Sri G.Shanmukha Rao

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.772/ 2012

BETWEEN: 

Yeddu Suryarao, S/o.China Pydiyya, Hindu, 52 years,Cooliworker,Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Akkavarapu Lakshmi, W/o.Thammayya, Hindu, 42years,Ramadaspeta,Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

2.Janupati Janaki, W/o.Prasad, Hindu, 38 years, Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

3.Veeravalli Veeramani, W/o.Anantha Rao, Hindu, 34 years, D.No.64­2­9, Anand Nagar, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. (3 rd defendant is added as per orders in IA 775/2014 dated 09.10.2014) ­­ Defendants 1 to 3.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 03.03.2020 in the presence of Sri S.V.S.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri I.Balasubramanyam, Advocate for 1st and 2nd defendants and of Sri P.V.S.K.Sobhanadri Sastry, Advocate for 3rd defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following;

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed for partition of the schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to him, for possession of the same, for costs and other ancillary reliefs.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows;

a)The plaint schedule property belongs to plaintiff father Yeddu

China Pydiyya who died on 23.05.2002 at Rajahmundry. Plaintiff mother

Atchamma died long ago prior to death of his father. After death of the plaintiff’s mother his father took one Gannemma as concubine. The defendants are their children. During the plaintiff childhood he was brought up by his grandmother at her house. The plaintiff performed all the death ceremonies

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 2 and obsequies of his father. The plaintiff requested the D1 and D2 for hand over the schedule property belongs to his father. Defendants 1 and 2 made a promise and dragged the issue. The defendants 1 and 2 sold away the part of the property to Veeravalli Anantha Rao. The plaintiff came to know about the sold of the property when he went to the payment of the tax to the Municipal authorities. The assessment of the part of the property was changed to defendant 1 and 2 and another part to Veeravalli Anantha Rao. 

b)Plaintiff issued a registered notice to the defendants dated 13.12.2011. The defendants received the notice and gave false reply dated 17.12.2011 by declining the demands of the plaintiff and delivery of the property. The plaintiff’s father Yeddu China Pydiyya and his properties are in the possession of the defendants, plaintiff’s father died intestate. Hence, the suit.

3. 1st defendant filed written statement. 2nd defendant filed adopted memo.

D1 and D2 contended that they never heard about the plaintiff during lifetime of their father. Since birth the defendants and their father used to live along with her mother. During lifetime of their father earned the suit schedule property and their father during lifetime executed a registered will dated 02.01.1988 registered with SRO, Rajahmundry. 

As per the Will the schedule property shall devolved upon her mother for lifetime and she acquired life estate. On her death the property shall devolved upon D1 and D2. The defendants father Yeddu China Pydiyya died on 23.05.2002 and the will is last will executed by Yeddu China Pydiyya. Smt

Gannemma was alive and she is enjoying the suit schedule property undisputedly since then. Gannemma got sick for meeting her medical expenditure the defendants 1 and 2 along with Gannemma sold away the part of the schedule property under register sale deed dated 04.12.2002 vide

Doc.No.6089/2002 to one Veeravalli Veeramani. The plaint schedule property was change into the name of Gannemma as she is life estate owner. Suit is liable to be dismissed for non­joinder of necessary and property parties. This suit is barred by limitation and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.3rd defendant filed the written statement by denying the plaint contents.

Further contended that the plaintiff is not at all related to the Yeddu China

Pydiyya and China Pydiyya died on 27.05.2002. 3rd defendant obtained the registered sale deed from D1 and D2 and their mother Gannemma. Yeddu

China Pydiyya while he was in a sound and disposed state of mind executed

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 3 registered Will dated 02.01.1988 registered as Doc.No.3/1988 in the office of

SRO, Rajahmundry. As per the Will the property was bequeathed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and their mother Gannemma. They conveyed the property under sale deed dated 04.12.2002 registered doc.No.6089/2002 in the office of the SRO, Rajahmundry. Since purchase the defendants has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The 3rd defendant purchased the property after due enquiry. The plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the property. This suit was filed without adding the mother of D1 and D2 and the suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties. Y.Gannemma is proper and necessary party. The plaintiff having knowledge about the Will and filed this false case. The properties of Yeddu China Pydiyya devolved upon the legatees of the Will i.e., D1, D2 and their mother Gannemma. This suit is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit.

5.Based on the pleadings and the documents filed by both sides the court has settled the following issues for trial;

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the

plaint schedule property into two equal shares by metes

and bounds and for allotment and separate possession

of one such share to the plaintiff as prayed for?

2. Whether the father of defendants 1 and 2 viz., China

Pydiyya did not died intestate and he executed a

registered Will dated 02.01.1988 in favour of them in

respect of the plaint schedule property?

3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non­ joinder of necessary and proper parties?

4. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

7. Heard argument on both sides.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaint schedule property belongs to his father. After death of his mother, D1 and D2 and their mother Gannemma resided along with his father Yeddu China Pydiyya. After death of plaintiff father the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to partition the property and issued lawyer notice, but the defendants gave reply notice with false

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 4 allegations. The plaintiff is the son of the Yeddu China Pydiyya and he is entitled half share in the schedule property. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A11 established the case of the plaintiff and prayed to decree the suit. 

9.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that after death of plaintiff’s mother, the plaintiff’s father Yeddu China Pydiyya married the defendants mother Gannemma and they resided together. During lifetime of

Yeddu China Pydiyya he executed a registered Will in favour of Gannemma, D1 and D2 bequeathing the plaint schedule property with life interest to

Gannemma and vested remainders with D1 and D2. Further argued that the plaintiff have knowledge about the Will and filed this false case. As per the Will the names of the Gannemma, D1 and D2 mutated in the Municipality records.

The defendants proved the Will by examine the scribe as D.W.4 as both attestors of the Will died. The evidence of D.W.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.B1 and

B2 the defendants could establish the Will dated 2.1.1988 and the plaintiff has no right over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also did not add the

Gannemma as party and the suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary party and prays to dismiss the suit.

ISSUE No.1 and 2:­

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the

plaint schedule property into two equal shares by metes

and bounds and for allotment and separate possession

of one such share to the plaintiff as prayed for?

2. Whether the father of defendants 1 and 2 viz., China

Pydiyya did not died intestate and he executed a

registered Will dated 02.01.1988 in favour of them in

respect of the plaint schedule property?

10.The plaintiff pleaded that he is the son of the Yeddu China Pydiyya and the plaint schedule property belongs to his father and the plaint schedule property liable to be partitioned into two equal shares and plaintiff is entitled for half share of the property. The defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya. During his lifetime he executed Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, he reiterated the plaint contents. According to P.W.1, plaint schedule property is belongs to his father Yeddu China Pydiyya who died on 23.5.2002 at Rajahmundry his mother Atchayamma died long ago prior to death of his father. Ex.A4 is the lawyer notice issued by the plaintiff on

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 5 13.12.2011 to D1 to D3 and the plaintiff claimed that his father Yeddu China

Pydiyya died no 23.5.2002 and he got the property of patta house bearing

No.66­27­1 and died intestate. Thus, P.W.1 evidence is silent how Yeddu China

Pydiyya acquired the property.

11.2nd defendant examined as D.W.1. She reiterated the statement contents.

According to D.W.1, late Yeddu China Pydiyya is her father and Gannemma is her mother. The plaint schedule property is self acquired property of Yeddu

China Pydiyya. Thus, according to D.W.1, the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya. But the P.W.1 evidence is silent about the nature of the property and how Yeddu China Pydiyya acquired the property. As per Ex.A4 the property is a patta house. Thus, it is clear that

P.W.1 did not produce any document to show about the nature of the property.

Admittedly, Yeddu China Pydiyya died on 23.5.2002. Ex.A7 is the death certificate of Yeddu China Pydiyya showing that he died on 23.5.2002. Thus, there is no dispute about the death of the Yeddu China Pydiyya. 

12.During cross­examination P.W.1 deposed that after death of his father in the year 2002 he used to talk with D1 and D2 and Gannemma, but he did not discuss about the share in the plaint schedule property. After expiry of his father he did not ask the D1, D2 and Gannemma about the share. Further

P.W.1 after expiry of his father, he never approached the Municipal authorities for mutation of his name in Municipal records and never approached the

Tahsildar for issuance of legal­heir certificate. He filed suit for 1/3rd share of the property and share of Gannemma. Thus, the cross­examination of P.W.1 it is clear that except issuance of Ex.A4 lawyer notice he did not take any steps to claim his share.

13.The defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that during lifetime of Yeddu China

Pydiyya married mother of D1 and D2 Gannemma and executed the registered

Will dated 2.1.1988. Thus, being the propounder of the registered Will dated 2.1.1988 the burden is heavily on the defendants 1 and 2 to prove the Ex.B2 registered Will, dated 2.1.1988. According to D.W.1, during life time of his father executed the registered Will in favour of his mother, herself and her sister and bequeathing the plaint schedule property to her mother for life interest and vested remainder to herself and her sister and Will was registered in book No.3 bearing Doc.No.506/1988 dated 2.1.1988. On perusal of the

Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 testator shown as Yeddu China Pydiyya. Ex.A6 is the reply notice given by the defendants on 17.12.2011 claiming that Yeddu

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 6 China Pydiyya executed the registered Will dated 2.1.1988 in favour of

Gannemma, D1 and D2 with life interest to Gannemma and vested remainders to D1 and D2.

14.During cross­examination P.W.1 deposed that he do not know his father executed the Will by bequeathing the plaint schedule property to Gannemma with life interest and vested reminder to D1 and D2. P.W.1 admitted that his father gave birth to D1 and D2 thorough Gannemma and they resided with his father and his father performed the marriages of D1 and D2. Further P.W.1 admitted that his father and Gannemma performed his marriage after death of his mother. Thus, it is clear that Yeddu China Pydiyya is the father of D1 and

D2 and gave birth through Gannemma. As per Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988

Gannemma has life interest D1 and D2 are vested remainders.

15.Machiraju Sri Ramachandra Murthy scribe of the Will examined as

D.W.2. According to D.W.2, he scribed the Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 the executants Yeddu China Pydiyya gave instruction to him to scribe the Will

dated 2.1.88 and executants gone through the content of the Will and put the

signature in his presence. During cross­examination by D3 he deposed that he was present at the time of execution of the Will by Yeddu China Pydiyya. Yeddu

China Pydiyya was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Will. The testator Yeddu China Pydiyya and both attestors put their signatures on his presence on Will and he witnessed their signatures.

