APKU000006262019
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL
PRESENT: SRI G. KABARDHI,
Principal District Judge, Kurnool.
Friday, the 1st day of May 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT No.24 of 2019
1.K.Bharathi 2.K.Swetha Suseela 3.K.Sudheer Manmadha Raj Minor rep., by next friend/
first plaintiff..Plaintiffs
-Versus- 1.Bollupalli Madhavi Latha 2.N.C.C Group Commander, NCC Head Quarters, Doctor’s Colony,
Kurnool ..Defendants
This suit came on 31-03-2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Rama Subba Reddy and Sri A.Prabhakar Reddy,
Advocates for the plaintiffs, Sri Pokala Srinivasulu, Advocate for first defendant and Government Pleader for the second defendant, upon hearing the plaintiff and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 2
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare the sale deeds bearing Nos.6504/2015 dated 31-07-2015 and 2541/2016 dated 29-03-2016 as null and void and alternatively to direct the first defendant to execute a re conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs in pursuance of acknowledgment cum agreement of re conveyance
dated 12-05-2016, and in the event of her failure, to execute a re
conveyance deed through process of Court and to grant a decree against the first defendant for Rs.8,83,395/- and grant consequential injunction restraining the first defendant and her men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs and for costs.
2. The brief averments in the plaint are that the first plaintiff is the wife of late Venugopal Rao who is the brother of the first defendant. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their children. The third plaintiff is minor and during the pendency of this suit, he was declared as major.
The second defendant is the tenant of the suit schedule property and he is only a formal party.
Late Venugopal Rao hold Plot No.120 in Doctor’s Colony,
Kurnool, which he got by virtue of two gift deeds bearing
Nos.2300/2001 dated 07-04-2001 and 7734/2001, dated 28-11-2001.
In the said plot, houses bearing D.Nos.86/342 and 86/342-1 are constructed and they are shown in the plaint schedule. The said
Venugopal Rao leased out those two buildings to NCC who is in possession of the said building on behalf of the said Venugopal Rao.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 3
It is further averred in the plaint that the said Venugopal Rao died on 19-09-2018 leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and they succeeded to his estate..
The first defendant fraudulently obtained sale deeds bearing
Nos.6504/2015 dated 31-07-2015 and 2541/2016 dated 29-03-2016 from the said Venugopal Rao without consideration. The first defendant informed the said Venugopal Rao that she required the title deeds of immovable properties for obtaining loans from the banks and soon after satisfying the said purpose, she assured to execute a document re conveying the title in his favour. After execution of the sale deeds, the said Venugopal Rao requested the first defendant to acknowledge the truth of non payment of consideration under the above two sale deeds and reasons for obtaining those sale deeds.
Upon that the first defendant executed acknowledgment cum agreement dated 12-05-2016, acknowledging the requirement of execution of the sale deed relating to the suit schedule properties for the purpose of obtaining loan and non-payment of consideration and also agreeing to reconvey the title relating to the suit schedule properties to the said Venugopal Rao (husband of first plaintiff). The first defendant also promised to pay the rent received by the bank for discharging the loan, in case the second defendant sends rent to the bank.
It is further averred in the plaint that the said Venugopal Rao died all of a sudden and taking advantage of his death, the first defendant exhibited her mala fide intention to grab the suit schedule properties, which she intended at the time of obtaining the said sale
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 4 deeds in her favour. The first defendant suppressed the facts leading to execution of the sale deeds and the purpose for which those sale deeds were executed and started rents from the second defendant.
It is further averred in the plaint that the above said two sale deeds are not supported by consideration and they are void documents, as they were fraudulently obtained. From the beginning the first defendant has been with a mala fide intention and made a false promise to reconvey the title and got the sale deeds executed from the husband of the first plaintiff, hence the said sale deed are liable to be set aside.
It is further averred in the plaint that the very purpose of obtaining the said two sale deeds was to obtain loan for the purpose of mortgaging and the bank insisted for realization of debt from out of the rents payable by NCC. The NCC on demand of the bank, sent
Rs.3,98,970/- and Rs.4,84,425/- for discharging the debt payable to the bank by NCC. As per the agreement the first defendant is liable to pay Rs.8,83,395/-, which is paid to the bank by the NCC. Now the first defendant discharged the entire amount payable to the bank and got the sale deeds relating to the suit schedule properties released.
Inspite of that, the first defendant is not coming forward to cancel the above said two sale deeds and to reconvey the title. On that the first plaintiff got issued a legal notice, demanding requesting the first defendant to cancel the said sale deeds which were obtained by her fraudulently. Having received the said notice, the first defendant gave reply notice dated 20-02-2019 with false allegations. The loan obtained in favour of the said Venugopal Rao was also transferred in
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 5 the name of the first defendant and tenancy is attorned in her favour. It is alleged that mutation was also effected in the municipal records and as late Venugopal Rao was in financial crisis, he did not question the sale deeds during his life time.
It is further averred in the plaint that there is no bank transaction for paying the sale consideration relating to sale deed bearing
No.6504/2015 dated 31-07-2015 and the first defendant is taking false plea in that regard. During the execution of the second sale deed bearing No.2541/2016, the first defendant fraudulently inserted cheque bearing No.401205 for Rs.20,00,000/-, cheque bearing
No.401206 for Rs.10,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.401207 for
Rs.10,00,000/- without the knowledge of the said Venugopal Rao. The first defendant gave two cheques bearing Nos.401205 and 401207 to the said Venugopal Rao for the purpose of spending the said amount for maintenance of Bhavya Sree Hotel which was being maintained by the son of the first defendant. As the son of the first defendant has no experience, the first defendant requested to make payments to various persons who supplied the material for equipping the hotel.
It is further alleged in the plaint that on 30-03-2016 itself, the amount was drawn by the said Venugopal Rao and discharged the liabilities of the said hotel and the other cheque was not issued to the said Venugopal Rao. The cash of Rs.10,00,000/- mentioned in the sale deeds was also not paid to the said Venugopal Rao. No consideration was paid for execution of the sale deed bearing
No.2541/2016. In fact, the first defendant was not having capacity to purchase the suit schedule properties. Further, the income tax returns
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 6 of the first defendant for the relevant year does not disclose the purchase of both the houses. Hence, the suit.
