1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC-II) AT KHAMMAM.
Dated this, the 18th day of December, 2019.
Present: Smt.K.Aruna Kumari, III Addl.District Judge, Khammam.
A.S.No.23 OF 2018
Between:
1.Katragadda Rani, W/o.Late Sriramulu, Age:58 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
2. Katragadda Srinivas, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Age:35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
3. Chapalamadugu Sridevi, W/o.Srinivas, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 33 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
4. K.Srivalli, W/o. Sudhakar, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
....Appellants/Defendant Nos.3 to 6
And
1.Valagapudi Rani, W/o. Subba Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Q.No.C- 1032, Nagarjuna Hill Colony Village, Nalgonda District.
2. Donepudi Chalapathi Rao, S/o.Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age;47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
3. Donepudi Madhava Rao, S/o. Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
4. Katragadda Laxmi Perumalla, W/o. Late Pattabhi Ramaiah, Age; 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Nelakondapally village and Mandal, Khammam District.
…. Respondents/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4,Defendant No.2
This appeal is preferred under Or.41 Rule 1 C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammamm in O.S.No.250/2006, dt.14.9.2017.
Between:
1.Donepudi Vara Laxmi, W/o.Veera Raghavaiahh, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture and House hold, R/o.Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
2. Valagapudi Rani, W/o. Subba Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Q.No.C- 1032, Nagarjuna Hill Colony Village, Nalgonda District.
3. Donepudi Chalapathi Rao, S/o.Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age;47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
2
4. Donepudi Madhava Rao, S/o. Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
… Plaintiff
And
1. Katragadda Sri Ramulu, S/o. Late Pattabhi Ramaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Business (Ration shop), R/o. Kotha Palvancha, Kanakavagu post, Khammam District.
2. Katragadda Laxmi Perumalla, W/o. Late Pattabhi Ramaiah, Age; 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Nelakondapally village and Mandal, Khammam District.
3. .Katragadda Rani, W/o.Late Sriramulu, Age:58 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
4. Katragadda Srinivas, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Age:35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
5. Chapalamadugu Sridevi, W/o.Srinivas, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 33 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
6. K.Srivalli, W/o. Sudhakar, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
… Defendants.
This appeal coming before me on this day for final hearing on today in the presence of Sri P.Viplav Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff;andofSriG.Brahmaiah,Advocatefor Respondent/Defendant No.1, Sri Y.Kishore Babu, Respondent/Defendant No.3 and 4 and Respondent/Defendant No.2 is set exparte; upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides; and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is an appeal preferred U/o.41 rule 1 of C.P.C r/w sec.96 of C.P.C. the appellant, who are the Defendant Nos.3 to 6 before the trial
Court, praying the court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.250/2006, dated.14.09.2017 by the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Khammam.
2.For the sake of convenience and for the better understanding of the facts, the parties to this appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the pleadings before the trial court.
3
3.The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint filed before the Trial
Court is succinctly stated as follows;
That the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters and sons of Late Pattabhi Ramaiah. The said Pattabhi
Ramaiah owned and possessed the suit schedule property i.e., House bearing NO.1-41, situated at Singareddypalem Sivaru, Nelakondapally
Grampanchayath, Khammam District. The said Pattabhi Ramaiah died on 17.9.2005, leaving behind his wife Kamalamma, Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs and successors. Nine months thereafter defendant no.2 killed Kamalamma and criminal case was registered against the defendant No.2. It is further contended that during the life time of Pattabhi Ramaiah, he managed house property and he lent money of Rs.1,80,000/- to one Potuluri Subba Rao of
Nelakondapally village on interest basis. After death of father of plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 and defendants nos.1 and 2 , the suit schedule property was succeeded by his wife, plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the said house is in joint and constructive possession of the plaintiffs and defendants. It is further contended that the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for partition of suit schedule property but the defendants nos.1 and 2 were postponing the same under different pretexts. The defendant nos.1 and 2 are trying to alienate the suit schedule property and recovery of due amount from potuluri Subba rao. As such, the suit is filed seeking for partition of suit schedule property and prayed to decree the suit.