Both attestors also witnessed the testator Yeddu China Pydiyya put the signature on the Will and both the attestors are acted as identified witnesses. 

16.During cross­examination of D.W.2 by plaintiff counsel he deposed that except giving information to him to prepare Ex.B2 will, the testator did not produce any documents to him. Thus, it is clear that D.W.2 was present and scribed the Ex.B2 will testator Yeddu China Pydiyya put the signature on

Ex.B2 will. Thus, the D.W.2 evidence is clear that he scribed the Ex.B2 will

dated 2.1.1988 and identified the signature of the testator and both attestors.

Admittedly, both attestors of the Will died.

17.To comply the provisions U/Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act, D1 and D2 examined the Pallavajhala Ravisankar Sarma examined as D.W.4 to identify the signatures of 1st attestor Chamarthi Venkata Subbarao of the Ex.B2 Will

dated 2.1.1988. According to D.W.4, Chamarthi Venkata Subba Rao is his

relative, his paternal grandfather and father of Chamarthi Venkata Subba Rao

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 7 are co brothers residing in same locality as neighbours. He can identify the signatures of Chamarthi Venkata Subba Rao. D.W.4 used to go to his house and to do some documentation consultation. As such he has an acquaintance with his signature. D.W.4 identified on confronting the Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 the signature of 1st attestors Chamarthi Venkata Subbarao. 

18.During cross­examination D.W.4 deposed that Chamarthi Venkata

Subba rao is his relative and friend and he informed that he acted as an attestor of Ex.B2 Will and acted as identifying witness. He can identify the any other signatures of Venkata subbarao. During cross­examination of D.W.4 by the plaintiff counsel nothing was elicited in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the evidence of D.W.4 it is clear that he identified the signature of 1st Attestor

Chamarthi Venkata Subbarao on Ex.B2 Will. On the other hand D.W.2 also catergorically deposed that he identified the signatures of testator and both attestors. Thus, the defendant complied the provisions of U/Sec.68 of Indian

Evidence Act. 

19.According to P.W.1, the registered will dated 2.1.1988 is forged and fabricated document. But in the cross­examination he categorically deposed that he do not know his father execute the will. Thus, P.W.1 deposed two different versions with regard to Ex.B2 will. On the other hand the evidence of

D.W.1, 2 and 4 clearly showing that Yeddu China Pydiyya executed the Ex.B1 will dated 2.1.1988. On scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.4 there are no suspicious circumstances about the execution of the Ex.B2 will

dated 2.1.1988. The plaintiff also did not issue rejoinder notice by specifically

denying the Ex.A6 lawyer notice contents. The plaintiff also did not pleaded any specific denial about the will in reply notice dated 17.12.2011. During cross­examination the learned counsel for the defendants shown the photo belongs to his father and PW1 admitted his father’s photo on the loan account pass book. Ex.B1 is the photo pass book. P.W.1 do not know about the issuance of the card by the Aryapuram Cooperative bank, Rajahmundry. 

20.On perusal of Ex.B1 the pass book issued by the cooperative bank showing the photo of Yeddu China Pydiyya. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that after expiry of his father Gannemma, D1 and D2 discharged the mortgage debt availed by his father. Thus, the custody of Ex.B1 in the hands of D1 and D2 showing his father availed the mortgage loan. Admittedly, there are no good terms in between the P.W.1 and his father. During cross­examination PW1 deposed that himself and his father residing separately after death of his

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 8 mother and D2 attended the medical treatment of his father, his father died in the house. After 20 days after expiry of his father he came to know about the death of his father. Thus, it is clear that he also did not attend the death ceremonies of his father. On scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1, 2 and 4, the defendants 1 and 2 could established the Ex.B2 will dated 2.1.1988 by adducing cogent and corroborative evidence. 

21.According to P.W.1, he came to know about the assessment of the part of the property was changed into D1 and D2 and another part to one Veeravalli

Anantha Rao. According to D.W.1, they sold away the part of the property to one Veeramani who is 3rd defendant basing on the will executed by her father.

Veeravalli Veeramani wife of Anantha Rao examined as D.W.3. According to

D.W.3, she purchased the property under sale deed dated 04.12.2002 as doc.No.6089/2002 and office of SRO at Rajahmundry. D.W.1 also admitted that they sold away the property under Ex.A11 to D.W.3 Veera mani. Except filing the Ex.A11 certified copy of the sale deed under Ex.A11, P.W.1 evidence is silent about the transaction under Ex.A11. On the other hand the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.3 coupled with Ex.A11 the part of the property was sold away to the D.W.3 Veeramani by D1, D2 and Gannemma. Thus, it is clear that

D3/D.W.3 purchased the part of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A11.

On perusal of Ex.A11 dated 4.12.2002 the recitals showing that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property, but Ex.A11 is silent about the execution of the Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 by Yeddu China Pydiyya. But the property is self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya.

22.During cross­examination also D.W.3 denied the suggestion that it was not mention in Ex.A11 sale deed that basing on Ex.B2 will she purchased the property and it was mention that Yeddu China Pydiyya died intestate. As the plaintiff failed to explain how the Yeddu China Pydiyya acquired the property and the defendant categorically established that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya and the defendant established the execution of the Ex.B2 will, mere non­mentioning of the Ex.B2 will in Ex.A11 sale deed cannot thrown away the entire case of the defendants.

Ex.A2, A10 showing the plaintiff is the son of Yeddu China Pydiyya. Ex.A3 is the property tax receipt stands in the name of Yeddu China Pydiyya. P.W.1 denied the Ex.A8 study certificate. Except relationship, Ex.A2 and A10 is no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaint schedule property is not liable for partition and Yeddu China Pydiyya died testate and executed the

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 9 registered the will dated 2.1.1988 in favour of Ganemma, D1 and D2 in respect of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, issues are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE No.3:­

3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non­ joinder of necessary and proper parties?

23.Admittedly, Gannemma, D1 and D2 are residing together along with deceased Yeddu China Pydiyya. According to D.W.1, Yeddu China Pydiyya is her father and Gannemma is her mother. Her father executed the Will by bequeathing the plaint schedule property to her with life interest and vested remainder with DW1 and D2. On perusal of Ex.B2 Will testator Yeddu China

Pydiyya bequeathed the property in favour of his wife Gannemma, D1 and D2 and his wife as life interest to enjoy the property and D1 and D2 are vested remainders and acquired rights after her death. Thus, as per Ex.B2 will

Gannemma, D1 and D2 are legatees of the will. P.W.1 deposed that he did not show the Gannemma as party in this case. During cross­examination D.W.1 and 3 deposed that Gannemma still alive. According to D.W.3, Gannemma, D1 and D2 sold away the part of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A11. Thus, still Gannemma is alive. According to P.W.1, Gannemma resided with his father China Pydiyya. According to D.W.1, their father China Pydiyya married the Gannemma. There is no dispute that Gannemma gave birth to D1 and D2 through Yeddu China Pydiyya. China Paidayya executed the Will in favour of

Gannemma, D1 and D2. According to D.W.1 evidence coupled with Ex.A11 the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya.

Thus, Yeddu China Pydiyya has every right to execute Ex.B2 will. Thus,

Gannemma being a life interest over the plaint schedule property under Ex.B2

Will and she is still alive but the plaintiff did not add the Gannemma. In the absence of Gannemma her rights and share cannot be decided. Thus,

Gannemma is a necessary and proper party. Thus, this suit is bad for non­ joinder of necessary and proper party and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE No.4:­

4. To what relief?

24. In view of the findings in issue No.1 to 3, this suit is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstance no costs.

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 10

25. In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.III), Corrected and

Pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 : Yeddu Suryarao.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1 :Janupati Janaki.

D.W.2 : Machiraju Sri Rama Chandra Murthy.

D.W.3 :Veeravalli Veeramani.

D.W.4 :Pallavajhala Ravi Sankar Sarma.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original valuation certificate, dated 21.1.2011 issued by Sub­ Registrar, Rajamahendravaram.

Ex.A2 :Household card issued in favour of the plaintiff by the revenue department.

Ex.A3 :Tax receipt original.

Ex.A4 :Office copy of registered notice dated 13.12.2011 got issued to the defendant by plaintiff.

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgements (3 Nos.) Original.

Ex.A6 :Reply notice issued by the defendants (original) dated 17.12.2011.

Ex.A7 :Original Death certificate of plaintiff’s father, dated 14.12.2011.

Ex.A8 :Original study certificate of the plaintiff.

Ex.A9 :Original Photos of the schedule property.

Ex.A10 :Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff.

Ex.A11 :Original certified copy of the sale deed.

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 11

FOR DEFENDANTS: 

Ex.B1 :Photo of the pass book.

Ex.B2 :Registered Original Will dated 02.01.1988. 

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I A.S.C.J.

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 12

Plaint presented on 22.09.2012 and filed on 16.11.2012

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.772/ 2012

BETWEEN: 

Yeddu Suryarao, S/o.China Pydiyya, Hindu, 52 years,Cooliworker,Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Akkavarapu Lakshmi, W/o.Thammayya, Hindu, 42years,Ramadaspeta,Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

2.Janupati Janaki, W/o.Prasad, Hindu, 38 years, Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

3.Veeravalli Veeramani, W/o.Anantha Rao, Hindu, 34 years, D.No.64­2­9, Anand Nagar, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. (3 rd defendant is added as per orders in IA 775/2014 dated 09.10.2014) ­­ Defendants 1 to 3.

This is a suit filed for partition of the schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to him, for possession of the same, for costs and other ancillary reliefs.

The value of the suit:­

Value of the plaint schedule property as per the Sub­Registrar’s valuation certificate:Rs.18,07,900/­ ¾th value thereof comes to:Rs.13,55,925/­ 

Plaintiff’s half share therein:Rs. 6,77,963/­

Thus, the plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.6,77,963/­. Since the plaintiff is in joint and constructive possession of the schedule property, a fixed court fee of Rs.200/­ is paid U/Sec.34 (2) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act. 