3. The first defendant filed written statement, denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint except the relationship between the parties and also about the construction of houses by late Venugopal
Rao and leasing out of the premises to the second defendant and averred that the allegation that the husband of the first plaintiff lease out the premises to NCC and NCC is in possession and enjoyment of the said premises on behalf of late Venugopal Rao is not correct. The first defendant is not aware of the said lease given to NCC on payment of rent. Even otherwise, the letter itself speaks that it has been written by late Venugopal Rao on 06-08-2015 for arrears of rent.
It is further averred in the written statement that subsequent to the sale of the suit schedule properties in favour of the first defendant, there were no properties of Venugopal Rao and in invariably the suit schedule properties would not constitute the estate of the said
Venugopal Rao. The mother of late Venugopal Rao by name
Nageswari is alive and as per Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, if a
Hindu male dies intestate, his properties devolves upon his Class-I legal heirs and the said Nageswari being a Class-I legal heir, is a proper and necessary party to this suit and since she is not added as a party, this suit is liable to be dismissed.
It is further averred in the written statement that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the said Venugopal Rao who got the same by virtue of two registered gift deeds from his adopted father by name Dr.K.Sunkanna. The said
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 7
Venugopal Rao had lease out the said properties to NCC
Group/second defendant. The first defendant purchased Item No.1 of the suit schedule property from the said Venugopal Rao on 31-07- 2015 under a registered sale deed bearing No.6502/2015 for valuable consideration of Rs.65,00,000/-. The said Venugopal Rao was having multiple businesses and he mortgaged the suit schedule properties to various banks. The first defendant purchased Item No.1 of suit schedule property and a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was credited to S.B
Account No.0661101044098 of the said Venugopal Rao on 31-07- 2015 itself. The said amount was obtained by the first defendant by availing housing loan from Canara Bank. The Manager of Canara
Bank has also issued a certificate to the effect that an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- was credited to the account of the said Venugopal
Rao. Thus, the entire consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- which include payment of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cash, was paid by the first defendant. The first defendant had created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of Canara Bank. Subsequently, the first defendant shifted the housing loan from Canara Bank to State Bank of
Hyderabad and from there to State Bank of India.
It is further averred in the written statement that the first defendant had also purchased Item No.2 of the suit schedule property from the said Venugopal Rao under a registered sale deed bearing
No.2541/2016 dated 20-03-2016 for valuable consideration of
Rs.50,00,000/- and the said Venugopal Rao has conveyed his right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties in favour of the first defendant under above said two sale deeds. The said sale deeds were acted and tenancy was attorned in favour of the first defendant.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 8
Mutation was also effected in Municipal records and ownership of the properties was also transferred in the name of the first defendant. The name of the first defendant is also mutated in electricity department and she is also paying property tax as well as electricity consumption amount.
It is further averred in the written statement that the said
Venugopal Rao was alive for about three years subsequent to execution of sale deeds in favour of the first defendant and during his life time he did not raise any objection. The first plaintiff has been falsely claiming that the first defendant has no capacity to purchase the properties. In fact, the first defendant is working as Vice President (Finance & Administration) in a multi national company and she is also a qualified financial professional having completed her Masters
Degree in Commerce and MBA in Finance. The son of the first defendant was working as an Engineer in the same multinational company. The husband of the first defendant is an income tax payer.
Thus all the three family members of the first defendant are assessees and are supportive of each other. Apart from the above, the first defendant has also started her own independent business in the form of managing a Beauty Parlour and a Restaurant under the name and style “Hotel Bhavya Sree”.
It is further averred in the written statement that prior to the sale of the properties in favour of the first defendant, said Venugopal Rao has lease out the suit schedule properties to the second defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.81,273/- and Rs.30,690/- respectively. The change of ownership was accepted by the officials of second
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 9 defendant and to that effect a letter dated 30-03-2016 was sent by the second defendant to the State Bank of Hyderabad, MSR Nagar
Branch, Kurnool requesting them to credit the rental amount into the
SB Account of the first defendant by marking a copy of the same to the said Venugopal Rao who was alive by then. The second defendant had executed a rental agreement in respect of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property and she started receiving rents pertaining to the said property from 01-04-2016 onwards and received the same till 31-07-2018. But the second defendant did not pay any rent from 01- 08-2015 onwards in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and the rent due is Rs.81,273/- per month. The second defendant addressed a letter to the first defendant to pay additional load charges to Electricity Department.
It is further averred in the written statement that as on 05-06-2019 an amount of Rs.39,79,535/- was due towards rent by the second respondent and the plaintiffs have no manner of right to claim the said amount.
It is further averred in the written statement that as the first defendant availed housing loans from the bank for purchasing the suit schedule properties she has to pay EMIs regularly to the banks and as the second defendant failed to pay rent for the last three years, the first defendant filed W.P.No.7063/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P for payment of rent and the said writ petition was allowed.
It is further averred in the written statement that subsequent to the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the above said writ petition, the first defendant addressed a letter to the second defendant
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 10 on 12-09-2019, requesting them to pay the arrears of rent upto 31-05-2019, but the second defendant did not comply the said demand. As per Sec.109 of Transfer of Property Act, a transferee has a right to recover the rent. A tenant cannot refuse to pay the rent on the ground that he has not attorned the tenancy. Once a title is established by new landlord, the tenant is bound to pay the rent to new purchaser.
It is further averred in the written statement that thereafter the first plaintiff who is the sixth respondent in the above said writ petition, filed Writ Appeal No.5307/2019 seeking to set aside the order 03-09- 2019 passed in the said writ petition and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
It is further averred in the written statement that the alleged acknowledgment cum agreement dated 12-05-2016 is a rank forgery.
