IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: NELLORE
Present: G.VENKATA KRISHNAIAH
Principal District Judge, Nellore
Monday, the 31st day of August, 2020
ORIGINAL SUIT No.115/2011
1. Jammu Malakondaiah
2. Jammu Kishore
3. Jammu Bhavani Declared as major as per orders in I.A.No.706/2017 dated 01.08.2017
4. Gandikota Nagamani .. Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. D.Jalamma (Died)
2. Chidathala Mettu Ramana Reddy
3. Dandiboina Venkata Rao
4. Chirathalamettu Vivekananda Reddy
5. Chirathalamettu Gowtham Kumar Reddy .. Defendants
[Defendants 4 and 5 are added as per Orders in C.R.P.No.3693 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in I.A.No.724/2015 dated 11.7.2017]
This suit coming on 20.7.2020 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasulu Reddy - Advocate for the plaintiffs, of
Sri G.Malyadri - Advocate for the defendants 2 & 3, and of Sri
P.Umamaheswar - Advocate for the defendants 4 & 5, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following—
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by one Malakondaiah as 1st plaintiff, and legal representatives of his brother Madhava, and their sister Nagamani, claiming to be the legal representatives of late Jammu Kondaiah, seeking declaration and injunction regarding immovable property in Kavali Town, in an extent of 656 Square Yards.
2. According to the plaintiffs, Kondaiah’s wife Ramanamma died in the year 1981, Kondaiah died on 31.3.2011, and Kondaiah’s second -: 2 :- son Madhava predeceased him. It is stated that Madhava’s wife eloped and married some other person about six years prior to the filing of the suit.
(i) Kondaiah was physically handicapped person. He was working in Collector’s Bungalow. He was granted Ac.0.08 cents = 40
Ankanams vacant site under D-Form Patta, in Survey No.1047/1 of Kavali
Bit-II area, at Poleramma Mitta, Kavali. Kondaiah purchased bullock-carts and carted sand, and transported bricks. 1st plaintiff joined in the efforts of Kondaiah. Kondaiah did business in sale of Kadapa stones and polished stones, and purchased a machine worth ₹.2,00,000/- for cutting the stones. He also started a flourmill under the name and style of Ganga
Bhavani Flourmill, in the schedule mentioned premises. It is further mentioned in the plaint as follows—Out of the said businesses deceased
Kondaiah earned lot of money and he built 82 ankanams of house and shop rooms and lodge he constructed within 72 ankanams of the schedule mentioned site.
Jammu Kondaiah leased out to several persons of the said shop rooms in which he built out of joint efforts by first plaintiff and he himself.
(ii) While so, the 1st defendant joined as cook in the house of
Kondaiah. She developed illicit intimacy with Kondaiah. She used to pick- up quarrels with the 1st plaintiff, i.e., Malakondaiah, blamed plaintiffs 1 to 3, and drove them out of the schedule mentioned property. 1st defendant harassed the plaintiffs and forced them to leave the schedule premises, and created strained relationship between the plaintiffs and Kondaiah.
During the life time of Kondaiah, the 2nd defendant joined as tenant in one portion, at a monthly rent of ₹.3,000/-. During the last stages of
Kondaiah, the 1st defendant developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd defendant. Kondaiah suffered a lot. Kondaiah’s brother’s son Subba Rao took Kondaiah to Madras Hospital and joined there. Kondaiah died on 31.3.2011. When Kondaiah was in hospital, taking treatment, the 2nd -: 3 :- defendant managed the lodge with the instigation of the 1st defendant. On intimation of death of Kondaiah, the plaintiffs went to see the dead body, but the defendants 1 and 2 obstructed them to perform the funerals. It is further mentioned in the plaint as follows—With the intervention of deceased brother’s son he lit the fire with the dead body of Kondaiah. On 13.4.2011, the 1st and 2nd defendants prepared the 3rd defendant to perform obsequies.
The plaintiffs’ caste elders restrained the defendants to perform the obsequies. As an obligation, the 1st plaintiff performed the obsequies on 13.4.2011 with their expenses. Now, the defendants joined together, and denied the right of the plaintiffs, and are trying to alienate the schedule property. Property-tax stands in the name of Kondaiah even today.
Original patta is in the hands of the 1st defendant. All of a sudden, the plaintiffs left the premises, because of the highhanded acts of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs left all the documents, and forgot to bring the documents in respect of the schedule property. Hence the suit.
3. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, defendants 4 and 5 were added as parties, as per orders in C.R.P.No.3693 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in
I.A.No.724/2015 dated 11.7.2017.
4. 1st defendant filed written statement denying the relationship claimed by the plaintiffs with Jammu Kondaiah. The 1st defendant specifically denied all the allegations with regard to relationship claimed by the plaintiffs with Jammu Kondaiah. 1st defendant also specifically denied the manner in which Kondaiah was assigned the property. The 1st defendant also denied the various allegations with regard to the 1st defendant becoming intimate with late Kondaiah, and then driving out the plaintiffs. Her case is as under— -: 4 :-
(i) The surname of the 1st defendant is “Jammu” (Jammu
Jalamma), and her surname does not start with “D” as mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs intentionally, with a dishonest intention, mentioned the surname of the 1st defendant incorrectly. 1st defendant is legally wedded wife of Kondaiah. She had no issues through her husband
Kondaiah. Kondaiah is the absolute owner of 47 Ankanams in Survey
No.1047/1 of Kavali Bit-II area, having been assigned the same by the
Government in the year 1983, and delivered possession of it. On 31.12.1991, Kondaiah executed his last will and testament in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the schedule property. Kondaiah sold 9
Ankanams 27 Square Feet of site, and building therein, out of the above stated property, to the 2nd defendant’s wife Padmaja on 3.5.2003, under a registered sale deed and delivered possession of the same to her.
Subsequent to the sale of property to the 2nd defendant’s wife, Kondaiah owned 37 Ankanams 47 Square Feet of site, RCC building, and shop- rooms therein. On the death of Kondaiah, the 1st defendant became absolute owner of the property as per the will dated 31.12.1991.
(ii) The 3rd defendant is a relative of the deceased Kondaiah.
Since Kondaiah and the 1st defendant had no issues, they brought up the 3rd defendant and performed his marriage. 3rd defendant used to assist
Kondaiah in his business. After the marriage of the 3rd defendant, the 1st defendant and Kondaiah established a flourmill and gave the same orally to the 3rd defendant, for his livelihood, as promised to his in-laws at the time of his marriage.
