OS.No.777 of 2001 1 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR
Present: J.HANUMANTHARAO Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar
Thursday, this the 29th day of January, 2026
O.S.No.777 of 2001
BETWEEN:
S.Padma, D/o. Late Yadi Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Torrur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Plaintiff
AND
1.Smt. K.Pochamma, D/o. Late K.Balaiah, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2.K.Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late K.Janga Reddy (Died as per LRs)
3.K.Malla Reddy, S/o. Late K. Janga Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Agriculture,
Sl.No.2 & 3 are R/o.Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District.
4.Smt.Narsamma, W/o. Late K.Janga Reddy, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
5.Balamma, D/o. Late K.Janga Reddy, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
6.Vijay Laxmi, D/o. Late K.Janga Reddy, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
7.Shankaramma, D/o. Late K.Janga Reddy, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
OS.No.777 of 2001 2 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
8.Manemma, D/o. Late K.Balaiah, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
9.Susheela, D/o. Late Anasuya, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
10.Yadamma, D/o. Late Anasuya, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
11.Vijaya, D/o. Late Anasuya, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
12.Damoder, S/o. Late Anasuya, Aged about Major, Occ: Agriculture,
D4 to D12 are R/o.Balapur Village, Saroornagar
Mandal, R.R.District and were added as per orders
in I.A. No.146/2006, dated 17.08.2006.
13.K.Shanthamma, W/o.K.Srinivas Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.5-99, Balapur Village, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District–500005.
14.K.Mahipal Reddy, S/o.K.Srinivas Reddy, Aged 37 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.5-99, Balapur Village, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District–500005.
15.K.Laxmi, D/o. K.Srinivas Reddy, Aged 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.5-99, Balapur Village, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District–500005.
16.K.Madhavi, D/o.K.Srinivas Reddy, Aged 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.5-99, Balapur Village, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District–500005.
D13 to D16 were added as per orders in I.A. No.410/2024,
Dated 03.09.2024.
OS.No.777 of 2001 3 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 18.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.D.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, and Sri.N.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 3 (D2 died) and 13 to 16, defendants
No.4 to 12 having remained exparte. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following—
:: JUDGMENT ::
The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking for a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule lands bearing Sy.No.20 admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas,
Sy.No.24 admeasuring Ac.0-07 guntas, Sy.No.25 admeasuring
Ac.2-24 guntas, and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.1-25 guntas, in total Ac.4-26 guntas, situated at Roshandowla Village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and for division of the said lands by metes and bounds and allotment of the rd share therein, and for costs of the suit. plaintiff’s 1/3
2.The brief averments in the plaint are that:-
(i)The plaintiff submits that she is the granddaughter of the recorded original Protected Tenant Late K.Balaiah and daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy.
OS.No.777 of 2001 4 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
(ii)She has averred that Late K. Balaiah was the recorded
Protected Tenant of the agricultural lands bearing
Sy.No.20 admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas, Sy.No.24 admeasuring Ac.0-07 guntas, Sy.No.25 admeasuring
Ac.2-24 guntas, and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.1-25 guntas, aggregating to Ac.4-26 guntas, situated at
Roshandowla Village, the then Ranga Reddy (East Taluk)
District and now within Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. These lands are collectively referred as the suit schedule lands (hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property”).
(iii)It is further pleaded that upon the death of the said
Protected Tenant, he was survived by his two sons,
K.Janga Reddy and K.Yadi Reddy and one daughter
Smt.Pochamma (defendant No.1). The plaintiff has stated that K.Janga Reddy died leaving behind two sons, namely,
K.Srinivas Reddy and K.Malla Reddy (defendant Nos.2 and 3). The plaintiff’s father late K.Yadi Reddy died leaving behind the plaintiff as his only daughter. On this basis, rd she claims that the heirs of Late K.Balaiah hold 1/3 share each, namely: herself representing Late K.Yadi
OS.No.777 of 2001 5 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Reddy, defendant No.1 representing her own branch, and defendants No.2 and 3 representing the branch of Late
K.Janga Reddy.
(iv)The plaintiff further submits that, defendant No.1, who is eldest member of the family, had assured her that she rd share after the finalisation of would give her 1/3 ownership rights under Section 38-E of the A.P.
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The plaintiff also states that defendant No.1 had agreed to share equally the compensation and enhanced compensation amounts awarded in respect of the suit lands. However, it is alleged that defendant No.1 has failed to honour the said assurances and has neither acknowledged the plaintiff’s share in the suit lands nor paid any amount to her out of the compensation received.
(v)The plaintiff further submits that she subsequently came to know that defendant No.1 had obtained the ownership certificate under Section 38-E in her own name in respect of the suit lands, without informing the plaintiff. She also asserts that an enhanced award was passed by the Senior
OS.No.777 of 2001 6 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Civil Judge, and the same was concealed from her. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants have been withholding the developments relating to the tenancy and acquisition proceedings and are attempting to deprive her, of her legitimate share in both the lands and the compensation. She further alleges that, taking advantage of the ownership certificate, the defendants are making attempts to alienate the suit lands to the third parties.
