APSR000001932025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM
Present: Junaid Ahmed Moulana,
Principal District Judge, Srikakulam
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 8th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
O.S. No.10 OF 2025
Between:
Ankaraboyina Padma, W/o late Parthasaradhi, Aged 68 years, Household duties, R/o Door No.7-6-42, Yanugumahal Street, Srikakulam town & District, Aadhar No.941559315270, Mobile No.8125658271, Email Id: No email id.
….. Plaintiff.
And:
1. Ankaraboyina Chandraprabha, W/o Vadda Babu Rao, Aged 56 years, Household duties, R/o Door. No. 1-32-9/2A, Goginenivari Street, Maruthi Nagar, Line No.5 Matchivaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
2. Korada Ram Prasad, W/o Korada Appa Rao, Aged 59 years, R/o Bhavani Nagar, Tekkali Village & Mandal, Srikakulam District.
3. Velamala Mathsya Prasad, S/o late Jagannadham, aged about 49 years, Business and cultivation, Sai Nagar Colony, Plot No. 52, Balaga Rural, Srikakulam Town and District.
4. Velamala Jagadeeswara Rao, S/o late Jagannadham, aged about 49 years, Business and cultivation, Sai Nagar Colony, Plot No.52, Balaga rural, Srikakulam Town and District. …. Defendants.
This suit coming on 02.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. D. Vijayalakshmi, learned Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri P. Ramarao, learned Advocate for defendants No.2 to 4; and the 2OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
defendant No.1 called absent, set exparte and remained exparte, and having heard both sides, and stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property, from the defendants.
02. The case of plaintiffs in brief is, that one late Ankaraboyina
Pardhasaradhi is husband of plaintiff, and he purchased, suit property, under sale deed, dated 12.02.1992 from Korada Lakshmayya and his sons, and Kalaga Musalayya and his family members, and since then, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property, without any interruption. Subsequent to purchase of suit property, late Ankaraboyina
Pardhasaradhi, gave Ac.0-04 cents of land, to police department,
Srikakulam, by way of gift, to construct, rural police station out of Ac.0-38 cents of property, purchased under the above sale deed, and the remaining Ac.0-34 cents of the property, is the suit property, and it was in his possession and enjoyment, till his death.
(i) During the life time of late Ankaraboyina Pardhasaradhi, he executed a Will, in favour of the plaintiff, on 15.08.2001, bequeathing the suit property in her favour. Subsequently, late Ankaraboyina
Pardhasaradhi, died on 15.02.2002. According to the Will executed by 3OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
late Ankaraboyina Pardhasaradhi, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit property, and no one have right, and title over the same.
(ii) The defendants are strangers to the plaintiff, and are no way, concerned with the suit property, and they have, no right and title over the suit property. 1st defendant is not the daughter of late Ankaraboyina
Pardhasaradhi, originally, late Ankaraboyina Pardhasaradhi is having two daughters, namely Chandipriya and Supriya, and plaintiff has got, a son by name Sai Dileep, through late Ankaraboyina Pardhasaradhi, and he died on 30.05.1999, due to ill-health. The plaintiff’s elder daughter by name Chandipriya, died on 06.03.2000. The younger daughter of the plaintiff by name Supriya was married long back, and she is living separately with her husband, and plaintiff lived at Srikakulam, along with her husband, till his death.
(iii) In May, 2024 plaintiff came to know from third parties, residing in and around Paddapadu, some strange people have trespassed into the suit property, and making developments, in the suit property. After receipt of above information, plaintiff verified the records, relating to suit property.
(iv) In June, 2024, plaintiff came to know, 1st defendant executed GPA- cum-possessory sale agreement, dated 11.10.2012 in favour of 2nd defendant, to an extent of Ac.0-24 cents, out of suit property. Taking 4OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
advantage of the same, 2nd defendant occupied entire suit property, without having any right, and title, over the same.
(v) According to the Will, dated 15.08.2001, executed by late
Ankaraboyina Pardhasaradhi, plaintiff is the only absolute owner of suit property, with absolute rights. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 did not acquire any right over the suit schedule property, and the 1st defendant has no right to sell the suit property, in favour of 2nd defendant. Hence, the GPA-cum-possessory agreement of sale, dated 11.10.2012, executed by 1st defendant, in favour of 2nd defendant, is void document, and not binding on the plaintiff.
(vi) The plaintiff is helpless woman, not having any support, taking advantage of the same, 2nd defendant, under the guise of GPA-cum- possessory sale agreement, dated 11.10.2012, occupied the suit property, without having any valid right and title. After coming to know about the same, plaintiff approached defendants, and demanded to vacate the suit schedule property immediately, but they threatened the plaintiff to see her end. Hence, the plaintiff got issued, notice, dated 26.08.2024 to the defendants, and the 1st defendant has wantonly refused to receive the legal notice, and 2nd defendant received the notice, and gave false reply, stating, he sold suit property to third parties, and now it is in the hands of third parties. Prior to receiving reply notice, from 2nd 5OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
defendant, the defendants no.3 and 4 filed caveat petition against the plaintiff, stating they purchased suit property, from their vendor, but they did not disclose the names of their vendors, and date of sale deed. The plaintiff received copy of caveat petition, and after receiving the same, she got issued reply notice, dated 04.10.2024, to the counsel for defendants no.3 and 4. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file, suit to declare her, the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and to direct the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property, failing, they should be evicted from suit property, by following due process of law, and deliver possession of suit property.
03. Summons to defendant No.1, were carried out, by way of paper publication, and inspite of the same, defendant no.1 failed to appear in the suit, and remained exparte.
(i) Defendants No.2 to 4, resisted the suit by filing written statement of
Defendant No.3, and the same was adopted by defendants No.2 and 4 by filing memo, wherein they refuted all the material allegations made in the plaint and interalia, in common submitted, the defendants understand, the plaintiff is claiming right over the property, through deceased
Ankaraboyina Pardhasaradhi, styling herself as his wife, but on verification of the documents filed along with the plaint, no document has been filed by the plaintiff to establish, she is legally wedded wife of late 6OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Ankaraboyina Pardhasaradhi. As per the recitals of the un-registered
Will, dated 15.08.2001, in page 1 para 3, there is a recital that
Pardhasaradhi has married one Padmalakshmi, and through her, he was blessed with two daughters Chandipriya and Supriya, and Padmalakshmi died on 18.09.1982, and in the next para, it is recited, on 09.11.1983, he married one Padma, and the defendants are not admitting, plaintiff is 2nd wife of Pardhasaradhi, and to prove the marriage in between plaintiff and
Pardhasaradhi, no document has been filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff has to establish her legal status between herself and Pardhasaradhi. As per the
Will referred above, deceased Pardhasaradhi was blessed two daughters, through his 1st wife, and under Hindu Succession Act, after demise of
Pardhasaradhi, his assets has to be devolved to his daughter, born through his 1st wife, and out of the two daughters of Pardhasaradhi, elder daughter has died, and his younger daughter is alive, and the whereabouts of the 2nd daughter of Pardhasaradhi, are not mentioned in the plaint. The defendants seriously deny, the unregistered Will dated 15.08.2001, and the signature of the executant and genuineness of above unregistered Will. The defendants are serving notice through their counsel to furnish the residential particulars of the attestors and scribe of above Will.
7OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
(ii) As per the recitals of the Will, dated 15.08.2001, the property covered by the Will, is the self-acquired property of Pardhasaradhi, and there are no encumbrances, and after his demise, the suit property has to be devolved on Padmalakshmi, with absolute rights. To state the above
Will is fabricated one, during the life time of Pardhasaradhi, he mortgaged the suit property in favour of M/s. The Kalinga Hire Purchase Finance
Company on 14.10.1993 under registered mortgage deed, bearing document no.3095/1993, and subsequently, the above mortgage deed was cancelled on 23.10.2012 in favour of Pardhasaradh’s daughter / 1st defendant herein. Before fabricating the Will dated 15.08.2001, plaintiff and her followers, failed to verify the registered transaction taken place in relation to suit property, and prepared the Will, as if, there are no encumbrances on the suit property.
(iii) The plaintiff has raised claim in suit property, 23 years after death of Pardhasaradhi, claiming herself, as the wife of Pardhasaradhi, under registered Will dated 15.08.2001, and, plaintiff is the wife of
Pardhasaradhi, she will not keep quiet for all these 23 years, to raise her claim on suit property.
(iv) In fact, on ground, no such, suit property is in existence, and before filing of the suit, the plaintiff is having knowledge, about the sale transaction taken place, way back in the year 2012 through her agent 8OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Chatterjee, Court employee, and after lapse of 12 years, by fabricating unregistered Will, and by suppressing all the facts, has brought into existence of above Will with the assistance of Chatterjee, to test her luck.
The said Chatterjee is the person behind the plaintiff, and due to increase in the market value of the properties, near the suit property, the plaintiff has made attempt through this suit, to extract money from the defendant, without any right or title.
(v) The 1st defendant, who is daughter of late Pardhasaradhi, on 11.10.2012, has alienated an extent of Ac.0-24 cents, towards eastern side of suit property, with metes and bounds, in favour of 2nd defendant vide document No.6962/2012, for valid sale consideration of
Rs.10,46,000/-, and delivered possession of the said property to the 2nd defendant, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
(vi) In pursuance of the above, registered GPA-cum-sale deed, dated 11.10.2012, the GPA holder has executed a registered sale deed, dated 30.10.2012 in favour of defendants 3 and 4, for a extent of Ac.0-18 cents, out of Ac.0-24 cents, for a valid sale consideration of Rs.7,85,000/-, and on the date of purchase, the above Ac.0-18 cents of land was delivered to defendants 3 and 4, and they are in possession and enjoyment of the 9OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
same, by constructing compound wall around Ac.0-18 cents of land, and have invested Rs.15,00,000/- way back in the year 2012.
(vii) On receipt of notice, the defendants no.3 and 4, ascertained on ground, and find out, the actual extent on ground available is Ac.0-18 cents, and not Ac.0-34 cents, as alleged by the plaintiff. After further enquiry, defendants came to know, remaining Ac.0-16 cents, out of Ac.0- 34 cents, might have merged in police station building premises. As such, the assertion of the plaintiff, about existence of Ac.0-34 cents of land in suit property is not correct. The defendants 3 and 4 became absolute owners of Ac.0-18 cents of land in suit property under registered sale deed dated 30.10.2012, and mortgaged the same with Indus Ind
Bank, Rajahmundry branch, and obtained agricultural OD of
Rs.50,00,000/-, Agriculture term loan of Rs.41,07,000/- on 24.03.2021 by plaintiff, with original sale deed, dated 30.10.2012 . The defendants 3 and 4 are having right, title and possession of Ac.0-18 cents of land, purchased under registered sale deed, dated 30.10.2012, for valuable consideration, in a good faith, and have mortgaged the same with
Indusind Bank, Rajahmundry branch, and perfected their right, title and possession, as well as under law of adverse possession, against plaintiff.
There is no cause of action to institute the suit. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
10OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
04. Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the unregistered Will dated 15-8-2001 is true, valid and executed by late Ankaraboyina Parthasaradhi in favour of plaintiff, bequeathing the suit property in her favour?
2. Whether plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit property?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property from the defendants?
4. To what relief?
The following additional issues are also settled, as per the orders, dt.17.11.2025 in IA.1671/2025:-
1. Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the court-fee paid by plaintiff is correct?
05. Plaintiff in support of her case, examined herself as PW.1 and filed
Ex.A1 to A28 and examined PW.2 to 4. In the evidence of DW.1, filed
Ex.A29. The defendants in support of their defence, examined 4th defendant as DW.1 and in his evidence, filed Exs.B.1 to B.4 and examined DW.2.
06. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for plaintiff, and learned counsel for defendants filed, memorandum of written arguments along with citations. Perused and considered the same.
11OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
07. The learned counsel for plaintiff placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. Savitri Bai and another Vs. Savitri Bai, reported in 2024 Law suit (SC) 166.
2. M. Yogendra Vs. Leelamma N, reported in 2009 Law Suits (SC) 1182.
3. Smt. Shriramabai, W/o Pundalik, Bhave & others Vs. The Captain, Record Officer, O.I.C. Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar State and another, reportable in Civil Appeal no.5262 of 2023, arising out of petition for Special leave to Appeal (Civil) No.29319 of 2019.
4. Shanti Devi (Since deceased) through LRs. Goran Vs Jagan Devi & others, reportable in Civil Appeal no.11795 of 2025 (@ SLP(c ) No.24821 of 2018)
5. Inkollu Sasikala @ Shayamala And another Vs. Inkollu Venkata Ratnamma and others, on 03.08.2004, equivalent citations: 2004(6) ALT 18.
6. Veluru Prabhavathi Vs. Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy and others, in
AS.220 of 2024, decided on 09.07.2024 before the Hon’ble High
Court of AP at Amaravati- Manu / AP / 1229 / 2024.
08. The learned counsel for defendants placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. Ganta Papa Vs. Padru Prakasam and others, reported in 2024 (5) ALT 210 (AP).