(iii) Survey number, boundaries, and extent shown in the schedule are not correct. Voters’ list and household cards issued from time to time show that the 1st defendant is the wife of Kondaiah.
Kondaiah acted as “Pedda Golla” in his caste and got prepared 2 gold- coated bullock statues (బొ ల్లా వుల్ు). He constructed room in front of his -: 5 :- house, and put the statues there with ganga-petti (గంగపెట్టి). Villagers of his community used to come and take the gold-coated bullock statues (బొ ల్లా వుల్ు)and ganga-petti (గంగపెట్టి), for celebrating the community functions, and return the same. The said gold-coated bullock statues (బొ ల్లా వుల్ు) contain the names of Kondaiah and Jalamma as the ‘donors’.
(iv) When Kondaiah suffered from kidney and heart ailments, 1st defendant got him admitted in Nellore Hospital, Nellore, with the assistance of the defendants 2 and 3. Thereafter Kondaiah expired on 31.3.2011 in Global Hospital, Chennai. Kondaiah leased out shop-rooms to D.Srinivasulu Reddy, Sk.Chand Basha, D.Chennaiah, P.Kotaiah, A.Anji
Reddy, M.Pedda Kotaiah, Murali, M.Venkateswarlu, Sk.Babu, and
P.Kotaiah, on monthly rent ranging from ₹.300/- to ₹.500/-. After the death of Kondaiah, they have been paying rents to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant came to know that the 1st plaintiff and the 4th plaintiff are the children of Arketi Venkata Subbaiah and Ramanamma, and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of 2nd son of Arketi Venkata Subbaiah and Ramanamma. The plaintiffs are no way connected with the family of
Kondaiah, and the suit is filed with intention of grabbing the property.
5. The defendants 2 and 3 filed a common written statement, with the following allegations—
(i) The 2nd defendant joined as a tenant of Kondaiah in the year 1981, got married in 1982, begot two children and living in the tenanted house. He used to assist Kondaiah in his business. 2nd defendant’s wife purchased 9 ¼ Ankanams of house and site for ₹.2,72,500/- under registered sale deed dated 3.5.2003 from Kondaiah. Since then he is living in that house. He is also paying municipal tax. The alleged intimacy between the 1st and 2nd defendant is denied. 1st defendant is legally wedded wife of Kondaiah, and she is the absolute owner of the schedule -: 6 :- property. Plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Kondaiah. Defendants 1 to 3 took Kondaiah to Madras for treatment.
(ii) 3rd defendant is a close relative of Kondaiah. He joined as servant about 15 years back. Later, Kondaiah arranged the marriage of 3rd defendant and also promised his in-laws that he will establish business for his livelihood. Kondaiah and Jalamma performed the marriage of the 3rd defendant as adopted father and mother. Flourmill in the name of
Kondaiah, was handed over to the 3rd defendant. 3rd defendant is not a tenant under 1st defendant or Kondaiah at any point of time. Plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Kondaiah, and in fact, Kondaiah and the 1st defendant are husband and wife.
6. The 4th defendant filed written statement, and it is adopted by the 5th defendant. The 4th defendant denied the relationship between the plaintiffs and Kondaiah, as claimed by the plaintiffs. The 4th defendant specifically denied all the allegations in the plaint, with regard to the illicit relationship between the 1st defendant and Kondaiah, and the strained relationship between the plaintiffs and Kondaiah. He stated that the surname of the 1st defendant is “Jammu”, but not “D”, and that the 1st defendant is the legally wedded wife of Kondaiah, and that the 1st defendant and Kondaiah had no issues. The 4th defendant virtually adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant with regard to the extent of the schedule property, and construction of the house. He pleaded knowledge of the will dated 31.12.1991 in favour of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant also supported the case of the 2nd defendant with regard to sale of part of the schedule property to the 2nd defendant’s wife under a registered sale deed by Kondaiah. 4th defendant pleaded that on the death of Kondaiah, 1st defendant became the owner of the property, as per the will dated 31.12.1991. The 4th defendant also supported the plea of the 1st defendant, regarding establishment of -: 7 :- flourmill and giving the same to the 3rd defendant. 4th defendant pleaded regarding gold-coated bullock statues (బొ ల్లా వుల్ు) got prepared by
Kondaiah, and Kondaiah and Jalamma being the donors of the same.
(i) The plea of the 4th defendant, regarding the treatment of
Kondaiah for his kidney and heart ailment is that, the 1st defendant, with the assistance of the defendants 2 and 3 got admitted Kondaiah, at
Nellore Hospital, and thereafter in Global Hospital, Chennai, and while he was taking treatment there, expired on 31.3.2011.
(ii) 4th defendant supported the plea of the 1st defendant regarding leasing out the shop-rooms to various tenants. The 4th defendant stated that, after the death of Kondaiah, the 1st defendant is taking the rents, and that the brother’s son of Jammu Kondaiah got filed this suit through the plaintiffs, as if they are the legal heirs of Kondaiah, even though they are in no way connected to the property. According to the 4th defendant, the 1st plaintiff and 4th plaintiff are the children of
Arketi Venkata Subbaiah and Ramanamma, and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of 2nd son of Arketi Venkata Subbaiah and Ramanamma.
(iii) He further stated that the 1st defendant, during her life time, executed her last will in a sealed cover on 18.5.2011 in favour of the 4th defendant and his brother – the 5th defendant, in respect of the above referred properties, and deposited the same at District Registrar’s Office,
Nellore, and that the 1st defendant expired on 11.7.2012 due to ill-health at Dr. Prabhakar Naidu’s Hospital in Kavali, and by virtue of the above said will defendants 4 and 5 became the owners of the schedule property.
7. As per orders in I.A.No.991/2011 dated 17.07.2011 plaintiffs are permitted to file rejoinder, and again as per orders in
I.A.No.114/2018 dated 20.02.2018 plaintiffs are permitted to file rejoinder.
-: 8 :-
(i)In rejoinder received as per orders in I.A.No.991/2011 dated 17.07.2011, plaintiffs stated third defendant was not brought up by
Kondaiah, first defendant fabricated the Will to grab the property, first plaintiff is not aware who is Arketi Venkata Subbaiah, and Jammu Subba
Rao joined Kondaiah in Global Hospital, Chennai and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment.