The first plaintiff who has issued legal notice dated 27-01-2019 claims that the first defendant executed an agreement for re conveyance of title, whereas in the pleadings, it was termed as “acknowledgment cum agreement”.
It is further averred in the written statement that the said
Venugopal Rao had executed the above said two sale deeds voluntarily and the said sale deeds were acted upon and possession of the properties was also delivered to the first defendant and tenancy was also attorned in her favour and mutation was also effected in municipal records and electricity department records in her name and all this invariably establishes the possession of the first defendant over the suit schedule properties.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 11
It is further averred in the written statement that the present suit without seeking the relief of possession of the properties is not maintainable and this suit is also barred by limitation and payment of court fee is incorrect. Finally, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4.The second defendant filed written statement admitting that the husband of first plaintiff leased out the suit schedule properties to them and filing of Writ Petition No.7063/2019 by the first defendant and denied the further averments made in the plaint and averred that after demise of the husband of the first plaintiff on 19-09-2018, the plaintiffs and the first defendant approached them for rents.
It is further averred that the second defendant is liable to pay the rents to the rightful owner and after this Court passes order, the second defendant will pay the rents and finally prayed for dismissal of this suit against the second defendant.
5.Based on the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor in
Office settled the following issues for trial:
1.Whether the first defendant executed acknowledgment -cum- agreement dated 12-05-2016 in favour of late Sri K.Venugopal Rao?
2.Whether the sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 are devoid of sale consideration?
3.Whether the sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 are null and void and could be declared so, as claimed by plaintiffs?
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 12
4.Whether the first defendant could be directed to execute a deed of re conveyance in favour of plaintiffs?
5.Whether the second defendant is tenant of the first defendant or tenant of plaintiffs?
6.Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of Rs.8,83,395/- from the first defendant?
7.Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party, i.e., mother of late Sri K.Venugopal Rao?
8.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
9.Whether the court fee paid is incorrect?
10.Whether this suit for declaration is not maintainable without a prayer for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties?
11.Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration, as prayed for?
12.Whether plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?
6.On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW5 are examined and
Ex.A1 to Ex.A21 are marked. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, DW1 and CW1 are examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 and
Ex.C1 are marked.
7.Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned
Counsel for the defendants.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 13
8. ISSUE Nos.1 to 4:
These four Issues are inter-linked and inter-connected with each other, hence they are taken up together for discussion.
The first plaintiff/Smt. K.Bharathi, who is the wife of late
K.Venugopal Rao, is examined as PW1 by filing her chief affidavit and further affidavit, reiterating the entire averments made in the plaint.
Through her, Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 documents are marked. A lengthy cross examination was done by the Counsel for the defendants to this witness.
In her her cross-examination, PW1 deposed that her husband was doing business under the name and style “Akshara Industries”, which is a partnership firm and her name is shown as Managing
Director in the said firm. She admitted that the said firm took a loan and that she and her husband mortgaged a house located at Nandyal and borrowed an amount of Rs.43,00,000/-. She also admitted that
Sunrise Solar Industries stands in her name. She deposed that she borrowed an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- by mortgaging Ac.1-98cents which is located at Nandyal. She deposed that shes does not know whether her husband borrowed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from
Meghana Bar and Restaurant. She deposed that Venu Gas and Cars belong to them. She deposed that her husband took a loan of
Rs.75,00,000/- to run the said Venu Gas and Cars. She deposed that she does not know the transactions entered by her husband with private parties, i.e., Hussain Reddy, Silpa Subrahmanyam, Harithan
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 14
Suresh, Rajagopal, Narasimham, Ramesh, Aravind, Seenu, Khaleel,
Subba Reddy and Gopal.
During her further cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the first defendant completed Master of Business Administration Degree course and she used to run a beauty parlour at Hyderabad in the year 2012 and previously, she used to work as Vice President to a German
Company and looking after the Finance, Human Resource and administration works. She further deposed that the son of the first defendant studied B.Tech and Master of Business Administration courses and previously he was working in Bengaluru.
PW1 further deposed in her cross-examination that on 31-07- 2015, one Jiddu Srinivasula Reddy was present in the Registrar’s
Office on behalf of the first defendant. She deposed that she does not know whether an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was taken as housing loan by the first defendant from Canara Bank and it was transferred in the savings account of her husband on the same date, or not. She further deposed that she also does not know whether the first defendant paid the remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to her husband or not. She deposed that she does not know L.Khaleel
Ahmed Khan and G.Sridhar, who are the attestors to Ex.A7 document, but her husband knows G.Sridhar. She deposed that on 31-07-2015, she was informed by her husband that he did not receive any consideration amount under Ex.A7. She further deposed that there was a discussion in between herself, her husband and the first defendant with regard to execution of Ex.A7 document in her house on 31-07-2015 prior to the time of registration. She further deposed that
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 15 on 31-07-2015, the first defendant did not come to Kurnool and that was the reason J.Srinivasula Reddy appeared in the Registrar’s Office on behalf of the first defendant. She admitted that the recitals in
Ex.A7 disclose that the first defendant paid an amount of
Rs.65,00,000/- to her husband. She admitted that her husband had housing loan account in Canara Bank, Kurnool. She denied the suggestion that on 31-07-2015, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was credited to her husband’s account bearing No.0661101044098.
PW1 admitted in her further cross-examination that her husband executed Ex.A8 registered sale deed in favour of the first defendant and she knows J.Srinivasa Reddy and K.Chintalaiah, who are the attestors of Ex.A8 document. She deposed that J.Srinivasa Reddy is working in Meghana Bar under her husband, but she does not know whether K.Chintalaiah worked under her husband or not. She deposed that the payments under the cheques and those details were mentioned in Ex.A8 document and the recitals of Ex.A8 disclose that an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was received by her husband by way of
Banker cheques. She deposed that her husband did not sell the property under Ex.A8 and Ex.A8 to the first defendant. She further deposed that the amount covered under the said two documents are in connection with the first defendant’s business transactions. She further deposed that the amount mentioned in the said two documents were not received by her husband. She also deposed that the first defendant and her son did the business transactions on their own and her husband is only a supporter. She deposed that her husband is elder to the first defendant and he acted as an elder in the family and
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 16 he was a financially sound person and in view of relationship,her husband got influence over the first defendant.
