1 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT
SESSIONS JUDGE :: DEVARAKONDA :: NALGONDA DISTRICT
PRESENT: SMT. K. ANITHA
Senior Civil Judge-Cum-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District
(Friday, on this the 17 th day of March, 2026)
O.S.NO.05 of 2024 (NEW)
IN
O.S.NO.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Between:
1)Narra Yadaiah, S/o.Late Naraiah, Age:41 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Digging wells,
2)Narra Pandu, S/o.Late Naraiah, Age:35 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Digging wells,
3)Narra Shekhar, S/o.Late Naraiah, Age:32 years, Caste:Vaddera Occ:Digging wells
All are permanent residents of Pascharlabavi Village, H/o.Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal in Nalgonda District, temporarily settled at Maharashtra State for livelihood by digging agricultural wells. … Plaintiff/s AND
1)Vemula Lingamma, W/o.Ramulu, D/o.Iddaiah, Age:60 years, Occ:Agrl. R/o.Malla Reddy Pally Village of Chinthapally Mandal in Nalgonda District. (Since Died).
2)Narra Iddaiah, S/o.Late Meenaiah, Age:47 years, Occ:Agriculture, (Since Died)
3)Narra Chinna Iddaiah, S/o.Late Meenaiah, Age:41 years, Occ:Agriculture.
Both are R/o.Pascharlabavi Village, H/o.Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal.
...Contd (2)
2 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
4)Pallapu Sayamma, W/o.Balaiah, D/o.Late Meenaiah, Age:44 years, Occ:Contractor, R/o.H.No.17-1-380/217,D.S.Nagar, Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad.
5)Narra Venkataiah, S/o.Late Meenaiah, Age:38 years, Occ:Digging wells,
6)Narra Yadaiah, S/o.Late Meenaiah, Age:35 years, Occ:Stone Cutter,
7)Narra Srinaiah, S/o.Late Meenaiah, Age:32 years, Occ:Agriculture, they are R/o Paschrlabavi Village, H/o.Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal.
8)Kuncham Pedda Ramulamma, W/o.Buchaiah, D/o.Venkamma, Age:50 years, R/o.Kamareddy Gudem Village of Thripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.
9)Kuncham Chinna Ramulamma, W/o.Narsimha, D/o.Venkamma,Age:45years, R/o.Venkatapuram Village of Nidmanur Mandal in Nalgonda District.
10)GogulaVenkaiah,S/o.Roshaiahand Venkamma, Age:60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Konaigudem Village, H/o.Bramhanagudem of Gurrampode Mandal in Nalgonda District.
11)Bontha Bakkaiah, S/o.Buchaiah son of Late Nashamma, Age:50 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Gundla Kunta, H/o.Kalvapally Village of Gurrampode Mandal.
12)Narra Sathamma, W/o.Sathaiah, D/o.Late Nashamma, Age:48 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Konaigudem Village, H/o.Bramhanagudem Village of Gurrampode Mandal.
13)Varikuppala Maraiah, S/o.Muthaiah and Laxmamma, Age:50 years, Occ:Agriculture,
14)Varikuppala Ramaiah, S/o.Muthaiah and Laxmamma, Age:46 years, Occ:Agriculture, ...Contd (3)
3 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
15)Varikuppala Venkataiah, S/o.Muthaiah and Laxmamma, Age:43 years, Occ:Agriculture, they are the R/o.Pochampally Village of Gurrampode Mandal.
16)Varikuppala Mallaiah, S/o.Lingaiah, Age:65 years, Occ:Agriculture, (Since Died)
17)Varikuppala Bakkamma, W/o.Mallaiah, Age:58 years,Occ:Agriculture,bothare R/o.PascharlabaviVillage,H/o.Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal.
18)Varikuppala Jangamma, W/o.Gopaiah, Age:55 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Beside the house of ShivaiahAyyagaru,Opp:Sub-station, Hyderabad road, Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal.
19)Koneti Sathamma, S/o.Appaiah, Age:60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Opp: Milk Chilling Centre, Hyderabad road, Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal.
20)Pilli Venktaiah, S/o.Vaddaiah, Age:48 years, Occ:Agriculture,
21)Erukonda Venkatesham, S/o.Sathaiah, Age:45 years, Occ:Agriculture, both are R/o.Kothabavi Village, H/o.Kolminthalpahad of Devarakonda Mandal.
22)Varikuppala Anjamma, W/o.Venkataiah, Age:45 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Pochampally Village of Gurrampode Mandal in Nalgonda District.
23)Gurram Sunitha, W/o.Venkataiah, Age:29 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Nelvalapally Village of Chinthapally Mandal in Nalgonda District.
24)Varikuppala Sravanthi, W/o.Shankar, Age:26 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Gattuppala Village of Chandur Mandal in Nalgonda District.
25)VarikuppalaMamatha,W/o.Shankaraiah, Age:23 years, Occ:Digging wells, R/o.Lachamma ...Contd (4)
4 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Gudem Village, H/o.Thellapuram Village Samsthan Narayana Puram Mandal in Nalgonda District.
26)Narra Muthamma, S/o.Chinna Iddaiah, Age:42 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Konda Mallepally Village and Mandal.
27)Gandikota Sugunamma, W/o.Late Venkataiah, Age:39 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.H.No.17-1- 383/8/16/450 Santhosh Nagar, DS Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
(The defendant nos.26 and 27 who are the LR’s of Defendant no.1 are brought on record as per the Order in I.A.No.304/2024 dated 20.01.2025)
28)Narra Chandramma, W/o.Iddaiah, Age:52 years, Occ:Coolie,
29)Danugula Mangamma, W/o.Ravi, Age:36 years, Occ:Coolie,
30)Danugula Padma, W/o.Mahendar, Age:34 years, Occ:Coolie,
31)Narra Chitti, D/o.Late Iddaiah, Age:32 years, Occ:Coolie,
32)Narra Vijay, S/o.Late Iddaiah, Age:30 years, Occ:Student,
All are R/o.Opposite H.No.4-166/2, Sairam Nagar Colony, Road No.3, Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Temple back side Lane, Lenin Nagar, Balapur village and Mandal in R.R. Dist.
(The defendant nos.28 to 32 who are the LR’s of Defendant no.2 are brought on record as per the Order in I.A.No.303/2024 dated 20.01.2025) (D-28 to 32 are L.Rs of Defendant No.2)
33)Varikuppaia Padma, W/o.Late Yadaiah, Age:35 years, Occ:Coolie, ...Contd (5)
5 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
34)Varikuppala Shivakalyan, S/o.Late Yadaiah, Age:18 years, Occ:Student,
35)Varikuppala Vasavi, D/o.Late Yadaiah, Age:14 years, Occ:Student
36)Gandikota Lachamma, W/o.Sreenu Age:45 years, Occ:House Wife,
37)Varikuppala Vijay, S/o.Late Mallaiah, Age:35 years, Occ:Agriculture, All R/o.Pascharlabavi Village, Konda Mallepally Mandal.
The defendant nos.33 to 37 who are the LR’s of Defendant no.16 are brought on record as per the Order in I.A.No.303/2024 dated 20.01.2025). …Defendant/s
This suit is coming for final hearing in the presence of Sri. E.Ramakrishna, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri. V.Surender Reddy, the learned Advocate for the Defendant nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 19, 26 to 32 and Sri B.Ram Reddy, the learned Advocate for the defendant nos.16, Sri. Gajula Anjaneyulu, the learned Advocate for the Defendant nos.17, 20, 21, 33 to 37 and the defendant nos.4, 8 to 15, 18, 22 to 25 are set exparte and upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following;
:: J U D G M E N T ::
01.This is a suit for Partition and Separate Possession filed by the plaintiffs Order VII, Rule 1 R/W Sec.26 of Civil Procedure Code.