(ii)In rejoinder received as per orders in I.A.No.114/2018 dated 20.02.2018, plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs filed a memo on 18.10.2012 in this suit, that the 1st defendant died intestate, leaving no legal representatives, and praying the court to proceed further against the defendants 2 and 3, and that the defendants 2 and 3 filed a reply memo stating that the 1st defendant executed her last will on 18.5.2011 bequeathing her properties to Ch.Vivekananda Reddy and Ch.Gautam
Kumar Reddy, who are the sons of the 2nd defendant. It is further stated in the rejoinder that the suit schedule site was assigned in favour of
Jammu Kondaiah by the Tahsildar, Kavali, under a D-Form Patta dated 27.8.1983 free of cost, as Jammu Kondaiah was physically challenged and landless poor, and as per Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, the 1st defendant has no right to bequeath the property to strangers viz., Vivekananda Reddy and Gautam
Kumar Reddy. It is further stated that the will is a manipulated document, and in the eye of law, Vivekananda Reddy and Gautam Kumar Reddy are not the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, and that Jammu
Kondaiah belonged to Yadava community, and the 1st defendant belonged to Gowda community, and that the 1st defendant is not the legally wedded wife of Jammu Kondaiah. It is further stated that, she was the legally wedded wife of one Daddolu Ramanaiah, who is now no more, and that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Jammu Kondaiah, through his wife
Jammu Ramanamma.
-: 9 :-
8. Issues were initially framed on 5.12.2011 as follows—
ISSUES (5.12.2011)
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs of deceased
Kondaiah?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title
and possession as prayed for?
(3) Whether the first defendant is the absolute owner of the
plaint schedule property?
(4) Whether the D2 is the bonafide purchaser for valuable
consideration and whether his possession is valid?
(5) To what relief?
Again on 19.7.2017, the following additional issues were framed—
ADDITIONAL ISSUES (19.7.2017)
(1) Whether D1 is the legally wedded wife of Jammu
Kondaiah?
(2) Whether Will dated 31.12.1991 is true, valid and executed
by Jammu Kondaiah, and is binding on suit property?
(3) Whether alienation made under sale deed dated 3.5.2003
in favour of wife of D2 namely Chidathala Mettu Padmaja
is valid and binding on suit property?
(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?
Again on 26.2.2018, the following additional issues were framed—
ADDITIONAL ISSUES (26.2.2018)
(1) Whether will dated 18.5.2011 was executed by D1 in favour
of D4 and D5?
(2) Whether D1 is entitled to bequeath suit property in favour
of D4 and D5?
9. Both parties went into trial on the above issues, and adduced oral and documentary evidence.
-: 10 :-
10. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 4 are examined and
Exhibits A-1 to A-16 are marked. Exhibits X-1 to X-5 are also marked.
(i) PW-1 is the 1st plaintiff. PW-2 is Jammu Subba Rao, son of
Malakondaiah. PW-3 is Jammu Malakondaiah, and he is the blood-brother of Jammu Kondaiah- the original owner of the schedule property. PW-4 is the Tahsildar, Kavali, who is examined with regard to the nature of Patta given to the original owner Jammu Kondaiah.
(ii) Exhibit A-1 is the death certificate of Jammu Kondaiah.
Exhibit A-2 is the Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.4.2011 given by the
Sub-Registrar’s Office, Kavali. Exhibit A-3 is tax-receipt in favour of
Jammu Kondaiah. Exhibit A-4 is household card in favour of Jammu
Sailaja. Exhibit A-5 is household card in favour of Jammu Madhava.
Exhibit A-6 is Voter ID card in favour of Jammu Madhava. Exhibit A-7 is
Rajiv Arogya Bheema Health Card issued in favour of Jammu Madhava.
Exhibit A-8 is certified copies of tax-receipts in favour of Jammu
Kondaiah. Exhibit A-9 is certified copy of electricity bill in the name of
Jammu Kondaiah. Exhibit A-10 is certified copy of the property ownership certificate dated 26.7.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Kavali. Exhibit A- 11 is certified copy of the study and conduct certificate dated 5.10.2012 issued by Municipal Elementary School, Vaddipalem. Exhibit A-12 is certified copy of the Postal Savings Account Passbook issued by Sub-
Postmaster, North Rajupalem. Exhibit A-13 is certified copy of the Aadhar
Card in favour of Jammu Malakondaiah. Exhibit A-14 is certified copy of the Voter ID of Jammu Malakondaiah. Exhibit A-15 is the nativity certificate of Jammu Malakondaiah. Exhibit A-16 is death certificate of the 1st defendant.
(iii) Exhibit X-1 is attested copy of patta in favour of Jammu
Kondaiah – marked through PW-4. Exhibit X-2 is Page-57 of Register of
Deposit of Wills. Exhibit X-3 is relevant page No.41 in Thumb Impression
Register. Exhibit X-4 is will of Jammu Jalamma dated 18.5.2011. Exhibit -: 11 :-
X-5 is memo dated 18.6.2019 filed by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Nellore, into this Court.
11. On behalf of the defendants DWs 1 to 7 are examined and
Exhibits B-1 to B-42 are marked.
(i) DW-1 is the 2nd defendant in the suit. DW-2 is the 3rd defendant in the suit. DW-3 is the 4th defendant in the suit. DW-4 is an attestor of the will said to have been executed by Jammu Kondaiah on 31.12.1991. DW-5 is an attestor for the will said to have been executed by the 1st defendant; he also spoke about the deposit of the will in a sealed cover in the office of the District Registrar, Nellore. DW-6 worked as Joint Sub-Registrar, Nellore from the year 2008 till November, 2012; he is examined to speak about the opening of the will on 7.8.2012, on the application of Vivekananda Reddy. DW-7 is examined to show that the original will, deposited in the District Registrar’s Office, is misplaced when the District Registrar’s Office was shifted.
(ii) Exhibit B-1 is signatures of P.W.1 on the agreement dated 2.10.2012 (marked in the cross-examination of PW-1). Exhibit B-2 is a black and white photograph marked subject to production of negative.