PW1 further deposed in her cross-examination that she has not done anything in pursuance of registration of Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 documents, even though, she has discussed with her husband regarding registration of the said documents. She deposed that she has accepted or ratified Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 documents executed by her husband in favour of the first defendant. She admitted that during the life time of her husband, he never issued any legal notice to the first defendant, as contended in Ex.A2/legal notice. She admitted that on 30-03-2016, the second defendant addressed a letter to the Chief
Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, M.S.R. Nagar Branch, Kurnool, contending change of ownership from K.Venugopal Rao to the first defendant and the amount credited to S.B. account of the first defendant. Ex.B1 is the said letter. She further deposed that the second defendant addressed a letter dated 18-07-2018 with regard to pay of additional connected loan charges to the schedule building and the said letter is Ex.B2.
PW1 further deposed that her husband addressed a letter to the second defendant, claiming arrears of rent amount from the year 2012 to 2015. Again, she deposed that her husband might have received rent during the years 2012 to 2015 and she has to verify those details.
She deposed that her husband handed over Ex.A1 to her during his life time after he returned from Hyderabad to Kurnool. She further deposed that her husband’s natural parents were residing at
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 17
Hyderabad in the years 2015 and 2016 and they were staying in the house which is located at Khairatabad. She further deposed that she has not informed to the natural parents of her husband with regard to execution of Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 documents as well as Ex.A1, since they were known those facts.
PW1 further deposed that she got mentioned in Ex.A2 notice that the document i.e., agreement of re conveyance of title relates to the house property. She further deposed that she was not present on the date of execution of Ex.A1 by the first defendant in favour of her husband, so also she deposed that she does not know who is the scribe of Ex.A1 and she does not know in whose presence Ex.A1 was prepared and she does not know who signed the said document and who attested and scribed the said document. She deposed that she can examine A.Nageswara Rao and P.Sreenivasulu whose names were mentioned in Ex.A1 as attestors. She deposed that she never tried to get the re conveyance deed after the date of Ex.A1. She deposed that the said P.Sreenivasulu is working as an Ayurvedic doctor in Nellore Municipal Hospital, is none other than his own sister’s husband. She deposed that in the year 1993, the said
P.Sreenivasulu married her sister and since 2002 the said
P.Sreenivasulu is working in Nellore and he is none other than the brother of her mother and he is aware of execution of Ex.A7 and
Ex.A8 sale deeds by her husband without receiving any consideration.
She further deposed that in the year 2016, the said P.Sreenivasulu used to come to Kurnool frequently and discuss about Ex.A7 and
Ex.A8 documents with her husband in her house. She also deposed
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 18 that after discussion, the said P.Sreenivasulu convinced the first defendant to execute Ex.A1 document.
PW1 further deposed that she has no idea as to how many times the said P.Sreenivasulu came to Kurnool in between the date of
Ex.A7 and Ex.A1 documents. She deposed that the said
P.Sreenivasulu directly visited Hyderabad from Nellore after receipt of phone call made by her husband on the date of Ex.A1. She also deposed that one A.Nageswar Rao is the friend of her husband and he is also a tenant in her mother’s house at Kurnool and he is known to her husband prior to the date when he occupied her mother’s house as a tenant. She deposed that the said Nageswar Rao vacated her mother’s house in the year 2019 and constructed a own house.
During further cross-examination PW1 was shown a letter dated 21-03-2016 and she was asked to identify the writing of her husband.
After perusing the said letter, PW1 stated that the contents of the said letter do not belong to her husband’s writing. She deposed that she can identify the signature of first defendant. She deposed that she is having clear idea regarding the signature of the first defendant, as she worked in the office at Hyderabad.
PW1 further deposed that her husband’s natural mother by name Nageswaramma was alive from the date of filing of the present suit. She also deposed that the first defendant filed W.P.No.7063/2019 seeking to direct the second defendant to deposit the arrears of rent in her favour and the said writ petition was allowed and thereafter she (PW1) preferred Writ Appeal No.307/2019 and simultaneously she preferred Special Leave Appeal No.24888/2019 before the Hon’ble
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 19
Apex Court. She deposed that Ex.A16 to A19 pertain to house bearing
Door No.86/342. She also deposed that lease deed was executed on 31-03-2017. She admitted that the date of execution of Ex.A16 is prior to the date of purchase of the property. She further admitted that the recitals of Ex.A1 document does not disclose in Ex.A16 lease deed, so also, Ex.A16 does not disclose the contents of Ex.A7 sale deed. She also deposed that the writings contained in Ex.A7 do not belong to her but her signature is found on Ex.A17. She deposed that her son wrote
Ex.A17 as per her instructions. She deposed that there are two accounts belonging to her husband in State Bank of India and other bank in which rent amount was credited and the said accounts are not cancelled so far and she is not operating the said accounts after the death of her husband.
9.Sri Pulipati Sreenivasulu who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1, is examined as PW2 and he filed his affidavit supporting the case of the plaintiff.
During his cross-examination he deposed that he practiced as an Ayurvedic doctor in Nellore since the year 2002. He deposed that the husband of PW1 is his co-brother and he do not know what type of business the husband of PW1 was doing. He also deposed that he does not have any financial dealing with the husband of PW1. He also deposed that he does not whether PW1 is doing business along with her husband or not.
