1
IN THE COURT OF THE VADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE::VIJAYAWADA
PRESENT: Smt.G.PRATIBHA DEVI,
VADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.
Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022.
O.S. No.18/2003.
Between:
Adusumilli Mahesh, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 22 years, R/o. C/o. Manne Veera Raghava Rao, Road No. 1, H.No.2, Vidyanagar Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada.
... Plaintiff.
AND 1Adusumilli Venkateswara Rao (died), S/o. Seetharamaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Business, R/o. Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 2Adusumilli Sripallavi, D/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 21 years, Student, R/o. Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 3Adusumilli Madhavarao (died) 4Kancharla Kali Vara Prasad (died), S/o. Late Taraka Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 57 years, D.No. 361/3, Panchayat Road, Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 5Muppavarapu Krishna Murthy (died) 6Desu Lakshmi Lavanya, D/o. Desu Krishna, Hindu, aged about 24 years, Properties, R/o. D.No.115510, Beside Bavaji Matham, near Vinayaka Temple, Marvadi Temple Street, Vijayawada. 7Desu Swapna, D/o. Desu Krishna, Hindu, aged about 23 years, Properties, R/o. D.No.115510, Beside Bavaji Matham, near Vinayaka Temple, Marvadi Temple Street, Vijayawada. 8Adusumilli Venakteswara Rao, S/o. Late Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Plot No. 140, Sitapuram Colony, Poranki. 9Adusumilli Rama Mohana Rao (died) S/o. Late Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, C22, PWD Quarters, Labbipet, Vijayawada10 10Adusumilli Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. Late Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, D.No. 361, Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 11Muppavarapu Appa Rao (died), S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Principal of Nirma Engineering college, R/o. D.No. 6451/3, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada.
2 12Muppavarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Business, D.No. 59/A1527, Old P & T Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada. 13Desu Anuradha, W/o. Krishna, Hindu, aged about 45 years, properties, R/o. D.No. 115510, Beside Bavaji Matham, near Vinayaka Temple, Marvadi Temple Street, Vijayawada. (defendants 2 to 13 were added as defendants as per the orders in CRP NO. 6446/20014, dt. 15.03.2005 and as per the
IA. No. 8995/2005 dt. 08.09.2006 and as per the orders in IA.
4875/2006, dt. 31.10.2006 respectively. 14Adusumilli Arunasri said to be 2nd wife of Adusumilli Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 55years, R/o. Lolavennu, Krishna District. (Defendant No. 14 is added as per orders in IA. 418/2017, dt. 30.11.2018 and the consequential order dt. 21.10.2019 in IA. 228/2019) 15Muppavarapu Sunitha, W/o. Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Lecturer, R/o. Flat No. 205, Anna Residency, Netaji Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada. 16Muppavarapu Sai Krishna, S/o. Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 49 years, R/o. Flat No. 205, Anna Residency, Netaji Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada. (Defendant No. 15 and 16 are added as per orders in IA. 297/2018, dt. 30.11.2018 and the consequential order dt. 21.10.2019 in IA. 228/2019) 17Kancherla Tirumala Devi, W/o. Late Kaalivara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Housewife, R/o. Flat No. 406, D.No.621 1,G.K.Towers, Patamata Lanka, A.P.Rao Street, Vijayawada 520010 and also R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Koavaennu village, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. 18Kancherla Eswar Chand, S/o. Late Kaalivara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Employment, R/o. Flat No. 406, D.No.6211,G.K.Towers, Patamata Lanka, A.P.Rao Street, Vijayawada 520010 and also R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Koavaennu village, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. 19Kancherla Swetha, D/o. Late Kaalivara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 27 years, Housewife, R/o. Flat No. 406, D.No.621 1,G.K.Towers, Patamata Lanka, A.P.Rao Street, Vijayawada 520010 and also R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Koavaennu village, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. 20Kancherla Pushkaramba, W/o. Late Tharaka Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 75 years, R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Kolavennu Village, Kankipadu Mandal. (Defendant No. 17 to 20 are added as per orders in IA. 257/2019, dt. 18.11.2019)
...Defendants.
This suit is coming on 02.08.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri.
3
T.Bhairaju, Advocate for D6, D7 and D13, Sri.V.Jaya Prakash, Advocate for D8 to D10, Sri. L.Satish, Advocate for D12, Sri.K.Nageswara Rao, Advocates for D2, D14 to D.16, Sri.K.Jayaram, Advocate for D17 to D20, and D1, D3, D4, D5, D9 and D1 are died and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T.
1) This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition of the plaint A to C schedule properties and passing preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and partition of the B schedule property into 7 equal shares and allot 1/7th share belonging to the 1st defendant and put the petitioner in separate possession of 1/14th share and partition of the C schedule property and plaintiff is entitled by 1/4th share and also declaring that the sale deeds obtained by defendants 3 to 13 are not valid and binding on the plaintiff’s share in the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2). The brief averments of the plaint are :
The plaintiff is only son of the 1st defendant while he was about 1½ years old, was sent out of the house along with his mother by the 1st defendant and filed OP 230/1982 against the mother of the plaintiff seeking divorce and obtained decree on 28.02.1989, as such the plaintiff and his mother are under the care and custody of Manne Veera Raghava Rao, who is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff.
4
The 1st defendant, his elder brother Kanka Durga Vara
Prasada Rao and their father partitioned their properties through partition deed dt. 22.12.1969 under registered document No.
1597/1969 in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Kankipadu. The father of the plaintiff i.e., the 1st defendant herein got Cschedule properties in his name. From out of the income of the said properties, the 1st defendant purchased some other property in his name and those subsequently purchased properties, after the partition. As such the entire property which the 1st defendant got in the partition with his father and brother and through which subsequently purchased properties are clearly described in the plaint schedule. 1st defendant’s father and his mother along with 5 other persons purchased an extent of Ac.0.51 cents with Lakshmi Prasanna Rice
Mill in Kankipadu village i.e., plaint “B” schedule property. The immovable properties in Kolavennu village are described in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The parents of the 1st defendant died intestate leaving behind the 1st defendant and his brother as sole legal heirs. Two shares out of the seven shares in the “B” schedule property belonging to the parents of the 1st defendant that she purchased by the 1st defendant and his brother through sale deed
dt. 17.10.1977 i.e., plaint C schedule property and he is entitled
for ½ share in all the properties which are clearly described in the plaint A,B,C schedules. Entire “B” and “C” schedule properties are cleared by 1st defendant from out of the income of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties.
