and 2.
Ex.B-2/11-02-2021 : Certified copy of registered Sale Deed dated 11-2-2021 vide document No. 989/2021 executed by plaintiff in favour of Siram Aruna Sai Kumar in respect of house bearing old Door Number 54-1-36, new door No. 52-32- 39 RCC daba house with site an extent of 152.2 sq. yards of Palakol Municipality.
31
O.S.No. 207/2014 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),
Dt. 10-04-2026 Narsapur.
Ex.B-3/11-02-2021 : Certified copy of registered Mortgage Bond dated 11-2-2021 vide document No. 990/2021 executed by Molleti Suresh in favour of Gandhamsetti Venkata Satyanarayana Gupta, Yesoda and Ravi Teja for Rs.3,00,000/-,
Ex.B-4/ --- : Certified copy of Suit Register extract in O.S.No.14/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Xth Additional District Judge’s Court, Narsapur.
Ex.B-5/ --- : Certified copy of Suit Register extract in O.S.No.30/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Xth Additional District Judge’s Court, Narsapur.
Ex.B-6/ --- : Certified copy of FIR along with Private Complaint, (Ex.B-1)
Ex.B-7/28-02-1999 : Certified copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.271/2011. (Ex.B-2).
NOTE: (Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 marked in cross examination of P.W.1, by mistake
Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 marked through D.W.1. As such Ex.B-1 certified copy of FIR is referred as Ex.B-6 and Ex.B-2 certified copy of Calender and Judgment is referred as Ex.B-7 in this Judgment for the sake of convenience).
C.J.,(S.D)., NSP.,