10.Sri A.Nageswar Rao who is the tenant in the house of mother- in-law of PW3 is examined and he filed his affidavit and deposed that
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 20 he does not know anything about Ex.A7 and A8 documents. He deposed that he was not given any advice to Venugopal Rao and
PW1 in respect of Ex.A7 and A8 documents. He further deposed that he has no role to play in between the said Venugopal Rao and his sister i.e., first defendant. He deposed that on 12-05-2016 at about 1.30 p.m, he telephoned to Venugopal Rao casually who informed him that he is already in Hyderabad for the purpose of agreement work and at about 5.30 p.m, the said Venugopal Rao called him and asked him to come in connection with agreement work and at that time he did not make any enquiry about the agreement. He further deposed that he reached the house of the first defendant at about 7 p.m and by that time Ex.A1 was already prepared and he does not remember the contents of Ex.A1. He further deposed that he has not gone through the contents of Ex.A1 before he put his signature thereon. He deposed that he do not know in which place Ex.A1 was prepared and the said
Venugopal Rao did not inform him about the place of preparation of
Ex.A1 and that at the request of the said Venugopal Rao, he signed on Ex.A1. He further deposed that during his life time the said
K.Venugopal Rao did not inform about the execution of Ex.A7 and
Ex.A8 documents in favour of first defendant.
11.Sri L.Khaleel Ahmed Khan who is one of the attestors to the document dated 31-07-2015 is examined as PW4 on behalf of the plaintiffs. He got mentioned in his affidavit that Venugopal Rao who is the husband of the first plaintiff, informed him that he was executing sale deed in favour of is sister nominally for her benefit to secure loan basing on the said sale deed and that it was executed at her request
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 21 and she assured to reconvey the title as and when her purpose was achieved.
During his cross-examination she deposed that the properties covered under Ex.A7 and A8 documents belong to Dr.Sunkanna and the said Sunkanna gifted those properties to Venugopal Rao under two gift deeds. He further deposed that he and one Sri G.Sreedhar stood as attestors to Ex.A7 sale deed executed by the said Venugopal
Rao. He also deposed that the contents of Ex.A7 do not reveal that it is a nominal sale deed and it does not contain a recital that no consideration was passed. He further deposed that he is having money dealings with the said Venugopal Rao and PW1 is aware of his money transactions and dealings with the said Venugopal Rao. He also deposed that in the year 2016, he lent an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the said Venugopal Rao, who in turn executed a promissory note in his favour and thereafter he filed O.S. No.241/2016 against him and another suit in O.S. No.731/2018 against his legal heirs for recovery of amount. He admitted that the properties which were located in Nandyal area were taken by the bank in connection with recovery amount.
12.Sri K.Chintalaiah who is another attestor of Ex.A8 document, is examined as PW5. He filed his affidavit stating that no consideration was passed under the said document. During his cross-examination he deposed that since November 2015, he is working under late
Venugopal Rao. He deposed that except Ex.A8 document, he did not sign in any other document in the transactions relating to the said
Venugopal Rao. He further deposed that in Ex.A8 it was mentioned
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 22 that the purchaser paid the consideration amount to the vendor. He further deposed that A.Sreenivasa Reddy who worked under the said
Venugopal Rao is no more. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of PW1 he gave false evidence.
13.On behalf of the first defendant, she herself was examined as
DW1 by filing her affidavit reiterating the averments made in the written statement and through her Ex.B4 to B21 are marked.
While coming to her cross-examination by the counsel for the plaintiffs, she deposed that she does not remember the income assessed for tax for the Assessment year 2016-2017, so also she did not receive any rent for the property purchased under Ex.A7 in the
Financial year 2015-2016. she deposed that she personally met the tenant to pay the rent, but she did not issue any notice. She deposed that her children purchased the stamps under Ex.A1 document. She deposed that the signature in Ex.A1 does not belong to her and it is a rank forgery. She denied the suggestion that she signed in Ex.A1 in the presence of one Nageswara Rao and Sreenivasulu at her house at
Hyderabad. She further denied the suggestion that she got prepared
Ex.A1 by herself. So also she denied that the amount transferred from her account to her brother’s account was from the account of existing liability. She admitted that she obtained term loan from Central Bank of India by mortgaging Ex.A8 property. She also admitted that there are several other transactions in between herself and her brother which are not connected to the suit transaction. She admitted that
Bhavya Sree Hotel was closed during COVID-19 period, but she did not remember for how many months the said hotel was remodeled
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 23 and cannot say how much amount was spent for remodeling the said hotel. She deposed that her brother attended the remodeling work of the said hotel. She denied the suggestion that her brother spent the expenses for remodeling the said hotel. She deposed that she transferred Rs.10,00,000/- to her sister in law’s account and
Rs.39,00,000/- to Bharati Solar System. She further denied the suggestion that no amount was paid under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 documents and Ex.A1 was executed in favour of her brother to reconvey the property transferred under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8.
She admitted that in Ex.A7 it is mentioned that the entire consideration was paid by way of cash. She deposed that she was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A7. She also deposed that one
J.Sreenivasa Reddy who was working with her brother is his representative and his brother sold the property to her under Ex.A7.
She further deposed that there is no agreement prior to Ex.A7. She deposed that as per Ex.A7, the rental value is Rs.24,000/- but she do not know whether the actual rent value is Rs.80,000/- or not. She deposed that she claimed rent at Rs.80,000/- as on the date of Ex.A1 in the writ petition claiming arrears from the second defendant. She further deposed that she got mentioned in her written statement that
Rs.50,000/- was paid to her brother in law by way of cash. She deposed that she has no idea whether the property covered under
Ex.A7 was already mortgaged by her brother in the bank or not.
DW1 further deposed that in the first week of July 2015, he applied for bank loan. She deposed that she does not know whether the bank people directly issued the cheque to the vendor on the date
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 24 of execution of documents or not. She denied the suggestion that
Rs.50,00,000/- which was transferred to her brother’s account was not part of the consideration under Ex.A7, but it is the amount due by her to him. She admitted that she got mentioned in Ex.A6 that the entire amount Rs.65,00,000/- was paid to her brother not by way of loan.
She also admitted that the suit property is situated in a residential area in Doctor’s Colony, but she does not know its market value in the year 2015. She deposed that the market value of the said value in the year 2015 may be Rs.18,00,000/- per cent. She deposed that she obtained
Housing Loan under Ex.A8 also. She also deposed that the cheques mentioned in Ex.A8 are Bankers Cheques of State Bank of
Hyderabad. She deposed that she was present at the time of Ex.A8, but not present at the time of preparing the said document. She admitted that Cheque bearing No.401206 for Rs.10,00,000/- mentioned in Ex.A8 was dishonoured. She added that the said cheque was cancelled by the bank for want of funds and thereafter the bank people issued two Banker Cheques for Rs.8,50,000/- and
Rs.1,50,000/- respectively and the same was credited to her brother’s account.