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 13 The cause of action for the suit arose on 23.05.2012 when the plaintiff’s father died intestate and when the plaintiff succeeded to the plaint schedule property left behind by his father and when the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 sold a part of the property to one Veeravalli Anantha Rao and on 13.12.2011 when he got issued notice to the defendants and when the defendants gave reply dated 17.12.2011 and where the plaint schedule property is situated at Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry and where the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 03.03.2020 in the presence of Sri S.V.S.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri I.Balasubramanyam, Advocate for 1st and 2nd defendants and of Sri P.V.S.K.Sobhanadri Sastry, Advocate for 3rd defendant and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:­

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2.That there shall be no costs. (Copy of the plaint schedule attached to decree).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PARTICULAR OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

No memo of costs filed on either side.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I A.S.C.J.

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.772/ 2012

BETWEEN: 

Yeddu Suryarao, S/o.China Pydiyya, Hindu, 52 years,Cooliworker,Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Akkavarapu Lakshmi, W/o.Thammayya, Hindu, 42years,Ramadaspeta,Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

2.Janupati Janaki, W/o.Prasad, Hindu, 38 years, Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

3.Veeravalli Veeramani, W/o.Anantha Rao, Hindu, 34 years, D.No.64­2­9, Anand Nagar, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. (3 rd defendant is added as per orders in IA 775/2014 dated 09.10.2014) ­­ Defendants 1 to 3.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 03.03.2020 in the presence of Sri S.V.S.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri I.Balasubramanyam, Advocate for 1st and 2nd defendants and of Sri P.V.S.K.Sobhanadri Sastry, Advocate for 3rd defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following;

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed for partition of the schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to him, for possession of the same, for costs and other ancillary reliefs.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows;

a)The plaint schedule property belongs to plaintiff father Yeddu

China Pydiyya who died on 23.05.2002 at Rajahmundry. Plaintiff mother

Atchamma died long ago prior to death of his father. After death of the plaintiff’s mother his father took one Gannemma as concubine. The defendants are their children. During the plaintiff childhood he was brought up by his grandmother at her house. The plaintiff performed all the death ceremonies

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 2 and obsequies of his father. The plaintiff requested the D1 and D2 for hand over the schedule property belongs to his father. Defendants 1 and 2 made a promise and dragged the issue. The defendants 1 and 2 sold away the part of the property to Veeravalli Anantha Rao. The plaintiff came to know about the sold of the property when he went to the payment of the tax to the Municipal authorities. The assessment of the part of the property was changed to defendant 1 and 2 and another part to Veeravalli Anantha Rao. 

b)Plaintiff issued a registered notice to the defendants dated 13.12.2011. The defendants received the notice and gave false reply dated 17.12.2011 by declining the demands of the plaintiff and delivery of the property. The plaintiff’s father Yeddu China Pydiyya and his properties are in the possession of the defendants, plaintiff’s father died intestate. Hence, the suit.

3. 1st defendant filed written statement. 2nd defendant filed adopted memo.

D1 and D2 contended that they never heard about the plaintiff during lifetime of their father. Since birth the defendants and their father used to live along with her mother. During lifetime of their father earned the suit schedule property and their father during lifetime executed a registered will dated 02.01.1988 registered with SRO, Rajahmundry. 

As per the Will the schedule property shall devolved upon her mother for lifetime and she acquired life estate. On her death the property shall devolved upon D1 and D2. The defendants father Yeddu China Pydiyya died on 23.05.2002 and the will is last will executed by Yeddu China Pydiyya. Smt

Gannemma was alive and she is enjoying the suit schedule property undisputedly since then. Gannemma got sick for meeting her medical expenditure the defendants 1 and 2 along with Gannemma sold away the part of the schedule property under register sale deed dated 04.12.2002 vide

Doc.No.6089/2002 to one Veeravalli Veeramani. The plaint schedule property was change into the name of Gannemma as she is life estate owner. Suit is liable to be dismissed for non­joinder of necessary and property parties. This suit is barred by limitation and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.3rd defendant filed the written statement by denying the plaint contents.

Further contended that the plaintiff is not at all related to the Yeddu China

Pydiyya and China Pydiyya died on 27.05.2002. 3rd defendant obtained the registered sale deed from D1 and D2 and their mother Gannemma. Yeddu

China Pydiyya while he was in a sound and disposed state of mind executed

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 3 registered Will dated 02.01.1988 registered as Doc.No.3/1988 in the office of

SRO, Rajahmundry. As per the Will the property was bequeathed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and their mother Gannemma. They conveyed the property under sale deed dated 04.12.2002 registered doc.No.6089/2002 in the office of the SRO, Rajahmundry. Since purchase the defendants has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The 3rd defendant purchased the property after due enquiry. The plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the property. This suit was filed without adding the mother of D1 and D2 and the suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties. Y.Gannemma is proper and necessary party. The plaintiff having knowledge about the Will and filed this false case. The properties of Yeddu China Pydiyya devolved upon the legatees of the Will i.e., D1, D2 and their mother Gannemma. This suit is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit.

5.Based on the pleadings and the documents filed by both sides the court has settled the following issues for trial;

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the

plaint schedule property into two equal shares by metes

and bounds and for allotment and separate possession

of one such share to the plaintiff as prayed for?

2. Whether the father of defendants 1 and 2 viz., China

Pydiyya did not died intestate and he executed a

registered Will dated 02.01.1988 in favour of them in

respect of the plaint schedule property?

3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non­ joinder of necessary and proper parties?

4. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

7. Heard argument on both sides.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaint schedule property belongs to his father. After death of his mother, D1 and D2 and their mother Gannemma resided along with his father Yeddu China Pydiyya. After death of plaintiff father the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to partition the property and issued lawyer notice, but the defendants gave reply notice with false

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 4 allegations. The plaintiff is the son of the Yeddu China Pydiyya and he is entitled half share in the schedule property. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A11 established the case of the plaintiff and prayed to decree the suit. 

9.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that after death of plaintiff’s mother, the plaintiff’s father Yeddu China Pydiyya married the defendants mother Gannemma and they resided together. During lifetime of

Yeddu China Pydiyya he executed a registered Will in favour of Gannemma, D1 and D2 bequeathing the plaint schedule property with life interest to

Gannemma and vested remainders with D1 and D2. Further argued that the plaintiff have knowledge about the Will and filed this false case. As per the Will the names of the Gannemma, D1 and D2 mutated in the Municipality records.

The defendants proved the Will by examine the scribe as D.W.4 as both attestors of the Will died. The evidence of D.W.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.B1 and

B2 the defendants could establish the Will dated 2.1.1988 and the plaintiff has no right over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also did not add the

Gannemma as party and the suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary party and prays to dismiss the suit.

ISSUE No.1 and 2:­

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the

plaint schedule property into two equal shares by metes

and bounds and for allotment and separate possession

of one such share to the plaintiff as prayed for?

2. Whether the father of defendants 1 and 2 viz., China

Pydiyya did not died intestate and he executed a

registered Will dated 02.01.1988 in favour of them in

respect of the plaint schedule property?

10.The plaintiff pleaded that he is the son of the Yeddu China Pydiyya and the plaint schedule property belongs to his father and the plaint schedule property liable to be partitioned into two equal shares and plaintiff is entitled for half share of the property. The defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya. During his lifetime he executed Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, he reiterated the plaint contents. According to P.W.1, plaint schedule property is belongs to his father Yeddu China Pydiyya who died on 23.5.2002 at Rajahmundry his mother Atchayamma died long ago prior to death of his father. Ex.A4 is the lawyer notice issued by the plaintiff on

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 5 13.12.2011 to D1 to D3 and the plaintiff claimed that his father Yeddu China

Pydiyya died no 23.5.2002 and he got the property of patta house bearing

No.66­27­1 and died intestate. Thus, P.W.1 evidence is silent how Yeddu China

Pydiyya acquired the property.

11.2nd defendant examined as D.W.1. She reiterated the statement contents.

According to D.W.1, late Yeddu China Pydiyya is her father and Gannemma is her mother. The plaint schedule property is self acquired property of Yeddu

China Pydiyya. Thus, according to D.W.1, the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya. But the P.W.1 evidence is silent about the nature of the property and how Yeddu China Pydiyya acquired the property. As per Ex.A4 the property is a patta house. Thus, it is clear that

P.W.1 did not produce any document to show about the nature of the property.

Admittedly, Yeddu China Pydiyya died on 23.5.2002. Ex.A7 is the death certificate of Yeddu China Pydiyya showing that he died on 23.5.2002. Thus, there is no dispute about the death of the Yeddu China Pydiyya. 

12.During cross­examination P.W.1 deposed that after death of his father in the year 2002 he used to talk with D1 and D2 and Gannemma, but he did not discuss about the share in the plaint schedule property. After expiry of his father he did not ask the D1, D2 and Gannemma about the share. Further

P.W.1 after expiry of his father, he never approached the Municipal authorities for mutation of his name in Municipal records and never approached the

Tahsildar for issuance of legal­heir certificate. He filed suit for 1/3rd share of the property and share of Gannemma. Thus, the cross­examination of P.W.1 it is clear that except issuance of Ex.A4 lawyer notice he did not take any steps to claim his share.

13.The defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that during lifetime of Yeddu China

Pydiyya married mother of D1 and D2 Gannemma and executed the registered

Will dated 2.1.1988. Thus, being the propounder of the registered Will dated 2.1.1988 the burden is heavily on the defendants 1 and 2 to prove the Ex.B2 registered Will, dated 2.1.1988. According to D.W.1, during life time of his father executed the registered Will in favour of his mother, herself and her sister and bequeathing the plaint schedule property to her mother for life interest and vested remainder to herself and her sister and Will was registered in book No.3 bearing Doc.No.506/1988 dated 2.1.1988. On perusal of the

Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 testator shown as Yeddu China Pydiyya. Ex.A6 is the reply notice given by the defendants on 17.12.2011 claiming that Yeddu

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 6 China Pydiyya executed the registered Will dated 2.1.1988 in favour of

Gannemma, D1 and D2 with life interest to Gannemma and vested remainders to D1 and D2.

14.During cross­examination P.W.1 deposed that he do not know his father executed the Will by bequeathing the plaint schedule property to Gannemma with life interest and vested reminder to D1 and D2. P.W.1 admitted that his father gave birth to D1 and D2 thorough Gannemma and they resided with his father and his father performed the marriages of D1 and D2. Further P.W.1 admitted that his father and Gannemma performed his marriage after death of his mother. Thus, it is clear that Yeddu China Pydiyya is the father of D1 and

D2 and gave birth through Gannemma. As per Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988

Gannemma has life interest D1 and D2 are vested remainders.