4.Defendant No.1 and 2 filed the separate written statement denying all the material contents of the plaint. They mainly contended that the suit schedule property is not joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants.
They further contended that the marriage of Plaintiff No.1 was performed in the year,1962 and the marriage of plaintiff No.2 was performed on 21.2.1991. They further contended that at the time of marriage of both the 4 plaintiff, they were given dowry, presentations and father of the defendants met all the marriage expenses of both the plaintiff. It is further contended that plaintiffs have no joint and constructive possession of suit schedule property and they have no share in the same. It is further contended that during the life time of Pattabhi Ramaiah, he made an application with Civil Engineer, Khammam and the Asst. Director, Mines and Geology, Khammam seeking permission to clear off the black stone boulders in the site. They further contended that defendant no.2 has not killed hismother and a false case was registered against D2. They further contended that plaintiffs were given gold ornaments worth Rs.70,000/- after death of mother of plaintiffs and defendants. They contended that plaintiffs have no right to claim share in the suit schedule property and suit is liable to be dismissed.
5.Upon the pleadings of both the parties the following issues were settled by the trial court.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
6.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. PW1 to PW4 are examined and they got marked Ex.A1 to7. On behalf of
Defendant Nos.1 and 2, DW1 examined and Ex.B1 is marked.
7.Upon the conclusion of the trail on hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trail Court had preliminary decreed the suit with costs.
8. Aggrieved by the said Judgment & Decree, defendant No.1 Legal heirs i.e., D3 to D6 preferred with the grounds of appeal, of which, the core of the contentions is succinctly stated as follows; 5
(i) Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Court is bad in law and against the natural justice. The lower court ought to have dismiss the suit basing on the evidence on record being adduced.
(ii)The marriage of Plaintiff NO.1 marriage took place in the year 1962, and the marriage of Plaintiff No.2 took place in the year,1981.
Suppressing the said fact at a later stage of the suit plaintiff No.2 tried to impress upon the Hon’ble Court that her marriage took place in the year,1991. So, the contention of the appeal at the time of marriage of both plaintiffs they were given sufficient gifts by way of marriage presentations and also dowry. As such they do not have any jointness as claimed by them and so they were never in joint and constructive possession of the suit schedule property.
(iii) Appellants also contest that the marriage of Plaintiff No.1 was performed in the year,1962 and Plaintiff No.2 marriage took place in the year, 1981 as per Ex.B1 Wedding Card. Thus, the marriage of Plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 were performed in the year,1962, and 1981 and Hindu succession Amendment Act was commenced in the year,1986. As, such the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled any share in the suit schedule property.
(iv) The other contention of appellants is as per plaint plaintiff No.1 age shown as 55 years in the year,2006. According to it, Plaintiff No.1 date of birth to be in the year 1951 itself. And Plaintiff No.1 did not file any documentary proof to show her date of birth . as such she is not entitle to claim share in joint family properties as coparceners.
(v) The appellants also submits that the state amendment act 1986 is very clear with regard to commencement and applicability of Act 13 of 1986. The marriage of Plaintiff No.1 took place in the year, 1962 and
Plaintiff No.2 in the year,1981. The act of 13 of 1986 has little effect in 6 the light of year of marriage and as such is not applicable in the present case. Since the Act has no retrospective effect and as such no claim of partition can be entertained, unless and until one’s marriage took place subsequent to 1986.
A daughter thus does become a coparcener and two distinct and separate circumstances
i) Factum of her marriage taking place prior to commencement of state enactment; and ii) Even if her marriage had taken place subsequent to commencement of state enactment but partition occurring prior to commencement of state enactment.
The appellants relied on judgment in citation reported in 2017 (1)
ALT 164, “ the marriage of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 has taken place prior to the commencement of Hindu Succession (AP amendment)
Act 13 of 1986 they are not entitle to claim right in the property as coparceners. The other citation reported in 2009(9) SCC 52; “ the daughters got marriage prior to commencement of state amendment
Act may not have equal share as that of son, but daughters who got married after that date would have equal as that of son in other words would be treated as per with son having same share in property.