2. T. Mohanrangam and another Vs. T. Lakshminarayana and thers, reported in 2025 (1) ALT 76 (A.P).
3. Smt. Sugunamma Vs. B. Narasimhappa and another, reported in 2025(4) ALT 793 (AP) 12OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
4. Akkina Rama Chandra Rao Vs. Ravipati baby Sarojini and others, reported in 2025(1) ALT 572 (AP).
5. Suram China Veera Reddy and others Vs. Vasupalli Sreenivasulu Reddy and others, reported in 2025(1) ALT 227 (AP).
6. Angara mosque, rep. by its Mutavalli, Md. Madina Khan, Angara Ramachandrapuram Vs. Sreenivasa Rice Mill, West Ghandrika, rep. by its Partners and others, reported in 2025 (3) ALT 245 (AP).
7. Vuppu Veera Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Borra Padmaja Rao, reported in 2024(20 ALT 2017 (AP).
8. Manchala Mouleswara Reddy and another Vs. Dabbali Samanna and others, reported in 2025(2) ALT 97 (AP).
9. Kasi Lakshmi Janaki (Smt.) and another Vs. Rangu Papachary, reported in 2016(6) ALT 778.
10. P. Appa Rao @ Rodda and others Vs. S. Jagga Rao and others, reported in 2024(6) ALT 572 (AP).
11. Yelala Swapna Vs. Hindustan petroleum corporation Ltd., Mumbai and another, reported in 2010(4) ALT 629.
12. Durgampudi Padmamma Vs. Kallutla Kottamma (Died) and another, reported in 2016 (5) AlT 739.
09. ISSUE No.1:
Whether the unregistered Will dated 15-8-2001 is true, valid and executed by late Ankaraboyina Parthasaradhi in favour of plaintiff, bequeathing the suit property in her favour?
The facts that are not in dispute in the case are:
I. Deceased A.Parthasaradhi has purchased the suit property under sale deed dated 12-2-1992/ Ex.A1 from its lawful possession, and in fact, under Ex.A1 sale deed, deceased
A.Parthasaradhi has purchased Ac.0-38 cents of landed property, but however, the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming 13OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property in respect of Ac.0-34 cents only.
II. Originally deceased A.Parthasaradhi was married to one
Padmalakshmi, and through her he begot PW2 and one
Chandipriya. But however, according to the defendants no.2 to 4, the defendant no.1 herein is also the daughter of deceased A.Parthasaradhi, and however, whether defendant no.1 is the daughter of deceased A.Parthasaradhi, it will be discussed later at subsequent point of time.
III. The first wife of deceased A.Parthasaradhi by name
Padmalaxmi died on 18-9-1982.
IV. As per Ex.A11 death certificate, deceased A.Parthasaradhi died on 15-2-2002.
V. Defendant no.1, has executed Ex.A3 i.e., Ex.B3 General power of attorney cum sale agreement dated 11-10-2012, in favour of defendant no.2 herein, appointing as his power of attorney agent to deal with Ac.0-24 cents of suit property and to enter into sale transactions on her behalf.
VI. Defendant no.2 in pursuance of GPA under Ex.A3, alienated
Ac.0-18 cents out of the said Ac.0-24 cents, in favour of defendant no.3 and 4 under Ex.B4, as power of attorney agent of defendant no.1.
10. The defendants no. 2 to 4, no doubt have not only disputed the relationship of plaintiff with deceased A.Parthasaradhi and also 14OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
disputed execution of Ex.A2 Will by deceased A.Parthasaradhi in her favour and she acquiring right in the suit property.
11. So far as, the plaintiff, being the wife of deceased
A.Parthasaradhi, no doubt, pleaded in her case, that she is the wife of deceased A.Parthasaradhi, however she did not furnish the date on which her marriage with deceased A.Parthasaradhi was performed. But at any rate, it is borne by record that deceased A.Parthasaradhi, was originally married to one Padmalakshmi and said Padmalakshmi has died, and subsequently deceased A.Parthasaradhi also died on 15-2-2002.
Subsequent to death of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, it seems as per
Ex.A24 certified copy of decree in O.S.111/2003, one Tangudu Kalavathi and two others have filed suit against plaintiff herein and the daughters of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, by name Chandipriya and PW2/ Supriya for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,93,600/-, from the assets of deceased A.
Parthasaradhi, in the hands of plaintiff and his two daughters
Chandipriya and Supriya/ PW2. The suit in O.S.111/2003 for recovery of amount was based on mortgage deed dated 31-10-1995, executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in favour of the above parties mortgaging the
RCCdaba house bearing no.7-6-432. The certified copy of decree in
Ex.A24 discloses, the suit in O.S.111/2003 was decreed and preliminary decree was passed, in favour of plaintiffs therein, against the plaintiff 15OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
hereinand daughters of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, by name Chandipriya and Supriya, directing them to pay the decreetal amount. In the proceedings in O.S.111/2003, the plaintiff herein has been described as wife of late A. Parthasaradhi along with his daughters Chandipriya and
Supriya. Therefore, this factor the plaintiff herein has been sued as wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi in O.S.111/2003 by Tangudu Kalavati and two others to enforce the mortgage executed by deceased A.
Parthasaradhi dated 31-10-1995, indicates unless the plaintiff is the wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, she could not have been sued in the capacity of wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi along with his daughters, in the above suit.
12. Therefore, going by the fact in O.S.111/2003, the plaintiff herein was sued as wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, by Tangudu
Kalavathi and two others to enforce the mortgage dated 31-10-1995, executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi, in her favour. It can be safely concluded, the plaintiff herein is the wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, and in that view of matter, it should be accepted that initially deceased A.
Parthasaradhi had married Padmalakshmi and through her, he begot
Chandipriya and Supriya and the said Padmalakshmi died on 18-9-1982, leaving behind the deceased A. Parthasaradhi and her two daughters by name Chandipriya and Supriya/PW2, and in all probability because of 16OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
death of wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi i.e., Padmalakshmi, he could have married the plaintiff herein, thereby she should be considered as the wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi.
13. That apart, before filing of suit, the defendants 3 and 4 herein have filed caveat petition in COP.10/2025 on the file of Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Srikakulam against the plaintiff herein and the copy of petition
was marked and exhibited on behalf of plaintiff in the evidence of DW1/ defendant no.4 as Ex.A29. The contents of caveat petition in Ex.A29 discloses though the defendants no.3 and 4 have filed above caveat petition against the plaintiff herein. But however, in the particulars of the respondent, the plaintiff herein has been described as wife of deceased
A. Parthasaradhi. This factum, that the defendants no.3 and 4 they themselves have described the plaintiff as wife of deceased A.
Parthasaradhi in COP.10/2025, also indicates the fact, the plaintiff herein is the wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, otherwise the defendants no.3 and 4 could not have described her as wife of deceased A.
Parthasaradhi.
14. That apart, in the cross examination of plaintiff, the defendants no.2 to 4, they themselves have suggested to plaintiff, she is the second wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi and his wife
Padmalakshmi died on 18-9-1982. This suggestion made by defendants 17OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
no.2 to 4 to the plaintiff, that she is the second wife of deceased A.