15.Machiraju Sri Ramachandra Murthy scribe of the Will examined as

D.W.2. According to D.W.2, he scribed the Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 the executants Yeddu China Pydiyya gave instruction to him to scribe the Will

dated 2.1.88 and executants gone through the content of the Will and put the

signature in his presence. During cross­examination by D3 he deposed that he was present at the time of execution of the Will by Yeddu China Pydiyya. Yeddu

China Pydiyya was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Will. The testator Yeddu China Pydiyya and both attestors put their signatures on his presence on Will and he witnessed their signatures.

Both attestors also witnessed the testator Yeddu China Pydiyya put the signature on the Will and both the attestors are acted as identified witnesses. 

16.During cross­examination of D.W.2 by plaintiff counsel he deposed that except giving information to him to prepare Ex.B2 will, the testator did not produce any documents to him. Thus, it is clear that D.W.2 was present and scribed the Ex.B2 will testator Yeddu China Pydiyya put the signature on

Ex.B2 will. Thus, the D.W.2 evidence is clear that he scribed the Ex.B2 will

dated 2.1.1988 and identified the signature of the testator and both attestors.

Admittedly, both attestors of the Will died.

17.To comply the provisions U/Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act, D1 and D2 examined the Pallavajhala Ravisankar Sarma examined as D.W.4 to identify the signatures of 1st attestor Chamarthi Venkata Subbarao of the Ex.B2 Will

dated 2.1.1988. According to D.W.4, Chamarthi Venkata Subba Rao is his

relative, his paternal grandfather and father of Chamarthi Venkata Subba Rao

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 7 are co brothers residing in same locality as neighbours. He can identify the signatures of Chamarthi Venkata Subba Rao. D.W.4 used to go to his house and to do some documentation consultation. As such he has an acquaintance with his signature. D.W.4 identified on confronting the Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 the signature of 1st attestors Chamarthi Venkata Subbarao. 

18.During cross­examination D.W.4 deposed that Chamarthi Venkata

Subba rao is his relative and friend and he informed that he acted as an attestor of Ex.B2 Will and acted as identifying witness. He can identify the any other signatures of Venkata subbarao. During cross­examination of D.W.4 by the plaintiff counsel nothing was elicited in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the evidence of D.W.4 it is clear that he identified the signature of 1st Attestor

Chamarthi Venkata Subbarao on Ex.B2 Will. On the other hand D.W.2 also catergorically deposed that he identified the signatures of testator and both attestors. Thus, the defendant complied the provisions of U/Sec.68 of Indian

Evidence Act. 

19.According to P.W.1, the registered will dated 2.1.1988 is forged and fabricated document. But in the cross­examination he categorically deposed that he do not know his father execute the will. Thus, P.W.1 deposed two different versions with regard to Ex.B2 will. On the other hand the evidence of

D.W.1, 2 and 4 clearly showing that Yeddu China Pydiyya executed the Ex.B1 will dated 2.1.1988. On scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.4 there are no suspicious circumstances about the execution of the Ex.B2 will

dated 2.1.1988. The plaintiff also did not issue rejoinder notice by specifically

denying the Ex.A6 lawyer notice contents. The plaintiff also did not pleaded any specific denial about the will in reply notice dated 17.12.2011. During cross­examination the learned counsel for the defendants shown the photo belongs to his father and PW1 admitted his father’s photo on the loan account pass book. Ex.B1 is the photo pass book. P.W.1 do not know about the issuance of the card by the Aryapuram Cooperative bank, Rajahmundry. 

20.On perusal of Ex.B1 the pass book issued by the cooperative bank showing the photo of Yeddu China Pydiyya. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that after expiry of his father Gannemma, D1 and D2 discharged the mortgage debt availed by his father. Thus, the custody of Ex.B1 in the hands of D1 and D2 showing his father availed the mortgage loan. Admittedly, there are no good terms in between the P.W.1 and his father. During cross­examination PW1 deposed that himself and his father residing separately after death of his

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 8 mother and D2 attended the medical treatment of his father, his father died in the house. After 20 days after expiry of his father he came to know about the death of his father. Thus, it is clear that he also did not attend the death ceremonies of his father. On scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1, 2 and 4, the defendants 1 and 2 could established the Ex.B2 will dated 2.1.1988 by adducing cogent and corroborative evidence. 

21.According to P.W.1, he came to know about the assessment of the part of the property was changed into D1 and D2 and another part to one Veeravalli

Anantha Rao. According to D.W.1, they sold away the part of the property to one Veeramani who is 3rd defendant basing on the will executed by her father.

Veeravalli Veeramani wife of Anantha Rao examined as D.W.3. According to

D.W.3, she purchased the property under sale deed dated 04.12.2002 as doc.No.6089/2002 and office of SRO at Rajahmundry. D.W.1 also admitted that they sold away the property under Ex.A11 to D.W.3 Veera mani. Except filing the Ex.A11 certified copy of the sale deed under Ex.A11, P.W.1 evidence is silent about the transaction under Ex.A11. On the other hand the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.3 coupled with Ex.A11 the part of the property was sold away to the D.W.3 Veeramani by D1, D2 and Gannemma. Thus, it is clear that

D3/D.W.3 purchased the part of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A11.

On perusal of Ex.A11 dated 4.12.2002 the recitals showing that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property, but Ex.A11 is silent about the execution of the Ex.B2 Will dated 2.1.1988 by Yeddu China Pydiyya. But the property is self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya.

22.During cross­examination also D.W.3 denied the suggestion that it was not mention in Ex.A11 sale deed that basing on Ex.B2 will she purchased the property and it was mention that Yeddu China Pydiyya died intestate. As the plaintiff failed to explain how the Yeddu China Pydiyya acquired the property and the defendant categorically established that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya and the defendant established the execution of the Ex.B2 will, mere non­mentioning of the Ex.B2 will in Ex.A11 sale deed cannot thrown away the entire case of the defendants.

Ex.A2, A10 showing the plaintiff is the son of Yeddu China Pydiyya. Ex.A3 is the property tax receipt stands in the name of Yeddu China Pydiyya. P.W.1 denied the Ex.A8 study certificate. Except relationship, Ex.A2 and A10 is no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaint schedule property is not liable for partition and Yeddu China Pydiyya died testate and executed the

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 9 registered the will dated 2.1.1988 in favour of Ganemma, D1 and D2 in respect of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, issues are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE No.3:­

3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non­ joinder of necessary and proper parties?

23.Admittedly, Gannemma, D1 and D2 are residing together along with deceased Yeddu China Pydiyya. According to D.W.1, Yeddu China Pydiyya is her father and Gannemma is her mother. Her father executed the Will by bequeathing the plaint schedule property to her with life interest and vested remainder with DW1 and D2. On perusal of Ex.B2 Will testator Yeddu China

Pydiyya bequeathed the property in favour of his wife Gannemma, D1 and D2 and his wife as life interest to enjoy the property and D1 and D2 are vested remainders and acquired rights after her death. Thus, as per Ex.B2 will

Gannemma, D1 and D2 are legatees of the will. P.W.1 deposed that he did not show the Gannemma as party in this case. During cross­examination D.W.1 and 3 deposed that Gannemma still alive. According to D.W.3, Gannemma, D1 and D2 sold away the part of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A11. Thus, still Gannemma is alive. According to P.W.1, Gannemma resided with his father China Pydiyya. According to D.W.1, their father China Pydiyya married the Gannemma. There is no dispute that Gannemma gave birth to D1 and D2 through Yeddu China Pydiyya. China Paidayya executed the Will in favour of

Gannemma, D1 and D2. According to D.W.1 evidence coupled with Ex.A11 the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of Yeddu China Pydiyya.

Thus, Yeddu China Pydiyya has every right to execute Ex.B2 will. Thus,

Gannemma being a life interest over the plaint schedule property under Ex.B2

Will and she is still alive but the plaintiff did not add the Gannemma. In the absence of Gannemma her rights and share cannot be decided. Thus,

Gannemma is a necessary and proper party. Thus, this suit is bad for non­ joinder of necessary and proper party and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE No.4:­

4. To what relief?

24. In view of the findings in issue No.1 to 3, this suit is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstance no costs.

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 10

25. In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.III), Corrected and

Pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 : Yeddu Suryarao.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1 :Janupati Janaki.

D.W.2 : Machiraju Sri Rama Chandra Murthy.

D.W.3 :Veeravalli Veeramani.

D.W.4 :Pallavajhala Ravi Sankar Sarma.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original valuation certificate, dated 21.1.2011 issued by Sub­ Registrar, Rajamahendravaram.

Ex.A2 :Household card issued in favour of the plaintiff by the revenue department.

Ex.A3 :Tax receipt original.

Ex.A4 :Office copy of registered notice dated 13.12.2011 got issued to the defendant by plaintiff.

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgements (3 Nos.) Original.

Ex.A6 :Reply notice issued by the defendants (original) dated 17.12.2011.

Ex.A7 :Original Death certificate of plaintiff’s father, dated 14.12.2011.

Ex.A8 :Original study certificate of the plaintiff.

Ex.A9 :Original Photos of the schedule property.

Ex.A10 :Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff.

Ex.A11 :Original certified copy of the sale deed.

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 11

FOR DEFENDANTS: 

Ex.B1 :Photo of the pass book.

Ex.B2 :Registered Original Will dated 02.01.1988. 

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I A.S.C.J.

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 12

Plaint presented on 22.09.2012 and filed on 16.11.2012

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.772/ 2012

BETWEEN: 

Yeddu Suryarao, S/o.China Pydiyya, Hindu, 52 years,Cooliworker,Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Akkavarapu Lakshmi, W/o.Thammayya, Hindu, 42years,Ramadaspeta,Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

2.Janupati Janaki, W/o.Prasad, Hindu, 38 years, Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C.

3.Veeravalli Veeramani, W/o.Anantha Rao, Hindu, 34 years, D.No.64­2­9, Anand Nagar, Rajahmundry, R.Jr.C.J.C. (3 rd defendant is added as per orders in IA 775/2014 dated 09.10.2014) ­­ Defendants 1 to 3.

This is a suit filed for partition of the schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to him, for possession of the same, for costs and other ancillary reliefs.