Exhibit B-3 is certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 3.5.2003 executed by late Kondaiah in favour of Chiratalamettu Padmaja. Exhibit
B-4 is the property-tax certificate dated 5.7.2018. Exhibit B-5 is electricity demand notice and paid receipt. Exhibit B-6 is wedding photo of Jammu Kondaiah and Jammu Jalamma, along with CD. Exhibit B-7 is
Voter ID card of Jammu Jalamma, issued by Election Commission of
India. Exhibit B-8 is ID card of concessional eligibility bus-pass of
Kondaiah. Exhibit B-9 is medical certificate of Kondaiah issued by District
Medical Board, Nellore. Exhibit B-10 is old ration card of Kondaiah. Exhibit
B-11 is household card of Kondaiah. Exhibit B-12 is census receipt issued to Jammu Kondaiah and Jalamma. Exhibit B-13 is Aadhar card of -: 12 :-
Jalamma. Exhibit B-14 is photo with CD relating to the presence of
Jammu Kondaiah and Jalamma – donors of బొ ల్లా వుల్ు in memory of Jammu
Singaiah and Subbamma. Exhibit B-15 is the certificate of losing of house-site patta, ration card, etc. in favour of Kondaiah. Exhibit B-16 is the will dated 31.12.1991, Exhibits B-17 to B-25 and Exhibit B-27 to B-29 are lab reports and medical prescriptions issued by Nellore Hospital.
Exhibit B-26 is the diagnostics certificate issued by Nellore Hospital.
Exhibit B-30 is the letter addressed by Nellore Hospital to the General
Physician, Global Hospital, Chennai. Exhibits B-31 to B-33 are the inpatient receipts of Jammu Kondaiah dated 25.3.2011, 30.3.2011 and 26.3.2011 issued by Global Hospital, Chennai. Exhibit B-34 is a bunch of lab receipts issued by Global Hospital, Chennai. Exhibit B-35 is death summary of Jammu Kondaiah issued by Global Hospital, Chennai. Exhibit
B-36 is the statement of account relating to Account No.10905814792 of
Ch.Vivekananda Reddy in State Bank of India, Kavali. Exhibit B-37 is death certificate of Kondaiah. Exhibit B-38 is certified copy of will dated 18.5.2011 executed by the 1st defendant. Exhibit B-39 is death certificate of Jalamma. Exhibit B-40 is certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.18/2006
dated 12.2.2006 of I Town Police Station, Kavali. Exhibit B-41 is certified
copy of bail petition presented to Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Kavali, by A.Madhava from Sub-Jail, Kavali, in the above crime. Exhibit B- 42 is certified copy of the charge-sheet in C.C.No.137/2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, filed in connection with Crime No.18/2006 of Kavali I Town Police Station.
12. As can be seen from the above extract of the documents marked on either side, there are almost 60 documents in all. It is necessary to group the documents in relation to the purpose for which they have been produced before the Court.
-: 13 :-
(i) Exhibit A-1 relates to the death of Kondaiah, which is not in dispute. Exhibits A-2, A-3, A-8, A-9 and A-10 are filed to show that
Kondaiah owned the property and paid tax. Exhibits A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7,
A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14 and A-15, are filed to prove the identity of plaintiffs and their family members, as the defendants are disputing that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Kondaiah. Exhibit A-16 death certificate is filed to show that surname of the 1st defendant is “Daddolu” and her husband’s name is “Ramanaiah”.
(ii) Signatures in Exhibit B-1 are marked to show that PW-1 was set-up by somebody else, to litigate for this property. Exhibit B-2 is a black and white photograph to prove the marriage between Kondaiah and the 1st defendant. So also Exhibits B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13 and
B-14. Exhibit B-15 relates to the evidence regarding the loss of original patta of the schedule property given to Kondaiah. Exhibit B-16 is will
dated 31.12.1991 said to have been executed by Kondaiah. Exhibits B-17
to B-35 relate to the treatment of Kondaiah in a hospital at Nellore and in another hospital at Chennai. Exhibit B-36 is filed to show that the 4th defendant paid the bills of Kondaiah. Exhibit B-37 is death certificate of
Kondaiah, issued by the concerned authority, in the State of Tamilnadu.
Exhibit B-38 is certified copy of the will dated 18.5.2011 said to have been executed by the 1st defendant. Exhibit B-39 is death certificate of the 1st defendant, in which her surname is mentioned as “Jammu” and her husband’s name is mentioned as “Kondaiah”. Exhibits B-40 to B-42 are filed to show that there is no person by name Jammu Madhava, and in fact, Madhava’s surname is “Arketi”.
(iii) Exhibit X-1 is attested copy of patta in favour of Kondaiah.
Exhibits X-2, X-3 and X-5 relate to the deposit of will said to have been executed by the 1st defendant in the Registrar’s Office, Nellore. Exhibit X- 4 is certified copy of the will dated 18.5.2011.
-: 14 :-
13. ISSUE No.(1) DATED 05.12.2011: Whether the plaintiffs
are legal heirs of deceased Kondaiah? & ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 DATED
19.07.2017 Whether D1 is the legally wedded wife of Jammu Kondaiah?
(i) The 1st plaintiff claimed to be the son of Kondaiah. The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs claimed to be the children of another son of Kondaiah by name Madhava. The 4th plaintiff claimed that she is the daughter of
Kondaiah.
(ii) Regarding this issue, oral evidence is that of PW-1/1st plaintiff, PW-2 – who is the son of Kondaiah’s brother viz., Malakondaiah, and PW-3/Malakondaiah – brother of Kondaiah. There are documents, which describe the 1st plaintiff as Jammu Malakondaiah, i.e., Exhibits A-4,
A-5, A-6, A-7, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14 and A-15.
(iii) The specific case of the defendants is that the 1st defendant is the only wife of Kondaiah, and the 1st defendant had no issues, and after the death of Kondaiah, these people have falsely claimed as the legal representatives of Kondaiah to knock away the property.
(iv) At this stage, it may be noted that the 2nd plaintiff, who was aged 19 years by the time of filing the suit, is not examined as witness; so also, the 4th plaintiff, aged about 45 years by 2011, and who is said to be the daughter of Kondaiah.
(v) As regards pleadings, the plaintiffs claimed that Ramanamma is their mother and she died in the year 1981, and that the 1st defendant joined Kondaiah as a cook in his house, and that she belongs to Gowda community. According to the plaintiffs, there is a flourmill viz., Ganga
Bhavani Flourmill, constructed during the time of Kondaiah; but, no document is filed to show that said flourmill was having license from the
Municipality. It is further stated in the plaint that, Kondaiah constructed shop-room with the earnings of himself and the 1st plaintiff.