(V)The appellants adduced the evidence on their behalf and filed
Wedding Card under Ex.B1 to prove that the marriage of plaintiff No.2 was performed in the year,1981 itself. But the lower court without go through the record and verified the same failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the defendants Nos.3 to 6 came to wrong conclusion and passed Judgment and decree erroneously and hurriedly.
7
With the aforesaid contention the appellants/D3 to D6 says the court to allow the appeal and consequently set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
9.On receipt of notices issued by the court in this appeal to the respondents No.1 to 3/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 contested the appeal, where upon the respondent No.4/Defendant NO.2 remained exparte.
10.During the course of the arguments submitted by both sides they made reference to the record comprising both oral and documentary evidence received from the trial court and argued on their respective stand. Thereafter the appeal is coming for the passing of the judgment.
11. Now the following points arise for determination are;
1. Whether the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 entitled to claim right in the suit schedule property as coparceners in the property of their father claiming equal share as that of Defendant
Nos.1 and 2.?
2. Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral or self-acquired property of the father of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Defendant Nos.1 and 2?
3.Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court suffers from any infirmity, irregularity and illegality and call for any interference by this court?
4. To what relief?
12. POINT NOs.1 & 2:
1.Whether the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4
entitled to claim right in the suit schedule property as
coparceners in the property of their father claiming equal share
as that of Defendant Nos.1 and 2.?
8
2.Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral or self-
acquired property of the father of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and
Defendant Nos.1 and 2?
The essence of the case of Respondent NOs.1 to 3/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 is that the plaintiffs entitle for partition of suit schedule property that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of Late Pattabhi
Ramaiah who is the father of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendants failed to prove Pattabhi Ramaiah gave any property, gold ornaments to Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as such the suit is entitled to decreed. On the other side, the specific plea of the appellants/D3 to D6 is respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitle for partition of suit schedule property because Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 marriage took place even prior to
Hindu Succession AP Amendment Act 13 of 1986 came into force. The marriage of first plaintiff was performed in the year,1962 and marriage of 2nd plaintiff was performed in the year, 1982.
13.Plaintiffs/respondents herein to prove their claim over the suit schedule property got examined Plaintiff No.2 as PW1 and PW2 to PW4 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1: is the certificate issued by Secretary
Gramapanchayath Nelakondapally, dt.17.10.2006; Ex.A2: house tax receipt dt.16.10.2006; Ex.A3: is water receipt, dt. 16.10.2006; Ex.A4: is thecertificatedt.17.10.2006issuedbyPanchayath
Secretary,Nelakondapally; Ex.A5: is the death certificate of Donepudi
Varalakshmi dt. 22.6.2015; Ex.A6: is attested copy of F.I.R in
Cr.NO.90/2006 of Nelakondapally P.S; Ex.A7 is attested copy of written report dt. 09.06.2006; Ex.A8: is attested copy of Charge Sheet in
Cr.NO.90/2006.
14.The evidence of PW1 establish that there is no dispute among the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 being daughters and sons of late
Pattabhi Ramaiah and Kamalamma and owner ship and possession of late Pattabhi Ramaiah over the suit schedule property. PW1 further 9 deposed about the death of Pattabhi Ramaiah and Kamalamma and further stated being daughters and sons of Late Pattabhi Ramaiah,
Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have equal right over the suit schedule property and suit schedule property is joint family property.
PW1 further deposed plaintiffs have joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule property and plaintiffs demanded defendant Nos.1 and 2 for partition of suit schedule property but the defendants failed to do so. In the cross-examination PW1 deposed that her father sold away the agricultural land which he got from his father and with the said money he purchased suit schedule land herself and Plaintiff No.1 seeking share in the land of her father.