The value of the suit:­

Value of the plaint schedule property as per the Sub­Registrar’s valuation certificate:Rs.18,07,900/­ ¾th value thereof comes to:Rs.13,55,925/­ 

Plaintiff’s half share therein:Rs. 6,77,963/­

Thus, the plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.6,77,963/­. Since the plaintiff is in joint and constructive possession of the schedule property, a fixed court fee of Rs.200/­ is paid U/Sec.34 (2) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act. 

Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.772/2012 13 The cause of action for the suit arose on 23.05.2012 when the plaintiff’s father died intestate and when the plaintiff succeeded to the plaint schedule property left behind by his father and when the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 sold a part of the property to one Veeravalli Anantha Rao and on 13.12.2011 when he got issued notice to the defendants and when the defendants gave reply dated 17.12.2011 and where the plaint schedule property is situated at Ramadaspeta, Rajahmundry and where the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 03.03.2020 in the presence of Sri S.V.S.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri I.Balasubramanyam, Advocate for 1st and 2nd defendants and of Sri P.V.S.K.Sobhanadri Sastry, Advocate for 3rd defendant and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:­

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2.That there shall be no costs. (Copy of the plaint schedule attached to decree).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PARTICULAR OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

No memo of costs filed on either side.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I A.S.C.J.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.352/ 2013

BETWEEN: 

Kethineedi Anil Kumar, S/o.late Srirama Murthy, Hindu, 38 years, R/o.D.No.1­49, MIG­ 245, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Mohammad Habibullah, S/o.Mohammad Rafad Basha,Muslim,45years,Business, R/o.D.No.40­8­1,MangalavarapuPeta, Rajahmundry.

2.Mondi Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Chinna Rao, Hindu, 47 years, House­wife, R/o.D.No.8­1­496/A/2­ F/1, 4th cross­street, Shaik peta Darga, Dwaraka Nagar, Hyderabad.

3.Rayudu Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, 40 years, Business, R/o.D.No.2­105, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

4.Maridi Udaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Venkata Rao, HIndu, 43 years, Business, R/o.D.No.1­183, NIG­307APHBColony,Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Defendants.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 02.03.2020 in the presence of Sri R.Srinivasa Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate for 1st defendant and D2 to D4 set ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following;

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit and other reliefs against the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 3 and 4 are added as proforma parties and no relief is claimed against them.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 2

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows;

a)The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 24.02.2010 vide doc.No.1050/2010 for valuable consideration from one Rayudu Srinivasa Rao (D3) of Lalacheruvu. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property with his own right. Plaintiff vendor Rayudu Srinivasa rao/D3 purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 19.4.2008 vide doc.No.1570/2008 from the 2nd defendant for valuable consideration. By the time of plaintiff purchased the property there was a tenant in the schedule property by name

Udaya Bhaskara Rao (D4) and tenant was attorned to the plaintiff. The tenant has been paying Rs.1,300/­ p.m. towards rent by depositing every month in plaintiff’s SBI Account, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

b)The plaintiff vendor/D3 has been in possession and enjoyment till he sold the property to the plaintiff. A Court Amin came to the schedule property and directed the tenant/D4 to vacate and handover the plaint schedule property in pursuance of the decree in favour of 1st defendant against 2nd defendant. 

c)The tenant/D4 filed a suit in O.S.No.269/2013 against the plaintiff and 1st defendant for grant of permanent injunction and also filed interim application in I.A.No.857/2013 not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser from his vendor/3rd defendant. The recitals of the document executed in favour of the 3rd defendant by the 2nd defendant it was specifically recited that there are no prior agreements, sales relating to schedule property.

The plaintiff apprehended that there was collusion in between the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant in obtaining the alleged decree since the 2nd defendant remains ex parte. The ex parte decree dated 4.2.2010 is not binding on the plaintiff as it was collusive decree. The 1st defendant obtained the sale deed from the Hon'ble Court on behalf of the 2nd defendant. By the time of sale deed executed by the court the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 24.4.2010. 1st defendant is trying to execute the decree by claiming the title over the property. There is a shadow cast on the plaintiff title and the decree dated 4.2.2010 in O.S.No.295/08 is not binding on the plaintiff as it was collusive. Hence, the suit.

3. 1st defendant filed written statement by denying the entire case of the plaintiff. D2 to D4 set ex parte. 1st defendant contended that 1st defendant

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 3 entered into an agreement of sale with 2nd defendant on 07.04.2008 for purchase of the property for total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/­. 2nd defendant executed the agreement of sale in favour of the 1st defendant after receiving of an advance of Rs.4,00,000/­ and remaining amount Rs.50,000/­ was agreed to be paid to the 2nd defendant within six months from the date of execution of the agreement of sale. 1st defendant ready with balance of sale consideration to obtain the regular registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant dodging time to registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. 1st defendant came to know that 2nd defendant is trying to alienate the plaint schedule property to the 3rd parties with a fraudulent intention to cause the wrongful loss to the 1st defendant. 1st defendant filed suit in O.S.295/2008 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Rajahmundry for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 07.04.2008. 2nd defendant after receipt of the summons set ex parte. Decree was passed in his favour. 1st defendant filed E.P.No.98/2011 for execution of the sale deed. Court executed the registered sale deed in favour of 1st defendant. 1st defendant filed a petition to handover the possession of the schedule property. He went to the schedule property along with court Amin to obtain the possession of the schedule property. Tenant is residing and objected, later the plaintiff filed memo objecting the delivery of the property to the 1st defendant. 2nd defendant, plaintiff and other defendants colluded together and filed this false case. The plaintiff has got absolute knowledge about the pendency of the suit in O.S.295/2008 and he cannot claim as a bona fide purchaser. The plaintiff has no right to claim the right, title, interest over the plaint schedule property. 1st defendant being the holder of the agreement of sale in his favour prior to the purchase of the property by the vendor of the plaintiff and the title cannot be transferred to the plaintiff thorough his vendor.

The plaintiff filed an application questioned the validity of the execution of the decree in E.P.98/11 and the same was dismissed and the order is binding on the plaintiff. The present suit is barred by rejudi cata. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The relief of declaration without relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted. This suit is bad for non­joinder of proper and necessary parties. Court fee is also not correct and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Based on the pleadings and the documents filed by both sides the court has settled following issues for trial;

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 4

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare him as the

absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as

sought by him? 

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant permanent

injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from

interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as sought by

him?

3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by

limitation as contended by the 1 st defendant in his

written statement?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non­joinder of proper and

necessary parties and not shown as parties and thereby

the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini as contended

by the 1 st defendant in his written statement?

5. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. During the course of trial, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the 1st defendant.

6. Heard argument on both sides.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and bona fide purchaser of the plaint schedule property under

Ex.A3. D1 and D2 colluded together created the sale agreement dated 7.4.2008 and obtained the collusive decree in O.S.No.295/2008. By the time of sale agreement D2 is not the owner of the property and D2 has no right to execute the sale agreement. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he is the bona fide purchaser. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 established the right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property and prayed to decree the suit.

8.The learned counsel for the 1st defendant argued that there was a sale agreement in between D1 and D2 on 7.4.2008. D2 did not execute sale deed after receipt of sale consideration and postponing to execute the registered sale deed. D1 filed suit in O.S.No.295/2008 for relief of specific performance and

D2 set ex parte. Later Prl. Senior Civil Judge’s court, Rajahmundry executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Accordingly, 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has no right, interest over the plaint schedule property. Further argued that the plaintiff

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 5 obstructed for delivery of the plaint schedule property without having any right. The plaintiff failed to establish his right, interest over the schedule property. There is no collusion in between D1 and D2 and the decree in

O.S.No.295/2008 is binding on the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the suit.

ISSUE No.1:­

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare him as the

absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as

sought by him? 

9.The plaint schedule property is an extent of 266.66 sq. yards situated in

D.No.1­183, MIG 307, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

Admittedly, D2 purchased the property under Ex.A1 dated 03.04.2008 from the Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing board. Ex.A2 is the registration extract of sale deed 19.4.2008 in favour of Rayudu Srinivasa Rao (D3) executed by D2.

Ex.A3 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 25.2.2010 executed by

Rayudu Srinivasa Rao (D3) in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 17.4.2013 in favour of Mohammad Habibullah/D1 executed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry as per the decree in

O.S.No. 295/2008. 

10.The case of the plaintiff is that he is bona fide purchaser and absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A3 sale deed dated 25.02.2010.

The case of the 1st defendant is that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A4 dated 17.04.2013. Admittedly, D2 Mondi Vijaya

Lakshmi was the vendor of the plaintiff vendor Rayudu Srinivas (D3) under

Ex.A3 and 1st defendant under Ex.B1 sale agreement dated 7.4.2008. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.295/2008 in between D1 Mohammad

Habibullah and D2 Mondi Vijaya Kumari. Ex.A6 is the decree in O.S.No.

295/2008. The plaintiff pleaded that there is a collusion in between the D1 and

D2 and he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1. Rayudu Srinivasa Rao/D3/vendor of the plaintiff examined as P.W.2. P.W.1 reiterated the plaint contents with regard to he purchased the property under Ex.A3 dated 25.02.2010 from 3rd defendant.

P.W.2 also categorically deposed that he purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 19.04.2008 from the 2nd defendant and he sold away the property to the plaintiff under registered sale dated 24.02.2010 (Ex.A3). 

11.1st defendant Mohammad Abibullah examined as D.W.1, he reiterated the

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 6 statement contents. According to D.W.1, there was a sale agreement dated 7.4.2008 in between himself and D2 for consideration of Rs.4,50,000/­ and D2 did not execute the registered sale deed and he filed O.S.No.295/2008 and D2 set ex parte and suit was decreed in his favour, later he filed E.P.98/11 for execution of sale deed and delivery of the possession of the sale deed. He filed an application for delivery at the time tenant of the house raised an objection initially, later the plaintiff filed a memo objecting for delivery. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the delivery warrant in E.P.98/11. Thus, according to the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with Ex.B1 and B2 it is clear that there was a sale agreement transaction in between D1 and D2 and D.W.1 obtained the sale deed under Ex.A4 in O.S.No.295/08. As per Ex.A4 Sale deed dated 17.04.2013 the title of the plaint schedule property was acquired by D1 as per the decree in O.S.No.295/2008 and E.P.98/11. As per Ex.A3 Sale deed dated 25.02.2010 the plaintiff acquired the title of the plaint schedule property. Thus, the disputes relating to the plaint schedule property arised at the time of execution in EP 98/11 in O.S.295/2008. 