(vi)The plaintiff submits that, notwithstanding the issuance of the ownership certificate in the name of defendant No.1, the suit lands continue to remain in joint possession of the parties and are being enjoyed jointly. She alleges that defendant No.1, with the support of defendants No.2 and 3, has been acting with an intention to defeat her rights.
She asserts that she approached the defendants on several occasions requesting for partition by metes and bounds and that the defendants initially agreed but thereafter postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. She claims that when she finally demanded partition on 21.08.2001, the defendants refused, compelling her to approach the Court.
OS.No.777 of 2001 7 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
(vii)It is further pleaded that the suit lands remain undivided and continued to be ancestral and joint family properties, and that no partition has taken place till date. The plaintiff rd share therein and asserts that she is entitled to 1/3 seeks partition and separate possession.
(viii)The plaintiff has stated that the cause of action arose in
Roshandowla Village, Saroornagar Mandal, when she demanded partition from time to time and finally on 21.08.2001, when the defendants declined to effect partition. Hence, this suit.
3.The defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement denied all material allegations made in the plaint raised the following contentions that:
(i)The present suit for partition and separate possession is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit against the true, lawful owner and possessor of the suit lands. They further submit that all allegations in the plaint which are not specifically admitted by them in the written statement, are denied.
OS.No.777 of 2001 8 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
(ii)The defendants contend that the suit has been filed on false and baseless allegations without any supporting documentary evidence. They state that the description of the parties in the plaint is merely formal. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of her assertion that she is the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy and granddaughter of Late K.Balaiah, and the genealogical table furnished by the plaintiff is incomplete, as she has not disclosed the full family lineage nor impleaded all the necessary family members.
They submit a detailed genealogy, asserting that Late
Kuntloor Balaiah died leaving behind his sons K.Janga
Reddy, K.Yadi Reddy, his daughters Smt.Manemma, Smt.
Pochamma (defendant No.1), as well as the branch of
Late Balamma, whose daughter Anasuya died leaving behind four children, namely, Susheela, Yadamma, Vijaya and Damoder. The defendants also state that wife of Late
K.Janga Reddy is Smt. Narsamma; and children of Late
K.Janga Reddy are namely Balamma, Vijay Laxmi,
Shankaramma, Malla Reddy (defendant No.3) and
Srinivas Reddy (defendant No.2). Therefore, the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed material facts and family members.
OS.No.777 of 2001 9 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
(iii)The defendants specifically dispute the plaintiff’s claim that she is the daughter of Late K. Yadi Reddy, S/o. late
K. Balaiah. They assert that after the death of Late K.Yadi
Reddy without any issue, his wife, Smt. Laxmamma, left the village, got second marriage with one Vanam Krishna
Reddy, lived with him, and enjoyed properties along with him and that it was Vanam Krishna Reddy who performed the marriage of the plaintiff as she belongs to that family only.
(iv)The defendants further contend that Late Kuntloor Balaiah was the recorded Protected Tenant of the suit lands and that after his death, the ownership certificate under
Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was granted exclusively in the name of defendant No.1, thereby vesting absolute ownership and possession of the suit lands in her name.
They assert that defendant No.1 has been cultivating the suit lands for a long time, particularly after the early demise of her husband, and that the mutation in respect of the said lands has been duly effected in her favour.
(v)The defendants further contend that the plaintiff had
OS.No.777 of 2001 10 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
earlier filed an application under Section 40 of the A.P.
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 before the Mandal Revenue Officer in File
No.B/1348/99, seeking a share in the tenancy rights but, the said application was dismissed on 30.12.1999 after due enquiry. They, therefore, contend that, in view of the ownership certificate issued in favour of defendant No.1, the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the property.
(vi)They further contend that the plaintiff has not explained rd share claimed by her and how she is entitled to the 1/3 that she is entirely out of possession of the suit lands.
They submit that when the plaintiff herself is not in possession and has no concern with the lands, she cannot pay fixed court fee. The suit is filed with insufficient and improper court fee.
(vii)The defendants further contend that the compensation amount for the acquired portion of the suit lands was paid to defendant No.1 on the strength of the ownership certificate and that the plaintiff never raised any objection
before the Land Acquisition Officer or the Civil Court or
even before the Hon’ble High Court. They allege that the
OS.No.777 of 2001 11 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
plaintiff has filed the present suit belatedly only due to the increase in land values.
(viii)The defendants assert that the suit lands are neither joint family properties nor they are in joint possession, but exclusively belong to defendant No.1 as evident from the revenue records. The cause of action shown in the plaint is fictitious and imaginary. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and is barred by limitation. Thus, the defendants No.1 and 2 pray that the suit be dismissed with costs.
4. Defendant No.3 has also filed separate written statement, wherein it is stated that he does not dispute either the relationship between the parties or the plaintiff’s claim in respect of the suit schedule lands. Defendant No.3 admits that the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.20 admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas, Sy.No.24 admeasuring Ac.0-07 guntas, Sy.No.25 admeasuring Ac.2-24 guntas, and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.1-25 guntas, in total admeasuring Ac.4-26 guntas situated at Roshandowla Village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, constitute the suit schedule property. There is no dispute with regard to the plaintiff’s
OS.No.777 of 2001 12 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
status in the family and asserts that the plaintiff is the daughter of his paternal uncle, Late K.Yadi Reddy who died leaving behind only the plaintiff as his legal heir. He further submits that the original Protected Tenant was their grandfather Late Kuntlooru
Balaiah, who died leaving his children K.Janga Reddy, K.Yadi
Reddy, and Smt.Pochamma (defendant No.1), and late Janga
Reddy died leaving behind two sons, namely himself (Defendant
No.3) and Defendant No.2, and Late K.Yadi Reddy died leaving only the plaintiff. After the death of Kuntlooru Balaiah, defendant
No.1, being the eldest member of the family, was shown in the revenue records, and when the Land Ceiling Act came into force, the Land Reforms Tribunal issued ownership certificate under
Section 38-E in her name in Proceedings No.LRE/211/1975.