Parthasaradhi and his first wife Padmalakshmi died on 18-9-1982, also indicates the fact, the plaintiff herein is the wife of deceased A.
Parthasaradhi and in all probability his first wife Padmalakshmi had died in the year 1982 and because of that matter, deceased A. Parthasaradhi, must have subsequently married the plaintiff herein and because of that matter, defendants 2 to 4 in her cross examination suggested to her, and got admission from her, that she is the second wife of deceased A.
Parthasaradhi. Therefore considering all these factors subsisting in the case, it can be safely concluded, the plaintiff herein is the second wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi and, her marriage could have been performed with deceased A. Parthasaradhi, subsequent to the death of his first wife Padmalakshmi.
15. The plaintiff is claiming as absolute owner of suit property in pursuance of Ex.A2 Will dated 15-8-2001, said to have been executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi, bequeathing the suit property. It is needless to state, in a suit for declaration, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And Another Vs. The Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius And Others, in 1955, SCR, page 520, “that in a suit for declaration, plaintiff ought to have succeeded, they must do so, on the strength of their own title.” 18OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
16. Likewise, the Honourable Apex Court in Ajendraprasadji
Narendraprasadji Pandy Versus Swami K. Narayandasji and Others,
reported in 2005 (10) SCC 11, held, in a suit for declaration of title and possession, plaintiffs could succeed only on the strength of their own title, and not on the weakness of the case of defendants and the burden is on plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit property, show they are entitled for declaration of title.
17. In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming right in the suit property basing on Ex.A2 Will said to have been executed by deceased
A. Parthasaradhi. Therefore the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove due execution of Will by deceased A. Parthasaradhi, so as to succeed for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of suit property.
18. According to section 2(h) of Indian Succession Act, 1925, - “Will” means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.”
19. The Will propounded by plaintiff in Ex.A2 is an unregistered
Will and it is said to have been attested by PW3 and one Balivada
Ramesh and scribed by PW4.
19OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
20. The will in Ex.A.2, no doubt, is unregistered Will, and what is provided under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, regarding execution of Will, the same is extracted as hereunder:
63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.—
Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:— a. The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
b. The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a
Will.
c. The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
20OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
21. From the above provision, it is clear, that will is compulsorily attestable document and the execution of Will includes attestation of will in other words, in the absence of attestation of will, the execution of will is not completed and the document cannot be called as Will.
22. The proof of execution of document that requires attestation by Law, in a proceeding of this nature, is provided under Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act, and the same is extracted as under:
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.
If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence :
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.
23. The above provision requires the propounder of Will to read the Will in evidence, shall examine at least one attesting witness of the 21OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Will, to prove its due execution, otherwise the Will cannot be read in evidence.
24. The principles which govern the proving of a will are well settled; by Honourable Apex Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs.
B.N.Thimmajamma & Ors., 1959 (Supl.1) SCR 426; and Rani
Purnima Devi & Anr. vs. V. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev & Anr.,
1962 (3) SCR 195, wherein it was held; “The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court, before the Court accepts the will as genuine. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in 22OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
the will being unnatural improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indication in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the Court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations.”
25. The Honourable Apex Court in Shiv kumar Vs.
Sharanabasappa reported in (2021) 11 SCC 277, has comprehensively discussed, the proof of execution of will and the circumstances that amount to suspicious circumstances and the burden of proof of execution of Will as under:
1. Ordinarily, a Will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of Will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon
2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence.
23OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
3. The unique feature of a Will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last Will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a Will.
4. The case in which the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stands on a different footing. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator.
5. If a person challenging the Will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the execution of the Will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the Will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such eventuality, it is again apart of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.
6. A circumstance is "suspicious" when it is not normal or is' not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person'. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must be' real, germane and valid' and not merely the 'fantasy of the doubting mind.'
7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as "suspicious" would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependants; an active or leading part in making of the Will 24OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
by the beneficiary there under et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances above-noted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the Will. On the other hand, any of the circumstance qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation.
8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the Will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance/s. While applying such test, the Court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the Will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will?
9. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the Court and the party which sets up the Will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.”
26. The plaintiff, no doubt, to prove execution of Ex.A2 Will, not only gave evidence as PW1 as well examined daughter of deceased A.
Parthasaradhi i.e., PW2 and also examined PW3 as one of the attestor to
Ex.A2 and PW4 as scribe of Ex.A2 Will. The plaintiff in her evidence has said, on 15-8-2001, deceased A. Parthasaradhi executed Ex.A2 Will bequeathing suit property in her favour. But however, in her cross examination when she was questioned about the defendants, the place 25OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
where Ex.A2 Will was executed, she answered that she do not know the place where Ex.A2 Will was executed. Likewise, PW2 daughter of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, has also supported the case of plaintiff that her father executed Ex.A2 Will in favour of plaintiff, bequeathing the suit properties. But however, during her cross examination also when she was questioned about the place where Ex.A2 Will was executed by her deceased, father A. Parthasaradhi, her answer was she do not know the place where Ex.A2 Will was executed. Therefore, going by the above statements of plaintiff and PW2 in their evidence, they do not know the place where Ex.A2 Will was executed, and also there is no statement in the evidence of plaintiff and PW2, to the effect that, Ex.A2 Will was executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi, in their presence. It can be safely concluded, the plaintiff and PW2 have not witnessed execution of
Ex.A2 Will by deceased A. Parthasaradhi.
27. As said above, PW3 is examined as attestor to Ex.A2 Will and his evidence, goes to show that PW3, deceased A. Parthasaradhi, one Balivada Ramesh, and PW4 are close friends for the last 30 years, and on 15-8-2001, deceased A. Parthasaradhi executed Ex.A2 Will in favour of plaintiff in the presence of PW3 and Balivada Ramesh and
Ex.A2 Will was scribed by PW4 , at the house of Balivada Ramesh in SBI colony, Srikakulam and also PW3 in his evidence, has said, Ex.A2 Will 26OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
was prepared between 11 AM to 12 noon, at the house of Balivada
Ramesh and deceased A. Parthasaradhi affixed his signature in Ex.A2
Will in the presence of PW3 and Balivada Ramesh and also PW3, when he was questioned by defendants 2 to 4, that before execution of Ex.A2
Will, deceased A. Parthasaradhi has mortgaged the suit property in favour of Kalinga Finance Company, Srikakulam, by borrowing amount.