DW1 further deposed in her evidence that she had mortgaged the property under Ex.A7 in Canara Bank, but she cannot say whether it was on 21-08-2015 or not. She denied the suggestion that she influenced bank people and obtained the statement of account belonging to her brother and filed the same in this case. She deposed that she paid more than the amount mentioned in Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 documents to her brother and sister in law. She admitted that her
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 25 brother paid Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 25-11-2016,
Rs.9,00,000/- on 05-11-2016 and Rs.32,000/- on 25-11-2016 to her account under Ex.A20 counterfoils. She admitted that a charge-sheet was filed against her, her husband and others in C.C.No.3777/2021 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in respect of financial transaction with regard to Weiss Technik India
Private Limited and Ex.A21 is the certified copy of FIR and charge- sheet. She admitted that she obtained loan of Rs.35,00,000/- to run
Bhavya Sree Hotel in Kurnool in the year 2016 and she has mortgaged the property covered under Ex.A8.
DW1 further deposed that she does not remember whether she got mentioned in the loan application submitted in Central Bank of
India, Kurnool that her brother was the General Manager to Bhavya
Sree Hotel. She deposed that her son worked in her company at
Bangalore for two years and later he resigned and joined in hotel business. She denied the suggestion that she has not reflected the hotel income and also the houses purchased by her in her income tax returns. She deposed that she is having a house at Khairatabad and getting rents from the said house. She deposed that she does not remember the income of her husband in the year 2015-16 and 2016-17, so also of her son. She further denied the suggestion that she has shown only the nominal assessment but not her real income in the income tax returns. She deposed that she is running beauty parlour, but it was closed during COVID period. She denied the suggestion that payments which are said to have made as consideration under Ex.A7 and A8 are not the sale consideration but
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 26 they were given to her brother for maintenance and renovation of
Bhavya Sree hotel. She denied the suggestion that Ex.D2 is manipulated. She admitted that in the year 2018, she received a top-up loan for Rs.30,00,000/- from State Bank of India under Ex.A7, so also she availed a top-up loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from State Bank of
India in the year 2016. She deposed that on 07-10-2016, the property covered under Ex.A8 was mortgaged to Central Bank of India for running Bhavya Sree Hotel. He deposed that prior to it he also mortgaged Ex.A8 to Central Bank of India and availed housing loan of
Rs.40,00,000/-. He admitted that he executed deposit of title deed no 20-06-2016 in favour of Central Bank of India (transferred from State
Bank of Hyderabad). He denied the suggestion that he had mortgaged the property covered under Ex.A8 on 28-02-2018 to Central Bank of
India, Kurnool.
14.Sri S.V.Bala Subramanyam, Assistant Director, A.P Forensic
Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, is examined as CW1. He is the expert who compared the signatures available on Ex.A1 document with other standard signatures and he opined that the person who wrote the signatures marked as “S1 to S22” did not write the signature marked as “Q”. Ex.C1 is his opinion.
He was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. In his cross-examination he admitted that as on the date of
Ex.C1, he did not possess any post graduate diploma certificate. He further admitted that his opinion does not contain the usage of video spectral comparator. He deposed that the said instrument is used for detection of tamperings, but not for comparison of signatures. He
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 27 denied the suggestion that the use of the said instrument will lead nearer to the perfection in comparison of signatures. He admitted that the said instrument is a latest instrument. He further admitted that there are four categories of movement of general handwriting i.e., wrist, finger, forearm and whole arm and the speed of general handwriting is classified as rapid, medium and slow speed. He further deposed that the line quality is good in case of general handwriting and if there is defective line quality, it is a symptom of forgery. He also deposed that in standard book i.e., Questioned Documents by Osborn, the defective line quality is mentioned as one of the symptoms of forgery. He denied the suggestion that the said book does not show the same. He admitted that in writing any one of the line qualities such as good line quality, defective line quality and medium line quality could be formed, so also there will be natural variations in the writings of the same person. He further admitted that he has not mentioned about the alignment and slant of signatures in his opinion. He has taken the enlarged photographs of the questioned and standard signatures for record purpose, but he did not mention the same in his opinion. He further deposed that except the formation of letter “M” and location of “_”, he has not mentioned the other letters in the signature.
He added that the questioned signature is a simulated signature, hence, it is not possible to describe formation of all letters and he mentioned the same in his opinion. He denied the suggestion that there is no variation in letter “M” and the location of “_”. He further denied the suggestion that the mental conditions i.e., cool and calm, hasty and anxiety will vary the signature and keeping the “_” depends upon the mental condition of the person.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 28
CW1 further deposed in his cross-examination that the symptoms of hesitations are studied under the magnified view which contains an unnatural pen pauses and unnatural shivering. He admitted that he did not mention the said features in his opinion, but he mentioned that hesitations were present in the questioned signature. He further admitted that he did not mention regarding the position of brakes and rejoinings and lack of skill in his opinion, but he mentioned the forgery symptoms in his opinion. Lot of cross- examination was done to this witness. This witness deposed that the signatures “S1 to S22” contain natural variations and written by one person which possess similar size of relative size, spacings and detailed designs in the formation of letters. He denied the suggestion that there is no permanent curved initial stroke in the letter “M” and it is only the pen pressure in the questioned signature.