5
During the minority of the plaintiff the 1st defendant inspite of getting a monthly income of Rs.30,000/ did not care to give any amount for the livelihood of the plaintiff or his mother. After he attains the majority he demanded the 1st defendant for partition, personally along with his maternal grandfather also tried through
U.Sarat Babu, whose mediation also failed and hence he constrained to file suit for partition.
Subsequent to the filing of the suit he came to know 1st defendant along with his brother brought into existence of the sham and nominal documents in favour of the defendants 3 to 12 and the 6th defendant herein made alleged gift in favour of 13th defendant. During the pendency of the suit 1st defendant passed away. The 2nd defendant is the daughter of the 1st defendant. After dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiff’s mother and 1st defendant, the 1st defendant married 14th defendant. Hence, she is also added as party. Defendant No. 11 died defendants 15 and 15 are implicated as legal representatives of defendant No. 11 and defendant No. 4th died and defendants 17 to 20 are added as legal representatives of the defendant No.4. Hence, prays the court to pass a preliminary decree as prayed for.
3.The 1 st defendant filed written statement. The brief averments of the written statement are :
The allegations of the plaintiff while he was about 1½ years the plaintiff was sent out along with his mother and filed OP 230/1982 and obtained decree are not true and correct and except 6 the relationship between the parties of the above allegations are against to the facts as per the judgment in OP 230/1982, the plaintiff’s mother deserted this defendant 23 years back was never in possession much less in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties. The item No. 2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the alleged property was not covered in ‘C’ schedule of the registered partition deed dt. 22.12.1969 in between this defendant and his father and brother. This defendant never owned or possessed such property, so the plaintiff is put to strict proof of that defendant owned and possessed the, above said land and the same is part and parcel of ‘C’ schedule property of partition deed dt.
22.12.1969.
After partition dt. 22.12.1969 the defendant worked in different rice mills, and acquired knowledge and income and with the help of said knowledge and income he carried on Rice Mill business, Finance business and also Film distribution and production business and earned income and purchased item No. V and VII of plaint A schedule property and also C schedule property. Thus item No.V and VII of the plaint ‘A’ schedule and half of plaint C schedule properties are the self acquired properties of this defendant. The majority of the properties, acquired by this defendant under partition deed dt. 22.12.1969 are not income deriving properties and meager income derived from the balance of properties were hardly sufficient to maintain.
7
Coming to “B” schedule property it was purchased by the parents of this defendant along with FIR others, and his father died on 17.10.1981 and his mother died on 04.11.2000 and she executed a registered will dt. 11.02.1999 bequeathing her share and also her husband share of "B" schedule property in favour of this defendant’s daughter. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to seek partition.
Further this defendant has no right in "B" schedule property.
Coming to item No. I, III, IV and VI of the “A” schedule properties of the plaint, are the properties that fell to the share of the defendant in the partition and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said properties and he never treated them as joint family properties. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim any share of the properties of the defendant that fell to his share in his family partition and further this defendant is the absolute owner of the property who is in exclusive possession sold away item No. 4 of the plaint schedule property about a decade ago. This defendant never got any income more than Rs.30,000/ and the plaintiff suppressed the fact of maintenance suit by his mother. The learned Family Judge, Vijayawada dismissed the interim injunction petition filed by the plaintiff’s mother. There was never any mediation that too through the plaintiffs maternal uncle Sri.
U.Saratha Babu. Hence, prays the court to dismiss the suit.
The 2nd defendant filed written statement. This defendant is the legitimate daughter of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is never 8 in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property item
No.2 of the plaint a schedule property was not covered under the registered partition dt. 22.12.1969. This defendant acquired the ‘B’ schedule property through registered will dt.11.02.1999 executed by the mother of the 1st defendant i.e., this defendant’s grandmother and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the ‘B’ schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to claim partition in the said property. Hence, prays the court to dismiss the suit.
The brief averments of the written statement filed by 4 th
defendant in plaint are:
This defendant is concerned he purchased an extent of 1246 sq. yards of site and old tiled house bearing Door No. 365 through a registered sale deed dt. 20.11.1996 vide its number 2612/1996 from the 1st defendant. The said property was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant in the registered partition deed dt. 22.12.1969.
as this defendant purchased the property from the 1st defendant for a valuable consideration this plaintiff has no manner of right to question the same and it is not at all an ancestral property and the 1st defendant is having absolute rights over the sale as such the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant dt. 28.11.1996 is valid and binding on the parties, after purchase he constructed RCC building in the above said site and enjoying the same with absolute rights and the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and the suit is 9 bad for misjoinder of the parties. Hence, prays the court to dismiss the suit.
The defendants 6,7 and 13 filed written statement. The
brief averments of the written statement are:
The plaint C schedule property was originally purchased by the defendants 6 and 7 under registered sale deed No.126/1992, dt.24.12.1992 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,95,000/ executed the 1st defendant and his brother A.Kanaka Durga Vara Prasada
Rao. The defendants 6 and 7 were minors by then and as such they were represented by their mother natural guardian Smt. Desu
Anuradha, who is 13th defendant in this suit and it is specifically recited that the property covered by the said sale deed was the self acquired property of A.Kanaka Durga Vara Prasada Rao and the 1st defendant and they were the full and absolute owners of the property. They have also delivered the original registered sale deed
No. 2177/1997, dt.17.10.1977 under which they purchased the property from Sri Kakaraparthi Bhavanarayana and others.
Therefore the property shown in C schedule of the plaint was the self acquired property. After purchasing the said property the defendant also constructed a RCC building in the year 1994 after attaining majority the 6th defendant gifted her undivided half share in the property to the 13th defendant who is no other than her mother, out of natural love and affection, by a registered settlement deed No. 4158/1999, dt. 04.10.1999. Thus the 7th and 13 10 defendants are fully and absolute owners of the plaint C schedule property. Hence, prays the court to dismiss the suit.
The 1 st defendant filed additional written statement. The brief averments of the additional written statement are, the alienations made by the 1st defendant were through registered sale deeds and the sale deeds are public documents and consequently the plaintiff cannot allege that he came to know the said alienations, when the 1st defendant filed the certified copies before the court and the plaintiff is bound to pay separate court fee for each transaction under Sec. 24(A) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.