12.Sec.47 (1) CPC reads as follows;

“Question to be determined by the court executing decree:­

(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their, representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(2) XXXXXXXXX (3) XXXXXXXXX

Explanation I : XXXXXXXXXXXX

Explanation II : (a) XXXXXXXXXXXX

(b) XXXXXXXXXXXX”

13.It was held in 2002 (1) ALT 411 of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in between

Immadi Laxmi vs Sreyabhilashi Chit Funds And Ors. “the court below had observed that the remedy available is by way of filing separate suit. This observation is totally unsustainable and in fact unwarranted”.

14.Thus, in the case on hand also both the parties claiming the title of the

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 7 plaint schedule property covered in O.S.No.295/08 and E.P.98/11. Thus, the title of the property can be decided only in execution proceedings since the dispute arose in O.S.295/2008 and in E.P.98/2011. According to sec.47 (1)

CPC all the questions shall be determined by executing court but not a separate suit. In view of the observation in 2002 (1) ALT 411 and as per Sec.47 (1) CPC the plaintiff is at liberty to approach the executing court to challenge the decree in O.S.No.295/2008 and also about the declaration of plaintiff title as per provisions of CPC. But the plaintiff filed this suit separately for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, no finding can be given about the title of the plaint schedule property as there is a specific bar under section 47 (1) CPC and the suit is not maintainable before this court.

Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.2 to 4:­

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant permanent

injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from

interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as sought by

him?

3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by

limitation as contended by the 1 st defendant in his

written statement?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non­joinder of proper and

necessary parties and not shown as parties and thereby

the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini as contended

by the 1 st defendant in his written statement?

15.In view of the discussions and findings in issue No.1 and there is a specific bar under section 47 (1) CPC and the suit is not maintainable before this court. Accordingly, issue No.2 to 4 are answered.

ISSUE No.5:­

5. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

16. In view of the findings in issue No.1 to 4, this suit is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstance no costs.

17. In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.III), Corrected and

Pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of March, 2020.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 8 Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 : Kethineedi Anil Kumar.

P.W.2 :Rayudu Srinivasa Rao.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1 :Mohammad Habibullah.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant vide doc.No.1420/2008.

Ex.A2 :Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant vide doc.No.1570/2008.

Ex.A3 :Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant vide doc.No.1050/2008.

Ex.A4 :Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant by the Hon’ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry on behalf of the 2nd defendant vide doc.No.5080/2013.

Ex.A5 :Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.295/2008.

Ex.A6 :Certified copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.295/2008.

FOR DEFENDANTS: 

Ex.B1 :Certified copy of agreement of sale dt.07.04.2008.

Ex.B2 :Certified copy of the delivery warrant.

Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I A.S.C.J.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 9

Plaint presented and filed on 20.06.2013

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.352/ 2013

BETWEEN: 

Kethineedi Anil Kumar, S/o.late Srirama Murthy, Hindu, 38 years, R/o.D.No.1­49, MIG­ 245, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Mohammad Habibullah, S/o.Mohammad Rafad Basha,Muslim,45years,Business, R/o.D.No.40­8­1,MangalavarapuPeta, Rajahmundry.

2.Mondi Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Chinna Rao, Hindu, 47 years, House­wife, R/o.D.No.8­1­496/A/2­ F/1, 4th cross­street, Shaik peta Darga, Dwaraka Nagar, Hyderabad.

3.Rayudu Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, 40 years, Business, R/o.D.No.2­105, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

4.Maridi Udaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Venkata Rao, HIndu, 43 years, Business, R/o.D.No.1­183, NIG­307APHBColony,Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Defendants.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit and other reliefs against the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 3 and 4 are added as proforma parties and no relief is claimed against them.

The value of the suit:­

This is a suit for grant of declaration and permanent injunction the court fee has to be paid on half of the maket value of the schedule property.

Value of the plaint schedule property as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub­Registrar, Rajanagaram. Rs.9,61,350/­

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 10

Half of the market value thereofRs.4,80,825/­

On that a court fee of Rs.7,326/­ is paid under sec.24 (b) Sch.I, Art.I (c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act. Since the suit is valued on the main relief no separate court fee need be paid for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

The cause of action for the suit arose on the from 24.2.2010 when the plaintiff purchased the schedule property for valuable consideration and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right and during the last week of April, 2013 when the plaintiff came to know through his tenant Maridi Udaya Bhaskara Rao the 3rd defendant about the alleged decree obtained by the 1st defendant in respect of the schedule property and when the said tenant filed a suit and obtained interim orders against the plaintiff and 1st defendant and subsequently when the 1st defendant proclaimed that he alone has got title over the property and at Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry where the plaint schedule property is situated all within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 02.03.2020 in the presence of Sri R.Srinivasa Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate for 1st defendant and D2 to D4 set ex parte and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:­

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2.That there shall be no costs. (Copy of the plaint schedule attached to decree).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 16th day of March, 2020.

Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PARTICULAR OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

No memo of costs filed.Vakalat: 2­00 Pleader fee: 16,124­00 Type charge : 100­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total costs taxed : 16,226­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I A.S.C.J.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.352/ 2013

BETWEEN: 

Kethineedi Anil Kumar, S/o.late Srirama Murthy, Hindu, 38 years, R/o.D.No.1­49, MIG­ 245, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Mohammad Habibullah, S/o.Mohammad Rafad Basha,Muslim,45years,Business, R/o.D.No.40­8­1,MangalavarapuPeta, Rajahmundry.

2.Mondi Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Chinna Rao, Hindu, 47 years, House­wife, R/o.D.No.8­1­496/A/2­ F/1, 4th cross­street, Shaik peta Darga, Dwaraka Nagar, Hyderabad.

3.Rayudu Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, 40 years, Business, R/o.D.No.2­105, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

4.Maridi Udaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Venkata Rao, HIndu, 43 years, Business, R/o.D.No.1­183, NIG­307APHBColony,Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Defendants.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 02.03.2020 in the presence of Sri R.Srinivasa Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate for 1st defendant and D2 to D4 set ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following;

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit and other reliefs against the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 3 and 4 are added as proforma parties and no relief is claimed against them.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 2

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows;

a)The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 24.02.2010 vide doc.No.1050/2010 for valuable consideration from one Rayudu Srinivasa Rao (D3) of Lalacheruvu. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property with his own right. Plaintiff vendor Rayudu Srinivasa rao/D3 purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 19.4.2008 vide doc.No.1570/2008 from the 2nd defendant for valuable consideration. By the time of plaintiff purchased the property there was a tenant in the schedule property by name

Udaya Bhaskara Rao (D4) and tenant was attorned to the plaintiff. The tenant has been paying Rs.1,300/­ p.m. towards rent by depositing every month in plaintiff’s SBI Account, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

b)The plaintiff vendor/D3 has been in possession and enjoyment till he sold the property to the plaintiff. A Court Amin came to the schedule property and directed the tenant/D4 to vacate and handover the plaint schedule property in pursuance of the decree in favour of 1st defendant against 2nd defendant. 

c)The tenant/D4 filed a suit in O.S.No.269/2013 against the plaintiff and 1st defendant for grant of permanent injunction and also filed interim application in I.A.No.857/2013 not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser from his vendor/3rd defendant. The recitals of the document executed in favour of the 3rd defendant by the 2nd defendant it was specifically recited that there are no prior agreements, sales relating to schedule property.

The plaintiff apprehended that there was collusion in between the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant in obtaining the alleged decree since the 2nd defendant remains ex parte. The ex parte decree dated 4.2.2010 is not binding on the plaintiff as it was collusive decree. The 1st defendant obtained the sale deed from the Hon'ble Court on behalf of the 2nd defendant. By the time of sale deed executed by the court the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 24.4.2010. 1st defendant is trying to execute the decree by claiming the title over the property. There is a shadow cast on the plaintiff title and the decree dated 4.2.2010 in O.S.No.295/08 is not binding on the plaintiff as it was collusive. Hence, the suit.

3. 1st defendant filed written statement by denying the entire case of the plaintiff. D2 to D4 set ex parte. 1st defendant contended that 1st defendant

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 3 entered into an agreement of sale with 2nd defendant on 07.04.2008 for purchase of the property for total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/­. 2nd defendant executed the agreement of sale in favour of the 1st defendant after receiving of an advance of Rs.4,00,000/­ and remaining amount Rs.50,000/­ was agreed to be paid to the 2nd defendant within six months from the date of execution of the agreement of sale. 1st defendant ready with balance of sale consideration to obtain the regular registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant dodging time to registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. 1st defendant came to know that 2nd defendant is trying to alienate the plaint schedule property to the 3rd parties with a fraudulent intention to cause the wrongful loss to the 1st defendant. 1st defendant filed suit in O.S.295/2008 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Rajahmundry for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 07.04.2008. 2nd defendant after receipt of the summons set ex parte. Decree was passed in his favour. 1st defendant filed E.P.No.98/2011 for execution of the sale deed. Court executed the registered sale deed in favour of 1st defendant. 1st defendant filed a petition to handover the possession of the schedule property. He went to the schedule property along with court Amin to obtain the possession of the schedule property. Tenant is residing and objected, later the plaintiff filed memo objecting the delivery of the property to the 1st defendant. 2nd defendant, plaintiff and other defendants colluded together and filed this false case. The plaintiff has got absolute knowledge about the pendency of the suit in O.S.295/2008 and he cannot claim as a bona fide purchaser. The plaintiff has no right to claim the right, title, interest over the plaint schedule property. 1st defendant being the holder of the agreement of sale in his favour prior to the purchase of the property by the vendor of the plaintiff and the title cannot be transferred to the plaintiff thorough his vendor.

The plaintiff filed an application questioned the validity of the execution of the decree in E.P.98/11 and the same was dismissed and the order is binding on the plaintiff. The present suit is barred by rejudi cata. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The relief of declaration without relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted. This suit is bad for non­joinder of proper and necessary parties. Court fee is also not correct and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Based on the pleadings and the documents filed by both sides the court has settled following issues for trial;

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 4

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare him as the

absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as

sought by him? 