Taking advantage of the said certificate, defendant No.1 got her name mutated as pattadar and possessor in the revenue records.
He, however, maintains that the suit lands are ancestral in nature and that all branches of the family of Late Kuntlooru Balaiah are entitled to equal shares. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal
before the Joint Collector challenging the issuance of the 38-E
certificate exclusively in favour of defendant No.1, in File
No.F2/5446/2001, and that by order dated 19.06.2004, the Joint
Collector set aside the certificate issued in favour of defendant
OS.No.777 of 2001 13 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
No.1 and held that, all family members were entitled to equal shares, subject to the result of the present suit. The plaintiff had also filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of succession in File No.B/1343/1999, in which he was one of the respondents. He states that he deposed before the Mandal
Revenue Officer admitting that the plaintiff is the daughter of his paternal uncle, Late K.Yadi Reddy. He further states that the said petition was dismissed on the ground that once the higher authority (Additional R.D.O.) had issued the 38-E certificate in favour of defendant No.1, the question of granting succession did not arise. Defendant No.3 supports the plaintiff’s claim and submits that partition should be effected among the parties by rd share to the plaintiff, 1/3rd metes and bounds, allotting 1/3 rd share jointly to share to defendant No.1, and the remaining 1/3 defendants No.2 and 3. Hence D3 prays that the suit may be decreed.
5. It is a matter of record that I.A. No.146 of 2006 in this suit
dated 17.08.2006, filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC, was allowed,
and thereafter this Court ordered issuance of summons to defendants No.4 to 12. However, despite grant of ample
OS.No.777 of 2001 14 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
opportunities to effect service upon the said defendants, they remained absent and made no representation. Consequently, defendants No.4 to 12 were set exparte as per docket, dated 14.03.2008.
6. It is further a matter of record that the matter is posted for arguments for a considerable length of time up to 04.12.2018. On several occasions, both sides reported that they were not ready to advance arguments, and this Court granted more than sufficient time. Ultimately, in view of the persistent non- prosecution, the suit was dismissed for default on 04.12.2018.
7. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed
I.A.No.26 of 2019 in this suit under Order IX Rule 9 R/W.
Section 151 of CPC on 21.12.2018, seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 04.12.2018 and the said petition was allowed by order dated 11.08.2023 and restored the suit, to its original file.
8.Upon consideration of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are framed for trial-
OS.No.777 of 2001 15 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
1. Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of K.Yadi Reddy and Laxmamma? 2.
Whether occupancy certificate issued in the name of
Pochamma?
3.
Whether occupancy certificate issued in the name of
defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule
properties? 4.
Whether the properties are joint family properties?
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
6. rd share in
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3
the suit schedule property and separate possession?
7. To what relief?
9. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the granddaughter of
Late Kuntlooru Balaiah, the original Protected Tenant of the suit schedule agricultural lands, and the daughter of his son, Late
K.Yadi Reddy. Upon the death of K.Balaiah, his three branches, represented by herself (daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy), defendant No.1 (daughter of late K.Balaiah), and defendants No.2 rd and 3 (sons of Late K.Janga Reddy), became entitled to 1/3 share each. The defendant No.1, being the eldest member, assured her, of her rightful share and also of sharing the compensation amounts relating to land acquisition, but failed to do so and defendant No.1 obtained the 38-E ownership certificate in her own name, concealed the enhanced award, withheld
OS.No.777 of 2001 16 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
information about the tenancy and acquisition proceedings, and along with defendants No.2 and 3, attempted to deprive her legitimate share. The suit lands remain joint and undivided, and that on repeated request for partition, the defendants denied, she rd therefore seeks for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share, along with corresponding rights in the compensation for acquired portions of the lands.
10. On the other hand, the defendants No.1 and 2 contend that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff has no locus standi and she is not the daughter of late K.Yadi
Reddy. K.Yadi Reddy died issueless then, his wife Laxmamma remarried one Vanam Krishna Reddy and that the plaintiff was born through that second marriage. The defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit lands by virtue of the 38-E ownership certificate issued exclusively in her name and by subsequent mutation of revenue records. The succession petition filed by plaintiff before the Mandal Revenue Officer in File
No.B/1343/1999 was dismissed. The suit lands are not joint family properties. The plaintiff is out of possession, that the compensation for acquired lands was rightly received by
OS.No.777 of 2001 17 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
defendant No.1, and that the plaintiff filed the suit belatedly due to increase in land values. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, court fee paid is insufficient. Suit is barred by limitation. Hence the defendants seek for dismissal of the suit.