(vi) In Para-4 of the plaint, it is stated that, after the entry of 1st defendant as cook, she threw out the plaintiffs 1 to 3 from the schedule -: 15 :- property. These allegations of the plaintiffs have been specifically denied by the 1st defendant in her written statement.
(vii) With regard to the obsequies of Kondaiah, the allegations of plaintiffs that they came to see the dead body of Kondaiah on knowing the death of Kondaiah on 31.3.2011, to perform his funerals, is denied. In
Page-3 of the written statement of the 1st defendant, it is stated as follows, with regard to the performing of obsequies—“This defendant further denies that on 13.4.2011 the 1 st & 2 nd defendant prepared the 3 rd defendant to perform the obsequies on the day and the plaintiffs caste elder restrained the defendants to perform the obsequies and as an obligation the 1 st plaintiff performed the obsequies on 13.4.2011 with their expenses ……”. The year of marriage between Kondaiah and 1st defendant is not specifically mentioned in the written statement.
(viii) Exhibit B-1 signatures of P.W.1 on document marked in the cross-examination of PW-1, to show that cognates of plaintiffs funded the litigation launched by the plaintiffs regarding the suit property. It is photostat copy of an agreement between plaintiffs 1 to 3 and their cognates. It confirms the status of plaintiffs 1 to 3. If cognates wanted to knock away the property of Kondaiah, they themselves would have set-up one of their family members as son of Kondaiah.
14. Out of the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs,
PW-1 is aged about 50 years by the time of giving evidence in the year 2018, which shows that he was born in 1968. The age of Kondaiah was shown as 60 years in the sale deed executed by him in the year 2003 in favour of Ramana Reddy’s wife Padmaja, copy of which is marked as
Exhibit B-3.
(i) Advocate for the plaintiffs relied upon the evidence of PW-3, stating that he is the blood-brother of late Kondaiah. PW-3 gave evidence in the year 2018, and his age is shown as 70 years in the chief affidavit.
He stated that he has three brothers viz., Chenchaiah, Subbarayudu, and -: 16 :-
Kondaiah. PW-3 says that he is the youngest among his brothers, and that Chenchaiah, Subbarayudu and Kondaiah are no more. He also spoke about his three elder sisters Kanaparthi Mangamma, Aneti Lachamma, and K.Chenchamma, and out of them Mangamma is no more. He further says that when he was aged about 12 years, Kondaiah married
Ramanamma in their house at Veeraraghavuni Kota, Lingasamudram
Mandal of Ongole district. He further stated that Kondaiah, and his wife
Ramanamma, lived in Veeraraghavuni Kota for about 1 ½ months, and shifted their residence to Kavali town. He further stated that Kondaiah and Ramanamma were blessed with three sons i.e., the 1st plaintiff herein, Madhava and Singaiah, out of whom Singaiah died unmarried at the age of 10 years. According to him, the 4th plaintiff is the daughter of
Kondaiah. He says that the 1st defendant entered the house of Kondaiah as a cook, and there was no marriage between Kondaiah and the 1st defendant, and that the 1st defendant is in fact Daddolu Jalamma – a native of Muthukur, and her husband Ramanaiah belonged to Mudivarthi village.
(ii) In the cross-examination by the defendants 2 and 3, it is elicited that PW-3 and his brothers lived in Veeraraghavuni Kota in
Prakasam district. The suggestion given to this witness is that there is no person by name Jammu Ramanamma and that Kondaiah did not marry
Ramanamma. PW-3 stated in the cross-examination that Kondaiah’s left leg was amputated upto knee, and the suggestion is that the right leg of
Kondaiah was amputated. PW-3 admitted that Jalamma stayed in the house of Kondaiah for 20 years, as a cook. This witness was shown the household card of Kondaiah, and he identified the photo on the household card bearing No.30237/619 is that of Kondaiah. This witness was shown a photo, and he identified the persons as Jammu Kondaiah and the 1st defendant. The photo is marked as Exhibit B-2. Exhibit B-2 shows that
Kondaiah and the 1st defendant were having garlands, and they were in -: 17 :- the attire of just-married-couple, with the saree of the 1st defendant tied to the scarf (పెైపంచె) of Kondaiah. Exhibit B-6 are the photos showing
Kondaiah and the 1st defendant in marriage attire. PW-3 does not say that the 1st defendant did not live with late Kondaiah. He only stated that she joined as a cook, and stayed with him.
15. As per the will of the 1st defendant dated 18.5.2011, copy of which is marked as Exhibit B-38, the 1st defendant was aged 52 years as mentioned in the will. Thus, as per her version, she was born some time in 1959. As already stated, as per Exhibit B-3 sale deed of the year 2003,
Jammu Kondaiah was aged 60 years, and thereby he was born in or around 1943. Thus, the gap in the age of Kondaiah and the 1st defendant is 16 years. The photographs of the marriage between Kondaiah and the 1st defendant, go to show that the 1st defendant was aged more than 35 years by the date of marriage. As already stated, in the written statement of the 1st defendant, there is no year of marriage mentioned.
(i) Generally, villagers used to get married even prior to the age of 20, for male persons. If the above is taken into account, Kondaiah would have got married around 1963. By then the 1st defendant was aged 4 years. If at all the marriage of Kondaiah had taken place with the 1st defendant, it was only after the death of Kondaiah’s first wife. According to PW-3, marriage of Kondaiah and Ramanamma took place in
Veeraraghavuni Kota village, about 60 years prior to his deposition. He deposed in the year 2018, and that age broadly tallies with the marriage- age of male persons prevailing in those times, with a leverage of 2 or 3 years. Therefore, the version of the 1st defendant, in her written statement, that she is the only wife of Jammu Kondaiah, cannot be believed.
-: 18 :-
16. The line of defence taken by the defendants is that, there was an agreement between the 1st plaintiff and others, to fund the litigation, as can be seen from Exhibit B-1. However, the parties to the agreement are not summoned by the defendants to confront them with
Exhibit B-1 in a proper manner. Taking into consideration the age of the defendants 2, 3 and 4, who deposed as DWs 1 to 3, it cannot be said that they had first hand knowledge of the family affairs of Kondaiah. The allegation of the defendants, that the plaintiffs are strangers to the family of Kondaiah, does not conform to probabilities of this case. It is highly improbable that strangers came to know of the death of Kondaiah, to make a false claim.