Additional written statement is filed on behalf of D13.
The defendants 6 and 7 adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.13.
The suit is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties. According to the plaintiff the plaint C schedule property was allegedly purchased by the 1st defendant and his brother,
Adusumilli Kanka Durga Vara Prasada Rao. Therefore the said
Adusumilli Kanka Durga Vara Prasada Rao is also proper and necessary party and the suit is liable for dismissal on this ground.
Defendant No. 13 filed additional written statement:
This defendant is not aware of the alleged relationship between the defendant No. 14 and the 1st defendant and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the alleged fact that defendant
Nos.15 and 16 are the only legal representatives of the deceased 11 11th defendant and there are no other legal heirs. The defendants 14 to 16 are not proper and necessary parties.
Additional written statement filed on behalf of defendant
No. 13:
This defendant is not aware defendants 17 to 20 are only legal heirs of the defendant No. 4 and there are no other legal heirs/representatives.
Defendants 14 to 16 adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, defendants No. 17 to 20 adopted the written statement filed by the 4th defendant.
4) Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
Addl. Issues: dt. 29.04.2005:
1. Whether the 2nd defendant is necessary party to the suit and whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to claim relief in the suit. If so what relief?
Addl. Issues: dt. 15.06.2007:
1. Whether the alienations made by the 1st defendant with regard to the plaint schedule of item No. 7 of the A schedule and C schedule are valid and blinding on the plaintiff, if so what relief? Addl. Issues: dt. 15.12.2009:
1. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e., 1st defendant’s brother and daughters of deceased A. Seetharamaiah?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not challenge or questioned the sale transaction of plaint schedule C property within three years after he became major?
12
Addl. Issues: dt. 10.03.2010:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to share in the schedule properties, if so, what is his share in ABC schedule properties?
2. Whether item nos. I, II, III, IV and VI of plaint A schedule properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Adusumilli Sitaramaiah or his ancestral properties?
3. Whether the item Nos. V and III of plaint A schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1st defendant Adusumilli Venkateswara Rao?
4. Whether the B schedule properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Adusumilli Sitaramaiah and his wife Navaratna Sikhamani?
5. Whether the document dt. 22.12.1969, Ex.A.1 is the deed of partition or settlement or gift or invalid document in law?
6. Whether the properties under Ex.A.1 dt. 22.12.1969 are self acquired or separate properties of the 1st defendant Adsumilli Venkateswara Rao?
7. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to share in the schedule properties and if so what is her share and what they are?
8. Whether the Will dt. 11.02.1999 said to have been executed by Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani in favour of 2nd defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration that the alleged sale deeds obtained by the defendants 3 to 13 are not valid and binding in so far as plaintiff’s alleged share in concerned?
10.Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties? Particularly Adusumili Kanaka Durga Vara Prasada Rao and the daughters of the deceased A. Seetharamaiah?
11.Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay separate Court Fees under Sec. 34(1) of APCF & SV Act?
12.Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay separate Court Fees under Sec. 24(a) of APCF & SV Act?
5) During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.B1 to B47 are marked.
6) Heard both sides.
13
7) The learned plaintiff counsel argued that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff’s father.
He died intestate and further argued that plaint A schedule is land, B schedule is rice mill and “C” schedule small house and suit originally filed against D1 only, later D2 to D13 were impleaded and
D14 to D20 are the legal heirs and further argued that item No. 2 of scheduleI is not covered in the partition deed and also further admitted D1 filed written statement taking plea that his grandmother executed will in respect of B schedule property.
Hence, fairly contested that half of his share in ‘C” schedule property is not available for partition as D1 already sold prior to suit.
8.On the other hand the learned 1st defendant counsel argued that the share of the D1 sold in the C schedule property hence no relief can be granted against plaint C schedule and the learned D1 counsel further argued that in the year 1969 D1 is not married and his marriage was performed in the year 1978 and by the date of partition deed Ex.B.1 plaintiff is not born. Hence, there is no family nucleus and also further clarified the item No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in “A”schedule property are already sold by the 1st defendant and only item No. 1 and item No. 6 are available and plaint ‘C’ schedule already sold by D1 and executed gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of item No. 1 of “A”schedule property and also D1 counsel further argued that after taking divorce the 1st defendant married D14 and D2 is legitimate child of 1st defendant and during his life time D1 executed gift deed. Hence, 14 properties are not liable for partition. He further argued that the brother of the 1st defendant is not made as party. Hence, suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and suit is barred by limitation and the court fees paid by the plaintiff by showing joint possession under Sec. 34(A) court fee Act is also not tenable. As per Ex.A2 date of birth of PW.1 after attaining majority within three years he has to file suit but in the year 2003 suit is filed and also as per article 116 of the Limitation Act the limitation period is within three years and during cross examination PW.1 admitted he is born on 05.10.1980. Hence, prays the court to dismiss the suit.
9.The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated his averments in the plaint that he is entitled to 1/7th share belonging to the 1st defendant and his father died intestate. His father and his elder brother Kanaka Durga Vara Prasada Rao and their father partitioned their properties through partition deed on 22.12.1969 and his father got C schedule of the plaint and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and out of that income his father purchased some more properties and also his father and his mother along with other five persons purchased Ac.0.51 cents including a mill in the name and style of Lakshmi Prasanna Rice
Mill i.e., B schedule property.
10.PW.1 is cross examined in length by all the defendants and it is also suggested to PW.1 item No. 5 of the “A”schedule property and ‘C’ schedule property were already sold long back and he admitted plaint ‘B’ schedule property is self acquired property of 15 his paternal grandmother and father. PW.1 further stated he was a member of the lorry owners association since 1996 and he admitted as per the registered partition deed 22.12.1969 all the properties are self acquired properties of his grandfather
Adusumilli Seetharamaiah and it is also suggested majority of the properties acquired by 1st defendant under the above partition are not income deriving properties and he admitted he has not issued any notice prior to filing of the suit. Subsequently he filed
additional chief affidavit denying the plea taken by the defendant 4,
6 to 13 and denied sale deeds in respect of the court fee PW.1 is also cross examined and during his cross examination he categorically admitted that he got knowledge that D4 to D12 and
D13 are in occupation of that property and D11 is occupation of agricultural land in Kolavennu village in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and he further admitted by the date of filing the suit D2 to D13 purchased properties and he further admitted he is not in occupation of the properties belonging to D3 to D13. Hence, in view of the clear admissions there is merit in the arguments of the learned defendant’s counsel court fee paid by the plaintiff showing joint possession and paying Rs.200/ under Sec. 34(A) is wrong and he admitted by 05.10.1998 he became major but he filed the suit in the year 2003. He further admitted his father and his senior paternal uncle purchased ‘C’ schedule property under Ex.B.30 sale deed and his senior paternal uncle got 50% share and his father and senior paternal uncle not partitioned the property purchased under Ex.B.30 sale deed. He also admitted his senior paternal 16 uncle is not made as party to the suit and he further admitted he got knowledge about the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. Hence, there is merit in the arguments of the learned 1st defendant counsel.
Witness is confronted with the certified copy of the sale deed dt.
24.12.1992. Ex.B.38 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by D1 and his brother in favour of D6 and D7 to show that they sold the ‘C’ schedule property.
11.On behalf of the plaintiff he got examined PW.2. He is the 3rd party to the suit. He deposed that the plaintiff is the only son to the 1st defendant. 2nd defendant is the daughter of the 1st defendant and she was born during pendency of the divorce petition OP 230/1982 and the divorce petition was disposed off on 28.02.1989 and the defendant No.1 is the owner of the plaint schedule property. As seen from the cross examination of PW.2 he is doing his own business and he admitted plaintiff is also the member in Vijayawada Lorry Association. There are suggestions to
PW.2 that 2nd defendant is the legitimate daughter of the 1st defendant only with the influence of the plaintiff he is deposing false.
12.The 1st defendant filed his chief affidavit reiterating his averments in the written statement and Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of the judgment in OS.230/1982 filed by the 1st defendant against the plaintiff mother to show that he obtained divorce and Ex.B.2 is the original registered will executed by the mother of the 1st defendant. He admitted that plaintiff is his son. Ex.A.10 is the 17 certified copy of his deposition given in OP.230/1982 on the file of
II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Any how the entire deposition cannot be marked but only that is marked to show that
DW.1 denied marriage with plaintiff mother. PW.1 admitted subsequent to divorce he again married. He denied the suggestion to avoid share to the plaintiff he prepared wills Ex.B.35 is the will executed by mother of DW.1. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff is having legal rights.
13.In support of 1st defendant, DW.2 filed chief affidavit to prove the will executed on 11.02.1999 and he is one of the attestor.
As seen from the cross examination of D.W.2 in respect of Ex.B.2 and B.36 will deeds which was registered under Sub Registrar,
Kankipadu. Except formal cross examination nothing is elicited. In respect of the will executed Ex.B.2 and B.36 he denied the suggestion that the executor Navaratna Sikhamani suffered with paralysis but he denied the same. Therefore, the 1st defendant examined DW.2 and D.W.3 attestors of the will Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.36 to prove the wills as contemplated under Sec. 65 and 68 of Indian
Evidence Act and DW.3 further deposed he took Navaratna
Sikhamani mother of the 1st defendant to the Registrar office and he further stated the Navaratna Sikhamani brought link documents and got prepared Ex.B.2.
14.The husband of D.13 filed his chief affidavit as DW.4 and stated that the plaint schedule property was purchased by the defendants 6 and 7 while they were minors under Ex.B.38 18 (Registered sale deed No. 126/1993, dt. 24.12.1992, SRO,
Vijayawada) executed by the 1st defendant and his brother,
Adusumilli Kanka Durga Prasad Rao. Later they constructed RCC
Multi Storied building. Later D6 and D7 became majors, later D.13 obtained registered settlement deed and D.13 and D7 are joint owners of the plaint C schedule property and it is a self acquired property of the first defendant and his brother. Hence, the plaintiff got no right to seek partition.
15.Ex.B.41 and B42 to 45 shows that D13 obtained plan and constructed building in the property purchased from D1. There are only suggestions with regard to the source of income of D1.
Except giving formal suggestions nothing is elicited during the cross examination of DW.4.
16.D.18 filed his chief affidavit as Dw.5 and deposed that the plaintiff suppressed the true facts and falsely implicated the 4th defendant as party and he purchased old titled house under registered sale deed dt. 20.11.1996 from the 1st defendant. The said property was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant in the registered partition deed dt.22.12.1969. later he constructed RCC building. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition. As seen from the cross examination of DW.5 except formal suggestions nothing is elicited during the cross examination of DW.5. He denied the suggestion that the 1st defendant and his brother created all the documents.
19
17.The 2nd defendant filed his chief affidavit as DW.6 and reiterated the averments in the written statement that she is the legitimate daughter of the 1st defendant and she was born out of the 1st defendant’s legal wedlock with her mother Adusumilli
Arunasri after the 1st defendant obtained divorce from plaintiff mother in OP.230/1982 and the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the properties much less in joint possession as alleged the plaint A schedule property was not covered under registered partition deed 22.12.1969 and 1st defendant purchased item No.5, 7 with his own funds and item No.5 and 7 are the self acquired property of the 1st defendant and she got ‘B’ schedule property through a gift deed executed by the 1st defendant mother who is her paternal grandmother, she is in exclusive possession of the ‘B’ schedule property. Coming to the item No.s, 1, 3,4 and 6 of “A”schedule properties they are covered under partition deed dt.
22.12.1969 and 1st defendant has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said properties. 1st defendant sold away item No. 4 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and during life time her father executed will dt. 04.08.2015 bequeathing the immovable properties of item No. 1 of the “A”schedule property and item No. 7 of the “A”schedule property and after his death she became the owner of item Nos. 1 and 7 of the plaint “A”schedule properties. Ex.B.46 and 47 are marked through PW.6. Ex.B.44 is the registered will and
Ex.B.47 is the death certificate of the 1st defendant. As seen from the cross examination of Dw.6 by the learned plaintiff counsel that
Ex.B.46 executed before 1st defendant got admitted in the hospital 20 and according to Dw.6 her date of birth is 22.08.1988 and she admitted her mother is 2nd wife to her father. There are suggestion that 1st defendant got no right to execute Ex.B.46.