11. Defendant No.3 does not dispute the plaintiff’s lineage or her entitlement. He admits that the suit schedule lands belonged to their grandfather, Late Kuntloor Balaiah, and that after his death, the branches of his sons and daughter continued to enjoy the property. He states that defendant No.1 was shown as pattadar only because she was the eldest member when the 38-E certificate was issued, and he asserts that such certificate did not extinguish the rights of the other heirs. He further states that the plaintiff’s appeal before the Joint Collector, disposed by observing that all heirs were entitled to shares, subject to the outcome of the present suit. He affirms that he deposed before the Mandal
Revenue Officer admitting the plaintiff’s relationship and status.
rd share and Defendant No.3 supports the plaintiff’s claim for 1/3 prays that the property be partitioned by metes and bounds, allotting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiff, defendant No.1, and the other branch represented by defendants No.2 and 3.
OS.No.777 of 2001 18 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
12. During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12. Additionally, two more independent witnesses were examined as PW-2 and PW-3, and no documents were marked. Ex.A1 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 1959–60 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Saroornagar
Mandal on 31.05.2001. It reflects that the land in Sy.No.24 admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas stood in the name of Ahalya Bhai as pattadar, while possession was recorded in the name of Talari
Babaiah. It further shows that in Sy.No.25 admeasuring Ac.2-24 guntas and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.1-23 guntas, the pattadar was Ahalya Bhai and the possessor was Kuntlooru Balaiah. Ex.A2 is the Pahani patrika for the year 1963–64 issued by the
Deputy Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal on 31.05.2001, it shows that the land in Sy.No.24, 25 and 26 admeasuring Ac.0-90 guntas, Ac.9-75 guntas and Ac.5-25 guntas respectively, the pattadar was Ahalya Bhai and the possessor was Kuntloor
Balaiah. Ex.A3 is the Pahani patrika for the year 1974–75 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal on 31.05.2001, it shows that the land in Sy.No.24, 25 and 26 admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.9-75 guntas and Ac.5-25 guntas respectively, the pattadar was Ahalya Bhai and the possessor was
Kuntloor Pochamma. Ex.A4 is the Pahani patrika for the year
OS.No.777 of 2001 19 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
1975–76 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal on 31.05.2001, it shows that the land in Sy.No.24, 25 and 26 admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.9-75 guntas and Ac.5-25 guntas respectively, the pattadar was Ahalya Bhai and the possessor was Kuntloor Pochamma, daughter of late Balaiah.
Ex.A5 is the Adangal Pahani for the year 1996–97 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal on 31.05.2001 showing that the lands in Sy.Nos.24, 25 and 26 admeasuring
Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.5-25 guntas and Ac.5-25 guntas respectively stood in the name of Kuntloor Pochamma as pattadar, and that
the possession was recorded in the names of Kuntloor
Pochamma, Srinivas Reddy and Malla Reddy to the extent
of Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.2-24 guntas and Ac.1-25 guntas
respectively. Ex.A6 is the order copy of file No.F2/5446/01
dated 19.06.2004 issued by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B. Nagar. Ex.A7 is the Market value certificate.
Ex.A8 is the Award dated 10.04.2008 in File No.D/1055/2004-3 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition,
Hyderabad. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of claim petition filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in the said Land Acquisition proceedings. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of the vakalath dated 11.08.2006 filed by N.Ranga Rao, Advocate before the Special
OS.No.777 of 2001 20 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Deputy Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad. Ex.A11 certified copy of copy of Award dated 05.02.1989. Ex.A12 is the certified copy of the Title and Apportionment file No.B/520/31987.
13. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B2 to Ex.B5. Ex.B2 is the
Pahani Patrika for the year 1975–76 issued by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Saroornagar on 17.05.1993 showing that the lands in Sy.No.20, Sy.No.24, Sy.No.25 and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.9-75 guntas and Ac.5-25 guntas respectively stood in the name of Ahalya Bhai as pattadar, and that the possession was recorded in the name of
Kuntluri Pochamma, D/o. Late Balaiah. Ex.B3 is the Pahani
Patrika for the year 1976–77 issued by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Saroornagar on 17.05.1993 showing that the lands in
Sy.No.20, Sy.No.24, Sy.No.25 and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.0- 10 guntas, Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.9-75 guntas and Ac.5-25 guntas respectively stood in the name of Kuntloori Posamma as pattadar through Section 38-E of P.T. Act, and that the possession was also recorded in her name. Ex.B4 is the Adangal/Pahani for the year 1992-93issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
OS.No.777 of 2001 21 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Saroornagar on 17.12.1993 showing that the lands in Sy.No.20,
Sy.No.24, Sy.No.25 and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas,
Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.5-25 guntas and Ac.5-25 guntas respectively stood in the name of Kuntloori Posamma as pattadar, and that the possession was recorded in the names of Kuntloori
Pochamma, K.Srinvias Reddy and K.Malla Reddy respectively.
Ex.B5 is the Pattadar Passbook issued by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of K.