(i) Out of the evidence available on record, the evidence of PW-3 is reliable, and there is no suggestion to him that he is not at all connected with the family of Kondaiah. In the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, with regard to their identity, father’s name of Madhava and the 1st plaintiff is shown as Kondaiah. The defendants 2 to 4 have filed chief affidavits, in such a manner that they know all the events in the family of Kondaiah, which is not at all correct. Nobody from the native village of Kondaiah is examined by the defendants, in support of their case. The only evidence on record, which is available, is that the 1st defendant was treated as wife of Kondaiah, as can be seen from Exhibits
B-2 and B-6.
(ii) The above discussion would go to show that there is evidence to show that Kondaiah had married Ramanamma, and begot the 1st plaintiff, Madhava and Nagamani. At this stage, it was mentioned that the non-examination of Nagamani, may not be taken as a sort of disowning her relationship as daughter of Kondaiah. A married woman sometimes loses interest in the family affairs of her father, particularly when he had discarded the children born through the first wife and lived with somebody else. Therefore, the non-examination of Nagamani/4th plaintiff, -: 19 :- cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the 1st plaintiff, and the other documentary evidence on record, with regard to the relationship between the plaintiffs and the deceased Kondaiah. As far as the relationship between Kondaiah and the 1st defendant is concerned, law favours the legal relationship between a man and a woman, and there is evidence to show that the 1st defendant was treated as wife by Kondaiah.
Therefore, I conclude that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased
Jammu Kondaiah, along with the deceased 1st defendant. These issues are answered accordingly, i.e., plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Kondaiah, and 1st defendant is the second wife of Kondaiah.
17. ISSUE No.(3) DATED 05.12.2011: Whether the first defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property?: - In view of the findings on Issue No.1 that the plaintiffs are the legal-heirs of the deceased Kondaiah, the 1st defendant alone is not the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. This issue is accordingly answered.
18. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.(2) DATED 19.07.2017: Whether
Will dated 31.12.1991 is true, valid and executed by Jammu Kondaiah, and is
binding on suit property?: - With regard to the will dated 31.12.1991, which is marked as Exhibit B-16, on behalf of the defendants, DW-4 – attestor of the will is examined. Assuming that Kondaiah had no children, and with the claim of the 3rd defendant as the person brought up as son by Kondaiah and the 1st defendant, it is quite surprising that, this will of
Kondaiah had no reference to any disposition towards him. There is also no mention regarding the relationship between Kondaiah and the 3rd defendant. Even assuming that the will dated 31.12.1991 is true,
Kondaiah would have changed the disposition bequeathing the flourmill to the 3rd defendant, which the 3rd defendant claims that it was given to him.
-: 20 :-
(i) In his chief-affidavit, DW-2 i.e., the 3rd defendant, claims that he knows the family of Kondaiah for the last 30 years. He says that he joined as servant at the age of 12 years. When the 3rd defendant had entered so many services, as alleged by him, in maintaining the business of Kondaiah, there would have been definitely some document, with regard to the flourmill. DW-2 stated in cross-examination that, he did not have any document to show that he is the owner of the flourmill. In the chief-examination DW-2 claimed that Kondaiah executed an agreement of sale in his favour in the year 1998, after receiving ₹.40,000/- and
Kondaiah and the 1st defendant received ₹.6,000/- and executed a stamped agreement in the year 2001 for transferring the electricity connection in his name. This document is not filed by the 3rd defendant/DW-2 in his evidence. There is no mention in the written- statement of the 3rd defendant, about the said agreement. The 3rd defendant ought to have filed document, which he is relying upon, along with his written-statement. Therefore, the version of the 3rd defendant, that he assisted Kondaiah in his business and joined as servant when he was 12 years old, cannot be believed.
(ii) Contrary to the plea of the 3rd defendant, the will said to have been executed by the 1st defendant, shows that the 2nd defendant is said to have been adopted by the 1st defendant and Kondaiah. The 2nd defendant does not belong to the caste of Kondaiah. The 3rd defendant claims, his grandfather is related to Kondaiah. Thus, there are contradictory versions, as to who was brought-up by Kondaiah, as his son.
(iii) At any rate, there is no document to show that the 3rd defendant was brought-up as son by Kondaiah and the 1st defendant. So also, there is no document, except the self-assertion of the 1st defendant in her will, that the 2nd defendant was brought-up by Kondaiah and the 1st defendant. It is an admitted fact that Kondaiah’s right leg was amputated, -: 21 :- and he was in need of physical support for carrying-on his business activities. In the written statement of the 1st defendant, in Para-6 there is mention about the 3rd defendant being brought-up by Kondaiah and the 1st defendant, and performing his marriage. There is no mention in the written statement of the 1st defendant about the 2nd defendant being treated as their “అభిమలనపుత్రు డు”as mentioned in the will of the 1st defendant.
(iv) Therefore, the will dated 31.12.1991, said to have been executed by Kondaiah, does not fit in with the claim of the 3rd defendant, and it does not at least mention that either the 2nd defendant or the 3rd defendant were brought-up as sons by Kondaiah, or looked after his welfare and assisted him. Therefore, the will propounded by the defendants 2 and 3, cannot be held to be true and valid, as the defendants 2 and 3 failed to explain the suspicious circumstances.
Further, this will is not mentioned in the will said to have been executed by 1st defendant, i.e., Exhibit B-38. Therefore, this issue is answered against the defendants.
19. ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 26.2.2018: - (1) Whether
will dated 18.5.2011 was executed by D1 in favour of D4 and D5? (2) Whether D1
is entitled to bequeath suit property in favour of D4 and D5? – The 2nd defendant claimed that the 1st defendant executed a will and deposited it in a sealed cover in the Registrar’s Office, Nellore, and after her death it was opened and registered. DW-5 is examined with regard to the fact that the 1st defendant executed a will. Again, as regards this will dated 18.5.2011, there are two types of objections by the plaintiffs.
(i) The first objection is that, the will is not true. While discussing the will of Kondaiah dated 31.12.1991, I have already referred to the varying stands taken by the defendants, with regard to the status -: 22 :- of the 3rd defendant as well as the status of the 2nd defendant, in their relationship with Kondaiah and the 1st defendant. There is no mention in this will dated 18.5.2011, about the handing over of any property to the 3rd defendant because he looked after Kondaiah.