15.Both parties have submitted their respective written arguments in this suit and also submitted several judgments in support of their respective claims. When it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that
Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 are sham and nominal documents and no consideration was passed under those documents by the first defendant to the husband of pW1, then the burden lies on to the plaintiffs to prove the fact that no consideration was passed under those two registered documents. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted number of judgments in support of his contention that when no consideration was passed under the registered documents, those registered documents are held to be invalid.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 29
There is no dispute with regard to the said proposition of law, unless and until it is established by the plaintiffs that no amount of consideration was passed under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 by the first defendant to the husband of PW1. But, here is the case where there is ample evidence in the form of Bank payments adduced by the first defendant to establish that consideration was passed by the first defendant to
K.Venugupal Rao, who is the husband of PW1. After execution of
Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016, K.Venugopal Rao, who is the husband of PW1, lived for considerable time and during his life time, he never questioned the said two registered documents/Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 and never asked the first defendant to pay the amount under those two registered documents, further no steps were taken by K.Venugopal Rao against the first defendant during his life time. The said K.Venugopal Rao died on 19-09-2018. Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds are
dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 respectively. Ex.A1, which is the
Oppudala Kharaarunama, is dated 12-05-2016 and it is said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the husband of PW1.
Thus, it is clear from the above that after execution of Ex.A7 and
Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016,
Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama was said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of her brother/K.Venugopal Rao, which was denied by the first defendant. Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama was sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion and the
Expert’s opinion is in favour of the first defendant.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 30
16.As seen from the record, the husband of the first plaintiff, i.e.,
K.Venugopal Rao died on 19-09-2018 and two years after the execution of Ex.A8/registered sale deed dated 29-03-2016, the said
K.Venugopal Rao died. During his life time, the said K.Venugopal
Rao did not take any steps for cancelling Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016, when the first defendant failed to execute reconveyance deed in his favour. Even no evidence is produced before this Court to establish that no consideration was passed by the first defendant to the said
K.Venugopal Rao under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds
dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016. On the other hand, the first
defendant has filed Ex.B4 to Ex.B8/Bank accounts statements to establish that consideration was passed by her to her brother/K.Venugopal Rao under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016.
Long silence in not taking any action against the first defendant in respect of Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 and Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama tantamounts to estoppel. There is no sufficient argument for the above aspect by the plaintiffs. PW1/first plaintiff deposed that K.Venugopal
Rao and the first defendant are having relationship, hence no consideration was passed by the first defendant to the said
K.Venugopal under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 and that Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama is a genuine document, but the same cannot be accepted in view of
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 31
Ex.B4 to Ex.B8 documentary evidence produced by the first defendant.
17.Record shows that three months after the death of the said
K.Venugopal Rao, Ex.A2/legal notice was got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants, for which, a suitable reply was got issued by the first defendant under Ex.A6 on 20-02-2019. Even though the plaintiffs took a plea that the first defendant has no capacity to purchase the properties covered under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 documents, but Ex.B4 to
Ex.B8/Bank statements and the business transactions of the first defendant shows that the first defendant is having capacity to purchase the properties covered under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016. Long silence by the deceased/K.Venugopal Rao, during his life time, in not taking any action against the first defendant for reconveyance of the property to the plaintiffs itself cuts away the case of the plaintiffs in this suit, because K.Venugopal and his family members are estopped from claiming the properties covered under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds. Even though Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama is dated 12-05-2016, which is said to have been executed by the first defendant, but in view of the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, who is examined as CW1 in this suit, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
18.If really Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama is a real and genuine document, the deceased/K.Venugopal Rao would have taken action against his sister, i.e., first defendant, during his life time itself. The inaction on the part of the said K.Venugopal Rao in not questioning
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 32 the first defendant about Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds
dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016, during his life time, creates a
doubt about the claim made by the plaintiffs in this suit. If really
Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama is a genuine document, the said
K.Venugopal Rao would have taken action against the first defendant basing on Ex.A1 during his life time itself. The inaction on the part of the deceased/K.Venugopal Rao in not prosecuting any case against the first defendant basing on Ex.A1/Oppudala Kharaarunama throws a doubt about the genuineness of Ex.A1 document. Even though both sides have submitted judgments in respect of Section 54 of The
Transfer of Property Act, i.e., particularly with regard to sale consideration under the sale deeds, I have already stated in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment about the absence of sale consideration and importance of sale consideration under the registered sale deeds.
So, there is no need to discuss about the judgments submitted by both parties, in view of the discussion made supra.
Therefore, in view of my above discussion, I hold that Ex.A7 and Ex.A8/registered sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and 29-03-2016 are genuine documents supported by sale consideration, as such, they cannot be declared as null and void, as claimed by the plaintiffs, further I hold that Ex.A1 document dated 12-05-2016 is not a genuine document, as such, the first defendant cannot be directed to recovery the property to the plaintiffs, as claimed by the plaintiffs.
Hence, Issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 33
19. ISSUE Nos.5, 6 and 10 to 12:
In view of my findings recorded on Issue Nos.1 to 4, Issue
Nos.5,6 and 10 to 12 does not arise, hence they are answered against the plaintiffs.
20. ISSUE Nos.7, 8 and 9:
In view of my findings recorded on Issue Nos.1 to 4, there is no need to answer these three Issues.
21. In the result, the suit is dismissed, however in view of the
relationship of the plaintiffs and the first defendant, each party
has to bear its own costs of the suit.
Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1 st day of May 2026.
Sd/- G.Kabardhi
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Plaintiffs:
PW1:K.Bharathi, W/o.Late K.Venugopal Rao, resident of Kurnool
PW2:Pulipati Sreenivasulu, S/o.Pulipati Keshanna, resident of Nellore
PW3:Arigela Nageswara Rao, S/o.A.Balanna, resident of Kurnool
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 34
PW4:I.Khaleel Ahmed, S/o.I.Noor Mehmood Khan, resident of Kurnool
PW5:K.Chintalaiah, S/o.K.Ranganna, resident of Kurnool
For Defendants:
DW1:B.Madhavi Latha, W/o.B.Srinivasulu, resident of Hyderabad
Court Witness:
CW1:S.V. Balasubramanyam, S/o.S.V. Ramarao, Assistant Director, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri
Exhibits marked
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1: Oppudala Kharaarunama dated 12-05-2016 executed by the first defendant in favour of K.Venugopal Rao.