For that, PW3 pleaded ignorance, but lastly PW3 in his evidence has said, deceased A. Parthasaradhi told him in the house of Balivada
Ramesh, about his intention to execute Ex.A2 Will. The evidence of PW3 goes to show, PW3, deceased A. Parthasaradhi, Balivada Ramesh and the scribe of Ex.A2, PW4 are close friends. But however, the evidence of
PW3, indicates, that he firstly came to know about the intention of deceased A. Parthasaradhi about execution of Ex.A2 Will in the house of
Balivada Ramesh, at SBI colony, Srikakulam, and this goes to show, that deceased A. Parthasaradhi though according to PW3 was his close friend, has not declared his intention to execute Ex.A2 Will, to PW3, prior to 15-8-2001, and the deceased A. Parthasaradhi has disclosed his intention to execute Ex.A2 Will to PW3 for the first time at the house of
Balivada Ramesh in SBI colony, Srikakulam, when Ex.A2 Will was said to have been executed by him.
27OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
28. According to PW3, he and deceased A. Parthasaradhi for the last 30 years, are close friends. If really, PW3 and deceased A.
Parthasaradhi are close friends and their friendship is about 30 years. In such a case, it is not expected of the deceased A. Parthasaradhi, to disclose for the first time, his intention to execute Ex.A2 Will to PW3 on the date of execution of Ex.A2 Will at the house of Balivada Ramesh at
SBI colony, Srikakulam. In all probability, going by the friendship spoken by PW3, in his evidence between him and deceased A. Parthasaradhi, having 30 years friendship, deceased A. Parthasaradhi could have disclosed his intention to execute Ex.A2 Will to PW3 prior to 15-8-2001 i.e., the date of execution of Will, and could have discussed the same with him prior to 15-8-2001, and had not discussed about execution of Will in favour of plaintiff. This factor, deceased A. Parthasaradhi has not expressed his intention to execute Ex.A2 Will to PW3, prior to 15-8-2001, is a suspicious circumstance that needs to be dispelled by the plaintiff.
But in this regard, there is no material in the evidence of PW3, as well as in the case of plaintiff, to show though PW3 and deceased A.
Parthasaradhi are close friends, and having friendship, why deceased A.
Parthasaradhi has not expressed his intention to execute Will in favour of plaintiff to PW3 prior to 15-8-2001, and this is a strong suspicious circumstances that surrounds execution of Ex.A2 Will by deceased A.
Parthasaradhi.
28OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
29. That apart, PW4 is said to be the scribe of Ex.A2 Will, and he too supported, he drafted Ex.A2 Will, and execution of Ex.A2 Will by deceased A. Parthasaradhi at the house of Balivada Ramesh in
Srikakulam. But however, PW4 in his evidence stated, by the date of
Ex.A2 Will, deceased A. Parthasaradhi was owning house in srikakulam.
This statement of PW3 discloses by the date of Ex.A2 Will, deceased A.
Parthasaradhi was owning house in Srikakulam. But however, according to the evidence of PW3 and PW4, deceased A. Parthasaradhi instead of executing Ex.A2 Will, at his house has went all the way to the house of
Balivada Ramesh in SBI colony, Srikakulam. But PW3 and PW4 in their evidence has not explained any reasons for deceased A. Parthasaradhi not to execute Ex.A2 Will at his house and why he choose to execute
Ex.A2 Will at the house of Balivada Ramesh and what are the circumstances, that prompted deceased A. Parthasaradhi to go all the way to the house of Balivada Ramesh instead of his house, to execute
Ex.A2 Will. This factor that deceased A. Parthasaradhi, having own house and when he had intention to execute Ex.A2 Will in favour of plaintiff, there is no necessity for him to go all the way to the house of Balivada
Ramesh to execute the Will, and he could have executed Ex.A2 Will at his house by calling PW3, PW4 and Balivada Ramesh to his house and this factor that deceased A. Parthasaradhi, all the way went to the house of Balivada Ramesh in SBI colony, Srikakulam and there he executed 29OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.A2 Will in the presence of PW3 and PW4 is also a strong suspicious circumstance, that required to be dispelled by the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff and PW3 and PW4 in their evidence have not stated any compelling circumstances, that prompted deceased A. Parthasaradhi to go all the way from his house to execute Ex.A2 Will at the house of
Balivada Ramesh in SBI colony, Srikakulam.
30. Then nextly coming to the evidence of PW4, as stated herein above, no doubt in his evidence, he supported on 15-8-2001, deceased
A. Parthasaradhi executed Ex.A2 Will in favour of plaintiff, and the said
Will in Ex.A2 was scribed by him, and also PW4 in his evidence has said, he and PW3 and deceased A. Parthasaradhi and Balivada Ramesh are close friends and this evidence of PW4 goes to show because of his close friendship with deceased A. Parthasaradhi and PW3 and Balivada
Ramesh, he scribed Ex.A2 Will of deceased A. Parthasaradhi. But however, during his cross examination, when PW4 was questioned about his direct friendship with deceased A. Parthasaradhi, his answer was that deceased A. Parthasaradhi was not his direct friend, and he was friend of his friend and also PW4 in his evidence said, previously he has not scribed any document, and the only document scribed by him in his lifetime is Ex.A2 Will. According to the above statement of PW4, though at first he said in his chief examination, he has close friendship with 30OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
deceased A. Parthasaradhi, PW3 and Balivada Ramesh for the last 30 years. But during his cross examination, PW4 has said, there is no direct friendship with deceased A. Parthasaradhi and deceased A.
Parthasaradhi is friend of his friend, and also he has no experience of scribing documents like Will in Ex.A2 or any other documents. For the first time he scribed Ex.A2 and except Ex.A2, he did not scribe any other document. It is clear from the evidence of PW4, that he has no experience in scribing documents and except Ex.A2 he has not scribed any other document, in such a case, when deceased A. Parthasaradhi has made his intention to execute document like Ex.A2 Will making arrangement for devolution of his property. In such circumstance, deceased A. Parthasaradhi could have took the assistance of experienced document writer, to scribe his so called Will that he intended to execute in favour of the plaintiff and it was not expected of from deceased A. Parthasaradhi to chose a person like PW4, who has no experience in scribing documents to scribe the Will in Ex.A2. This factor that PW4 was not having any experience in scribing documents and has not scribed any other document by the date of execution of Ex.A2 Will, and he was made to scribe Ex.A2 by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in favour of plaintiff, is also a suspicious circumstance to doubt the very testimony of PW4 about his scribing Ex.A2 Will at the instance of deceased A.
31OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Parthasaradhi on his instructions, and execution of Ex.A2 Will in his presence.
31. That apart, PW4 during his cross examination was questioned about preparation and execution of Ex.A2 Will and for that
PW4, in his evidence has said, Ex.A2 Will was scribed and executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi on bond papers, but obviously Ex.A2 Will was prepared on two conquest papers, and the Will in Ex.A2 was not prepared and executed on bond papers. The statement of PW4 that
Ex.A2 Will was executed on bond papers, indicates that, in scribing and executing the Will of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, at the house of Balivada
Ramesh, stamp papers were used and the Will prepared on the said stamp papers, has been executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi. But on the other hand, in this case, the Will that said to have been executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in Ex.A2, was not prepared and executed on stamp papers, but it shown prepared and executed on conquest papers.