(ii) The age of the 2nd defendant, as per his evidence, is 52 years. If it is taken to be true, he deposed in the year 2018, and he must have been born in 1966. In the will of the 1st defendant, it is stated that for the last 30 years prior to the will the 2 nd defendant was brought-up as their son. It is quite surprising that the 2nd defendant says that he joined as a tenant of Kondaiah at the age of 15 years. The very assertion of the 2nd defendant that he joined as a tenant in the year 1981, appears to be absurd, because, he was aged about 15 years by that time, and he says that he got married in 1982 at the age of 16 years as per his chief- affidavit. It is apparent that the defendants 2 and 3 exploited the physical handicap of Kondaiah and entered the property, under the guise of helping Kondaiah. The fact that there is no reference of the 3rd defendant in the will of the 1st defendant, speaks volumes of the validity of the will.
Further, the 1st defendant had no exclusive right to execute the will, because, Kondaiah had two sons and a daughter through his first wife
Ramanamma. Therefore, the will dated 18.5.2011 under Exhibit B-38 is not valid. The will of Kondaiah is not referred to in this will. Accordingly, these issues are answered, against the defendants.
20. ISSUE No.(4) DATED 05.12.2011: Whether D2 is a bona-
fide purchaser for valuable consideration and whether his possession is valid?
& ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.(3) DATED 19.07.2017: Whether alienation
made under sale deed dated 3.5.2003 in favour of wife of D2 namely
Chidathala Mettu Padmaja is valid and binding on suit property? : - -: 23 :-
(i) There is a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant’s wife, executed by Kondaiah in respect of 75 Square Yards of site. Kondaiah owned the property. Sale deed is hit by prohibition of alienation, as per
Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1977.
(ii) The evidence of PW-4, who produced the file relating to granting of Patta to Kondaiah, having gone through the entire file, is to the effect that patta was granted free-of-cost, but not for market value.
Copy of the patta marked as Exhibit X-1, which is the attested copy of the patta (original is said to have been lost by the plaintiffs), does not contain any recital regarding payment of market value. PW-4 further stated that late Jammu Kondaiah was not a public servant, and only in case of government servants, patta will be granted for market value. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-4 that, in Exhibit X-1 it is not mentioned that the patta was issued free-of-cost. However, I have already pointed out that, there is no mention in Exhibit X-1 that the patta was granted for market value. PW-4 denied the suggestion that the challan for payment of ₹.470/- was misplaced from the file, and he also denied the suggestion that the patta was not issued free-of-cost. Nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of PW-4, and no document is produced to show that the patta was granted to Kondaiah on payment of market value. Further, in the will, said to have been executed by Kondaiah, there is no mention about payment of market value. Though Kondaiah was an illiterate, he developed the schedule property, constructed shop-rooms, let out the same, and also ran a flourmill in the same premises. A person, who could develop the property, and gain income, could have definitely preserved the challan for payment of ₹.470/- and would have definitely mentioned in the so-called will, which is held in the relevant issue regarding the will executed by Kondaiah, as not proved.
-: 24 :-
(iii) The following two decisions are cited by the plaintiffs, in this regard: - “Katta Yesuratnam v. Commissioner, Land Revenue, A.P.,
Hyderabad and Others”;1 and “Chenna Reddy v. D.Venkata Reddy”.2
(iv) Counsel for defendants 4 and 5 relied upon “G.Satyanarayana
and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary,
Revenue Department and Others”,3 for the proposition thatif patta is granted on collection of market value, the Pattadar is entitled to alienate the land without any restrictions. They also relied on “Koneru Nageswara Rao v. The State of
Andhra Pradesh”,4 relating to deletion of lands from the list of prohibited properties on the ground that though there was a non-alienation clause at the time of grant of patta, subsequently it was deleted. The facts on the basis of which these decisions are rendered, are completely different from the facts of the case on hand, thus, both the decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.
21. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.(4) DATED 19.7.2017: Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? The plaint schedule property was given by way of D-Form Patta to Jammu Kondaiah. The plaintiffs, claiming as legal-heirs of Kondaiah, and the defendants claiming in different ways, are on record. Therefore, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 2nd defendant’s wife is the purchaser of property from Kondaiah under Exhibit B-3 sale deed. This issue is accordingly answered.
22. ISSUE No.(2) DATED 05.12.2011: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and possession as prayed for? – In view of the findings on Issue No.1, that the plaintiffs are the legal-heirs of Jammu 1 1997(6) ALT 829 2 2004(1) ALT 406 3 2014(3) ALT 473 4 Writ Petition No.46074 of 2018 of the High Court of A.P. dated 21.12.2018.
-: 25 :-
Kondaiah, and also the finding that the will of the 1st defendant dated 18.5.2011 is not valid, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and possession of the 47 Ankanams of property, for which Patta was granted in favour of Jammu Kondaiah, situated within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
23. ISSUE No.(5) DATED 05.12.2011: To what relief? – The argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs is that, the land granted as
Patta by the Government cannot be alienated in favour of third parties.
For this proposition, Advocate for the plaintiffs relied upon “Katta
Yesuratnam v. Commissioner, Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad and Others” (supra), and “Chenna Reddy v. D.Venkata Reddy” (supra).
(i) In the present case, the Tahsildar, Kavali is examined as PW-
4. According to PW-4, not only Jammu Kondaiah, but several others were granted Pattas under File No.A2-3458/81. Attested copy of the Patta brought by PW-4 is marked as Exhibit X-1. He clearly stated that the
Patta was not issued for market value. On this aspect also, the will said to have been executed by the 1st defendant is not valid, as it sought to create rights in favour of third-parties, to the property given under D-
Form Patta.
24. In view of the findings that the plaintiffs are the legal-heirs of the deceased Kondaiah, and that the will said to have been executed by
Kondaiah on 31.12.1991 is not valid, and that the will said to have been executed by the 1st defendant on 18.5.2011 is not valid, and that the 3rd defendant has no title to any part of the schedule property, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and possession of 47 Ankanams of property, for which Patta was granted in favour of Jammu Kondaiah, within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule.
-: 26 :-
25. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of 47 Ankanams of the property, situated within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule, and they are entitled for possession of the same.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me, this the 31st day of August, 2020.