Pochamma, showing that she was holding lands in Sy.No.20,
Sy.No.24, Sy.No.25 and Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.0-16 guntas,
Ac.0-10 guntas, Ac.2-24 guntas and Ac.1-25 guntas respectively, aggregating to Ac.4-35 guntas. It further reflects that the Special
Deputy Collector, L.A. (Industries), Hyderabad, through Award
Proceedings No.D/1055/04 dated 10.04.2008, endorsed that the lands in Sy.No.24 and Sy.No.25 to an extent of Ac.0-07 guntas and Ac.0-29 guntas were acquired and compensation was paid under Cheque Nos.747293, 747294 and 747295 dated 03.07.2008, and upon such acquisition the remaining extents in
Sy.No.24 and Sy.No.25 stood reduced to Ac.0-03 guntas
and Ac.1-35 guntas respectively, thereby showing the total remaining extent as Ac.3-39 guntas. Ex.B6 is the Title Deed issued in favour of K. Pochamma, which reflects the same
OS.No.777 of 2001 22 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
particulars and consequential changes as recorded in Ex.B5. It shows that she was recognized as pattadar in respect of the lands in Sy.No.20, Sy.No.24, Sy.No.25 and Sy.No.26 and that, pursuant to the acquisition proceedings conducted by the Special
Deputy Collector, L.A. (Industries), Hyderabad in Award
Proceedings No.D/1055/04 dated 10.04.2008, the lands in
Sy.No.24 and Sy.No.25 to an extent of Ac.0-07 guntas and Ac.0- 29 guntas respectively were acquired and compensation was paid accordingly. The endorsements in the Title Deed also record the reduction of the remaining extents in Sy.No.24 and Sy.No.25 to
Ac.0-03 guntas and Ac.1-35 guntas respectively, thereby showing the corresponding revised total extent remaining after acquisition. However, Ex.B1 was marked through PW-1 on 17.11.2008 which is the proceedings of the MRO bearing
No.B/1343/99 dated 30.12.1999.
ORALEVIDENCE
14. PW-1 admitted that her husband is Yedi Reddy and that her marriage was performed about 25 years prior with a person from
Torrur Village, where her husband owns about Ac.4-00 of land.
She also admitted that before her marriage she resided at
OS.No.777 of 2001 23 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Karnagudem of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk for about ten years and that her mother’s name is Laxmamma. She stated that her father, Late K.Yadi Reddy died when she was about four years old, and that she lived with her mother for about four years thereafter resided with her grandmother at Karnagudem. She admitted that she is an illiterate and that, she has not filed any documentary proof such as ration card or voter list to show that she is the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy.
a. PW1 admitted that, Kuntloor Balaiah had two sons, namely, her father Yadi Reddy and her paternal uncle
Janga Reddy, and three daughters, namely, Pochamma (D-1), Manemma and Balamma. She also admitted the existence of the branches of Late K.Janga Reddy and
Late Balamma, including the children of Anasuya (D-9 to
D-12). She stated that Defendant No.1 is alive, and that
Manemma, daughter of Balaiah, is alive, whereas
Balamma died leaving behind Anasuya, who also died leaving behind her children.
b. PW-1 further admitted that the suit relates to lands in Sy.Nos.20, 24, 25 and 26, though she could not state the extent in each survey number. She further
OS.No.777 of 2001 24 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
admitted that the patta and revenue records stand in the name of defendant No.1 pursuant to the grant of the 38-
E certificate. She further admitted filing an application
before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar for grant
of succession in File No.1343/99, and she gave evidence therein. She further admitted filing an appeal before the
Joint Collector, who, under Ex.A6, directed her to seek redressal before the Civil Court. She further admitted that under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 Pahanis, the name of
K.Pochamma is recorded as possessor.
c. PW-1 further admitted that her marriage was performed at Yadagirigutta Temple but was unable to produce a marriage certificate or supporting record from the temple. She further admitted that part of the suit lands was acquired for laying a road on behalf of RCI and that she does not know the remaining extent after such acquisition. She further admitted that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in the name of K.Pochamma and that K.Pochamma was granted 38-E certificate. She also admitted that the Government acquired Ac.0-36 guntas in Sy.Nos.24 and 25 under Ex.A8–Award, and that
OS.No.777 of 2001 25 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
she filed this suit for more than four acres of land. She further admitted that she has not filed any documents showing availability of land for partition after such acquisition and that she did not file any claim petition
before the Land Acquisition Officer raising objections to
the award under Ex.A8.
d. PW1 admitted filing additional documents, namely
Ex.A8 (award dated 10.04.2008), Ex.A9 (copy of claim petition filed by D-1 to D-3) and Ex.A10 (copy of vakalat filed before the Land Acquisition Officer). She also admitted filing Ex.A11 (award dated 05.02.1989) and
Ex.A12 (copy of title and apportionment file).
e. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the Mandal
Revenue Officer, under Ex.B1, had concluded that she was not born to Late K.Yadi Reddy. She further denied the suggestion that the Mandal Revenue Officer dismissed her application by finding that Late K.Yadi
Reddy had no children and that her mother married another person and that she was born through such second husband. She further denied the suggestion that she is not the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy and that she
OS.No.777 of 2001 26 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
has no right to claim any share in his properties.
f. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the orders under Ex.A6 were not modified by the Joint Collector regarding the 38-E certificate issued in favour of
Pochamma. She further denied knowledge of whether her name was ever recorded as owner or possessor in any
Pahani. She further denied the suggestion that none of her documents shown her as a legal heir of Late K.Yadi
Reddy. She further denied the suggestion that in the
Yadagirigutta Temple register, her father’s name is shown as Vanam Krishna Reddy.
g. PW1 further denied the suggestion that except
Ac.0-02 guntas, the entire suit land had been acquired and that no land is available for partition. She further denied that the defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and that they rightly received compensation under Ex.A8. She further denied that she did not raise objections before the Land
Acquisition Officer due to having no legal right in the property. She further denied the suggestion that she is not entitled to any claim and that the suit schedule lands
OS.No.777 of 2001 27 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
are not available for partition.
h. PW1 further denied the suggestion that she has no legal right or share to seek partition of the suit schedule property and that she filed the suit only to make false claims after acquisition.
15. PW-2 admitted that he is an illiterate and therefore unable to speak about the survey numbers of the lands involved in the suit. He further admitted that defendant No.1 is holding ownership certificate under Section 38-E. He further admitted that the plaintiff is the wife of Yadi Reddy. PW2 deposed that he is not related to the plaintiff’s husband. He further admitted that he was examined as a witness before the Mandal Revenue Officer in the proceedings covered under Ex.B-1 and that he gave statement and that he attended the plaintiff’s marriage performed at Yadagirigutta and that her father’s name was recorded as
K.Yadi Reddy in connection with the said marriage. He further admitted that some portion of the suit schedule lands had been acquired by the Government for laying a road, and that about
Ac.1-00 of land remains unacquired.
i. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the Mandal
OS.No.777 of 2001 28 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Revenue Officer passed orders under Ex.B-1 holding that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy.
He denied the suggestion that after the death of Late
K.Yadi Reddy, his wife Laxmamma contracted a second marriage, and that the plaintiff was born through such second husband. He further denied the suggestion that the father’s name of the plaintiff was recorded as Vanam
Krishna Reddy in the Yadagirigutta temple records and that he is related to the plaintiff’s husband.
ii. He also denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of defendant No.1, and that defendant No.1 had no issues, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule lands. He further denied the suggestion that the entire suit property belongs exclusively to defendant No.1.
16. PW-3 admitted that he has been residing near a well located about 3km from Salapur Village since his childhood, and that he knows defendant No.1 as well as the plaintiff. He admitted that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition.
Though PW3 stated that he does not know the exact survey
OS.No.777 of 2001 29 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
numbers of the suit lands, he admitted that the land measures about Ac.4½, out of which about Ac.3-00 was acquired for laying the RCI road, and that defendant No.1 received compensation for the acquired portion.
i. PW3 admitted that he is an illiterate and does not know reading or writing. He further admitted that 38-E certificate was issued in favour of defendant No.1 who is issueless and is still alive, and that she has been enjoying the suit lands for the last 30 years after grant of patta in her name. PW3 further admitted that late K.Yadi Reddy, was the younger brother of defendant No.1, and that defendants No.2 and 3 are the sons of her elder brother, late K.Janga Reddy.
ii. PW3 further admitted that the plaintiff’s father died about 20 years back and that Laxmamma was the wife of late Yadireddy. He further admitted that after the death of late K.Yadi Reddy, his wife Laxmamma married another person. PW3 deposed that he does not know the name of that person nor her whereabouts. He further admitted that the plaintiff resided with defendant No.1 for some period thereafter with her maternal uncle at Torrur.
OS.No.777 of 2001 30 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
iii. PW-3 denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was born to Laxmamma through her second husband after the death of Late Yadi Reddy. He further denied knowledge as to whether the plaintiff’s father’s name was recorded as Vanam
Krishna Reddy in the temple records and stated that he does not know any person by that name. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence in favour of the plaintiff without knowing the facts. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has no right in the suit schedule property and that defendant No.1 is the exclusive owner and possessor of the suit lands throughout.
17. DW-1 admitted that her father is Kuntloor Balayya and that she had been given in marriage to one Narayana of Balapur
Village during her childhood. She stated that as the marriage was performed during her minority, she did not join her matrimonial home and that her husband died thereafter. She admitted that late Yadi Reddy was her elder brother and late Janga Reddy was her younger brother, both being the sons of her father, Balaiah.
i. DW1 further admitted that she does not know the extent of the land under her possession or the extent for which passbooks were issued in her name, as she is an
OS.No.777 of 2001 31 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
illiterate. She stated that one Sangameshwar Rao was the original pattadar of the suit property and that she had taken the lands on lease from him, though she cannot state the time or circumstances under which the land was taken on lease.
ii. DW-1 further admitted that RCI had acquired almost the entire extent of the suit lands on different occasions, and that except about two guntas, which she mentioned in her chief examination is remaining and no other extent is available. She stated that even the remaining extent is less than two guntas and slightly more than one-and-a-half gunta. She further admitted that she does not know the precise extents mentioned in the passbooks, title deeds, or other exhibits filed by the parties, as she is an illiterate.
iii. DW1 further admitted that she has not stated the details of the compensation received from RCI in her chief- examination, but she received the entire compensation amount for the lands acquired. She further admitted that the
Land Acquisition Officer deposited an amount of
Rs.11,97,000/- in the Civil Court under Section 30 of the
OS.No.777 of 2001 32 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Land Acquisition Act in relation to the claim petitions filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, and that Ex.B3 is the notice of award dated 16-11-2006.