Therefore the statement of PW4, he prepared the Will executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi on bond papers, is not inconformity with the papers used in preparation of Ex.A2, and in its execution. Therefore, this disparity in the statement of PW4 about execution of Will by deceased A.
Parthasaradhi on bond papers is quite contrary to the Will in Ex.A2.
Therefore, in that view of matter, this also creates a suspicious 32OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
circumstance about preparation of Ex.A2 Will by PW4 and its execution by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in the presence of PW3 and PW4.
32. The document in Ex.B1 is certified copy of mortgage deed
dated 14-10-1993, executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in favour of
Kalinga Finance Company, Srikakulam, by borrowing Rs.5,000/- and he mortgaged the suit property in their favour. The Will in Ex.A2 is dated 15- 8-2001, so it is obvious from Ex.B1 the mortgage under Ex.B1 is created by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in favour of Kalinga Finance Company,
Srikakulam on 14-10-1993. But by the date of execution of Ex.A2 Will, the mortgage in Ex.B1 was subsisting as per Ex.B2 cancellation deed. The cancellation deed in Ex.B2 was executed on 3-10-2012 by the Managing
Partner of Kalinga Finance Company, Srikakulam, in favour of defendant no.1. Therefore, it is clear, by the date of Will in Ex.A2, the mortgage in
Ex.B1 was in force and subsisting, and subsequent to Ex.A2 Will, the mortgage in Ex.B1 was cancelled by Kalinga Finance Company,
Srikakulam by executing Ex.B2.
33. On a careful reading and scrutiny of the contents of Ex.A2
Will, though it alleged to have been executed by deceased
A.Parthasaradhi in favour of plaintiff, bequeathing the suit property on 15- 8-2001. But however, by the date of Ex.A2 Will the mortgage in Ex.B1 was subsisting, but deceased A.Parthasaradhi having knowledge he 33OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
mortgaged the suit property in favour of Kalinga Finance Company,
Srikakulam under Ex.B1 has not referred in Ex.A2 Will about his mortgaging suit property in favour of Kalinga Finance Company,
Srikakulam, and the entire Will in Ex.A2 is silent about deceased A.
Parthasaradhi, mortgaging the suit property in favour of Kalinga Finance
Company, Srikakulam vide Ex.B1. If really, deceased A. Parthasaradhi had executed Ex.A2 Will in favour of plaintiff, bequeathing the suit property and by the date of Ex.A2 Will, Ex.B1 mortgage was subsisting, in all probability, deceased A. Parthasaradhi must have made a reference in
Ex.A2 Will about subsistence of mortgage over suit property vide Ex.B1 created by him in favour of Kalinga Finance Company, Srikakulam by mortgaging the suit property. This factor of non mentioning mortgage created under Ex.B1 in favour of Kalinga Finance Company, Srikakulam by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in Ex.A2 Will, is also a suspicious circumstances, and creates an element of doubt about Ex.A2 Will being executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in favour of plaintiff.
34. The plaintiff, in the aforesaid discussion, no doubt considered as wife of deceased A. Parthasaradhi and PW2 is his daughter, born through his first wife Padmalakshmi and apart from that deceased A.
Parthasaradhi, also had a daughter by name Chandipriya and she shown to have died on 6-3-2000. Therefore in case deceased A. Parthasaradhi 34OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
dies intestate, in all probability by operation of law, the suit property will devolve on the plaintiff and PW2. But the contents of Ex.A2 Will goes to show, the said Will was executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in favour of plaintiff, so as to avoid future complications and litigations among his family members, and with that view, he said to have executed Ex.A2 Will in favour of plaintiff. When the plaintiff and PW2 are having opportunity to succeed the suit property after the demise of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, in such a case, there is no need for deceased A. Parthasaradhi, to execute Ex.A2 Will in favour of plaintiff alone bequeathing the suit property, and if really the deceased A. Parthasaradhi had any intention to avoid future complications and litigations among plaintiff and PW2, he could have equally bequeathed the suit property in favour of plaintiff and
PW2 and such a course has not been adopted in Ex.A2 Will. Hence in that view of matter also in the element of doubt arises about execution of
Ex.A2 Will by deceased A. Parthasaradhi in favour of plaintiff.
35. All these suspicious circumstances in the case, leads to one and only conclusion the plaintiff though she examined PW3 and PW4 as attestor and scribe of Ex.A2 Will, to show that it was executed by deceased A.Parthasaradhi. But however, she is not able to dispel the above suspicious circumstances, surrounding in execution of Ex.A2 Will by deceased A.Parthasaradhi. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove 35OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.A2 Will was duly executed by deceased A.Parthasaradhi, in her favour. Hence the issue no.1 is answered accordingly, against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit property?
36. As per the discussion made in issue no.1, the plaintiff is not able to prove Ex.A2 Will was executed by deceased A. Parthasaradhi, in her favour bequeathing the suit property. But, it has been considered plaintiff and PW2, are wife and daughter of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, hence in the event of death of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, dying intestate, plaintiff and PW2 will succeed to suit property in equal shares, thereby plaintiff alone, could not be considered as absolute owner of suit property, and she should be considered as co-sharer of suit property along with PW2.
37. Defendants no.2 to 4 in their case contend, the defendant no.1 is also the daughter of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, but as said above in issue no.1, summons carried out to defendant no.1, by plaintiff were not served, thereby summons were carried out to defendant no.1, by way of paper publication, and inspite of the same, defendant no.1 failed to appear in the proceedings, and to demonstrate she is the daughter of deceased A. Parthasaradhi, so as to consider along with 36OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
plaintiff and PW2, she also succeeded to suit property. Defendant no.1, no doubt has executed Ex.B3 GPA-cum-possessory sale agreement, in favour of defendant no.2 for an extent of Ac.0-24 cents out of suit property and in pursuance of the same, defendant no.2 alienated Ac.0-18 cents of suit property in favour of defendants no.3 and 4, vide Ex.B4 sale deed. Defendants no.2 to 4 are contesting, the suit and claiming right and title to suit property, they said to have acquired right and title from defendant no.1, in pursuance of Ex.B3 and B4. This fact the plaintiff filed suit claiming, relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property, must have been within the knowledge of defendant no.1, in view of defendants 2 to 4 contesting the suit. However, the defendant no.1 has come forward to contest the suit and to support their claim, that she is the daughter of deceased A.Pardhasarathi and have right in the suit property, so as to execute Ex.B3 GPA-cum-possessory sale agreement in favour of defendant no.2. So also defendants 2 to 4 having claimed right and title to the suit property through, defendant no.1, have not made any endeavour to examine defendant no.1, in support of their case to show she is the daughter of deceased A.Pardhasarathi, and she has right in the suit property.