02.The brief facts of the case are as follows;
(i).The Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 7 are members of a
Joint Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara Law and they ...Contd (6)
6 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
are coparceners descended from late Narra Venkaiah. The said
Venkaiah had three sons namely Iddaiah, Meenaiah and Naraiah and three daughters namely Venkamma, Nashamma, and
Lakshmamma, all of whom are deceased. The Plaintiffs are the sons of late Naraiah, who died on 30.07.2011. The Defendant no.1 is the daughter of Iddaiah, and the Defendant Nos.2 to 7 are the children of Meenaiah. Defendant Nos.8 to 15 are the children of Venkaiah’s daughters, while the Defendant Nos.22 to 25 are the sisters of the
Plaintiffs. The Defendant Nos.16 to 21 are third-party purchasers.
(ii).The Plaintiffs further contend that, the suit properties are ancestral coparcenary properties originally acquired by their grandfather namely Venkaiah and later enjoyed jointly by the family.
They assert that the properties are liable for partition into three equal shares among the branches of Naraiah, Iddaiah, and
Meenaiah. According to the Plaintiffs, certain portions of the property were informally allotted to their father during family arrangements, but no formal partition took place.
(iii).The Plaintiffs further contended that, the Defendant
Nos.8 to 15 and Defendant Nos.22 to 25 are not entitled to any share in the suit properties, asserting that the daughters of the family had ...Contd (7)
7 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
been married long ago with family funds. They maintain that these parties have been included only as formal parties to avoid future legal complications.
(iv).The Plaintiffs further contended that, their grandfather, late Venkaiah, acquired the suit lands through his ancestors, and the same constitute ancestral joint family properties. The said lands in Sy.No.128 admeasuring Ac.5-14 gts., Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring
Ac.7-03 gts., Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 guntas, Sy.No.146 admeasuring Ac.1-17 gts., Sy.No.141 admeasuring Ac.3-08 gts., and Sy.No.172/AA admeasuring Ac.0-33 guntas, all dry lands in nature situated at Konda Mallepally Village, Devarakonda Mandal,
Nalgonda District and out of the said properties, the lands in
Sy.No.128 and Sy.No.146 were allotted to the father of the plaintiffs at the time of the marriages of Defendant Nos.24 and 25, approximately five years prior, under a family arrangement.
(v).The Plaintiffs further contended that the remaining lands in Sy.No.129/AA, admeasuring Ac.7-03 gts., Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts,, Sy.No.141 admeasuring Ac.3-08 gts,, and Sy.No.172/AA admeasuring Ac.0-33 gts,, situated at
Konda Mallepally Village, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Contd (8)
8 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Subsequently, the revenue authorities assigned various sub-divisions to the above survey numbers in consequence of certain transactions reflected in the revenue records.
(vi).The Plaintiffs further contend that, after the death of their father, the Plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession of their share, but the Defendants refused even on 15.07.2011. Upon verifying the revenue records, the Plaintiffs discovered that some of the lands had been alienated by the
Defendant No.1 and the father of Defendant Nos.2 to 7 in favor of
Defendant Nos.16 to 21. The Plaintiffs allege that these transactions were illegal, collusive, and not binding on them, as they were not parties to such sales.
(vii). The plaintiffs further contended that, as per the entries in the pahanies the possession over the lands in Sy.No.129/AA and
Sy.No.139/AA is shown the defendant nos.16 to 21 and the lands in
Sy.No.172/AA is stands in the name of defendant no.1 and the land in Sy.No.141 to an extent of Ac.2-28 gts., out of Ac.3-08 gts., stands in the name of Late Meenaiah who is the father of the defendant nos.2 to 7, the possession of the plaintiff over them is joint, common, and constructive to the remaining extent of Ac.0-20 gts., ...Contd (9)
9 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
stands in the name of the defendant no.19. Hence, the suit schedule property is the ancestral and coparcener property and is liable for partition into three equal shares which are to be allotted to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 and defendant nos.2 to 7.
(viii). Therefore, prays the Hon’ble Court to pass the Decree for
Partition and Separate Possession by dividing the suit schedule lands into three equal shares to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 and to the defendant nos.2 to 7 in the interest of Justice and equity.
03.Notices are given to the defendants. The written statements are filed by the defendant nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 19 to 21 and also by the defendant nos.16 and 17 and the remaining defendant nos.4, 8 to 15, 18 and 22 to 25 are set exparte.
04.(I)(i).The defendant nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 19 to 21 have filed the written statement by denying the averments of the plaint as mentioned above and except with regard to the relationships in between the parties.
(ii).The defendant nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 19 to 21 further conteded that, originally one Nara Peda Ramulu was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit.
...Contd (10)
10 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
(iii).He had three sons, namely Nara Mallaiah, Nara
Venkaiah, and Nara Bachaiah, who partitioned their properties among themselves much prior to the police action. Nara Mallaiah had four sons, namely Nara Pullaiah, Nara Yallaiah, Nara Venkulu, and Nara Peda Naraiah. Nara Venkaiah had three sons, namely Nara
Iddaiah, Nara Meenaiah, and Nara Naraiah, while Nara Bachaiah had one son, Ramesham.
(iv).The defendants further contended that, in respect of the land in Sy.No.129, the sons of Nara Peda Ramulu divided the land equally, each receiving Ac.7-07 gts., The share of Nara
Venkaiah was further held jointly by his sons. Out of this, Ac.5-00 gts., was sold at about 55 years ago to Varikuppala Kistaiah, who later sold it to Varikuppala Mallaiah, who is presently in possession.
The remaining Ac.2-07 gts., was sold to Pilla Peddaiah, whose son
Pilli Venkaiah subsequently sold the same to Varikoppula Venkaiah,
Pandaiah, and Sreenaiah, who are in possession.
(v).The defendants further contended that, the land in
Sy.No.139, the sons of Nara Venkaiah sold Ac.5-00 gts., to
Varikoppula Bakkamma at about 55 years ago. She in turn sold Ac.2-20 gts., to Pilli Venkataiah, who subsequently sold ...Contd (11)
11 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Ac.0-30 gts., to Konda Laxmaiah, while the remaining land continued in her possession. Defendant No.21 purchased the land to an extent of Ac.1-06 gts., from Narra Chandramma, wife of Iddaiah, under a Simple Sale Deed, which was later regularized in R.O.R
Proceedings No.LA/IS/C/670 of 2004 dated 28.02.2004. He also purchased the land to an extent of Ac.1-01 gts., under the
Registered Sale Deed No.6985/2007 dated 25.07.2007 from Vemula
Lingamma, D/o.Nara Iddaiah. Further, Defendant No.21 purchased
Ac.2-00 gts., from Narra China Naraiah, S/o.Pullaiah, and obtained a Decree in O.S.No.1088/1987, dated 31.07.1987. Thus, Defendant
No.21 is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4-07 gts., in
Sy.No.139 of Mallepally Village.
(vi).The defendants further contended that, the land admeasuring Ac.3-08 gts., in Sy.No.141 is the self-acquired property of Nara Iddaiah. His wife Chandramma sold Ac.2-05 gts., to Jabbu
Jangaiah, who later sold the same to Narra Meenaiah. After the death of Narra Meenaiah, his sons, who are Defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 7, are in possession of the same. Out of this land, Narra Meenaiah sold Ac.0-20 gts., to Konte Sathamma and the remaining Ac.1-03 gts., was sold to Defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 7, who are in possession.
...Contd (12)
12 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
(vii). The defendants further contended that, the land in
Survey No.172 measuring Ac.0-33 guntas was gifted by Defendant
No.1 to Narra Muthamma, who is in possession of the same.