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant permanent

injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from

interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as sought by

him?

3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by

limitation as contended by the 1 st defendant in his

written statement?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non­joinder of proper and

necessary parties and not shown as parties and thereby

the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini as contended

by the 1 st defendant in his written statement?

5. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. During the course of trial, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the 1st defendant.

6. Heard argument on both sides.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and bona fide purchaser of the plaint schedule property under

Ex.A3. D1 and D2 colluded together created the sale agreement dated 7.4.2008 and obtained the collusive decree in O.S.No.295/2008. By the time of sale agreement D2 is not the owner of the property and D2 has no right to execute the sale agreement. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he is the bona fide purchaser. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 established the right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property and prayed to decree the suit.

8.The learned counsel for the 1st defendant argued that there was a sale agreement in between D1 and D2 on 7.4.2008. D2 did not execute sale deed after receipt of sale consideration and postponing to execute the registered sale deed. D1 filed suit in O.S.No.295/2008 for relief of specific performance and

D2 set ex parte. Later Prl. Senior Civil Judge’s court, Rajahmundry executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Accordingly, 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has no right, interest over the plaint schedule property. Further argued that the plaintiff

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 5 obstructed for delivery of the plaint schedule property without having any right. The plaintiff failed to establish his right, interest over the schedule property. There is no collusion in between D1 and D2 and the decree in

O.S.No.295/2008 is binding on the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the suit.

ISSUE No.1:­

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare him as the

absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as

sought by him? 

9.The plaint schedule property is an extent of 266.66 sq. yards situated in

D.No.1­183, MIG 307, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

Admittedly, D2 purchased the property under Ex.A1 dated 03.04.2008 from the Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing board. Ex.A2 is the registration extract of sale deed 19.4.2008 in favour of Rayudu Srinivasa Rao (D3) executed by D2.

Ex.A3 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 25.2.2010 executed by

Rayudu Srinivasa Rao (D3) in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 17.4.2013 in favour of Mohammad Habibullah/D1 executed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry as per the decree in

O.S.No. 295/2008. 

10.The case of the plaintiff is that he is bona fide purchaser and absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A3 sale deed dated 25.02.2010.

The case of the 1st defendant is that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A4 dated 17.04.2013. Admittedly, D2 Mondi Vijaya

Lakshmi was the vendor of the plaintiff vendor Rayudu Srinivas (D3) under

Ex.A3 and 1st defendant under Ex.B1 sale agreement dated 7.4.2008. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.295/2008 in between D1 Mohammad

Habibullah and D2 Mondi Vijaya Kumari. Ex.A6 is the decree in O.S.No.

295/2008. The plaintiff pleaded that there is a collusion in between the D1 and

D2 and he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1. Rayudu Srinivasa Rao/D3/vendor of the plaintiff examined as P.W.2. P.W.1 reiterated the plaint contents with regard to he purchased the property under Ex.A3 dated 25.02.2010 from 3rd defendant.

P.W.2 also categorically deposed that he purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 19.04.2008 from the 2nd defendant and he sold away the property to the plaintiff under registered sale dated 24.02.2010 (Ex.A3). 

11.1st defendant Mohammad Abibullah examined as D.W.1, he reiterated the

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 6 statement contents. According to D.W.1, there was a sale agreement dated 7.4.2008 in between himself and D2 for consideration of Rs.4,50,000/­ and D2 did not execute the registered sale deed and he filed O.S.No.295/2008 and D2 set ex parte and suit was decreed in his favour, later he filed E.P.98/11 for execution of sale deed and delivery of the possession of the sale deed. He filed an application for delivery at the time tenant of the house raised an objection initially, later the plaintiff filed a memo objecting for delivery. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the delivery warrant in E.P.98/11. Thus, according to the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with Ex.B1 and B2 it is clear that there was a sale agreement transaction in between D1 and D2 and D.W.1 obtained the sale deed under Ex.A4 in O.S.No.295/08. As per Ex.A4 Sale deed dated 17.04.2013 the title of the plaint schedule property was acquired by D1 as per the decree in O.S.No.295/2008 and E.P.98/11. As per Ex.A3 Sale deed dated 25.02.2010 the plaintiff acquired the title of the plaint schedule property. Thus, the disputes relating to the plaint schedule property arised at the time of execution in EP 98/11 in O.S.295/2008. 

12.Sec.47 (1) CPC reads as follows;

“Question to be determined by the court executing decree:­

(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their, representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(2) XXXXXXXXX (3) XXXXXXXXX

Explanation I : XXXXXXXXXXXX

Explanation II : (a) XXXXXXXXXXXX

(b) XXXXXXXXXXXX”

13.It was held in 2002 (1) ALT 411 of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in between

Immadi Laxmi vs Sreyabhilashi Chit Funds And Ors. “the court below had observed that the remedy available is by way of filing separate suit. This observation is totally unsustainable and in fact unwarranted”.

14.Thus, in the case on hand also both the parties claiming the title of the

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 7 plaint schedule property covered in O.S.No.295/08 and E.P.98/11. Thus, the title of the property can be decided only in execution proceedings since the dispute arose in O.S.295/2008 and in E.P.98/2011. According to sec.47 (1)

CPC all the questions shall be determined by executing court but not a separate suit. In view of the observation in 2002 (1) ALT 411 and as per Sec.47 (1) CPC the plaintiff is at liberty to approach the executing court to challenge the decree in O.S.No.295/2008 and also about the declaration of plaintiff title as per provisions of CPC. But the plaintiff filed this suit separately for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, no finding can be given about the title of the plaint schedule property as there is a specific bar under section 47 (1) CPC and the suit is not maintainable before this court.

Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.2 to 4:­

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant permanent

injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from

interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as sought by

him?

3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by

limitation as contended by the 1 st defendant in his

written statement?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non­joinder of proper and

necessary parties and not shown as parties and thereby

the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini as contended

by the 1 st defendant in his written statement?

15.In view of the discussions and findings in issue No.1 and there is a specific bar under section 47 (1) CPC and the suit is not maintainable before this court. Accordingly, issue No.2 to 4 are answered.

ISSUE No.5:­

5. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

16. In view of the findings in issue No.1 to 4, this suit is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstance no costs.

17. In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.III), Corrected and

Pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of March, 2020.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 8 Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 : Kethineedi Anil Kumar.

P.W.2 :Rayudu Srinivasa Rao.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1 :Mohammad Habibullah.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant vide doc.No.1420/2008.

Ex.A2 :Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant vide doc.No.1570/2008.

Ex.A3 :Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant vide doc.No.1050/2008.

Ex.A4 :Registration extract of the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant by the Hon’ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry on behalf of the 2nd defendant vide doc.No.5080/2013.

Ex.A5 :Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.295/2008.

Ex.A6 :Certified copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.295/2008.

FOR DEFENDANTS: 

Ex.B1 :Certified copy of agreement of sale dt.07.04.2008.

Ex.B2 :Certified copy of the delivery warrant.

Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I A.S.C.J.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 9

Plaint presented and filed on 20.06.2013

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.352/ 2013

BETWEEN: 

Kethineedi Anil Kumar, S/o.late Srirama Murthy, Hindu, 38 years, R/o.D.No.1­49, MIG­ 245, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Plaintiff.

And

1.Mohammad Habibullah, S/o.Mohammad Rafad Basha,Muslim,45years,Business, R/o.D.No.40­8­1,MangalavarapuPeta, Rajahmundry.

2.Mondi Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Chinna Rao, Hindu, 47 years, House­wife, R/o.D.No.8­1­496/A/2­ F/1, 4th cross­street, Shaik peta Darga, Dwaraka Nagar, Hyderabad.

3.Rayudu Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, 40 years, Business, R/o.D.No.2­105, APHB Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry.

4.Maridi Udaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Venkata Rao, HIndu, 43 years, Business, R/o.D.No.1­183, NIG­307APHBColony,Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry. ­­ Defendants.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit and other reliefs against the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 3 and 4 are added as proforma parties and no relief is claimed against them.

The value of the suit:­

This is a suit for grant of declaration and permanent injunction the court fee has to be paid on half of the maket value of the schedule property.

Value of the plaint schedule property as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub­Registrar, Rajanagaram. Rs.9,61,350/­

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.352/2013 10

Half of the market value thereofRs.4,80,825/­

On that a court fee of Rs.7,326/­ is paid under sec.24 (b) Sch.I, Art.I (c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act. Since the suit is valued on the main relief no separate court fee need be paid for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

The cause of action for the suit arose on the from 24.2.2010 when the plaintiff purchased the schedule property for valuable consideration and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right and during the last week of April, 2013 when the plaintiff came to know through his tenant Maridi Udaya Bhaskara Rao the 3rd defendant about the alleged decree obtained by the 1st defendant in respect of the schedule property and when the said tenant filed a suit and obtained interim orders against the plaintiff and 1st defendant and subsequently when the 1st defendant proclaimed that he alone has got title over the property and at Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry where the plaint schedule property is situated all within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 02.03.2020 in the presence of Sri R.Srinivasa Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate for 1st defendant and D2 to D4 set ex parte and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:­

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2.That there shall be no costs. (Copy of the plaint schedule attached to decree).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 16th day of March, 2020.

Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PARTICULAR OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

No memo of costs filed.Vakalat: 2­00 Pleader fee: 16,124­00 Type charge : 100­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total costs taxed : 16,226­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Sd/­ G.Shanmukha Rao 

I A.S.C.J.

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT : G.SHANMUKHA RAO

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, the 1st day of February, 2019

I.A.No.1057/2018 IN ORIGINAL SUIT No.190/2018

BETWEEN:

Executive Officer, Sri Pandiri Mahadevudu Choultry, Kotilingala Peta, Rajahmundry. -- Petitioner/2nd Defendant

And

1.Shaik Sarkar, S/o.Mastan, Muslim, 44 years, House D.No. 18-107, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry.

2.Reddy Durga Rao, S/o.Venkataramana, Hindu, 30 years, D.No.1-57, A-Block, Namavaram, Rajahmundry.

-- Respondents/Plaintiff & 1st defendant.