15. PW2 who is son of Plaintiff No.1 deposed corroborating the evidence of PW1 in all material facts about the ownership and possession of Late Pattabhi Ramaiah over the suit schedule property. PW2 also stated the death of Pattabhi Ramaiah and Kamalamma and after their death, the suit schedule property is being the joint family property of
Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiffs made demand for partition whereas defendants Nos.1 and 2 failed to do partition. In the cross-examination of PW2, deposed his maternal grand father sold away the property which he got from his father and purchased suit schedule property. PW3 is 3rd party to the suit proceedings and also maternal uncle of Plaintiff NOs.1 and 2 stated all material facts corroborating the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW3 further stated Plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are joint owners of suit schedule property and during the life time of Pattabhi Ramaiah he had managed the suit schedule house and also gave Rs.1,80,000/- to Potuluri Subba Rao.
16.PW3 further stated plaintiff demanded defendants nos.1 and 2 for partition of suit schedule property but they failed in doing so. PW4 is 3rd party to the proceedings filed Chief-examination affidavit with some 10 contents as stated by PW3 corroborating the evidence of PW1 to PW3 I in all material facts. In the cross examination PW4 deposed parents of both the plaintiffs are his neighbours, the marriage of Plaintiff NO.1 took place about 40 years back and the marriage of Plaintiff No.2 performed about 35 years back. On behalf of defendants, the son of D1 filed Chief examination affidavit with the contents the marriage of Plaintiff NOs.1 performed in the year,1962 and she was blessed with 2 sons who are aged more than 47 years. The marriage of 2nd plaintiff performed long back and at the time of marriage, dowry and other articles were given to them so there is no joint property of Plaintiffs and D1 and D2 because plaintiffs were given sufficient amount as such they are not entitled any share in the suit schedule property. Dw1 further stated that plaintiffs have no joint and constructive possession of suit schedule property. Through
Dw1 Ex.B1 wedding invitation card (marriage of Plaintiff NO.2) marked.
According to Ex.B1, the marriage of Plaintiff No.2 was performed on 21.2.1981.
17. Perused entire material on record, i.e., pleading of both sides, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and defendants. From the evidence of PW1 to PW4 along with documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to
A4; the certificate issued by Secretary Gramapanchayath house tax receipt, water tax receipt, certificate issued by Panchayath
Secretary,Nelakondapally, which establishes that suit schedule property is self-acquired property of late Pattabhi Ramaiah. Dw1 also admitted in his cross-examination Page no.1, 7th line that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of late Pattabhi Ramaiah, whereas PW1 and PW2 admitted in their cross-examination that the said Pattabhi Ramaiah sold away the agricultural land which he got from his father and with the said money, he purchased the suit schedule land. The defendant herein not contended in their pleadings that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Pattabhi Ramaiah. Whereas, newly taken that plea in the 11 evidence and arguments which is not legally valid. The defendants have taken plea that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Pattabhi
Ramaiah. In the evidence, the burden is on the defendant to prove it as per citation reported in AIR 1994 SC 379, Similar law passed in
D.S.Lakshmaiah and another Vs.L.Balasubramanyam and another
So, the burden is on the defendants in this case also but defendants not proved by any sort of documentary proof that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Pattabhi Ramaiah whereas on the other side, the plaintiffs both from oral and documentary evidence established that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Pattabhi Ramaiah.
The defendants cannot rely upon the mere admission of PW1 and PW2 without any basis or proof. Therefore, it can be concluded as the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Pattabhi Ramaiah.
This point No.2 answered in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4.
18. The main contention of the appellants/Defendant Nos.3 to 6 is ,
Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 being daughters of Pattabhi Ramaiah and
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are being grand children of Pattabhi Ramaiah they are not entitle for equal share along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 because the marriage of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 performed prior to commencement of Hindu Succession (AP amendment) Act 13 of 1986.