(viii). Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit for partition, as the suit schedule properties are neither joint family properties nor ancestral properties of the plaintiffs. The entire suit land constitutes the self-acquired property of late Nara Iddaiah, son of Venkaiah, who is the father of Defendant
No.1. Nara Iddaiah, his wife Chandramma, and his daughter
Lingamma have alienated the properties in favour of third parties.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. Further, the suit is barred by limitation and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties.
Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(ix).Therefore, prays this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
(II)(i).The defendant nos. 16 and 17 have filed the written statement by denying the averments of the plaint as mentioned ...Contd (13)
13 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
above. They further contended that, these Defendants, who are wife and husband, do not dispute the relationship between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 to 15 and 22 to 25. However, they submit that
Defendant Nos. 16 to 21 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties, and the Plaintiffs have no manner of right, title, or interest over the lands held by them. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable.
(ii).The defendant nos.16 and 17 further contended that, the Defendant No.16 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.4-31 guntas in Survey No.129, situated at
Kondamallepally Village, Deverkonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. He purchased the said land from Varikuppala Kistaiah, S/o Mallaiah, for a consideration of Rs.1,300/- under a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.540/1979, dated 22.06.1979. Since the date of purchase, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. His name has been duly mutated in the revenue records as pattadar, and the Government has issued a Pattadar Pass
Book and Title Deed in his favour. Hence, the Plaintiffs have no right or title over the said land, and the same is liable to be deleted from the suit schedule property.
...Contd (14)
14 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
(iii).The defendant nos.16 and 17 further contended that, the Defendant No.17 purchased an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas in
Survey No.139 from Narra Iddaiah, S/o Venkaiah, for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- under a Registered Sale Deed. Her name was also mutated in the revenue records as Pattadar, and she was issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed by the Government.
Subsequently, at about 12 years ago, the Defendant No.17 sold
Ac.4-00 gts., out of the said land in favour of Sri Pilli Venkataiah and
Sri Jabbu Buchaiah, who are R/o.Kondamallepally Village, through a Registered Sale Deed, and the names of the purchasers were duly mutated in the revenue records. After such alienation, Defendant
No.17 is presently holding only Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey No.139.
(iv).Further, the said purchasers, namely Jabbu
Buchaiah and his legal heirs, are proper and necessary parties to the present suit. In view of the above, this Defendant No.17 prays the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to delete the land admeasuring
Ac.5-00 guntas in Survey No.139 from the suit schedule property, in the interest of justice.
(v). Hence in view of the above, there are no merits in the suit and the plaintiffs has not come to this Hon'ble court with clean ...Contd (15)
15 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
hands as they are greedy of money to extract huge amount from these defendants. The above suit is filed with ulterior motive with a view to cause loss and harm to these defendants No. 16 and 17.
(vi).Therefore, these defendant nos. 16 and 17 humbly prays the Hon'ble court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with exemplary costs, in the interests of justice and equity.
05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Hon’ble Predecessor Officer;
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Partition
and Separate Possession as prayed for ?
2. To What relief ?
06.Heard. To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff no.3 is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 and he adduced the evidence of defendant no.10 as PW2. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant no.37 is examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B14, the defendant no.21 is examined as DW2 and got marked Exs.B15 to
B27 and the defendant no.20 is examined as DW3 and got marked
Exs.B28 to B40.
...Contd (16)
16 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
07. Issue no.1:- (I)(i).Initially, the burden is upon the shoulder of the plaintiffs to establish their case. In order to prove the said fact, the plaintiff no.3 is examined as PW1- (N. Shekhar) and categorically reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 i.e.,
Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 29.05.2013, Ex.A2 is the (10) true copies of pahanies for the year 1958-59, 1960-61, 1970-71, 1975-76 and 1980-81 issued by
Dy.Tahasildar, Devarakonda and Ex.A3 is the (12) copies of pahanies for the fasli 1421 issued by Tahasildar, Devarakonda.
(ii).During the cross examination by the learned
Advocate for the defendant nos.17, 20, 21 and the LR’s defendant no.16 as defendant nos.32 to 37, the PW1 stated that, Naraiah is his father, and Eddaiah and Meenaiah are the brothers of his father. His father also had three sisters, namely Venkamma, Nashamma and
Laxmi. He further stated that Venkulu is his paternal grandfather, who had two brothers, though he does not know their names or the name of Venkulu’s father. According to him, his grandfather owned lands in Sy.Nos.141, 139, 129, 128, and 172, which he claims to be self-acquired properties of his grandfather. However, he admitted ...Contd (17)
17 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
that there are no documents to show that these lands stood in the name of his grandfather or that they fell to his grandfather’s share in any partition. He also admitted that there is no documentary evidence of partition between his grandfather and his brothers.
(iii).PW1 further admitted that N.Pedda Ramulu is not known to him as the father of his grandfather, but stated that
N.Venkaiah, N.Mallaiah and N.Bachaiah were brothers who had partitioned properties prior to 1954. He expressed lack of knowledge regarding the children of N.Mallaiah and N.Bachaiah, except admitting that N.Ramesham is the son of N.Bachaiah. He admitted that the land in Survey No.129 was equally partitioned among his grandfather and his brothers.
(iv).PW1 repeatedly stated lack of knowledge regarding several subsequent transactions, including the sale of
Ac.5-00 guntas in Survey No.129 to Varikuppala Kistaiah, subsequent sale to Varikuppala Mallaiah, and further alienation relating to the remaining Ac.2-07 guntas. However, he admitted that
Varikuppala Mallaiah is in possession of Ac.5-00 guntas and that the legal heirs of subsequent purchasers are in possession of
Ac.2-07 guntas in Survey No.129.
...Contd (18)
18 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
(v).With regard to Survey No.139, the PW1 denied knowledge of earlier transactions but admitted that Defendant No.21 is in possession of Ac.4-07 guntas. Similarly, in respect of Survey
No.141, he denied that it is the self-acquired property of N. Iddaiah or that alienations were made by Chandramma, but admitted that the sons of Meenaiah are in possession of Ac.2-05 guntas. He also admitted that he has not filed any documents to establish exchange or title in respect of these properties.
(vi).PW1 further admitted that Ac.0-33 guntas in
Survey No.172 was acquired by N.Muthamma through a Court
Decree. He also stated that he has been residing in Maharashtra for the past 21 years and has not been in continuous possession of the suit properties.
(vii). The cross examination by the learned Advocate for the defendant nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 19, 26 to 32 is treated as Nil.
(II)(i).The PW2 -(G. Venkaiah - defendant no.10) has filed the chief examination affidavit and deposed as per the similar version of PW1.
...Contd (19)
19 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
(ii).During the cross examination by the learned
Advocate for the defendant nos.17, 20, 21 and the LR’s defendant no.16 as defendant nos.32 to 37, the PW2 stated that, he is aged about 80 years and that the father of the Plaintiffs, namely Naraiah, died about 15 to 16 years ago. He further stated that he had seen the father of Naraiah, namely Venkaiah, who passed away approximately 60 years ago. However, he admitted that he does not know whether Venkaiah had any siblings. He deposed that he is aware of certain lands said to have been possessed by Venkaiah, but could only identify them by local names such as “Guntagunti
Chalka,” “Gollabai Chalka,” and the eastern and western village chalkas, and not by survey numbers. He further admitted that he does not know how Venkaiah acquired or possessed the said lands.