18. ISSUE NOs. 4 to 6 and 8:
The sole plaintiff who filed his chief affidavit as PW.1 and categorically admitted during his cross examination ‘B’ schedule property is the rice mill shown as per the plaint schedule and grandfather of the plaintiff died intestate and grandmother executed registered will. The will executed by Navaratna Sikhamani grandmother of the plaintiff. The attestor of the will are examined to prove the will as contemplated under Sec.68 of Indian Evidence
Act as the plaintiff filed suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule
A, B and C. There is no dispute with regard to the partition deed which is marked as Ex.A.1 executed between the 1st defendant and his elder brother A.Kanaka Durga Vara Prasada Rao and their father and as per Ex.A.1 1st defendant acquired “C” schedule properties and the father of the 1st defendant and his mother along with five others purchased extent of Ac.0.51 cents with Lakshmi
Prasanna Rice mill which is situated at Kankipadu which is shown in B schedule and it is a partnership firm and the 1st defendant gifted his share in the said property to Prasanna under Ex.B.4.
Ex.B.46 is the registered gift deed dt. 04.08.2018.
19.As seen from the record, plaintiff filed suit in the year 2003 against 1st defendant alone, later the remaining defendants were added as parties. Further the record shows on 28.04.2011 the 21 suit is dismissed for default when the plaintiff did not come forward to prosecute his suit. Again he filed order 9 Rule 9 for restoration of the suit vide IA.898/2011, the same was allowed on 01.10.2019 and the suit was restored to file. The record further reveals from 28.04.2011 till restoration i.e., 01.10.2019 there are no proceedings and on perusal of Ex.P.46 1st defendant executed registered will on 04.08.2015 by that time the suit is not pending and the 1st defendant died on 19.08.2015.
20.In order to prove Ex.B.46 on behalf of the defendant got examined DW.6 is the daughter of the 1st defendant filed her chief affidavit as after the death of the 1st defendant she was added as party, she deposed after obtaining divorce from his first wife her father married her mother, most of the schedule properties are self acquired or separate properties of 1st defendant. She further deposed the plaintiff has no right in the plaint “B” schedule property and she acquired “B” schedule property through a will deed dt. 11.02.1999 executed by her grandmother, she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint “B” schedule property. Ex.B.46 is the original registered will. Ex.B.47 is the death certificate of 1st defendant.
21.DWs.2 and 3 are the attestors of the will examined.
Ex.B.2 is the registered will dt 11.02.1999. In order to prove Ex.B.2 the defendant sited got examined DWs. 2 and 3. DWs. 2 and 3 categorically deposed before this court that Adusumilli Navaratna
Sikhamani the grandmother of 2nd defendant executed will 22 bequeathing her properties to 2nd defendant and the they attested and the same was registered before the Sub Registrar, Kankipadu.
As seen from the cross examination of DW.2 by the learned plaintiff counsel he admitted Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani executed
Ex.B.2 as well as Ex.B.36. Ex.B.36 is the 1st registered will dt.
07.06.1997 but later she executed Ex.B.2 on 11.02.1999 and
Ex.B.35 is the death certificate of Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani dt.08.12.2000. Therefore, Ex.B.2 will remain as the last testamentary document executed by the Adusumilli Navaratna
Sikhamani. Except giving formal suggestions to DW.2 and 3 the learned plaintiff counsel did not elicit anything from the cross examination of attestors and apart from that it is a registered will.
22.Hence, we can take the evidence of DW.2 that her grandmother executed will and also her father also executed will bequeathing his properties under Ex.B.46 and Ex.B.47 in the death certificate of the 1st defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to seek partition of the ‘B’ schedule properties as the same was purchased by D1. As ‘B’ schedule property was acquired by the 1st defendant will deed is executed by mother and paternal grandmother. Hence, issue Nos. 4 to 6 and 8 are answered against the plaintiff.
23.Admittedly Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the partition deed and it is valid as plaintiff is relying on Ex.A.1. 1st defendant is also admitted the Ex.A.1 partition deed to show that the 1st defendant and his brother and their father partitioned the 23 properties and the properties under Ex.A.1 partition deed are the separate properties of the 1st defendant. Accordingly issue No.5 and 6 are answered.
24.Therefore I can say will executed by Adusumilli
Navaratna Sikhamani in favour of the 2nd defendant is valid and blinding as the attestors of the will examined as DWs. 2 and 3 and
D2 discharged her burden as contemplated under Sec. 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly issue No. 8 is answered against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 9:
25.After the defendants 3 to 13 are added as parties the plaintiff took amendment of the plaint and sought relief declaring the sale deeds executed by 1st defendant in favour of the defendants 3 to 13 are not valid. As seen from the cross examination of PW.1 after the defendants were added he filed his rejoinder and additional affidavit that the sale deeds obtained by the defendants are not valid and binding. As seen from the cross examination of PW.1 in this aspect he is cross examined with regard to the encumbrance certificate not filed by the plaintiff and he further admitted D13 is the owner of the part of the rice mill D3 is in the occupation of the said property in Kolavennu village and there are no constructions therein. D.11 is in occupation of a agricultural land situated in Kolavennu village. D11 and D12 divided the said property. He further admitted D8,D9 and D10 divided the site property and D4 is in occupation of the rice mill.
24
He further admitted he is not in possession of the property belonging to D3 to D13 and also admitted he is not receiving any rents from D3 to D13.
26.In view of the cross examination of PW.1 there is merit in the arguments of the learned defence counsel that the plaintiff filed suit only to avoid court fee. He pleaded that he is in joint possession and enjoyment of the property, but in view of the cross examination of PW.1 by the date of filing of the suit itself the plaintiff got knowledge that the properties were already sold by the 1st defendant and also his parents and also PW.1 further admitted by the date of filing the suit D3 to D13 purchased their respective properties. Hence, there is no merit in the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration against D3 to D13 declaring the sale deeds obtained by them are not binding on the plaintiff.
27.Admittedly D1 and his brother partitioned the properties under Ex.A.1 in the year 1969, the plaintiff is born on 05.10.1980, so by the date of partition the plaintiff is not born and on 05.10.1998 the plaintiff became major and he filed suit in the year 2003, therefore, there is merit in the arguments of the learned defence counsel, the suit is barred by limitation as within 3 years of attaining majority the plaintiff has to file suit seeking declaration that the sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant and his grandparents in favour of D3 to D13 are not binding. But he failed to do the same. Even though he attained majority in the year 1998 but he kept quiet till 2003 and filed suit. Hence, the suit is barred 25 by limitation in respect of his claim against the purchasers of the schedule properties.