Themarriageoffirstplaintiffperformedinthe year,1962 and the marriage of 2nd plaintiff performed in the year,1981 as per Ex.B1. The appellants also relied on citation reported in
2017(1) ALT 164 High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state
of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh in
Second Appeal No.322 of 2011 dt.31.8.2016
12
Daka Audemmat Vs. Inaganti Venkateswara Reddy and others,
Hindu succession Ac,1956, Sec.6,8 and 29-A, Daughter’s
right in property one of the requirements to claim share by a
daughter of Hindu, who become coparcener after passing of the
Act, is that her marriage must have taken place after the
commencement of amended Hindu Succession Act. The
marriage of the plaintiff has taken place prior to the
commencement of Hindu Succession(AP Amendment) Act 13 of
1986. Hence, she is not entitled to claim right in the property as
a coparcener.
In this case, the daughters i.e., Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 got marriage prior to the date of commencement of State Amendment Act.13 of 1986 may not have equal share as that of a son and daughters cannot treated as per with son having same share in property. The said proposition held in above citation and the state amendment act 13 of 1986 not at all helpful to the case of Appellants. Because after Central
Amendment Act, 2005, 39 of 2005, after 9.9.2005 all the daughters have to be treated as coparcener entitle to equal shares irrespective of fact whether they are majors or minors or their marriages performed between or specific date of state amendment in the states of Andhra Pradesh,
Tamilanadu, Karnataka, Maharastra. It was also held in the citation reported in Damalanka Ganga Raju Vs. Nandipati Vijaya Laxmi 2004(7)
ALD 694, all daughters have to be treated as coparcener entitle to equal shares irrespective of fact whether they are majors or minors or their marriage performed before 05.09.1985 or subsequent thereto.
Sec.6 , as substituted by Act 39 of 2005 w.e.f 9.9.2005 , removes
gender discrimination between son and a daughter of a coparcerner
in a coparcenary by making daughter by birth a coparcener in her
13
own right so as to devolve upon her the share in coparcenary
property along with and as much as all his sons-by laying down that
on and from 9 September,2005 the daughter would become a
coparcener by birth for the devolution of interest in coaprcenary
property, the new Section 6 brings the law of succession with regard
to Hindu Joint Family in conformity with Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India.
Therefore in view of above amendment, the daughters are also coparcener to the ancestral property irrespective of their date of Birth and
Date of Marriage and repealed the state amendment act of 13/1986 and also as per amended Sec.29(a) of Hindu Succession Act- Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 the daughters as coparceners entitled for equal share along with D1 and D2 the sons of Pattabhi Ramaiah.
19.As already discussed above, the appellants unable to establish the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Pattabhi Ramaiah; Whereas
Respondents/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 proved the suit schedule property is self acquired of Pattabhi Ramaiah being the daughters of Pattabhi Ramaiah
Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Plaintiff NO.1 expired her legal heirs
PlaintiffNos.3 and 4 are entitled for equal shares along with Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule property which is belongs to the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Defendant Nos.1 and 2, under Sec.8 of Hindu
Succession Act. Hence, late Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff NO.2/Respondent
No.1 and Late D1 and D2 have equal shares in the suit schedule property beings sons and daughters of late Pattabhi Ramaiah. As plaintiff no.1 and
Defendant No.1 passed away, respondent Nos.2 and 3/Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are legal heirs to Plaintiff No.1 and appellants Nos.1to 4/D3 to D6 are legal heirs of Defendant No.1. As such respondent NO.1, Respondent
No.2 and 3 together, respondent NO.4/Defendant No.2, appellants 1 to 4 together entitled for ¼ the share in suit schedule property. As such, the 14 respondents/Plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 are entitle for the partition of suit schedule property.
This point No.2 answered in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Plaintiff
Nos.2 to 4.
20.Point No.3:
In the light of the detailed discussion on point No.1 & 2 above it is held that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court do not call for any interference by this court as the same are on correct lines, hence there is no need to make any interference into that judgment and decree. Accordingly the point No.3 is decided infavour of respondents/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 against the Appellants/Defendant Nos.3 to 6.
21.Point No.4:
By virtue of discussion and fndings in Points No.1 to 3, this
Appeal is Dismissed, confrming the Decree and Judgment in
O.S.No.250/2006 on the fle of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam,
dt.14.9.2017. But, there is no Order as to costs.