38. Defendants No.2 to 4 to demonstrate defendant no.1 is the daughter of deceased A.Pardhasarathi, have exhibited Ex.B2 cancellation 37OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
deed dated 23-10-2012, executed by Kalinga Finance Company,
Srikakulam, cancelling Ex.B1 mortgage deed, executed by deceased
A.Pardhasarathi, in favour of defendant no.1. On the reading of the contents of Ex.B2 cancellation deed, the contents goes to show, basing on the information provided by defendant no.1, that she is the daughter of deceased A.Pardhasarathi, the above cancellation deed in Ex.B2 was executed on behalf of Kalinga Finance Company, Srikakulam. Hence the cancellation deed in Ex.B2, is of no avail to the case of defendants 2 to 4 as well as to the case of defendant no.1, to hold she is the daughter of deceased A.Pardhasarathi, thereby, defendants no.2 to 4, have failed to establish, defendant no.1, is the daughter of deceased A.Pardhasarathi.
Hence the issue no.2 is answered accordingly.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation?
39. The suit is admittedly filed by plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property. As per Article 65 of Limitation
Act, suit for recovery of possession has to be instituted within 12 years from the date when the possession of defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
38OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
40. According to the material available on record, deceased
A.Pardhasarathi died on 15-2-2002, but whereas the suit was filed by plaintiff in 2025 i.e., more than 22 years after the death of deceased
A.Pardhasarathi.
41. According to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court in Pavan Kumar And Anr. vs K. Gopalakrishna And Anr.
reported in 1990 (1) S.C. 185 & 189; “...Where a suit is filed basing on title, but claiming declaration of title to suit property with consequential relief of possession, Article 65 of Limitation Act would apply and
Article 58 would have no application and Article 58 applies only to a case where declaration simpliciter is sought, i.e.,
before further relief”.
42. The Hon’ble High Court in Mechineni Chokka Rao And
Ors. vs Sattu Sattamma, reported in 2006 (1) ALD 116, has held, “...The preponderance of authority which holds the view that in respect of declaratory suits pertaining to immovable property, the period of limitation is governed by Articles 64 and 65 but not Article 58 of the Act is in conformity with the Scheme of the Act”.
43. Hence it is clear from the above law laid down by Hon’ble
High Court, that a suit filed basing on title claiming declaration of title and consequential relief of possession, the limitation to file suit is governed by 39OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Article 65 of Limitation Act, and such suit has to be filed within 12 years, from the date when the possession of defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
44. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 herein has executed Ex.B3 registered GPA cum possessary agreement dated 11-10- 2012, in favour of defendant no.2. But however, she states in her case and evidence in May, 2024, she came to know some third parties residing in and around Peddapadu, some strange people have trespassed into suit property and doing some development works in the suit property, and on verification in the month of June, 2024, she came to know, defendant no.1 executed GPA cum possessary sale agreement in favour of defendant no.2 to an extent of Ac.0-24 cents, out of Ac.0-34 cents of suit property. Taking advantage of the same, defendant no.2 occupied the entire suit property, without having any right, title over the suit property.
45. Thus, it is clear from the above case pleaded by the plaintiff in her plaint more particularly from para no.6 and para no.7, though she made enquiries in May, 2024, and she came to know some third parties have trespassed into the suit properties, but however in June, 2024, the plaintiff came to know defendant no.1 executed GPA cum possessary sale agreement in Ex.B3 in favour of defendant no.2 to an extent of Ac.0- 24 cents, out of Ac.0-34 cents of suit property and taking advantage of 40OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
GPA cum possessary sale agreement, the defendant no.2 has occupied the suit property without having any right, title over the suit property. The above plea taken by plaintiff, indicates, in pursuance of Ex.B3 GPA cum possessary sale agreement dated 11-10-2012, executed by defendant no.1, in favour of defendant no.2. Basing on the same, the defendant no.2 has occupied the suit property on the even date of Ex.B3 GPA cum possessary sale agreement dated 11-10-2012, thereby it should be inferred that in pursuance of Ex.B3 GPA cum possessary sale agreement
dated 11-10-2012, defendant no.2 has came into possession and
enjoyment of suit property on 11-10-2012 and whereas, the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant in 2025, claiming declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property, can the defendant no.2 taking possession of the suit property, way back on 11-10-2012 in pursuance of Ex.B3 GPA cum possessary sale agreement, is adverse to the interest of plaintiff. The document in Ex.B3 is GPA cum possessary sale agreement executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2, and the contents of Ex.B3 discloses the defendant no.1 has appointed the defendant no.2 as her power of attorney agent, to deal with Ac.0-24 cents of suit property on her behalf , as her agent and to enter into transactions with third parties.
41OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
46. The Honourable Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Haryana 2009 (7) SCC 363 , a document like development agreement/GPA executed in favour of an agent, will not confer right or title in favour of agent, but it authorises the agent to alienate under the document, the property of principal to third parties, on behalf of principal.
47. In this case, defendant no.1, no doubt has executed Ex.B3
GPA cum possessary sale agreement in favour of defendant no.2 and nominated him as her agent to deal with Ac.0-24 cents of suit property to third parties. That the document in Ex.B3 is a GPA cum possessary sale agreement, thereby, going by the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Suraj Lamp’s case, defendant no.2 will not acquire any right or title in Ac.0-24 cents of suit property, to claim adverse to the interest of plaintiff and PW2.
48. Besides the above, as per the case of plaintiff and her evidence, she came to know about existence of Ex.B3 GPA cum possessary sale agreement executed by defendant no.1, in favour of defendant no.2, in the month of June, 2024, and the same was not disputed by defendants no.2 to 4 in their case, as well as in the evidence of plaintiff. Thereby, it should be considered from the above undisputed case of plaintiff, that she came to know about Ex.B3 GPA cum 42OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
possessary sale agreement, executed by defendant no.1, in favour of defendant no.2, in respect of Ac.0-24 cents of suit property, in the month of June, 2024, thereby though defendant no.2 was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-24 cents of suit property from the date of Ex.A1. But his possession over Ac.0-24 cents of suit property came to the knowledge of plaintiff only in June, 2024, and from that period the plaintiff has to file the suit within 12 years, and accordingly the plaintiff has filed suit well within 12 years i.e., she has filed the suit, in the very next year on dt.24-1- 2025. Hence her suit as against defendant no.2, is well within the limitation.