iv. DW1 further admitted that defendant No.3 is the son of her younger brother, late Janga Reddy. She also admitted that she does not know whether the 38-E certificate was cancelled by the Joint Collector and whether any order was passed directing that all legal heirs were entitled to share in the property.
v. DW1 denied the suggestion that she is deliberately deposing false. She denied knowledge as to whether defendants 2 and 3 received compensation amounts through cheques referred to in Exs.B4 and B5 on 03-07-2008. She further denied the suggestion that she failed to inform the
Land Acquisition Officer about the pendency of this suit.
vi. DW1 further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is the daughter of late K.Yadi Reddy and that she possesses documents to show the plaintiff’s parentage and that the plaintiff’s father died within one year of marriage.
vii. DW1 further denied the suggestion that the 38-E
OS.No.777 of 2001 33 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
certificate issued in her favour was cancelled by the authorities and that the Joint Collector passed orders recognising the shares of all legal heirs under Ex.A6. She further denied the suggestion that she has no exclusive right over the property and that the property was inherited by all the legal heirs of Balaiah.
viii.DW1 denied knowledge as to whether the names of defendants 2 and 3 were recorded in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors. She further denied the suggestion that the name of one Yadagiri was recorded as pattadar in the Pahani for the year 1970-71. She denied knowing
Pannala Malla Reddy, PW-2 Lakshman, or whether they belonged to her village.
ix. DW1 denied the suggestion that, the plaintiff is the daughter of late K.Yadi Reddy and is entitled to partition, and that she is giving false evidence to defeat the plaintiff’s lawful claim. She further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff used to be invited to their family functions and that she is now pleaded ignorance to avoid partition. DW1 also denied the suggestion that she had sold any plot in the suit survey numbers and that she failed to mention the case
OS.No.777 of 2001 34 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
numbers or forums in her chief examination to prevent the plaintiff from filing objections.
ISSUE No.1
Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Late K.Yadi
Reddy and Laxmamma?
18. The plaintiff claims to be the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy and granddaughter of Late Kuntloor Balaiah, the Protected Tenant of the suit schedule lands. The defendants No.1 and 2 dispute her lineage contending that she was not born through Late K. Yadi
Reddy but through her mother’s alleged second husband after
K.Yadi Reddy’s death.
19. The burden of proof squarely lies upon the plaintiff under
Sections 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act to establish her status or relationship with Late K.Yadi Reddy, as the defendants are denying her legal status that she is the daughter of late K.Yadi
Reddy. Except the oral testimony as PW1 to PW3, plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence to prove her legal status.
20. The plaintiff has not filed her birth certificate or
OS.No.777 of 2001 35 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
school/educational records or marriage records or voter list or ration card/household card. The plaintiff has not filed any contemporaneous public document showing Late K.Yadi Reddy as her father.
21. On the contrary, defendants No.1 and 2 specifically pleaded that Late K.Yadi Reddy died issueless, and that his wife
Lakshmamma contracted a second marriage with One Vanam
Krishna Reddy, through whom the plaintiff was born. The plaintiff failed to rebut this plea by producing legally acceptable evidence.
Though defendant No.3 supported the plaintiff’s claim, such pleadings without cogent evidence has no value, especially when the legal status of plaintiff is specifically denied by the defendants
No.1 and 2. The plaintiff failed to prove her legal status that she is the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy.
22. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence, this court is not inclined to accept the plaintiff’s legal status, that she is the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy. Thus, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant No.1.
OS.No.777 of 2001 36 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
ISSUE Nos.2 & 3 are one and the same. Hence, both are
discussed together:-
Whether occupancy certificate issued in the name of
Pochamma and whether occupancy certificate issued in the
name of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule
properties?
23. It is admitted fact that the ownership certificate under
Section 38-E of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Land Act, 1950 was issued exclusively in favour of defendant No.1 and that subsequent mutations were carried out in her name.
24. The plaintiff had earlier filed proceedings before the Mandal
Revenue Officer under Section 40, which was dismissed during enquiry. The plaintiff did not successfully establish her entitlement under the Tenancy Act.
25. Once a 38-E certificate is issued, it confers a statutory ownership and vests absolute rights in favour of the certificate holder, unless set aside in a manner known to law.
26. The plaintiff failed to challenge the certificate effectively within the statutory framework or limitation period. Mere
OS.No.777 of 2001 37 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
allegation of fraud or concealment, without proof, does not invalidate a statutory certificate.
27. Further as noticed in issue No.1, the plaintiff has failed to prove her legal status that she is the daughter of Late K.Yadi
Reddy and his wife Lakshmamma. Therefore, the evidence on record establishes that the defendant No.1 is owner and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands pursuant to the ownership certificate and subsequent mutations in her name in the revenue records.
28. Therefore, the ownership certificate issued in favour of defendant No.1 remains valid, binding and operative. Thus, the issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly in favour of defendant
No.1 and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.4:-
Whether the properties are joint family properties?
29. The plaintiff contends that the suit lands are ancestral and join family properties. However, no evidence of joint possession or joint enjoyment was able to show by the plaintiff.