(iii).The PW2 further stated that the said lands belong to the sons of Venkaiah, but he does not know who is presently in possession of the suit schedule properties. He also admitted that he is a resident of Kondaigudem Village, Gurrampode Mandal, whereas the suit properties are situated in Mallepally Village, and that he has not seen the suit schedule properties for the last 40 years. He further stated that his maternal uncles, namely Iddaiah, Meenaiah, ...Contd (20)
20 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
and Naraiah, had sold the lands covered under the suit schedule properties. Though PW2 denied the suggestions that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the Plaintiffs or that his affidavit was prepared at their instance
(iv).Further, in re-examination, the PW2 clarified that the name of his mother is Venkamma and stated that he does not have any maternal aunt by that name. He explained that the reference to “Venkamma” as his maternal aunt in the second line of page No. 2 of his chief-examination affidavit was a typographical error, and that in fact she is his mother.
(v).In re-cross examination, the PW2 denied the suggestion that the contents of his chief-examination affidavit were not read over to him and that the same are false.
(vi).The cross examination by the learned Advocate for the defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 19, 26 to 32 is treated as Nil.
(III)(i).On behalf of the defendants, the defendant no.37 is examined as DW1-(Varikuppala Vijay) and got marked Exs.B1 to B14 i.e., Exs.B1 and B2 are the attested copies of the pahanies for the ...Contd (21)
21 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
years 1973-74 and 1976-77 in respect of the land in suit
Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-03 gts., and Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Narra
Iddaiah. Ex.B3 is the attested copy of the pahani for the year 1977-78 in respect of the land in suit Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring
Ac.7-03 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Krishnaiah, and Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Bakkamma (Defendant No.17). Ex.B4 is the attested copy of the pahani for the year 1982-83 in respect of the land in suit Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-03 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Mallaiah (Defendant no.16), and
Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Bakkamma (Defendant No.17). Ex.B5 is the attested copy of the pahani for the year 1995-96 in respect of the land in suit
Sy.No.129/LU admeasuring Ac.4-31 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Mallaiah (Defendant No.16) and Sy.No.139/RU admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala
Bakkamma (Defendant No.17). Ex.B6 is the true copy of the
Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1495/1976 dated 01.06.1976 which was executed by Narra Iddaiah in favor of ...Contd (22)
22 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Varikoppula Kistaiah in respect of the lands in Sy.No.128 admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts., and in Sy.No.129/RU admeasuring
Ac.4-31 gts., total admeasuring Ac.5-31 gts., situated at
Kondamallepally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Ex.B7 is the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.263/1977
dated 03.05.1977 which was executed by Narra Iddaiah in favor of
Varikoppula Bakkamma (Defendant No.17) in respect of the land in
Sy.No.139 admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts., situated at Kondamallepally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Ex.B8 is the true copy of the
Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.540/1979 dated 22.06.1979 which was executed by Varikoppula Kistaiah in favor of Varikoppula
Mallaiah (Defendant No.16) in respect of the lands in Sy.No.128/AA admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts., and in Sy.No.129/RU admeasuring
Ac.4-31 gts., total admeasuring Ac.5-31 gts., situated at
Kondamallepally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Exs.B9 and
B10 are the Original Old Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed vide
No.107107 vide Patta No.122 respectively in respect of the land in
Sy.No.139/RU admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., from the total extent of land admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts., which stands in the name of
Varikoppula Bakkamma (Defendant No.17). Ex.B11 is the specimen ...Contd (23)
23 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
copy of the New Pattadar Passbook No.T28140040887 vide Khata
No.60373 in respect of the land in Sy.No.129/RU/2/1 admeasuring
Ac.2-1250 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Shiva
Kalyan (Defendant No.34). Ex.B12 is the specimen copy of the 1-B
Namoona ROR pahani dated 17.08.2025 vide fasli year 1435 in respect of the land in Sy.No.129/RU/2/1 admeasuring
Ac.2-1250 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Shiva
Kalyan (Defendant No.34). Ex.B13 is the specimen copy of the New
Pattadar Passbook No.T28140040886 vide Khata No.60372 in respect of the land in Sy.No.129/RU/1/1 admeasuring
Ac.1-1550 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Vijay
Kumar (Defendant No.37). Ex.B14 is the specimen copy of the 1-B
Namoona ROR pahani dated 17.08.2025 vide fasli year 1435 in respect of the land in Sy.No.129/RU/1/1 admeasuring
Ac.1-1550 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Vijay
Kumar (Defendant No.37).
(ii).During his cross-examination, the DW1 stated that, he studied up to Intermediate and that his maternal grandfather was
Narra Pullaiah, who had two brothers, namely Venkaiah and
Mallaiah. He admitted that the said Venkaiah was the paternal ...Contd (24)
24 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
grandfather of the Plaintiffs. He further stated that, as per Ex.A2 pahani for the year 1958–59, the lands in Survey Nos.129/A and 129/AA, each admeasuring Ac.7-03 guntas, as well as the lands in
Survey Nos.139/A and 139/AA, admeasuring Ac.7-08 guntas and
Ac.7-07 guntas respectively, stood in the joint names of Narra
Pullaiah and Narra Venkaiah. He also admitted that land in Survey
No.141 admeasuring Ac.3-08 guntas stood in the name of Narra
Iddaiah, son of Venkaiah, and lands in Survey Nos.172/A and 172/AA stood in the names of Narra Pullaiah and Narra Venkaiah.
(iii).The DW1 further deposed that, until the year 2009, he and the Plaintiffs were residing in the same village. He detailed the family structure, stating that Narra Pullaiah had two sons and two daughters, namely Chinna Naraiah, Buchaiah, Jangamma, and
Bakkamma and that Narra Venkaiah had three sons, namely
Iddaiah, Meenaiah, and Naraiah. He admitted that Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of Naraiah. He also stated that during his childhood, the Plaintiffs’ father used to travel to different places for work.
(iv).The DW1 claimed that his parents purchased lands in Survey Nos.129 and 139. However, he admitted that neither the documents filed by him nor those filed by the Plaintiffs reflect the ...Contd (25)
25 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
names of the three sons of Narra Venkaiah, namely Iddaiah,
Meenaiah, and Naraiah. He specifically admitted that the name of
Naraiah does not appear in the documents. He further stated that his mother, Defendant No. 17, purchased Ac.5-00 guntas in Survey
No. 139 from Narra Iddaiah under a Registered Sale Deed (Ex.B7), and admitted that neither Meenaiah nor Naraiah signed the said document.
(v).The DW1 also admitted that in Ex.B6, though the name of Meenaiah is mentioned, neither Meenaiah nor Naraiah signed the document. DW1 expressed lack of knowledge regarding certain pleadings in the written statement and admitted that no land was sold to Jabbu Buchaiah, but stated that the land was sold to
Jabbu Bakkamma, though he could not provide document details in his affidavit.
(vi).The DW1 further admitted that Narra Iddaiah, vendor of Varikuppala Kistaiah, is the son of Narra Venkaiah and the paternal uncle of the Plaintiffs. He also admitted that the name of Narra Iddaiah appears in revenue records (pahanies) for the year 1975–76 relating to Survey Nos.129, 139, 141, and 172.
However, he conceded that he has not verified the revenue records or ...Contd (26)
26 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
documents relating to earlier transactions or partition among the sons of Venkaiah. He further admitted that the witnesses to Ex.B7 are not from their village and that there are no signatures of the brothers of Narra Iddaiah on the said document. He also admitted that he has not seen any document evidencing partition among
Iddaiah, Meenaiah, and Naraiah.