Any Interlocutory applications pending in the Appeal are deemed to have been dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 18th day of December,
2019.
III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
Appendix of Evidence
Nil 15
III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
Copy to:
The Lower Trial Court, with Record 16
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2019
Present; Smt. K.Aruna Kumari III Addl.District Judge, Khammam.
A.S.No.23/2018
Presented on:
Filed on:
Between:
1.Katragadda Rani, W/o.Late Sriramulu, Age:58 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
2. Katragadda Srinivas, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Age:35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
3. Chapalamadugu Sridevi, W/o.Srinivas, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 33 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
4. K.Srivalli, W/o. Sudhakar, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
....Appellants/Defendant Nos.3 to 6
And
1.Valagapudi Rani, W/o. Subba Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Q.No.C- 1032, Nagarjuna Hill Colony Village, Nalgonda District.
2. Donepudi Chalapathi Rao, S/o.Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age;47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
3. Donepudi Madhava Rao, S/o. Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
4. Katragadda Laxmi Perumalla, W/o. Late Pattabhi Ramaiah, Age; 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Nelakondapally village and Mandal, Khammam District.
…. Respondents/Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4,Defendant No.2
This appeal is preferred under Or.41 Rule 1 C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammamm in O.S.No.250/2006, dt.14.9.2017.
Between:
1.Donepudi Vara Laxmi, W/o.Veera Raghavaiahh, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture and House hold, R/o.Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
2. Valagapudi Rani, W/o. Subba Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Q.No.C- 1032, Nagarjuna Hill Colony Village, Nalgonda District.
17
3. Donepudi Chalapathi Rao, S/o.Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age;47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
4. Donepudi Madhava Rao, S/o. Late Veera Raghavaiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnavogirila village, Vuyyuru mandal, Krishna District.
… Plaintiff
And
1. Katragadda Sri Ramulu, S/o. Late Pattabhi Ramaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Business (Ration shop), R/o. Kotha Palvancha, Kanakavagu post, Khammam District.
2. Katragadda Laxmi Perumalla, W/o. Late Pattabhi Ramaiah, Age; 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Nelakondapally village and Mandal, Khammam District.
3. .Katragadda Rani, W/o.Late Sriramulu, Age:58 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
4. Katragadda Srinivas, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Age:35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
5. Chapalamadugu Sridevi, W/o.Srinivas, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 33 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
6. K.Srivalli, W/o. Sudhakar, D/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Age: 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 22-1-195, Karakavagu, Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.
… Defendants.
CLAIM FOR: This appeal is preferred praying to set-aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.250/2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam on 14.9.2017.
Court fee: The suit schedule properties are valued at Rs.6,54,800/- in the lower court and the 3/4th share of the plaintifs comes to Rs.2,45,475/- but the parties are joint and constructive possession of the suit schedule property, a fied court fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F and S.V Act in the lower court. As such, the same fied court fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/ sec.49 Eiplanation-1, Schedule 1,Article-I ( c ) of A.P.C.F. and S.V Act.
D E C R E E
This appeal coming before me on this day for final hearing on today in the presence of Sri P.Viplav Kumar, Advocate for the
Appellant/Plaintiff;andofSriG.Brahmaiah,Advocatefor
Respondent/Defendant No.1, Sri Y.Kishore Babu, Respondent/Defendant 18
No.3 and 4 and Respondent/Defendant No.2 is set exparte; upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides; and having stood over for consideration, this court doth order and decree that;
1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed, confrming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.250/2006 on the fle of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam dt.14.9.2017.
2. That there is no Order as to costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 18th day of December , 2019
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
KHAMMAM.
PARTICULARS OF COSTS
For Appellant Respondents
1. Stamps on appeal
2. Stamps on power
3. Stamps on process
4. Stamps on I.As
5. Stamps on documents
6. Advocate’s fee
7. Commissioner’s fee
8. Publication charges
9. Type & Misc. charges ---------------------------------------------------
Total:
---------------------------------------------------
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
KHAMMAM.