ISSUE NO: 10 and Addl. Issues dt. 29.04.2005 and Addl. Issues
dt.15.06.2007:
28.PW.1 further admitted in his cross examination that he got knowledge about plaint ‘C’ schedule property and also admitted his father i.e., 1st defendant and his senior paternal uncle purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.B.30 sale deed
dt. 17.10.1977. He further admitted the senior paternal uncle
A.Kanaka Durga Vara Prasada Rao is not shown as party to the suit and he further admitted he got knowledge about plaint ‘C’ schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. Hence, there is merit in the arguments of the learned D2 to D14 counsel who filed his written arguments even though the plaintiff got knowledge about ‘C’ schedule property but wantonly he has not shown his senior paternal uncle A.Kanaka Durga Vara Prasada Rao as party.
After cross examination also he has not taken any steps. Hence, I am satisfied with the arguments of the learned D2 to D14 counsel in this aspect that the suit is bad for non joinder of A.Kanaka
Durga Vara Prasada Rao. Accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff.
29.The property under ‘C’ schedule property is purchased by D1 and his brother and plaintiff senior paternal uncle A.Kanaka
Durga Vara Prasada Rao as he got 50% share in the said property and admittedly D6 and D7 purchased plaint ‘C’ schedule property 26 in the year 2005, Ex.B.38 is the sale deed dt.08.12.2000 executed by D1 and his brother in favour of D6 and D7. He pleaded ignorance after purchasing the property from 1st defendant and his senior paternal uncle under Ex.B.38 sale deed D6 and D7 obtained municipal permission and demolished the structures and constructed RCC building. Apart from that after attaining majority within three years he has not filed the suit. Hence, the suit against
D6 and D7 is also barred by limitation.
30. There are also suggestions to PW.1 by D4 counsel that
D4 purchased the property and removed the old structures on behalf of D13 her husband filed his chief affidavit as DW.4 and according to him he is the husband of D13 and father of D6 and
D7 in respect of properties of ‘C’ schedule property the evidence of
DW.4 can be taken into consideration and Ex.B.39 is the registered gift deed executed by the 6th defendant in favour of 13th defendant and Ex.B.41 is the building plan. Ex.B.42 to 45 are the property tax receipts. As seen from the cross examination of DW.4 by the learned plaintiff counsel he categorically deposed he purchased the ‘C’ schedule property on behalf of D6 and D7 when they are minors. Except formal suggestions nothing is elicited in the cross examination of DW.4 there are only suggestions whether DW.4 got knowledge about the family disputes between the plaintiff and D.1.
31.The 18th defendant filed his chief affidavit as DW.5 and categorically deposed as 18th defendant is the LR of 4th defendant and pending suit 4th defendant died and deposed 4th defendant 27 purchased extent of 1246 sq.yards of old titled house under registered sale deed dt. 20.11.1996 from the 1st defendant for a valuable consideration and after purchase 4thdefendant constructed RCC building. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property is false and the extent and boundaries are mentioned in the plaint schedule are also false. The plaintiff in an imaginary manner filed suit against 4th defendant to gain wrongfully. As seen from the cross examination of DW.5 by the learned plaintiff counsel there are suggestions with regard to Ex.A.1 partition deed nodoubt under Ex.A.1 the property fell to the share of the 1st defendant was sold by him to the 4th defendant in the year 1996 but the plaintiff filed suit in the year 2003 but in the year 1998 he attain majority. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation he cannot challenge the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant as Ex.B.29 certified copy of the sale deed filed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 4th defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to challenge
Ex.B.29 which is also barred by limitation.
ISSUE NOs. 11 AND 12:
32.The plaintiff filed suit by showing him in joint possession but in view of the cross examination of PW.1 it is elicited by the date of filing of the suit most of the properties under plaint schedule properties are sold by the 1st defendant and the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the property.
Admittedly the plaintiff mother obtained divorce from 1st defendant 28 prior to 1982 the plaintiff and her mother did not lived with the 1st defendant in one roof. Hence, the court fee paid by the plaintiff under Sec.34(2) is not maintainable and the plaintiff is to pay separate court fee under Sec. 34(1) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
ISSUE NOs. 1 and 3:
33.In view of the discussions the plaintiff is not entitled to the share in the schedule property and the learned 1st defendant counsel relied on decision reported in 2008(3) Supreme Court
Cases 87, Bhanwar Singh vs Puran and others, dt. 12.02.2008:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Sec. 6 Provision in, regarding devolution of property in coparcenary property – Applicability – Held non applicable when the surviving members of the coparcenary had already partitioned their properties and become owners to the extent of their share.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 –Sec. 8,19 and 4 – Discontinuance of coparcenary – Nature of interest of succeeding heirs – In such circumstances, held the property ceases to be joint family property All the succeeding heirs succeed to their respective shares not as joint tenants but as tenants in common The property devolves upon them not per stripes but per capita with the right to alienate the share, particularly when the property has been partitioned and entries made in the revenue record of rights.
In view of the arguments of the learned D2 counsel and in view of the above suggestions the defendants made out their case by the date of filing suit itself already the properties are partitioned under Ex.A.1 and also 1st defendant has alienated most of his properties, viewed in any angle the suit filed by the plaintiff is devoid of merits. Accordingly the point is answered against the plaintiff.
29
Issue No. 7 and Addl. Issues dt. 29.04.2005:
Since suit is dismissed no need to answer these issues.
35.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8 th day of April, 2022.
VADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIJAYAWADA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR.