(IV)(i).The defendant no.21 was examined as DW2- (Erukonda Venkatesham) and deposed as per the similar version of the DW1 and got marked Exs.B15 to B27 i.e., Ex.B15 is the certified copy of the Decree in OS.No.1088/1987 dated 31.07.1987 in between Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) and the
Narra Chinna Naraiah as plaintiff and defendants in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139/AA admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., out of total admeasuring Ac.7-08 gts., by declaring that the plaintiff namely
Erukonda Venkatesham is the owner and possessor of the said property. Ex.B16 is the Original mutation proceedings no.D/4912,
dated 15.03.1988 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Devarakonda by mutating the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139/AA admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., from the name of Narra Chinna Naraiah.
...Contd (27)
27 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Exs.B17 and B18 are the true copies of the pahani for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/U admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda
Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) and in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., which stands in the name of Narra
Chandramma (Vendor of DW2). Ex.B19 is the Original 13-B
Namoona certificate dated 28.02.2004 issued by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Devarakonda in respect of the land in suit
Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.1-06 gts., purchased by Erukonda
Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) from Narra Chandramma.
Ex.B20 is the truye copy of the pahani for the year 2005-06 in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/U admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) and in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., which stands in the name of Vemula Lingamma (defendant no.1). Ex.B21 is the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed vide Docunemtn no.6985/2007 dated 25.07.2007 which was executed by Vemula
Lingama (defendant no.1) in favor of Erukonda Venkateshwarlu (defendant no.21/DW2) in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., situated at Kondamallepally Village, ...Contd (28)
28 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. Ex.B22 is the true copy of the pahani for the year 2008-09 in respect of the land in
Sy.no.139/U admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., and in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda
Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2). Exs.B23 to B27 are the three true copies of the pahanies for the year 2011-12 vide fasli year 1421, specimen copy of the pattadar Passbook No.T28140040135 and Specimen copy of the 1-B Namoona ROR dated 18.08.2025 vide fasli year 1435 in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/U admeasuring
Ac.2-00 gts., Sy.no.139/LU admeasuring Ac.1-06 gts., and in
Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2).
(ii).During the cross-examination, the DW2 stated that, he knows the Plaintiffs but does not know their father Naraiah or their paternal uncles Iddaiah and Meenaiah. He deposed that he purchased land admeasuring Ac.1-06 gts., in Sy.No.139 from Narra
Chandramma, wife of Iddaiah and Ac.1-01 gts., in the same survey number from Vemula Lingamma daughter of Chandramma and
Iddaiah. He stated that his land in Sy.No.138 is adjacent to
Sy.No.139, and for that reason he purchased the said lands. He ...Contd (29)
29 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
further stated that prior to purchase, he made enquiries and understood that Chandramma derived title from her husband
Iddaiah and Lingamma from her mother Chandramma, but he admitted that he does not know how Iddaiah originally acquired the property.
(iii).The DW2 further deposed that he has been in possession of land in Survey No.138 for the past 50–60 years and has been visiting the land since his childhood. He stated that the land in Sy.No.139 was previously cultivated by Chandramma and that Lingamma resides at her matrimonial home in Mallareddypally
Village, Chinthapally Mandal. He denied suggestions regarding residence of Chandramma but admitted that he has never seen
Iddaiah and Meenaiah and does not know whether the Plaintiffs’ family possessed lands in Sy.Nos.129, 141, and 172. He further admitted that he has not verified the revenue records regarding the original title of Iddaiah, except to the extent of confirming that the land stood in the name of Chandramma prior to his purchase.
(iv).The DW2 further stated that the Sada Bainama executed by Chandramma in his favour for Ac.1-06 guntas is not in his possession as it was handed over to revenue authorities, ...Contd (30)
30 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
pursuant to which Ex.B19 was issued in his favour. He expressed ignorance regarding whether the sale consideration is mentioned in
Ex.B19, citing illiteracy, and admitted that Chandramma had likely died by the time Ex.B19 was issued. He stated that he purchased the land at about five to six years prior to issuance of Ex.B19. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B19 was created by manipulating revenue officials after the death of Chandramma or that no valid transaction existed.
(v).The DW2 further stated that he does not know whether the attesting witness in Ex.B21, namely Yadaiah (son of
Meenaiah) belongs to the plaintiff’s family and does not remember the names of the witnesses. He stated that he did not know the plaintiffs prior to the present suit and denied familiarity with
Meenaiah or his family, though he added that he might have attended functions without knowing their family background.
(vi).The DW2 further denied the suggestion that the suit lands originally belonged to Venkaiah and that his sons Iddaiah,
Meenaiah, and Naraiah were entitled to shares therein. He also denied that he purchased the lands for a low consideration or in collusion with Iddaiah and Meenaiah to defeat the rights of Naraiah.
...Contd (31)
31 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
(V)(i).The defendant no.20 was examined as DW3-(Pilli
Venkataiah) and deposed as per the similar version of the Dws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B28 to B31 i.e., Exs.B28 to B31 is the true copies of the pahanies for the years 1972-73, 1976-77, 1981-82 and 1982-83 in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139/AA admeasuring
Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Narra Iddaiah. Ex.B32 is the Original Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1048/88 dated 23.04.1988 which was executed by Narra Buchaiah in favor of Pilli
Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3) in respect of the land in suit
Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., situated at Kondamallepally
Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Ex.B33 is the Original
Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1397/91 dated 24.04.1991 which was executed by Varikuppala Bakkamma (Defendant no.17) in favor of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3) in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts., situated at
Kondamallepally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Exs.B34 to B36 are the true copies of the pahanies for the years 1995-96, 2002-03 and 2004-05 in respect of the lands in suit
Sy.no.139/A admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., which stands in the name of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3), Sy.no.139/RU ...Contd (32)
32 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts., which stands in the name of Varikuppala
Bakkamma (Defendant no.17). Exs.B37 and B38 are the true copies of the pahanies for the years 2009-10 and 2013-14 in respect of the lands in suit Sy.no.139/A admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts.,
Sy.no.139/AA-1 admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., and Sy.no.139/RU-2 admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts., which stands in the name of Pilli
Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3), Sy.no.139/RU admeasuring
Ac.0-20 gts., which stands in the name of Varikuppala Bakkamma (Defendant no.17). Exs.B39 and B40 are the specimen copies of the
New Pattadar Passbook No.T28140040141 vide Khata No.301 in respect of the lands in suit Sy.no.139/A admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts.,
Sy.no.139/AA-1 admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., and Sy.no.139/RU-2 admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts., along with another survey number which stands in the name of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3).
(ii).During cross-examination, the DW3 stated that, he is an illiterate and purchased land in Survey No.139 from Narra
Buchaiah after going through the relevant records. He resides in
Kothabavi village, approximately 1 km from Pacharlabavi Village.
He admitted that he does not know the family particulars of the Plaintiffs and did not inquire into the root title of his vendor, ...Contd (33)
33 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Varikuppala Bakkamma (Defendant No. 17), at the time of purchase.
He is also unaware of how Defendant No. 17 acquired the land.
(iii).The DW3 further stated that, the total extent of land in Survey No.139 is Ac.12-00 guntas, and the registered owners are Varikuppala Bakkamma, Narra Buchaiah, Narra Chinna
Naraiah, and himself. One of the attestors of his Registered Sale
Deed (Ex.B33) was Narra Iddaiah, whom he knows personally, but he does not know Narra Iddaiah’s brothers or whether this Narra
Iddaiah is the same as another family member mentioned in the suit. He also does not know the sons of Meenaiah, namely Narra
Peda Iddaiah and Narra Chinna Iddaiah (D2 and D3). DW3 only became aware of the ongoing suit about two years ago and was not present for its earlier proceedings.
(iv).The DW3 confirmed that, at the time of registration of Ex.B33, only he and Defendant No.17 were present, along with the attestor Narra Iddaiah. He denied the suggestion that this attestor had passed away in 1975.
(v).The DW3 further stated that he purchased the land after verifying all relevant documents and obtaining Ex.B33. He denied suggestions that Defendant No.17 did not have absolute title ...Contd (34)
34 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
over the land or that his own purchase was invalid. He also denied the claim that the Plaintiffs requested cooperation from him to obtain a share of the land and that refusal to cooperate prompted the present suit.
08.The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has argued as per the plaint averments and the evidences of the PW1 and 2 and cross questions posed in the evidences of Dws 1 to 3 and he further argued that, the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties of her mother and prays the Hon’ble court to decree the suit.
Further, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has filed the following citations;
(a) In AIR 1986 Supreme Court 79 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2622 of 2622A of 1969, dated 30.09.1985 in between Bhagwant P.Sulakhe Vs Gopal sulakhe and others” – in which it is held that; (A) Hindu Law – Joint family property – Severance of status of joint family – It has no effect on joint family property – Property continues to be joint until partitioned.
14.The character of any joint family property does not change with the severance of the status of the joint family and a joint family property continues to retain its joint ...Contd (35)
35 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
family character so long as the joint family property is in existence and is not partitioned amongst the co-sharers. By an unilateral act it is not open to any member of the joint family to convert any joint family property into his personal property.
(b) In AIR 2006 Chhattisgarh 136 in F.A.No. 463 of 1996, dated 03.07.2006 in between Sodhuram Vs. Durga Prasad and Ors in which it is held that;
Thus, defendant failed to establish partition in family – plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share in suit house, evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.3, S.101.
14. In this manner, the defendant could not establish before the trial Court that there was a partition in the family and the said house was received by him in the said partition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs had proved teir title to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property and they were entitled for a Decree of Partition. There is no infirmity in the Judgement and Decree passed by the trial Court.
(c) In LAWS (DLH) 2017 2 138, in CS(OS) 388/2016, and IAs No. 9367/2016 and 1751/2017, dated 09.02.2017 in between M.K.Govil Vs. Harish Chand Govil in which it is held that;
14. Paras 20 to 27 of Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496, though part of the concurring opinion, sets out the law correctly and is not affected by the majority view. It has been held; ...Contd (36)
36 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
20. The legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition because partition is an incident attached to the property and there is always a running cause of action for seeking partition by one of the co-sharers if and when he decides not to keep his share joint with other co-sharer, the period of limitation, specially the date or time from which such period would commence, could not have been possibly provided for by the legislature and, therefore, in this Act also a period of limitation, so far as suits for partition and concerned, has not been prescribed. This, however, does not mean that a co-sharer who is arrayed as a defendant in the suit cannot raise the plea of adverse possessions against the co-sharer who has come before the court as a plaintiff seeking partition of his share in the joint property.
“22. The principle of law is firmly established that a person, who bases his title on adverse possession, must show by clear and unequivical evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed.”
(d) In AIR 1992 ANDHRA PRADESH 270 in C.C.C. Appeal No. 190 of 1982 and 104 nof 1983,
dated 30.04.1992 in between Purna Bai and
others Vs Ranchhoddas and others in which it is held that; (D) Hindu Law – Joint family property – Nature does not change merely because coparceners live separately.
(E) Hindu Law – Joint family property – Managed only by some members – Does not ...Contd (37)
37 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
cease to be joint property unless exclusion of other members is proved.
(e) LAWS (SC) 2003 10 10 in Civil Appeal No. 12450 of 1996 dated 07.10.2003 in between Md. Mohammad All (Dead) Vs. Sri Jagadish Kalita
(f) In AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2185 in Civil Appeal No. 874 of 1986, dated 24.01.1995 in which it is held that; (A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.35 – Mutation entries – Not admissible in evidence.
05. In this case, no witness had been examined in proof of the prevailing market value of the lands or in the neighborhood. Only mutation entries were relied upon. They are inadmissible evidence and cannot be relied upon. No doubt.
09.On the other hand the learned Advocate for the defendant nos.17, 20, 21 and the LR’s defendant no.16 as defendant nos.32 to 37 has argued as per the averments of the written statement and the evidences of the Dws 1 to 3 and cross questions posed in the evidences of PWs1 and 2 and he further argued that, the suit is not maintainable under the eye of law and liable to be dismissed and prays the Hon’ble court to dismiss the suit.
10.Heard and perused the record.
...Contd (38)
38 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
11.(i).On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and upon hearing and on perusal of the entire material record, it is pertinent to note that, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking Partition and Separate Possession in respect of the suit schedule lands of common ancestor namely Late Narra Venkataiah and to allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs, 1/3rd share to the defendant no.1 and 1/3rd share to the defendant nos.2 to 7.
(ii).The contention of the plaintiffs is that, the plaintiffs and
Defendant Nos.1 to 7 are members of a Joint Hindu Undivided
Family governed by Mitakshara Law and are coparceners descended from late Narra Venkaiah. The said Venkaiah had three sons namely
Iddaiah, Meenaiah and Naraiah and three daughters namely
Venkamma, Nashamma, and Lakshmamma, all of whom are deceased. The Plaintiffs are the sons of late Naraiah, who died on 30.07.2011. The Defendant no.1 is the daughter of Iddaiah, and the
Defendant Nos.2 to 7 are the children of Meenaiah. Defendant Nos.8 to 15 are the children of Venkaiah’s daughters, while the Defendant
Nos.22 to 25 are the sisters of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant Nos.16 to 21 are third-party purchasers. The suit properties are ancestral coparcenary properties originally acquired by their grandfather ...Contd (39)
39 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Venkaiah and later enjoyed jointly by the family. They assert that the properties are liable for partition into three equal shares among the branches of Naraiah, Iddaiah, and Meenaiah. According to the
Plaintiffs, certain portions of the property were informally allotted to their father during family arrangements, but no formal partition took place. The Defendant Nos.8 to 15 and Defendant Nos.22 to 25 are not entitled to any share in the suit properties, asserting that the daughters of the family had been married long ago with family funds.
(iii).The Plaintiffs further contended that, their grandfather, late Venkaiah, acquired the suit lands through his ancestors, and the same constitute ancestral joint family properties. The lands in
Sy.No.128 admeasuring Ac.5-14 guntas, Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring
Ac.7-03 guntas, Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 guntas,
Sy.No.146 admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas, Sy.No.141 admeasuring
Ac.3-08 guntas, and Sy.No.172/AA admeasuring Ac.0-33 guntas, all dry lands in nature situated at Konda Mallepally Village,
Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District and out of the said properties, the lands in Sy.No.128 and Sy.No.146 were allotted to the father of the Plaintiffs at the time of the marriages of Defendant ...Contd (40)
40 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Nos.24 and 25, approximately five years prior, under a family arrangement. Subsequently, the revenue authorities assigned various sub-divisions to the above survey numbers in consequence of certain transactions reflected in the revenue records. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs demanded Partition and Separate
Possession of their share, but the defendants refused even on 15.07.2011. Upon verifying revenue records, the plaintiffs discovered that some of the lands had been alienated by the defendant No.1 and the father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 in favor of defendant Nos.16 to 21 which are illegal, collusive, and not binding on them.
(iv).The defendant nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 19 to 21 have contended that, originally one Nara Pedda Ramulu was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit. He had three sons, namely Nara Mallaiah,
Nara Venkaiah, and Nara Bachaiah, who partitioned their properties among themselves much prior to the police action. Nara Mallaiah had four sons, namely Nara Pullaiah, Nara Yallaiah, Nara Venkulu, and Nara Peda Naraiah. Nara Venkaiah had three sons, namely Nara
Iddaiah, Nara Meenaiah, and Nara Naraiah, while Nara Bachaiah had one son, Ramesham. In respect of the land in Survey No.129, the sons of Nara Pedda Ramulu divided the land equally, each ...Contd (41)
41 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
receiving Ac.7-07 guntas. The share of Nara Venkaiah was further held jointly by his sons. Out of this, Ac.5-00 guntas was sold at about 55 years ago to Varikuppala Kistaiah, who later sold it to
Varikuppala Mallaiah, who is presently in possession. The remaining
Ac.2-07 guntas was sold to Pilla Peddaiah, whose son Pilli Venkaiah subsequently sold the same to Varikoppula Venkaiah, Pandaiah, and
Sreenaiah, who are in possession. The land in Survey No. 139, the sons of Nara Venkaiah sold Ac.5-00 guntas to Varikoppula
Bakkamma at about 55 years ago. She in turn sold Ac.2-20 guntas to Pilli Venkataiah, who subsequently sold Ac.0-30 guntas to Konda
Laxmaiah, while the remaining land continued in her possession.
Defendant No.21 purchased Ac.1-06 gts., from Narra Chandramma, wife of Iddaiah, under a Simple Sale Deed, which was later regularized in R.O.R Proceedings No. LA/IS/C/670 of 2004 dated 28.02.2004. He also purchased Ac.1-01 guntas under Registered
Sale Deed No.6985 of 2007 dated 25.07.2007 from Vemula
Lingamma, daughter of Nara Iddaiah as mentioned in Ex. B21.
Further, Defendant No.21 purchased Ac.2-00 guntas from Narra
China Naraiah, son of Pullaiah, and obtained a Decree in
O.S.No.1088 of 1987 dated 31.07.1987. Thus, Defendant No.21 is in
possession of Ac.4-07 guntas in Survey No.139 of Mallepally Village.
...Contd (42)
42 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
The land admeasuring Ac.3-08 guntas in Survey No.141 is the self-acquired property of Nara Iddaiah. His wife Chandramma sold
Ac.2-05 guntas to Jabbu Jangaiah, who later sold the same to Narra
Meenaiah. After the death of Narra Meenaiah, his sons, who are defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 7, are in possession of the same. Out of this land, Narra Meenaiah sold Ac.0-20 guntas to Konte Sathamma and the remaining Ac.1-03 gts., was sold to defendant nos.2 and 4 to 7, who are in possession. The land in Survey No.172 measuring
Ac.0-33 guntas was gifted by Defendant no.1 to Narra Muthamma, who is in possession of the same.
(v).On the other hand the defendant nos.16 and 17 who are the purchasers of the some of the extent of the suit schedule lands contended that, the Defendant No.16 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.4-31 guntas in Survey No.129, situated at Kondamallepally Village, Deverkonda Mandal, Nalgonda
District. He purchased the said land from Varikuppala Kistaiah,
S/o.Mallaiah, for a consideration of Rs.1,300/- under a Registered
Sale Deed bearing Document No.540/1979, dated 22.06.1979 as mentioned in Ex. B8. Since the date of purchase, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. His name has ...Contd (43)
43 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
been duly mutated in the revenue records as pattadar, and the
Government has issued a Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in his favour.
(vi).Further, the Defendant No.17 purchased an extent of
Ac.5-00 guntas in Survey No.139 from Narra Iddaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- under a Registered Sale Deed. Her name was also mutated in the revenue records as pattadar, and she was issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed by the Government.
Subsequently, about 12 years ago, Defendant No.17 sold Ac.4-00 guntas out of the said land in favour of Sri Pilli Venkataiah and Sri
Jabbu Buchaiah, residents of Kondamallepally Village, through a
Registered Sale Deed, and the names of the purchasers were duly mutated in the revenue records. After such alienation, Defendant no.17 is presently holding only Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey No.139.
Hence, the said purchasers, namely Jabbu Buchaiah and his legal heirs, are proper and necessary parties to the present suit.
(vii). Basing upon the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and the documents which are exhibited in which it reveals the plaintiffs are seeking partition of the suit lands of the common ancestors i.e., in
Sy.no.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-03 guntas stands into the names ...Contd (44)
44 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
of Narra Venkaiah, Sy.no.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 guntas stands into the names of Narra Pullaiah, Sy.no.141 admeasuring
Ac.3-08 gts., stands into the names of Narra Iddaiah and
Sy.no.172/AA admeasuring Ac.0-33 gts., stands in the name of
Narra Venkaiah but they have failed to mentioned the details the lands in other survey numbers of their common ancestors as mentioned above i.e., the lands in Sy.No.128 admeasuring
Ac.5-14 gts., and Sy.No.146 admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas, situated at Konda Mallepally Village, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District.
Subsequently some of the extent of the suit lands are sold to third parties as mentioned in Ex.B7 and B8 along with another survey number in favor of defendant nos.16 and 17 in the years 1976, 1977 and 1979 itself and so also the defendant no.1 has got Registered the
Sale Deed in favor of defendant no.21/DW2 in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., as mentioned in Ex.B21 and subsequently the defendant no.17 has sold the land in
Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.12-00 gts., in favor of defendant no.20/DW3 as mentioned in Ex.B33 and also in the year 1988 the land in suit Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., was sold by Nara
Buchaiah in favor of defendant no.20/DW3 as mentioned in Ex.B32.
...Contd (45)
45 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
(viii). Further, basing upon the admitted facts of the Pws 1 and 2 there is absence of documentary evidence with regard to the complete details of all the properties possessed by the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and clearly reflects lack of personal knowledge regarding the suit properties, their survey particulars, possession, and title, thereby rendering his testimony unreliable and of no evidence value and also the plaintiffs failed to add all the necessary parties to the suit and also the plaintiffs are not seeking for partition of the suit schedule properties to their sisters.
(ix).Moreover, basing upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma in which it was held that “daughters have an equal share in Hindu
Ancestral property by birth, the same as sons”.
(x).Therefore, in view of the above circumstances the present suit is not maintainable under the eye of law and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the issue no.1 is answered.
12. Issue no.2:-
In the result, the suit is dismissed. In these circumstances of this case that there is no order as to costs. IA’s pending if any shall stands closed.
...Contd (46)
46 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
:: SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ::
The lands in Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-03 gts.,
Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., Sy.No.141 admeasuring
Ac.3-08 gts., and Sy.No.172/AA admeasuring Ac.0-33 gts., situated at Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal.
The boundaries of the land in Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-
03 gts., dry in nature:
East: Land of Madhanlal West: House Plots of Madugula Srinu etc., North : Land of Pilli Venkataiah South : Lands of Narra Iddaiah & Narra Chandraiah
The boundaries of the land in Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-
07 gts., dry in nature;
East: Land of Somla Naik West: Land of Yerukonda Sathaiah North : Land of Yerukonda Sathaiah South : Land of Varikuppala Jangamma
The boundaries of the land in Sy.No.141 admeasuring Ac.3-08
gts., dry in nature;
East: Land of Sriramulu West: Land of Narra Sathaiah North : Land of Jabbu Anjaiah South : Land of Jeedikal ...Contd (47)
47 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
The boundaries of the land in Sy.No.172/AA admeasuring Ac.0-
33 gts., dry in nature;
East: Road West: Land of Madhanlal North : Land of Narra Krishnaiah South : Land of Gramapanchayath (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of March, 2026).
Senior Civil Judge-cum
Assistant Sessions Judge, Devarakonda
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs:
PW1 : N.Shekhar PW2 : Gogula Venkaiah
For Defendants:
DW1 : Varikuppala Vijay DW2 : Erukonda Venkatesham DW3 : Pilli Venkataiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff/s:
Ex.A1/PW1 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed dated 29.05.2013,
Ex.A2/PW1 is the (10) true copies of pahanies for the year 1958-59, 1960-61, 1970-71, 1975-76 and 1980-81 issued by Dy.Tahasildar, Devarakonda, ...Contd (48)
48 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Ex.A3/PW1 is the (12) copies of pahanies for the fasli 1421 issued by Tahasildar, Devarakonda.
For Defendant/s:
Exs.B1/DW1 and Ex.B2/DW1 are the attested copies of the pahanies for the years 1973-74 and 1976-77 in respect of the land in suit Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-03 gts., and Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Narra Iddaiah.
Ex.B3/DW1 is the attested copy of the pahani for the year 1977-78 in respect of the land in suit Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-03 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Krishnaiah, and Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Bakkamma (Defendant No.17).
Ex.B4/DW1 is the attested copy of the pahani for the year 1982-83 in respect of the land in suit Sy.No.129/AA admeasuring Ac.7-03 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Mallaiah (Defendant no.16), and Sy.No.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Bakkamma (Defendant No.17).
Ex.B5/DW1 is the attested copy of the pahani for the year 1995-96 in respect of the land in suit Sy.No.129/LU admeasuring Ac.4-31 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Mallaiah (Defendant No.16), and Sy.No.139/RU admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppala Bakkamma (Defendant No.17).
Ex.B6/DW1 is the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1495/1976 dated 01.06.1976 which was executed by Narra Iddaiah in favor of Varikoppula Kistaiah in respect of the lands in Sy.No.128 admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts., and in Sy.No.129/RU admeasuring Ac.4-31 gts., total admeasuring Ac.5-31 gts., situated at Kondamallepally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
Ex.B7/DW1 is the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.263/1977 dated 03.05.1977 which was executed by Narra Iddaiah in favor of Varikoppula Bakkamma (Defendant No.17) in respect of the land in Sy.No.139 admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts., situated at Kondamallepally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Contd (49)
49 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Ex.B8/DW1 is the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.540/1979 dated 22.06.1979 which was executed by Varikoppula Kistaiah in favor of Varikoppula Mallaiah (Defendant No.16) in respect of the lands in Sy.No.128/AA admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts., and in Sy.No.129/RU admeasuring Ac.4-31 gts., total admeasuring Ac.5-31 gts., situated at Kondamallepally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
Exs.B9/DW1 and B10/DW1 are the Original Old Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed vide No.107107 vide Patta No.122 respectively in respect of the land in Sy.No.139/RU admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., from the total extent of land admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Bakkamma (Defendant No.17).
Ex.B11/DW1 is the specimen copy of the New Pattadar Passbook No.T28140040887 vide Khata No.60373 in respect of the land in Sy.No.129/RU/2/1 admeasuring Ac.2-1250 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Shiva Kalyan (Defendant No.34).
Ex.B12/DW1 is the specimen copy of the 1-B Namoona ROR pahani
dated 17.08.2025 vide fasli year 1435 in respect of the land in
Sy.No.129/RU/2/1 admeasuring Ac.2-1250 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Shiva Kalyan (Defendant No.34).
Ex.B13/DW1 is the specimen copy of the New Pattadar Passbook No.T28140040886 vide Khata No.60372 in respect of the land in Sy.No.129/RU/1/1 admeasuring Ac.1-1550 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Vijay Kumar (Defendant No.37).
Ex.B14/DW1 is the specimen copy of the 1-B Namoona ROR pahani
dated 17.08.2025 vide fasli year 1435 in respect of the land in
Sy.No.129/RU/1/1 admeasuring Ac.1-1550 gts., which stands in the name of Varikoppula Vijay Kumar (Defendant No.37).
Ex.B15/DW2 is the certified copy of the Decree in OS.No.1088/1987
dated 31.07.1987 in between Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant
no.21/DW2) and the Narra Chinna Naraiah as plaintiff and defendants in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139/AA admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., out of total admeasuring Ac.7-08 gts., by declaring that the plaintiff namely Erukonda Venkatesham is the owner and possessor of the said property.
...Contd (50)
50 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Ex.B16/DW2 is the Original mutation proceedings no.D/4912,
dated 15.03.1988 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Devarakonda by mutating the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139/AA admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., from the name of Narra Chinna Naraiah.
Exs.B17/DW2 and B18/DW2 are the true copies of the pahani for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/U admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) and in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., which stands in the name of Narra Chandramma (Vendor of DW2).
Ex.B19/DW2 is the Original 13-B Namoona certificate dated 28.02.2004 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Devarakonda in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.1-06 gts., purchased by Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) from Narra Chandramma.
Ex.B20/DW2 is the truye copy of the pahani for the year 2005-06 in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/U admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2) and in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., which stands in the name of Vemula Lingamma (defendant no.1).
Ex.B21/DW2 is the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed vide Docunemtn no.6985/2007 dated 25.07.2007 which was executed by Vemula Lingama (defendant no.1) in favor of Erukonda Venkateshwarlu (defendant no.21/DW2) in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/UUadmeasuringAc.1-01gts.,situatedat Kondamallepally Village, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District.
Ex.B22/DW2 is the true copy of the pahani for the year 2008-09 in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/U admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., and in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1-01 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2).
Exs.B23/DW2 to Ex.B27/DW2 are the three true copies of the pahanies for the year 2011-12 vide fasli year 1421, specimen copy of the pattadar Passbook No.T28140040135 and Specimen copy of the ...Contd (51)
51 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
1-B Namoona ROR dated 18.08.2025 vide fasli year 1435 in respect of the land in Sy.no.139/U admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., Sy.no.139/LU admeasuring Ac.1-06 gts., and in Sy.no.139/UU admeasuring Ac.1- 01 gts., which stands in the name of Erukonda Venkatesham (defendant no.21/DW2).
Exs.B28/DW3 to Ex.B31/DW3 is the true copies of the pahanies for the years 1972-73, 1976-77, 1981-82 and 1982-83 in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139/AA admeasuring Ac.7-07 gts., which stands in the name of Narra Iddaiah.
Ex.B32/DW3 is the Original Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1048/88 dated 23.04.1988 which was executed by Narra Buchaiah in favor of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3) in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., situated at Kondamallepally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
Ex.B33/DW3 is the Original Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1397/91 dated 24.04.1991 which was executed by Varikuppala Bakkamma (Defendant no.17) in favor of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3) in respect of the land in suit Sy.no.139 admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts., situated at Kondamallepally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
Exs.B34/DW3 to Ex.B36/DW3 are the true copies of the pahanies for the years 1995-96, 2002-03 and 2004-05 in respect of the lands in suit Sy.no.139/A admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., which stands in the name of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3), Sy.no.139/RU admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts., which stands in the name of Varikuppala Bakkamma (Defendant no.17).
Exs.B37/DW3 and Ex.B38/DW3 are the true copies of the pahanies for the years 2009-10 and 2013-14 in respect of the lands in suit Sy.no.139/A admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., Sy.no.139/AA-1 admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., and Sy.no.139/RU-2 admeasuring Ac.2- 20 gts., which stands in the name of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3), Sy.no.139/RU admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., which stands in the name of Varikuppala Bakkamma (Defendant no.17).
...Contd (52)
52 of 52
O.S. No.05 of 2024 (NEW)
O.S. No.39 of 2012 (OLD)
Exs.B39/DW3 and Ex.B40/DW3 are the specimen copies of the New Pattadar Passbook No.T28140040141 vide Khata No.301 in respect of the lands in suit Sy.no.139/A admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., Sy.no.139/AA-1 admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts., and Sy.no.139/RU-2 admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts., along with another survey number which stands in the name of Pilli Venkataiah (Defendant no.20/DW3).
Senior Civil Judge-cum
Assistant Sessions Judge, Devarakonda