OS.No.777 of 2001 38 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
30. The revenue records under Ex.A1 to A5 consistently show that defendant No.1 as pattedar and possessor, and the plaintiff failed to prove that she was ever in joint possession. As already noticed above, the plaintiff failed to prove her legal status.
31. Once statutory ownership is conferred under Section 38-E and mutation follows, the character of joint family property ceases unless property rights are proved.
32. The plaintiff neither cultivated the land nor paid land revenue nor exercised any acts of ownership.
33. Therefore, the suit schedule lands cannot be treated as joint family properties as on the date of filing of the suit. Thus, Issue
No.4 is answered accordingly in favour of defendant No.1 and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5:-
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
34. Defendants specifically pleaded that other legal heirs of Late
OS.No.777 of 2001 39 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Kuntloor Balaiah has not shown in the suit, therefore, the suit is bad in non-joinder of necessary parties.
35. As per the pedigree shown by this plaintiff in the original plaint, the plaintiff has only shown Janga Reddy, Yadi Reddy and
Pochamma are the only children of Late Balaiah and further she claimed 1/3rd share out of suit schedule lands. As noticed above, the plaintiff failed to show her legal heir ship that she is the daughter of Late K.Yadi Reddy. Hence, she is not entitled to claim partition and separate possession of suit schedule property.
36. In a suit for partition, all the co-sharers are necessary parties. Non impleadment of even one co-sharer affects the maintainability of the suit. It is elucidate from PW1 during her cross examination that Late Balaiah has daughters by names
Manemma and Balamma and the same was admitted by PW1 during the cross examination.
37. At first instance, the plaintiff has not shown them as parties subsequently brought them on record, by filing appropriate application. By filing such impleadment application, the plaintiff
OS.No.777 of 2001 40 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
also sought for amendment of their alleged shares, but she did not do so, for the reasons best known to her.
38. As the plaintiff brought Manemma and Lrs of Balamma, pending suit, the suit for partition is maintainable. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.6:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule
property and separate possession?
39. In view of finding on issue No.1 to 4, the plaintiff has failed to prove her legal status, establish that the suit schedule property are joint family properties and disprove the statutory ownership of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant No.1.
ISSUE NO.7:-
To what relief?
40. In view of findings recorded in issue No.1 to 4 and 6, the
OS.No.777 of 2001 41 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property prayed for and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
41. In the result, the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the suit, there is no order as to costs.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29 th day of January, 2026.
SD/-----
FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
OS.No.777 of 2001 42 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff
PW-1: Smt S.Padma PW-2: Pannala Malla Reddy PW-3: Peddainti Laxmaiah
For Defendants
DW-1: Smt K.Pochamma
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff
Ex.A1: Pahani for 1959–60 showing Ahalya Bhai as pattadar; Sy.No.25 and 26 in possession of Kuntloor Balaiah.
Ex.A2: Pahani for 1963–64 showing Ahalya Bhai as pattadar and Kuntloor Balaiah as possessor of Sy.Nos.24, 25 and 26.
Ex.A3: Pahani for 1974–75 showing Ahalya Bhai as pattadar and Kuntloori Posamma as possessor of Sy.Nos.24, 25 and 26.
Ex.A4: Pahani for 1975–76 showing Ahalya Bhai as pattadar and Kuntloori Posamma, daughter of late Balaiah, as possessor.
Ex.A5: Pahani for 1996–97 showing Kuntloori Pochamma as pattadar and possession recorded in the names of Kuntloori Pochamma, Srinivas Reddy and Malla Reddy.
Ex.A6: Order dated 19.06.2004 in Appeal No.F2/5446/2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
Ex.A7: Market Value Certificate.
Ex.A8: Award dated 10.04.2008 in File No.D/1055/2004-3 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition.
OS.No.777 of 2001 43 FAC I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,
L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.
Ex.A9: Certified copy of claim petition filed by defendants No.1 to 3 in the land acquisition proceedings.
Ex.A10: Certified copy of Vakalath dated 11.08.2006 filed
before the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Land Acquisition.
Ex.A11: Certified copy of Award dated 05.12.1989.
Ex.A12: Certified copy of Title and Apportionment file No.B/520/3/1987.
For Defendants
Ex.B1: Proceedings of MRO in File No.B/1343/99 dated 30.12.1999 (marked through PW-1).
Ex.B2: Pahani for 1975–76 showing Ahalya Bhai as pattadar and Kuntluri Pochamma as possessor.
Ex.B3: Pahani for 1976–77 showing Kuntloori Posamma as pattadar under Section 38-E and also as possessor.
Ex.B4: Adangal/Pahani for 1992–93 showing Kuntloori Posamma as pattadar and possession recorded in the names of K.Pochamma, K. Srinivas Reddy and K.Malla Reddy.
Ex.B5: Pattadar Passbook of K. Pochamma showing extents in Sy.Nos.20, 24 ,25 and 26, with endorsements of partial land acquisition in Sy.Nos.24 and 25 and reduced remaining extents.
Ex.B6: Title Deed of K.Pochamma containing the same acquisition endorsements as Ex.B5 and showing revised remaining extents.
SD/-----
FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.