Ex.A2: Legal notice dated 27-01-2019 got issued by the first plaintiff to the first defendant
Ex.A3: Postal receipt dated 28-01-2019
Ex.A4: Postal receipt dated 29-01-2019
Ex.A5:Acknowledgment card dated 01-02-2019 by the second defendant
Ex.A6:Reply legal notice dated 20-02-2019 got issued by the first defendant
Ex.A7:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 31-07-2015 executed by K.Venugopal Rao in favour of the first defendant
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 35
Ex.A8:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 29-03-2016 executed by K.Venugopal Rao in favour of the first defendant
Ex.A9:True copy of letter dated 06-08-2015 of K.Venugopal Rao attested by the Assistant Director, NCC Group Head Quarters, Kurnool
Ex.A10:Letter dated 30-05-2016 addressed by K.Venugopal Rao to the Deputy General NCC Directorate of A.P. & Telangana, Secunderabad, attested by the Assistant Director, NCC Group Head Quarters, Kurnool
Ex.A11:Fresh expost facto administrative sanction letter dated 03-11-2017 for renewal of house bearing D.No.86/342 (Plot No.120), which was attested by the Assistant Director, NCC Group Head Quarter, Kurnool
Ex.A12:Expost facto administrative sanction letter dated 16-06-2016 for renewal of house bearing D.No.86/342 (Plot No.120), which was attested by the Assistant Director, NCC Group Head Quarter, Kurnool
Ex.A13:Attested copy of expost expost facto administrative sanction for renewal of house bearing D.No.86/342 (Plot No.120) addressed to Late K.Venugopal Rao
Ex.A14:Expost facto administrative sanction for rehiring of house bearing D.No.86/342 (Plot No.120) attested by the Assistant Director, NCC Group Head Quarter, Kurnool
Ex.A15:Expost facto administrative sanction letter dated 05-04-2016 attested by the Assistant Director,NCC Group Head Quarter, Kurnool
Ex.A16:True copy of lease agreement dated 31-03-2017 signed by the Defence Estate Officer, T & A.P. Circle, executed by late Venugopal Rao in favour of President of India for the period from 2015 to 2018 (31-03-2017) marked subject to objection by the first defendant’s Counsel and
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 36 the copy produced by the Government Pleader as summoned by the plaintiffs’ Counsel
Ex.A17:True copy of letter dated 03-11-2018 addressed by PW1 to the Defence Estate Officer, attested by the Defence Estate Officer, T & A.P. Circle,
Ex.A18:True copy of letter dated 31-10-2018 addressed by the Defence Estate Officer to PW1 by Defence Estate Officer, T & A.P. Circle, attested by the Defence Estate Officer
Ex.A19:True copy of letter dated 06-05-2018 addressed by Late K.Venugopal Rao to the Defence Estate Officer, T & A.P. Circle, Secunderabad, attested by the Defence Estate Officer, T & A.P. Circle
Ex.A20:Four counter foils of Banks in respect of payments made by the brother of DW1
Ex.A21:Certified copy of First Information Report and charge- sheet in Calendar Case No.3777 of 2021 on the file of XII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
For Defendants:
Ex.B1:Letter dated 30-03-2016 of NCC Group Headquarters, Kurnool addressed to the Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool
Ex.B2:Letter dated 18-07-2018 of NCC Group Headquarters, Kurnool addressed to the first defendant
Ex.B3:Two receipts issued by Kurnool Municipal Corporation
Ex.B4:Letter dated 03-07-2023 addressed by the Chief Manager. Canara Bank. Kurnool Branch along with statement of account of Canara Bank pertaining to DW1 and statement of account of K. Venugopala Rao of Canara Bank
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 37
Ex.B5:HDFC Bank statement pertaining to account bearing No.00811050086605 relating to the first defendant and entries thereon showing the payments to Venugopala Rao and Bharathi (plaintiff)
Ex.B6:Statement of account of State Bank of India pertaining to the first defendant’s Account No.62460696465 showing the payment of Rs.40.00.000/- dated 28-03-2016 to K.Venugopala Rao along with Banker cheques (three in number)
Ex.B7:State Bank of India account statement of M/s.Bharathi SolarSystems,KurnoolbearingAccount No.00000062311870391 for the period from 01-03-2016 to 30-11-2016 along with another SBI account bearing No.00000062320928115 of M/s.Bharathi Solar Systems Kurnool, for the period from 01-03-2016 to 30-11-2016
Ex.B8:AccountstatementofKVBbearing No.1443135000005033 pertaining to the first defendant for the period from 01-04-2015 to 18-07-2022
Ex.B9:Letter dated 21-07-2023 addressed by the second defendant to the first defendant seeking certification of certain documents (6 pages along with registered post cover)
Ex.B10:Certified copy of order in Writ Petition No. 7063/2019 of
Hon'ble High Court of A.P. dated 03-09-2019
Ex.B11:Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Special Leave Appeal (C) No.24888/2019 dated 21-02-2023
Ex.B12:Proceeding sheet of High Court of A.P., order dated 09-11-2023 in CA. Nos. 45 and 46 of 2023
Ex.B13:Letter dated 14-07-2023 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India to DWI to show that deposit of sale deeds dated 31-07-2015 and
PDJ OS 24 of 2019 38 registered gift dated 07-04-2001 for the purpose of availing the home loan
Ex.B14:Letter dated 15-07-2023 addressed by the Senior Manager, Central Bank of India to the first defendant contending that deposit of original documents along with linked documents for sanction of the house loan
Ex.B15:Voter identity card of the first defendant issued by Election Commission of India
Ex.B16:Voter Identity Card of M.Nageswari issued by the Election Commission of India
Ex.B17:Aadhar card of the first defendant
Ex.B18:Aadhar card of M.Nageswari.
Ex.B19:Aadhar card of M.Srinivasulu (father of DW1)
Ex.B20:Sealed cover of letter addressed by Axis Bank to M.Chakrapani.
For Court Witness:
Ex.C1:Opinion given by CW1 dated 22-08-2024
Sd/- G.Kabardhi
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL