1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
PRESENT: SMT. G.V.L.SARASWATHI,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur.
Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026
O.S.No. 48 of 2019
Between:
1. Gudimetla Sattireddy
2. Gudimetla Krishna Reddy
3. Gudimetla Trimurthulu Reddy
4. Gudimetla Ganapathi Reddy
5. Gudimetla Lakshmi Narayana Reddy
6. Gudimetla Nagireddy
7. Gudimetla Nagendra Reddy @ Nagireddy ---Plaintiffs A n d
1. Satti Satyanarayana Reddy
2. Satti Srinivasa Reddy ---Defendants
This Suit is coming on 19-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Vasudevareddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs, and of Sri N.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the defendants; and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, and upon considering the entire material on record, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants seeking: a) To declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties, (b) The defendants, their men and supporters be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by means of consequential permanent injunction, (c) to grant costs of the suit.
2
1) The zeroity dry land an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents in R.S.
No.811/7 in Yarnagudem village and gram panchayat limits,
Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub Registry, West
Godavari District. (Item No.1 of Plaint schedule property)
2) The zeroity dry land an extent of Ac. 0.52 cents in R.S.
No.845/2 in Yarnagudem village and gram panchayat limits,
Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub Registry, West
Godavari District, (Item No.2 of Plaint schedule property).
3) The zeroity dry land an extent of Ac.1.36 cents in R.S.
No.841/2 in Yarnagudem village and gram panchayat limits,
Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub Registry, West
Godavari District, (Item No.3 of Plaint schedule property)
4) The zeroity dry land an extent of Ac. 0.30 cents in R.S.
No.909/2 in Yarnagudem village and gram panchayat limits,
Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub Registry, West
Godavari District, (Item No.4 of Plaint schedule property)
5) The zeroity dry land an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in R.S.
No.910/2 in Yarnagudem village and gram panchayat limits,
Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub Registry, West
Godavari District, (Item No.5 of Plaint schedule property)
6) The zeroity dry land an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in R.S.
No.12/1A4 in Pallantla village and gram panchayat limits,
Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub Registry, West
Godavari District, (Item No.6 of Plaint schedule property)
7) The zeroity dry land an extent of Ac. 1.03 cents in R.S.
No.13/1A in Pallantla village and gram panchayat limits,
Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub Registry, West
Godavari District, (Item No.7 of Plaint schedule property)
8) An extent of 500 sq.yards of site and a tiled house bearing
Door No:1-6 and Old No. 1-7 in Krishnampalem village and
gram panchayat limits, Devarapalli Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub
Registry, West Godavari District, (Item No.8 of Plaint
schedule property)
(Item Nos.1 to 8 herein after referred as plaint Schedule
properties).
2.The averments of the plaint is as follows :
i) One Gudimetla Subbireddy had eight sons and daughters. The plaintiffs 1 to 5, the father of the 6th plaintiff by name Venkata Reddy, the father of the 7th plaintiff by name Seetharama Krishna Reddy, and one
Subbireddy are brothers and sons of Gudimetla Narsireddy. Originally, the 3 plaint schedule properties and some other properties were the ancestral properties of Gudimetla Narsireddy, and he enjoyed the said properties as the Karta of the family by cultivating the same on behalf of the other coparceners. After the death of Narsireddy, his eight sons partitioned their joint family properties in the year 1977. Since then, all the sharers have been enjoying their respective shares. Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of the deceased Subbireddy, and during his lifetime he enjoyed the same with absolute rights. While so, he purchased Item No. 8, a house site, with his joint income and constructed an RCC building thereon. The said Subbireddy had no issues except his wife, Gangaratnam. Unfortunately, on 10-10-2018, Subbireddy died, having executed an unregistered Will dated 04-10-2018, in a sound and disposing state of mind, bequeathing the plaint schedule properties to all his brothers, including the sons of his deceased brothers, with vested remainder rights, while giving life interest to his wife, Gangaratnam. The said Will was scribed by P. Venkata Nagaraju and attested by Dwarampudi
Ahalya and Karri Rama Krishna Reddy, and the said Will became final.
ii)While the matter stood thus, in the month of December 2018, when the said Gangaratnam tried to create documents collusively in order to knock away the plaint schedule properties, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.
No. 327/2018 against the said Gangaratnam for permanent injunction restraining her from alienating the plaint schedule properties, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kovvur. The said Gangaratnam engaged her counsel and contested the matter. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the suit, the said Gangaratnam died on 05-10-2019, and subsequently the suit was dismissed on 31-10-2019. As the plaintiffs herein are vested remainder holders, after the death of Gangaratnam, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties with right, title, and possession. In the above said suit, the said
Gangaratnam contended that Item No. 8 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by her in the year 1982, under a registered sale deed 4
dated 14-10-1982. The said Gangaratnam had no capacity to purchase
Item No. 8 of the schedule property, and her husband Subbireddy himself purchased the property in the name of Gangaratnam under a benami transaction and constructed the RCC building therein. The sale consideration under the said sale deed was paid by Subbireddy from the income derived from the ancestral properties.
Iii)While the matter stood thus, recently the defendants proclaimed that they have a right in the plaint schedule property and tried to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, and also denied the title of the plaintiffs by stating that they have a registered Will dated 12.11.2018 executed by Gangaratnam, bequeathing the schedule properties and some other properties in favour of the defendants. Immediately, the plaintiffs obtained the Encumbrance
Certificate and came to know about the execution of the Will by
Gangaratnam. Though the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of
Ananthapalli Sub-Registry, the defendants obtained the said Will and got it registered in the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bhimadole. The scribe also belongs to Pulla Village. Since the said Gangaratnam is only a life interest holder, she had no right to execute any Will, much less the registered Will dated 12-11-2018, and the said Will is not binding on the plaintiffs. As a cloud has been cast upon the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties, as well as due to the proclamations made by the defendants in the village, the plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit for the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction. Hence, the suit.
3. The contents of the written statement filed by the defendants are as hereunder:
i) The defendants filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint in toto, except the relationship among the plaintiffs as well as Subbireddy and Gangaratnam. They further submitted Gudimetla 5
Subbireddy died on 10.10.2018 intestate, leaving behind his wife. The said
Gudimetla Subbireddy had no issues, and immediately after his death, his wife Gangaratnam became the absolute owner of Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the plaint schedule properties, having succeeded to the same as a Class-I heir.
Since then, the said Gangaratnam has been enjoying the same. During her lifetime, she executed a registered Will dated 12.11.2018, bequeathing the schedule properties mentioned in the Will, including Item Nos. 1 to 7, in favour of her brothers, i.e., defendants 1 and 2. The said Gangaratnam died, and after her death, defendants 1 and 2 became the absolute owners of Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the schedule properties and have been in enjoyment of the same.
ii)It is further submitted the extent of Item No. 8 of the schedule property is not correct, and the same is only 374 square yards, which is the self-acquired property of Gangaratnam, as she purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1982 from one Satti
Annapuranamma. Subsequently, she constructed an RCC building by removing the old tiled house. During her lifetime, she executed a settlement deed dated 12.12.2018 in respect of 374 square yards of Item
No. 8 of the schedule property in favour of her brother, the 2nd defendant.
Ever since, the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, and the same was recognized by the Panchayat authorities; his name was mutated, and taxes are also being collected from the 2nd defendant. During her lifetime, Gangaratnam never executed any Will
dated 04.10.2018 as propounded by the plaintiffs, and the same is a
fabricated and forged document brought into existence to grab the schedule properties. The attestors and scribe of the said alleged Will are kith and kin and followers of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit, and the alleged cause of action is false and invented.
Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6
4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get declare as absolute owners of plaint schedule properties?
2. Whether the plaintiffs were in settled possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
4. To what relief
5. Both the parties adduced their evidence. On behalf of the plaintiffs,
PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Among them
Ex.A1 is the Unregistered Will dated 04.10.2018 executed by Gudimetla
Subbireddy in favor of the plaintiffs and Smt. Gudimental Gangaratnam.
Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of registered Will dated 12.11.2018 executed by
Smt. Gudimetla Gangaratnam in favor of the defendants and Ex.A3 is the
Death certificate of Gudimetla Gangaratnam dated 05.10.2019.
6.On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Among them Ex.B1 Registered Will dated 12.11.2018 executed by Gudimetla Gangaratnam in favor of the defendants. Ex.B2
Original registered settlement deed dated 12.12.2018 executed by
Gudimetla Gangaratam in favor of the 2nd defendant. Ex.B3 Original panchaat tax receipt and Ex.B4 Contradictory portion of deposition of PW1 in OS 377/2018
7.In such a scenario, the earlier Ex.B1, which was marked twice, was renumbered as Ex.B4, being the contradictory portion of the evidence of
PW1 deposed in O.S. No. 377/2018.
7
8. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.
9. After going through the contents of both parties coupled with the evidence and documents, this court for the better appreciation of the case, it is not necessary to reproduce the entire oral or documentary evidence and it will discuss as and when require to the extent required.
10.ISSUE No.1:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get declare as absolute owners of plaint schedule properties?
11.It being a suit for declaration based on the unregistered Will said to have been executed by Gudimetla Subbireddy dated 04.10.2018, seeking a declaration that the said Will is valid, and also seeking a declaration that the Will executed by Gudimetla Gangaratnam dated 12.11.2018 is void, and further to declare the right and title of the plaintiffs by virtue of the
Will executed by Gudimetla Subbireddy, generally the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his/her title, either by adducing oral or documentary evidence. Even if there is any weakness on the part of the defendants, the same does not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff for granting the relief sought. It is a settled proposition of law that the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff. The decision should rest on the rule relating to burden of proof under law and also on the admitted or proved circumstances of the case. The strict meaning of the term onus probandi is that if no evidence is adduced by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him, and only thereafter does the other party have the onus of rebuttal. The first principle of the Evidence Act is that the party who is required to prove an allegation must do so. The Court cannot imagine or presume evidence in the absence of proof. The plaintiff 8 must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot take advantage of any weakness, real or apparent, in the case of the defendant. A defect in the evidence of the party on whom the onus of proof lies cannot be cured by criticism of the evidence adduced by the other party. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly defines the burden of proof, which is extracted hereunder for better understanding and to ascertain on whom the burden lies. No doubt, Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act shall apply.
Discussing the initial burden, the Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act deals the burden upon whom to prove the case asserted by the person. As per the Section the burden always on plaintiffs who come to Court with assertion of facts by placing material evidence, then only their burden discharged on the other side against whom the said person claiming.
11.Not only the clear section, but also, the legal decisions supported to the section 101 Indian Evidence Act. In this context, the Court relied on citations reported in 2024(1) ALT
805 (AP), Arugunta Sree Praveen Rep. by his father and
GPA agent Dr. Arugunta Sreenivasulu Reddy and others
Vs. Pothireddy Indiramma and other.
Quotable point: Suit for declaration of title - In a Suit for declaration of title, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiffs to stand on their own legs to establish the identity of the property.
2022 (2) ALT 469 (AP), Paturu Sundaraiah Vs. Suri
Ranganayakamma and another.
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, Section 34 - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 101 Declaration suit - Burden of proof - “In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, burden always lies on the 1st plaintiff to make out and establish clear case for grant of relief - In a suit for declaration of title and possession, the 1st plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of his/her own title and that could be done only by adducing proper and cogent evidence – Courts below on a proper appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that plaintiffs proved their title to the property and nothing contra was elicited during the cross examination of P.W.1 - The defendant has not offered any explanation as to why he could not get his name mutated immediately after execution of Ex.B1 in the year, 1995 and 9 could get his name mutated in the adangals only after the demise of Ranga Rao in the year, 2002 basing on agreement of sale - Courts below pointed out that Ex.B5 - adangal issued by Deputy Tahsildar does not contain date.”
Quotable points:
(1) Declaration suit - In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, burden always lies on the 1st 1st plaintiff to make out and establish clear case for grant of relief.
(2) Declaration of title and possession - In a suit for declaration of title and possession, the 1st 1st plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of his/her own title and that could be done only by adducing proper and cogent evidence.
Suram China Veera Reddy and others Vs. Vasupalli
Sreenivasulu Redy and others - 2025 (1) ALT 227 ( S.B. ).
12. Though, no specific issue was framed with regard to the legality of the two Wills dated 04.10.2018 and 12.11.2018, one executed by Gudimetla
Subbireddy and the other by Gudimetla Gangaratnam, when the plaintiffs themselves relied on the said Will, and likewise the defendants also relied on another Will executed by Gudimetla Gangaratnam, the burden of proving both the Wills lies on the persons who rely upon the respective
Wills.
13.Herein, in this case, the plaintiffs 1 to 7 are the brothers and sons of the deceased brother of Gudimetla Subbireddy, and the same is not denied by the defendants. Likewise, defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers of
Gudimetla Gangaratnam, who is the wife of Gudimetla Subbireddy, and the same is not denied by the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the said Gudimetla
Subbireddy and Gangaratnam had no issues during their lifetime. It is also not in dispute the said Gudimetla Subbireddy got Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the plaint schedule properties in the partition with the plaintiffs and deceased brothers way back in the year 1977, and since then, the said Gudimetla 10
Subbireddy and other shareholders have been enjoying their respective shares with separate mutations in the revenue records.
14.According to the plaint pleadings, the said Gudimetla Subbireddy purchased the house site of Item No. 8 with the income derived from the ancestral properties, i.e., Item Nos. 1 to 7, in the name of his wife as a benami transaction. Though, the sale deed stands in the name of
Gangaratnam, however, the original purchaser is Gudimetla Subbireddy, and Item No. 8 is also covered under the Will executed by Gudimetla
Subbireddy. The plaintiffs rely on the unregistered Will dated 04.10.2018 said to have been executed by Gudimetla Subbireddy. The always law states an unregistered Will is a weak piece of evidence, and the same has to be proved by the person who relies upon it, by removing all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said Will.
15.This court relied on the citation reported in 2012 (5) ALT 43 in a
case between Sri Gajanan Stores rep. by its managing Partner, Sri
Sudhakar Phadki and others with regard to the surrounding suspicious factors concerning the execution of a Will, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:
“EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 68 Proof of Will - Legal principles - Burden lies on persons who propounded the Will Mode of to prove its due execution proving Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to special requirements of attestation In the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of testator/testatrix as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus Propounder shall show by satisfactory evidence that Will was signed by testator/testatrix, that he/she was in a sound and disposing state of mind and that he/she understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put the signature to the document of his/her own will”.
11
16.With the above discussion, the burden always lies on the shoulders of the plaintiffs. To support the case of the plaintiffs, the 5th plaintiff was examined as PW1, and his chief examination contains the same contents as those stated in the plaint. He also marked Ex.A1, which is the unregistered Will dated 04.10.2018 executed by Gudimetla Subbireddy in favour of the plaintiffs and Gangaratnam. Apart from the oral evidence and
Ex.A1, the plaintiffs also examined PW2, who is one of the attestors, namely Dwarampudi Ahalya, who is the sister of the plaintiffs and
Subbireddy. Another attestor, by name Karri Murali Krishna Reddy, was examined as PW3 (son in law of PW1). With the above citation, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove the execution of Ex.A1, the unregistered Will, by removing all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said Will.
17.The PW1 was cross-examined at length by the defendants’ counsel, and in his cross-examination, the defendants got exhibited Ex.B1, which is the evidence deposed by PW1 herein in O.S. No. 377/2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, wherein he was examined as PW1.
Ex.B1 is a portion of the contradictory evidence of PW1, i.e., “it is true there was no cordial relationship between me and Gudimetla Subbireddy.”
Though Ex.B1 was marked, subsequently the defendants got exhibited
Ex.B1, which is the registered Will dated 12.11.2018 executed by
Gangaratnam in favour of the defendants. Ex.B2 is the registered settlement deed dated 12.12.2018 executed by Gudimetla Gangaratnam in favour of the 2nd defendant. Ex.B3 is the original Panchayat tax receipt.
So, the confronted Ex.B1 is to be re-numbered as Ex.B4 i.e. the contradictory portion of PW1 deposition in OS 377/2018.
18.The cross-examination was conducted by the plaintiffs’ counsel to the DWs with the marking of Exs.B1 to B3 through DW1. Admittedly, prior to filing the present suit, the plaintiffs filed another suit vide O.S. No.
12 327/2018 seeking permanent injunction against Gudimetla Gangaratnam in respect of the same schedule property, but unfortunately, without adjudicating the said suit, during the pendency of the suit, the said
Gudimetla Gangaratnam died, and subsequently the said suit was dismissed.
19.The recitals of Ex.A1 unregistered Will disclose Gudimetla
Subbireddy intended to bequeath all his properties by creating a life interest in favour of his wife, Gudimetla Gangaratnam, and vested remainder to his brothers and the sons of his deceased brothers.
Admittedly, the deceased brother by name Venkata Reddy had four sons and two daughters apart from the 6th plaintiff. In fact, the other legal heirs of the deceased Venkata Reddy were not impleaded in this suit. Item No. 8 is an RCC building constructed by Gudimetla Subbireddy by demolishing a tiled house, which is adjacent to the house of PW1. Though, PW1 denied, he deposed as PW1 in O.S. No. 327/2018, however, when confronted with his own evidence, he did not deny the same, and it was marked initially as
Ex.B1 the same is renumbered as Ex.B4. Thus, the conduct of PW1 also reveals, he deposed falsely on oath. In a suit for declaration, not only must the plaintiffs prove their title, but also the person who approaches the
Court must come with clean hands, i.e., fairness on the part of the plaintiffs and disclosure of all material facts must be placed before the
Court. When PW1 denied, that he deposed as PW1 in O.S. No. 327/2018, that itself shows the conduct and demeanor of the plaintiffs. Surprisingly,
PWs.2 and 3 are the same witnesses who deposed in O.S. No. 327/2018.
20.The counsel for the defendants cross-examined PW1 with regard to the circumstances under which Ex.A1, the unregistered Will, was obtained in their favour, particularly with regard to the health condition of
Subbireddy during his last days. The PW1 tentatively deposed, he did not know whether his brother Subbireddy was suffering with ill health before 13 his death, so also, did not know in which hospital he had taken treatment.
According to the plaintiffs, they themselves looked after the welfare of deceased Subbireddy during his lifetime, as he had no children. If really, the plaintiffs had looked after the welfare of Subbireddy with due care and caution, PW1 might have deposed as to in which hospital the said
Subbireddy had taken treatment. It is not the case of the plaintiffs,
Subbireddy died all of a sudden. Admittedly, the said Subbireddy suffered from some ailments like BP, diabetes, and knee pain, and the same was deposed by PW2, who is the sister of PW1 and Subbireddy. The PW2 deposed in her cross-examination, her brother took Subbireddy to the hospital for treatment, whereas PW1 deposed, they had taken Subbireddy to available doctors at Devarapalli whenever he suffered from ill health, the said evidence is reluctant.
21.The plaint pleadings are silent as to how the plaintiffs had been looking after the welfare of Subbireddy, particularly when the said
Subbireddy executed Ex.A1 Will by bypassing his wife, giving to her, only a life interest and creating vested remainder in favour of the plaintiffs and other legal heirs of deceased brothers. Even, PW1 has no knowledge as to when the said Subbireddy died. On perusal of the record, there is only a six-day gap between the execution of Ex.A1 and the death of Subbireddy.
According to the evidence of PW1, the scribe handed over Ex.A1 unregistered Will dated 04.10.2018 to PW1 on the evening of its execution.
22.The PW2, who is said to be the attestor and sister of Subbireddy, though deposed in her chief examination, she attested the document as
Subbireddy executed Ex.A1 Will in her presence and in the presence of other attestors, and the same was scribed by one Nagaraju. But, in her cross-examination, when questioned posed to her whether she had knowledge about the nature of the document, for that she deposed she had no knowledge about the contents of Ex.A1. However, she stated, she 14 was called at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. by her brother Subbireddy through someone. According to PW2, when she went to the house of Subbireddy, his wife Gangaratnam was present. The PW2 voluntarily stated the scribe was also present. She further deposed her brother asked her to sign on a paper, and except that she did not know anything. Immediately, she signed and went away. PW2 further deposed that her brother Subbireddy had a good number of friends as well as well-wishers in the village.
23.Coming to the other attestor, namely PW3, who is a close relative, his chief examination is on the same lines as that of PW1. His cross- examination reveals, that he is a close relative of the plaintiffs and that he owned landed properties adjacent to the plaintiffs’ land. According to PW3, he went straight to the house of Subbireddy when he was called. Initially,
PW2 came to the house of PW3, and both together went to the house of
Subbireddy, which is contrary to the evidence of PW2. Immediately thereafter, the said Nagireddy, who is the scribe, followed them, which is also contrary to the evidence of PW2, as PW2 deposed by the time she reached the house of Subbireddy, the scribe (Karanam) was already present. The PW3 further deposed, no document was scribed after they went to the house of Subbireddy. If really, the scribe had prepared the document in the presence of the attestors, as alleged, and if PWs.2 and 3 had followed the scribe, it is not explained who actually got the document scribed and how the beneficiaries under Ex.A1 came to be aware of it.
24.On perusal of Ex.A1, the unregistered Will is a typed document.
Neither of the witnesses deposed as to who got Ex.A1 typed, and there is no proper evidence to show the deceased Subbireddy had instructed the scribe to prepare Ex.A1. According to PWs.2 and 3, no document was prepared in their presence. Therefore, the version that the deceased
Subbireddy gave instructions in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 is an suspicious and not believable. If really, Ex.A1 was prepared by the deceased Subbireddy, PW1 admitted the deceased Subbireddy had full 15 knowledge of the extent of Item No. 8, which is 374 square yards.
According to PW1, the same was purchased by Subbireddy in the name of his wife Gangaratnam. However, in Ex.A1, the extent of Item No. 8 is shown as 500 square yards, which indicates that Ex.A1 was prepared by someone who had no actual knowledge about the extent of Item No. 8.
Surprisingly, the plaintiffs are also claiming Item No. 8 as having an extent of 500 square yards, even though they have knowledge the real extent is only 374 square yards. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not come forward with clean hands and have suppressed material facts.
25.The PW3 further deposed, when he went to the house of Subbireddy, he observed the presence of the 5th brother of Subbireddy and their children, and nearly 10 persons were present. From the evidence of PW3, it appears, that the beneficiaries were very much present at the time of the alleged preparation of Ex.A1, the unregistered Will. Thus, PWs.2 and 3 appear to be planted witnesses of the plaintiffs, being close relatives, and
Ex.A1 appears to have been created with their assistance. The said
Nagireddy, who is the scribe, being an independent person, was not examined by them, for reasons best known to the plaintiffs.
26.On the other hand, the defendants pleaded Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the schedule properties originally belonged to Subbireddy, who died intestate, leaving behind his wife Gangaratnam as the sole legal heir. The plaintiffs also got exhibited Ex.A3, the death certificate of Subbireddy. After the death of Subbireddy, his wife Gangaratnam became the absolute owner of
Item Nos. 1 to 7 and has been enjoying the same. The same fact was elicited from the mouth of PW1, who admitted during the lifetime of
Gangaratnam she was enjoying Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the properties. If the plaintiffs fail to prove Ex.A1 Will, then as per Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, the said Gangaratnam, being a Class-I heir of
Subbireddy, succeeded to Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the properties.
16
27.With the above discussion, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 by removing all the suspicious circumstances, and therefore they have failed to prove Ex.A1, the unregistered Will.
Immediately after the death of Subbireddy, the said Gangaratnam became the absolute owner of Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the properties. During her lifetime, she executed a registered Will under Ex.B1, bequeathing Item
Nos. 1 to 7 in favour of her two brothers, who were attending to her cultivation and livelihood. Ex.B1 is a registered Will before the
Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bhimadole. The plaintiffs’ counsel contended originally Item Nos. 1 to 7 fall within the jurisdiction of Ananthapalli Sub-
Registrar’s Office, but the defendants got Ex.B1 registered before the Sub-
Registrar’s Office, Bhimadole. However, there is an explanation with regard to the change of Sub-Registrar’s Office, as the deceased
Subbireddy had got some documents prepared at Bhimadole, and for that reason the same was registered there. A presumption is attached to the registered Will under Ex.B1.
28.As per a recent judgment, presumption is attached to a registered
Will, which is a rebuttable presumption, and the burden lies on the person who disputes the Will. In this case, the burden on the plaintiffs who are denying the Ex.A11 Will, this Court relied on the following citation:
MetpalliLasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others vs. MetapalliMuthaih
(D) by LRs., Dated: 21.07.2025, (MANU/SC/0956/2025; 2025 INSC
879) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“……..A registered 'Will' carries a presumption of proper execution and authenticity, placing the burden of proof on the party contesting its validity. The court observed that “The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof...” 17
29.It is not the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants obtained Ex.B1 registered Will by impersonation. With the above said discussion, the presumption is in favour of the defendants who relied on the registered
Will, and the burden shifts on the plaintiffs to disprove the said Will is not a genuine one. Even otherwise, one of the attestors of Ex.B1, by name
Velagala Srinivas Reddy, was examined as DW2, and he is very emphatic that the said transaction took place between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. before the
Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bhimadole, and that he himself, the defendants,
Gangaratnam, as well as another person belonging to Pentapadu village were present. After reading over the contents of Ex.B1, DW2 signed the document and acknowledged the signature of Gangaratnam. Though DW2 was unable to state the description of the properties covered under Ex.B1, however, he was able to state the house site is also covered under it.
Though, the burden is not on the defendants, they examined DW2 and complied with the requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence
Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.
30.The defendants also examined the scribe of Ex.B1, who prepared and scribed the said document. He is very emphatic in his evidence, the said Gangaratnam had earlier got documents drafted through him, and for that reason she approached him. Thus, the evidence of DWs.2 and 5 appears to be trustworthy and believable. With regard to Item No. 8 of the schedule property, according to the plaintiffs, the same was purchased by
Subbireddy in the name of his wife as a benami transaction. However, PW1 admitted the Item No.8 of the schedule property stands in the name of
Gangaratnam, which was purchased by her through a registered sale deed in her favour, though he deposed the RCC building was constructed by
Subbireddy on the said site. Once, the said Subbireddy partitioned with his siblings, he became separate, and his properties became his separate properties, but not joint family or ancestral properties. According to the 18 plaintiffs, the said Subbireddy had constructed the RCC building with the income derived from the properties of Item Nos. 1 to 7, which are alleged to be joint family properties; the said pleading itself is self-contradictory and falsifies their case.
31.According to the defendants, during the lifetime of Gangaratnam, she executed Ex.B2 settlement deed in favour of her brother, i.e., the 2nd defendant herein, and the same was accepted by him. He also took possession, and his name was mutated in the Panchayat records, and taxes were assessed in his name, which is evidenced by Ex.B3 tax receipt.
When the defendants relied on Ex.B2 settlement deed, which is a compulsorily attestable document, in order to prove the same, it is incumbent upon them to examine at least one of the attestors.
Accordingly, the defendants examined DW3 and DW4, who are the attestor and scribe of Ex.B2 settlement deed.
32.The DW3 is very emphatic, the extent of the site covered under
Ex.B2 is 374 square yards, though he does not know, the contents of Ex.B2 settlement deed. The DW4, the scribe, deposed Ex.B2 settlement deed covers an RCC building with an extent of 374 square yards, and except that property, no other property is involved in Ex.B2, and all the attestors signed in his presence. The said evidence has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs.
33.Even assuming for a moment the defendants failed to prove their case, the plaintiffs ought to have proved their case for declaration on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the defendants.
Unless the plaintiffs are able to prove the Ex.A1 is a genuine unregistered
Will, they are not entitled to a declaration in their favour. In view of the above discussion, Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.
19
34.ISSUE NOs.2 AND 3:
1. Whether the plaintiffs were in settled possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?
Issues Nos. 1 and 2 to be discussed together as inter-linked.
35.The plaintiffs pleaded they are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. In order to prove the same, they did not file any documentary evidence. Further, the cross-examination of PW1 reveals that at present the defendants are in possession of the same and are cultivating it. However, PW1 voluntarily stated, as of now, no one is in possession and there is no cultivation on Item Nos. 1 to 7 of the properties, and that bushes have grown on the said land, which was also deposed by
PW3. Thus, the plaintiffs had knowledge, they were not in possession of the schedule properties, as evident from the cross-examination of PW1.
Since Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have also failed to prove their settled possession of the schedule properties, they are not entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction.
Accordingly, Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered against the plaintiffs.
36.ISSUE No.4
IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-G.V.L.Saraswathi,
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION).
KOVVUR.
20
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
PW1:Gudimetla Lakshmi Narayana Reddy PW2:Dwarampudi Ahalya PW3:Karri Murali Krishna Reddy
FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW1:Satti Srinivasa Reddy DW2:Velagala Srinivas Reddy DW3:Chinni Srinivasa Rao DW4:Varanasi Surya Chandra Rao DW5:Vardineedi Bala Murali Krishna
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.A1Unregistered Will dated 04.10.2018 executed by Gudimetla Subbireddy in favor of the plaintiffs and Smt. Gudimental Gangaratnam. Ex.A2Certified copy of registered Will dated 12.11.2018 executed by Smt. Gudimetla Gangaratnam in favor of the defendants. Ex.A3:Death certificate of Gudimetla Gangaratnam dated 05.10.2019.
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1Registered Will dated 12.11.2018 executed by Gudimetla Gangaratnam in favor of the defendants Ex.B2Original registered settlement deed dated 12.12.2018 executed by Gudimetla Gangaratam in favor of the 2nd defendant Ex.B3Original panchayat tax receipt Ex.B4Contradictory portion of deposition of PW1 in OS 377/2018
Note:
Earlier, the contradictory portion of the deposition of PW1 in O.S.
No. 377/2018 was marked as Ex.B1, and the same was
subsequently renumbered as Ex.B4.
Sd/-G.V.L.Saraswathi,
Prl.Civil Judge(SD) Kovvur.