PLAINTIFF:DEFENDANT:
PW.1Adusumilli Mahesh DW.1A.Venkateswara Rao PW.2Mekala Subba Rao DW.2K.Nageswara Rao DW.3M.Thirumala Rao DW.4Desu Krishna DW.5Kancharla Venkateswara Rao DW.6Adusumili Sripallavi
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A.1Certified copy of partition deed dt. 22.12.1969 Ex.A.2Certified copy of sale deed in favour of D1 by A.S.Ramanjaneyulu and his son, dt.16.06.1976 Ex.A.3Certified copy of sale deed in favour of A1 by J.Ravi Kumar, dt.26.05.1980 Ex.A.4Certified copy of sale deed in favour of A.Seetharamaiah, A.Navaratna Sikhamani and 5 others, dt.20.02.1981 Ex.A.5Market value certificate issued by SubRegistrar, Kankipadu, dt. 04.01.2002 Ex.A.6Market value certificate issued by SubRegistrar, Kankipadu dt. 04.01.2002 Ex.A.7Market value certificate issued by SubRegistrar, Kankipadu dt. 04.01.2002 Ex.A.8Market value certificate issued by District Registrar, Vijayawada dt.30.12.2002 Ex.A.9Certified copy of OP No.230/1982 filed by D1/DW.1 on the file of II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada dt. 10.06.1982 Ex.A.10Certified copy of deposition of DW.1 as PW.1 in OP No.230/1982 on the file of II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada dt. 09.04.1986 Ex.A.11Notice got issued by the DW.1 as petitioner in the said OP No. 230/1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, 30
Vijayawada before preferring the said proceedings dt.04.03.1982.
:DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
Ex.B.1Certified copy of order in OP 230/1982 on the file of II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada dt. 28.02.1989 Ex.B.2Registered will, registered on 12.02.1999, duly executed by the mother of D1 Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani bequeathing properties to her paternal granddaughter D2. Dt. 11.02.1999 Ex.B.3Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour of Kakaraparthy Venkata Krishna Rao, dt. 04.03.1985 Ex.B.4Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour ofTadikonda Sankara Durga Prasad , dt. 04.03.1985 Ex.B.5Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour ofDittakavi Raghavendra Rao , dt. 04.03.1985 Ex.B.6Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour of Kakaraparthy Venkata Gowri Sankara Rao, dt. 04.03.1985 Ex.B.7Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour of Alapaty Venkateswara Rao & Alapaty Krishna Murthy, dt. 04.03.1985 Ex.B.8Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour ofIndramel & Chandan Behan, dt. 04.03.1985 Ex.B.9Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour ofDittakavi Ramachandra Murthy, dt. 04.03.1985 Ex.B.10Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani and others in favour ofKoppuravuri Surya Kumari, dt.24.11.1985 Ex.B.11Notarized copy of partition deed of Venugopala Rachakrishna Rice Mill, dt. 12.11.1980 Ex.B.12Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Late Abdul Azeem in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah,dt.04.10.1962 Ex.B.13Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Shaik Dawood in favour of Adusumilli Navaratna sikhamani dt.01.03.1994 Ex.B.14Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Vallabhaneni Mallikharjuna Rao in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah, dt.03.10.1950 31
Ex.B.15Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Kancherla Kotaiah & Radha Gopala Krishna Rao in favour of Adusumillli Seetharamaiah dt.01.09.1965 Ex.B.16Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Dandamudi Srirangaiah in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaih, dt.25.11.1941 Ex.B.17Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Adusumilli Gopala Krishnaiah in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah, dt. 20.09.1948 Ex.B.18Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Shaik Dawood in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah, dt. 13.07.1943 Ex.B.19Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Shaik Dawood in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah, 07.07.1943 Ex.B.20Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Adusumilli Venkataratnam in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah, dt. 31.03.1949 Ex.B.21Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Anne Bapanaiah in favour of Adusmilli Seetharamaih, dt.14.05.1958 Ex.B.22Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by by Guttikonda Lakhsmana Rao, Gutikonda Jayarama Rao and Guttikonda Sushma in favour of Adusmilli Seetharamaiah, dt. 19.06.1952 Ex.B.23Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Akkineni Subbaiah @ others in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaih, dt. 01.02.1950 Ex.B.24Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by E.Seethabayamma in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah, dt. 21.03.1972 Ex.B.25Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Ganugapati Venkataramaiah & others in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah, dt.15.01.1968 Ex.B.26Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by K.Kotaiah & others in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah dt.06.06.1959 Ex.B.27Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Tummala Krishnaiah in favour of Adusumilli Seetharamaiah dt 26.09.1960 Ex.B.28Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Adusmilli Madhava Rao, dt.27.06.1996 Ex.B.29Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Kancherla Kali Vara Prasad, dt.22.11.1996 Ex.B.30Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Kakaraparthi Bhavannarayana & others in favour of Adusmilli Kanakadurga Vara Prasad Rao & 1st defendant, dt.17.10.1977 Ex.B.31Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by 1st 32 defendant in favour of Muppavarapu Krishna Murthy, dt.12.03.1992 Ex.B.32Ture copy of order in CC.14/BZA/1975 on the file of proceedings of Land Reforms Tribunal, Vijayawada, dt.14.07.1976 Ex.B.33Not found certificate issued by the Joint SubRegistrar in favour of 1st defendant along with Photostat copy of registered sale deed dt. 24.10.1985 executed by late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani & others in favour of Kanchan & others, dt.18.08.2005 Ex.B.34Not found certificate issued by the Joint SubRegistrar in favour of 1st defendant along with Photostat copy of registered sale deed dt. 24.10.1985 executed by late Adusumilli Navaratna Sikhamani & others in favour of Manikumari & others, dt.18.08.2005 Ex.B.35Death certificate of A.Navartna Sikhamani, died on 04.11.2000, dt. 08.12.2000 Ex.B.36First registered will of A.Navaratna Sikhamani, dt. 07.06.1997 Ex.B.37Certified copy of order issued by R.R.T.Vza in C.C.No.14/VZA/75 equallent to Ex.B.32, dt. 14.07.1976 Ex.B.38CC of sale deed dt. 24.12.1992 Ex.B.39CC of registered gift deed,dt. 4.10.1999 Ex.B.40CC of registered sale deed dt. 17.10.1977 Ex.B.41Building plan along with proceedings Ex.B.42Property tax receipts to 45 Ex.B.46Registered will dt. 04.08.2015 Ex.B.47Death certificate of Adusumilli Venkateswara Rao, dt. 19.08.2015.
VADJ, VJA.
33
IN THE COURT OF THE VADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE::VIJAYAWADA
PRESENT: Smt.G.PRATIBHA DEVI,
VADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.
Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022.
O.S. No.18/2003.
Between:
Adusumilli Mahesh, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 22 years, R/o. C/o. Manne Veera Raghava Rao, Road No. 1, H.No.2, Vidyanagar Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada.
... Plaintiff.