This petition is coming before me for hearing on 11.12.2018 in the presence of Sri G.V.Krishna Prakash, advocate for the Petitioner/2nd Defendant and of Sri Ch.Durgaprasadarao, Advocate for 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and 2nd Respondent/1st defendant set ex parte and after hearing this Court delivered the following;

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the Petitioner/2nd Defendant to decide the maintainability of suit/plaint first and reject the plaint on the ground of bar under Sec.151 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act 1987.

2.The Petitioner working as Executive Office-cum-Assistant Commissioner

Endowments representing the PMK Choultries as Executive Officer. The plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the PMK Choultries. Sec.43

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

register maintained by the PMK Choultry showing the same. There are finality attached entries in the register until the contrary is proved. If any party aggrieved, they have a liberty to invoke the machinery provided under the special statutes to challenge the ownership of the Charitable and

Religious Endowments, but not civil court under a regular injunction suit.

The 1st respondent/plaintiff’s mother Shaik Khadar Unnisa is an encroachers of the petitioner’s property. 1st respondent purposefully obtained a settlement deed in his favour from his mother and he introduced the litigation. The deputy commissioner endowments passed an order in O.A. 117/1996 against the 1st respondent’s mother declaring her as an encroacher. The said encroacher executed the alleged settlement deed dated 07.03.2017 in favour of her son i.e., 1st respondent/plaintiff which is a void document. There is a specific bar under section 151 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institution and endowments Act 1987 which speaks specifically “no suit or other legal proceedings, in respect of the matters of the dispute for determining or deciding for which the provision is made in this act, shall be instituted in any court of law except under and in confirmedly with provision of this Act”. In view of the bar, the suit against the petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, this petition.

3.1st respondent/plaintiff filed counter by denying the petition contents.

Further contended that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining the relief. But so long the plaint discloses the cause of action which requires determination by the court. The plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application seeking rejection of the plaint. The petitioner apprehending to face the trial and he is very much aware and conscious and he has no record to substantiate his illegal crime.

The petitioner is trying to encroach the schedule property under the guise of fabricated and fictitious record. The petitioner has no right or title in the property covered in R.S.No.91 of Dowlaiswaram and the same is evident from the revenue records. Pending the suit the petitioner made application

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

seeking survey of land and identity of land. The revenue authorities informed in writing that land in R.S.No.91 of Dowlaiswaram classified as

Gramakantam in the revenue records. The record filed by the petitioner is not reveals the particulars of survey number of clear boundaries. The petitioner is not aware where the land is situated and also not sure the exact extent of the land. The petition is frivolous and vexations and not maintainable and prays to dismiss the petition with costs. The 2nd respondent set ex parte.

4.During the course of enquiry no oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

5.Heard arguments on both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.190/2018 can be rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to the properties belongs to the endowment under the provision of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act 1987. 1st respondent is only encroacher of the schedule property, he created all the documents which are not valid and not binding on the petitioner. The 1st respondent has no valid right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. Further argued that there is a specific bar under section 151 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act 1987. If the 1st respondent having any right, dispute with regard to the property, he can approached to the

Tribunal, but not the civil Court. There is a express bar to trial the suit under section 151 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act 1987. This suit is not at all maintainable before this court and liable to be rejected.

8.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that this petition is

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

not at all maintainable a cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved in the civil court. Basing on the pleadings of the written statement, this suit cannot be rejected. The petitioner trying to encroach the petition schedule property. The petitioner has no right over the petition schedule property. The plaint schedule property is the Gramakantam.

The 1st respondent proved the title by the documents. The revenue records also clearly showing the 1st respondent is the owner of the property. This petition is not at all maintainable and prays to dismiss the petition.

POINT:-

9.This is a suit for permanent injunction against the Reddi Durgarao (2nd respondent), Executive Officer (Petitioner). The case of the petitioner is that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, there is specific bar under section 151 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act 1987. The 1st respondent claimed that plaint schedule property is the Gramakantam belongs to the Government issued a patta to the Shaik Khadharunnisa on 15.04.1999 in R.S.No.91 for an extent of

Ac.0.02 cents situated at Dowlaiswaram. She executed a settlement deed in favour of her son Sheik Sarkar. In cause of action para of the plaint it was mentioned that property devolved upon the plaintiff in terms of registered settlement deed dated 07.03.2017 and defendants 1 and 2 have no manner of right, however, proclaiming that they would enter into schedule property by dispossessing the 1st respondent/plaintiff there from. Thus, the petitioner denied the title of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

10.Sec.151 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act 1987 reads as follows; “Bar of Jurisdiction:- No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any court of Law except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.”

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

Sec.83 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act 1987 reads as follows; “Encroachment by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroachers:- (1)Where the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, either suo motu or upon a complaint made by the trustee has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as ‘encroacher’) any land, building, tank, well, spring or water-course or any space belonging to the institution or endowment, wherever situated or deemed as an encroacher under any of the provisions of this Act the Assistant Commissioner shall report the fact together with relevant particulars to the (Endowments Tribunal) having jurisdiction over the division in which the institution or endowment is situated.

Explanation:-For the purpose of this Chapter the expression ‘encroacher’ shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or license and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry of termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it.

(2)Where, on a perusal of the report received by him under sub-section (1), the (Endowments Tribunal) finds that there is a prima facie case of encroachment, (it) shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling on him to show-cause before a certain date why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment

before the date specified in the notice should not be made. A copy

of the notice shall also be sent to the trustee of the institution or endowment concerned.

(3)The notice referred to in sub-section (20 shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed.

(4)Where after considering the objections, if any, of the encroacher received during the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section 92) and after conducting such enquiry as may be prescribed, the (Endowments Tribunal) is satisfied that there has been an encroachment (it) may, by order, require, the encroacher to remove the encroachment, and deliver possession of the land or building or space encroached upon to the trustee before the date specified in such order.

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

(5)The order of the (Endowments Tribunal) under sub-section(4) shall be in writing and shall contain the grounds on which he has passed the order.

(6)During the pendency of the proceedings, the (Endowments Tribunal) shall order the encroacher to deposit such amount as may be specified by (it) in consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question in the manner prescribed.”

Sec.84 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act 1987 reads as follows; “Mode of eviction on failure of removal of the encroachments as directed by the Endowments Tribunal:- (1)Where within the period specified in the order under sub- section (4) of Section 83, the encroacher has not removed the encroachment and has not vacated the land, building or space the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the sub-division may remove the encroachment and obtain possession of the land, building or space, encroached upon, taking such police assistance as may be necessary. Any Police Officer whose help is required for this purpose shall be required to render the necessary help to the Assistant commissioner.

(2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by any order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub- section (4) of Section 83 from preferring an appeal before the High court to establish that the Charitable or religious Institutions or Endowment has no title to the land, building or space:

Provided that no appeal shall be preferred after expiry of ninety days from the date of receipt of the order under sub-section (4) of Section 83:

Provided further that no such appeal shall be preferred by a person who is let in to the possession of land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licensee or mortgagee of Institution or Endowment.”

Sec.87 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act 1987 reads as follows; “Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters:- (1)The endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question.

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

a)whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment;

b)whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment;

c)Whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment;

d)whether any property is a specific endowment.

e)whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honor, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter;

f)whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; or

g)where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses;

h)whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an institution or endowment.

(2)The Endowments Tribunal may, pending its decision under sub-section (1), pass such order as it deems fit for the administration of the property or custody of the money belonging to the institution or endowment.

(3)The Endowments Tribunal may while recording its decision under Sub-Section 91) and pending implementation of such decision, pass such interim order as it may deem fit for safeguarding the interest of the institution or endowment and for preventing damage to or loss or misappropriation or criminal breach of trust in respect of the properties or moneys belongs to or in the possession of the institution or endowment.

(4)The presumption in respect of matters covered by Clauses

(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in sub-section (1) is that the institution or the endowment is a public one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

endowment to be private or the property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment of specific endowment, as the case may be.

(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub- sections the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.”

Thus, on perusal of Sec.83, 84, 87 and 151 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu

Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, it is clear that there is a specific bar to file the Civil suit to questioning the right of the property belongs to the Charitable trust. In the case on hand the 1st respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the petitioner trying to encroach the plaint schedule property and dispossessing him. Thus, the dispute arose in between the petitioner and 1st respondent with regard to title and possession.

Admittedly the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner/2nd defendant claiming that the plaint schedule property situated in R.S.No.91 of Dowlaiswaram belongs to the

PMK Choultry, Kotilingalapeta, Rajahmundry. The 1st respondent/plaintiff claiming that the property is Gramakantam and Government granted patta in the year 1999. Thus, the dispute with regard to title. Petitioner also claimed that 1st respondent/plaintiff only encroacher.

11.Order VII Rule 11 of CPC reads as follows; “11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:”

12.It was held in 2018 (6) ALT 550 in between V.Ramachandra Reddy

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

v. Prl., Secretary Endowments Dept., Hyderabad and others in Para

No.17 that; “when there is a provision under Section 87 of the Endowments Act to approach the Endowments Tribunal where the Tribunal constituted and functioning from Section 162 of the Amended Act 2007-08 with the rules made thereunder entitled to adjudicate any question, matter or other dispute and this question or matter or dispute squarely falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of it. The remedy of the petitioner is thus to approach the Endowments Tribunal and not by writ petition.”

In the case on hand also the petitioner claiming the property under the A.P.

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987. The 1st respondent claiming the property as Gramakantam. Thus, the cited case facts are applicable to the case on hand. According to sec.9 CPC civil suit shall not be barred by expressly or impliedly. According to Sec.162 of A.P.

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowment Act endowment tribunals are constituted.

13.According to order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. Learned counsel for 1st respondent/plaintiff relied upon a decision reported in 2018 (5) ALD 29 SC and 2006 (2) ALD 36 SC I have gone through the decisions, but cited case facts are different to the case on hand since dispute with regard to bar of civil court jurisdiction. Thus, in view of the provisions of Sec.83, 84, 87, 162 and 151 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu

Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC r/w Section 9 of CPC and in view of the decision reported in 2018 (6) ALT 550, the plaint shall be rejected. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to present plaint before proper forum. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

14.In the result, this petition is allowed. The plaint in

O.S.No.190/2018 is hereby rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.

r/w Section 151 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and

Endowment Act, 1987. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to

IA 1057/2018 in O.S.No.190/2018

present the plaint before proper forum.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, Transcribed by her, Corrected and

Pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1st day of February, 2019.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao

I A.S.C.J.