19
APPEAL SCHEDULE PROPERTY
The house bearing NO.(Hut) 1-41 along with open site to an eitent of 11 gts, situated at Singareddypalem sivaru, Nelakondapally Gram Panchayath and Mandal, Khammam District, within the following boundaries;
East : Vacant site (Plots) of others
West : House of Kandaraboina Veera Swamy
North : P.W.D Road leads Nelakondapally to Kusumanchi
South : Property of Kondasani Uma Maheswar Rao (Market Value Rs.6,54,800/-)
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
KHAMMAM.
20
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM.
Dated this, the 30th day of September, 2019.
Present: Smt.K.Aruna Kumari, III Addl.District Judge, Khammam.
A.S.No.22 of 2017
DATE OF PRESENTATION: 17.04.2017 DATE OF FILING: 17.04.2017
Between:
Meda Tirupamma @ Tirupathamma, W/o.Venkataiah @ Venkateswarlu, Age:43yrs, Occu:Household, R/o.H.No.4-155, Pedagopathi Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.
....Appellant/Plaintiff.
and
1: Meda Venkataiah @ Venkateswarlu ,S/o.Late Venktappaiah, Age:46yrs, 2: Meda Sarla @ Brahmini, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Age:38yrs,
Both are, R/o.Pedagopathi Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.
3: Eapuri Rama Rao, S/o.Name not known, Age:Adult, R/o.Business, 4: Eepuri Varalaxmi, W/o.Rama Rao, Age:Adult, R/o.Household,
Both are, R/o. Srinivasapuram, Huzurnagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.
... Respondents/Defendants
This appeal is preferred under Or.41, Rule 1 C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.183/2011, dt.27-01- 2017.
Between:
Meda Tirupamma @ Tirupathamma, W/o.Venkataiah @ Venkateswarlu, Age:43yrs, Occu:Household, R/o.H.No.4-155, Pedagopathi Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.
....Plaintiff.
and
21 1: Meda Venkataiah @ Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Venktappaiah, Age:46yrs, 2: Meda Sarla @ Brahmini, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Age:38yrs,
Both are, R/o.Pedagopathi Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.
3: Eapuri Rama Rao, S/o.Name not known, Age:Adult, R/o.Business, 4: Eepuri Varalaxmi, W/o.Rama Rao, Age:Adult, R/o.Household,
Both are, R/o. Srinivasapuram, Huzurnagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Defendants
CLAIM FOR: Appeal filed U/O.41, Rule 1 of C.P.C praying the court to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 27-01-2017 in O.S.No.183/2011 on the file of Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, khammam
COURT FEE: The appeal is valued as in the lower court of RS.5000/- on which a fixed court fee of Rs.411/- is paid u/s.26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.
D E C R E E
This appeal coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Viplav Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff; and of Sri G.Brahmaiah, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant No.1, Sri Y.KishoreBabu,Respondent/DefendantNo.3and4and Respondent/Defendant No.2 is set exparte; upon perusing the record, and on hearing, this Court doth Order and decree that:
1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed thereby confirmed the impugned judgment and decree in OS.No.183/2017 dated.27.01.2017 passed by the leanred Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Khammam.
2.No order as to costs
Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 30th day of September, 2019.
III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
PARTICULARS OF COSTS .
For petitioners For Respondents
1.Stamps on petition.CF 22
2. Stamps on power.
3. Stamps on process.
4. Stamps on I.As
5. Stamps on documents.
6. Advocate’s fee
7. Junior Advocate Fee
8. Commissioner’s fee.
9. Publication charge
10. Type & Misc. charges. - ---------------------------------------- Total: ---------------------------------------
III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
APPEAL SCHEDULE PROPERTY
Residential RCC house consisting of (3) rooms and one hall in an extent of Ac.0.03 gts in Sy.No.755 of Pedagopathi Village, Konijerla
Mandal, Khammam District bounded by;
EAST:Road
WEST:The Saw mill of Vadde Narayana Rao
NORTH: Open place of Vadde Narayana Rao
SOUTH: Road leading to vadde Narayana saw mill
III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.