AND 1Adusumilli Venkateswara Rao (died), S/o. Seetharamaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Business, R/o. Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 2Adusumilli Sripallavi, D/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 21 years, Student, R/o. Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 3Adusumilli Madhavarao (died) 4Kancharla Kali Vara Prasad (died), S/o. Late Taraka Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 57 years, D.No. 361/3, Panchayat Road, Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 5Muppavarapu Krishna Murthy (died) 6Desu Lakshmi Lavanya, D/o. Desu Krishna, Hindu, aged about 24 years, Properties, R/o. D.No.115510, Beside Bavaji Matham, near Vinayaka Temple, Marvadi Temple Street, Vijayawada. 7Desu Swapna, D/o. Desu Krishna, Hindu, aged about 23 years, Properties, R/o. D.No.115510, Beside Bavaji Matham, near Vinayaka Temple, Marvadi Temple Street, Vijayawada. 8Adusumilli Venakteswara Rao, S/o. Late Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Plot No. 140, Sitapuram Colony, Poranki. 9Adusumilli Rama Mohana Rao (died) S/o. Late Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, C22, PWD Quarters, Labbipet, Vijayawada10 10Adusumilli Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. Late Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, D.No. 361, Kolavennu Village and Post, Kankipadu mandal. 11Muppavarapu Appa Rao (died), S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Principal of Nirma Engineering college, R/o. D.No. 6451/3, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada. 12Muppavarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Business, D.No. 59/A1527, Old P & T Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada. 13Desu Anuradha, W/o. Krishna, Hindu, aged about 45 years, properties, R/o. D.No. 115510, Beside Bavaji Matham, near Vinayaka Temple, Marvadi Temple Street, Vijayawada. (defendants 2 to 13 were added as defendants as per the orders in 34
CRP NO. 6446/20014, dt. 15.03.2005 and as per the IA. No.
8995/2005 dt. 08.09.2006 and as per the orders in IA. 4875/2006,
dt. 31.10.2006 respectively.
14Adusumilli Arunasri said to be 2nd wife of Adusumilli Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 55years, R/o. Lolavennu, Krishna District. (Defendant No. 14 is added as per orders in IA. 418/2017, dt. 30.11.2018 and the consequential order dt. 21.10.2019 in IA. 228/2019) 15Muppavarapu Sunitha, W/o. Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Lecturer, R/o. Flat No. 205, Anna Residency, Netaji Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada. 16Muppavarapu Sai Krishna, S/o. Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 49 years, R/o. Flat No. 205, Anna Residency, Netaji Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada. (Defendant No. 15 and 16 are added as per orders in IA. 297/2018,
dt. 30.11.2018 and the consequential order dt. 21.10.2019 in IA.
228/2019) 17Kancherla Tirumala Devi, W/o. Late Kaalivara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Housewife, R/o. Flat No. 406, D.No.621 1,G.K.Towers, Patamata Lanka, A.P.Rao Street, Vijayawada 520010 and also R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Koavaennu village, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. 18Kancherla Eswar Chand, S/o. Late Kaalivara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Employment, R/o. Flat No. 406, D.No.621 1,G.K.Towers, Patamata Lanka, A.P.Rao Street, Vijayawada 520010 and also R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Koavaennu village, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. 19Kancherla Swetha, D/o. Late Kaalivara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 27 years, Housewife, R/o. Flat No. 406, D.No.6211,G.K.Towers, Patamata Lanka, A.P.Rao Street, Vijayawada 520010 and also R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Koavaennu village, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. 20Kancherla Pushkaramba, W/o. Late Tharaka Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 75 years, R/o. 389, Cheruvu Road, Kolavennu Village, Kankipadu Mandal. (Defendant No. 17 to 20 are added as per orders in IA. 257/2019,
dt. 18.11.2019)
...Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition of the plaint A to C schedule properties and passing preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and partition of the B schedule property into 7 equal shares and allot 1/7th share belonging to the 1st defendant and put the petitioner in separate possession of 1/14th share and partition of the C schedule property and plaintiff is entitled by 1/4th share and also declaring that the sale deeds obtained by defendants 3 to 13 are not valid and binding on the plaintiff’s share in the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
Plaint presented on: 17.03.2003 Plaint registered on: 19.03.2003
Cause of action for the suit arose on 05.10.1980 when the plaintiff was born to the 1st defendant when he attained right to claim share in the joint family properties which are described in the plaint A,B and C 35 schedules which includes the properties that the 1st defendant got through partition deed dt. 22.12.1969 and the 1st defendant acquired other properties through ancestral nucleus which all the A,B. and C schedule properties have become the Hindu Undivided Joint Family properties of both the 1st defendant and plaintiff in which the plaintiff is having undivided half share and when the plaintiff and his maternal grandfather demanded the 1st defendant to partition the half share of the plaintiff for which there is no response and the 1st defendant transferred some of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the 3rd party and that the plaint schedule properties are situated in different areas as stated in the schedules which are within the jurisdiction of this court.
The value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.31,86,678/ under Sec.50(1) of APCF & SV Act, on which a court fee of Rs.200/ is paid under Sec.34(2)(ii) of APCF & SV Act.
This suit is coming on 02.08.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri. T.Bhairaju, Advocate for D6, D7 and D13, Sri.V.Jaya Prakash, Advocate for D8 to D10, Sri. L.Satish, Advocate for D12, Sri.K.Nageswara Rao, Advocates for D2, D14 to D.16, Sri.K.Jayaram, Advocate for D17 to D20, and D1, D3, D4, D5, D9 and D1 are died and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:
i) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed and, ii) That the plaintiff do also pay to D2 to D14 a sum of Rs.20,202/ towards costs of the suit and the plaintiff do also pay to D17 to D20 a sum of Rs.69,212/ and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL, as no bill of costs is filed by the plaintiff.
Copy of schedule is attached to the decree.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 8 th day of April, 2022.
V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIJAYAWADA.
MEMO OF COSTS FOR.
PlaintiffD2 to D14Defendants 17 Rs.psRs.psto 20 Rs.Ps. 1Stamp on vakalat No bill 200200 2Stamp on plaint Of cost 3Stamp on process Is filed by1000 the 4Advocate fees Plaintiff 20,000006900000 5Writing charges 10000 6Typing charges 2000010000 Total 20,2020069,21200
VADJ/ VJA.
36
NOTE: The exhibited documents and nonexhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.