Sd/- (G.VENKATA KRISHNAIAH)
Principal District Judge
NELLORE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS
PW-1 : Sri Jammu Malakondaiah s/o Kondaiah (first plaintiff) PW-2 : Sri Jammu Subba Rao PW-3 : Sri Jammu Malakondaiah s/o Singaiah PW-4 : Sri Golla Venkateswarlu, Tahsildar, Kavali
FOR DEFENDANTS
DW-1 : Sri Chirathalamettu Ramana Reddy (second defendant) DW-2 : Sri Danduboina Venkata Rao (third defendant) DW-3 : Sri Chirathalamettu Vivekananda Reddy (fourth defendant) DW-4 : Sri E.Venkata Ramana Reddy DW-5 : Sri Ratnam Jyothi Bhaskar DW-6 : Sri P.Narendra Rao, Sub-Registrar (Retired) DW-7 : Sri M.Anjaneyulu, Joint Sub-Registrar II, Nellore District Registra’s Office, Nellore
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A1 Death certificate of J.Kondaiah, issued by Tamilnadu Government.
Ex.A2 Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.4.2011 given by the Sub- Registrar’s Office, Kavali.
Ex.A3 Tax-receipt in favour of J.Kondaiah.
Ex.A4 Household card in favour of Jammu Sailaja.
Ex.A5 Household card in favour of Jammu Madhava.
Ex.A6 Voter ID card in favour of Jammu Madhava.
Ex.A7 Rajiv Arogya Bhima Health Card in favour of Jammu
Madhava.
Ex.A8 Certified copies of tax-receipts in favour of Jammu Kondaiah.
Ex.A9 Certified copy of electricity bill in the name of J.Kondaiah.
-: 27 :-
Ex.A10 Certified copy of the property ownership certificate dated 26.7.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Kavali.
Ex.A11 Certified copy of the study and conduct certificate dated 5.10.2012 issued by Municipal Elementary School, Vaddipalem.
Ex.A12 Certified copy of the Postal Savings Account Passbook issued by Sub-Postmaster, North Rajupalem.
Ex.A13 Certified copy of the Aadhar Card in favour of Jammu Malakondaiah.
Ex.A14 Certified copy of the Voter ID of Jammu Malakondaiah.
Ex.A15 Nativity certificate of Jammu Malakondaiah.
Ex.A16 Death certificate of the 1st defendant.
MARKED THROUGH PW-4, D.W.6 and D.W.7
Ex.X1 Attested copy of Patta in favour of Jammu Kondaiah (marked through PW-4).
Ex.X2 Page-57 of Register of Deposit of Wills of the Office of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Nellore (marked through D.W.6)
Ex.X3 Relevant page No.41 in Thumb Impression Register of the Office of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Nellore (marked through D.W.6).
Ex.X4 Certified copy of Will of Jammu Jalamma dated 18.5.2011 (marked through D.W.6).
Ex.X5 Memo dated 18.6.2019 filed by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Nellore, into this Court (marked through D.W.7).
FOR DEFENDANTS
Ex.B1 Signatures of P.W.1 on the agreement dated 2.10.2012 (marked in the cross-examination of PW-1).
Ex.B2 Black and white photograph marked subject to production of negative (marked in the cross examination of PW-3 by D4 and D5).
Ex.B3 Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 3.5.2003 executed by Jammu Kondaiah in favour of Chiratalamettu Padmaja.
Ex.B4 Property-tax certificate dated 5.7.2018.
Ex.B5 Electricity demand notice and paid receipt.
Ex.B6 Wedding photo of Jammu Kondaiah and Jammu Jalamma, along with CD.
Ex.B7 Voter ID card of Jammu Jalamma, issued by Election Commission of India.
-: 28 :-
Ex.B8 ID card of concessional eligibility bus-pass of Jammu Kondaiah.
Ex.B9 Medical certificate of Jammu Kondaiah issued by District Medical Board, Nellore.
Ex.B10 Old ration card of Jammu Kondaiah.
Ex.B11 Household card of Jammu Kondaiah.
Ex.B12 Census receipt issued to Jammu Kondaiah and Jalamma.
Ex.B13 Aadhar card of Jammu Jalamma.
Ex.B14 Photo with CD relating to the presence of Jammu Kondaiah and Jalamma – donors of బొ ల్లా వుల్ు in memory of Jammu
Singaiah and Subbamma.
Ex.B15 Certificate of losing of house-site Patta, ration card, etc. issued in favour of Kondaiah.
Ex.B16 Will dated 31.12.1991 executed by Jammu Kondaiah.
Ex.B17 Nellore Hospitals Lab Receipt dated 25.3.2011.
Ex.B18 Nellore Hospitals Lab Receipt dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B19 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 25.3.2011.
Ex.B20 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B21 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B22 Lab Report dated 24.3.2011 issued by Nellore Hospitals Diagnostic Services, Nellore.
Ex.B23 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 25.3.2011.
Ex.B24 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B25 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B26 Prescription of Nellore Diagnostic Services.
Ex.B27 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B28 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B29 Nellore Hospitals Prescription dated 24.3.2011.
Ex.B30 Letter addressed by Nellore Hospitals, to the General Physician, Global Hospital, Chennai.
Ex.B31 Inpatient receipts of J.Kondaiah dated 25.3.2011 issued by Global Hospitals, Chennai.
-: 29 :-
Ex.B32 Inpatient receipts of J.Kondaiah dated 30.3.2011 issued by Global Hospitals, Chennai.
Ex.B33 Inpatient receipts of J.Kondaiah dated 26.3.2011 issued by Global Hospitals, Chennai.
Ex.B34 Bunch of lab receipts issued by Global Hospital, Chennai.
Ex.B35 Death summary of Jammu Kondaiah issued by Global Hospital, Chennai.
Ex.B36 Statement of account relating to Account No.10905814792 of Ch.Vivekananda Reddy in State Bank of India, Kavali.
Ex.B37 Death certificate of J.Kondaiah, issued by the State of Tamilnadu.
Ex.B38 Certified copy of will dated 18.5.2011 executed by the 1st defendant.
Ex.B39 Death certificate of Jammu Jalamma, issued by the Commissioner, Kavali Municipality.
Ex.B40 Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.18/2006 dated 12.2.2006 of I Town Police Station, Kavali.
Ex.B41 certified copy of bail petition presented to Additional Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, by A.Madhava from Sub-Jail,
Kavali, in the above crime.
Ex.B42 Certified copy of the charge-sheet in C.C.No.137/2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, filed in connection with Crime No.18/2006 of Kavali I Town Police Station.
Sd/- (G.VENKATA KRISHNAIAH)
Principal District Judge
NELLORE