49. That apart, defendant no.2, no doubt, in pursuance of Ex.B3
GPA cum possessary sale agreement executed by defendant no.1 has alienated Ac.0-18 cents of suit property, in favour of defendants no.3 and 4, under sale deed dt.30-10-2012/ Ex.B4. According to defendant no.3 and 4 from the date of Ex.B4 sale deed dated 30-10-2012, they are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-18 cents of suit property, and they developed the suit property by spending an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. But however, defendants 3 and 4 except filing Ex.B1 to B4 documents, they did not file any material on record to show in pursuance of Ex.B4, they came into possession and enjoyment of suit property, and they were in possession and enjoyment of suit property from the date of Ex.B4 sale 43OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
deed till filing of the suit, so as to demonstrate they remained in possession of Ac.0-18 cents of suit property from 30-10-2012. The plaintiff, no doubt, in her cross examination, at one stage has conceded, she has seen some constructions made in the suit property. But however, defendants no.2 to 4 except eliciting the above statement in the evidence of plaintiff, have not placed any material on record, to show the said constructions existing in the Ac.0-18 cents of the suit property were made by defendants no.3 and 4, so as to consider they are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-18 cents of suit property, so as to consider they remained in possession of Ac.0-18 cents of suit property from the date of
Ex.B4 sale deed, and their possession was adverse to the plaintiff and she was required to file the suit within 12 years from the date of Ex.B4 sale deed. Therefore as the defendants no.3 and 4 have failed to establish they are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-18 cents of suit property from the date of Ex.B4 sale deed, hence it can be concluded, the suit filed by plaintiff is within the law of limitation and not barred by limitation. Hence the issue is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2
Whether the court fee paid by plaintiff is correct?
50. The court fee payable in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is to be valued as per section 24 of AP Court Fee 44OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. According to section 24(a) of AP Court
Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, in a suit for declaration, “where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three fourths of the market value of the immovable property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.”
51. The plaintiff in filing the suit and seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property, has valued her suit under sec.24(a) of AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, and has paid court fee on the 3/4 th market value of the suit property, thereby the valuation arrived by the plaintiff in payment of court fee on the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession is in accordance with section 24(a) of AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, and has rightly paid the court fee, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession under section 24(a) of AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation
Act, 1956. Hence the issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property from the defendants?
52. As per the discussion made in issue no.1, the plaintiff has failed to establish Ex.A2 Will, was duly executed deceased 45OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
A.Parthasaradhi and bequeathed suit property in her favour. The suit was filed by plaintiff seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property from the defendants, basing on Ex.A2 Will and the Will in
Ex.A2 has been disbelieved, and in that view of matter, plaintiff is not entitled to declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. Though in issue no.2, it has been considered, in the event of death of deceased A.Parthasaradhi intestate the plaintiff being his widow and PW2 being his daughter, will succeed to the suit property. But however, the suit has not been filed by plaintiff along with PW2 claiming suit property by way of succession from deceased A.Parthasaradhi. The plaintiff, had filed the suit along with PW2, claiming declaration of title and recovery of possession, basing on claim that she and PW2 inherited the suit property after the demise of deceased A. Pardhasarathi. In such a case, plaintiff along with PW2 could have succeeded for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. But however, the suit has been filed by plaintiff independently, claiming she is the absolute owner of suit property, basing on Ex.A2 Will, and in view of disbelieving the Will in
Ex.A2, the plaintiff cannot succeed for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, in a suit of this nature. Hence the issue no.3 is answered accordingly.
46OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
ISSUE NO.4: To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed, and however, considering the facts and circumstances in the case, there shall be no order as to costs, and both parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of April, 2026.
Moulana Digitally signed by Moulana Junaid Junaid Ahmed Ahmed
Principal District Judge,
Srikakulam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For plaintiff: For Defendants:
P.W.1: Ankaraboyina Padma D.W.1: Velamala Jagadeeswararao P.W.2: Ankaraboyina Supriya D.W.2: Hanumanthu Dhanunjaya Rao P.W.3: Kolluru Ramachandra Rao @ Chatarjee. P.W.4: Kusumuru Narayana
Documents marked
For plaintiff:
Ex.A1: 12.02.1992 The registered sale deed.
Ex.A2: 15.08.2021 The Will.
Ex.A3: 11.10.2012 Certified copy of registered GPA-cum-agreement of sale.
Ex.A4: 24.08.2024 The office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A5: -- The returned RP cover.
47OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.A6: 25.09.2024 The reply notice given by D2.
Ex.A7: 19.10.2024 The reply notice issued by plaintiff counsel for COP to the counsel of D3 and D4.
Ex.A8: -- The postal acknowledgment.
Ex.A9: 27.12.2024 The statement of EC issued by SRO, Srikakulam.
Ex.A10: 30.10.2012 Certified copy of GPA-cum-sale agreement.
Ex.A11: 02.03.2002 The death certificate of Ankaraboyina Parthasaradhi.
Ex.A12: -- The original pass books of Deepika Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Vijaya Durga Chits and Finance stands in the name of plaintiff.
Ex.A13: 10.02.1998 The birth certificate of son of plaintiff.
Ex.A14: 25.06.1998 The death certificate of son of plaintiff Ankaraboyina Sai Dileep Kumar.
Ex.A15: 15.12.1995 Voter ID card bearing No. AP/01/016/228012.
Ex.A16: -- Voter ID card of Ankaraboyina Parthasaradhi.
Ex.A17: 11.08.2000 The paper publication in Eenadu daily news paper, Srikakulam edition.
Ex.A18: -- The family photos, 5 in number along with pen drive.
Ex.A19: -- Two witnesses summon forms in SC No.148/2000 on the file of Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.
Ex.A20: 07.03.2000 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.39/2000 of I Town PS, Srikakulam.
Ex.A21: -- Certified copy of charge sheet in PRC No.25/2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.
48OS No. 10 /2025, Dt: 8-4-2026 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.A22: -- Certified copy of inquest report in Cr.No.39/2000 of I Town PS, Srikakulam.
Ex.A23: 05.09.1992 LIC policy bond.
Ex.A24: 29.09.2008 Certified copy of decree passed in OS No.111/2003 on the file of ASCJ, Srikakulam.
Ex.A25: 15.09.2010 Certified copy of judgment in AS 107/2009 on the file of Prl. District Judge, Srikakulam.
Ex.A26: -- Suit summon in OS 154/2004 on the file of ASCJ, Srikakulam.
Ex.A27: -- Served copy call letter under Dis.No.3178/16.07.2002 with postal cover issued by District Court, Srikakulam to Ankaraboyina Supriya.
Ex.A28: -- Ex. A.28 is the two positive photos with negatives
Ex.A29: -- Copy of caveat petition
For defendants:
Ex.B1 14.10.1993 Certified copy of registered mortgage deed. Ex.B2 23.10.2012 Certified copy of registered cancellation deed. Ex.B3 11.10.2012 Certified copy of registered GPA-cum-possessory sale agreement. Ex.B4 30.10.2012 Certified copy of registered sale deed in the name of D3 and D4.
Digitally signed Moulana by Moulana Junaid Ahmed Junaid Ahmed
Principal District Judge,
Srikakulam.